• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Euthyphro Dilemma Easily Solved

Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics' started by Tree of Life, Feb 24, 2021.

  1. 2PhiloVoid

    2PhiloVoid Triangulating THE WAY out of the void! Supporter

    +7,196
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    No, it's called being moderately educated with a B.A. in Philosophy and with an M.A. in Education and Social Science. And by this qualification, I KNOW that I don't have to play your philosophical game here. As an Existentialist myself, I'll refuse it since I know that your consistent insistency is a rhetorical smoke-screen and I have the resources by which to sit down with anyone on this website and study the various (many) aspects that go into our Hermeneutics and how politics play into our epistemological, ontological and axiological preferences.

    As a Christian who accepts the position of Philosophical Hermeneutics, I know that your seemingly simple act of asking is toned and tempered with certain ideological commitments. Other Christians here should know that the apologetics process isn't one involving the notion of "the simple inquirer." Not all acts of questioning about the Chrisitan faith or about Christian theology come at us through some kind of neutral medium of human intention. No, especially where antagonists to Christianity are concrened, this goes way beyond merely discerning if a person is Democrat or Republican...

    So, the rules of this forum should reflect these fuller aspects of social and human perceptual Reality.
     
  2. Eight Foot Manchild

    Eight Foot Manchild His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

    +1,282
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    No you haven't.

    I don't really feel the need to elaborate on that. I invite anyone reading along to see for themselves.

    Yes, really. Of everyone I have ever engaged with on this subject, you alone seem to be incapable of grasping the extremely basic idea that philosophical concepts may be applied generally, outside the precise context in which they were originally composed.

    What a bizarre question.
     
  3. 2PhiloVoid

    2PhiloVoid Triangulating THE WAY out of the void! Supporter

    +7,196
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    No, my question wasn't bizarre. I guess you missed the part where I offered the following (introductory, overly basic) Wiki article. Read secton 2.3, please and then just keep telling me I'm bizarre ............................... thank you!

    Euthyphro dilemma - Wikipedia
     
  4. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +1,006
    Atheist
    Philo, you think I'm a Marxist because I live in China. I'm not sure your views on ideological commitments should be regarded as authoritative.
    Ah, so you think I'm setting a clever trap with my "simple question" and you're wary of falling in! In a senze, you're right. But the trap is nothing but logic and reason. If you're wary of confronting them, that's quite a telling admission.
    Not that I'm accusing you personally, Philo. It's just that sounds exactly what someone who had lost one too many debates before and didn't want to risk defeat again would say.
     
  5. True Counterphobia

    True Counterphobia Slave to Christ Supporter

    +431
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Celibate
  6. 2PhiloVoid

    2PhiloVoid Triangulating THE WAY out of the void! Supporter

    +7,196
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
  7. Maria Billingsley

    Maria Billingsley Well-Known Member Supporter

    +3,353
    United States
    Christian
    In Relationship
    Ok my thoughts on the matter hopefully it makes sense. :scratch:
    From the beginning of God's creation He created a realm outside of His realm. All creation lives outside His realm. Though His realm is incorruptible and always good, He created a perfect realm that could potentially be corrupted. Corruption came through one act of disobedience which caused "goodness" to be corrupted. God created all to be good and confirmed that at every stage of His creation. Once the act was activated all corruption seeped into this realm, not by God's choice, but by man's choice . God made us in His image which includes free will given to us for a purpose. So once corruption was unvelied goodness never changed . What changed is the corruption of that goodness.
    Whew!
    Blessings.
     
  8. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +2,214
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    Okay, that's an overly broad usage of the word "character" in my opinion, but that isn't important. You say that God's character is what it is necessarily. God necessarily must be just, for example, He necessarily, ontologically, and logically can't be unjust. Why not?
     
  9. Eight Foot Manchild

    Eight Foot Manchild His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

    +1,282
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    This is utterly irrelevant as to whether or not philosophical concepts can be applied generally in everyday conversation, such as, exchanges on a Christian message board. So yes, it was indeed a bizarre non-sequitor of a question, as it had nothing to do with what we were talking about.

    Section 2.3 covers the the "God's nature" answer to the dilemma. I'm already familiar with it, and the response to it, which I've summarized in this thread, and which can be found in the article you're linking to.

    Got anything else?
     
  10. 2PhiloVoid

    2PhiloVoid Triangulating THE WAY out of the void! Supporter

    +7,196
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Yeah.

    I do have something. That something else is that I never said philosophical concepts can't be taken from one older frame or model (i.e. abstracted from) and applied within another frame of reference or model of thought.

    [2PhiloVoid paces, waiting franctically for the impact of the countermeasure...]
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2021
  11. Eight Foot Manchild

    Eight Foot Manchild His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

    +1,282
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    You've sure been behaving this whole time like that's exactly what you believe. But OK.

    In that case, what is your response to Euthyphro's dilemma, as applied to the Christian god? How do you split the horns of arbitrariness vs independent standard?
     
  12. Tree of Life

    Tree of Life Hide The Pain

    +6,076
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    I am saying that God is the foundation of justice. So "unjust" simply means "a violation of God's justice". God cannot logically be unjust. Just like there cannot be a square circle.
     
  13. 2PhiloVoid

    2PhiloVoid Triangulating THE WAY out of the void! Supporter

    +7,196
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Usually, I just tear the horns off whatever they're poking off of, break them in half, throw them to the ground, and stomp on them vociferously while saying, "2PhiloVoid SMASH !!!" And then I stomp on them one more time for good measure. ;)

    ...I suppose though in one of my more amiable moods, I might back up and take a look at your vid you posted earlier.
     
