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.
I'm afraid that wasn't the answer you should have given. But that's between you and your conscience.
Goodnight.
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 ?Tree of Life in OP said: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. God is love, he is patient and kind, he is generous, he is beautiful, he is powerful, he values life (he is life), etc... Everything we would normally call "good" really is just some derivative attribute of God and his eternal, unchanging character. God's commands, then, are an expression of his character. They are not based in a standard outside of himself. The standard is himself. And they are not arbitrary because they are based in the most meaningful and enduring reality that there is - the character of the eternal one.
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?
Something that is not determined is arbitrary, in which case it would be determined by chance. How could something exist without being determined ?Tree of Life 11 to Eight Foot Manchild said:The talking head in the video says that if God doesn't determine his own nature, then something other than God determine's God's nature. I wonder if he can demonstrate that. What is this other thing that would be determining God's nature? He has not considered the possibility that God's nature is not determined at all. It exists eternally.
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.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).
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.Tree of Life 24 to InterestedAtheist said:Keeping my response pithy for now because I’m on my phone. You’re asking the Christian theist to conceive of the inconceivable. It’s both ontologically and logically impossible for God to be cruel. It’s like asking me to suppose that 2+2=5 or to imagine a square circle. Such a state of affairs is not only unreal, it’s impossible. Not even possible to imagine.
If I understand, something's nature is the collection of all it's attributes.Tree of Life 34 said:Let’s be a little more specific. It’s impossible for God to approve of murder because this would be contrary to his nature. His nature is eternal, unchanging, and necessary to his being.InterestedAtheist 28 said:Sure, take your time to respond.
A pithy answer is probably best. Let's cut to the point, shall we?
You say it is impossible for God to be cruel.
Why? Is being cruel bad?
[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.Tree of Life 39 to InterestedAtheist said:On one level it makes no sense to judge God’s nature or ask whether or not it is good. God’s nature is the standard of goodness. It’s like asking “how do you show that a yard stick is a yard?” Although even that metaphor breaks down.[1]
But on another level perhaps we can give a different answer. “Good” can have several colloquial meanings which we can discuss. What do you mean by “good”? Do you mean “promoting human well-being” or something similar? Maybe you’re asking “does God promote human well-being”? We might give a different answer to that question.[2]
[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.Tree of Life 52 said:I am saying that God is the foundation of justice.[3] So "unjust" simply means "a violation of God's justice". God cannot logically be unjust. Just like there cannot be a square circle.[4]Moral Orel 48 to Tree of Life said: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?
If you object to the man-madeness of a yardstick, you could consider the yard in stead.2PhiloVoid 54 to Eight Foot Manchild said: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?
[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.2PhiloVoid 56 to Eight Foot Manchild said: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.[5] 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.
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 ?2PhiloVoid 56 said: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.
Yes I do think it would be honorable for you to concede.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.
Viagra did that years ago. Hahahahaha! Sorry, I couldn't resist.ED is solved.
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.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.
It's not that we're that good. It's that Christian arguments are so poor, it's easy to disprove them.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!
In my opinion, morality should not be limited to humans.InterestedAtheist 63 to Tree of Life said:Now, back to your perfectly worthwhile question. How can I say what good is? Well, if we are going to try to construct a system of morality, we need some constants of human nature to base them on. Are there any such? I think we could all agree that all humans wish to increase their happiness and decrease their suffering. Happiness is good because it makes us feel good; suffering is bad because it makes us feel bad.
(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 ?Good question. I would say the two uses of good are intimately related. Morality is good (as a means) in that it contributes to flourishing life, which is good (as an end). That which is evil works against life, that which is good works in favor of life. To not steal is good because it does not take what others have to secure flourishing life. To not murder is good because it does not take away life, which is good in itself. So, we can speak of those things that are good in that they contribute to the persistance of things that are good in themselves.InterestedAtheist 64 said:But isn't this a different meaning of the word good? It's sounds more like pleasure than morality. They're both valid meanings, but I thought we were discussing the latter.
Many Christians haven't fully explained how it can be certain that God exists.SR hasn't fully explained 'why' he thinks there is a collapse back into a dilemma from a proposed 'third alternative X.”
What is the difference between 'a standard' and 'the standard' ?God’s nature is the standard because he created everything else.Clizby WampusCat 70 said:I declare I am the standard of good in the universe by my nature. Why is God the standard and not me?
