• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Euthyphro dilemma anyone?

I dont think we have any idea what God would or wouldn't find moral. Or if God would find anything moral at all. Morality is defined by humans based on human needs.

Values.
 
Please don't ask Logicman stuff, he's only gonna respond to links, and he doens't read them, and he cites scriptures that he hasn't read ...

Anyway.

WHen it comes to Euthyphro's dilemma.

God is held by his own morality which is inherent to himself ....

It isn't arbitrary, anymore than it's arbitrary that a mother loves her child even though she can't really help it.

So for example could God command murder and it be good? Not arbitrarily, he God commands someone to be killed it has to be consistant With his internal morality, so christians that say "God can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants" are simply wrong theologically ... God Cannot lie, for example.

God does not make morals arbitrarily nor is he the messanger for a seperate standard, he upholds the morality which is inherent in him ...

A mother who loves her child, expresses that love, but that love is part of her, she doesn't choose to arbitrarily, but nor is she forced by some outside force ... it's part of who she is.

:roll: The tried-and-true "nature" argument doesn't solve the dilemma. It just slightly alters the wording of the question: Is God's nature the way it is because it is good? Or is God's nature good simply because it is God's nature?

Sorry, but the Euthrypho dilemma is inescapable. Either morality is determined arbitrarily by God (or by God's nature, if you prefer) or morality is determined independently of God. That has always been the implication of the dilemma: arbitrary or external.
 

I don't believe that morals are based on religious values but rather the concept of fairness and equality. And the idea of fairness is derived from the rational and fundamental ethics of a civilized society. Back in the day, when ancient humans were forming civilizations, the ultimate arbitrator and moral authority was a designated deity or god(s). But in all honesty, I don't think that humans accepted morals as handed down by some prophet or religious figure as the system for right and wrong actions, without giving it some intellectual consideration. It was probably decided upon as, what was good for the whole of the community.

For example our current legal system is based mostly on equitable treatment. To have a society that progresses peacefully for the sake of harmony, you need certain idealistic elements in place to govern, with some of the most important being freedom, justice and equality. Morality that falls outside of the scope of the laws which govern us are highly subjective and open to individual interpretation.
 
:roll: The tried-and-true "nature" argument doesn't solve the dilemma. It just slightly alters the wording of the question: Is God's nature the way it is because it is good? Or is God's nature good simply because it is God's nature?

Sorry, but the Euthrypho dilemma is inescapable. Either morality is determined arbitrarily by God (or by God's nature, if you prefer) or morality is determined independently of God. That has always been the implication of the dilemma: arbitrary or external.

The question is nonsense, because it's seperating "Gods nature" from "Goodness" .... it's like asking is the nature of a basketball bouncy because it's bouncy? Or is the ball bouncy because it's the nature of a basketball?

It's a nonsensicle quesetion. There is no "reason" that God's nature is good, because goodness doesn't exist outside God's nature ....

You're talking about God using as terry eagleton Calls it the "bigfoot" theory of God, or the pagan concept of god, i.e. he's just another creature, or being inside the world. That isn't the abrahamic view, the abrahamic view is God isn't a "being" he's the ground of all being.
 
The question is nonsense, because it's seperating "Gods nature" from "Goodness" .... it's like asking is the nature of a basketball bouncy because it's bouncy? Or is the ball bouncy because it's the nature of a basketball?

It's a nonsensicle quesetion. There is no "reason" that God's nature is good, because goodness doesn't exist outside God's nature ....

You're talking about God using as terry eagleton Calls it the "bigfoot" theory of God, or the pagan concept of god, i.e. he's just another creature, or being inside the world. That isn't the abrahamic view, the abrahamic view is God isn't a "being" he's the ground of all being.

It is not nonsense. You're simply ignoring the meaning of the language being used. "Creator of the universe" and "good" are different concepts. By Liebnez's law. Don't tell me that you don't understand the difference between those concepts. Yes you do. Asking whether the "creator of the universe" is good or evil is a meaningful question. It is not nonsense. There is nothing logically incoherent about the "creator of the universe" being evil.

What you're attempting to do is to define the string of letters G-O-D to mean something other what it's usually taken to mean. You're attempting to define G-O-D as what most people refer to as "goodness". In which case you and I are talking about completely different things when discussing whether G-O-D exists. And you're flip flopping between the two different definitions to falsely attribute qualities onto a completely different definition of G-O-D (the creator of the universe).

