What would you lose if Christianity were not true?

[Sanoy]

Nature has selected for certain behaviours.

I should have specified that reflex isn't the right term. But what I mean is that it seems to happen immediately and unconsciously, unlike solving a mathematical riddle or something like that. Not that we always know exactly how we feel morally about something, but the moral reaction itself doesn't seem to be something we can "control."

I still don't agree that it must be the case that all or none of my faculties are trustworthy.

I don't know where else my rationality would "happen" or originate, other than in my brain. It seems to be what the brain is for. And I don't see how the existence of a soul or anything like it would be necessary for rationality and certainly not some sort of proof that my thoughts would be rational.

Sure, but again that's not objectivity in the true sense, which would be something that is true whether or not God exists/commands it. Like you say, God can't do the logically impossible, so that's apparently a principle that does in fact exist regardless of God's existence.

But in any case, your view presupposes that God exists (and probably that there aren't other gods as well, and that he's not distant and so forth).

Moral Response.
Ok, what you are saying about moral response makes more sense now that it isn’t a reflex. Yes, these faculties aren’t ourselves, they process things and alert our consciousness and they do so quickly. However, since they are not reflexes they do not cause our actions. They inform our decisions and what we commit to in action is our moral response.

Faculty doubt.
I’m not saying that all or none of your faculties must be trustworthy. Not at all. Rather I am saying that when one faculty doubts the other, doubt is then created for the faculty which doubts, and consequently the very claim of doubt as well. If I just regarded the intellectual faculty I would have just as much reason to believe it trustworthy as untrustworthy, 50/50. However if that faculty concludes that another faculty, constructed by the same manufacturer, lies, then I now have a reason to believe my intellectual faculties are not trustworthy, and no reason to believe that they are trustworthy. Even if that affect is minimal it would still be 49/50 that a belief is true. That is a problem. Not only can you not warrant greater than 50/50 on true belief, your conclusion that our moral faculties are not reporting truth has increased the problem.

Free Will.
There is 0 evidence that consciousness is in the brain and loads of evidence that it isn’t. Shocking statement I’m sure, but you will find that the typical evidences for materialism are empirically equivalent theories to dualism. Regardless of whether dualism is true you have a rationality problem. Why should a chemical reaction have any truth value?

Objective value.
Objectivity is not defined as something that is true whether or not God exists/commands it. You contrived that definition. Objective is true independently of the ways we think about it. It is a certainty that ones moral response will have eternal consequences regardless of how we think about it.

Genghis Khan
Genghis Khan doesn’t prove anything, but it is substantial evidence of Darwinian success that your attribution cannot compete with. Further, it is immediately expected on the mechanism of evolution; passing on ones genes. Your example isn’t expected, it factually does not compete, and your counter example of tight groups facilitate the very behavior in question. As a counter example of a “rape group” you point to Isis, which is jihadi organization that will blow themselves and their own community up. These examples are terrible Holo and should embarrass your sincerity for truth - from Antarctica, to the stone age, to…ear wiggling, to Isis. Are you ever willing to change your belief or will you just reach into a bag of infinite poor excuses to maintain your present world view.

Burden of Proof
It’s one thing to change your view of God over time, It’s another thing entirely to hold whatever view is presently advantageous to you in a discussion. This sudden change regarding the likelihood of God being good isn’t the only time you have done this, this has been persistent and pervasive throughout this discussion. I think that the problem is that you are not honest with yourself, you allow yourself the dishonesty of acquiring whatever beliefs and reasons you need at the time for the sake of maintaining the mental protection this world view provides you. And by that, I am calling upon that phase of doubt in objectivity that you went through after rejecting Christ which you overcame with this world view.

In regards to God’s caring, no one should assume anything. IF He exists, He sent His son to die for you. That is a reason to believe He cares. By definition there can only be one MGB, maximally great being. As far as there being other lesser great beings, don’t you think it’s a bit disingenuous to bring up other beings when you don’t believe in any? Regardless, the case is abductive, what is being appealed to is God, not other Gods. You don't defeat an abductive case, that is an appeal to the best explanation, by altering the case the person made, you defeat it by making your explanation more likely. Instead of red herrings you need to make your explanation likely. No one can do that, and you won't either, that is the only reason you persist in returning with red herrings.

