• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Euthyphro Dilemma Easily Solved

2PhiloVoid

Critically cutting wicked webs!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
25,181
11,832
Space Mountain!
✟1,397,165.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm afraid that wasn't the answer you should have given. But that's between you and your conscience.
Goodnight.

The answer I "should" have given will depend upon which ethical system any one of us independently thinks is the "right one."
 
Upvote 0

Amoranemix

Democrat
Apr 12, 2004
906
34
Belgium
✟31,446.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Out of laziness I only read till post 60.

The dilemma is that either God's morality originates somewhere else or morality originates from God. There may be other options (e.g. morality may not originate) and Christians are free to present some if they think that would help their case.

The problem with the two option is that it put God in the same boat as everyone else. Human morality also works that way. Hence, God's morality is no more authoritative than anyone else's.

God allegedly has two advantages over humans though :
  • He is supposed to be wiser. So he may serve as a source of advice for someone who adheres to a morality similar to God's.
  • He supposed to be mightier, which is great for God if he likes might makes right morality.

The first problem with the third option is that it is merely a combination the other two. The god humans invented has some desirable attributes, like being loving and kind. So God's nature is decided by a standard decided by humans. Why else would God have such attributes in stead of others ?
Then somehow God's nature decides a moral standard. How that is supposed to happen is unclear. I imagine something like this : God doesn't rape children for fun. Therefore, raping for fun is immoral. The problem is that God hardly does anything, including many things we would consider good. Anyway, whatever method one would devise to extract morality from God's nature, it would be a man-made method. So God's morality is actually man's morality.
Of course, it could be that God is the one deciding how one gets morality from his nature, but that's the second branch of the dilemma and morality would be, at least in part, dependent on God's whims.

The second problem is that God's supposed nature is not evidenced. One could argue that humans did not determine God's nature, as the real god did not care how humans decided to invent him. Indeed. The god who is loving, patient, kind, generous, beautiful and values life, is merely the god humans would have liked to have. The god they really got, if any at all, may be a very unpleasant character.

In summary, we have :
[some desirable attributes] ---> God's nature ---> Morality

Why not skip God alltogether and base morality on desirable attributes directly ?

Tree of Life 11 to Eight Foot Manchild said:
I'm happy saying that God is the standard of good. Happily, he always meets that standard. Am I missing something?

What you are missing is that saying something does not make it so. Would Adolf Hitler be the standard of good if a neonazi said he is ?

I am confident a neonazi would also claim Adolf Hitler met his own standard of goodness.

Something that is not determined is arbitrary, in which case it would be determined by chance. How could something exist without being determined ?

The reason God has desirable attributes is obviously that humans prefer a god with those attributes. Understandably, Christians dislike that explanation. Why according to them does God have those attributes in stead of some other ones ? Whatever the explanation they come up with would be what determines God's attributes. If what you claim in post 21 is true, then God necessarily has the attributes he is claimed to have. One can imagine for example that one could prove from mathematical axioms that the Christian god is the only one possible. In that case it would be those axioms that determine God's attributes. Again, one could skip God and base morality directly on those axioms.

Tree of Life 20 to Eight Foot Manchild said:
I’m saying that God himself is the standard. We can come to know God through his revelation in Scripture and also our own moral sense (we are made in God’s image).
I doubt it is even possible for God to be a standard. What you probably mean is that that somehow God generates a moral standard. How that could happen without relying on opinions no one knows.

There are good reasons to disbelieve that 2+2=5 and that circles are not squares. However, we have no evidence that God could not have other attributes.

If I understand, something's nature is the collection of all it's attributes.
Barack Obama is 185 cm tall. His height is part of his nature. What if he were only 180 cm tall ? That would be impossible because that would be contrary to his nature. It would not be Barack Obama. His nature is to be 185 cm tall. Correct ?

[1] A yardstick could have had a different length and we could still have called it a yard. There is no necessity of using the yardstick that is used now.
[2] The meaning of good is decided by people, not God. People can decide that good is whatever God's nature happens to be, just like they can decide it is whatever Adolf Hitler's nature happened to be.

[3] [Also asked in post 57, but with passive formulation] How does on do that, found justice ? Of course, God could slam his fist on the table and roar that he commands what is just, but Christians would dislike that.
If I understand correctly, God conforms to the external standards of patience, love, kindness, generosity and beauty, while he founds the standards of justice and moral goodness. Why is there that distinction ? Are there other standards God founds ?
[4] A circle conforms to a man-made definition of what a circle is. A shape conforming to that definition has no angles. The non-sequareness of a circle derives from attributes external to the circle, like equidistance. Does God also conform to a man-made definition such that a god conforming to that definition is not unjust ? If not, your analogy is poor, as it would not explain why god cannot be unjust.

If you object to the man-madeness of a yardstick, you could consider the yard in stead.
Skeptics prefer belief in reality. Understanding promotes reality-belief. Simplicity helps with understanding.
No, the yardstick is not supposed to do all that. It is supposed to serve as an analogy for something that has a defining attribute.

