God and Morality

[Alcon]

I think this is an interesting point.  I've never read a particularly compelling theistic argument for how one ascertains omnibenvolence, or from what omnibenevolence originates (certainly not omnipotence?)

I think one of the more convincing arguments for this position runs that morality requires free will and free will requires an extra-natural sphere which then in turn requires God.   None of the claims in that are uncontroversial of course.

Ay, what argument is this?  I'm not sure to what your antecedent ("this position") refers, but in any case, what you're saying is not ringing any bells.

[Alcon]

I think this is an interesting point.  I've never read a particularly compelling theistic argument for how one ascertains omnibenvolence, or from what omnibenevolence originates (certainly not omnipotence?)

Theistic definitions of morality tend to have a certain element of tautology in this sense, since morality is typically defined in terms of God rather than the other way around.

Right -- but this doesn't seem like any less of a first principle than "morality is just defined this way" to an atheist.

[Alcon]

I'm not making a point about why atheists can't be moral, but whether morality requires God to exist. There's a difference between belief in God and existence of God as a prerequisite. So this position is the position that God must exist for morality to exist.

I'm beginning to realize that might not have been the question though. I think it's the relevant question however. Whether atheists in fact behave morally or not seems like an empirical question rather than a philosophical one.

I can't really name a philosopher off the top of my head (I'd like to say I invented this argument myself, but that's obviously not true either )I think Kant's position on morality covers parts of this though.

I guess I didn't pick up on that in your original phrasing, sorry.  I think what I was noting actually is an objection about the argument you're alluding to.

[Alcon]

I'm not making a point about why atheists can't be moral, but whether morality requires God to exist. There's a difference between belief in God and existence of God as a prerequisite. So this position is the position that God must exist for morality to exist.

I'm beginning to realize that might not have been the question though. I think it's the relevant question however. Whether atheists in fact behave morally or not seems like an empirical question rather than a philosophical one.

I can't really name a philosopher off the top of my head (I'd like to say I invented this argument myself, but that's obviously not true either )I think Kant's position on morality covers parts of this though.

I guess I didn't pick up on that in your original phrasing, sorry.  I think what I was noting actually is an objection about the argument you're alluding to.

Maybe I'm being completely thick now, but what are you noting? That God cannot be proven to be omnibenevolent?

Basically

[Alcon]

Also obviously, God's existence (if one takes it as a given, which I know you don't, but still...) makes His position on what is and isn't 'good' the one that really matters in the end.

But why?  Just stating that it's true begs the question.  How could you possibly ascertain this?

I'm not sure it's obvious even beyond that, since some traditions posit a God that isn't at all benevolent.

[Alcon]

All right. God as defined in Western philosophical and theological traditions. To an extent morality becomes tautological at that point. To an extent morality is tautological anyway. The way to ascertain it would be to have God existent and judging one based on such-and-such standards.

Precisely what omnibenevolence means in practical terms is, though, a bit difficult to nail down one we realize that in a worldview that assumes God as absolute Creator it's an almost entirely reflexive concept.

Like Andrew says, this answer doesn't work.  You can't just define the problem away.  You can say that omnibenevolence is an intrinsic part of anything.  It could be an intrinsic part of my cat who, coincidentally, is really nice.  Why do you presume it's an intrinsic part of God and not of something else, or of nothing?  How do you observe this to be true?  Considering that God is ostensibly omnibenevolent and yet terrible stuff happens, it's not as if this can uncontroversially be accepted as a tautology even if God does exist.

I don't really see how that relates to my point though? My argument does not seem to require God being omnibenevolent?

I suppose it's possible for God to establish moral standards and then behave against them.  Your argument is that there are no moral standards without a God, no moral standards without omnipotence, or what?  Are you folding "ability to create objective moral standards" into omnipotence?  In any case, it still problematizes your argument; if God isn't definitionally omnibenevolent (whatever that is), it makes the question of "why should we trust this entity on moral issues?" even more confusing.

[Alcon]

Forgive me, but I remain mystified as to how one could possibly define any kind of absolute as opposed to subjective morality contra God in the event of God's existence. Again, if God has the position with regards to the universe that He's constructed as having in Western thought. If it's otherwise I don't honestly understand why we would even be talking about this.

I don't really understand how this argument is different than "that's just part of God and we know it is"?

With response to Andrew, I'm also mystified as to why exactly one would apply the standards of the universe to God, in general. Asking why features of the physical universe don't apply to God is preassuming a materialistic outlook that doesn't hold water when God comes into the picture. We might as well ask how God can see the entirety of the universe when He hasn't got an optic nerve or retina. It presupposes a materialist conclusion. (It also presupposes the absolute and universal truth of the current Western construct of what constitutes 'thought', but I'd rather not get into that.)

Without judging God using any standard related to our observation of existence (material or otherwise), how do you arrive at any position about God?  How does your own argument here not demand you take no position on the God matter?

[Alcon]

behh.  I had an extensive post typed and then "session expired."  Road trip tomorrow but I will reply ASAP.  Sorry for ruining the flow of things.