You say that the reason you don’t believe the claim God cares is because you see no evidence of it. But that is not a reason when there are countless personal testimonies that He does, as well as the account of His son who suffered torture for you. This is all regardless of belief in God. You are presupposing Him to say He doesn’t care, I am presupposing Him to say He does. Your personal lack of experience regarding a person is not innately a reason to believe something about that person. I have seen a Ghost, I talked to it because I thought it was a person. The only reason I know it was a ghost is because it walked through a locked door. My Dad has seen one too. In fact 60% of Americans claim to have seen ghosts. I think you greatly overestimate yourself by placing yourself as the center of what is true and what isn’t by what you have personally experienced and haven’t experienced. Your lack of experience is not an epistemic paradigm.

The principle of credulity states that you should believe an experience unless you have a reason not to believe it. Otherwise it logically creates cascading and circular doubt – doubting experience of experience ad infinitum. I hope you are not talking about finding car keys and parking spaces when you speak of better explanations, because that would be very disingenuous when I just spoke of miraculous healing, deliverance and angelic beings.

Genocide.
Okay you are just contriving the definition of genocide now. This is worthless. Further it is worthless to compare God to “what one says”. That would be a strawman.

Is there light in Holo?
I take your word for it that you perceive a light in you, but I am asking if there is any light in you. I never said anything about it being a physical object, physicality is a secondary aspect of the universe, not a primary one. The universe is at base non physical and could cease to be physical at any moment. I’m glad you agree that the mass murderer probably believes he is doing the right thing, because that is all you are doing as well. Both of you are wrong however, because there is no right thing to do.

I asked you how you can objectively state that your children have no objective value without confirming your own world view. You claim you have no burden for that claim, but you do. The statement that “my children have no objective value” is a claim you must warrant. This has been interesting, but if you don’t start bearing your burden, and sticking to your statements I don’t see much purpose in continuing it.

Why not ask your kids, hypothetically only, an honest question instead of the one you present. Try this. “you are the most valuable thing to me because my brain tells me you are and I couldn’t do otherwise” or “you are the most valuable thing to God and me because we love you of our own free will”.

You are mistaken, one can have a functional frontal lobe and find his purpose is to set another persons family on fire. They do so because that is what they wanted to do. Many who choose to kill another person do so because they wanted to at that time. Your sense of purpose to love your family is not greater than someone’s purpose to kill another persons family. You are mistaken to think otherwise on your world view.

Choosing to take authority of yourself is exactly what you did do, and that is exactly what Eve did. She wanted to become like God so that she wouldn’t have to be responsible to Him. You may have arrived at that conclusion differently, but that is the same conclusion. ‘I will be my own god and set my own purpose in life. It’s a really poor contrast to the narrative of not wanting to reject Christ.

Euthyphro Questions
“God=good” doesn’t tell you anything because that is a philosophical statement that everything true of one is true of another. It doesn’t describe what God’s nature is, you find that in scripture. His nature doesn’t conform to our perceptions of Good and Evil, you have reversed the two to yet again bring up the Euthyphro because that is the only thing you know to do in response.

Theistic expectations
God did create us with the ability to make use of more revelation, that was lost in the falls.

Claims
You ask me why you should believe Christianity is true over other religions…once again shirking the burden of your claim that Christianity was constructed. Christianity stands above over religions because the facts surrounding it's central claim have a high degree of historical reliability. Again, I will consider your next reply in deciding whether this is worthwhile to continue or not. If you continue to be disingenuous, not bearing the weight of your claims but asking it of me instead, and changing your statements to suit your needs then I will discontinue, because there is no purpose in such a one sided conversation.

Slavery and Evolutionary Morality.
Good, you finally admit that slavery is explained on evolution. However you can’t just attribute a change in morals from slavery to non slavery to evolutionary expectation just because it happened. That is again, planting the goal posts wherever you want. The mechanism of evolution is unchanged; which is passing on ones genes. Not-slavery is still unexpected on that mechanism, while slavery is.

Progress
Humanism isn’t our best shot so far, it's our worst. You appeal to evolution, and Hitler was all about human progress toward an uberman. Humanism is about human moral progress, which isn’t even a real thing to strive for. If you want progress in something real on this world view, choose hitler, if you want progress according to the fizz of a lying moral faculty choose humanism. Further, peace and coexistence is entirely unexpected on evolution. Evolution requires conflict to bring out the best genes. You consistently appeal to evolution to explain our moral values, and yet your moral values are contrary to evolution on every turn.

