What would you lose if Christianity were not true?
- Thread starter BigV
- Start date
Sorry, Iconoclast. I imagine I live in a different time zone to you. I was asleep.
Well, since you know what Euthyphro's dilemma is, I now have a question for you.
Does God command things to be done because He knows they are good, or are they good because He commands them?
Which one would you say it is? The first option, or the second?
Upvote
0
the iconoclast
Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Hey hey
All good. I stand by the answer i already gave and see both options as only slightly varied and pretty much the same thing.
How about this, if you believe my answer is unsatisfactory, show me how to answer or how this dilemma is such a dilemma to me as a christian.
Upvote
0
the iconoclast
Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Hello you
Wow thats sounds like you had a lot on your plate. Im glad these things have been loosed from you. Praise God
How were you set free?
Upvote
0
I have a feeling that you may not understand Euthyphro's Dilemma as well as you think.Hey hey
All good. I stand by the answer i already gave and see both options as only slightly varied and pretty much the same thing.
How about this, if you believe my answer is unsatisfactory, show me how to answer or how this dilemma is such a dilemma to me as a christian.
Did you read the article I sent you? It begins by explaining why this is a dilemma, and then goes on to offer a solution. I disagree with its solution, but think it does a good job of explaining the dilemma element.
If you haven't read the article yet - and from your comments it looks like you haven't - can I suggest you do so?
When you say that the two horns of the dilemma seem "only slightly varied" it looks like you don't understand what they are. So, to answer your question, the dilemma is basically this:
Would you say that God do good things because they are good? If so, there is some system of morality that God is referring to, something that tells Him what good and evil are. Therefore, we humans do not require God in order to be moral agents. All we need to do is understand the system of morality that He is consulting, and we too shall know how to be good.
Or would you say that God is the authority for what is good, that He Himself decides what constitutes virtuous behaviour? If so, we face a problem - because if God is the author of morality, then "goodness" means nothing more than "what God does". If God were to decide that rape, or genocide or torture were good, then they would be good, because He has said so. If this is where you think goodness comes from, then it is impossible to say that any thing is evil - because God could declare it to be good, and you would have no way of knowing. You said earlier than God has never done such a thing. Well, that is a debatable point, but one that we will have to save for another discussion. Because even if you are correct, it is irrelevant; if you believe that God is the author of morality, then He could do evil and it would be good, by definition.
So I hope you'll take a little time to think about this and understand what the dilemma is. I've tried to explain it as well as I can, but you will probably do better reading the short, simple article I posted earlier:
Ethicist Scott Rae describes the view: "A divine command theory of ethics is one in which the ultimate foundation for morality is the revealed will of God, or the commands of God found in Scripture."[4] This view is known as ethical voluntarism.
At first blush this seems correct, until we realize the liabilities. The content of morality would be arbitrary, dependent on God's whim. Though God has declared murder, theft, and debauchery wrong, it could have been otherwise had God willed it so. Any "immoral" act could suddenly become "moral" by simple fiat.
Further, it reduces God's goodness to His power. To say that God is good simply means that He is capable of enforcing His commands. As Russell put it, "For God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong."
This is the position of Islam,[5] but it is unacceptable to the Christian. Morality is not arbitrary. God is not free to call what is wrong right, and what is right wrong. The text is clear: "It is impossible for God to lie" (Hebrews 6:18). God cannot sin.
But the alternative seems no better. If the Christian asserts that morality is not arbitrary, he is caught on the second horn of the dilemma. If the standard itself is absolute such that not even God can violate it, doesn't this make the Almighty Himself beholden to a higher law? The Sovereign becomes the subordinate.
In each case, Christianity loses. Either God is not good, or He's not sovereign. That's the dilemma.
We are examining a rather deep philosophical question here: how can the Christian, believing in God, know what goodness is? Does it exist independently of God, or is it created by God?
Upvote
0
the iconoclast
Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Hey hey
I have encountered this alledged dilemma before but deem it in context to the old Greek Gods and not the Christian God - we have the Bible.
Applying this dilemma to the Christian God is like tailoring a pair of glasses for me using you. The design and correlation is going to apply to you and not for me.
What you think?
No need for concern, im familiar with Euthyphro's Dilemma.
I dont see a dilemma for us Christians, we have the Bible which tells us the nature of God and His morality. We Christians believe in the Divine in everday life.
Why or how can you disagree with the solution?
I stand by what i said and gave you an answer. I would appreciate you showing me how my answers are not deemed acceptable?
How can we know this to be the case?
If God created the system and is integral to the system how can He be removed and not required?
What happens if this system of morality has an Divine objective?
When it comes to morality there are also consequences that come with disobedience - puntive. Lets look at the Law of any given land, can the law maker or the authority be taken away and not a required? What happens when you dont follow the rules, how can you be accountable to no authority?
