Euthyphro's Dilemma

[Dave Ellis]

Yes, but the fish, whales, and dolphins were apparently not wicked.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Sure they were, mixing saltwater with freshwater would kill off virtually all marine life that is adapted to one or the other.

That being said, there's no explanation for how we all of a sudden have an abundance of marine life again, and can trace many species back millions of years through the fossil record.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Now here was my clumsy mistake: It is you (the non-theist) who is arguing against God being the paradigm of goodness and being unable to be the sole explanation of the existence of moral values and duties. If you wish to take this position, and if you wish to use the Euthyphro Dilemma, then the burden of proof falls on you, not me. You must prove that God cannot be a viable ontological foundation for morality.

That's a shifting of the burden of proof.

We have no reason to have to prove god can or can't be the explanation for anything, until it has been demonstrated that god exists. So far, that has not been done. Therefore, this line of argument is a non-starter.

 

[Moral Orel]

But why can't he do evil? This is similar to the paradox of the stone. If he can't it's because it's impossible. God will never do evil because he'll never want to!

Right, so God could have just made all the other beings in the universe (fallen angels and humans) with no desire to do evil and they would still have free will, just like Him. The desire to do evil didn't exist until He created it. It didn't ever need to exist. He could still make other beings who still have free will and never have created a desire to do anything that doesn't align with His nature.

Besides, I don't understand your #2, last sentence of your post.

I'm just anticipating the next step in the argument. People say it is more valuable for us to learn to be good, or that it is better if we earn a good nature. God didn't learn anything, and He didn't earn His good nature. So if it is better to learn or earn things, then we are better than God in one aspect. If it isn't better to learn or earn things, then He created the universe to work in a less than optimal way. A perfect being doing something less than perfect for arbitrary reasons.

 

[Sapiens]

Given the definition of "good" that I use (and frankly everyone I know), if an omnipotent god can create a universe where evil doesn't exist and doesn't, then there can be no "morally sufficient reason" not to because the very act of not creating that universe breaks the definition of "good". The lack of knowledge argument is immaterial, and frankly a smoke screen.



It's demonstrably true that an omnipotent god could have created up with the free will to choose to do evil, but without the inclination to do evil.

Considering the first part of your post, here's what I read: "to me, God should have created a world without evil, and God could have created a world without evil, but he didn't, therefore he does not have a good reason for having created this world with the evil in it." Where is the part where you say why he shouldn't have created this universe? Is it just because you think he shouldn't have done so? He sure seems to have thought differently! Is it possible that he knows better than you?

Excuse me, but simply accusing God is totally unsatisfactory.

It's demonstrably true? Well please do demonstrate.
I'm not sure what you mean by the way, God did not create us with a "special" inclination toward evil. We chose that ourselves.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm not sure what you mean by the way, God did not create us with a "special" inclination toward evil. We chose that ourselves.

Yes He did. No one is capable of leading a completely sin-free life are they? Jesus did, but He was God, so that doesn't count. In the same way that we have a curious nature that drives us to wonder about things we don't know, we have a sin nature (according to your theology) that drives us to do things we ought not to do.

Can we resist that nature some? Sure. But not completely. He made it overpowering. He designed every bit about us, even our inclinations and the things that drive us.

I find it funny that when it comes to explaining things, theists want to go further and further back with science like saying, "well then who started the Big Bang?" and "even if evolution is true, how did life start?". But when it comes to theology they don't want to go back to the beginning and analyze why God set things up the way He did. Humans seem to be the only way that humans can be, and that excuses God's actions because we chose to do what He destined us to do.

 

[Sapiens]

It is a false dilemma, in that there are other options. That is the criteria by which it becomes a false dilemma.

[Sigh] No. Here is the website I was pointed to in our last discussion and its opinion:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

"A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning":

1. 
   
2. Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
3. Claim Y is false.
4. Therefore claim X is true."

I advise you simply re-read what I wrote but while trying to actually understand it instead of finding a way to attack it.

By the way, the Euthypro Dilemma offers only two options, against which I argued and presented my third option. I will give you a real dilemma, the one I am defending: Either God exists and good and evil exist, or he doesn't and good and evil don't either.

I still do not know what you mean. What would this person live on and breathe prior to the formation of the Earth and the existence of properly oxygenated atmosphere?