Self defeating denial of our faculties.
Regarding the two algorithms you state that one can be tested. But it can’t, because it would be using itself to test itself. That is circular. So you still have a problem. And you don’t need to believe in God to analytically consider the statements I have made. Evolution does offers intellectual faculties, but not in a way that would explain why it would be likely for them to produce true belief. You continually reject God as an explanation for the agreed upon claim that our intellectual faculties are reliable, but you are clearly incapable of providing for that axiom on evolution. You can hand wave my explanation away, but that doesn’t make yours work.

Evolution and self-defeat.
You state that we are stuck with the assumption that we can know some things to be real, and that we can still use reason and logic for what it’s worth. That is exactly what I am doing through abduction and exactly what you are refusing to do on evolution. If evolution is the cause of our faculties then the claim that evolution is the cause of our faculties is unlikely to be a true belief because the evolutionary mechanism is concerned with behavior not true belief. So I’m going to call you out on that statement, you need to start backing up your claims, and acting according to them.

We believe that a calculator reveals mathematical truths because it was designed to do so. It is factually the case that teleology is presently a reason to trust.

Prior belief.
I am stating that the only answer that matters in regards to why you believed is in fact the answer you would have given while you believed.

On what paradigm is it reasonable to assume that if something falls a million times that it will fall the next time? I assure you that paradigm is not naturalism, so what paradigm are you drawing from?

Genocide
Yes I am stating that no preacher used the exact word genocide. You were begging the question in stating that they did, that was why I can’t asking about it.

Consciousness.
If your claims are not derived from your consciousness then they are not derived rationally. So they have 0 truth value. Further, consciousness is where rationality happens, so by stating that consciousness is an illusion you are both confirming that we are not rational beings, and that none of your claims have been rational. I would add this to the list of your self defeating positions from earlier, but you have defeated this same claim because an illusion IS an intentional state. So you can’t have an illusion of consciousness without having a consciousness from which to have an illusion.

The example I gave regarding losing a finger doesn’t need to represent your example entirely, it only needs to convey what a categorical error looks like from assuming one thing has the same properties as another thing by the same name.

Trustworthy behavior.
I feel like I have stated several times why your behavior doesn’t match your claims, whether that be evolutionary morality, intellectual faculties, or particularly that you act according to the claims of your moral faculties rather than the claims of your intellectual faculties.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree that applying Euthyphro to the question of God's existence or credibility is reading Euthyphro out of context, but I still think that it deals a mortal blow to divine command theory. Whether we are talking about Zeus or YHWH makes no difference in this matter.

How does it do that on the human moral plane precisely? Not that I really care, mind you, since there are other "theoretical" theology constructs like Creation Ethics, or some amalgamation thereof, that can also stand in the gap.

But whatever the right theory could actually happen to be from a human point of view, it's all just spitting in the wind if the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (& Jesus) really does exist, regardless.

 

[FireDragon76]

How does it do that on the human moral plane precisely? Not that I really care, mind you, since there are other "theoretical" theology constructs like Creation Ethics, or some amalgamation thereof, that can also stand in the gap.

I've never heard of "Creation Ethics".

Divine command ethics is torpedoed because Euthyphro shows that discerning the good is a properly human, secular activity. This is actually more or less in keeping with the ethics of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, as well, so Socrates and Jesus are ultimately on the same page.

But whatever the right theory could actually happen to be from a human point of view, it's all just spitting in the wind if the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (& Jesus) really does exist, regardless.

I disagree that it's spitting in the wind, even if YHWH exists, we need a better account of morality other than "might makes right", which is what flies for many Christians.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've never heard of "Creation Ethics".

Well, now you have!

Divine command ethics is torpedoed because Euthyphro shows that discerning the good is a properly human, secular activity. This is actually more or less in keeping with the ethics of the historical Jesus of Nazareth, as well, so Socrates and Jesus are ultimately on the same page.

To me, it's more like saying that there's some theory "x" that has been given the label "Divine Command" by some theologians and/or philosophers and that "x" may be torpedoed by the Euthyphro dilemma, but if we're talking about the God of the Bible, which we are, then His ethics aren't torpedoed for the reasons that I've been alluding to repeatedly around here for the last few years. [Such as up above at post #457 where I responded to Holo]

What would you lose if Christianity were not true?

