My Take on the Moral Argument

[Glossophile]

A while ago, I posted this to the old Thinking Atheist forum just for whatever it may have been worth.  It's my attempt to somewhat gather and organize my thoughts on the Moral Argument and why it fails, especially the points that I feel either aren't quite made often enough or are rarely if ever framed in quite the way that I would frame them.  It's aimed specifically at Christians. Since the old forum has sunk, I've decided to share it again in case it proves interesting to anyone who didn't get the opportunity to peruse it the first time around.  I welcome any comments, be they positive or critical, and if it serves as food for thought for even one person, it will have been worth writing.

http://www.hsmespanol.com/On_the_Moral_Argument_2.pdf

[houseofcantor]

Nine pages.
Are you kidding me? Is it April? Did I just pass out and wake up in the spring?

OK, I'm better.
One - there's no Christians here
Two- as the only mofo I know who witnessed god, that scrub is way to vast for a moral monopode.

OK, I go read now.... Mr Nine Pages.

[GirlyMan]

One - there's no Christians here

I'm Jesus. And you are certifiably insane and I'm not. How fucking funny is that.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

One - there's no Christians here

I'm Jesus. And you are certifiably insane and I'm not. How fucking funny is that.

[Grandizer]

If Christian apologists want the moral argument to be a success, they have to first establish the existence of their God (through other arguments) and then establish the link between God and objective morality. I've not seen any Christian to date successfully accomplish these objectives. You can't have an abductive argument in favor of God if you haven't even established the plausibility (or even possibility) of its existence.

[Paleophyte]

The Moral Argument falls to the fact that Christians can be moral in spite of having an immoral deity, scripture, and clergy. They clearly aren't getting their morality from their religion or they'd all be in jail.

[Grandizer]

The Moral Argument falls to the fact that Christians can be moral in spite of having an immoral deity, scripture, and clergy. They clearly aren't getting their morality from their religion or they'd all be in jail.

I agree with this, but I'm not sure how effective an argument this would be against the moral argument per se.

[Cheerful Charlie]

The Euthyphro problem. God either loves what is moral, or what God loves is moral because God loves it. If the first,morality is something outside and beyond God that God must obey because it is absolute good. But if not that, the God creates morality. But the supposed bad behavior of God in the OT, commanding massacres and genocide argues that God's morality is rather sub-par. But there is the deeper immorality of God who according to Paul's theology, decides arbitrarily some are elect, and some are denied election and salvation. The Bible claims god is just, fair, merciful, and compassionate. But the God of NT theology is not any of those things. And most certainly the God of OT mythology isn't any of these things. of course if there is a true morality beyond and outside of God, then either that God is not moral or this supposed absolute morality is very substandard as far as morality and goodness goes. It is a common argument among theologians such as William Craig Lane and others that God is not a moral agent and does not owe us, his creation any moral obligations. Which essentially admits God is not moral or good. This is moral nihilism.

[Cypher44]

One - there's no Christians here

Objection, Your Honour

That is demonstrably untrue

I am a Christian, HoC

No Lying for Jesus™ for me though

[SYZ]

If Christian apologists want the moral argument to be a success, they have to first establish the existence of their God (through other arguments) and then establish the link between God and objective morality...

Well said.  This is the crux of the entire moral argument.     

[Cheerful Charlie]

If Christian apologists want the moral argument to be a success, they have to first establish the existence of their God (through other arguments) and then establish the link between God and objective morality...

Well said.  This is the crux of the entire moral argument.     

For many Christians, the argument is that good morals must come from God, and that the very existence of good morals, absolute morality, is proof God exists.  If an atheists claims we must first establish God exists, these types will blow you off as not addressing their arguments.  You would be accused of being lazy and not capable of intellectually dealing with their argument.  Their peanut gallery will cheer them on as having humiliated yet another atheist.