Here again is my answer:
This is what the Lord says:
Stand at the crossroads and look;
ask for the ancient paths,
ask where the good way is, and walk in it,
and you will find rest for your souls.
But you said, ‘We will not walk in it.’
"Does God command something because it is good?"
The Lord is righteous in all his ways
and faithful in all he does.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
So i know the nature of God as shown in scripture and accept its authority - i got a result ie the Holy Spirit.
God has decreed what is good and what is disobedience.
How can this be a difficult situation for a Christian when i consider the other so called horn?
"Or is it good because God commands it?"
God decrees what is good, it is good because God commands it. When i know the nature of God being righteous, how or why should i be conflicted?
Now tell me what you think or if you do not want to tackle my answer, give me yours so i can inspect it?
God is the authority for what is good. Please explain to me if i have gotten this wrong?
Now heres a dilemma.
The dictionary says goodness is the quality of being morally good or virtuous. Why should we change the definition to suit your argument?
Lets not think 'what if' because this is speculation and assumption. I assume you would not use such things as a core for your argument. Lets think 'is' and 'does'.
Does or did God decide that rape , genocide and torute is good? Its better to get our facts straight rather than to assume and act like there is no answer.
Is there an answer?
But he does he?
Cant you see how this method is setting something up for failure
"If this is so, then this must be so", is not sound logic. Should we not work with the facts and not extrapolate?
Can i know anything about the nature of the Christian God? Why can i not use the Bible and the Holy Spirit to guide me?
I will wait for you to debate. Im ready when you are.
Please excuse me, then this whole thing is redundant and there was no need for you to even mention it.
But would He do evil?
Your agument is 'if'. If is speculation, we need facts and info that validates it.
The logical next step would be for us to discuss the nature of God and what He does - the Greek Gods and the dilemma will be irrelevant.
How would i find out about the nature of the Christian God?
If - (introducing a conditional clause) on the condition or supposition that; in the event that.
Supposition - a belief held without proof or certain knowledge; an assumption or hypothesis.
Ill re word your phrase
"In the event that this belief held without proof or certain knowledge is that 'IF' God were to decide that rape, or genocide or torture were good, then they would be good, because He said so."
Does He say so or should we leave it as an unknown? Can you know?
And this is the end to the set up. You decide that the picture you painted is ugly and you throw it away.
You paint a picture. Decide that noone could like the picture and you throw away the picture that YOU painted.
This is also a form of subjective interpretation entering the decision making process. Should we not use facts or should we freely assume?
Well IF God were to decide that rape etc were good, i wouldnt know it was evil and would be telling you that these things are not immoral.
Please correct me but I have not done so. So this is just more subjective distraction and something which only cause you to have unsound logic and reason.
If i were to go to the shops i could have a can cherry cola. The statement says i have the potential and possibility of having one IF i decide to do so.
I understand the words you use and already gave you my answer. I now need you to participate.
All good, im ready to go.
Im going to dissect this quote:
They are both not separated. God commands, God is good hence Hid commands are good.
"It is the Lord who goes before you. He will be with you; he will not leave you or forsake you. Do not fear or be dismayed.”
"Fear not, for I am with you; be not dismayed, for I am your God; I will strengthen you, I will help you, I will uphold you with my righteous right hand."
"The LORD is good, A stronghold in the day of trouble, And He knows those who take refuge in Him."
"And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone."
"Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow."
The nature of the Christian God drives a wedge wight through the middle of these horns men seem to think is a deep problem.
The Old Greeks did not know the Christian God and when you have certain deities morphing into swans and raping ppl, i guess you would ponder such a dilemma. However this dilemma is useless when we consider the nature of God. We can know God and have an assurance.
Arbitary - based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
Whim - a sudden desire or change of mind, especially one that is unusual or unexplained.
Heb 13:8
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.
Mal
3:6
“For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.
Pslam 89:34
I will not violate my covenant
or alter the word that went forth from my lips.
An argument would have to be shown that God would reason from a random position and have no set structure. This is more 'what ifs'
A what if is not needed. A what is would be more valuable.
Are we supposed to ignore the ten commandments?
It is not otherwise and this extrapolation only creates confusion, and blurred lines.
But immoral acts don't become moral. They stay the same - correct me if im wrong. Still a what if.
I disagree. God is good, God is powerful but this is suggesting that God may not have a set morality and does not abide by His own set of principles.
This is asking a what scenerio, what if God contradicted Himself.
Lets not theorize without proof or understanding.
I disagree. Just because one can enforce something does not mean that person is incapable of love.
This quote is limited and ignores the concept of the love of God. This quote seems biased and one sided. This person is reasoning with limited scope.
Well russell may think so but the Bible say something different. Russell seems to be ignorant of certain things and has reasoned himself into confusion.
Gen 3:22
Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;
Psalm 119:16
Teach me good discernment and knowledge, For I believe in Your commandments.
Job 28:28
And to man He said, 'Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; And to depart from evil is understanding.'"