I disagree that it's spitting in the wind, even if YHWH exists, we need a better account of morality other than "might makes right", which is what flies for many Christians.

No, we don't necessarily. It's like this: The discussion of this whole issue is simply a matter of whether or not someone like me is attempting to convince you that God is Holy and Righteous. Other than the Biblical contents which we all have access to these days, we have nothing else to go by in existential terms.

So, all this means in practical terms is that if you already harbor in a mindset and a disposition in which the Bible is assumed to be faulty, then the discussion is over since it's not a simple matter of human rationality but also one of human existential ignore about what is otherwise essentially unknowable. So, if there is a God, and folks want to gripe about what they think of His politics and policies are, then they need to take it up with Him, not with me. To me, it's that simple.

I never said that I thought it was all about "might makes right." Rather, in my view, its a matter of "Right makes Might" AND the fact that the rest of human morality is so dog gone relative and essentially based on nothing concrete other than pragmatic and hopeful thinking for humanity that if there isn't a God, we might as well just pull out Foucault's playbook and have a tug of war over it all.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well, now you have!

To me, it's more like saying that there's some theory that has been given the label "Divine Command" by some theologians and/or philosophers may be torpedoed by the Euthyphro dilemma, but if we're talking about the God of the Bible, when we are, then His ethics aren't torpedoed for the reasons that I've been alluding to repeatedly around here for the last few years. [Such as up above at post #457 where I responded to Holo]

What would you lose if Christianity were not true?

No, we don't necessarily. It's like this. The discussion of this whole issue is simply a matter of whether or not someone like me is attempting to convince you that God is Holy and Righteous. Other than the Biblical contents which we all have access to these days, we have nothing else to go by in existential terms.

So, all this means in practical terms is that if you already harbor in a mindset and a disposition in which the Bible is assumed to be faulty, then the discussion is over since it's not a simple matter of human rationality but also one of human existential ignore about what is otherwise essentially unknowable. So, if there is a God, and folks want to gripe about what they think of His politics and policies are, then they need to take it up with Him, not with me. To me, it's that simple.

I never said that I thought it was all about "might makes right." Rather, in my view, its a matter of "Right makes Might" AND the fact that the rest of human morality is so dog gone relative and essentially based on nothing concrete other than pragmatic and hopeful thinking for humanity that if there isn't a God, we might as well just pull out Foucault's playbook and have a tug of war over it all.

You seem to be asserting fideism viz a viz a "biblical morality". "Life is absurd without my infallible book".

No, look... it's not so dire as that. I know goodness when I see it. It's in the kindness of ordinary people when they say no to greed, hatred, and ignorance. I don't need a holy book to tell me how to be good.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Well, now you have!

To me, it's more like saying that there's some theory that has been given the label "Divine Command" by some theologians and/or philosophers may be torpedoed by the Euthyphro dilemma, but if we're talking about the God of the Bible, when we are, then His ethics aren't torpedoed for the reasons that I've been alluding to repeatedly around here for the last few years. [Such as up above at post #457 where I responded to Holo]

What would you lose if Christianity were not true?

No, we don't necessarily. It's like this. The discussion of this whole issue is simply a matter of whether or not someone like me is attempting to convince you that God is Holy and Righteous. Other than the Biblical contents which we all have access to these days, we have nothing else to go by in existential terms.

So, all this means in practical terms is that if you already harbor in a mindset and a disposition in which the Bible is assumed to be faulty, then the discussion is over since it's not a simple matter of human rationality but also one of human existential ignore about what is otherwise essentially unknowable. So, if there is a God, and folks want to gripe about what they think of His politics and policies are, then they need to take it up with Him, not with me. To me, it's that simple.

I never said that I thought it was all about "might makes right." Rather, in my view, its a matter of "Right makes Might" AND the fact that the rest of human morality is so dog gone relative and essentially based on nothing concrete other than pragmatic and hopeful thinking for humanity that if there isn't a God, we might as well just pull out Foucault's playbook and have a tug of war over it all.

In short, Philo can't answer the question, and takes a long time to tell us this. We can continue under our current assumption, that the Euthyphro Dilemma poses an insuperable obstacle for Christians, as demonstrated by the way they refuse to address it, or are only able to do so with flawed logic.