[5] No, we can't agree on that. Some people do see that and some people don't. You are also being too limiting on the definition of arbitrary.

If you are free to define God the way you like it, then you can define him with a morality that does not originate from him and hence is not arbitrary, but where does God get his morality from then ?
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,252
✟55,667.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Don't you think the honourable thing to do here might be to concede?
You don't always get to win arguments, you know. Sometimes you lose. nothing wrong with admitting it.
Yes I do think it would be honorable for you to concede.
 
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟110,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Yes I do think it would be honorable for you to concede.
Well, that just about sums it up really. You started quite well, with an interesting yet unoriginal argument. Then it was rebutted, and you descended to claiming that what you said was just true and we would have to accept it. And now the thread seems to be over.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically cutting wicked webs!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
25,181
11,832
Space Mountain!
✟1,397,165.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

Yeah. That's a bummer. We can't win them all, and I'll concede that post #69 has apparently been thoroughly bounced, trounced, renounced and utterly disabused of any of possible benefit it could ever have to any additional readers.

You atheist guys win! And you didn't even have to try to do so. You're THAT good!

Enjoy the victory!
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟110,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It's not that we're that good. It's that Christian arguments are so poor, it's easy to disprove them.
The difficult part is getting the Christians to admit they've lost.
 
Upvote 0

Amoranemix

Democrat
Apr 12, 2004
906
34
Belgium
✟31,446.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
In my opinion, morality should not be limited to humans.

(1) Are all these things part of God's nature because they are good, or (2) are these things good because they are part of God's nature ?
So, you claim these things are good for other reasons than because they are part of God's nature. So there is a standard external to God that determines what is good and God conforms to that standard. Hence, God is not required for such standard. It is the standard that is a requirement for God.

SR hasn't fully explained 'why' he thinks there is a collapse back into a dilemma from a proposed 'third alternative X.”
Many Christians haven't fully explained how it can be certain that God exists.

What is the difference between 'a standard' and 'the standard' ?

How can one establish God's height and establish that he is indeed the highest ?
Superior presumably refers to some quality, let us call it X. In what quality is God the greatest and how would one establish that he indeed is the greatest ?
I suppose we could make him fundamental by defining God to be necessary and eternal. That something with abilities can be necessary has yet to be proven.
Suppose we are indeed able to establish God is the highest and the greatest in a particular quality and that God is possible. You seem to then be relyling on the following argument :

P1. God is the highest.
P2. God is the greatest at quality X.
P3. God is fundamental.
P3. An entity that is the highest, fundamental and the greatest at quality X, is the standard for morality.
C. Therefore, God is the standard for morality.

Is that indeed your argument ?

[5] Indeed, a standard, not the standard. You claimed God is the standard. Ignoring the problem that God is an impractical standard, he is no more authoritative than other standards. He is not the foundation of morality. He can at best be the foundation of a morality.
[6] What would prevent judgement by those who use a different standard ?

Clizby WampusCat 88 to Tree of Life 80 said:
no, we must ask if our moral standards are good. If I find a better standard than well being I will change to that. If I never question my standard how can I improve it!
To compare moral standards or improve one's moral standard one would need to choose a standard of quality. One can make anything better than anything else by choosing an appropriate standard of quality.

The Euthyphro dilemma or MMDP does not aim to show the foundation for morality is non-divine. It aims to dispute that God is the foundation for morality.

You can derive principles from a goal. If well-being is desireable, then one can develop an ethical system promoting it and one can make rules prescribing its creation and prohibiting its desctruction. Legislations are ethical systems that mainly focus on the prohibition of the destruction of well-being. For example, stealing is usually bad for well-being, so don't steal.

That Human Significance is better than Well-being is merely a bald assertion of yours. Furthermore, it does nothing to undermine the Euthyphro Dilemma or support that God is the foundation of morality.

That is debatable, but even if it is, fortunately I have remediated that in the mean time.

Tree of Life 135 said:
Thanks @InterestedAtheist ! I disagree.
Disagreeing with reality is typical for Christians.

You forgot to answer my question.

You forgot to answer my question.

You forgot to answer my questions.

You forgot to answer my question.

2PhiloVoid said:
You atheist guys win! And you didn't even have to try to do so. You're THAT good!
If atheists were Christians, they too would be losing all the time.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically cutting wicked webs!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
25,181
11,832
Space Mountain!
✟1,397,165.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Many Christians haven't fully explained how it can be certain that God exists.
Since I'm an Existentialist myself, I'm rather unconcerned with an epistemology that assumes there should be some suppositional build by which God could be logically demonstrated without error and without any level of uncertainity.

So, my answers in this will differ a bit from those which other of my fellow Christians will present to you skeptics.


