The classic atheist argument against God is that God is either good and too weak to make things better or God is powerful and not good so he doesn't care to make things better.
Ahhh..the classic "Euthyphro Dilemma": The Euthyphro Dilemma does indeed defeat Pagan Polytheism, but not Biblical Theism. The error with the Euthyphro Dilemma is indeed a failed understanding of "Goodness". But, I think your Determinist answer makes the same mistake. What I take to be your version of a "Divine Command" theory has it's own problems too.
Except that the hard determinist may argue that the atheist does not get to define good and evil since he believes in neither
Yes.
and good is whatever God wants.
This is where I think your view runs into problems. Your view robs the term "good" of all inherent meaning. "Good-ness" ceases to become a property that God possesses and it's meaning is subsequently subsumed in simply what God "wants" to happen. But this is not true. God is
recognizably "Good". The definition from the Hard Determinist merely wraps the definition of "Good-ness" into "Omnipotence" so that the two have no distinct meaning. Given your definition, than if God were cruel, capricious, deceitful, or what-have-you, than he would STILL have to be described as "GOOD". Given your definition, to say "God is good" is nothing more than to say "God is ______".
Since, in the hard determinist model, God always gets what he wants, God is both all good and all powerful.
No, he's just "All-Powerful".
Now, someone might say this makes God the author of evil- I disagree, but so what? So what if it does?
Well, the fact that God is
NOT the author of evil is the problem.
Everybody believes God is the ultimate author of everything- in other words that there was once God and nothing else and then God made everything and evil came from what God made
To the adherent of LFW then, yes, in that sense. But that is only to say that God is the "author" in the sense that God chose to create. That is only to say that God is the "author" in that: post the creative act evil occurred. But an adherent of LFW must only accept that evil was unavoidable given God's purposes. He is NOT the author in the sense that a Determinist would say. Determinism forces God to be the "author" in that God is:
1.) a "
Cause" (either proximate or immediate) or
2.) that evil was
initially conceived in his mind as
a means that he desired in order to create an end.
Human welfare, though, is NOT the measure of good.
True, at least, it is not the sum total in any way. But, I would say that a truly "Good" God would seek (by definition) human welfare to the extent possible.
and if God can get glory from willing that evil be that he may destroy it and save sinners- the evil serves an infinitely good and holy purpose.
Then "Evil" itself is also robbed of any meaningful definition because "evil" is now a critical and indispensable component of maximal "good". Your view would hold that:
1.) Good is whatever God wants
2.) God wants Evil in order to maximize his glory
3.) God's glory is the measure of "Good"
4.) Therefore "Evil" is indispensable for ultimate "Good"
The only counter argument I ever hear to this is based, not in Scripture rightly divided or logic- but emotion.
YOUR GOD IS A MONSTER, stupid mess.
As an mere existential issue it serves as no defeater....indeed. Simply crying that "Your God is a 'meany-head", is decidedly no argument. But a valid objection would be:
God's "goodness" in the Determinist model is inconsistent with the "goodness" of God as he has revealed himself in the Scriptures and in Natural Theology.
I would argue that man can KNOW the real parameters of "goodness" in at least three ways
1.) The Scriptures
2.) Natural Theology
3.) Intuition
I would argue that the Hard Determinist model that you are suggesting is NOT consistent with a right view of "goodness" as understood in these ways.
