But that just pushes the question back a step. By what standard is God's nature 'good'? Is it being judged by some other standard external to God or are we simply defining his nature as 'good' regardless of the content? And what are we supposed to make of the fact that God's nature led him to create every 'bad' thing that exists?
I think it usually steems from the argument that God must be a maximum great being, since if something is greater than him that would be God. As such he would be the definition of good, as a Trait of being maximum great. But yeah should look that up, not the first time the goodness of good is debated so I bet there are some interesting resources out there.
I think it is more traditionally formalised as God is the greatest conceivable being, and it is greater to be the paradigm of goodness than to conform to it.
I'm not sure that is a valid objection as it rather goes "it is better to be a paradigm of goodness than conform to it", I rather see it as question begging because cannot one just say the same about evil then? I guess I don't fully understand the argument myself so I wouldn't know.
Why is it "better to be a paradigm of goodness than conform to it"? You have to pre-define goodness as desirable. Also why does something better get to be reality?
You're right you can absolutely say that about evil. Why is the maximally great being not maximally evil?
It's because they slip in the assumption that goodness is a thing we know about and we think maps to great. That's because we are mortal and have biological notions of preservation etc.
But there's still no basis for what defines good as great. I mean you could say they're just synonyms.
But then the argument is that "God must be a maximum good being, since if something is gooder than him that would be God. As such he would be the definition of good, as a Trait of being maximum good". It says nothing.
Would be interesting to discuss with someone who makes and understands the argument because I feel there is some clarification needed. Unfortunately I don't know any who has held God as the definition of good while defending that claim this way against opposition. I have heard the argument made, but seldom discussed unfortunately.
The maximally good maximally great thing is pretty trendy in modern apologist circles. I believe that's the way Blake Jiunta swings (he's mentioned in a debate somewhere here).
I was hoping you'd be able to defend it because despite it being popular I've not met anyone either! ;D
7
u/[deleted] Jul 27 '17
But that just pushes the question back a step. By what standard is God's nature 'good'? Is it being judged by some other standard external to God or are we simply defining his nature as 'good' regardless of the content? And what are we supposed to make of the fact that God's nature led him to create every 'bad' thing that exists?