RE: The Philosophy of Salah/Daily Connection/Prayer
April 10, 2015 at 12:54 am
(This post was last modified: April 10, 2015 at 12:58 am by Mystic.)
Quote:If God can make sexiness arbitrary, he can make beauty arbitrary. If god can make beauty arbitrary, he can make (wait for it .......) goodness arbitrary.That doesn't seem to follow. The reason is the Euthyphro Dilemma if you are aware of it. I suggest looking it up.
Is virtue virtue because God commanded it or did God command it because it is virtuous?
Although people say the first shows it's arbitrary making good just something God can decide and making anything good, the latter contrary to what many say, doesn't prove good is independent of God, but that eternal goodness/virtue is God.
I suggest looking the problem up.
And this doesn't depend on you believing God exists, it shows if God would exist, he would not be able to simply make good good simply because he commands it. Atheist always attack this saying "is good good simply because God commands it".
You are saying if God can make anything arbitrary like how we physically look, he can make goodness arbitrary, but there is nothing to support this premise. I also say while physical beauty might be to degree arbitrary to each species, the same is not true of INWARD objective beauty, which is God himself.
Quote:Ah, we praise and condemn the same way we always do.
I don't think you are getting the problem. You are defining it as simply what is helpful to society. That has no substance of praise and condemnation. To praise people to a degree or condemn them to a degree takes belief that there is objective goodness.
Quote:I'm pointing out that concepts cannot be eternal since they depend on minds. Concepts only exist in minds. If all the minds are gone, all the concepts are gone. A mind can apply a concept to any time period. So if I apply my standard of beauty to the 17th century, that doesn't mean my standard of beauty existed in the 17th century. Application of a concept does not mean existence of that concept in that time period.
So which premise do you deny now? Denying an Eternal mind is just attacking the conclusion, but the premises lead to the conclusion, so which premise do you dispute?