The claim is that God is morally perfect by nature.  Simplicity of God, his substance and essences are one, without parts.  If so, why does a perfectly good and all powerful God fail to act, for example to create all men good and having free will to freely be perfectly good.  many Christians will tell you God has no moral obligations to us, and God is not a moral agent.  Thus having redefined good and moral to mean something other than good or moral.  God obvious is neither.  So cannot be an absolute, nor source of morality.  If God has the power to make all men morally good and to have free will to do good, and does not give all mankind that, all moral evil that occurs is God's fault for his failure to act.  Which puts a big knot in their theology's tail.

Kant made the arguments that have now come to be known as pre-suppositionalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Only_P...nce_of_God

[Grandizer]

For many Christians, the argument is that good morals must come from God, and that the very existence of good morals, absolute morality, is proof God exists.  If an atheists claims we must first establish God exists, these types will blow you off as not addressing their arguments.  You would be accused of being lazy and not capable of intellectually dealing with their argument.  Their peanut gallery will cheer them on as having humiliated yet another atheist.

Meh, they'll do that anyway, no matter what you say.

Personally, the way I see it is:

If God exists, and objective morality exists, then God may or may not be the best explanation of such morality. But even if he didn't exist, objective morality can still exist. So God is not necessary for objective morality anyway. Hence, to establish the necessity of God, an argument is needed for that. Otherwise, no point IMO.

I prefer a thorough Bayesian approach to all this, really.

EDIT: Out of curiosity, how would you address the fall of man as the counterargument to your specific argument?

[SYZ]

For many Christians, the argument is that good morals must come from God, and that the very existence of good morals, absolute morality, is proof God exists...

Circulus in probando.    EG:  The Bible is true, so you should not doubt the word of God.

[Cheerful Charlie]

For many Christians, the argument is that good morals must come from God, and that the very existence of good morals, absolute morality, is proof God exists.  If an atheists claims we must first establish God exists, these types will blow you off as not addressing their arguments.  You would be accused of being lazy and not capable of intellectually dealing with their argument.  Their peanut gallery will cheer them on as having humiliated yet another atheist.

Meh, they'll do that anyway, no matter what you say.

Personally, the way I see it is:

If God exists, and objective morality exists, then God may or may not be the best explanation of such morality. But even if he didn't exist, objective morality can still exist. So God is not necessary for objective morality anyway. Hence, to establish the necessity of God, an argument is needed for that. Otherwise, no point IMO.

I prefer a thorough Bayesian approach to all this, really.

EDIT: Out of curiosity, how would you address the fall of man as the counterargument to your specific argument?

First of all, there is no fall, no original sin to be found in Genesis.
Second, if original sin was created by Adam and Eve, how can that be, as they were denied knowledge of good and evil by God and could have had no idea of the concept to disobey God was bad in any way.
Third.  If original sin destroyed our free will or damaged it and inclined mankind towards evil, why did God not by fiat eliminate original sin on day one to eliminate the evils that would follow if God failed.  Not what we would expect from an all powerful and perfectly good God.

Then there is the claim that God is outside and beyond time and that there is no past, present and future for such a timeless God.
If such a timeless God creates all, that God creates all at once, all of it to the smallest detail.  There is no A temporally causes B causes C causes D and so on.  The only connections between events A, B, C, and D is that God created them separately as they are.  We have no possibility of free will in such a Universe.  All good we do was designed by God and all evil.  Original sin most certainly makes no sense in such a Universe.  The fall of man makes no sense.  The idea we have any free will makes no sense.  A God inside time who is omniscient is still a problem.  If God contemplates creating a world, being omniscient, he knows from any contemplated initial creation, how that Universe will inevitably unfold.  We have no choice in the matter and no free will.  all evil in that world, such as the fall is strictly God choice and fault.  Omniscience entails hard determination when combined with being creator of all.  God could have chosen to create a Universe without Hitler, Stalin, Nazis or Bolsheviks for example.

All of this leads to the claim which I am beginning to discover is widely believed by many theists struggling with these issues that God is not a moral agent and owes us no moral obligations.  Which of course makes the claim God is perfectly, morally good a farce.  That claim can be found on the websites of William Craig lane and Catholic Ed Feser for example.  Good is redefined in a rather grotesque manner, to save appearances.

