Moral command theory is false.

[Link]

So, when we read in a certain holy book that a rape victim should be married to her rapist, is that a good moral guide?

Of course not.  This one reason among many I'm no longer "Muslim."

[SteveII]

It took me a while to realize that. But God commands things that are good. Although him commanding something, would make it good to obey, if this was the criteria of him commanding, that is he commands anything and it's "good", then all morals would be arbitrary.

God commands what he sees is good. He creates what he knows is good. He forms what is good. And himself is what is good.

This important, because, it means holy books should be seen as moral guides, not books to define what is good, but make you see what is good.

Your logic is flawed.

The standard concept is, as you actually say above, God "...is what is good." God is the standard of good. That would mean that his commands are good because he commanded them. It does not follow that somehow then morals are arbitrary. Not at all.

Your confusion seem to be in your contradictory statements. The first three mean a standard of good exists separate from God. The fourth says that the standard is God.
1. God commands what he sees is good.
2. He creates what he knows is good.
3. He forms what is good.
4. And himself is what is good.

Moral command theory survives another day.

[Cheerful Charlie]

So, good is outside and beyond God and God knows what that good is? Where then does good come from? If God commands murders, massacres and genocide (See Old Testament) is that good because God commands it? Do you really understand the atheist questions about divine command? The Euthyphro problem?

God commands the Israelites to commit genocide on the Canaanites. Kill their men in battle. Invade their towns and massacre to women and children. Drag screaming children and their you mothers out of the home and kill them. Hack! Slash! "Leave none that breastheth". This is good? God could have changed the hearts of the Canaanites to accept the Israelites moving into the territory and made the Canaanite women barren to give the lands of the Canaanites to the Israelites without the blood shed. Or better yet, lead the Canaanites into the true religion, and given them righteous chosen people status.

The savagery and cruelty of the Old Testament God seems to call this whole question of God and goodness into question. Of course, modern Near East archaeologists have demonstrated this whole mythical cycle of Israelite invasion of Canaan has no truth.
The Bible is then, not a trustworthy guide to any of this. Why does God not use his great abilities to give us a true and trustworthy 'revelation'?

[SteveII]

So, good is outside and beyond God and God knows what that good is?  Where then does good come from?  

That is the exactly opposite of what I said.

If God commands murders, massacres and genocide (See Old Testament) is that good because God commands it?  Do you really understand the atheist questions about divine command?  The Euthyphro problem?

Neither of those unwanted horns.

The first horn "is something good because the gods will it" or
The second horn "do the gods will it because it is good?” but now
The third option (that has no unwanted conclusion): it is not God's will that defines the good but his unchanging nature that governs his will and his commands to us.

God commands the Israelites to commit genocide on the Canaanites. Kill their men in battle.  Invade their towns and massacre to women and children.  Drag screaming children and their you mothers out of the home and kill them.  Hack! Slash!  "Leave none that breastheth".  This is good?  God could have changed the hearts of the Canaanites to accept the Israelites moving into the territory and made the Canaanite women barren to give the lands of the Canaanites to the Israelites without the blood shed.  Or better yet, lead the Canaanites into the true religion, and given them righteous chosen people status.

Any command of God is good--by definition.

The savagery and cruelty of the Old Testament God seems to call this whole question of God and goodness into question.  Of course, modern Near East archaeologists have demonstrated this whole mythical cycle of Israelite invasion of Canaan has no truth.
The Bible is then, not a trustworthy guide to any of this.  Why does God not use his great abilities to give us a true and trustworthy 'revelation'?

You have an assertion there. How exactly do you "demonstrate" that something didn't happen? A conclusion from an unsupported assertion means nothing.

[Bucky Ball]

God commands what he sees is good. He creates what he knows is good. He forms what is good. And himself is what is good.

Obviously not. If he "sees what is good and creates what he knows is good, then he *has* to already also know the opposite also.
If god is what is good, then what does that mean, other than a worthless tautology ? And how did it then how did it find out what is evil ?
If your god *is* good, then evil also exists as long as a god can be described that way. It's meaningless bullshit.
There has to be an external standard, just for a god "to be good".
You cannot state a being is "good" without a standard for what that means .... OR .... it means nothing.

Haven't really thought this one through have you Stevo ?  

You have not solved Euthyphro's Dilemma. You just think you have.

[Chas]

It took me a while to realize that. But God commands things that are good. Although him commanding something, would make it good to obey, if this was the criteria of him commanding, that is he commands anything and it's "good", then all morals would be arbitrary.

