1. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    15 Jul '08 14:58
    Let's rehash it. It's been a while.

    Are good things good in virtue of God declaring them to be so, or are such declarations simply informative with the goodness deriving from something else, or is there no meaningful correspondence between what is good and what God declares to be good.

    Here we go.
  2. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    15 Jul '08 21:55
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    Let's rehash it. It's been a while.

    Are good things good in virtue of God declaring them to be so, or are such declarations simply informative with the goodness deriving from something else, or is there no meaningful correspondence between what is good and what God declares to be good.

    Here we go.
    Gen.1:31
    And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

    Well, it doesn't say God said it was very good. It just says it was very good. So I don't think we can say it was good because God made the declaration.

    I think it was good by virtue of it's own goodness.
  3. Joined
    07 Jan '08
    Moves
    34575
    15 Jul '08 22:42
    Goodness is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?
  4. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    15 Jul '08 23:03
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    Let's rehash it. It's been a while.

    Are good things good in virtue of God declaring them to be so, or are such declarations simply informative with the goodness deriving from something else, or is there no meaningful correspondence between what is good and what God declares to be good.

    Here we go.
    Could you clarify what you mean by "good"? I suppose you mean morally good, but as josephw has suggested, everything could be considered ontologically good by virtue of its creation by God.
  5. Joined
    16 Aug '06
    Moves
    1514
    15 Jul '08 23:24
    It's almost as if God didn't know it was going to be good when he made it. He made it, and said, hey, whaddya know? This is pretty good.
  6. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    15 Jul '08 23:36
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    Could you clarify what you mean by "good"? I suppose you mean morally good, but as josephw has suggested, everything could be considered ontologically good by virtue of its creation by God.
    How did josephw suggest any such thing?
  7. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    15 Jul '08 23:42
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    Could you clarify what you mean by "good"?
    That which eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil allows one to distinguish from evil.
  8. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    16 Jul '08 00:03
    Originally posted by bbarr
    How did josephw suggest any such thing?
    I just inferred that from the quote. I thought it was what he was getting at.
  9. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    16 Jul '08 00:14
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    I just inferred that from the quote. I thought it was what he was getting at.
    I think josesph was claiming that God made some stuff that was, by its nature, good. That is, that this stuff is intrinsically good (which might be what you mean by 'ontologically good'😉 and does not possess its goodness by virtue of being created by God. This view amounts to a denial of Divine Command Theory, though it is consistent with some versions of the Natural Law Theory.
  10. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    16 Jul '08 00:52
    Originally posted by bbarr
    I think josesph was claiming that God made some stuff that was, by its nature, good. That is, that this stuff is intrinsically good (which might be what you mean by 'ontologically good'😉 and does not possess its goodness by virtue of being created by God. This view amounts to a denial of Divine Command Theory, though it is consistent with some versions of the Natural Law Theory.
    Yes, I can see that. But I still that there is an ambiguity about what we mean by "good". By ontologically good, I mean that something is good irrespective of whatever moral value we assign it (so, for example, it might be in some culture immoral to eat roast on Friday; if someone eats roast on a Friday, that action would not be morally good but it could still be ontologically good as the roast may be particularly succulent.) At least in Catholicism, everything is ontologically good by the fact that it is created by God, though not necessarily morally good.
  11. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    16 Jul '08 00:58
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    Yes, I can see that. But I still that there is an ambiguity about what we mean by "good". By ontologically good, I mean that something is good irrespective of whatever moral value we assign it (so, for example, it might be in some culture immoral to eat roast on Friday; if someone eats roast on a Friday, that action would not be morally good but it could st ...[text shortened]... ontologically good by the fact that it is created by God, though not necessarily morally good.
    You seem to have very confused notions about the concepts relevant to the topic at hand.

    Do you think child molestation is ontologically [sic] good? How about condoms and abortion?
  12. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    16 Jul '08 01:071 edit
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    You seem to have very confused notions about the concepts relevant to the topic at hand.

    Do you think child molestation is ontologically [sic] good? How about condoms and abortion?
    As an atheist, I am skeptical about the notion of "ontologically good." I am just repeating what some Christians believe. And by their criteria of what is ontologically good, child molestation, condoms and abortion have some degree of goodness.
  13. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148463
    16 Jul '08 09:09
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    Let's rehash it. It's been a while.

    Are good things good in virtue of God declaring them to be so, or are such declarations simply informative with the goodness deriving from something else, or is there no meaningful correspondence between what is good and what God declares to be good.

    Here we go.
    I'd say both, and God allows the universe to unfold so what He says is
    good will prove itself so in the end too.
    Kelly
  14. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    16 Jul '08 11:151 edit
    Originally posted by darthmix
    It's almost as if God didn't know it was going to be good when he made it. He made it, and said, hey, whaddya know? This is pretty good.
    If God created the universe, how could it be anything but good?

    This causes me to question whether God created evil. That would require that evil would be something that was created. It doesn't seem that evil is a "thing", or an object with material properties that can be created.

    I think evil is an act. It is something one thinks, says, or does.
  15. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    West Coast Rioter
    tinyurl.com/y7loem9q
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    16 Jul '08 20:09
    Originally posted by josephw
    If God created the universe, how could it be anything but good?

    This causes me to question whether God created evil. That would require that evil would be something that was created. It doesn't seem that evil is a "thing", or an object with material properties that can be created.

    I think evil is an act. It is something one thinks, says, or does.
    If that's what evil is, shouldn't good be that way too? Or are they fundamentally different sorts of things and not simply antonyms?
Back to Top