God created man.  Thus God designed man.  God thus had to design man's moral nature.  God had three possible choice.
A.  Create man with a bad moral nature.
B.  Create man with an indifferent moral nature.
C.  Create man with a good moral nature.
Our free will is entailed by our given moral nature, free will cannot stand alone.  Why would a perfectly good god choose other than to create man with a good moral nature such as god enjoys and a free will to freely do good as God is said to enjoy?
God cannot avoid choosing A., B., or C..  God could have eliminated original sin by fiat and given us original sanctity by fiat from the beginning. A perfectly good and wise God would do that.

The whole perfectly good God who creates all, designs all and is incomprehensibly wise makes no sense in the Universe we find ourselves in.  Denying God is a moral agent, that is a being who acts on his moral goodness seems to be the modern answer to atheists today.

There is a site, Strange Notions, a Catholic site aimed at dialogue with atheists where I am beginning to debate these issues with some rather orthodox Catholics.  I'll see how far this goes before I get myself banned.  If God is outside of time, and creates all at once to the smallest details, all our acts, good or evil, God creates all souls at once, the saved and the damned.  Those in heaven and those in hell.  Free will and original sin is a problem with such a God in such a timeless Universe created all at once in One Big Now with no real past, present and future.

The supposed fall of man makes no logical sense in so many ways it is hard just to list them all.

[Cheerful Charlie]

For many Christians, the argument is that good morals must come from God, and that the very existence of good morals, absolute morality, is proof God exists...

Circulus in probando.    EG:  The Bible is true, so you should not doubt the word of God.

Over at Strange Notions, a site dedicated to Catholics and atheist debates (run by Catholics) I am told we cannot debate the "word of God", the Bible.  That is labeled as "private interpretation".  We are told we can only follow the magistrate, the Catholic teachings that interpret the word's of God.  Meaning we need to argue what Pope Goofball at the Council of Whackaland declared orthodox ever so many centuries ago.  If the Bible claims God is good, is fair, is just, is merciful and is compassionate and compare that to God's commanding of massacres, genocides, and deeper problems such as predestination and election, God the Great Potter of Romans 9, I am not allowed to make that contrast because "personal interpretation".  The magisterium, the orthodox and official dogmas and teachings of the RCC outweigh the Bible, and it's internal contradictions and problems.

The fact that many of the theological puzzles that can be raised over such issues are not to be found explicitly in the official teachings or catechisms of the church is a problem for them.  God is not a moral agent and has no moral obligation to us?  Which authoritative Church council et al made that official dogma?  Or is THAT personal interpretation?

The complain there is us stupid old atheists look at this from the viewpoint of those heretics, the protestants, who operate from the viewpoint of sola scriptura.  It is sobering to realize that millions of Catholics buy into this.  If we are not totally familiar with the teachings of say, The Council of Trent, we can be ignored as we don't understand the truth of the Catholic Church's traditions are the real truths that matter, we can be ignored.   It is a whole other world than arguing with Baptist creationists etc.

[MysticKnight]

Love can act in guided ways and misguided ways. (1)
Goodness is to guide/steer love correctly (2).
Without guidance connected to God we will mix misguidance with guidance (3)
If rely on ourselves or others, we will mix misguidance with guidance (3) (I know same number, just phrased differently).
Injustice and evil is not to be purely evil without any good but to mix good and evil and confuse the distinct nature of good and evil, and mix it all up (4)
(conclusion) We are destined to be evil without God (5)

This proves (another way to a paraphrase) "If it's possible to be good, then God exists"

Now who doesn't believe by their nature it's possible to be good.

And who doesn't believe love can be guided or misguided.

And who doesn't believe goodness is when love is guided and acts according to wisdom? 

3 needs elaboration, but it's true, because we aren't infallible guides for ourselves and it's paradox to the word morality if it's ourselves, because it's ourselves that are subject to acting on morality (Guidance for love).