I could do the same thing you're attempting to do with peanut butter. I can define peanut butter as goodness in the same way that you're defining God as goodness. And then I could attempt to claim - in exactly the way you are attempting to claim - that peanut butter is the source of morality. And I will shut down any attempt to consider peanut butter without goodness by claiming exactly as you're claiming - that it's nonsensical to talk of peanut butter without goodness. Because peanut butter is goodness. :roll:

But that is utterly false. Peanut butter and goodness are not the same concept. God and goodness are not the same concept. God may said to be good or to possess goodness. But claiming that they are identical is to misunderstand the meaning of the words you are using.
 
Just because a limited intelligence cannot get its mind around a question, paradox or dilemma does not mean that a great intelligence would not be able to. That is a special case of the general impossibility of disproving Gods or creation. Why, we cannot even understand the universe, as far as we know.

Just because one has faith, doesnt mean that their opinion is correct. The truth of the matter is that they cannot answer the question so they invoke a god and hide behind it.
 
Just because one has faith, doesnt mean that their opinion is correct. The truth of the matter is that they cannot answer the question so they invoke a god and hide behind it.

Invoking the opposite is as silly. We cannot tell, which position on these things is correct. We just do not have the knowledge. And if a God whispered in someones ear? What should I say? That the God was silly to do so?
 
Invoking the opposite is as silly. We cannot tell, which position on these things is correct. We just do not have the knowledge.
If the nonbeliever does not have the ability to know something then the believer has the same inability to know what they believe in.

And if a God whispered in someones ear? What should I say? That the God was silly to do so?
And "if" doesnt exist. I could ask you: And if I were your god? What would you say? That it is silly that I am your god?
There isnt anyway that you could know that I am not your god. Logic is universal and must be applied universally. I am a god because I believe myself to be a god. It doesnt matter that I cannot do things that it is believed that a god can do. All I need to claim is that I work in mysterious ways. And it would be impossible for someone of your intellect to disprove my godliness. I am just using this vessel to speak with you. Have faith my child.

IF indeed.
 
1. It is not nonsense. You're simply ignoring the meaning of the language being used. "Creator of the universe" and "good" are different concepts. By Liebnez's law. Don't tell me that you don't understand the difference between those concepts. Yes you do. Asking whether the "creator of the universe" is good or evil is a meaningful question. It is not nonsense. There is nothing logically incoherent about the "creator of the universe" being evil.

2. What you're attempting to do is to define the string of letters G-O-D to mean something other what it's usually taken to mean. You're attempting to define G-O-D as what most people refer to as "goodness". In which case you and I are talking about completely different things when discussing whether G-O-D exists. And you're flip flopping between the two different definitions to falsely attribute qualities onto a completely different definition of G-O-D (the creator of the universe).

3. I could do the same thing you're attempting to do with peanut butter. I can define peanut butter as goodness in the same way that you're defining God as goodness. And then I could attempt to claim - in exactly the way you are attempting to claim - that peanut butter is the source of morality. And I will shut down any attempt to consider peanut butter without goodness by claiming exactly as you're claiming - that it's nonsensical to talk of peanut butter without goodness. Because peanut butter is goodness. :roll:

5. But that is utterly false. Peanut butter and goodness are not the same concept. God and goodness are not the same concept. God may said to be good or to possess goodness. But claiming that they are identical is to misunderstand the meaning of the words you are using.

1. Of coarse, but Creator of the Universe is not the only neccessary definining aspect of God, had God been the creator of the Universe, but not Good, and InFact not Good in his very nature, then he wouldn't be a God one must worship. Of coarse you can ask why he is good or evil, but the answer is that he is the ground of moral goodness.

Of coarse there is nothing logically incoherent about the creator of the universe being evil, but that's ONLY if you have some other higher standard of Good and evil, which I suppose would have to exist apart from creation.

2. Well, not really, I mean this is not a New Idea, it was in christianity from the begining, God IS Love, he doesn't have love, he's the Source of all love, he's also the creator of all Things .... I mean I'm in my very nature a human, I'm also in my very nature male, those 2 being my very nature are not at all inconsistant.

3. No you can't, because there is nothing in peanut butter that has anything to do With moral Worth, nor is there anything you could posit on peanut butter that would make it so.

