(April 10, 2015 at 6:31 am)MysticKnight Wrote: However you didn't address the Euthyphro dilemma! This is the point I bring upon virtue. I think you need to address it.
Actually, you rather miss the point of Euthyphro.
It is a dilemma precisely because it is undecidable. The conclusion is that we have to determine what is good on our own.
Quote:But that premise is based on a conclusion, if follows if you agree with the premises before.
1. Goodness to be objective, cannot be arbitrary.
2. Objective Goodness exists (assumption).
3. If a Creator can decide/create what is goodness, then goodness would be arbitrary. (For example, if it can decide rape is good, then it would be arbitrary)
4. Therefore a Creator cannot create objective goodness.
5. If a Creator cannot create objective goodness, then nothing can, including evolution, as a Creator can create evolution, and anything that would be able to create morality.
6. Therefore objective goodness is eternal.
7. Goodness is not separate from consciousness.
8. Therefore consciousness is eternal.
9. Ultimate goodness is included in definition of objective goodness.
10. Therefore Ultimate goodness exists eternally.
6 follows from 5 and 2. 5 from follows from 4. 4 follows from from 3. 3 from follows from 1. 2 doesn't follow from anything and was your original objection. But if you accept both 2 and 1, it seems 6 follows. Therefore you have state why either 6 doesn't follow from the argument or state which premise you think is additionally wrong and doesn't follow from 1 and 2. Or is it 1 now that you dispute?
- 8 does not follow from anything.
- "Ultimate goodness' is undefined.
- Ideas, judgments, concepts exist only in minds
- No ideas can precede existence.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.