4 maybe controversial, but no one chooses evil for the sake of evil, it all lies in confusion that this occurs, so goodness lies then in clarification of guidance and clear distinction between good and evil, guidance and misguidance.

Another way to say (5) is that we are destined to be confused and all confused without God, and by the looks of it, humans are confused particularly - so it looks like God doesn't exist.

But  almost paradoxically all good lies in finding his guidance,  and not relying on majority of humans. And I say almost paradoxically, because we still need humans but what is wrong is to rely on people as in take a person and then acknowledge everything they say!

[EvieTheAvocado]

Premise 1: God is purely and absolutely good.

I don't accept this premise because:

(1) "God" is not clearly defined.
(2) There's no reason to believe that God is good even if he exists.

But, for sake of argument, let's pretend that God really is purely and absolutely good somehow. So that no matter what he says it's good and righteous even to us it seems fucking horrible because it involves torture and rape and murder and other awful things. Let's pretend, just for sake of argument, that whatever God says is absolutely good really is with no exceptions.

Obviously, I can't assume that God also exists purely for sake of argument ... because that's the argument's conclusion [EDIT: Actually, I sit self-corrected on that front, because it turns out that that wasn't the argument's conclusion. The conclusion was the exact same statement as the first premise LOL ... as you'll soon see later on in the post] and that would be assuming the conclusion of the argument within the premise. So let's not assume that God exists. Let's assume that God really is somehow absolutely good no matter what but that God doesn't necessarily exist. God may or may not exist. If God does exist then he's absolutely good. Let's assume this premise for sake of argument.

Premise 2: The Bible accurately portrays God's nature.

This premise is also absurd because the God portrayed in the Bible is certainly not good ... the God portrayed in the Bible does some really horrible things that could be deemed evil. But for sake of argument let's once again pretend that whatever God does in the Bible it's good by definition and God's nature is good by definition no matter how horrible it appears to be for us humans.

I'm being absurdly forgiving to these premises because they are, of course, both absurd for reasons forgiven. But let's see if the conclusion follows even if I am extremely generous about these silly premises.

Conclusion 1: Any biblical passage that would cast doubt on God's pure and absolute goodness if
interpreted literally must be interpreted figuratively and/or re-contextualized.

This conclusion doesn't follow as it simply isn't necessary if whatever God does is good no matter what no matter how horrible it seems to us. However, it does follow if many of the things that God is said to do in the Bible really is objectively as horrible as we think it is ... because then that would mean all the horrible bits would have to be non-literal to stop them being repugnant or immoral.

Premise 3: Given Conclusion #1, there can be no biblical passage of which the correct and properly
contextualized interpretation casts doubt on God's pure and absolute goodness.

Again, this conclusion doesn't follow because it isn't necessary if we just assume that whatever God says is good is merely good just because God says so, no matter how horrible it seems to be. But this conclusion does follow if we deem the conclusion to be necessary due to our interpreting the horribleness in the Bible as being really as horrible as it seems if taken literally (but I don't understand why this this conclusion that is following from the previous conclusion is being referred to as "Premise 3" ... this is clearly a second conclusion that from the last conclusion and not a premise ... but whatever).

Conclusion 2: Given Premise #2 and Premise #3, God is purely and absolutely good.

This conclusion follows only if we assume that conclusion 1 and 2 and necessary but they are only necessary if we deem many of God's actions as horrible as they really do seem to be if we interpret them literally.

"God" is still not clearly defined and there is still absolutely no argument or evidence in favor of God's existence ...

... furthermore many interpretations of the God described in the Bible is logically impossible.

But the biggest problem of all with this argument is that premise 1 is that God is purely and absolutely good and the final conclusion is that God is purely and absolutelly good ... LOL.

I mean, to make that explicit, here it is, straight from the PDF:

Premise 1: God is purely and absolutely good.

Conclusion 2: Given Premise #2 and Premise #3, God is purely and absolutely good.

This is highly illogical and redundant. What's the point in making the final conclusion the same as what was originally presumed to be true in the first premise? What in the name of all shite in a pig sty is this argument trying to PROVE?!


