The euthyphro dilemma.

[Watson]

It's interesting how every Christian thinks that their way of seeing it is the right way. No offense.

None taken. Self-righteousness is pervasive in all walks of life, and a common problem with humanity as a whole.

Thankfully, that's not why I don't believe god is real.

That's good. Why do you, then?

So, the lesson was, if we are all bad, god is going to kill us. Got it.

No, Shell B, come on. I am confident of the fact that yo uare smarter than that. Do you really think your interpretation of the story, which took you five minutes to think up and even less time to write out, is correct? Think harder, rsearch more, observe and experience the world a little more openly. It will come to you. You are most definitely smart enough for it to.

I don't claim to fully understand the story. I've only got an inkling of what it is about, but I know it isn't 'If we are all bad, God wipes us out.' That doesn't match up with my understanding of God. From what I can tell, the story is partially a commentary on the fact that if God wanted to, He has the power to wipe us out. So it's kind of like being humble to your parents and obeying their rules while under their roof. They have every right to kick you out once you get old enough to know better.

I don't want it to be any way. I know that the whole thing is fiction. I can make no good points against god based on a work of fiction.

So what good points can you make against God based on real life?

[The Omnissiunt One]

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.

Ah, so you have a concept of 'benefit' independent of God's will. That's a moral judgement independent of God. So you opt for the second horn. Goodness is independent of God.

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

Then you seem to opt for the other horn, saying that what's good is what achieves God's plan. God's plan could be to cause as much suffering as possible. Indeed, that seems likely given the world around us.

If you don't believe in God then where do your standards of good and evil come from?

Compassion and reason. Also, this is not a response to the problem of evil, because the standards of good and evil in this case come from the definition of those things given by theists. They say that God abhors violence and injustice, yet he allows these things to exist. [/quote]

[Shell B]

Thankfully, that's not why I don't believe god is real.

That's good. Why do you, then?

Because I have seen nothing to suggest such. Furthermore, the concept of god is outside of the realm of what I consider possible. I like to spend my time pondering the real wonders of the universe, not the ones some sheep herder made up.

So, the lesson was, if we are all bad, god is going to kill us. Got it.

No, Shell B, come on. I am confident of the fact that yo uare smarter than that. Do you really think your interpretation of the story, which took you five minutes to think up and even less time to write out, is correct? Think harder, rsearch more, observe and experience the world a little more openly. It will come to you. You are most definitely smart enough for it to.

It didn't take me five minutes to think that up. Furthermore, there is nothing else to research. What would you have me do, expand my understanding of the morals of Aesop's fables? I'm not capable of twisting a story so much as to render it unrecognizable for the sake of finding some moral that isn't there. I'll accept the one I see and then dismiss is it as crap. That's how I roll.

I don't claim to fully understand the story. I've only got an inkling of what it is about, but I know it isn't 'If we are all bad, God wipes us out.' That doesn't match up with my understanding of God. From what I can tell, the story is partially a commentary on the fact that if God wanted to, He has the power to wipe us out. So it's kind of like being humble to your parents and obeying their rules while under their roof. They have every right to kick you out once you get old enough to know better.

The key phrase in your above statement is that it doesn't match with your understanding of god. That says a lot.

Perhaps that is what you glean from the story. My parents were cooler than god in that they used threats of making me get my own place instead of drowning me to get their point across. Even that was enough to make me move out straight out of high school.

So what good points can you make against God based on real life?

None that would fit your understanding of god.

[Godscreated]

Compare a thing to God's love, goodness, kindness and all the other wonderful things God is and you can determine if that thing is good or not.

So, basically, if something is a mass murderer, cult leader and absentee parent it is good?

Before you get upset, realize that my description of gandalf is the one that he supplied to me, in the Bible. Of course, I don't believe the Bible, but if I did, I would be forced to believe that gandalf is not good by my standards.

You can apply your standard to God however it means little if anything at all, God is eternal and your short lived opinon is only a faint and dying whisper riding on the winds of time.

[Shell B]

You can apply your standard to God however it means little if anything at all, God is eternal and your short lived opinon is only a faint and dying whisper riding on the winds of time.

I'm okay with that. I'll take my opinion being a "faint and dying whisper" (feeling poetic, eh?) and be happy that I have the satisfaction of being right.

[Ashendant]

God's goodness is observable within the real world, not simply the Bible. During my change from atheism to Christianity, there was a period where I considered myself simply 'Agnostic.' I was taking notice of, and investigating, events and strange phenomena in my life that led me to believe there was a higher power. I began learning lessons from these observations; lessons about life; about friendship; about love; and about how to survive in this world.

It was only after I began discussing the matter with a good Christian friend of mine that I discovered most of what was learning was already a part of Christian teaching. Hence, why I consider myself a Christian for what I follow. And if you think that the Bible is meant to be taken literally/depicts a terrible and cruel God in some way, "then you either haven't read it or haven't understood it..." And that's a quote from Richard Dawkins.

Oh you mean the morals Moses stole from the book of the dead and the goddess of truth

[Godscreated]

You can apply your standard to God however it means little if anything at all, God is eternal and your short lived opinon is only a faint and dying whisper riding on the winds of time.

I'm okay with that. I'll take my opinion being a "faint and dying whisper" (feeling poetic, eh?) and be happy that I have the satisfaction of being right.

Actually that is a paraphrase of some quotes from scripture. Note that even the winds of time are not eternal only God is. As for your satisfaction it soon will be like your opinon "gone" and God will still exist, He will exist long after everyone and their opinions of Him are gone.

[Shell B]

Actually that is a paraphrase of some quotes from scripture. Note that even the winds of time are not eternal only God is. As for your satisfaction it soon will be like your opinon "gone" and God will still exist, He will exist long after everyone and their opinions of Him are gone.

FYI, typically, when someone quotes someone or paraphrases another person's words, they mention the fact.

As for your ludicrous assertion: Ah, bullshit. Sure, my satisfaction and my opinion will be gone, but so won't god. As soon as every person or every religious person on this planet has ceased to exist, so will everything that god ever was. That's because figments of the imagination are as fleeting as opinions.

[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.

[mem]

Hate to bring this up and spoil the fun but GOD DOES NOT EXIST!!!! Game over