1. Of coarse, but Creator of the Universe is not the only neccessary definining aspect of God, had God been the creator of the Universe, but not Good, and InFact not Good in his very nature, then he wouldn't be a God one must worship. Of coarse you can ask why he is good or evil, but the answer is that he is the ground of moral goodness.
Of coarse there is nothing logically incoherent about the creator of the universe being evil, but that's ONLY if you have some other higher standard of Good and evil, which I suppose would have to exist apart from creation.
Not so. Incoherence is never dependent on states of the world. It depends simply on the ways in which you are relating concepts. That's what coherence/incoherence means. This is why we are able to consider things like unicorns. They do not exist...but the notion of a unicorn is not incoherent. "There is a unicorn" may be
factually wrong. But not
logically incoherent.
Likewise, the coherence of the question I posed does not depend on there being "some other higher standard of good"; it does even depend on whether there is actually good in the world at all. Even if the nihilist is correct - that neither God nor goodness exist - our discussion is still logically coherent and understandable, even to a nihilist. So you cannot reject consideration of the discussion on grounds that it is "nonsensical". We can indeed make sense of it.
2. Well, not really, I mean this is not a New Idea, it was in christianity from the begining, God IS Love, he doesn't have love, he's the Source of all love, he's also the creator of all Things .... I mean I'm in my very nature a human, I'm also in my very nature male, those 2 being my very nature are not at all inconsistant.
But these claims - that God is love, Gacky is male, or that peanut butter is brown - are claims about
states of the world. They are not logical truths, they do not necessarily need to be as they are. The state of the world could be different. Peanut butter is brown. But the notion of red peanut butter is not incoherent. It just doesn't correspond to the state of the world as it is - where peanut butter is brown. Same is true for Gacky being male. I can understand what it means for Gacky to to be female instead. Or for Gacky to not be human at all. I can imagine a wizard turning Gacky into a toad or a blob of talking, sentient red peanut butter. Such ideas are zany, because they don't correspond to the world we live in. But it is not incoherence, we can understand quite well what is meant by such notions, goofy as they may be. Whereas a claim that is truly incoherent can never be understood (for example, one can't consider goodness absent goodness. We cannot "separate" a thing from itself. Such a suggestion has no meaning to us, it's logically incoherent. Contrast that with God and goodness. We
can separate those concepts. We
do understand what is meant by the suggestion of God being evil).
So you saying "God is love" is not any kind of argument against considerations of love without God or God being evil etc. It's simply you asserting an assumption about the state of the world and refusing to examine whether that assumption might be wrong and the state of the world different. And you're trying to mask that refusal by saying "it's nonsensical to talk of such things". But that's just not so.
3. No you can't, because there is nothing in peanut butter that has anything to do With moral Worth, nor is there anything you could posit on peanut butter that would make it so.
Yes I can. Look.
Peanut butter is love. Peanut butter is the "ground" of all morality. You're just not considering the "Abrahamic" view of peanut butter.
See? :mrgreen:
Or do you mean to say that such a claim would be completely unjustified and/or false? Because I would absolutely agree with that criticism, and I would level the same exact criticism against your claims that God is love and the ground of all morality.
5. Creation and God are not the exact same concept also ... So of coarse not everything you say about the Word creation you can say about God, the same With goodness, that doesn't mean that God isn't the creator of everything, and the ground of all goodness ... the difference is all moral Worth Depends on God's being and nature, and we can participate in it or not, that doesn't mean taht goodness exhausts God's nature.
Well yeah, that wasn't intended as an exhaustive definition of God. It was pointing out that, despite your insistence that "God is good", "God" and "good" have different meanings. And, that, therefore, your claim that it being nonsensical to talk of them as different,
as they are, fails.