Here would be a far cleaner and more simple argument, for me, given that there's no reason to believe in God so we're already dealing with silliness and may as well go all the way and get to the point:

Premise 1: If God exists and he is fully omniscient then he knows everything by definition.
Premise 2: Goodness and morality only matter and can be truly good and moral if goodness and morality exist.
Premise 3: Goodness and morality do exist.
Premise 4: If God knows everything (given P1) then God knows literally everything that is good and moral if goodness and morality exist (given P3).
Premise 5: God is incapable of lying.
Conclusion: If God says that something is good and moral then it really is and that really matters.

Of course, we can't even get past premise one because "If God exists and he is fully omniscient" is a very big IF.

But just straight off the top of my head I think that I came up with a far more coherent and straightforward argument than the one in the PDF, even if in both arguments the premises have no basis.

[Cheerful Charlie]

Is God perfectly, morally good?

The Sub-goodnesses of God Argument
The Bible, allegedly trustworthy revelation, tells us specifically that god has certain sub-goodnesses. God is Fair, Just, Compassionate, Merciful. If God lacks any of these sub-goodnesses, God is not good..

In Pauls theology, accepted to be true for Christianity, God decides arbitrarily who will be elect and who will not, not based on any actions of these people. God the Great Potter of Romans 9. God arbitrarily creates some people as 'vessels of honor" and some as vessels of dishonor". Again, not because of anything they do. Not yet being created they have done nothing wrong. God predestines all.

If God creates Jane as elect, a vessel of honor, but John as a vessel of wrath and not elect and damned, God is then, not merciful, not compassionate, not fair, nor just. And hence, not good. Christians cannot argue for divine command theory and yet define God as having these explicit sub-goodnesses. Christianity is supposedly based on these Biblical books being trustworthy revelations of God. Obviously, the Sub-goodnesses Of God Argument demonstrates that claim must be false. The whole underlying theological scheme of Christianity and supposed perfect goodness of God is incoherent, false and it's almost trivial to demonstrate that.

[EvieTheAvocado]

 God arbitrarily creates some people as 'vessels of honor" and some as vessels of dishonor".  Again, not because of anything they do.  Not yet being created they have done nothing wrong.  God predestines all.

This was also the particular version of Catholicism espoused by Saint Augustine of Hippo (much of the Crusades were acted out in the name of his theology/religious philosophy).

[Cheerful Charlie]

 God arbitrarily creates some people as 'vessels of honor" and some as vessels of dishonor".  Again, not because of anything they do.  Not yet being created they have done nothing wrong.  God predestines all.

This was also the particular version of Catholicism espoused by Saint Augustine of Hippo (much of the Crusades were acted out in the name of his theology/religious philosophy).

Augustine held Paul as "The apostle", and built his theology on Paul's theology.  The Essene believed in predestination, as several of the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrated.  Paul may very well have crafted his theology based on ideas that came from the Essenes.  Or the Greeks who hotly debated if the world was determined and debated the issues of fatalism vs. free will.

The issue of free will and determination is an old and well debated problem of metaphysics and religion long before Christianity.

http://people.loyno.edu/~folse/stoicism.html

The Logos, as rational, directs the universe for a purpose. Assuming the universe to be eternal, Stoics concluded that The Logos was immortal, hence divine, hence perfect. From this it followed that The Logos directs all things that happen in the universe for the reason that it is best that it happen that way. Therefore, the Stoics reached the conclusion that we live in a deterministic universe.

There is noting new or original in Christianity as far as these issues are concerned.

[SteveII]

For many Christians, the argument is that good morals must come from God, and that the very existence of good morals, absolute morality, is proof God exists.  If an atheists claims we must first establish God exists, these types will blow you off as not addressing their arguments.  You would be accused of being lazy and not capable of intellectually dealing with their argument.  Their peanut gallery will cheer them on as having humiliated yet another atheist.

Meh, they'll do that anyway, no matter what you say.