Romans 7:7
What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law;
It could be, id have to ask a few to be sure but Islam is irrelevant here as we Christians do not submit to Allah and accept Mohammed as any authority. We believe him and his message to be heretical and not from the God of Abraham.
I agree. Morality cannot be random
I wouldnt say free, He could if He wanted to obviously, but He doesnt. I would say He choices not to call what is right wrong and what is wrong right. This would be a contradiction and foolish to do so.
All righteousness comes from God and God may not like the things he has made immoral. Or has a valid reason.
Big difference.
Im "free" to strip naked and run down my street at night time. I could do so. I choose not to.
God cannot sin.
No. There are many scenarios - which may or may not be the case.
If im on a desert island and there is no one who am i beholden to?
Back in the day, who was xerxes beholden to?
Who is the president of China beholden to?
If i have all the gold, who am i beholden to?
Why cant he be good and sovereign? He knows what is good and has the power to command it?
This come down to trust. Why should i not trust the Christian God?
Scott rae and russell have not really given this much thought at all.
If this is deep than i feel sorry for any man that get stumped by it.
For thefoolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
Well goodness is the quality of doing what is deemed right and not what is deemed wrong. In the scope of God it is quite clear.
Good is obedient, sin is disobedience. They both have their rewards on consequences.
God tells me what is good. He also says to trust in Him.
He has given us the last covenant and offer of eternal life by accepting Jesus Christ as atonement for sins - disobedience.
If i follow His way i will not persih but have eternal life. I put my trust in Him and my faith in Him and got a result ie the Holy Spirit.
Thats how i know and thats how i can be assured. What you think?
I want you to show me how im wrong?
Mat 5:48
Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Luke 6:27-28
"But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
1 Peter 1:15-16
but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY."
God is the Law maker, He is the Lord of all and there is no higher.
"For the LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods."
"For the LORD is great, and greatly to be praised: he is to be feared above allgods. For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens." ...
"O give thanks unto theGod of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever."
The Law is created by God who is perfect and there is no higher.
This dilemma is pebble on my foot.
What you think?
Cheers and look forward to the depth of argument you will now present. It is time for you play ball.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I am ready to do so. But I'm not sure that you are. You say that you haven't yet read the article I posted, which is a shame, because it seems you are committing many mistakes which the article would have explained to you. Now I have to explain them instead. Do you not see that you are now making me work harder?
And yet the article I posted did clearly state that Euthyphro's Dilemma is recognised by both atheist and Christian philosophers as representing a challenge to the Christian God. If you'd read it, then you would have seen the reasons for this.
We'll get to that later. First, let's see if I can convince you that a dilemma exists, before we look at proposed solutions for it.
With pleasure. But I trust you are prepared to move your stance if the evidence warrants it.I stand by what i said and gave you an answer. I would appreciate you showing me how my answers are not deemed acceptable?
Referring to the first horn of the dilemma, it's simple logic. If God does things because they are good, then there exists some system of morality independent of God. Therefore, we do not need God to tell us what is right or wrong; we can simply consult the same system that He did. This may present problems in practice, but it's theoretically possible, and that's all we need to know in this discussion.
Because it depends on how He created it. Did he look outside Himself in order to create the system of morality, fashioning it in response to some external circumstances? If so, so can we. All you've done here is move the question of the Euthyphro Dilemma back a step, without resolving it.
I think you might mean origin here? And the answer is, it doesn't matter. Same answer as above. How did God come up with this system of right and wrong? Did He consult some outside authority (or at least respond to external circumstances) to create His system of right and wrong, or did He simple make it up Himself?
I'm afraid that's just a red herring. We are not, in this discussion, concerned with how you would enforce such a system of right and wrong, but how you would justify it.
Because, when a non-Christian asks you, "How does God know what is right and what is wrong?" what can you answer?
To me, it looks like your answer is "He just does," which is, of course, no answer at all.
I have a feeling you need to think this through a little more carefully.
So, you seem to be going for the second horn of the dilemma here. But if you say that something is good because God commands it - and please think about this - then how do you know that it is good.
Remember, you said:
"it is good because God commands it".
Therefore, if God commanded rape, or tyranny, or torture - then it would be good.
Now, it's no good you saying "God would never do something evil," because you have just said that God is incapable of doing evil. Whatever he did, any action that you would presently label as evil, would be good if He did it.
Do you see how you have created a logical paradox?
Excuse me for answering this out of place, but I felt this had to be said here.
I'm afraid I must disagree with you here. When you say that speculation and assumption is useless, I have to disagree with you. We are arguing philosophy here. You have to logically justify your arguments. What you are saying is tantamount to saying "I trust God to be good". Fine by me, and good for you, but no use at all if you are trying to present a logical argument - which I assume you are.
In everyday life, that is satisfactory, because we all agree what goodness is - or at least, we do in principle.