5. Creation and God are not the exact same concept also ... So of coarse not everything you say about the Word creation you can say about God, the same With goodness, that doesn't mean that God isn't the creator of everything, and the ground of all goodness ... the difference is all moral Worth Depends on God's being and nature, and we can participate in it or not, that doesn't mean taht goodness exhausts God's nature.
 
1. Of coarse, but Creator of the Universe is not the only neccessary definining aspect of God, had God been the creator of the Universe, but not Good, and InFact not Good in his very nature, then he wouldn't be a God one must worship. Of coarse you can ask why he is good or evil, but the answer is that he is the ground of moral goodness.

Of coarse there is nothing logically incoherent about the creator of the universe being evil, but that's ONLY if you have some other higher standard of Good and evil, which I suppose would have to exist apart from creation.

2. Well, not really, I mean this is not a New Idea, it was in christianity from the begining, God IS Love, he doesn't have love, he's the Source of all love, he's also the creator of all Things .... I mean I'm in my very nature a human, I'm also in my very nature male, those 2 being my very nature are not at all inconsistant.

3. No you can't, because there is nothing in peanut butter that has anything to do With moral Worth, nor is there anything you could posit on peanut butter that would make it so.

5. Creation and God are not the exact same concept also ... So of coarse not everything you say about the Word creation you can say about God, the same With goodness, that doesn't mean that God isn't the creator of everything, and the ground of all goodness ... the difference is all moral Worth Depends on God's being and nature, and we can participate in it or not, that doesn't mean taht goodness exhausts God's nature.

Course, for Christ's sake!
 
1. Of coarse, but Creator of the Universe is not the only neccessary definining aspect of God, had God been the creator of the Universe, but not Good, and InFact not Good in his very nature, then he wouldn't be a God one must worship. Of coarse you can ask why he is good or evil, but the answer is that he is the ground of moral goodness.

Of coarse there is nothing logically incoherent about the creator of the universe being evil, but that's ONLY if you have some other higher standard of Good and evil, which I suppose would have to exist apart from creation.

Not so. Incoherence is never dependent on states of the world. It depends simply on the ways in which you are relating concepts. That's what coherence/incoherence means. This is why we are able to consider things like unicorns. They do not exist...but the notion of a unicorn is not incoherent. "There is a unicorn" may be factually wrong. But not logically incoherent.

Likewise, the coherence of the question I posed does not depend on there being "some other higher standard of good"; it does even depend on whether there is actually good in the world at all. Even if the nihilist is correct - that neither God nor goodness exist - our discussion is still logically coherent and understandable, even to a nihilist. So you cannot reject consideration of the discussion on grounds that it is "nonsensical". We can indeed make sense of it.

2. Well, not really, I mean this is not a New Idea, it was in christianity from the begining, God IS Love, he doesn't have love, he's the Source of all love, he's also the creator of all Things .... I mean I'm in my very nature a human, I'm also in my very nature male, those 2 being my very nature are not at all inconsistant.

But these claims - that God is love, Gacky is male, or that peanut butter is brown - are claims about states of the world. They are not logical truths, they do not necessarily need to be as they are. The state of the world could be different. Peanut butter is brown. But the notion of red peanut butter is not incoherent. It just doesn't correspond to the state of the world as it is - where peanut butter is brown. Same is true for Gacky being male. I can understand what it means for Gacky to to be female instead. Or for Gacky to not be human at all. I can imagine a wizard turning Gacky into a toad or a blob of talking, sentient red peanut butter. Such ideas are zany, because they don't correspond to the world we live in. But it is not incoherence, we can understand quite well what is meant by such notions, goofy as they may be. Whereas a claim that is truly incoherent can never be understood (for example, one can't consider goodness absent goodness. We cannot "separate" a thing from itself. Such a suggestion has no meaning to us, it's logically incoherent. Contrast that with God and goodness. We can separate those concepts. We do understand what is meant by the suggestion of God being evil).

So you saying "God is love" is not any kind of argument against considerations of love without God or God being evil etc. It's simply you asserting an assumption about the state of the world and refusing to examine whether that assumption might be wrong and the state of the world different. And you're trying to mask that refusal by saying "it's nonsensical to talk of such things". But that's just not so.

3. No you can't, because there is nothing in peanut butter that has anything to do With moral Worth, nor is there anything you could posit on peanut butter that would make it so.

Yes I can. Look.

Peanut butter is love. Peanut butter is the "ground" of all morality. You're just not considering the "Abrahamic" view of peanut butter.

