(April 6, 2013 at 4:10 pm)Tex Wrote: That proof may work for Islam because they hold to Divine Command, but it does not work all the time.

The Quran doesn't suggest divine command theory at all. It takes about the face of God that remains and that is found everywhere. It talks about the light of God in humanity. It specifically says God commands towards what is just and good and forbids evil and indecency. It defines God like that. Furthermore it talks about the "good tree" in humanity, and that the firm word that he establishes believers by, is rooted in the ground and extends to the heavens.

Furthermore, the hadiths talk about God becoming the hearing by which believers hear, the seeing by which they see.

Where do you get the notion that Islam is set up of divine command theory?

It rather seems God commands what is good because it is good. In the case of Ibrahim, he tested him, to bring about opportunity to trust God.

If God can do whatever he wants and it would be good, then he can lie. And if he is lying, you have no idea whether you should follow the Quran or not.

Shiite Islam hadiths have even more elaborate issue about the nature of good and how it's eternally linked to God's own essence.

Furthermore the "Holy Spirit" is said to be "The Command of God", and the holy spirit is said to be "breathed into Adam" and is "the spirit of God".

There is no evidence to suggest divine command theory.

In fact, it says "verily God does not command towards what is evil and indecent".

Furthermore, Quran regards all of his names are ultimately beautiful and that God is One, which means his names "The Guide" or all descriptions of God in Quran, are all pointing to same glory.

In fact, the very basis, that it is "a guidance" and that he will give the believers a light by which they walk by and distinguisher, suggests other than divine command theory.

At any rate, from Islamic point of view, as far I can tell, the Euthyphro dilemna is a false one, and the answer is both:

Is is good to do what is good because it is good, and because God commands it, and God commands what is good because it is good.


You can derive all that from Quran.

FallentoReason Wrote:You're not getting rid of the Euthyphro Dilemma here. Does "God's nature" determine what's good, or is what's good "God's nature"? Not only is this even more arbitrary than regular DCT, but it actually fails to give any reason why we should even follow "God's nature" for morality because it seems as if it was out of his control what his own nature was going to be. DCT suggests that God chose certain commands for whatever arbitrary reason, but here you're saying God just... is? It makes less and less sense the more you think about it.

I didn't talk about it much, so let me elaborate here. I hate shoving websites on people, but none of this is my own knowledge (not that I don't understand, but that I haven't memorized this yet). The Euthyphro Dilemma is:

theologyonline.com Wrote:1) Is something (like humility) good because God recognizes it as good? Or,
2) Is something good because God commands that it is good (as Socrates put it, because God loves it)?

The answer is that there is not just two answers, but Christians choose a third. Morality is objective, but not external to God. Like with my organ example, morality is interior. This is actually required for a God, else we have the Euthyphro Dilemma. His commands are not whims, but rooted in his character. If God were to have a different character, would morality change? The scenario of "If God were to have a different character..." actually can't happen and is completely impossible. Since we're assuming God exists for the moment, we must also assume the definition of God as "perfect being". If God is perfect, any slide in any direction is less than perfect. Therefore, if God changes, he's no longer God.

God must be "perfect being" because, as unmoved mover, he cannot get his source of existence, order, goodness, truth, or beauty from outside himself. Not only that, but all of these must be present infinitely because all finite things "rely on the existence of the wholeness" (by this, I mean that if the idea "4" didn't exist, the whole system of mathematics would be chaotic).

Severan Wrote:What if your god tells you to murder everyone in the world? Is this morally good? No! Of course not! You know that and almost everyone else does! This feeling is the work of millions of years of evolution.

I just commented that Christians don't believe that in the passage you quoted. If you've read anything I write, I've described faith as a relationship, not as a feeling or some bodily function. Please go educate yourself and come back.

MysticKnight Wrote:The Quran doesn't suggest divine command theory at all.

Al Shafi'i (820 A.D.) seems to think it is a moral code given by God, thus divine command. If you have a JSTOR account, you can get the article free here. If not, google "Divine Command Ethics in Early Islam: Al-shafi'i and the Problem of Guidance by John Kelsay".