But in a logical discussion, such a definition is meaningless, because "goodness is the quality of being good" is a tautology.
Ask yourself: how do you know what goodness means?
If your answer is "because God tells me so," then ask yourself: how does God know what goodness means?
Is it because He consults some external authority? Then we could too.
Or is it because He proclaims something to be good, "by fiat", as Bertrand Russell put it.
If so, anything He proclaimed to be good, would be. And therefore, goodness would have no meaning, because it could mean anything.
No, this method is setting you up for failure. If God did or commanded something evil, then how could you tell? Because you've already stated that whatever God does is good. Therefore, if He did do something evil, how would you be able to tell?
It sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. But you can't. Because if God did do or command something evil, and you were able to tell that it was evil, it would mean that you had your own independent system of morality.
Whether or not God has actually done evil would be a separate discussion about Biblical ethics. Let's leave it for the moment, until we've resolved this discussion.I will wait for you to debate. I'm ready when you are.
If you say something irrelevant, it is relevant for me to point it out, so that you see your error.Please excuse me, then this whole thing is redundant and there was no need for you to even mention it.
Quite true. I agree with what you say. If God were to commit an immoral act, you would not be able to tell, as you yourself have said that whatever God does is good. Therefore, for you, there is no such thing as evil. There can't be, because there is nothing so evil that it wouldn't become good if God did it.
Quotes from the Bible saying that God would never do anything evil are irrelevant. What matters is the logical case that you yourself have constructed.
Are you telling me that if God were to proclaim a new set of commandments tomorrow, exactly the opposite of the current set, that you would object?
Please don't answer that God would never do such a thing. You have several times assured me that anything God decides to do is good. Therefore, if He should make a decision to reverse himself in every particular, it would be good for Him to do so.
According to what you have said, you are wrong. Because anything God does is good, as you have said yourself. Therefore, if God were to do something which you previously thought was wrong, it would become right.
And if God did something which He had proclaimed to be wrong, well, we would just have to assume that reversing course is a good thing to do. Because God had done it.
And if you are about to say that God would never do such a thing - well, how can you presume to judge God?
Now remember, Iconoclast, it was you who said that anything God did would be good. Since you have said that, it leads us to the inescapable conclusion that God has no principles. There is nothing God cannot do, because ehatever He did would be good.
Well, well. Let us pass on from the topic of "might makes right". That could be a distraction from the topic at hand.
But Russell was simply following what you yourself has said. If anything God does is right, then nothing is wrong. Because God could do it, and it would not be wrong. This is the second horn of the dilemma, which you have said you agree with.
Exactly. And therefore, you should be unable to say the things that you have said. The article says that, for Allah, there is no difference between right and wrong. I'm not myself claiming this to be the case, mind, just saying the article claims it to be. And yet it is this conclusion that saying "anything God does is good" leads you to.
And yet your rules say that it is.
Do bear in mind, Iconoclast, that you're trying to construct a logical argument here. As such, "this can't be right because it wouldn't make sense" just doesn't cut it. You have said that anything God does is good. Therefore, what reason could He have for not doing bad things? They would be good if He did them.
This is a ridiculous situation, of course, but it's one that your rules led us to. Hence, Dilemma.
Why not? Would something bad happen if you did?
Well, imagine you lived in a world in which nothing bad happened if you stripped naked and ran down the streets. In which it was not bad to murder, torture, steal or rape.
That's the world God lives in - according to what you have said.
God cannot sin.
Not sure I follow what you're saying here.
Perhaps, Iconoclast, some of the greatest philosophers of history have given a little more thought to this than you did?
Perhaps you should read the article I posted. I've done my best to explain it here, but there are others who can explain it better, and a little background research might help you in our discussion.
I hope that what I've written has been of use.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
holo
former Christian
This happened several years ago. To make it short, I had sort of an on-and-off relation to God, meaning I would alternate between believing I was a "proper Christian" and a feeling of total condemnation. I guess you could say I had a troublesome upbringing and a troublesome idea of who God was and what he required of me. In any case, I had an experience somewhat akin to Luther's, when it suddenly dawned on him that it's all about grace and nothing but grace. In other words, it dawned on me that salvation and ultimate security was a matter of God's grace and not how well I could perform. A very simple but also extremely powerful thing to believe. Probably the main source of my depression and anxiety ultimately stemmed from being terrified of God. And with that pain gone, life became bearable and I no longer felt that burning desire not to be sober.Hello you
Wow thats sounds like you had a lot on your plate. Im glad these things have been loosed from you. Praise God
How were you set free?
Upvote
0
the iconoclast
Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Hey hey sorry for the delay. Just came back from holidays.
Heres my present to you. Cant wait for your reply.
I did have a look at your article. Please excuse me but if you want to assume something about me, i won't stop you. It makes things more fun.
