(July 8, 2023 at 12:18 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: God is identical to the Good

Why is he not identical to Saltyness?
But good to know your god is a mere attribute we humans give to things.

God and good being identical isn’t a third option…it’s actually the question the dilemma asks.

Why…are they identical? Because good is a divine arbitrarity, or because god is constrained and motivated by an external standard of goodness?

The very same question can be asked of us, of our own good/ness. God isn’t even necessary to explore this, as usual.

(July 8, 2023 at 1:03 pm)Deesse23 Wrote:

(July 8, 2023 at 12:18 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: God is identical to the Good

Why is he not identical to Saltyness?
But good to know your god is a mere attribute we humans give to things.

I'm not sure I actually said that ... if I did, I posted something in a way that promoted confusion. Sorry. 
Actually I was just thinking the exact same thing. Why not identify a god with evil ? God is identical to evil. 

But actually I was saying that identifying (a) god with a definition or identifier of any sort limits the god (of necessity) to a part of Reality, 
which is meaningless, as generally the infinite nature and eternal (timeless) attribute don't allow for limits of any sort. 

I could believe in a salty dog god.

It’s not meaningless, it’s just a bad consequence for some god concepts.

For others, it’s no problem at all. Yes, there really is some external standard of goodness that the gods love because it is good- and this is a demonstration that they are good.

Altruism is seen in many many (even rather primitive) species. It promotes survival for the species.
https://aqua.org/stories/02-21-2020-are-...20altruism.

(July 8, 2023 at 1:30 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: God and good being identical isn’t a third option…it’s actually the question the dilemma asks.  

Why…are they identical?  Because good is a divine arbitrarity, or because god is constrained and motivated by an external standard of goodness?

The very same question can be asked of us, of our own good/ness.  God isn’t even necessary to explore this, as usual.

Thomistic Divine Simplicity, or the Doctrine that God is Pure Actuality, and in Him is no Potentiality (i.e. Contingency) is the Solution to the Euthyphro false dilemma. In God, every attribute or perfection that He has exists in the highest possible plenitude, as in its Ultimate Source. Thus, God is not merely Good, but Goodness Itself and the Source of All Goodness everywhere, not merely wise, but the Source of All Wisdom, and Holiness etc.

We perceive Good and Evil exist by our Conscience, just as we perceive Light and Darkness exist by our Sight. But they exist Objectively and prior to any will of ours. This Goodness, which comes from God, and which we His creatures can reflect in certain amounts to the extent that we obey His Eternal Moral Law, finds its Source in God. Thus, God is not constrained or moved by an external standard of Goodness, but is Himself the Source of All Goodness. The more good and holy a creature becomes, the closer it moves toward God. God's commands, to do good and avoid evil, whether already known to us by our Conscience, or confirmed in e.g. the Ten Commandments, or Two Great Commandments of Christ, manifest His Goodness. God has made Nature a certain way, and studying Nature, and examining our Conscience, we can discover Good and Evil. We don't invent it because it is not Subjective, but we do discover it, the same as we do with Mathematical or Scientific Facts, because it is Objective.

(July 8, 2023 at 1:59 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It’s not meaningless, it’s just a bad consequence for some god concepts.

For others, it’s no problem at all.  Yes, there really is some external standard of goodness that the gods love because it is good- and this is a demonstration that they are good.

So you believe in the gods then ? 

Where did the external standard come from, and what is it ? Where and when was it articulated ?
Provide a couple, please.
It's a demonstration of nothing. Prove it, and don't use any of YOUR OWN standards.

There is no universal definition of "good". It's why there are ethics committees in every hospital (pretty much) in the world.
What is "good" is entirely situational.

(July 8, 2023 at 1:41 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(July 8, 2023 at 1:03 pm)Deesse23 Wrote: Why is he not identical to Saltyness?
But good to know your god is a mere attribute we humans give to things.

I'm not sure I actually said that ... if I did, I posted something in a way that promoted confusion. Sorry. 
Actually I was just thinking the exact same thing. Why not identify a god with evil ? God is identical to evil. 

But actually I was saying that identifying (a) god with a definition or identifier of any sort limits the god (of necessity) to a part of Reality, 
which is meaningless, as generally the infinite nature and eternal (timeless) attribute don't allow for limits of any sort. 

I could believe in a salty dog god.

Mea culpa. I quote Neo. You wouldnt utter such nonsense.

(July 8, 2023 at 2:12 pm)Nishant Xavier Wrote:

(July 8, 2023 at 1:30 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: God and good being identical isn’t a third option…it’s actually the question the dilemma asks.  

Why…are they identical?  Because good is a divine arbitrarity, or because god is constrained and motivated by an external standard of goodness?

The very same question can be asked of us, of our own good/ness.  God isn’t even necessary to explore this, as usual.

Thomistic Divine Simplicity, or the Doctrine that God is Pure Actuality, and in Him is no Potentiality (i.e. Contingency) is the Solution to the Euthyphro false dilemma. In God, every attribute or perfection that He has exists in the highest possible plenitude, as in its Ultimate Source. Thus, God is not merely Good, but Goodness Itself and the Source of All Goodness everywhere, not merely wise, but the Source of All Wisdom, and Holiness etc.

We perceive Good and Evil exist by our Conscience, just as we perceive Light and Darkness exist by our Sight. But they exist Objectively and prior to any will of ours. This Goodness, which comes from God, and which we His creatures can reflect in certain amounts to the extent that we obey His Eternal Moral Law, finds its Source in God. Thus, God is not constrained or moved by an external standard of Goodness, but is Himself the Source of All Goodness. The more good and holy a creature becomes, the closer it moves toward God. God's commands, to do good and avoid evil, whether already known to us by our Conscience, or confirmed in e.g. the Ten Commandments, or Two Great Commandments of Christ, manifest His Goodness. God has made Nature a certain way, and studying Nature, and examining our Conscience, we can discover Good and Evil. We don't invent it because it is not Subjective, but we do discover it, the same as we do with Mathematical or Scientific Facts, because it is Objective.

Since God is the source of all evil, per the manual,  why doesn’t doing evil move people closer to God?

Boru

(July 8, 2023 at 2:13 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(July 8, 2023 at 1:59 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It’s not meaningless, it’s just a bad consequence for some god concepts.

For others, it’s no problem at all.  Yes, there really is some external standard of goodness that the gods love because it is good- and this is a demonstration that they are good.

So you believe in the gods then ? 

Where did the external standard come from, and what is it ? Where and when was it articulated ?
Provide a couple, please.
It's a demonstration of nothing. Prove it, and don't use any of YOUR OWN standards.

There is no universal definition of "good". It's why there are ethics committees in every hospital (pretty much) in the world.
What is "good" is entirely situational.

No, lol, I don't believe in gods. I do think that there are moral facts- but it’s probably not worthwhile to get into the specifics. They aren’t needed to compare god concepts and how they interact with our other beliefs and explanations. The short version is that whatever the standard happens to be…if you believe in one, and you believe that the gods are good- they can only be good if they do meet that standard.

The other explanation is, ofc, an option for people who believe that good is not based on any such thing, rather, that we call good whatever the gods (or we) happen to be. Arbitrary. A consequence of purely internal and entirely convenient circumstance.

God being identical to the good, absent any external standard of that good, is the second option. Not a third.