RE: The euthyphro dilemma.
September 16, 2010 at 7:31 pm
(This post was last modified: September 16, 2010 at 7:39 pm by Captain Scarlet.)
The euthyphro dilemma is sound. And the problem is of the theists own making.
The only way out of it displayed by the Christian apologists on this page is to claim gods nature is good, that god radiates out goodness. But what does it mean? There are no parallels of this in any part of our reality. Its just a bare assertion fallacy and a fallacy of ambiguity to circumvent the problem.
If the theist proposes this then at least a rough sketch of what this means is required, to me it sound meaningless. Its like saying I am human by nature, because I am human (pure circular reasoning). In addition if god radiates this goodness out into the universe are rocks, the vaccuum of space, stars, the ebola virus and comets also moral?
It is also logically problematic for the theist. If god were the source of morality by virtue of gods nature, then it/he would need to be immutable. If not immutable it/he can change its nature and thus morality is no longer objective but arbitrary. If immutable then god loses omni powers as it impossible for it/he to change, eg just one example you can't be all loving if you cannot be, moved by events that happen in time in their context and you certainly can't forgive...and if you believe the bible then god certainly experiences change (of mind etc).
The whole theist charade comes tumbling down to earth and reality when we turn it around. Because the whole thesit argument works just as well, and perhaps slightly better (as it accounts for evil), if god was immoral by nature and hated humans but allowed them free will to choose good. And infact this view of god is more in keeping with the OT.
The only way out of it displayed by the Christian apologists on this page is to claim gods nature is good, that god radiates out goodness. But what does it mean? There are no parallels of this in any part of our reality. Its just a bare assertion fallacy and a fallacy of ambiguity to circumvent the problem.
If the theist proposes this then at least a rough sketch of what this means is required, to me it sound meaningless. Its like saying I am human by nature, because I am human (pure circular reasoning). In addition if god radiates this goodness out into the universe are rocks, the vaccuum of space, stars, the ebola virus and comets also moral?
It is also logically problematic for the theist. If god were the source of morality by virtue of gods nature, then it/he would need to be immutable. If not immutable it/he can change its nature and thus morality is no longer objective but arbitrary. If immutable then god loses omni powers as it impossible for it/he to change, eg just one example you can't be all loving if you cannot be, moved by events that happen in time in their context and you certainly can't forgive...and if you believe the bible then god certainly experiences change (of mind etc).
The whole theist charade comes tumbling down to earth and reality when we turn it around. Because the whole thesit argument works just as well, and perhaps slightly better (as it accounts for evil), if god was immoral by nature and hated humans but allowed them free will to choose good. And infact this view of god is more in keeping with the OT.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
