Euthyphros dilemma...

[Neo-Scholastic]

Instead of this, the mind has inherent value because it has the essential attributes of life and love.

I don't see how claiming this to be true by fiat has any value.

The challenge remains unanswered. The concept of good has no meaning apart from the life of a knowing subject and that which is most to be desired. Without a concept of good no value system can stand. Meaning, value, and teleology have no place in either ontological or methodological naturalism. Turning to chemistry or evolution as a basis for value is a fool's errand.

[Angrboda]

Instead of this, the mind has inherent value because it has the essential attributes of life and love.

I don't see how claiming this to be true by fiat has any value.

The challenge remains unanswered. The concept of good has no meaning apart from the life of a knowing subject and that which is most to be desired. Without a concept of good no value system can stand. Meaning, value, and teleology have no place in either ontological or methodological naturalism. Turning to chemistry or evolution as a basis for value is a fool's errand.

So it's an argument from ignorance then, and therefore fallacious.

[Neo-Scholastic]

No. I have shown that the alternative is logically impossible.

[Angrboda]

"We are not to tell nature what she’s gotta be. ... She's always got better imagination than we have."
~ Richard Feynman

[MindForgedManacle]

@ MFM
Thanks for clarifying. Value is comparative. Some things are more highly valued in comparison to other things. But only because they relate to something that has value in itself. Without something of inherent value the whole value structure collapses and an infinite regress stands between derived values and something capable of assigning value. In such a case the mind, as a physical thing, needs to be assigned value from another mind assigned a value from another mind with an assigned value ... etc. Physical systems, like chemical reactions, have no meaning or value in themselves. If the mind reduces to a physical system then you have no source from which meanings or values can come. Instead of this, the mind has inherent value because it has the essential attributes of life and love.

Again, you're getting it entirely backwards. Things aren't valued because they are valuable in themselves, but because WE value them. We have certain basal values that themselves don't seem to have other values on which they are based

[Neo-Scholastic]

No, I really do understand because I agree with you! You must start with some basal value(s) as the foundation. The first such basal value is that which is indispensable: life. You don't assign value to life in comparison to anything else. It serves as the basis of all derivative values.

[max-greece]

No, I really do understand because I agree with you! You must start with some basal value(s) as the foundation. The first such basal value is that which is indispensable: life. You don't assign value to life in comparison to anything else. It serves as the basis of all derivative values.

So if our genetic inheritance through evolution gave us that one starting point - as an intelligent social creature, then we can derive all morality from that point.

No God required.

[Neo-Scholastic]

No, I really do understand because I agree with you! You must start with some basal value(s) as the foundation. The first such basal value is that which is indispensable: life. You don't assign value to life in comparison to anything else. It serves as the basis of all derivative values.

So if our genetic inheritance through evolution gave us that one starting point - as an intelligent social creature, then we can derive all morality from that point.

No God required.

That depends on whether you limit your definition of life to a sustained electrochemical reaction on which mental content supervenes or whether mental content meaningfully interacts with biological processes.

[Get me Rex Kramer!]

Morality would be arbitrary if it was only dependent on Gods orders, because if we consider the possibility of him not existing, what we consider good isn't intrinsically good. But even with the understanding that bad things are bad without needing Gods orders shows that we can determine what's right and what's wrong ourselves. Why then do we need God to be good?

We don't.

More to the point, perhaps you're wondering why theist make the claim that God is good? In that case, I imagine it's their way of staking claim to everything good so that they can be justified in calling everything that is not their god or their religion bad. It's also a great way to convert people; "Come with us and worship the good god!"

This dilemma shows that either way, morality is an entity more superior to God, and does not depend on him whatsoever.

Did I understand that concept right?

Except morality isn't an entity.

But, as far as I am understanding you, yes: morality is independent of the dictates of a god.

The Euthyphro Dilemma says, basically, is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it's good? If something is good simply because God commands it than genocide could be a moral good upon nothing more than God's command. Most sane people recognize that genocide is a moral evil whether or not a god commands it, therefore morality is independent of any gods commands, which makes sense because there don't appear to be any gods anywhere...

I didn't say I believed in it. I just said it's a religious morality that can't be duplicated by secular means. I don't believe in Karma.

Would poetic justice count as secular karma?
[/wondering]

The dilemma or paradox is not a proof for atheism: that is a misconception, and a result of forcing a modern mindset onto ancient Greece. The original argument discusses 'what the Gods like' if they were thought by the poets to disagree with each other. Neither Plato nor Socrates renounced Gods. The argument says that, just as it would be unreasonable to assert that a pious life depended upon the fiat of squabbling Gods, it would also be unreasonable to suggest that a pious life is disclosed in its entirety to unguided human reason. The former point makes a mockery of morality, the latter of practical ethics. You have to remember Socrates had a trick in mind for both sides of the dual questions he liked to ask.

tl;dr: it's not about atheism.

[MindForgedManacle]

No, I really do understand because I agree with you! You must start with some basal value(s) as the foundation. The first such basal value is that which is indispensable: life. You don't assign value to life in comparison to anything else. It serves as the basis of all derivative values.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that life is inherently valuable, it just means that you have no underlying value that grounds your valuing of life. Money has no inherent monetary value, it has it because we say it does.