(September 6, 2012 at 2:55 pm)genkaus Wrote:(September 6, 2012 at 2:26 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: I don't see any substance to your claims.
You wouldn't see substance if it bit you in the ass.
(September 6, 2012 at 2:26 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: 1) What do you think is the strongest response to the Euthyphro dilemma and how do you defeat it?
I guess that would be "god's inherent nature is good", but that falls squarely on the first horn - that the good is not determined by god. Like I said, there are no good responses.
(September 6, 2012 at 2:26 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: 2) How do atheists define objective within the context of objective moral values?
Like I said, I don't speak for other atheists. If you were an atheist, you'd know the stupidity of doing that. How I define it is "independent of the mind" - any mind, even god's.
I see by your non-response to my other post that you still haven't extracted your head from your ass - I mean, sand.
There's much better responses than that.
The false dilemma one is particularly difficult to object to.