Euthyphro dilemma

[JackRussell]

Theists are too desperate to be right.

I don't know.

[SteveII]

Greatest Conceivable Being theology does not define God as having all the "good" qualities. It defines God as having all "great-making" properties.  Moral perfection is better than moral defect. We don't actually need to know what moral perfection is, only that it is better than moral defect (which is obviously so). So, no subjective judgement needed on our part. 

No, Steve, it's not "obvious" that this is so, because it's not true at all.  In the sense of being an objective fact, it is simply not true that moral perfection is better than moral imperfection.  The universe as a whole could care less whether you are morally perfect or not.  The universe is indifferent to questions of moral perfection.  To it, the one is just as good as the other.  If the universe doesn't care one way or the other, then it is not an objective fact.  You have utterly failed to provide any so-called great-making property, because there are none.  Perhaps in the eyes of a thinking being, one property is "better" than another.  But in the eyes of the universe, one is just as good as another.

Morality only applies to thinking/reasoning/conscious beings--which just so happens to be the only subject of the last 18 pages. We are not talking about "the universe as a whole". It has no relevance whatsoever and invoking it is an extremely weak attempt to avoid, not address the issue. Our moral reasoning and intuitions scream out that moral perfection is better than moral imperfection. Absent a defeater, it is the only reasonable position to hold. As such, the concept that God is the paradigm of moral perfection (GCB Theology) is coherent and as shown, avoids the dilemma by providing a third alternative (or if you wish, a rewording of the original horn #2 so it is no longer objectionable).

[JackRussell]

Yep, other animals display moral behaviours too.

Souls for everyone and damnation for all that are free..

[Angrboda]

No, Steve, it's not "obvious" that this is so, because it's not true at all.  In the sense of being an objective fact, it is simply not true that moral perfection is better than moral imperfection.  The universe as a whole could care less whether you are morally perfect or not.  The universe is indifferent to questions of moral perfection.  To it, the one is just as good as the other.  If the universe doesn't care one way or the other, then it is not an objective fact.  You have utterly failed to provide any so-called great-making property, because there are none.  Perhaps in the eyes of a thinking being, one property is "better" than another.  But in the eyes of the universe, one is just as good as another.

Morality only applies to thinking/reasoning/conscious beings--which just so happens to be the only subject of the last 18 pages.

This is a lie. A subtopic of the last few pages has been whether the concept of a greatest conceivable being is coherent. That you want to ignore that now and divert the discussion aside from that issue can only be seen as a pathetic attempt to evade the truth.

We are not talking about "the universe as a whole". It has no relevance whatsoever and invoking it is an extremely weak attempt to avoid, not address the issue.

This is another lie. The question which you yourself raised was whether moral perfection was objectively better than moral imperfection. As such, my complaint that it makes no difference to the universe is exactly on point. It is you, not I, who is evading addressing the issue.

Our moral reasoning and intuitions scream out that moral perfection is better than moral imperfection. Absent a defeater, it is the only reasonable position to hold.

Bollocks, this does not in any sense demonstrate that your claim is objectively true. In fact you make a strong prima facie case that it is nothing but a subjective position. And although I don't cotton to your stupid Toulminesque epistemological pretensions, I did in fact provide the defeater in pointing out that it makes no difference to the universe whether you are morally perfect or not. Therefore it is not an objective fact that moral perfection is 'better' than moral imperfection.

As such, the concept that God is the paradigm of moral perfection (GCB Theology) is coherent and as shown, avoids the dilemma by providing a third alternative (or if you wish, a rewording of the original horn #2 so it is no longer objectionable).

Whether or not God is coherent as a morally perfect being, or even whether he avoids the dilemma, were not the issue at point. That you're now trying to turn the discussion back to other matters is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to avoid capitulation on the issue. The concept of a 'greatest conceivable being' is incoherent, as I have shown, and your claim that moral perfection is objectively better than moral imperfection has been shown to be without any merit whatsoever. Your attempt to defuse the disproof of your claim with lies and misdirection is noted.

[Amarok]

Gods moral perfection being a coherent concept  means exactly  nothing . It's baseless assertion that does not solve dilemma. It can't be escaped . No matter how much you wiggle .

[Whateverist]

How dodgey. The Christian view is not what you say. The Christian view is that in the absence of God the universe is without meaning; whereas, a universe with God is richly endowed with meaning.

