RE: How to easily defeat any argument for God
August 10, 2019 at 6:02 am
(This post was last modified: August 10, 2019 at 6:16 am by GrandizerII.)
(August 10, 2019 at 2:17 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: We can use possible worlds semantics to show how vacuous the notion is.
Take two possible worlds.
World A is as Acro asserts this world is. Where god and good are synonymous and the holocaust is not compatible or typifying of the god/good.
World B is as Acro asserts this world is. Where god and good are synonymous, but the holocaust -is- compatible with god/good.
As we can see, if god and good are synonymous, the character of the god determines the moral designation. These sorts of rationalizations always trip over the bastard god possibility.
Well, yes, it doesn't really resolve the Euthyphro dilemma. It's still a variation of the simpler "God says so", albeit in a highly sophisticated sounding manner.
(August 10, 2019 at 2:31 am)Acrobat Wrote:(August 10, 2019 at 2:10 am)Grandizer Wrote: I did say "just in a flowery language".
Your god is "good itself", and that good substantiates the "moralness" of the Holocaust act, determining/revealing it to be wrong through the good itself. I can do flowery language as well!
No, what you stated and what I stated are not the same thing. My view rejects a common conception of God, at least among atheists , where morality is some set of arbitrary rules from God, it rejects the sort of idea of god, that makes things such as the Euthyphro dilemma possible, in favor of a conception of God that falls in line with Plato’s conception of the Good.
In addition I don’t see the relationship between good and bad, like the relationship between north and south, but the relationship between north and not north. We recognize something is bad, by the recognition of the absence of the good in it, like light and dark, where darkness is a recognition of the absence of light.
More flowery language. If you break this all down, it's still saying the Good/God is the standard for what's right and wrong. The Holocaust is wrong because of something to do with the Good/God.
(August 10, 2019 at 3:54 am)Belaqua Wrote: And I have sympathy for the apophatic theologians, who warn that a sentence like "God is the Good" is misleading and therefore dangerous. Because it implies that we know what the Good is, and therefore can give a limited definition to an infinite thing. Or ascribe an attribute to God, who doesn't have attributes.
This is the sort of thing I find really baffling about theology is that in trying to make their presupposed God out to be so vastly different from anything else in existence, it ends up being so impossible to the point that some theologians are careful not to assign attributes to it while nevertheless describing it in some way, and some even wondering if it makes sense to say God exists while presupposing God is!
