> Obviously I’m removing the nuance from your comments, but I hope it illustrates why I’m having difficulty understanding you.

Thank you for pointing this out. I didn't mean to confuse. Let me try to explain.

Often people claim what is contained in the Euthyphro Dilemma: something becomes good because God does it, and therefore anything God does is good. I reject this observation for reasons I won't go into at present, because it's a different discussion.

They suggest that if God were to rape someone, that would become good because God did it. I think that's ridiculous on several fronts.

But what I was trying to say is that things don't become good because God does them. God is not the "standard of goodness" in that sense. It's a horrifying and illogical thought.

Second, there is no standard of goodness outside of God, as if God is trying to conform to an ideal that exists somehow in the universe apart from creation and apart from even God himself. There is no separate standard that exists independently from everything else.

Third, and here's where some of the confusion lies, when we define goodness as we do and look at the revelation of God in Scripture, God conforms in every point to that definition. Every point we use to define goodness is found in him—and in that sense He becomes the standard of goodness.

Does that help? or no...

> we can look to God as an ideal, since he has good characteristics.

Thank you. Correct. That's what I'm trying to say.

> However, we can also look to humans as an ideal.

Not in the same way. Humans are good, but we're all flawed. If we close enough, our goodness has loopholes and points where the definition caves in. We have nobility, but also cruelty. We have outstanding examples of good human beings who love, sacrifice, and care, and yet on close examination, every one of those will be found to fall short in some way or another. I mean, I'm a good guy, but sure on occasion I lose my temper or do something I shouldn't have done, and so I don't really qualify as the paragon of goodness, despite being good.

I’m going to cut out some of the filler from one paragraph in your last comment to highlight my confusion:

> There is no standard of "goodness" outside of God... God is not the standard of goodness... God is the standard of goodness... every term we use to define goodness is found in Him.

Obviously I’m removing the nuance from your comments, but I hope it illustrates why I’m having difficulty understanding you. On one hand you indicate God is the standard and then on the other hand he isn’t.

I think what you’re trying to tell me is that we can look to God as an ideal, since he has good characteristics. However, we can also look to humans as an ideal. We can love, sacrifice, care, just as well as God. So, can’t human nature be the standard, just as easily as God?

> It’s definitely a nuanced distinction.

Yeah, it is. it's our characteristics that were the source of the taxonomic system, and it's the characteristics of what the paleontologists find that motivate them to create new "species." What it is is what makes the category, which in term defines further discoveries in the same vein that helps define the species. It's much more circular than not.

> However, your particular existence doesn’t dictate the definition.

Correct. Not mine in particular, but all of us together as a human race did and do. And when something is distinct enough, scientists recognize a new category.

A horse was born back in the late 18th century that had such distinct characteristics that they named it a new breed: the Morgan horse. Now, of course, the breed defines the characteristics, but it started out with the characteristics defining the breed.

> I think you’re overlooking the distinction I was trying to show.

Sorry. I didn't mean to do that. Let me try again.

> Is God good because he is meeting a certain standard, that is outside of himself, or is he good, because he is the standard of goodness?

There is no standard of "goodness" outside of God, like a separate entity against which God measures himself or we measure God. But God is not the standard of goodness because He says so or because we assume everything He does is good. God is the standard of goodness because we can observe that every term we use to define goodness is found in Him. He meets the ideal.

Now, etymologically how this all came about I couldn't tell you. But I'll venture a strong guess that it didn't begin with someone musing, "Let's call this 'good' because that's what God is." Instead, I'd gamble that we observe humanity and symbolize what we perceive as goodness with that term, and then also in the Bible God is identified and characterized by that same term as well.

I also believe in special revelation, meaning that God actually talks to some people (never to me, but to others at times, yeah). In believing that, I would agree with the idea that God used our linguistic term "good" to describe Himself.

> So just possibly homo sapiens is not only defining ourselves by those attributes but also using those attributes to define what a homo sapien is. Just thinking out loud. So maybe I am defined as a homo sapien, but a homo sapien is also defined by "me."

It’s definitely a nuanced distinction. In some sense, yes, you as part of a population help make up the definition of Homo Sapien. However, your particular existence doesn’t dictate the definition.

> It's both. We have a concept of "good" that we have used as how we define the word because such characteristics and behavior exemplify what we mean by the use of that word (ah, the abstract symbolism of language). But how do we know God is good? In two ways: He has told us He is good, but then we also get to observe how He acts in the world to confirm or negate His self-revelation. He meets the external criteria x, y, and z.

I don’t think it’s both. I think you’re overlooking the distinction I was trying to show. I agree that God tells us he is good. Is God good because he is meeting a certain standard, that is outside of himself, or is he good, because he is the standard of goodness?

jimwalton wrote:>So may I am defined as a homo sapien, but a homo sapien is also defined by "me."