---

The refusal to imagine the cosmos as animated and infused with objective values is a very long way from not having very strong values oneself.  Did you mean to deliberately misrepresent her position?

Either values have ontological status or they don't.

They don't.

In the first instance they are part of the lawful order of the universe. In the second they are self-referencial psychological preferences, whims, and fancies.

They're not whims or fancies obviously. But yes they are dispositional psychological phenomenon of some kind, but that doesn't render them of no consequence. That they are dispositional, psychological phenomenon is a description that applies as much whether there is or isn't a god.

[ignoramus]

How dodgey. The Christian view is not what you say. The Christian view is that in the absence of God the universe is without meaning; whereas, a universe with God is richly endowed with meaning.

So you're saying either way the universe stays exactly the same as it always has and the only difference to you is in the credits?

Isn't that a fallacy? Allowing a 2000 year old story to retrospectively take credit for something before the story was even dreamed up?

[bennyboy]

Apparently the meaning is TO GOD, and not to us-- because the Universe to us looks exactly the same with or without God. I know this because we cannot see any sign of God, so if there IS a God, it is as though there is not one, at least from our perspective.

Either way, we'll have to come up with our own meaning.

[Amarok]

; whereas, a universe with God is richly endowed with meaning.

A universe with a gawd is a meaningless as 

CVCUTDRTDJTCGJV<CFGFGJCFGJFTCFGJFC M VGJC<IDFIVCJG

And no meaning in a godless universe is not just a fancy it an objective state of affairs . The ontology of that state is of no consequence.

[SteveII]

Morality only applies to thinking/reasoning/conscious beings--which just so happens to be the only subject of the last 18 pages.

This is a lie.  A subtopic of the last few pages has been whether the concept of a greatest conceivable being is coherent.  That you want to ignore that now and divert the discussion aside from that issue can only be seen as a pathetic attempt to evade the truth.

It used to be nicer to have a conversation with you. Your new over-the-top style is unbecoming. It's like you're playing to an audience. 

Yes, we have been discussing GCB theology, specifically God as the paradigm of goodness, and whether it is better to be morally perfect or not. I was not aware that we had left the OP subject behind. 

We are not talking about "the universe as a whole". It has no relevance whatsoever and invoking it is an extremely weak attempt to avoid, not address the issue.

This is another lie.  The question which you yourself raised was whether moral perfection was objectively better than moral imperfection.  As such, my complaint that it makes no difference to the universe is exactly on point.  It is you, not I, who is evading addressing the issue.

Okay, from a moral nihilistic worldview, you are right. Congrats, morality is subjective and has no ultimate meaning.  However if God exists, at least some sort of morality outside ourselves and outside the universe exists. Invoking a Godless universe when arguing about whether God's moral perfection is better than moral imperfection makes no sense whatsoever.  

Our moral reasoning and intuitions scream out that moral perfection is better than moral imperfection. Absent a defeater, it is the only reasonable position to hold.

Bollocks, this does not  in any sense demonstrate that your claim is objectively true.  In fact you make a strong prima facie case that it is nothing but a subjective position.  And although I don't cotton to your stupid Toulminesque epistemological pretensions, I did in fact provide the defeater in pointing out that it makes no difference to the universe whether you are morally perfect or not.  Therefore it is not an objective fact that moral perfection is 'better' than moral imperfection.

Tell me why you are not just begging the question: There is no objective morality in the universe therefore God is not a source of objective morality. 

As such, the concept that God is the paradigm of moral perfection (GCB Theology) is coherent and as shown, avoids the dilemma by providing a third alternative (or if you wish, a rewording of the original horn #2 so it is no longer objectionable).

Whether or not God is coherent as a morally perfect being, or even whether he avoids the dilemma, were not the issue at point.  That you're now trying to turn the discussion back to other matters is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to avoid capitulation on the issue.  The concept of a 'greatest conceivable being' is incoherent, as I have shown, and your claim that moral perfection is objectively better than moral imperfection has been shown to be without any merit whatsoever.  Your attempt to defuse the disproof of your claim with lies and misdirection is noted.

No, you have not shown the concept of the GCB to be incoherent. You asserted that GCB Theology is all about having "good" qualities. You are conflating the moral word "good" with the non-moral meaning "better than" and then hiding behind the question how do we know what "goodness" is. It is better to be morally perfect than morally imperfect. That is not a difficult concept. We actually don't even need to know what morally perfect fully entails to know that one is better than the other.