I want you to. Nothing worth doing is easy. The important parts are usually minor details but if not paid attention to, we will never see a full or pure reflection of the whole.
My dear i fear that you may not have read this article - that you supplied - adequately.
"Further, no outside definition of piety is necessary because morality is known directly through the faculty of moral intuition. God's laws express His character and--if our moral intuitions are intact--we immediately recognize those Laws as good.
This doesn't mean Christianity is true, only that it's is not handicapped by Plato's challenge to Euthyphro."
Your article agrees with me; that the traditional meaning of this dilemma is fraught against the Christian God. It applied to the nature of the greek Gods.
As shown in the article you presented.
"Christians need not fear Plato on this score. When Euthyphro's dilemma is applied to Christianity, it mischaracterizes the Biblical view of God. Goodness is neither above God nor merely willed by Him. Instead, ethics are grounded in His holy character. Moral notions are not arbitrary and given to caprice. They are fixed and absolute, grounded in God's immutable nature."
In this article, an unremarkable man - russell - has tried to make a variant of this dilemma. Not the same in nature to the traditional one.
In Plato's dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, Socrates is attempting to understand the essence of piety and holiness:
Socrates:
"And what do you say of piety, Euthyphro? Is not piety, according to your definition, loved by all the gods?"
This is the true context of the dilemma.
What say you?
So far im unconvinced and im too stuborn for the Lord. I would like you to give me your solution so i can inspect it?
Well dont be shy. Hit me with you best shot. Ill do what i choose to do.
So a what if scenario again.
You would want me imagine such a situation that if God does things because they are good, then there exists some system of morality independent of God.
I want you to defend that statement and please consider the article - which you use as an authority.
"Further, no outside definition of piety is necessary because morality is known directly through the faculty of moral intuition. God's laws express His character and--if our moral intuitions are intact--we immediately recognize those Laws as good."
So why must there exist some system of morality independent of God?
How can you prove your point and move away from assumption and speculation, to the truth?
Defend how you can make this statement and why you allow a 'what if' to taint your conclusion?
How do you prove that this system - that He consults - exists?
Because i know some laws of my land, are judges not needed?
I see, so this 'what if' relates to the theory of a subject or area of study rather than its practical application.
No my dear. We so not need to work with suppositions, we need facts to not distort our perception.
Have you considered that what if scenarios do not make sound logic.
Facts and proving them do?
So far you want me to imagine, speculate and assume about the nature of God without using Christian relatable and relevant info or knowledge.
You want me to imagine. I want you to find truth.
Another what if in the form of 'did'. This what if has an 'if so' but it has an 'if not'. What happens if it is an 'if not'?
How do we know for 100% certain that this 'what if' is an 'what is'?
Im far from convinced by what you are saying and becoming suspicious about your motives and your reasoning ability.
Have you considered that you have bad philosophy?
No i havent. Im arguing against the traditional dilemma and have given my answers.
You still seem to ignore them and are focussed on tried to convince me of 'what if' scenarios and that im so how uninformed.
Again i want stop you from assuming anything about my person. I know who i am and where im going. This dilemma is but a pebble under my foot and i where boots that work for the Lord.
No. I meant objective as in a thing aimed at or sought; a goal.
So please answer the below question.
What happens if this system of morality has a Divine objective?
Why does it not matter?
Would you like me to speculate, to guess, to have a position with no facts or proof?
I do not know and i do not care. Why is it important to you?
Why does this question effect me?
Im not talking about just enforcement - clerks, police or guards.
Im talking about consequences and who makes the judgment - judges, lawmakers.
The judges justify. They make rulings. How can the judge or law maker be removed from the equation of morality?
If i do not need God to be moral. I do not need a judge to be moral. By your logic i should only need to follow the system, then that make me the only judge of my own consequences. The same applies to you.
You are your own judge. I am my own judge. I know stealing is wrong yet i take all your possessions. What are the consequences for my actions and what can you do?
This relates to your concept. That all i need to do is consult the morality that God has. Doing so eliminates God but you seem to ignore the whole picture which will taint your logical conclusion.
You ignore the concept of judge and authority. Who is your authority if not God?
That is called an appeal to authority. I would quote scripture - like i have already done with you. You could show me how im wrong but you seem to not want to address anything i have said previously.
How should i answer a non Christian when presented with such a statement?
What do you think about my previous reply that relates to this? Think it was 2 or 3 posts ago.
I have a feeling that you assume and speculate as a basis for your philosophy. Now we both know how each of us feels aboit the other.
Does God comand rape, torture and tyranny?
Even your article says that this dilemma has no effect on Christianity.
I have a feeling that you are ignoring much and trying to convince me of something which you believe to be the case.
Does God allow evil? How can i know?
Ill throw it back to you. Why would God allow something He decreed evil to be good?
Failure to address this will seem suspect. Well im already suspect about some of the things you say.
But you still fail to see. DOES HE DO SO?