Um, well, nothing, since they didn't exist yet. Except God of course, and, to my knowledge, he doesn't breathe.

In your post #17, you deleted everything in my post below where I asked, "where?".

I have truthfully no clue of what you're talking about. I don't recall quoting anything else than what I did. If there's something I forgot to respond that you would like me to, please quote yourself in the next post and tell me it's it, so 'Ill know. By the way, I can't delete your posts, I can only edit mine.

I do not know what a "God" is. You say he is a 'person' and the only 'persons' I know are human. They eat, they breathe, they are subject to entropy. What is he?

He is a supernatural being. Like we persons, having a consciousness that is immaterial and that transcends our bodies.

You have him doing acts that you have declared to be wrong.

...wrong to us. How many times must I reapeat myself?

You are the one that declared the act described in post #2 to be wrong. This conundrum is yours, not mine.

You're the one accusing God.

How can one be reconciled with the fictional? Does that problem not need to be dealt with first? And what about virtually all of the scientific knowledge that need be wildly inaccurate in order for the stories in the Bible to be accurate descriptions of reality?

Are you sure you want to talk about this here? I would have you tell me what such knowledge needs to be proven wrong, but we should discuss this in a future thread.

What death? A bad weekend, and then become some sort of immortal? With superpowers? Where was the sacrifice, exactly?

Jesus has always been God, the Son. Well, if you've heard a bit about the story, it was on the cross.

You seem to contradict yourself here; if all can be forgiven, why would you (if you thought there was anything to this religious stuff) turn away from a theology that boils down to, anything goes, as long as you believe?

I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you mean here. Why would I turn away from the belief that "anything goes so long as I believe"? Because it's pure nonsense! And so long as I believe what?

God is dead then? Or not? You are all over the place here.

Oh lala...

Jesus=God. Jesus dies on the cross as a human. Therefore God died on the cross.

Guilty of what?

Sin. (Disobedience of Him=Doing evil)

How can one be perfectly good?

You should ask God. Only He truly knows. As for me, I am considered perfectly good before him because of Jesus. So could you.

Who died but didn't die.

Does the word "resurection" ring any bell?

Why?

Why what? We are evil, He is Holy, we can't go in his presence just like that. We must pay for our wrongs. Justice.

Then you need to be clear about what you are saying. What's wrong about you allowing the rape of children if you are confident that your God will make it up to them one day? They may live another 60 or seventy years, carrying the memory of being brutalized, but it seems to be okay by you. Can you clarify here?

Well I've personally never allowed a rape to occur. And I would surely not! Why? Because those people would be hurt, if I can help it, I'll stop it. Of course it's not okay, but it ain't my fault. All I know is that ultimately Justice will be done and the world restored.

There is wishful thinking.

I reckon there is plenty of reasons to trust God's promises. We can discuss them another time. I'd say that the fact that He exists, doesn't lie and is omnipotent, that he has already proven his power and intentions is a good starting point.

If it was, you have not explained how so.

I never said that it's okay to be brutalized or hurt or that we shouldn't care.

In post #3 you declared the act I described in post #2 to be wrong. In that same post you say "Again, unless one can prove that God doesn't have a "morally sufficient reason" one cannot say God is failing a duty."

You are the one asking that I prove that your god doesn't have reasons to do this 'wrong' in question, implying that if there were no reasons, your god would no longer be good.

So you have your god committing an act that you have declared to be wrong, but justifying that act by hypothesizing that he must have a good reasons (reasons we have no access to) to justify doing that wrong.

Wrong if done by us. We have no reason to believe it is wrong for God. In fact, I believe it is you that were implying that God isn't doing anything and that he should. It is true, I believe that if God were allowing this for no good reason, let's say he is just a sadist and loves to see us suffering, then that would mean we are justifed in our rebellion of him allowing certain evils. However, I do not think this is true. He is good and he does not allow evil because he is a sadist but he allows what he allows for good reasons.

That was not the objection that I am making. Are you working from a script?

Oh? Ok then, what was it? Do I need a script to misunderstand you? I quoted every resources I use anyways. I like to give more than not enough, and that's my business.

 

[Sapiens]

Because if you define god as good by fiat, it's essentially circular. Anything he does by definition would be good, even if it conflicts with the actual definition of the word good.

