The euthyphro dilemma.

[Watson]

It's funny how you found god, but I just found myself when I observed the world around me. Therefore, I must be god.

I found myself when I observed myself. Once I did that, I was able to examine where I stand in the world around me and observe it objectively as psosible. That was how I found God...(I know you weren't being serious, I just felt liek answering this. )

Yeah, I've danced around that mulberry bush before. This Christian takes the Bible literally. That Christian picks and chooses. Well, shit, if it is the word of god, shouldn't it be taken literally (assuming a person believes in god)?

There is no reason to take the stories in the Bible themselves literally, and they are written in a manner that suggests this. The lessons they teach, however, are to be taken literally and require observation of and comparison to the real world before deciding if they are right or wrong in relation to God. God is independent of the Bible, and many atheists fall into the trap of declaring "If the Bible is not true, then God is not real."

I have read the Bible. It was extraordinarily dull.

Really? I'm reading it right now and find it extraordinarily interesting.

How do you not understand that god supposedly killed nearly every human on Earth because he disapproved of their behavior?

How do you not understand that that story was not to be taken literally, and was instead meant to convey a lesson that must be studied and understood through comparison to God's behavior in the real world first? The idea was God's nature and His capability, not what was actually done or historically real. It wasn't meant that way. You just want it to be because it 'proves' your point to construe it as such.

What you are saying is that someone's character must be defined by external sources, and that the internal has nothing to do with who we are and what we do.

No i didn't, go find where i said that.

It's in the fine print. You should know, you wrote it.

This is a presumtuous assertion that leaves no real room for growth as a human being and change of the internal kind. It would suggest that, for one to grow and learn, external forces must be added to the person's current state, which is simply untrue.

Firstly, i didn't assert that at all.

Secondly, this has nothing to do with the dilemma.

It has everything to do with the dilemna. just as we humans are defined by our internal character, so to is God. We are not defined by external sources except that which we allow into us, and neither is God.

You are an atheist, VOID. This is because of internal decisions and thoughts which you have had, and conclusions which you yourself have drawn. (Unless you'd like to debate that and suggest that you are atheist by virture of someone [/b]else's[/b] thoughts.) From you, your atheism radiates and shows in your actions, your beliefs or lack thereof, and your thought processes. Your atheism is your own, held only by you. No other person in the universe can claim to possess 'theVOID's atheism.'

What the fuck does this have to do with anything?

It is an analogy, VOID. You possess your atheism, no one else can claim possession over "theVOID's atheism." Similarly, God possesses goodness, it is His being and how He works internally. No one else can claim to possess "God's goodness" except in bits and pieces, since God is within all.

Similarly, God possesses goodness and is the definition of good.

Right, so good is whatever god is, and if God is different then the things that we consider good would be different? That's what you are saying no?

From Him, all good things radiate and show through the universe and the way in which it works.

And if god was different then what we consider to be moral would be different?

You believe god prescribes moral law, do you not? As such anything that God prescribes is moral? So if (hypothetically) God was to prescribe raping infants as a moral action then it would be moral?

Imagine you are writing a story, and you have planned a beginning and an end out perfectly. You've got your beginning, now you have to get to your end. God sees all ways to get to this end because He knows what is good(He is self-aware of His own goodness), and can see what way will be the best of getting to that end. Things are planned accordingly, and we as humans either choose to follow the direction or not. God's goodness is encompassing of all events; if it is meant to happen, it will happen.

So to answer your question, our perceivable universe is not benefitted in any way by raping infants, therefore God would not prescribe it as a moral action. His internal mechanisms reflect this, as He is all-knowing and understands that raping infants is not good and is counter to Him.

Why is something morally good as opposed to morally evil?

Whatever is counter-productive in getting to the planned end is morally evil, and whatever moves towards the end is morally good.