Answer the question. So far your consistency in failing to answer such questions is quite suspect. You seem to want me to imagine amd speculate.
What say you?
No, because you want me to speculate and imagine. You seem to want definitions changed to suit your arguement and you want misrepresentation to cloud my judgement.
Can you not see this?
This is called framing.
You paint a picture.
You say you this picture is a true representation - a picture you made up.
And you suggest that this is how it is and there is no other way.
You convince me that this picture is true for us both and now you and i stare at the picture instead of what was real.
This paradox was created in respect to the Greek Gods. The paradox exists only because you want it to my dear and now you want me to accept it.
Good luck.
Philosophy -
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
a theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour.
I have to disagree with you. We are arguing the nature of God - which can be known. You want me to consider speculation about a system that you believe God must consult. How can we know this for certain and what good is it to me to hold onto an assumption?
What good is it to you to speculate? Where do you want to get to?
Ill justify them with facts rather than 'what ifs' and imagination. Which seem integral to your arguments.
Are not facts more important?
What do we need to present a logical argument here?
Well lets see if we agree.
What is goodness to you?
How is this a tautology?
Please explain this to me in depth.
Tautology
- a phrase or expression in which the same thing is said twice in different words.
- a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.
I look in the dictionary for meanings of words.
the quality of being morally good or virtuous.
What you think?
Well my answer was what the dictionary declares it to be. Words have meaning and are used as labels.
Ok. I have asked myself how does God know what goodness means.
My answer. He decides what is good and what is wrong. An appeal to authority. Somewhere we all have to accept one ie trust. I trust in the lord to know what is right for me. What you think?
Lets check this out.
A mother has viewed that her 4 yro child is about to stick a knife onto a power point.
She stops him from doing so. The child doesnt know what danger he was in. Should he trust his parents in the future?
Heres my present to you. Cant wait for your reply.
I did have a look at your article. Please excuse me but if you want to assume something about me, i won't stop you. It makes things more fun.
I want you to. Nothing worth doing is easy. The important parts are usually minor details but if not paid attention to, we will never see a full or pure reflection of the whole.
My dear i fear that you may not have read this article - that you supplied - adequately.
"Further, no outside definition of piety is necessary because morality is known directly through the faculty of moral intuition. God's laws express His character and--if our moral intuitions are intact--we immediately recognize those Laws as good.
This doesn't mean Christianity is true, only that it's is not handicapped by Plato's challenge to Euthyphro."
Your article agrees with me; that the traditional meaning of this dilemma is fraught against the Christian God. It applied to the nature of the greek Gods.
As shown in the article you presented.
"Christians need not fear Plato on this score. When Euthyphro's dilemma is applied to Christianity, it mischaracterizes the Biblical view of God. Goodness is neither above God nor merely willed by Him. Instead, ethics are grounded in His holy character. Moral notions are not arbitrary and given to caprice. They are fixed and absolute, grounded in God's immutable nature."
In this article, an unremarkable man - russell - has tried to make a variant of this dilemma. Not the same in nature to the traditional one.
In Plato's dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, Socrates is attempting to understand the essence of piety and holiness:
Socrates:
"And what do you say of piety, Euthyphro? Is not piety, according to your definition, loved by all the gods?"
This is the true context of the dilemma.
What say you?
So far im unconvinced and im too stuborn for the Lord. I would like you to give me your solution so i can inspect it?
Well dont be shy. Hit me with you best shot. Ill do what i choose to do.
So a what if scenario again.
You would want me imagine such a situation that if God does things because they are good, then there exists some system of morality independent of God.
I want you to defend that statement and please consider the article - which you use as an authority.
"Further, no outside definition of piety is necessary because morality is known directly through the faculty of moral intuition. God's laws express His character and--if our moral intuitions are intact--we immediately recognize those Laws as good."
So why must there exist some system of morality independent of God?
How can you prove your point and move away from assumption and speculation, to the truth?
Defend how you can make this statement and why you allow a 'what if' to taint your conclusion?
How do you prove that this system - that He consults - exists?
Because i know some laws of my land, are judges not needed?
I see, so this 'what if' relates to the theory of a subject or area of study rather than its practical application.
No my dear. We so not need to work with suppositions, we need facts to not distort our perception.
Have you considered that what if scenarios do not make sound logic.
Facts and proving them do?
So far you want me to imagine, speculate and assume about the nature of God without using Christian relatable and relevant info or knowledge.
You want me to imagine. I want you to find truth.
Another what if in the form of 'did'. This what if has an 'if so' but it has an 'if not'. What happens if it is an 'if not'?
How do we know for 100% certain that this 'what if' is an 'what is'?
Im far from convinced by what you are saying and becoming suspicious about your motives and your reasoning ability.
Have you considered that you have bad philosophy?
No i havent. Im arguing against the traditional dilemma and have given my answers.