In order to judge something as good, there must be some point of comparison. By necessity, that has to be something independent of the thing being judged.

We're not talking about the word "good" but actual "goodness". If you judge good, you have nothing else to compare it with except itself and perhaps by contrast with evil. Who decided the definition of "good"? If God is the standard for good, he will never contradict it.

 

[Sapiens]

When you say God's nature is good, how do you evaluate this idea? I know God says his nature is good and that is how you know but if you wanted to be sure how would you check?

In all honesty and humility, I don't really know. When I'll be in God's presence, it'll be cristal clear I suppose.
Although I already believe it; in fact, I would say that I know it.

If I really had to make an argument I would perhaps use St-Anselm's, about the "maximally great being". It is better to be all-good than not all good. At this present time, I'm just not sure. Perhaps it really is a matter of Faith. I think there is an utlimate point when we question reality when we have to say we just trust it's true, for example that right and wrong, good and evil, are real; maybe this is one of those times.

So are you stating unequivocally that your God is unchangeable, that is, once he makes a clear statement about something he will never change his mind? Unrelated question. ..if you decieve someone, specifically so that they will believe something that is not true, are you guilty of lying? And is lying a sin? What about if you knowingly send someone to lie on your behalf, does it make it OK because someone else physically told the lie or are are you still guilty because you were the one who ordered it?

Yes, God is unchangeable. What God said is a bit different though. Take for example all he commanded to Israel, they were commandments specifically for them, his earthly people. I don't need physical circumcision, my spirit has been circumcised (that is to say that I have the Spirit of God within me to attest I am part of his spiritual people). His true intentions and motivations won't change.

Yes, I would say lying is a sin. It certainly is one of the ten commandments anyways. I wouldn't bet my life on that though. I would say yes to both of your scenarios; they are forms of lying, the one who ordered it is surely responsible too.

I don't belive evil exists, it is a religious word that doesn't comport with reality that I can see. I base my morality in the principle of minimizing harm.This doesn't make a god based morality impossible but it is an alternative hypothesis.

I'm glad to see you don't try to avoid the question. I would suppose you might agree with what Richard Dawkins said: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/richarddaw402494.html"

Except, I still do wonder why you are accusing God of evil. Unless I am mistaken on your intentions?

Knowledge is a subset if belief, specifically it is usually defines as justified, true belief. So when you say that God is good this is a statement of belief not of knowledge.

I also take to be a belief that God does not exist. I suppose you believe that the universe exist? Or you exist? Do you know it or believe it and what's the difference? Anyhow, we could go on to talk about what is belief or knowldege or not, but I think it isn't necessary. All that matters, is to remember that this has no relevance pertaining to the truthfulness of my claims, or to yours for that matter.


I'll actually take some more time to reflect on your last quote answer. Please remind me if ever I forget to respond.

 

[Sapiens]

So the owner loses his investment for beating amother human being, an image bearer of God, to death and you call this good?
In your second paragraph you talked about us being made in the image of God and therfore having moral agency but you have not responded to another post on this subject that pointed out to you that Adam and Eve were in God's image before they ate the fruit and gained the knowledge of good and evil that is the basis of moral decision making. Until you can address this objection you are not justified in continuing to make this point.
Finally you keep pointing out that God might have good reason for permitting you would call evil but this doesn't help you escape the euthyphro dilemma. You are saying that his nature is your standard for good but then he does things that you would not call good were anyone else to do them. Essentially you have failed to carry your burden of proof that God's nature is good. More over even if we were willing to grant you this defence you are introducing a specualtivery premise into your argument and so can only at best come away with a special other conclusion.

Anyway here are all the thing from my post that you didn't respond to for some reason. I will copy them below so that you can engage with the questions I am asking. I know you are responding to a lot of people so I will assume you just overlooked them and we're not deliberately avoiding difficult questions

From earlier :
Me
OK now to respond to your thoughts.

You
God's nature is not good because he says so, I know it because he said so. God's nature is good because it's good. It's just so. Now I admit it might take a step of faith to believe that.

Me
When you say God's nature is good, how do you evaluate this idea? I know God says his nature is good and that is how you know but if you wanted to be sure how would you check?

You
No, God won't change tomorrow. He's unchangeable! His good nature won't change. He won't start liking something He used to hate. He won't consider good what he once considered wrong. Contrary to Euthyphro's gods, I'm talking about the only God that truly exists, and he is consistent with himself. Always. Forever.

