1. God makes choices.
2. God makes the right choices.
3. God doesn't just make up what right is.
4. There is good reason to obey God.


1. God makes choices!
Benevolence is volitional.
God is benevolent.
Therefore God is volitional.

Love is a choice.
God is loving.
So God makes choices.

2. God makes the right choices!
Perfect benevolence fulfills moral obligation.
God is perfectly benevolent.
Therefore God fulfills moral obligation.

Being loving fulfills the law.
God is loving.
So God fulfills the law.

3. God doesn't just make up what right is!
The fundamental reason benevolence is obligatory is the intrinsic value of the benefit willed.
God's volitions are distinct from the intrinsic value of benefit.
Therefore God's volitions are not the fundamental reason benevolence is obligatory.

The main reason we should will good is because good is good.
God's will and the obvious fact that good is good are two different things.
So God's will is not the main reason why we should will good.

4. There is a good reason to obey God!
God legislates and exemplifies benevolence.
Benevolence is obligatory.
Therefore we are obligated to follow God's instruction.

God teaches us to will good.
Willing good is good.
So it is good to obey what God teaches us.

Interesting post. What is your purpose? What would be the end result of such reasoning?

A few thoughts I had after reading this are:

-Inductive syllogisms are not good foundations for good logic, let alone truth.
-Some of the premises built upon here are presuppositions that assume some degree of truth that finds source outside of God.

-This sounds like it was born more in a philosophy lecture than off of God's word.

_________________
Paul

These just seem off to me, as if God is somehow bound by universal laws of benevolence. Like in point 3, you distinguish benevolence as having intrinsic value in and of itself, then go on to say the main reason we should be good is for good itself NOT because God's will is good. To me this sounds like a wedge being diven between the need for God as the basics of ethics and morals, which is why I said it sounds as though it was born in a philosophy class. By that I meant this sounds like something an agnostic professor would teach in a philosophy class at a public university as proof that we don't need God to have morals as a society. I would disagree with this. God is the reason good is good. There is no good apart from Him. This whole thing seems to exalt goodness, and because God and His will and commands happen to line up with goodness, we should follow and obey Him. The end of what you're saying I agree with just not the reasoning.

Anyhoo, not trying to get into a debate with you. God bless.

_________________
Paul

I appreciate your input Giggles. I anticipated that point # three might seem off to some people. I don't take it as you starting a debate with me. I would like to understand how I can get my point across without giving the impression that I'm an agnostic philosophy professor.

First, here is something that may help you understand what I believe.

God has always had moral law in his intelligence. God has always known that love is right. God has always known what is right and has always been willing to do what is right.