God commands what he sees is good. He creates what he knows is good. He forms what is good. And himself is what is good.

This important, because, it means holy books should be seen as moral guides, not books to define what is good, but make you see what is good.

Your logic is flawed.

The standard concept is, as you actually say above, God "...is what is good."  God is the standard of good. That would mean that his commands are good because he commanded them. It does not follow that somehow then morals are arbitrary. Not at all.

Your confusion seem to be in your contradictory statements. The first three mean a standard of good exists separate from God. The fourth says that the standard is God.
1. God commands what he sees is good.
2. He creates what he knows is good.
3. He forms what is good.
4. And himself is what is good.

Moral command theory survives another day.

The fly in your ointment is that there are no actual, provable, or demonstrable commands from any gods.

[SteveII]

God commands what he sees is good. He creates what he knows is good. He forms what is good. And himself is what is good.

Obviously not. If he "sees what is good and creates what he knows is good, then he *has* to already also know the opposite also.
If god is what is good, then what does that mean, other than a worthless tautology ? And how did it then how did it find out what is evil ?
If your god *is* good, then evil also exists as long as a god can be described that way. It's meaningless bullshit.  
There has to be an external standard, just for a god "to be good".
You cannot state a being is "good" without a standard for what that means .... OR .... it means nothing.

Haven't really thought this one through have you Stevo ?  

You have not solved Euthyphro's Dilemma. You just think you have.

That's not my quote, so...there's that.

[brunumb]

God commands the Israelites to commit genocide on the Canaanites. Kill their men in battle.  Invade their towns and massacre to women and children.  Drag screaming children and their you mothers out of the home and kill them.  Hack! Slash!  "Leave none that breastheth".  This is good?

Any command of God is good--by definition.

  There is no hope for you.

[Link]

It took me a while to realize that. But God commands things that are good. Although him commanding something, would make it good to obey, if this was the criteria of him commanding, that is he commands anything and it's "good", then all morals would be arbitrary.

God commands what he sees is good. He creates what he knows is good. He forms what is good. And himself is what is good.

This important, because, it means holy books should be seen as moral guides, not books to define what is good, but make you see what is good.

Your logic is flawed.

The standard concept is, as you actually say above, God "...is what is good."  God is the standard of good. That would mean that his commands are good because he commanded them. It does not follow that somehow then morals are arbitrary. Not at all.

Your confusion seem to be in your contradictory statements. The first three mean a standard of good exists separate from God. The fourth says that the standard is God.
1. God commands what he sees is good.
2. He creates what he knows is good.
3. He forms what is good.
4. And himself is what is good.

Moral command theory survives another day.

William Lane Craig version is not the actual version of command theory.  The command theory is that it's defined by God's authority and command and whatever he commands is good and what he forbids is evil, that how good and evil come to be. I believe God emanation in terms of morality, is a better way to prove God (value emanates from him). But philosophically speaking, if God's Goodness didn't exist and Logic didn't exist in God,  and God tried to create morality out of nothing, it would be impossible, or we would have a baseless morality. Same with God creating value if Value was not eternal.

This proves God, but command theory doesn't make sense.

[Link]

That would mean that his commands are good because he commanded them. 

No it would mean he creates and commands according to what he sees is good and what is good. God is good true.  However, the way to prove God and morality linked is through emanation and not the who is to say approach.

[Bucky Ball]

William Lane Craig version is not the actual version of command theory.  The command theory is that it's defined by God's authority and command and whatever he commands is good and what he forbids is evil, that how good and evil come to be. I believe God emanation in terms of morality, is a better way to prove God (value emanates from him). But philosophically speaking, if God's Goodness didn't exist and Logic didn't exist in God,  and God tried to create morality out of nothing, it would be impossible, or we would have a baseless morality. Same with God creating value if Value was not eternal.

This proves God, but command theory doesn't make sense.

There are many logics. Many logical systems. Many. Which of them are you talking about, and why did you chose the one you did ?
Some of the known logics are perfectly internally correct, but do not obtain in reality.

Define "god emanation", what evidence do you have for it ? If you have none, why is it you believe in it and are talking to atheists about this ?

How did your god(s) decide what to command as evil, and what not evil ? Where is the standard ?
Why is it the god that Islam claims (the "Abrahamic god") have it written in the Bible that it is OK to stone disobedient children and kill innocent infants ?
Is that moral ?