Me
So are you stating unequivocally that your God is unchangeable, that is, once he makes a clear statement about something he will never change his mind? Unrelated question. ..if you decieve someone, specifically so that they will believe something that is not true, are you guilty of lying? And is lying a sin? What about if you knowingly send someone to lie on your behalf, does it make it OK because someone else physically told the lie or are are you still guilty because you were the one who ordered it?

You
Fair enough. Although, if you do believe there is better explanation than God for good and evil, right and wrong, to exist, now would have been a good time to say it and show how nonsensical what all I'm saying is. That is also if you believe morality to be more than an illusion, like I do. In fact, it seems to be the case of everyone here accusing God.

Me
I don't belive evil exists, it is a religious word that doesn't comport with reality that I can see. I base my morality in the principle of minimizing harm.This doesn't make a god based morality impossible but it is an alternative hypothesis.

You
I'm sorry? What is this standard?
Me
Knowledge is a subset if belief, specifically it is usually defines as justified, true belief. So when you say that God is good this is a statement of belief not of knowledge.

You
Yeah... God sure doesn't mess around when it comes to justice.

Do you recall that all these people were wicked?

Me
Please explain how the foetus in its mother's womb was wicked, or all the trees that drowned?
Also remember this whole thing was God's plan to begin with. He planed for the fall to happen, and one brother to murder the other etc etc up to the point where he would need to drown almost everyone to death, while knowing ahead of time that this wouldn't fix anything and that he would still have to come to earth as himself to kill himself so that he could serve as a loophole for rules he set up to punish actions he predestined, thereby actualizing a system in which his glory ends up with most of his ensouled, image bearing creature, end up in a hell he made for someone else but knew they would end up in any way because they were not part of the elect that God predestined to save (whether they wanted to believe or not thereby obviating free will).
So please explain how it is that God is good again...I seem to be reading a different book than you.

I answer in chronological order, that's why.

 

[Chesterton]

This is from two weeks ago, nobody responded so I'll try it a different way. Assuming you believe in a good God, can you tell me what's wrong with this statement: "What is morally good is commanded by God because it is morally good."? I'm not seeing a problem.

 

[Athée]

I answer in chronological order, that's why.

Fair enough. I will sit tight then and let you get to the rest of my posts when you have a chance

 

[Athée]

This is from two weeks ago, nobody responded so I'll try it a different way. Assuming you believe in a good God, can you tell me what's wrong with this statement: "What is morally good is commanded by God because it is morally good."? I'm not seeing a problem.

Many theists reject this notion because it makes objective goodness a standard that is outside of God. If he commands actions because they are good, then he is in fact being dictated to by that standard of good that he is following. Since most theists what god to be a maximally great being this is problematic.

 

[Chesterton]

Many theists reject this notion because it makes objective goodness a standard that is outside of God.

No it doesn't.

If he commands actions because they are good, then he is in fact being dictated to by that standard of good that he is following. Since most theists what god to be a maximally great being this is problematic.

No, He's not being dictated by anything outside Him. Read it again.

 

[Athée]

No it doesn't.


No, He's not being dictated by anything outside Him. Read it again.

How does God evaluate what things are good and therfore things he can command?

 

[Chesterton]

How does God evaluate what things are good and therfore things he can command?

He doesn't have to evaluate, He knows what He is.

 

[Athée]

How does him knowing what he is help him determine what is good?

 

[Chesterton]

How does him knowing what he is help him determine what is good?

Your question contains an implication which the first part of the "dilemma" doesn't contain. There's no implication that any determination needs to be made.

 

[Athée]

Your question contains an implication which the first part of the "dilemma" doesn't contain. There's no implication that any determination needs to be made.

You asked what is the problem with saying:
What is morally good is commanded by God because it is morally good."?
What does it mean to you to say something is morally good?

 

[Chesterton]

You asked what is the problem with saying:
What is morally good is commanded by God because it is morally good."?
What does it mean to you to say something is morally good?

To say something is morally good means it's morally good. Anything else is an add-on.

 

[Athée]

To say something is morally good means it's morally good. Anything else is an add-on.

What does morally good entail? If I were evaluating a command someone gave me, what criteria would I use to determine if it was a morally good command or not?