Could you state the conundrum another way by simply asking is there any basis for morality outside of God’s law or “What is ‘good’?”

When one looks at the ten commandments nothing is found there that could or would harm another person in any way. Therefore it is easy to conclude that God’s laws are just and moral because he is a just and righteous God.

This view is a perfectly good and correct one, but it undermines the apologetic case that Roger Morris was initially making. He suggests that believers in the supernatural have a special advantage: that they can ground their morality objectively. The problem with his view is that, if we take your approach and find God’s law just and moral because we can evaluate that law and find that there is nothing in it that can harm another person in any way, then we are implicitly acknowledging the existence of a moral standard against which God’s commandments can be evluated. “That we must not harm people” must already be known to be “good” before we can say that by this standard, God’s law is moral and just! If we know, objectively and universally, that it is wrong to harm people – such that we can say of God’s command that it is moral and just because it does not require anyone to be harmed – then that must be true no matter whether God exists or not.

All this said, I have to point out that I’m not sure either program works. As desirable as it is to find some universal, objective, moral law – it may be impossible to justify it philosophically no matter whether or not one is a theist. It may be necessary to ground moral philosophy in something less universal and objective, but more down to earth and real.

But, the key issue is the claim that the theist is better positioned to contrive an objective and universal morality than the atheist. In order for the theist program to work, there must exist a standard independent of theism that works. If that standard exists, then the atheist can ground morality universally and objectively upon it just as well as the theist can. If it does not exist, then the theist’s hopes of grounding morality universally and objectively are also dashed.

When we look at the commandments, we know that God is righteous.

When asked about this,Christ explains it this way in Matthew 22:

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

When one looks at the ten commandments nothing is found there that could or would harm another person in any way. Therefore it is easy to conclude that God’s laws are just and moral because he is a just and righteous God. He doesn’t stop there, however, because He knows that we are dust and that we not just and righteous, God also made a way for us to meet every standard that He has set.

God looked at His creation and found it good before it was defiled by sin. Because of the defilement, a new creation was necessary.

Finish, then, thy new creation;
pure and spotless let us be.
Let us see thy great salvation
perfectly restored in thee;
changed from glory into glory,
till in heaven we take our place,
till we cast our crowns before thee,
lost in wonder, love, and praise.
Charles Wesley, 1707-1788

Genesis 15:2 But Abram said, “Lord God, what will You give me, seeing I go childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” 3 Then Abram said, “Look, You have given me no offspring; indeed one born in my house is my heir!” 4 And behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying, “This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body shall be your heir.” 5 Then He brought him outside and said, “Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them.” And He said to him, “So shall your descendants be.” 6 And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.

It wasn’t as you say “Abraham was willing to murder” his son that God accounted to him as righteousness. The Bible says that “Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him as righteousness.” The reference was not to this one incident, but rather a lifestyle of faith.

Abraham knew that Isaac was to have descendants. The passage takes on a new perspective when you consider this.

If one is looking for a reason to accuse God, I can see how this incident might be used; however, when looking at the overall picture and what actually happened, one will find that God is preparing mankind for redemption.

Believing God being counting as righteousness, is, because of mankind’s bent to sin and depravity, very good news. If we had to make it to heaven on our own righteousness, no one would be there.

Abraham’s reaction to the event was to worship God. Abraham not only believed God, by this time, he knew God.

My opinion of a good “starting position” (since you bring it up) is that it does not begin with any kind of statement of knowledge about God or any other notional entity. It begins with a recognition of observation, and attempts to understand those observations better in ways that can be confirmed by further observation. That’s a pretty simple epistemological statement, but it’s a suitable summary for a comment on a blog.

I can’t answer a question about an a priori assumption of the non-existence of God, because I do not have such a thing.

That’s quite a big presupposition to bring into a philosophical discussion! The more intellectually honest starting position would be “I don’t know either way if there is a God”.

Then you can move down either track of theism or atheism based on cumulative arguments, weight of evidence and best fit explanations.

I wonder if your a priori assumption of the non-existence of God is more like Freud’s wish fulfillment, based on an underlying desire to preserve one’s moral and ontological autonomy?

http://www.faithinterface.com.au/apologetics/the-psychology-of-atheism-prof-paul-c-vitz

According to Wikepedia, the dilemma has continued to present a problem for theists since Plato presented it and it is still an object of theological and philosophical debate.

First let me ask, “If you do not pursue a theistic resolution to moral difficulty, how do you resolve a moral difficulty or rather how would you advise society to resolve a moral difficulty?”

Are there any absolutes?

The answer is that there are absolutes and even though the Bible presents what seems like “dilemmas” to many, God’s attributes are absolute and therefore His commandments are in line with His character.

You used the story of Abraham and Isaac as an example of what appears to be a contradiction when God said to Abraham:

Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you. Genesis 22:2

I will not suggest that this is easy for any person to fully understand, however, when a person chooses to follow the Lord, he does so because he has come to understand in his heart and mind that:

Matthew 19:17 …there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

God deals with all of us collectively, but He deals with each individually.

Abraham knew that God is good. He also knew God had promised that all the nations of the earth would be blessed through his son, Isaac. Genesis 18. Remember that Isaac’s birth was miraculous due to the age of Abraham and Sarah.

Being human, Abraham must have had a heavy heart as he walked with Isaac up that mountain, however, he knew several things. He knew God and therefore he knew that God is a good God, He knew that God is able to perform miracles, and he knew that God would do one of two things. Abraham knew that God would “provide Himself a lamb” and raise Isaac up again as he later did raise up Christ or God would do just what He did in rescinding the order.

Now for your original question,”Should morality be defined by God’s commands or by his attributes?”

The answer is both. The Bible teaches that God is love and that He is righteous, holy, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. Because of these attributes, we obey his commands. How we percieve God’s commandments has absolutely nothing to do with the reality that God’s commandments are best for mankind.

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.1John 5:3

While the commandment seemed grievous, it turned out not to be grievous at all. The end result was a man who was ready to fully obey God in all things. God seeks such men to worship Him.

God’s ways are not our ways and his thoughts are not our thoughts. We cannot fully comprehend who He is and what He is doing.If mankind will accept (I should probably say that if mankind had accepted) that God is who He is and obey Him, most of our problems would be solved. As always, the sinful nature of mankind stands in the way of this happening – thus God sent his son to redeem mankind and reclaim his creation, the world.

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. 21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

What I believe changes me, but it does not change who God is.