The debate "If God exists that doesnt mean that He should" was started by
September 1, 2019, 11:36 pm.
26 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 13 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
JDAWG9693 posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
JDAWG9693, Ministerofdebate, Shrivali_16, Lind and 22 visitors agree.
HusamAli, jrardin12, Legion, Delta_Force01 and 9 visitors disagree.
But, how can you know the nature of God so matter-of-factly? If he is a trickster God, you wouldn't be able to tell.
Also, I never said that morality was objective? Maybe I misunderstood you, but I am a moral nihilist.
Additionally, i believe that existence precedes essence so i don't really believe in a y intrinsic essence or nature of anything, so God isn't intrinsically good- someone defined "good" and God happens to fit the definition (so they say; I wouldn't actually call the god of the bible good, but that's a different debate)
I'll expand on this point a bit since I sort of agree with you, but due to a different line of thinking from an epistemological standpoint.
"Even God needs secular reasons for his morality."
that depends on the nature of "Good" and God. In your claim morality is an objective claim that exists outside of God. If, God is a moral nihilist and simply states his preference in the terms "good" and "bad", then there need not be a secular reason to claim "good/bad" and furthermore, "good/bad" may not exist as objectively real claims at all. That, however, makes his commands of "good/bad" arbitrary and whimsical. Without knowing the nature of God, if he exists, his commands can't be interpreted as "true/false". Since God is a supernatural being, and we can only have knowledge of natural things, by definition we can't have knowledge of him/her/it. This means God's commandments of moral right/wrongs are to be seen as unverifiable and irrelevant.
God could also be a trickster or evil. He could be passing off moral "wrongs" and moral "right" and vice versa. Without knowing the nature of God for a fact, his/her/its statements have to be viewed as non-sequiturs by rational beings.
The is/ought fallacy is something that we can all agree on, right? So, even if we grant that God exists, that in no way means that he should exist. This applies to God's version of morality as well. Just because His morality is, doesn't necessarily mean that it should be. We would still have to prove that His morality is "good" without just saying that He said so.
Even God needs secular reasons for his morality.