The euthyphro dilemma.

[Godscreated]

[quote='Godschild' pid='93505' dateline='1284431660']
why do you believe you can apply your standards to God?

Here comes the fundie shitstorm.

I was not "applying my standards" to god, i simply pointed out what has been believed for a very long time to be a Dichotomy - If you have a problem with the dichotomy then maybe you would like to explain why and where it is wrong rather than just asserting it.

I did explain you should go back and re-read what I stated.

Why did you say assuming God....

Because the Dilemma is only applicable to believers.

There is no dilemma for the christian, the dilemma was conceived only to question what God is.

Stop trying to manipulate the answers that are given to this argument.

I do believe an answer was given, it was Horn 1 of the dilemma, that being that Morality is whatever God wills it to be.

It has nothing to do with God's will, God is good, loving, kind and ect. this is His nature and He can not go against His nature, morality is defined by what God is. You have a strange understanding of a being that you do not believe exist, God's will is applied to His plan not morality, morality is not part of God's plan it's a standard based on what God is and that standard is what every one is judged by whether you approve of the standard or not. Morality is within God's plan but it's based on what God is not what God desires.

There is no actual dilemma, you stated "two apparent options" I like Watson see another option and it's not an option taken to get around anything except the little trap you are trying to set.

1) It's not a trap, it's a true Dichotomy - Whether or not you are comfortable with it or not means nothing.

2) Watson essentially went with Horn 1 - That being that what is moral is whatever God is/does/wills and if God was to will that something else be moral it would be moral because he wills it - He may will it because it follows from his nature, but if his nature was different would morals be different?

Or would you still consider something immoral (such as rape) even if it was commanded by god?

Yes the euthyphro dilemma as witten is a dichotomy, it does not apply to God though, there is another opinion which is the truth and Watson and I both stated it. God does not will morality never has and never will, this is why God is the moral standard and that moral standard has always existed without change, never has changed and never will. God is unchanging and there is no need for Him to change He is perfect so He does not have to will any moral standards. What does all this mean, that there is a set of absolute moral standards that have existed eternally.

This is my view, God is good, it is not who He is, it's what He is. If good was who God is then your statments would apply, since good is what God is the statements do not fit.

That makes no sense, morals are actions, morals aren't simply part of being. God commands certain things, and these are what we would consider moral actions. Are these things moral because god commands them, or does god command them because they are moral?

God desires for people to be moral which as you stated is action but that action only applies to mankind. When Adam and Eve decided to be immoral and disobey God's moral standard of obedience everything changed and God's entire moral standard became a part of His creation, up until this point the only moral standard man was given was to be obedient. You might ask how obedience can be a moral standard, because obedience is of God's nature, who is it that God has to obey, God is obedient to Himself that is what He is, God will not go against Himself, He can not go against Himself it's part of His nature to be obedient.

God is good and His goodness sets the standard for the things that are good and the things that are not good.

Drop the word good and explain it in terms of morality. Icecream is good and has nothing to do with morality. All you are doing by using good in a non-moralistic sense is making things cloudy.

I'm using good only with moral standards, it's you and your dilemma that are taking good and using it as if God uses good to be a pleasing sense.

God's goodness sets the standards for morality, just as God's love sets the standards for morality, His kindness sets the standards for morality and ect.

How? Where does god get his moral sense from? Himself? If that is the case then all that is required for something to be moral is that god commands it. This again is horn 1.

God does not have a moral sense, God's nature is moral and that is where the moral standard comes from. I could repeat what I've stated above as an answer to your question but I want go back and read the above statements.

Hypothetically if there existed a god who commanded rape (as is declared in the OT) would rape be moral?

Once again God does not command morality, morality is what God is. Hypothetically if there were a god that commanded rape to be moral then he would not be a good god and would not be worthy of worship.

What if this God commands you to bash children against the rocks, as is in Pslams 137:9?

God has never given me a command to do this and I do not think He ever will. Again you are confusing the issues between commands and morality.
Verse 8 is part of what is said in verse 9. The psalmist here is the one speaking not God, it is a cry out against the Babylonian empire by the psalmist in a hope that one day Babylon will face the same fate as that which happened to Jerusalem. If the psalmist had meant God as the revenger the word one would have been capatialized, the psalmist would have given respect to his God.