The Euthyphro dilemma or MMDP does not aim to show the foundation for morality is non-divine. It aims to dispute that God is the foundation for morality.
Right. And if you by chance didn't catch my drift in my earlier posts, I only insisted in those posts that The Euthyphro Dilemma isn't applicable to a Biblical conception of a monotheistic God. So, where Christianity is concerned, the EU is a non-issue, but at the same time I realize that so too is my effort to assert that God is an objectively verifiable foundation for human morality. Hence, this is why I only assert God (or Jesus most specificially) has to be the foundation of my own Subjective view of human morality. I don't expect anyone to look up into the clear blue sky and "zing!" shout "Eureka, I get what you're saying now, 2PhiloVoid !!!"


The goal is not only Subjective (in a Kierkegaardian way), but somewhat relative as well; so hence, there is no guarantee that the goal chosen through personal desire and idealized by the Modern Skeptic actually represents a fully/truly just or robust path of morality. No more so than the path of morality that the lion follows upon capturing and eating the gazelle, which it desired to capture and eat.


That Human Significance is better than Well-being is merely a bald assertion of yours. Furthermore, it does nothing to undermine the Euthyphro Dilemma or support that God is the foundation of morality.
As is "well-being"----as I've just stated above. As for the Euthyphro Dilemma, if you don't understand that the only real reason that a dilemma came to the mind of Plato's Socrates was due to the conflicting notions of morality that existed between multiple Greek gods who disagreed with one another, then maybe you don't fully understand the contexts of the Euthyphro. I think it's high time for everyone to finally wake up to this brass tack fact that is inherent within the dilemma and stop dallying with their own unauthorized, unjustified, willy-nilly attempts to extract and reapply the dilemma to a context for which it doesn't have any cogency.


Not from some FORM of the Good, that's for sure!

If atheists were Christians, they too would be losing all the time.
Atheists, like Christians are losing all the time because they over assert their positions and seeming justifications----but also like a lot of religious people, atheists just don't seem to recognize this fact.
 
Upvote 0

Amoranemix

Democrat
Apr 12, 2004
906
34
Belgium
✟31,446.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
[7] Indeed. Many variants of God have been invented. The ED only disputes the existence of those variants that are the foundation of morality.
What does the EU have to do with this ?

Indeed. In most Christian worldviews God's goal represents a fully/truly just and robust path of morality. In reality nothing does. Skeptics believe in reality.

[8] You are not describing context but history. In general, the strength of an argument is independent from its history. In this case it is irrelevant.
[9] That is your personal opinion. I and most skeptics don't share it.

2PhiloVoid 149 said:
Atheists, like Christians are losing all the time because they over assert their positions and seeming justifications----but also like a lot of religious people, atheists just don't seem to recognize this fact.
So you claim, but can you prove your alleged fact ?


It appears that Christians have given up. The idea that God is the foundation of morality has been buried again.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically cutting wicked webs!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
25,181
11,832
Space Mountain!
✟1,397,165.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[7] Indeed. Many variants of God have been invented. The ED only disputes the existence of those variants that are the foundation of morality.
What does the EU have to do with this ?

... That was a typo. Thanks for pointing it out.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically cutting wicked webs!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
25,181
11,832
Space Mountain!
✟1,397,165.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
... Indeed. In most Christian worldviews God's goal represents a fully/truly just and robust path of morality. In reality nothing does. Skeptics believe in reality.
You obviously didn't understand what I said above. Indeed.


[8] You are not describing context but history. In general, the strength of an argument is independent from its history. In this case it is irrelevant.
What??? Hogwash!!!

[9] That is your personal opinion. I and most skeptics don't share it.
Well, goody.


So you claim, but can you prove your alleged fact ?
I'm talking about the context of the topic in this OP thread. Why would I be referring to something of a universal scope here? No, I wouldn't be in this case.

Euthyphro Dilemma Easily Solved


It appears that Christians have given up. The idea that God is the foundation of morality has been buried again.
May I remind you that you're speaking to me,. an Existentialist. I'm also not overly keen on Foundationalism, but if I had to go that epistemic route, the closest I'd aver for is "Weak Foundationalism" rather than "Strong" or "Moderate" Foundationalism.[/QUOTE]
 
Upvote 0

Amoranemix

Democrat
Apr 12, 2004
906
34
Belgium
✟31,446.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I commend you for the eloquence, detail and comprehensiveness of your clarification.

I commend you for the eloquence, detail and comprehensiveness of your explanation.

Then your claim is not a fact. Thanks for sharing your personal opinion with us, but skeptics prefer to believe in reality.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
24,006
16,476
72
Bondi
✟389,525.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The theist doesn't have to submit to this dilemma because there's a third option. The third option is that "good" is what coheres to God's eternal character. God is good.

I guess you are using your personal definition of good here (I note the scare quotes around the word). There would be different ideas of what constitutes good as you'd know. So you are personally defining God using your specific interpretation of what constitiutes good

Let's say that you think not allowing euthenasia is good. I personally think that allowing it is good. So if God is good (it's his eternal character) then we have two versions of Him. Which one shall we discuss first?
 
Upvote 0