RE: Euthyphro dilemma
October 19, 2017 at 1:45 pm
(This post was last modified: October 19, 2017 at 1:47 pm by Whateverist.)
(October 19, 2017 at 10:08 am)SteveII Wrote: The definition of God is the greatest conceivable being. As I have shown, there is no dilemma with such a concept. If you want to redefine God as something other than the traditional definition, go ahead. It does not apply to me.
Are you sure? Even if you decide you're going to define God as the greatest, what makes you so sure its greatness will be conceivable (discernible) to you? Won't you also have to define humans (or at least the faithful) as beings capable of discerning the greatest being so that you can qualify? Seems a little underhanded.
(October 19, 2017 at 11:53 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(October 19, 2017 at 10:23 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: My guess is that you screwed up the quote tags and fumbled the ball while trying to be clever. That was Hammy that said that, not Whateverist.
My apologies to Whateverist. I guess no one else ever makes editting mistakes.
That wasn't much of an upbraiding by her or me. No big deal.
(October 19, 2017 at 11:58 am)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote:(October 19, 2017 at 10:08 am)SteveII Wrote: The definition of God is the greatest conceivable being. As I have shown, there is no dilemma with such a concept. If you want to redefine God as something other than the traditional definition, go ahead. It does not apply to me.Does this definition actually free itself from dilemmas of subjectivity? Since it is obtained via human sense-making processes, how can one be sure that reality operates in strict accordance with how humans conceive things? Or for that matter, why should one assume that the human act of conceiving has any value or meaning outside of the human mind?
Ninja'd
