Euthyphro dilemma

[Edwardo Piet]

Let's stop taking theists seriously.

Ok sure maybe you never took them seriously in the first place. But let's stop humoring them. They should just be laughed at and we should be sincere about our laughter. They have no chance. They will never win. They're all fucking lunatics. (Well, their beliefs are anyways).

[Angrboda]

You let loose with a barrage of bare assertions that don't even begin to approach the question.  I gave reasons for why considering God as the sole standard for good results in arbitrary morals.  You give me dogma.

You did indeed give reasons. I don’t fault your reasoning. Maybe the problem is not your reasoning; but rather, the first principles from which you are reasoning. I don’t know where you are at philosophically at the moment, but my assessment of your past positions was that they were along the lines of not trusting reason and that there can be no certainties about the world as-it-is. If that is accurate and still the case then your reasoning from first principles that ultimately devolve into intellectual and moral nihilism. No wonder, you cannot resolve the dilemma!

Your back-handed ad hominem is noted. You believe that because you are unable intellectually to connect meaning and purpose to a godless world, nobody else is either, and therefore a godless world is meaningless and any worldview based upon it is necessarily nihilistic. I hate to burst your bubble, but your inability to conjure up a naturalistic answer to the question of meaning doesn't settle the matter. All you're doing is pointing out the limits of your intellect. That's an argument from ignorance, plain and simple. That you failed to reconcile your convictions that the world was godless and that there is meaning says nothing about the world and everything about you. And here we have you resorting to intellectual smears because you're face to face with another question which you can't answer. It seems a familiar theme.

And yes, I have my own set of dogmas (I call them self-evident first principles like the intelligibility of the world and the efficacy of reason). I accept them because they avoid intellectual and moral nihilism, and provide a rational framework for the acquisition of knowledge. You can choose otherwise, many do, but don’t be surprised when it leads you to paradox and absurdity.

Sigh. Oh no! The bogeyman! No, you haven't avoided nihilism with your "first principles", you've simply bogged yourself down in a dilemma you can't resolve rationally so you resort to faith based statements, arguments from ignorance, and ad hominems.

The fact of the matter is that saying God is good is meaningless if God is both the standard and source for good.   All you're saying is that "God is God."  How would things be different if God's nature were any different?  You'd still be saying that he's good, and necessarily so.  Your words don't pick out a particular reality, but rather whatever the case happens to be, that's what your words describe.

You’re assuming that God’s nature couldbe different. There is not a possible world in which the God of Classical Theism could be other that what He is any more than the value of pi could vary in different possible worlds. Saying that pi is the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter does indeed pick out a particular reality…not just what happens to be, but also something that could not be otherwise. What goes for pi can be applied to God. It can only be what it is and nothing else. That’s not dogma so much as the logical conclusion of multiple demonstrations (5 to be exact) based on common observations about the world.

You're ignoring the fact that God's character, whatever it is, is completely arbitrary. You haven't evaded the consequences of the dilemma. The dilemma points out that God cannot be a foundation for morals if his nature is unconstrained by any fact or law. You might as well say that God's character is blue, as you've deprived the word 'good' of any actual meaning. God is whatever God is. That's great! How exactly does that make his arbitrary morals significant? It doesn't. You like Steve are failing to engage the dilemma. It does no good to say God is really, really, really, really good, if his character isn't bound by anything. And the worst part of it is, you have no reasons for your surety that God couldn't be different. That's just the way you made him up, so by golly that's the way he is. It's tautological reasoning based only on the product of your imagination. I have an imagination, too, I just don't rely upon it for supplying me with the facts of the world.

[Edwardo Piet]

There's nothing to defend.

Versus theists.

There's nothing to defend.

[Whateverist]

I have a new plan. Ignore the theists. They never have anything worthwhile to say. So ignore them.

A circle jerk isn't even less productive than wasting our time with theists who believe in imaginary friends.

CL is the only exception.

And Kingpin, when he comes back.

And they're good for non-theistic reasons.

Naw, the circle is bigger than that.  Purplundy, Fr0d0 and Jacob Smooth come to mind and there have been a couple others besides these and the two you mention, but damned if I'm going to remember.  

Then there is Neo who I appreciate too.  Admittedly his areas of cognitive dissonance and my own sometimes clash and he is a self avowed pompous ass, but then no one is perfect.

I had to do some searching to remember Purplundy's name.  His posts #54 and 56 were interesting in this thread  https://atheistforums.org/thread-27629-page-6.html

I notice that in addition to myself even Khem gave him a glowing rep.

[Amarok]

Yup god nature is not a justification for morality . No matter how much theists twist and rewrite it to escape questions .

[Edwardo Piet]

Naw, the circle is bigger than that.  Purplundy, Fr0d0 and Jacob Smooth come to mind and there have been a couple others besides these and the two you mention, but damned if I'm going to remember.  

Yes the circle is perhaps wider than Kingpin and CL when it comes to worthy contributions to AF.... If we're talking OFF-TOPIC STUFF but NO THEIST is capable of rationally challenging atheism. Because there is no rational defense for an imaginary friend. So let's stop humoring them.

[Neo-Scholastic]

You believe that because you are unable intellectually to connect meaning and purpose to a godless world, nobody else is either, and therefore a godless world is meaningless and any worldview based upon it is necessarily nihilistic.  I hate to burst your bubble, but your inability to conjure up a naturalistic answer to the question of meaning doesn't settle the matter.  All you're doing is pointing out the limits of your intellect.  That's an argument from ignorance, plain and simple.

Well, since you're not offering up any explanation for how you avoid nihilism, I put you down for the 'ignorant' category.

Sigh.  Oh no!  The bogeyman!  No, you haven't avoided nihilism with your "first principles", you've simply bogged yourself down in a dilemma you can't resolve rationally so you resort to faith based statements, arguments from ignorance, and ad hominems.

Ad hominem? If the shoe fits, wear it, babe. I see you're not trying to defend yourself against the charge of being a nihilist. Maybe because you know that's what you are. Faith-based argument? Like what? Chosing to accept the first principles you deny like, oh say, the Principle of Non-Contradiction. Y'all got nothing. Nada. No positive contribution, just jeering from the sidelines like your old pal Hume or boiling your watch while looking at an egg.

You're ignoring the fact that God's character, whatever it is, is completely arbitrary.  

Riiigghhhttt...keep telling yourself that. The self-delusion is strong in this one. The only thing that's arbitrary is your brute-fact magical universe that somehow works for no reason at all.

[Cyberman]

The self-delusion is strong in this one.

We've noticed.

[Edwardo Piet]

You're ignoring the fact that God's character, whatever it is, is completely arbitrary.  

Riiigghhhttt...keep telling yourself that. The self-delusion is strong in this one. The only thing that's arbitrary is your brute-fact magical universe that somehow works for no reason at all.

So this is where we've got to. Neo has argued himself so much in circles when it comes to attempting to excuse the non-existence of his imaginary friend that he's resorted to arguing with himself.

[Amarok]

The self-delusion is strong in this one.

Says the delusional

Says the man who choose the quick and easy path. And now must live by it's folly .