Quote:Wiki
The Euthyphro dilemma is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"

The dilemma has had a major effect on the philosophical theism of the monotheistic religions, but in a modified form: "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?

An interesting thought.

Theists, judging by what God has done to his own creations, why would anyone mention God and good in the same sentence?

I think the answer to that is pretty simple. People like it when the sun comes up yet again, and the birds are singing, and there are pretty flowers in the fields, and they know that they didn't make any of those things. They also have a tendency to anthropomorphize things: "Hello, today, Mr. Flower? Need some water?" and so on.

(October 13, 2017 at 4:15 am)ignoramus Wrote: [...]Theists, judging by what God has done to his own creations, why would anyone mention God and good in the same sentence?

Because if you do not suck up to god - he might do to you, what he did to those other creations.

I always find it amusing when theists respond by saying it's a false dilemma because God *is* goodness... and yet they fail to acknowledge how that completely fails to address the fact that God is still completely redundant because goodness is all you need. And they also completely fail to explain how such a shitty God=goodness too of course. They merely redefine goodness to be "whatever God says or does" even when what God says and does in the Bible is morally repugnant and very very not good.

I've always felt this has to be one of those dilemmas that ruins theists' sleep:

-If the first clause is true, then that means morality exists independent of God, and God isn't needed for Man to be a moral actor.

-If the second clause is true, then one must accept rape, enslavement, murder, torture, infanticide, and genital mutilation as morally good.

Boru

I also find it baffling how a good christian can just arrogantly and blatantly ignore the divine wisdom of their creator which they worship? Theists, you have the microphone. Is it the innerant word of God or not? Yes or No answers will only be accepted as valid. Everything else is just apologetics.

I agree with SodHammingBrian on this one. I bet a lot of theists twist themselves into pieces because they know how full of shit they are but they just can't cope with life without belief that they will go to heaven and SURELY NO ONE HAS TO EVER REALLY DIE OH GOD GOD NO!

That's why theists have to rely on their mental gymnastics. They have to mentally loop around those bars otherwise they really will go completely fucking loopy.

Brihammidsoddito

(October 13, 2017 at 9:05 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I've always felt this has to be one of those dilemmas that ruins theists' sleep:

-If the first clause is true, then that means morality exists independent of God, and God isn't needed for Man to be a moral actor.

-If the second clause is true, then one must accept rape, enslavement, murder, torture, infanticide, and genital mutilation as morally good.

Boru

It's mostly just not even knowing what is actually in that book. We (back when I was a regular attendee) just listened to the stuff said, and walked away feeling better in some way, if only for the experience of community, or knowing that we were "good" for having been there. I sure as shit never got around to thinking about "god" as a moral being in those days.

Once I started looking at it, I was disgusted and had to leave it, scared witless, in the beginning, that I was going to hell. I worked out of that bullshit, too, with more education.

(October 13, 2017 at 9:05 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I've always felt this has to be one of those dilemmas that ruins theists' sleep:

-If the first clause is true, then that means morality exists independent of God, and God isn't needed for Man to be a moral actor.

-If the second clause is true, then one must accept rape, enslavement, murder, torture, infanticide, and genital mutilation as morally good.

Boru

Yes, if people are voluntarists and/or nominalists, then the dilemma you describe is more or less the problem. They have to deny the former, and try to make sense of the latter.

But if God's "commanding" goodness (moral or otherwise) for created agents is merely the same thing as God's creating those agents as having an end (i.e. a "fulfilled" nature), then there is not the dilemma described above.

(October 16, 2017 at 4:48 am)Ignorant Wrote:

(October 13, 2017 at 9:05 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I've always felt this has to be one of those dilemmas that ruins theists' sleep:

-If the first clause is true, then that means morality exists independent of God, and God isn't needed for Man to be a moral actor.

-If the second clause is true, then one must accept rape, enslavement, murder, torture, infanticide, and genital mutilation as morally good.

Boru

Yes, if people are voluntarists and/or nominalists, then the dilemma you describe is more or less the problem. They have to deny the former, and try to make sense of the latter.

But if God's "commanding" goodness (moral or otherwise) for created agents is merely the same thing as God's creating those agents as having an end (i.e. a "fulfilled" nature), then there is not the dilemma described above.

Huh?