Personally, the way I see it is:

If God exists, and objective morality exists, then God may or may not be the best explanation of such morality. But even if he didn't exist, objective morality can still exist. So God is not necessary for objective morality anyway. Hence, to establish the necessity of God, an argument is needed for that. Otherwise, no point IMO.

How can objective morality exist without something outside of ourselves providing it? 

I prefer a thorough Bayesian approach to all this, really.

EDIT: Out of curiosity, how would you address the fall of man as the counterargument to your specific argument?

First of all, there is no fall, no original sin to be found in Genesis.
Second, if original sin was created by Adam and Eve, how can that be, as they were denied knowledge of good and evil by God and could have had no idea of the concept to disobey God was bad in any way.
Third.  If original sin destroyed our free will or damaged it and inclined mankind towards evil, why did God not by fiat eliminate original sin on day one to eliminate the evils that would follow if God failed.  Not what we would expect from an all powerful and perfectly good God.

Then there is the claim that God is outside and beyond time and that there is no past, present and future for such a timeless God.
If such a timeless God creates all, that God creates all at once, all of it to the smallest detail.  There is no A temporally causes B causes C causes D and so on.  The only connections between events A, B, C, and D is that God created them separately as they are.  We have no possibility of free will in such a Universe.  All good we do was designed by God and all evil.  Original sin most certainly makes no sense in such a Universe.  The fall of man makes no sense.  The idea we have any free will makes no sense.  A God inside time who is omniscient is still a problem.  If God contemplates creating a world, being omniscient, he knows from any contemplated initial creation, how that Universe will inevitably unfold.  We have no choice in the matter and no free will.  all evil in that world, such as the fall is strictly God choice and fault.  Omniscience entails hard determination when combined with being creator of all.  God could have chosen to create a Universe without Hitler, Stalin, Nazis or Bolsheviks for example.

I believe God is not timeless since the creation of the universe. Any relationship with a thing or a person requires time. The entire enterprise of Christianity is about God's relationship to us. Therefore God did not create one big block universe at once with all the evil we see. Time passes and the future has not happened yet and God has not seen the future--only knows what people will freely choose in any given situation. 

All of this leads to the claim which I am beginning to discover is widely believed by many theists struggling with these issues that God is not a moral agent and owes us no moral obligations.  Which of course makes the claim God is perfectly, morally good a farce.  That claim can be found on the websites of William Craig lane and Catholic Ed Feser for example.  Good is redefined in a rather grotesque manner, to save appearances.

God created man.  Thus God designed man.  God thus had to design man's moral nature.  God had three possible choice.
A.  Create man with a bad moral nature.
B.  Create man with an indifferent moral nature.
C.  Create man with a good moral nature.
Our free will is entailed by our given moral nature, free will cannot stand alone.  Why would a perfectly good god choose other than to create man with a good moral nature such as god enjoys and a free will to freely do good as God is said to enjoy?
God cannot avoid choosing A., B., or C..  God could have eliminated original sin by fiat and given us original sanctity by fiat from the beginning. A perfectly good and wise God would do that.

The whole perfectly good God who creates all, designs all and is incomprehensibly wise makes no sense in the Universe we find ourselves in.  Denying God is a moral agent, that is a being who acts on his moral goodness seems to be the modern answer to atheists today.

Free will does not require anything other than to be able to choose a course of action not determined outside of ourselves. You are not describing a moral nature, you are describing a restriction on free will. A moral nature is basic awareness of right and wrong and by definition the course we should choose (the 'right') in most moral situations (which we have). I believe free will logically entails sin--eventually--and so it is impossible to have created a person that can actually choose to love/worship/have a relationship with his creator (which requires free will) and not give them the ability to also choose sin/selfishness/greed/etc.

[Cheerful Charlie]

Of course I am describing a restriction on free will. That was the whole point. A person's nature given to him or her by God will determine what we can freely do if there is indeed a free will. And God must choose what our moral nature will be if God creates us. God must choose A., B., or C. There is no way God can avoid making that choice.

