tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-154495438763509967.post1448284659598798039..comments2024-01-28T06:24:50.005+00:00Comments on No Double Standards: The Evil of Divine Command MoralityMartin Freedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-154495438763509967.post-37973978198712528162009-04-29T17:44:00.000+01:002009-04-29T17:44:00.000+01:00Hi Tony
You are correct that I did not cover this...Hi Tony<br /><br />You are correct that I did not cover this in this summary - but it was just a summary :-)<br /><br />This was discussed in a recent post where I quoted a claim over evil being the privation or absence of God but this only makes my opaqueness issue stronger.<br /><br />Before there were two attributes love and hate that distinguished good and bad. Now there is only one opaque attribute if it exists and it only does within God it is good, its absence or the privation of God, is bad. The obfuscation of two attributes into a mysterious one has done nothing to help distinguish the two.<br /><br />What this does do is illustrate the vicious circularity in a more... ahem... transparent fashion! All theists are saying is that God's goodness is God's goodness and there is no other, Evil is found in the absence of God's goodness. Th absence of a reason why this is so and the inability to avoid circular reasoning should be obvious (except to theists who have a strange take on logic)..<br /><br />In my humour post yesterday this point is made blatantly clear. What is good - the opposite of evil, what is evil the opposite of good. And repeat. Basically such theists seem to happy to play this game forever just adding more words to the mix and think this proves something, which it does not.Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-154495438763509967.post-20954836237603902812009-04-29T16:36:00.000+01:002009-04-29T16:36:00.000+01:00I have a question that I think you might have to a...I have a question that I think you might have to address.<br /><br />You wrote, "Stating what is evil now become very problematic. There is no attribute provided to distinguish between good and evil. This definition unlike the previous one is incoherent, since one can just as easily state evil is an eternal attribute of God's eternal nature and no non-circular grounds can be provided to distinguish between good and evil."<br /><br />I wonder if a theist might take the position that good is God's nature and evil is the absence of God's nature (or something like that). I see problems with this argument, of course, (how can God be the creator of all reality and not be responsible for evil, etc.), but it strikes me that you might want to address this position.Tony Hoffmannoreply@blogger.com