[Link]

William Lane Craig version is not the actual version of command theory.  The command theory is that it's defined by God's authority and command and whatever he commands is good and what he forbids is evil, that how good and evil come to be. I believe God emanation in terms of morality, is a better way to prove God (value emanates from him). But philosophically speaking, if God's Goodness didn't exist and Logic didn't exist in God,  and God tried to create morality out of nothing, it would be impossible, or we would have a baseless morality. Same with God creating value if Value was not eternal.

This proves God, but command theory doesn't make sense.

There are many logics. Many logical systems. Many. Which of them are you talking about, and why did you chose the one you did ?
Some of the known logics are perfectly internally correct, but do not obtain in reality.

Define "god emanation", what evidence do you have for it ? If you have none, why is it you believe in it and are talking to atheists about this ?

How did your god(s) decide what to command as evil, and what not evil ? Where is the standard ?

Emanation is talked about all sort of mystics of all sorts of religions. It means God and creation are linked, in a way, that creation emanates from God.

[Bucky Ball]

William Lane Craig version is not the actual version of command theory.  The command theory is that it's defined by God's authority and command and whatever he commands is good and what he forbids is evil, that how good and evil come to be. I believe God emanation in terms of morality, is a better way to prove God (value emanates from him). But philosophically speaking, if God's Goodness didn't exist and Logic didn't exist in God,  and God tried to create morality out of nothing, it would be impossible, or we would have a baseless morality. Same with God creating value if Value was not eternal.

This proves God, but command theory doesn't make sense.

There are many logics. Many logical systems. Many. Which of them are you talking about, and why did you chose the one you did ?
Some of the known logics are perfectly internally correct, but do not obtain in reality.

Define "god emanation", what evidence do you have for it ? If you have none, why is it you believe in it and are talking to atheists about this ?

How did your god(s) decide what to command as evil, and what not evil ? Where is the standard ?

Emanation is talked about all sort of mystics of all sorts of religions. It means God and creation are linked, in a way, that creation emanates from God.

You have not answered the question completely. You must provide specific references. "All sorts of whatever, does not cut it".
Also by what education and training do you have the ability to tell William Craig he is wrong about something ? YOU have a PhD ?

[brunumb]

It took me a while to realize that. But God commands things that are good. Although him commanding something, would make it good to obey, if this was the criteria of him commanding, that is he commands anything and it's "good", then all morals would be arbitrary.

God commands what he sees is good. He creates what he knows is good. He forms what is good. And himself is what is good.

This important, because, it means holy books should be seen as moral guides, not books to define what is good, but make you see what is good.

Perhaps you should read "Is a Good God Logically Possible?" by James P. Sterba and take up his challenge.

In my new book I defend atheism, but I was not always a nonbeliever. In fact, I was in a religious order for 12 years, leaving only just before I would have had to take the final vows. In fact, I only became an atheist recently after accepting a John Templeton grant to apply the yet untapped resources of ethics and political philosophy to the problem of evil. Work on this Templeton grant ultimately resulted in my developing the argument I will be summarizing here, set out in more detail in my book. Moreover, if anyone is successful in poking a hole in my argument, I am happy to give up being an atheist. My commitment to atheism is only as strong as the soundness and validity of my argument. Undercut my argument and poof, at least in my case, no more atheist.

There is a summary of his argument here:

https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/is-...1ba6e4a581

[Deesse23]

If you dont know what *good* is, how do you know that god is *good*, even omnibenevolent?

[possibletarian]

If you dont know what *good* is, how do you know that god is *good*, even omnibenevolent?

This is the kind of thing that happens when you allow people to define non detectable all powerful magical beings. that act exactly the same as no all powerful magical beings, as their rulers.

What a foolish god (who looks exactly the same as no god) is it who gives those he creates a very different definition of good.

[Link]

If you dont know what *good* is, how do you know that god is *good*, even omnibenevolent?

This is also a good argument according against command theory.

[SteveII]

It took me a while to realize that. But God commands things that are good. Although him commanding something, would make it good to obey, if this was the criteria of him commanding, that is he commands anything and it's "good", then all morals would be arbitrary.

God commands what he sees is good. He creates what he knows is good. He forms what is good. And himself is what is good.

This important, because, it means holy books should be seen as moral guides, not books to define what is good, but make you see what is good.

Your logic is flawed.

The standard concept is, as you actually say above, God "...is what is good."  God is the standard of good. That would mean that his commands are good because he commanded them. It does not follow that somehow then morals are arbitrary. Not at all.