Philo, it's a fairly simple question. If you can't answer it, say so.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In short, Philo can't answer the question, and takes a long time to tell us this. More or less what I expected. We can continue under our current assumption, that the Euthyphro Dilemma poses an insuperable obstacle for Christians, as demonstrated by the way they refuse to address it, or are only able to do so with flawed logic.

Did you not read what I said to Holo above? If you haven't, maybe take the time to do so.

Moreover, one of--and not the only--defining 'lines' in the thought of Plato's Socrates in this whole Euthyphro shtick is that there were Multiple Gods whom disagreed with one another and that catalyzed the inquiry... "which god's opinion were they suppose to go with?"

Needless to say, in Biblical Theology, we have Monotheism, so the catalyzing line isn't begun by there being a tension between Ethics A of Zeus and Ethics Z of Ares, but rather the extent to which we humans feel we can comport ourselves to what God (YHWH) has Willed for us as a singular species, all of which is quite a different problem than what Socrates was attempting to unravel in dialogue with Euthyphro (the latter whom wanted to sue his own father-------------kind of like how folks today want to indict and depose God/Jesus from the realm of human thought.)

In anything, Psalm 2 along with the Prophetic chutzpah of both the O.T. and the N.T. should be the defining texts for the debate between those today who feel they must gripe about God/Jesus, not Plato's Euthyphro. So, put the Platonic tool back into the Platonic toolbox where it belongs!

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Did you not read what I said to Holo above? If you haven't, maybe take the time to do so.

Moreover, one of--and not the only--defining 'lines' in the thought of Plato's Socrates in this whole Euthyphro shtick is that there were Multiple Gods whom disagreed with one another and that catalyzed the inquiry... "which god's opinion were they suppose to go with?"

Needless to say, in Biblical Theology, we have Monotheism, so the catalyzing line isn't begun by there being a tension between Ethics A of Zeus and Ethics Z of Ares, but rather the extent to which we humans feel we can comport ourselves to what God (YHWH) has Willed for us as a singular species, all of which is quite a different problem than what Socrates was attempting to unravel in dialogue with Euthyphro (the latter whom wanted to sue his own father-------------kind of like how folks today want to indict and depose God/Jesus from the realm of human thought.)

In anything, Psalm 2 along with the Prophetic chutzpah of both the O.T. and the N.T. should be the defining texts for the debate between those today who feel they must gripe about God/Jesus, not Plato's Euthyphro. So, put the Platonic tool back into the Platonic toolbox where it belongs!

Sure I read it, Philo. And then I pointed out the self-evident truth: that you can't answer the Euthyphro dilemma, but don't want to say so.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You seem to be asserting fideism viz a viz a "biblical morality". "Life is absurd without my infallible book".

I can assure you, I only 'seem' to be. But, on a mere cursory reading of my position, if you want to 'see' my form of faith in that vain, then I can't stop you from doing so. Label me as you wish, but a rose by any name is still just as prickly.

No, look... it's not so dire as that. I know goodness when I see it. It's in the kindness of ordinary people when they say no to greed, hatred, and ignorance. I don't need a holy book to tell me how to be good.

The extent to which any of us truly "knows" goodness when we think we see it will depend on the extent to which the Bible is 'true' and a fixture of our commonly shared Reality (by which I do not mean "Perceived Reality").

As for me, I'd say that generally speaking, and despite that many folks claim they "know" that hurting other people is a "bad" idea for several reasons, the totality of the social problems which come about between different people make this idea tenuous and thus, we need something 'more' to hold us in check over our temporally changing emotions. Otherwise, you get "pushers" like Hugh Hefner who, in the name of 'Freedom' produce inept social garbage that then become another form of Influential Religious Text........

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sure I read it, Philo. And then I pointed out the self-evident truth: that you can't answer the Euthyphro dilemma, but don't want to say so.

...I just did answer it.

 

[FireDragon76]

I can assure you, I only 'seem' to be. But, on a mere cursory reading of my position, if you want to 'see' my form of faith in that vain, then I can't stop you from doing so. Label me as you wish, but a rose by any name is still just as prickly.

The extent to which any of us truly "knows" goodness when we think we see it will depend on the extent to which the Bible is 'true' and a fixture of our commonly shared Reality (by which I do not mean "Perceived Reality").

