Are God's Moral Prescriptions Arbitrary, Other, or Other?

[cvanwey]

The "Euthyphro Dilemma" is certainly nothing new. And yes, it is not a true dilemma. The argument is as follows:

A): Are moral acts willed by God [because] they are considered 'good'?
B): Or are moral acts considered 'good' [because] they are willed by God?

The theist, in the video, has no problem pointing out that if these two above options are the only two available, then God either A) appeals to another standard outside Himself. Or, that B) His commands are arbitrary. Or that 'might makes right'.

IS there a third option, as this theist wants to argue? If so, can this [third option] be proven?

Below is the video, for reference:

 

[Tolworth John]

Neither, goodness is a reflection of God's character.

 

[Sabertooth]

God merely declares what the purity standard is if we don't want to die in His Presence (which He would prefer*).
And He has provided a Means to attain that standard for those who wish to do so.

*Even if God just wanted to give us a hug, the unprepared could not stand in His Presence.

 

[Steve Husting]

The "Euthyphro Dilemma" is certainly nothing new. And yes, it is not a true dilemma. The argument is as follows:

A): Are moral acts willed by God [because] they are considered 'good'?
B): Or are moral acts considered 'good' [because] they are willed by God?

The theist, in the video, has no problem pointing out that if these two above options are the only two available, then God either A) appeals to another standard outside Himself. Or, that B) His commands are arbitrary. Or that 'might makes right'.

IS there a third option, as this theist wants to argue? If so, can this [third option] be proven?

Below is the video, for reference:

 

[cvanwey]

Neither, goodness is a reflection of God's character.

Please read the OP. (i.e.)

IS there a third option, as this theist wants to argue? If so, can this [third option] be proven?

 

[cvanwey]

God merely declares what the purity standard is if we don't want to die in His Presence (which He would prefer*).
And He has provided a Means to attain that standard for those who wish to do so.

*Even if God just wanted to give us a hug, the unprepared could not stand in His Presence.

(In addressing your provided link) - Why should I care what the Bible says, verses some alternative book or set of claims/assertions?

If you have a third option, outside the Euthyphro, please prove it.

 

[cvanwey]

@Steve Husting --- You did not appear to provide an actual response?

 

[Moral Orel]

Neither, goodness is a reflection of God's character.

Why is God's character what it is? Why, for instance, does He value kindness over maliciousness?

 

[Sabertooth]

Why should I care what the Bible says, verses some alternative book or set of claims/assertions?

You are asking about the Christian God. The Bible is the only source on how He rolls.

 

[cvanwey]

You are asking about the Christian God. The Bible is the only source on how He rolls.

The OP does not reference the Christian God. Sure, the interlocutor is asking a Christian apologist. But that is really where it ends. The Euthyphro presents an either/or proposition about God, in general. If you wish to assert that the Christian God is THE God, then, by all means, please begin to present your case. I'm ready and waiting

 

[Sabertooth]

If you wish to assert that the Christian God is THE God, then, by all means, please begin to present your case. I'm ready and waiting

That was my assumption, being posed on Christian Forums.
I am not prepared to apologize for other "gods."

 

[cvanwey]

That was my assumption, being posed on Christian Forums.
I am not prepared to apologize for other "gods."

Why are you prepared to apologize for the claimed Christian God, verses some other claimed god(s)?

As with what the apologist asserts, near the end of the video, why is the Bible God's Word?

And furthermore, how do we still have a THIRD option?

And if we do truly have a third option available, are you prepared to prove/apologize for this THIRD option?

If so, please begin.

 

[Sabertooth]

There is no basis for an answer to the OP, if you keep moving the goalposts (at least, I don't have one).

 

[cvanwey]

There is no basis for an answer to the OP, if you keep moving the goalposts (at least, I don't have one).

I am not moving the goal posts. The Euthyphro presents an either/or. You state neither. You quote the Bible. You are attempting to present a third option, outside the either/or proposition. I have yet to see the third option, before I even care, or not, as to what the Bible actually says

I again ask, from post #6...

If you have a third option, outside the Euthyphro, please prove it. Can you demonstrate there even exists a third option?

I'm all for diving into the Bible, and why it is THE 'moral prescriptive Book'. But we are not quite there yet

 

[muichimotsu]

There is no basis for an answer to the OP, if you keep moving the goalposts (at least, I don't have one).

He's not moving the goalposts remotely, certainly not from what I see, he's asking for you to demonstrate the claims that fundamentally underpin your argument, which is that the Christian god is the pertinent deity that takes down the Euthyphro dilemma. Are you then basically saying that it doesn't apply or that it's a disingenuous dilemma? Or perhaps something else?

If we haven't agreed that the Bible is a compelling standard, how can we even proceed in the discussion about God? Not to mention you've basically just advocated for "might makes right," as if it is just "for our own good" that God tells us what we must do and any objection is futile.

Not exactly respecting any genuine sense of autonomy there, just obedience above all else because of an assumption that humans are innately selfish and pursuant to that, they should seek God because that is in their best interests as selfish beings who only care about their own welfare

 

[jacks]

I'm sure I will probably regret posting to these questions because I really don't understand them. (I know see post number X...)
You can find a third option HERE, though I don't know how you "prove" these sort of things. It says "The Euthyphro dilemma is actually a false dichotomy. That is, it proposes only two options when another is possible. The third option is that good is based on God’s nature." I'm not trying to advocate this position, I just thought it might help answer your question.
Personally, I think morality has a practical aspect, so is not arbitrary. If we were to say it is moral to lie, cheat, steal, kill, etc. then it wouldn't be a practical basis for a culture to thrive and survive. Moral laws are usually ones that are good for the society or culture as a whole.

Just a thought.

 

[Moral Orel]

God merely declares what the purity standard is if we don't want to die in His Presence (which He would prefer*).
And He has provided a Means to attain that standard for those who wish to do so.

*Even if God just wanted to give us a hug, the unprepared could not stand in His Presence.

So God is incapable of giving a hug to a person who doesn't attain His purity standard without destroying that person?

 

[Sabertooth]

So God is incapable of giving a hug to a person who doesn't attain His purity standard without destroying that person?

Inadvertently. He considered Moses to be His friend. See Exodus 33:18-23

 

[Moral Orel]

Inadvertently. He considered Moses to be His friend. See Exodus 33:18-23

Inadvertently or not, my focus is on the fact that God is incapable of something. Isn't God omnipotent? He can't make more durable humans?

 

[Sabertooth]

God is incapable of something. Isn't God omnipotent?

You're going back to the "Can God make a rock so big that even He can't lift it?" fallacy. Are you willing to reject rescue just so you can maintain a conundrum...!?

He can't make more durable humans?

We are "fallen" by our proto-parents' own decision. We are not as spiritually robust as they were in their original state, when they were in His Presence regularly.

He has a Means/Offer to return us to that state, however.