You still seem to ignore them and are focussed on tried to convince me of 'what if' scenarios and that im so how uninformed.
Again i want stop you from assuming anything about my person. I know who i am and where im going. This dilemma is but a pebble under my foot and i where boots that work for the Lord.
No. I meant objective as in a thing aimed at or sought; a goal.
So please answer the below question.
What happens if this system of morality has a Divine objective?
Why does it not matter?
Would you like me to speculate, to guess, to have a position with no facts or proof?
I do not know and i do not care. Why is it important to you?
Why does this question effect me?
Im not talking about just enforcement - clerks, police or guards.
Im talking about consequences and who makes the judgment - judges, lawmakers.
The judges justify. They make rulings. How can the judge or law maker be removed from the equation of morality?
If i do not need God to be moral. I do not need a judge to be moral. By your logic i should only need to follow the system, then that make me the only judge of my own consequences. The same applies to you.
You are your own judge. I am my own judge. I know stealing is wrong yet i take all your possessions. What are the consequences for my actions and what can you do?
This relates to your concept. That all i need to do is consult the morality that God has. Doing so eliminates God but you seem to ignore the whole picture which will taint your logical conclusion.
You ignore the concept of judge and authority. Who is your authority if not God?
That is called an appeal to authority. I would quote scripture - like i have already done with you. You could show me how im wrong but you seem to not want to address anything i have said previously.
How should i answer a non Christian when presented with such a statement?
What do you think about my previous reply that relates to this? Think it was 2 or 3 posts ago.
I have a feeling that you assume and speculate as a basis for your philosophy. Now we both know how each of us feels aboit the other.
Does God comand rape, torture and tyranny?
Even your article says that this dilemma has no effect on Christianity.
I have a feeling that you are ignoring much and trying to convince me of something which you believe to be the case.
Does God allow evil? How can i know?
Ill throw it back to you. Why would God allow something He decreed evil to be good?
Failure to address this will seem suspect. Well im already suspect about some of the things you say.
But you still fail to see. DOES HE DO SO?
Answer the question. So far your consistency in failing to answer such questions is quite suspect. You seem to want me to imagine amd speculate.
What say you?
No, because you want me to speculate and imagine. You seem to want definitions changed to suit your arguement and you want misrepresentation to cloud my judgement.
Can you not see this?
This is called framing.
You paint a picture.
You say you this picture is a true representation - a picture you made up.
And you suggest that this is how it is and there is no other way.
You convince me that this picture is true for us both and now you and i stare at the picture instead of what was real.
This paradox was created in respect to the Greek Gods. The paradox exists only because you want it to my dear and now you want me to accept it.
Good luck.
Philosophy -
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.
a theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour.
I have to disagree with you. We are arguing the nature of God - which can be known. You want me to consider speculation about a system that you believe God must consult. How can we know this for certain and what good is it to me to hold onto an assumption?
What good is it to you to speculate? Where do you want to get to?
Ill justify them with facts rather than 'what ifs' and imagination. Which seem integral to your arguments.
Are not facts more important?
What do we need to present a logical argument here?
Well lets see if we agree.
What is goodness to you?
How is this a tautology?
Please explain this to me in depth.
Tautology
- a phrase or expression in which the same thing is said twice in different words.
- a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.
I look in the dictionary for meanings of words.
the quality of being morally good or virtuous.
What you think?
Well my answer was what the dictionary declares it to be. Words have meaning and are used as labels.
Ok. I have asked myself how does God know what goodness means.
My answer. He decides what is good and what is wrong. An appeal to authority. Somewhere we all have to accept one ie trust. I trust in the lord to know what is right for me. What you think?
Lets check this out.
A mother has viewed that her 4 yro child is about to stick a knife onto a power point.
She stops him from doing so. The child doesnt know what danger he was in. Should he trust his parents in the future?
Upvote
0
the iconoclast
Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
If He does, how would you find out?
But God has a clear definition for what is obedience and what is sin. Goodness is consistent and God does not change.
Please correct me if im wrong?
Show me?
How so? Please show me in depth?
Because He has made a distinction and given it to us in the form of the Bible. I can know and i can see consistancy in what God does.
Again. Does God contradict Himself? Has He ever done so?
Show me?
Well how about you give me an example of something evil for me to compare?
Nah... you've just encountered a born again, spirit-filled Christian who has been tested by fire and can not be undone by bad philosophy.
No. It would mean i was given an example to follow and put my trust in God. I got the experience i was looking for using the Christian faith forumla - wanna know ask?.
I follow Gods morality and pit my trust in him. What you think?
You are aware of the Bible. Am i immoral for following Gods righteousness?
This is apart of the discussion. Either you answer it or it may look suspect.
Dont be shy. I will wait for you to debate. I'm ready when you are.
What did i say that was irrelevant?
I did not say that.
I said "Well IF God were to decide that rape etc were good, i wouldnt know it was evil and would be telling you that these things are not immoral."