As for me, I'd say that generally speaking, and despite that many folks claim they "know" that hurting other people is a "bad" idea for several reasons, the totality of the social problems which come about between different people make this idea tenuous and thus, we need something 'more' to hold us in check over our temporally changing emotions. Otherwise, you get "pushers" like Hugh Hefner who, in the name of 'Freedom' produce inept social garbage that then become another form of Influential Religious Text........

Hugh Hefner was a broken man rebelling against his parents Methodism. That's not the sort of freedom I envision as a good thing. And you're never going to set off on a journey into truth with that sort of rebellious attitude. Moderation is key.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

...I just did answer it.

No, you didn't.
The question is:
Does God command something because it is good, or is it good because God commands it?
To answer this question is to say either that God does command something because it is good, because (reasons) or to say that something is good because God commands it, because (reasons).
What you did was say you didn't need to answer it. But whether you need to answer something or not, you are either capable of doing so, or incapable.
I therefore assume you can't answer the question. If I'm wrong, please show me by answering it.
I don't think you, or anyone, can, however. There's a good reason it's called Euthyphro's Dilemma.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hugh Hefner was a broken man rebelling against his parents Methodism. That's not the sort of freedom I envision as a good thing. And you're never going to set off on a journey into truth with that sort of rebellious attitude. Moderation is key.

Yes. His own brokenness was one key part in the 'creation' of his own psychology and philosophy. The mass production and the socializing of his philosophy, on the other hand, required some additional empowerment that didn't merely come about through his own power.

The upshot in this is that whether moderation could or should play a conceptual role in the ethics of Hefnerian Hedonism, his philosophy isn't just about 'sex' even though it focuses on that. As for the idea of so-called "moderation," this whole idea (or what some folks might call 'regulation') has tainted many a young person's mind and has been doing so for hundreds of years, before Hefner ever came along. Of course, the biblical writers would ignore the euphemism and just call moderation by another name ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, you didn't.
The question is:
Does God command something because it is good, or is it good because God commands it?
To answer this question is to say either that God does command something because it is good, because (reasons) or to say that something is good because God commands it, because (reasons).
What you did was say you didn't need to answer it. But whether you need to answer something or not, you are either capable of doing so, or incapable.
I therefore assume you can't answer the question. If I'm wrong, please show me by answering it.
I don't think you, or anyone, can, however. There's a good reason it's called Euthyphro's Dilemma.

And I'm telling YOU that you're misappropriating the essence of Plato's Socrates and shoving it where it doesn't conceptually "fit." If you want to ask the question that you and a million other atheists want to ask, then DON'T call it "Euthyphro's Dilemma," for the reasons I've already mentioned. Call it something else, like: the Modern Skeptics Moral Gripe about the God of the Bible, or something!

Moreover, just because a human being can concoct a question doesn't mean that his question is even coherent, especially when many folks (even skeptics) are prone to ignoring various conceptual elements as they proceed to run roughshod over the "thing" they don't like.

In the case of the Bible, all that's happening semantically and conceptually is that people just don't LIKE the idea that the Bible calls both God and His Creation "Good," mainly because they WANT another political formation to be dominant in the world. It has little or nothing really to do with a dilemma, especially not one supposedly taken from Socrates.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

And I'm telling YOU that you're misappropriating the essence of Plato's Socrates and shoving it where it doesn't conceptually "fit." If you want to ask the question that you and a million other atheists want to ask, then DON'T call it "Euthyphro's Dilemma," for the reasons I've already mentioned.

Even if it wasn't initially directed at the Christian God, its a good question to ask about Him. And why should it matter what it's called? The argument is the key point. Just address that.
After all, as someone once said:

Label me as you wish, but a rose by any name is still just as prickly.

Moreover, just because a human being can concoct a question doesn't mean that his question is even coherent, especially when many folks (even skeptics) are prone to ignoring various conceptual elements as they proceed to run roughshod over the "thing" they don't like.

This is a perfectly coherent question. What is the nature of good, and where does it come from, and how can we tell that it is really good?
Now, Christians may not be able to answer this question, but that's doesn't mean the question itself is at fault. Just Christians, for saying that God is the source of all morality.

In the case of the Bible, all that's happening semantically and conceptually is that people just don't LIKE the idea that the Bible calls both God and His Creation "Good," mainly because they WANT another political formation to be dominant in the world. It has little or nothing really to do with a dilemma, especially not one supposedly taken from Socrates.

Don't try to change the subject, Philo. It's a simple question.