Springer (atheist, likes ethics, still alive) published an article by Carney (died 2007 at age 28) wrote a large work on philosophy in religion wrote a tiny bit about divine command in Islam here (JSTOR). If it doesn't work, google "Twilight of the Idols? Pluralism and Mystical Praxis in Islam by Abd al-Hakeem Carney".

Even if you don't like these two articles, since Allah is not subject to anything and is instead the ultimate authority, the Muslim answer CANNOT be that God is subject to a moral code. It's pretty safe to say that Islam follows a DCT. You can say that Allah does what is beneficial, but you cannot say that Allah is subject to a moral code (basically making that moral code Allah). At least not in any Islam I know.

Tex Wrote:The answer is that there is not just two answers, but Christians choose a third. Morality is objective, but not external to God. Like with my organ example, morality is interior. This is actually required for a God, else we have the Euthyphro Dilemma. His commands are not whims, but rooted in his character. If God were to have a different character, would morality change? The scenario of "If God were to have a different character..." actually can't happen and is completely impossible. Since we're assuming God exists for the moment, we must also assume the definition of God as "perfect being". If God is perfect, any slide in any direction is less than perfect. Therefore, if God changes, he's no longer God.

God must be "perfect being" because, as unmoved mover, he cannot get his source of existence, order, goodness, truth, or beauty from outside himself. Not only that, but all of these must be present infinitely because all finite things "rely on the existence of the wholeness" (by this, I mean that if the idea "4" didn't exist, the whole system of mathematics would be chaotic).

It isn't very clear to me how his nature is altogether different from his commands. Is it not true that he commanded something to be moral because of his nature? If so, then the Euthyphro Dilemma rears its ugly head into the picture. Basically, what I think the problem is here is that "what" God actually is doesn't matter. It is the transmission -- the command to humanity -- that is in question. How God came to the conclusion that that particular thing was moral is irrelevant; whether an arbitrary choice or from his nature, doesn't matter. What matters is that when that moral code gets transmitted to us as a command, we have to ask ourselves the Euthyphro Dilemma. Unless you believe in the Deistic god like myself... then morality is a non-issue.

(April 7, 2013 at 9:12 am)Zen Badger Wrote: What about the people that were born before your paedophile prophet came on the scene?

Even that
According to Islam
Adam (the first human) was Muslim as well
All prophets (Noah, Ebraham, Moses, Jesus) are all Muslims

Mohamed is the last prophet for humanity and is no different that other prophets

(April 8, 2013 at 3:43 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

(April 7, 2013 at 9:12 am)Zen Badger Wrote: What about the people that were born before your paedophile prophet came on the scene?

Even that
According to Islam
Adam (the first human) was Muslim as well
All prophets (Noah, Ebraham, Moses, Jesus) are all Muslims

Mohamed is the last prophet for humanity and is no different that other prophets

Empty words with no corroborating evidence.

Bzzzt.... fail ..... please try again.

(April 8, 2013 at 4:33 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(April 8, 2013 at 3:43 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Even that
According to Islam
Adam (the first human) was Muslim as well
All prophets (Noah, Ebraham, Moses, Jesus) are all Muslims

Mohamed is the last prophet for humanity and is no different that other prophets

Empty words with no corroborating evidence.

Bzzzt.... fail ..... please try again.

I agree, this part is not proven (yet)
Does this mean that the first part of the proof is irrefutable?

FallentoReason Wrote:It isn't very clear to me how his nature is altogether different from his commands. Is it not true that he commanded something to be moral because of his nature? If so, then the Euthyphro Dilemma rears its ugly head into the picture. Basically, what I think the problem is here is that "what" God actually is doesn't matter. It is the transmission -- the command to humanity -- that is in question. How God came to the conclusion that that particular thing was moral is irrelevant; whether an arbitrary choice or from his nature, doesn't matter. What matters is that when that moral code gets transmitted to us as a command, we have to ask ourselves the Euthyphro Dilemma. Unless you believe in the Deistic god like myself... then morality is a non-issue.