Has God decreed rape to be moral or immoral?
Show me because there is a clear answer.
Very wrong. I can know. Does God allow evil to be done? Does God contradict Himself?
Until you tackle this i will suspect that you are ignoring much and are biased?
Why are quotes from the Bible aboit the nature of Gid irrelevant?
Why does the logical case i construct more relevant to the nature of God than the Word of God?
Will He do so?
But does He?
My statement was
Icon - "Just because one can enforce something does not mean that person is incapable of love.
This quote is limited and ignores the concept of the love of God. This quote seems biased and one sided. This person is reasoning with limited scope."
This was not a statement about might makes right. This is a statement of the nature God and His love.
It is not a distraction and intergal to the discussion
What say you about my statement re Gods love?
But does He?
Show me if He does, of you cant then what does that mean?
Would God do something He proclaims to be wrong and how can i know?
What do you mean here by judging God?
Well what do you know. I did.
Wait a minute.
God cannot lie. What does this mean to that statement?
Do you believe God would commit evil and contradict himself?
Logically i would expect you not to contradict yourself or do things against your principles. Why would God be any different?
Yet the article you used as authority says the dilemma is useless against Christian doctrine. In particular the nature of God in relation to love. What say you about Gods love in relation to the dilemma?
You yourself said you have a solution which means there is no dilemma. What is your solution, i gave you mine and i stick to it. So far you have not shown anything convincing.
You seem to dwell in the imaginary and assumption. What if this and what if that.
What is, is not important to you. Have you considered this?
Why shouldnt i?
I do care about what is said in islam. We Christians believe it to heretical.
Is this article is an authority to you?
How so?
Show me using scripture as am example?
No im not. You are the one trying to convince me. You are the one setting up a logical argument. Im asking questions and wanting more than 'what ifs'.
So far all im convinced of is that you are biased and unwilling to get into depth.
My dear thats your whole argument. You have not supplied any examples or references or even depth.
What ifs wont cut it either.
What reason do you have for not doing bad things?
No dilemma. Even your articles says so.
I do not know where you live but this is against the law of my land and called public indecency. If im caught i could be arrested and prosecuted. There is no blurred lines. That is what the law says.
Should i accept this law and the authority of the law of my land?
There you go again. Imagine, speculation, assumption, what ifs and extrapolation. Is that sound logic?
Bit I live in a world where these things are wrong. What good would i be for me to imagine wickedness?
Where did i say that?
If I'm on a desert island and there is no one who am i beholden to?
Back in the day, who was xerxes beholden to?
Who is the president of China beholden to?
If i have all the gold, who am i beholden to?
These are not hard to understand. Answer them to your best ability?
Possibly.
Nitschke - "God is dead"
God - "Nitchke is dead"
Years later there are over 2 billion Christians on earth.
There must be more to it then than thought. Have you considered experiences had by Christians?
What do you think about my testimony? Do you think im lying or unsound of mind?
There is nothing i can do to convince you that i have read the article. All i can do is say i have and hope you trust that i did.
I hope what i have written will get more depth from you. We have come far but have far to go.
While we are here you did not answer the below.
"If i follow His way i will not persih but have eternal life. I put my trust in Him and my faith in Him and got a result ie the Holy Spirit.
Thats how i know and thats how i can be assured. What you think?
I want you to show me how I'm wrong?"
I want more from you. I want you to give me more.
Cheers and see you soon.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Dec 27, 2007
- 1,093
- 267
- 47
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
the iconoclast
Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Hey hey
Lets ask this question of you, as you are an ex Christian.
If this life is all there is, and you followed a Christian lifestyle, what would be your loss if this life is the only existence we have?
Cheers
Upvote
0
the iconoclast
Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Hey hey @BigV.
Did u happen to see my post to you.
What did you loss as this life is the only existence you have?
Cheers
Did u happen to see my post to you.
What did you loss as this life is the only existence you have?
Cheers
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Dec 27, 2007
- 1,093
- 267
- 47
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Well, it all depends on how literally you follow the Bible (luckily for most Christians, they would just ignore the bad parts).
I'm not sure if you are aware of my background, but I was born in the USSR, in a Christian family. Some Christians have lost their lives for a belief. A waste of a life as this is the only existence we have (very likely).
There are Christian singles who are waiting on the Lord to provide them a spouse. This sometimes results in their wasting years and decades of the only life they have.
And, of course there Christians even today that rely on God for a physical healing, which often never comes resulting in their death or death of their children.
There is also untold number of decisions that end up causing suffering (i.e. moving to a poor place because Jesus called them to do that, and then either suffering or dying there due to lack of resources we've come to need in a modern society, such as top notch health care and clean water).
I know of some Christians who don't believe in family planning, because God gives life and has his own plans that they must obey.
Granted, most people don't do those things, so their loss is minimal, but if you are taking the Bible literally, you will lose.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
