Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What argument is that? What a non-sequitur is?
Ahh, then you haven't been reading anything I've written... again. I didn't lay that argument out, I criticized Steve's responses to the dilemma. What Steve responded with is in fact a non-sequitur. Do you have anything to say about what I've actually said, or did you just want to talk to yourself?Nope. The equivocation is in thinking that the application of Plato's Socratic moral dilemma in Euthyphro applies analogously to the biblical concept of God.
IT DOES NOT!
Ahh, then you haven't been reading anything I've written... again. I didn't lay that argument out, I criticized Steve's responses to the dilemma. What Steve responded with is in fact a non-sequitur. Do you have anything to say about what I've actually said, or did you just want to talk to yourself?
I've only made a couple in this thread. Here they are:I'll be glad to take a look at what you've said since I'm not exactly looking to live in an echo-chamber, despite what some folks might think. Which posts are you referring to specifically and I'll see if I agree or disagree with either, or both, you and Steve?
The question isn't "Why does God will something?" The question is "Why is something good?"
So something is good because God is good? That's a non-sequitur.
I've only made a couple in this thread. Here they are:
So without even referencing the dilemma, tell me why something is good.
So tell me why something is good. I don't care how you do it. I'm curious. I haven't made any arguments except with the way Steve has presented his.That's part of MY POINT, too, Morel Orel. Without the schematic conceptual context being taken into account.................neither you nor I can engage the concept of "the Good" as "it is" in relation to the overarching contexts in which it is embedded.
So, IF Steve is promoting Divine Command Theory, then I won't say that I will sign on the dotted line for that; but IF we also attempt to determine "the Good" without or apart from the biblical concept of God as its author, then we're not citing the same identical concept of "the Good." We're talking about some other ontological concept of "the Good," a separate one that DOESN'T have anything to do with the biblical God.
So tell me why something is good. I don't care how you do it. I'm curious. I haven't made any arguments except with the way Steve has presented his.
Please! Just tell him what makes something "good" in your opinion.The 'how' you do it will depend upon the type, weight, and context of your presuppositions.................. because not all roads lead to Rome.
Please! Just tell him what makes something "good" in your opinion.
Morally good. What makes a behavior morally correct?Good in what regard? Do you want me to say something like "I think.....Happy, Shiny People is the Good"?
Morally good. What makes a behavior morally correct?
Are we talking about an utterly existential state of affairs, or a biblical one, or even a pagan one?
I'm talking about the state of affairs that you think prevails. What do you think makes an action morally good (or bad)?Are we talking about an utterly existential state of affairs, or a biblical one, or even a pagan one?
I wish I understood how this related to my initial request, but I'm at a loss here.
Yet you use words like happiness, satisfaction, misery which are all feelings. We cannot base morality on feelings as feelings are subjective.I didnt say its felt objectively. Feelings are internal by definition.
But who said happiness and misery equate to moral right and wrong.I'm saying satisfaction can be observed objectively. We can see when people are happy vs miserable. Just like how we can tell an abused dog is miserable compared to one in loving care.
And it is these variations that make it hard to equate morality to pleasure and pain or happiness and misery. What one person sees as being OK to make one happy/sad or pleasure/pain another view as being wrong.Yes, there's more subtleties at play in humans, but the basic idea is the same.
I'm talking about the state of affairs that you think prevails. What do you think makes an action morally good (or bad)?
It's your show, buddy. I'm curious why something is good from your perspective. So you tell me what the presuppositions are.The 'how' you do it will depend upon the type, weight, and context of your presuppositions.................. because not all roads lead to Rome.
How would giving away your livelihood prevent you from winning souls? Isn't that what a bunch of the apostles did?Christians don't generally commit suicide or give away their livelihood because it would prevent them from winning souls for Christ.
No "good is God. It isn't separate from God. God isn't picking some abstract "good" and saying this is what good is. God is the "good" and has been always. No one else made Him good, He has just always been the "good". His nature is good. The problem is that people try to put a modernistic and human understanding of good onto God. Yet if we are to take God as described by the Christian God then He is as John mentions the Logos of good.
As Christians understand God, his innate nature is morality itself. Furthermore, God is eternal and did not create himself, so he could not have created morality. God appeals to his uncreated and eternal nature to find morality and then reveals it to the world. He cannot act in a way that opposes that morality, nor can it be created or changed.
Both horns of the Euthyphro dilemma are resolved by realizing God as a self-evident, metaphysically necessary being.
Why the Christian Apologetic to the Euthyphro Dilemma Falls Short. : DebateAChristian
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?