RE: "Were God to exist, and if everything that exists were to be His creation...."
That's two "if's" too many --
And yet, that is the landscape the Christian lives in.
He's right. If you want truly "objective" good. Good which is REALLY good and not because it's what we like, prefer, or want, then it has to come from a source independent of man. Without God, it's what you might call "good by committee."
I think one of the burdens of atheism is to make the best of a situation where there is no real objective good.
We can kind of objective-ize it through legislative or quasi-legislative means, but there is no external and independent and eternal Good to refer to.
It's like Sartre, an atheist, said:
The existentialist... thinks it very distressing that God does not exist, because all possibility of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with Him; there can no longer be an a priori Good, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. Nowhere is it written that the Good exists, that we must be honest, that we must not lie; because the fact is we are on a plane where there are only men.
But there you go, implying that there is something objective by which one can judge God. Where does THAT come from? From human whims, desires, fears, preferences. Is Good by Human Fiat all that better than Because God Says So? And by "better" I mean "more justified."
Is this an intellectual exercise or are you trying to deconvert others? My intellectual answer is that "good" is a public myth; i.e. it is a meaningless construct.
"Good" is meaningless? Hardly.
When you choose the apple fritter over the glazed donut, it's because in your judgment the one is better than the other.
Whenever someone chooses to give up a kidney to save another person, they are making a judgment based on some sort of concept of The Good.
I don't get what's so "intellectual" about your rather flip statement that the good is a public myth.
It looks like I do need to explain. The term "good" as used here is contextually defined to be referring to "good" in a moral sense, not in some subjective perception of taste, smell, appearance or something like that. Taste for foods such as "glazed donuts" is irrelevant. Given that morality is a public myth, that necessarily makes any moral concept of "good" just part of that public myth.
Morality as a public myth has been discussed in other threads, but I can post on that again if you're interested. Basically, it came out of the discussion "Atheists cannot be moral" in which I concluded that "morality" was a fallacious and fictitious construct.
Well, my own view is that "morality" attaches to a prescriptive system and all one has to do is decide if one is following the prescribed behavior (The Ten Commandments, The Golden Rule). Ethics involves actually thinking about what the best thing to do is for oneself, and to the extent one is altruistic, for others. Weighing everything, and then making a choice. So we may largely agree.
I've no doubt, that with that assurance, Kir will sleep much better tonight.