  14. 2PhiloVoid

    2PhiloVoid Triangulating THE WAY out of the void! Supporter

    +7,196
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Ok. I've hit the first 2 and a half minutes of SisyphusRedeemed's vid that you provided, and here he comes with his 'yardstick' analogy. A yardstick? As an inanimate object (one that is also a known artifice of human work), is this manufactured item supposed to somehow capture the nuances that an Eternal, Holy, Creative, All-Knowing (or almost All-Knowing), Almighty God wold inherently have?

    If so, I'm going to have to stop and ask the following question: "SisyphusR, are you kidding? Like am I supposed to take this overly simplistic and arbitrary example seriously for the sake of ontological comparison?"

    I mean, I'm not sold on the 'Tri-lemma' that this Epidemic guy came up with, and I think it can be avoided. But starting with a yardstick as an example is a weak beginning in explaining the idea of inherent properties which may serve as a standard. I do agree that we don't need a trilemma to get us out of the [supposed] dilemma. But, I'll trudge on now and watch the rest of the video. I can tell you right now, though, that the first horn of ARBITRARINESS can just be ripped off and thrown into the Abyss, forever to disappear. Bye-bye first horn!

    Now, let's see what goodies SisyphusRedeemed has in store for us since I thought I caught that he's a teacher of the Philosophy of Religion. I'm hoping to learn something new ... let's see if I do. :cool:

    [And the wife says we need to go to the store. So this will have to wait till later. ...]
     
  15. Eight Foot Manchild

    Eight Foot Manchild His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

    +1,282
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    It's not an "ontological comparison". It's also not a complete analogy, and isn't meant to be. No analogy is complete. If it were, it wouldn't be an analogy. It's an arbitrary example meant as a specific point of illustration about the attempt to split the horns of the dilemma.

    Yeah, you can just tell me that, if you want to. If you want to be taken seriously though, you'll have to provide some kind of reasoning behind it.
     
  16. 2PhiloVoid

    2PhiloVoid Triangulating THE WAY out of the void! Supporter

    +7,196
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Ok, I'll let this slide for now. I listened to SR's 'yardstick' analogy again, and it seems he's only attempting to (all too briefly I might add) parse out the qualities of 'will' versus 'judgment' which some moral agent might have.

    So far, so good. Horn one, horn two.

    That's all fine. I don't mind in the least to be asked to provide reasoning on this. I'd make the same request of Skeptics when citing that they need to avoid conflating the Modern Monotheist Moral Dilemma with the older polytheistic dilemma found in Plato's Euthyphro.

    So, why isn't the Biblical God's recognition of moral good not arbitrary? In short, and first of all, the term arbitrary itself typically denotes a choice made randomly, whimsically or capriciously. We can all just admit that if we take the Biblical details into account, then we don't see a representation of God evincing these moral deficiencies. He isn't random, but He may amend a rule; He isn't whimsical, but He may still feel pain over unfulfilled intentions which humanity fails to act upon; and He isn't capricious in His moral dealings, but He can still be deadly in judgment.

    Secondly, I'm going to assert, along with sister @Maria Billingsley of late [here], that God's role as Creator plays into the qualities of the moral good He expects US to act upon while living in our world. As Oliver Barclay has commented, if God has in some way 'created' humanity AND is omniscient, then "He knows exactly how human nature works best" (p. 42 in Clark & Rakestraw), and it is this tact that I'll take in dealing with this dilemma. This angle regarding moral human function isn't one that typically is used by Divine Command Theorists and it instead comes via what has been called 'Creation Ethics' (by Oliver Barclay, maybe some others too).

    In this way, we surmise that God isn't arbitrary with His moral recognition of the moral contexts humanity needs in order to live at any given time, contexts connected to the social structures of His creation. This means the criticism regarding moral arbitrariness on the part of God can be dispensed with.

    As for the rest of SR's video beyond the 2nd minute, I'll have to get to later and comment upon it when I can.

    Reference
    Clark, D. K., & Rakestraw, R. V. (Eds.). (1994). Readings in Christian Ethics: Theory and Method (Vol. 1). Baker Academic.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2021
  17. Moral Orel

    Moral Orel Proud Citizen of Moralton Supporter

    +2,214
    United States
    Agnostic
    Married
    What does it mean to be "the foundation of justice"? And why do you call it "God's justice"? Are there different kinds of justice?
     
  18. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +1,006
    Atheist
    Indeed it does. Think about what you just said. How do you know that a yard stick is a yard long? Because what a yard is has already been decided on. All we have to do is measure the yard stick to see if it fits its name or not.
    How, on the other hand, do you determine if God is good or not? Since you have stated that God's goodness is based on his own character, saying that God is good means nothing more than "God is God." This is a tautology, and therefore meaningless.

    "Promoting human well-being" would be quite close to it, but a rather narrow definition. Perhaps we should say that "good" means "knowing and doing the right thing."
    Of course, the question then becomes, right for what? And that leads us to consider: what is the highest goal we can have? And I would say, it is to decrease the suffering of the human race and increase the happiness of the human race.
    Now it's true, that looks very much like "promoting human wellbeing," but stated like that I think it could easily be misunderstood - for example, as referring to one single human.

    What about you? What would your definition of good be?
     
  19. InterestedAtheist

    InterestedAtheist Veteran

    +1,006
    Atheist
    Interesting answer. What is this "good" you experience in the world?
     
  20. Tree of Life

    Tree of Life Hide The Pain

    +6,076
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    You have the same problem that you think that I have. I could ask you: “But is decreasing suffering and increasing happiness for the human race really good? How do you measure whether or not it’s good?”

    At some point we encounter an ultimate standard. A standard which we must simply accept and which cannot be measured by anything else. For me, that is God’s character.
     
Loading...