First, I don't think that transmission has anything to do with the Euthyphro (although it should lead to the question). However, if its the transmission means that you don't like, I can take a stab at it.

Christianity doesn't really work on a system where God has issued all commands that we are to do (unless your amish). I can drive a car and not be culpable for sin. If I drive recklessly, it's not even a sin (its fun to drive recklessly sometimes, such as going mudding or something). However, if I am driving recklessly and I kill someone, now I have sinned. This is never commanded. Murder is against the law, but I haven't actually murdered, I committed manslaughter. There aren't any cars in the bible, so I must be fine? The only verse that comes close talks about bulls.

Exodus 21:29
But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death.

So obviously, God doesn't care about manslaughter as long as it's not with an ox. Right? Nope. I still say that the manslaughter is sinful, but it hasn't been commanded. This is because the transmission isn't always in the form of a command. The only religious analogy I can give would be with the Last Supper.

Matthew 26:26-29
Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Since we eat Christ's body and blood, we absorb into God, not in the sense of Nirvana or something, but that we because "Godly" by derivative of God. When we "do the Good", metaphysically we aren't just helping the needy, but we are growing closer to God. This transmission issue I think God sees as well. It's not just a going-though-the-motions type of deal, but it is supposed to correspond with own own desires.

Matthew 22:37
And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind."

I don't know if this will help, especially because I've never seen that objection within the debate of the Euthyphro dilemma. First time for everything right? Anyway, since this is the first time, criticize it plenty. I need to see if it actually means anything or if it's just my mind's ramblings.

(April 10, 2013 at 7:54 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: I agree, this part is not proven (yet)
Does this mean that the first part of the proof is irrefutable?

It is because time is relative! As pointed out in that thread!

And even if it worked, the second part is useless because it is entirely made up by yourself and is a construction of yourselve and not a scientific observation!

So it is nothing but your useless daydream!

(April 10, 2013 at 8:06 pm)The Germans are coming Wrote:

(April 10, 2013 at 7:54 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: I agree, this part is not proven (yet)
Does this mean that the first part of the proof is irrefutable?

It is because time is relative! As pointed out in that thread!

And even if it worked, the second part is useless because it is entirely made up by yourself and is a construction of yourselve and not a scientific observation

I think that you need a psychologist to inspect your brain abilities
There is no second part (yet)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So when you said it is useless and entirely made up, you were dreaming or hallucinating (Are you on drugs)

Quote:Christianity claims that God had a son, which is impossible (even for God himself) because it is a Paradox
The word "Son" means two things
1- The son came after the Father
2- Son is somehow similar to God (i.e. a God)

If Jesus came after God then he did not exist then existed, i.e. God created him, if he is a creature then he is not a God ---> Paradox (impossible)

You already said when I asked you how you explain that god turns a snake into a stick and a virgin into a pregnant woman that you cannot explain how god does things.

So say if I was a christian, which I'm not but just to show how stupid the argument is, if I was a christian I would just say to you well Muslim Scholar we can't explain how god managed to turn himself into a man or managed to be on earth while being outside space and time, just in the same way you can't explain how he managed to give Muhammad a horse to fly on or how he split the moon or whatever it is you believe he did.

If you can't explain how god does anything you can't tell me that he can't be a creature and be a god, you can't tell god what he can't do.

---

I'm not very good at understanding the complex formula that you wrote.

But I think the root of the problem is that you're using logic to prove the illogical.

You're basically saying hey I have a book about a god he made the universe, got a virgin pregnant, turned a stick into a snake, spoke to people made a man fly through the universe on a horse, caused floods, punished people, split the moon talked to people and so on............well something must have made the universe so I guess all this stuff must have happened.

Even when you do use logic you only apply it one way. Look at this example.

You say

Quote:I must be right about god not having an image because he is outside of space not similar in molecular structure to any object or living thing we know of and cannot effect light molecules.

I say

Quote:Ok so then he can't effect the molecules of a stick or a virgin or cause a flood

You say

Quote:oh we don't know how he does all that.

So you don't know that he can't effect light either, its a total contradiction.