To follow up on our discussion yesterday, let's consider yet another observation on morality, this one from the great philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell.  Many years ago, Lord Russell made this assertion:

     "The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are then in this situation:  is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not?  If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good."

     This is a mouthful.  Building on our human tendency to see the world in terms of right and wrong (however we define them), Lord Russell asks us, as did Plato, whether we believe that we define right and wrong in terms of God's dictums.  If we do, then we must ask ourselves this:  how does God know what is right and wrong?  And on what basis can we therefore say that God is good?  If God decides what is right and wrong, God becomes totally arbitrary.  What can we really know?
     Unless we assert that God is eternal and therefore the definer of all that exists, including morality, we cannot answer these questions rationally.  Apart from assuming God's aseity, we must say that good and evil and right and wrong are things independent of God and, clearly, preceded him.  To repeat, as a result, God becomes someone who simply flips a coin to decide what is right and wrong.  And we're back to square one.
     On the other hand, let us consider, again, the basis and origin of morality itself.  For this, we will turn, believe it or not, to the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.  More tomorrow.