Timeline for Moral arguments against dystheism (in the spirit of James Rachels)
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 22, 2023 at 18:42 | comment | added | Kristian Berry | Also, the overview of Oord touches upon a line of argument, in favor of the goodness of God, that I have long pursued: an ought-implies-can argument like, "Creating the world from nothing would be good; God created the world from nothing; therefore, God did something good." And moreover, "Since something's being possible-because-it-would-be-good is the only way to make a possibility out of nothing else, it's the only way to make an actuality out of nothing else, too." But I suppose that Oord is to some extent more invested in free-will theodicy than I am... | |
| Aug 22, 2023 at 18:24 | comment | added | Kristian Berry | Reason for accepting the answer: I had been arguing that the myriad first-order divine properties could be extracted from one divine property, but not a second-order one as I asked about in a previous post, but one of the first-order ones (viz. primarily divine goodness in this case). But you mentioned the notion of "insane gods" whose insanity forestalls their effective use of their vast powers (alone or in concert), and who do not think to use (or do not even have!) an additional power-to-stabilize-their-minds, maybe. This is an interesting narrative option (and not unknown in literature). | |
| Aug 22, 2023 at 18:18 | vote | accept | Kristian Berry | ||
| Aug 22, 2023 at 16:55 | history | answered | Dcleve | CC BY-SA 4.0 |