Comments on: Is God Necessarily Good? http://www.doxazotheos.com/?p=77 Mon, 06 Sep 2010 05:42:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Doxazo Theos » Blog Archive » The Essentiality of God’s Goodness http://www.doxazotheos.com/?p=77#comment-5001 Doxazo Theos » Blog Archive » The Essentiality of God’s Goodness Wed, 07 Jan 2009 04:47:19 +0000 http://www.doxazotheos.com/?p=77#comment-5001 [...] mentioned before Swinburne’s argument that “it is logically necessary that an omniscient and perfectly free [...] […] mentioned before Swinburne’s argument that “it is logically necessary that an omniscient and perfectly free […]

]]> By: Acts of the Apologists » Is God necessarily good? http://www.doxazotheos.com/?p=77#comment-3998 Acts of the Apologists » Is God necessarily good? Wed, 24 Sep 2008 22:44:31 +0000 http://www.doxazotheos.com/?p=77#comment-3998 [...] This post argues that he is. [...] […] This post argues that he is. […]

]]> By: Chad McIntosh http://www.doxazotheos.com/?p=77#comment-2589 Chad McIntosh Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:22:12 +0000 http://www.doxazotheos.com/?p=77#comment-2589 Goodness here is defined as a property of God's actions (or even potential or counterfactual actions). As such, goodness is not at all independent of God lest God's actions be independent of himself—which is incoherent. Goodness here is defined as a property of God’s actions (or even potential or counterfactual actions). As such, goodness is not at all independent of God lest God’s actions be independent of himself—which is incoherent.

]]> By: Raphael http://www.doxazotheos.com/?p=77#comment-2588 Raphael Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:20:38 +0000 http://www.doxazotheos.com/?p=77#comment-2588 I see. For this to be true, morality must exist independently from God. We cannot use God's perfect goodness to prove the cause for morality as we used morality to prove the cause of His goodness. I see.

For this to be true, morality must exist independently from God. We cannot use God’s perfect goodness to prove the cause for morality as we used morality to prove the cause of His goodness.

]]> By: Chad McIntosh http://www.doxazotheos.com/?p=77#comment-2586 Chad McIntosh Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:17:36 +0000 http://www.doxazotheos.com/?p=77#comment-2586 Great observation, Raphael. In fact, the whole of Swinburne's chapter on this argument went toward showing (5) true (where 'true proposition' is meant to be understood as 'objectively true proposition'). Obviously if (5) is true then morality is not subjective. Great observation, Raphael. In fact, the whole of Swinburne’s chapter on this argument went toward showing (5) true (where ‘true proposition’ is meant to be understood as ‘objectively true proposition’). Obviously if (5) is true then morality is not subjective.

]]> By: Raphael http://www.doxazotheos.com/?p=77#comment-2584 Raphael Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:13:45 +0000 http://www.doxazotheos.com/?p=77#comment-2584 What over-riding reason exists in (4) if Morality is subjective in (3)?? What over-riding reason exists in (4) if Morality is subjective in (3)??

]]> By: Heath http://www.doxazotheos.com/?p=77#comment-2419 Heath Thu, 03 Apr 2008 03:40:21 +0000 http://www.doxazotheos.com/?p=77#comment-2419 I particularly like the first premise... There is a precision to this definition of omniscience that really can help the debate on God's foreknowledge... I have posted about it and linked back to your blog. I particularly like the first premise… There is a precision to this definition of omniscience that really can help the debate on God’s foreknowledge… I have posted about it and linked back to your blog.

]]>