And of course if God s in time, and decides to create us, being omniscient and knowing the future, he will know exactly what will happen from any given initial state of creation he chooses. The Universe is hard determined. We can have no free will.

It gets hard to imagine a world where we actually have free will if God is omniscient and creates. Even before there was Christianity, various theologians realized this was an issue. Free will is a rather unlikely proposition is many ways.

[SteveII]

Of course I am describing a restriction on free will.  That was the whole point.  A person's nature given to him or her by God will determine what we can freely do if there is indeed a free will.  And God must choose what our moral nature will be if God creates us.  God must choose A., B., or C.  There is no way God can avoid making that choice.

Okay, so God chose ©. People understand right and wrong and by-in-large want to do what is right. 

And of course  if God s in time, and decides to create us, being omniscient and knowing the future, he will know exactly what will happen from any given initial state of creation he chooses.  The Universe is hard determined.  We can have no free will.

It gets hard to imagine a world where we actually have free will if God is omniscient and creates.  Even before there was Christianity, various theologians realized this was an issue.  Free will is a rather unlikely proposition is many ways.

Actually it depends on how he knows what we will do. I believe God knows what we will freely decided to do given circumstance x.  I know without a doubt that my wife will choose chocolate ice cream over vanilla.  That would in no way take away to fact that she will freely choose chocolate tonight. God's knowledge is limitless and therefore is unerring--but the same concept.  Libertarian free will just means that the decision is made without any outside influences. It has nothing to do with who might know your decision before you make it. 

This is the definition of free will that I use:

A personal explanation of some basic result R brought about intentionally be person P where this bringing about of R is a basic action A will cite the intention I of P that R occurred and the basic power B that P exercised to bring about R. P, I and B provide a personal explanation of R: agent P brought about R be exercising power B in order to realize intention I as an irreducible teleological goal. (Moreland, Blackwell's Companion to Natural Theology. p 298)

[Cheerful Charlie]

What you are describing is what is known as compatibilism. God knows what we will freely choose to do in the future. But if God knows because God is omniscient, what will happen from any initial starting point God chooses for creation, what will inevitably happen from that initial state, then free will is an illusion. What Alice will choose to do in the future depends totally on what future God chooses to actualize. Our free will is dependent totally on God's choice. If God chooses a world where Alice is saved and Bob is damned, neither Alice nor Bob have a choice in their inevitable fates. God could have chosen a world where Bob is saved and Alice is damned. In such a Universe free will is a meaningless concept. Compatibilism is a meaningless concept. We can have complete free will or determinism but these things are mutually exclusive. If God was truly good, compassionate, merciful, just and fair, God would create a world where there is no evil moral choices are made and all are saved, and nobody damned. We would live in a far different Universe than the one we find ourselves in. No Hitlers, no Stalins. This is an issue known as theological fatalism. If there is moral evil in the world created by an omniscient God, then tht moral evil is God's fault.

In An Essay On The Secret Providence Of God by John Calvin, Calvin gives the example of a good Christian who is set upon by evil robbers who rob all he has and severely beat him. Calvin tells us that this happened because god so will it, as god controls all that happens. But because God is sovereign and totally good, God gets no blame for this! Does that make sense to you? But a God that is omniscient and creates all and controls al that happens leads here logically and inevitably. God becomes a monstrous being responsible for all moral evils but gets no blame for it all. Divine command theory in all it's glory.

Theologians have been trying to argue around this problem for centuries. It leads to sophistries and rationalization without end. it makes a mockery of the very idea of goodness of God.

Calvin like many other theologians claims that God is inscrutable, incomprehensible. Logic and rationality get abandoned. Special pleading with wings on it.

[SYZ]

...We are destined to be evil without God (5)

This proves... "If it's possible to be good, then God exists"

Before I could accept that we are (allegedly) destined to be evil without God, I must of necessity understand
what you mean by "God".  Can you please define what you mean by the name, and provide empirical evidence
that that such an entity could exist in the real world.  And please don't tell me he's spoken to you.

Your second claim about being good is a classic non sequitur.  And therefore pointless.  Sorry.