How can one establish God's height and establish that he is indeed the highest ?Tree of Life 75 said:Because there is nothing higher than God or more fundamental than God, God himself is the absolute standard of judgment. There’s nothing superior to him in any way that could serve as a standard of judgment whereby God is judged.Clizby WampusCat 74 said:How does it make him good just because he created everything?
[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.Tree of Life 80 said:We can understand this by way of analogy. Everyone has in mind an absolute standard when making moral judgments.[5] It’s necessary in order to make moral judgments. An absolute standard is one that cannot be evaluated at a higher level. For some, the absolute standard is something like “human well being.” If this is the standard, then a question like: “how do we know that human well being is good?” doesn’t make any sense to ask. “Human well being” is the standard by which we measure everything else. It cannot itself be judged.[6] So it is with my view on God’s nature.Tree of Life 79 to Clizby WampusCat said:If we are speaking in meta-ethical terms and not colloquially, then it makes no sense to ask what makes God good. He is the standard by which everything else is judged. He cannot be judged at all.
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.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!
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.2PiloVoid 106 said:And neither have you. Well-being is not a prescriptive notion, just a descriptive notion, a descriptive notion regarding human psychology and not human morality at that. Do you know the difference between an ethically "Prescriptive" moral notion versus a "Descriptive" moral notion?Clizby WampusCat 104 said:You still have not defined your standard or 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.2PhiloVoid 121 to ClizbyWampusCat said:But if we're going to talk about a moral goal? I suppose we could subscribe to Human Significance along with Human Well-Being. But, even then, adding this additional concept doesn't get us to any principle, let alone an ethical system, of prescriptive force.
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.2PiloVoid 123 said:I just did. Human Significance is better than mere Well-being. And if they're coupled together, it gives us an impetus to begin searching for additional links that could provide justification. The only problem is that we then have to each choose an epistemological mode by which to address our axiological concerns, and that opens a whole new can of worms.Clizby WampusCat said:Then give me a better one?
That is debatable, but even if it is, fortunately I have remediated that in the mean time.Tree of Life 129 said:I do. I don’t think the points that I raised in my OP were sufficiently undermined.InterestedAtheist said:Well, @Tree of Life , thank you for this thread.
Do you still now maintain that the Euthyphro Dilemma can be easily solved?
Disagreeing with reality is typical for Christians.Tree of Life 135 said:Thanks @InterestedAtheist ! I disagree.
You forgot to answer my question.Tree of Life said:[no response]Amoranemix 142 said: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 ?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?
You forgot to answer my question.Tree of Life said:[no response]Amoranemix 142 said: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 ?
You forgot to answer my questions.Tree of Life said:[no response]Amoranemix 142 said:[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 ?
You forgot to answer my question.2PhiloVoid said:[no response]Amoranemix 142 said: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 ?
If atheists were Christians, they too would be losing all the time.2PhiloVoid said:You atheist guys win! And you didn't even have to try to do so. You're THAT good!
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.Many Christians haven't fully explained how it can be certain that God exists.
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 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.
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.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.
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.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.
Not from some FORM of the Good, that's for sure!You forgot to answer my question.
Amoranemix 142 said:
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 ?
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.If atheists were Christians, they too would be losing all the time.
[7] Indeed. Many variants of God have been invented. The ED only disputes the existence of those variants that are the foundation of 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.[7] 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 !!!"Amoranemix 148 said: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.
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.2PhiloVoid 149 said: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.
[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.2PhiloVoid 149 said: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.[8] 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.[9]
So you claim, but can you prove your alleged fact ?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.
2PhiloVoid said: ↑
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.[7] 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 !!!"Amoranemix 148 said:
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.
[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 ?
You obviously didn't understand what I said above. Indeed.... 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.
What??? Hogwash!!![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.
Well, goody.[9] That is your personal opinion. I and most skeptics don't share it.
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.So you claim, but can you prove your alleged fact ?
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]It appears that Christians have given up. The idea that God is the foundation of morality has been buried again.
I commend you for the eloquence, detail and comprehensiveness of your clarification.Philo2Void said:You obviously didn't understand what I said above. Indeed.Amoranemix 150 said: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.
I commend you for the eloquence, detail and comprehensiveness of your explanation.Philo2Void said:What??? Hogwash!!!Amoranemix 150 said:[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.
Then your claim is not a fact. Thanks for sharing your personal opinion with us, but skeptics prefer to believe in reality.Philo2Void said: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.Amoranemix 150 said:So you claim, but can you prove your alleged fact ?
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.
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?