Does God command something because it is good, or is it good because God commands it?

You say that God is good? Okay. How do we know?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Even if it wasn't initially directed at the Christian God, its a good question to ask about Him. And why should it matter what it's called? The argument is the key point. Just address that.
After all, as someone once said:



This is a perfectly coherent question. What is the nature of good, and where does it come from, and how can we tell that it is really good?
Now, Christians may not be able to answer this question, but that's doesn't mean the question itself is at fault. Just Christians, for saying that God is the source of all morality.


Don't try to change the subject, Philo. It's a simple question.

Does God command something because it is good, or is it good because God commands it?

You say that God is good? Okay. How do we know?

Before you can ask such a question, one HAS to absolutely know what constitutes BOTH the nature of "the Good" and of "God." And if we don't already begin with ultra-clear definitions [maybe because humanly speaking NONE of us mere human beings really "knows"], then we can't confuse the process of inquiry and bully the subject by asking the question as to why God "commands something," with the pronoun in this case being whatever current political or social Bug-a-boo that people are unhappy with.

The question is really "Is what is good a part of God our something outside of God." But why He commands some certain moral act "something X" can only be asked AFTER we've delineated the separate concepts of both Good and God. Otherwise, we're just muddying conceptual waters and going nowhere .................

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes. His own brokenness was one key part in the 'creation' of his own psychology and philosophy. The mass production and the socializing of his philosophy, on the other hand, required some additional empowerment that didn't merely come about through his own power.

The upshot in this is that whether moderation could or should play a conceptual role in the ethics of Hefnerian Hedonism, his philosophy isn't just about 'sex' even though it focuses on that. As for the idea of so-called "moderation," this whole idea (or what some folks might call 'regulation') has tainted many a young person's mind and has been doing so for hundreds of years, before Hefner ever came along. Of course, the biblical writers would ignore the euphemism and just call moderation by another name ...

I used to think maybe you had thoughtful things to say, but then you have lapses like this. The more I interact with you the more I am increasingly becoming convinced you have a great deal of affinity for religious fundamentalism and you are simply using a smattering of philosophical jargon to sex up your presentation. This overly condemning attitude of people wanting to merely escape a repressive sexual regime is one such example.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I used to think maybe you had thoughtful things to say, but then you have lapses like this. The more I interact with you the more I am increasingly becoming convinced you have a great deal of affinity for religious fundamentalism and you are simply using a smattering of philosophical jargon to sex up your presentation. This overly condemning attitude of people wanting to merely escape a repressive sexual regime is one such example.

Maybe I do smack of religious fundamentalism to some extent, but I think you're just saying that because you can't bend me to your own way of thinking. As for what my views are, they're merely a part of my Hemeneutical view of Christian Eschatology. I could be wrong about it, but I think the biblical prophetic outlook, especially as illustrated in the book of Revelation, is essentially correct.

And can I help it if my own individual studies and life experiences ["individual" being a mis-nomer here, really] have led me to a particular interpretation on one itty-bitty piece of it that explains it all for me?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Before you can ask such a question, one HAS to absolutely know what constitutes BOTH the nature of "the Good" and of "God." And if we don't already begin with ultra-clear definitions [maybe because humanly speaking NONE of us mere human beings really "knows"], then we can't confuse the process of inquiry and bully the subject by asking the question as to why God "commands something," with the pronoun in this case being whatever current political or social Bug-a-boo that people are unhappy with.

The question is really "Is what is good a part of God our something outside of God." But why He commands some certain moral act "something X" can only be asked AFTER we've delineated the separate concepts of both Good and God. Otherwise, we're just muddying conceptual waters and going nowhere .................

Sounds like you just admitted that we don't know what Good is, and we don't know what God is. In which case, you can't really say "God is good", can you?

Twist and turn as you like, Philo, there's no escaping this one.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Maybe I do smack of religious fundamentalism to some extent, but I think you're just saying that because you can't bend me to your own way of thinking. As for what my views are, they're merely a part of my Hemeneutical view of Christian Eschatology. I could be wrong about it, but I think the biblical prophetic outlook, especially as illustrated in the book of Revelation, is essentially correct.

And can I help it if my own individual studies and life experiences ["individual" being a mis-nomer here, really] have led me to a particular interpretation on one itty-bitty piece of it that explains it all for me?

I think that directness and plain speaking would save a lot of time and make conversations more productive.