Your confusion seem to be in your contradictory statements. The first three mean a standard of good exists separate from God. The fourth says that the standard is God.
1. God commands what he sees is good.
2. He creates what he knows is good.
3. He forms what is good.
4. And himself is what is good.

Moral command theory survives another day.

William Lane Craig version is not the actual version of command theory.  The command theory is that it's defined by God's authority and command and whatever he commands is good and what he forbids is evil, that how good and evil come to be.

You are confusing two issues here. Divine Command Theory is the position that God's commands are the basis of our morality.

BUT, you went on and discussed why God's commands are good as your reason for rejecting the concept. That is a different thing.

I believe God emanation in terms of morality, is a better way to prove God (value emanates from him). But philosophically speaking, if God's Goodness didn't exist and Logic didn't exist in God,  and God tried to create morality out of nothing, it would be impossible, or we would have a baseless morality. Same with God creating value if Value was not eternal.

This proves God, but command theory doesn't make sense.

Your list of 4 statements concerning why God's commands are good are contradictory. As I said:

Your confusion seem to be in your contradictory statements. The first three mean a standard of good exists separate from God. The fourth says that the standard is God.
1. God commands what he sees is good.
2. He creates what he knows is good.
3. He forms what is good.
4. And himself is what is good.

In other words, in 1-3 there is a standard of Good apart from God that he acts in accordance with. This seems to be your basis for rejecting Divine Command Theory. I would agree that this creates problems for the theory as well asfor the concept of God itself.

Number 4 however, is the actual solution to your problem. God's nature is what defines Good. You run into all sorts of problems if you start positing a standard that is separate from God. Where did this standard come from? You also end up on the horns of the Euthyphro Dilemma. You actually typed this in Number 4.

If God's nature defines what is good and his commands emanate from his nature, his commands are good. Problem solved. Nothing is arbitrary--all morality is based in an objective unchanging standard. No dilemma. Divine Command Theory lives on.

[Link]

Divine command theory is not what you think it is. It means goodness and evil can't be defined except if an Authority commands them, that Authority can only be God.

You are thinking more in the lines that God commands what he knows is good. The standard and where it came from, is a different argument. It means emanation from God is the real moral argument being made. That goodness emanates from God which I agree.

[Phaedrus]

Divine Command Theory is the position that God's commands are the basis of our morality.

Considering that man was moral before religion claimed a monopoly on it in god's name makes this an absurd statement.

Not to mention the fact that man created religious morality in god's name simply because he disagreed with what some people were doing with their private lives.

[SteveII]

Divine command theory is not what you think it is.  It means goodness and evil can't be defined except if an Authority commands them, that Authority can only be God.

How is my statement above any different: "Divine Command Theory is the position that God's commands are the basis of our morality."

You are thinking more in the lines that God commands what he knows is good.

Not at all! Did you read anything I wrote? If you are not going to pay attention to the nuance of how exactly Good is defined, you will continue to misunderstand the problem you think exists.

The standard and where it came from, is a different argument. It means emanation from God is the real moral argument being made. That goodness emanates from God which I agree.

And that is your problem. It is silly and a waste of time to complain about what is good and what isn't if you have not established how to anchor the concept of good. Go ahead, give an account of how God knows what is good.

[Link]

Divine command theory is not what you think it is.  It means goodness and evil can't be defined except if an Authority commands them, that Authority can only be God.

How is my statement above any different: "Divine Command Theory is the position that God's commands are the basis of our morality."

You are thinking more in the lines that God commands what he knows is good.

Not at all! Did you read anything I wrote? If you are not going to pay attention to the nuance of how exactly Good is defined, you will continue to misunderstand the problem you think exists.

The standard and where it came from, is a different argument. It means emanation from God is the real moral argument being made. That goodness emanates from God which I agree.

And that is your problem. It is silly and a waste of time to complain about what is good and what isn't if you have not established how to anchor the concept of good. Go ahead, give an account of how God knows what is good.

It's not about source of morality. I'm simply looking a particular theory. Not your version or William Lane Craig version which is not the original command theory.

William Lane Craig and your version don't suffer the same problem as the original command theory.

[Link]

This is because you guys don't pick "God's commands define what is good" you go more the emanation route. That God is good.

[Phaedrus]

Command theory.

Why even tact on the word theory in relation to god when it's either obey or burn in hell.

There's no room for theory when your belief system is quite adamant on god being the supreme dictator.

[Link]

And William Lane Craig tweaking of it, put's it more as mystical emanation that mystics talk about. Not moral command theory and what it was proposed in the start to be.