There are a number of possible challenges to the argument that if the Bible accurately describes what God has commanded and done, then this god cannot possibly be morally perfect. All fail to undermine the argument.
Here is the argument again:
- God is morally perfect (premise)
- Any act that God condones, commands, or causes is morally permissible or mandated (from 1)
- Any act that God forbids is morally impermissible (from 1)
- The Bible accurately reveals many acts condoned, commanded, or caused by God
- In the Bible there are acts which God forbids but which God also condones, commands, or causes
- It is incoherent for a morally perfect being to condone, command, or cause immoral acts
- The God of the Bible is incoherent and, therefore, cannot exist.
Its possible to deny #1, but that would undermine the claim that morality is founded on religion or theism and that Gods commands must be obeyed. There are religions where gods arent regarded as morally perfect and where obeying the gods is a matter of self-interest rather than belief in a connection between those commands and morality. This, however, is not compatible with religious traditions like Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.
Denial of the moral perfection of God also entails the possibility that God commits immoral acts. That is a necessary implication of imperfection. A god that acts immorally, though, wouldnt merit worship. The whole basis for God being worthy of worship stems from the premise that God is perfect and holy. If God is not only imperfect but also immoral and unholy, then why worship it?
The strongest criticisms can be made against #4 because not all believers accept the accuracy of everything in the Bible. The rejection of this premise, however, comes at a serious cost which explains why the religious groups that insist upon the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible defend their position so vehemently.
First, once the accuracy of large segments of the Bible are rejected, it becomes difficult to defend the rest. If the accuracy of any of the Bible is questionable, then the security of religious beliefs founded upon the rest of text is undermined.
Second, the accuracy of the Bible is a principle foundation of moral and religious epistemology for Judaism and Christianity. The belief that God is accurately revealed in the Bible separates them not only from other religions but also from belief in a deistic God revealed only through nature. Indeed, Judaism and Christianity are practically unthinkable if one totally dismisses the Bible as the primary means by which God is revealed to humanity.
Some criticisms can be made against #5 by arguing that we do not correctly understand the text for example, the Bible doesnt really mean that God ordered the slaughter of large numbers of innocent people. This is a weak criticism, though, which even if effective would undermine the reliability of the Bible as an empistemological guide. After all, if such a plain meaning of the text is so deceptive, how can we trust any reading we make of it?
Some might criticize #6 by arguing that God is not bound by the moral standard required of us. Thus, while it is true that we are commanded not to rape or murder, God is not required to refrain from or order us to commit such acts. God, being the author of the moral standards, is perfectly free to disregard them whenever it seems fit. This criticism is not very strong.
First, such an argument only works if one abandons the assumption of God providing humans with unchanging, unalterable moral standards. If God can ignore or tell us to ignore those standards for any reason, then they arent absolute and unchanging, are they? Many believers insist on the existence of such absolute standards and argue that the existence of their god ensures the reliability of such standards, as opposed to the relativistic morals of humans.
Second, this criticism makes it more difficult to think of God as being morally perfect. If God is not bound by moral rules against mass slaughter and is free to commit such abominable acts, in what way can we reasonably say that God is good? To say that God is morally perfect <i>despite</i> committing immoral acts renders the concept of morally perfect incoherent.
In the end, none of these criticisms give us a good reason to think that the argument does not work. Even if we accepted the strongest of them, we would end up with a god which doesnt look very much like the traditional god of the Bible and disproving the existence of that god is point of the argument anyway.
Either way, the theists position should be abandoned.