RE: Euthyphro dilemma
October 19, 2017 at 10:26 am
(This post was last modified: October 19, 2017 at 10:26 am by Whateverist.)
(October 19, 2017 at 10:08 am)SteveII Wrote:(October 18, 2017 at 2:47 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Ignoring that you're behind a page in the argument, what you're saying now is directly contrary to the notion that your God has free will. If your God is "bound by his nature" then he does not have free will; he is an automaton; a robot. The moral decrees of a being without free will are, according to traditional thought, empty of moral import. Your God cannot be the source of morals if his behavior is determined by his nature.
That God is bound to his nature is just the definition of nature. If he was not bound to his moral goodness, then it would not be a nature, it would be a preference. Free will does not mean "can do anything". One's nature would always be a limiting factor to available choices.
Wait. What is the point of inventing the supernatural category to explain god's omni powers and undetectability if you're going to turn right around and say God's nature is the reason God's behavior itself is constrained by a more comprehensive 'nature' which apparently encompasses both what the rest of us call nature and your supernatural? You seem to be biting yourself in the ass.
