Posted: Aug 24, 2013 3:36 pm
Mick wrote:lobawad wrote:Mick wrote: Craig says that our moral obligations are constituted by His commands, and that God is goodness itself. His commands are expressions of His nature, goodness itself. Thus, His commands are anchored in the very being of goodness, and they cannot be arbitrarily prescribed.
At the age of five or six, many children reckon that they can convince their mother that they have eaten their peas by scattering the peas about the plate.
Avoiding the dilemma by lumping the two horns together into one is the slickest approach, but a good hard look at the thing will reveal that this is an evasion. Why is God good?
To an attempt to continue evasion by responding with "God is Goodness itself", I will ask "Why is God Goodness itself?".
Thomists have an answer for this. I am unsure what Craig would say, as he is no Thomist. Craig reflects on the question here, by I would want more clarification. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/moral-argument-for-god
Craig's answer is an evasion of the question he was asked, and it is a non-answer to my question: why is God good? (or Goodness itself?).
I wonder whom he thinks he's fooling when he attempts to dismiss the first horn solution by writing it off as Platonism? Perhaps I'll get some time to address what Craig says in the link you gave.
I wasn't aware that Thomists have an answer to my question. Aquinas himself, to my knowledge, did not directly address the dilemma, and the interpretations I have read did not answer the question I pose. I have read a Thomist evasion or two, but that does not mean that Thomists do not have a solid answer. I'd love to hear it.