See? :mrgreen:

Or do you mean to say that such a claim would be completely unjustified and/or false? Because I would absolutely agree with that criticism, and I would level the same exact criticism against your claims that God is love and the ground of all morality.

5. Creation and God are not the exact same concept also ... So of coarse not everything you say about the Word creation you can say about God, the same With goodness, that doesn't mean that God isn't the creator of everything, and the ground of all goodness ... the difference is all moral Worth Depends on God's being and nature, and we can participate in it or not, that doesn't mean taht goodness exhausts God's nature.

Well yeah, that wasn't intended as an exhaustive definition of God. It was pointing out that, despite your insistence that "God is good", "God" and "good" have different meanings. And, that, therefore, your claim that it being nonsensical to talk of them as different, as they are, fails.
 
Last edited:
Not so. Incoherence is never dependent on states of the world. It depends simply on the ways in which you are relating concepts. That's what coherence/incoherence means. This is why we are able to consider things like unicorns. They do not exist...but the notion of a unicorn is not incoherent. "There is a unicorn" may be factually wrong. But not logically incoherent.

Likewise, the coherence of the question I posed does not depend on there being "some other higher standard of good"; it does even depend on whether there is actually good in the world at all. Even if the nihilist is correct - that neither God nor goodness exist - our discussion is still logically coherent and understandable, even to a nihilist. So you cannot reject consideration of the discussion on grounds that it is "nonsensical". We can indeed make sense of it.

Positing an "evil" God neccesitates positing a standard of good and evil, without that an "evil God" is logically incoherant .... like the sentance "there are is no objective standard of good and evil and god is evil" that's a logically incoherant sentance.

But these claims - that God is love, Gacky is male, or that peanut butter is brown - are claims about states of the world. They are not logical truths, they do not necessarily need to be as they are. The state of the world could be different. Peanut butter is brown. But the notion of red peanut butter is not incoherent. It just doesn't correspond to the state of the world as it is - where peanut butter is brown. Same is true for Gacky being male. I can understand what it means for Gacky to to be female instead. Or for Gacky to not be human at all. I can imagine a wizard turning Gacky into a toad or a blob of talking, sentient red peanut butter. Such ideas are zany, because they don't correspond to the world we live in. But it is not incoherence, we can understand quite well what is meant by such notions, goofy as they may be. Whereas a claim that is truly incoherent can never be understood (for example, one can't consider goodness absent goodness. We cannot "separate" a thing from itself. Such a suggestion has no meaning to us, it's logically incoherent. Contrast that with God and goodness. We can separate those concepts. We do understand what is meant by the suggestion of God being evil).

So you saying "God is love" is not any kind of argument against considerations of love without God or God being evil etc. It's simply you asserting an assumption about the state of the world and refusing to examine whether that assumption might be wrong and the state of the world different. And you're trying to mask that refusal by saying "it's nonsensical to talk of such things". But that's just not so.

There IS an incoherancy of saying "I found some peanutbutter and it's made of steel and used to cut Things" .... peanutbutter HAS a meaning, what you're taking about in that sentance is a knife.

So I can say "when I mean peanutbutter I mean something made of steel and used to cut Things" then you've redifined peanutbutter.

When I talk about God, I'm talking the classical Judaic concept of God.

Yes I can. Look.

Peanut butter is love. Peanut butter is the "ground" of all morality. You're just not considering the "Abrahamic" view of peanut butter.

See? :mrgreen:

Or do you mean to say that such a claim would be completely unjustified and/or false? Because I would absolutely agree with that criticism, and I would level the same exact criticism against your claims that God is love and the ground of all morality.

Incoherant .... because love existed BEFORE peanutbutter, and there is NOTHING intrinsic in peanutbutter that could possibly make it a candidate for a ground of morality ....

The point is not that the concept is FALSE, it's that it's devoid of any meaning, it's literally nonsense, no sense can be made of it.

Well yeah, that wasn't intended as an exhaustive definition of God. It was pointing out that, despite your insistence that "God is good", "God" and "good" have different meanings. And, that, therefore, your claim that it being nonsensical to talk of them as different, as they are, fails.

I'm positing them as one in the same, so for example why couldn't "goodness" be something inherent to God?

Just like my consciousness and me may have do different meanings, but they can be argued to be one in the same.
 
Back
Top Bottom