This to me hits the main point. We use the words good, righteous, just, etc. to define God, but he already was those things. We just needed language to properly express those characteristics.

I suppose the question is - did God present Himself as these classifications first or was it man who said it or provoked it? Even early in the bible when Moses saw God at the burning bush, God first classifies Himself by relating it back to Moses' ancestors (I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). And when Moses asks him who He was so he could say it to the Israelites, God simply stats "I AM". He didn't go into His attributes to list them, he let Moses realize he was those things by way of connecting it back to his heritage and human experience.

> I am defined as a Homo Sapien, but a Homo Sapien isn’t defined by me in and of myself. There are certain criteria required to be classified as a Homo Sapien and I happen to meet those criteria, so I define one of my attributes as a Homo Sapien.

I'm not so sure. There are other "homo" species: erectus, habilis, etc. But we take *our* characteristics and say this is what defines sapiens.

I once asked a group of scientists how our taxonomic classifications of the species came about. The answer was that scientists noticed similar and mutual attributes and created taxonomic categories to fit those criteria. So just possibly homo sapiens is not only defining ourselves by those attributes but also using those attributes to define what a homo sapien is. Just thinking out loud. So may I am defined as a homo sapien, but a homo sapien is also defined by "me."

> The definition of good is outside of myself.

Yes, and this is an intriguing conundrum of the possibility that there is an objective good by which we define the term and concept.

> Here’s the problem when it come to God. God is good. How do we know God is good? Is it because he meets the external criteria x, y and z, or is it because he himself defines goodness?

It's both. We have a concept of "good" that we have used as how we define the word because such characteristics and behavior exemplify what we mean by the use of that word (ah, the abstract symbolism of language). But how do we know God is good? In two ways: He has told us He is good, but then we also get to observe how He acts in the world to confirm or negate His self-revelation. He meets the external criteria x, y, and z.

> If I were defining myself, I'd start with homo sapien, male, Caucasian, right? And then I would transpose to attributes: height, weight, hair color, eye color, general appearance. And then I would add characteristics: awfully nice guy , educated, funny-looking, good sense of humor, etc.

I would agree that we define things by their attributes. However, those attributes aren’t defined by the thing they’re trying to describe. I am defined as a Homo Sapien, but a Homo Sapien isn’t defined by me in and of myself. There are certain criteria required to be classified as a Homo Sapien and I happen to meet those criteria, so I define one of my attributes as a Homo Sapien.

Going further, I’m a good person. Being good is defined by x, y and z. I meet those criteria, so I can classify myself as good. The definition of good is outside of myself. Here’s the problem when it come to God. God is good. How do we know God is good? Is it because he meets the external criteria x, y and z, or is it because he himself defines goodness? If you agree with the former, then I would say there’s no tautology, but if you say the latter, that seems like a tautology to me.

> Now, I don't necessarily think that we solely define concepts such as righteousness, goodness, and perfect by God. In our definition of God, He obtains the highest ideal of these concepts, but isn't the source of them, by my way of thinking.

If that is how you understand those concepts, then I’d agree, your version of God is not tautological. If there are standards and definitions outside of God and we describe God using those standards and definitions, that solves the tautological issues, but may bring up other issues. That’s another discussion, however...

I don't see God as a tautology. Just like any other personal being, we define Him by terminology plus attributes. If I were defining myself, I'd start with homo sapien, male, Caucasian, right? And then I would transpose to attributes: height, weight, hair color, eye color, general appearance. And then I would add characteristics: awfully nice guy , educated, funny-looking, good sense of humor, etc.

I don't see that way of defining/describing myself as tautological. We define and describe God the same way. Richard Swinburne puts it like this: "God is a non-embodied personal spirit who exists as omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, and necessarily so. He cannot not be these attributes. His essence is an eternal essence. He is self-existent and the personal ground of being. He has reason, intentions, and free will (perfectly free). He is perfectly moral and good (His moral judgments have truth value). He is completely rational (he is subject to no non-rational influences); He always has a just, moral, and rational reason for His actions). He has capacities that are as great as they logically can be. He is the terminus of complete explanation. No greater being can be conceived."

Now, I don't necessarily think that we solely define concepts such as righteousness, goodness, and perfect by God. In our definition of God, He obtains the highest ideal of these concepts, but isn't the source of them, by my way of thinking.

What do you think?

A lot of the things used to define God, seem to be defined by God. Righteousness, goodness, perfection, logical, eternal, all-powerful, etc. This also seems to be taught in the Bible when God refers to himself as the I Am.