The euthyphro dilemma.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

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

Err, sorry to mention this,but you have just made a positive claim.That attracts the burden of proof.

You have just given yourself the obligation of falsifying the existence of God. Lots of luck with that, you'll be the first person in recorded history to manage that task.

Game continues

[Tiberius]

So morality is McVities' arbitrary and subject opinion? Seems like horn 1 to me.

Afraid so, as it was revealed to us in the partially transcribed Jaffable, in the Book of Jaffasis 3, verses 1-6:

1. Now the bushbaby was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord McVities had made. He said to the man, "Did McVities really say, 'You must not eat of the produce of the factory in the town'?"

2. The man said to the bushbaby, "We may eat of the produce from the factory in the town, but McVities did say, 'You must not eat of the produce of the Mr Kipling factory in the outskirts of the town, and you must not work there, or you will die.'"

3. "You will not surely die," the bushbaby said to the man. "For McVities knows that when you eat of the produce of Mr Kipling, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like McVities, knowing good and bad confectionary."

4. When the man saw that the produce of the Mr Kipling factory was good for food, and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining weight, he took some and ate it.

5. He also gave some to the woman, who was with him on the off chance that he'd notice she'd had her hair done up really nice, and she ate it.

6. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that other confectionary existed in the world, and that such confectionary tasted horrible in comparison to that of McVities.

Believe it or die.

On a further note, I really must complete the transcription

Source: http://churchofthesmashingorangeybit.com/jaffable/

[Watson]

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.

What if I told you that the two of us are pondering the same wonders, but that God is the line which 'connects-the-dots' more accurately, so to speak? And why does your not having seen anything to suggest such mean there is no God, or even lend credence to the idea that there is no God? Just because you have not seen something does not mean it does not exist or is not possible.

What is your concept of God, anyway? Why do you consider it outside your realm of possibility? Isn't that a bit close-minded? What if your concept of God is wrong?

It didn't take me five minutes to think that up.

It sure didn't take you a very long amount of time.

Furthermore, there is nothing else to research. What would you have me do, expand my understanding of the morals of Aesop's fables?

I would suggest you open your eyes a little wider, and observe the world around you a little more thoroughly. That is the best way to come to an understanding about God. There is evidence all around you, if only you will open yourself to experiencing it.

And yes, you do need to expand your understanding of fables. It would certainly help, because your current understanding is lacking.

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.

Well that's a very blind way to read a story, Shell B. When you read other books that actually serve as parables, do you simply read it for the story, or the underlying message as well? Similarly, do you just listen to music for what is spoken, or what is actually being said/the message that is being conveyed?

That's the point of reading in general.

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

And my understanding of God is based on a thorough examination of the outside world around me. Do you take issue with that?

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.

God did not drown everyone on earth, and that is the point. Though He has the ability to do so because He is God, He has not yet and has been merciful thus far.

We should not take that gift for granted.

And just so you know, I've basically learned this by having my parents say the same thing to me about moving out right out of high school. I'm supposed to have a job or be in college within six months of turning eighteen, or I am out on my ass. because there is no reason that I shouldn't have one of those things in the given amount of time.

Do you understand the analogy?

None that would fit your understanding of god.

On the contrary. I have a feeling they'd fit right in.

[tackattack]

---

Theists, what is your response to this Dilemma? Do you chose to take one of the horns, or do you have a solution for getting around the dilemma?

For those who do not know, the euthyphro dilemma was proposed by Plato in one of his socratic dialogs, phrased in a modern and relevant way read as follows:

Is something good simply because God likes it OR is does God like it because it is good?

With this dilemma you have two apparent options:

1) Either something is good because God likes it and therefore morality being the commandments of God is subjective and arbitrary - If God liked rape or torture then rape or torture then rape and torture would be morally good.

2) Moral standards exist apart from God and therefore God is not the giver of morals. This posits the existence of "intrinsic values" as would require that God follows them.

Which option do you chose?

---

I am not farmiliar with the arguement and don't really have time to research it. I think I stopped at post 12, only for time constraints, but here's my opinion on the OP.

It is an uninformed dichotomy and given the options present I would choose 1. I believe 2 is also true. Morality, however as this is leading to is, is defined as subjective morality while we're trying to explain that God is an objective morality thus it's more along the lines of an equivocation fallacy. I don't get my subjective morals from God, but from myself. Then there are societal morals by which a society calls itself civilized. I do however model my morality towards the objective moraility of God rather to the shifting virtues of society.

[Shell B]

What if I told you that the two of us are pondering the same wonders, but that God is the line which 'connects-the-dots' more accurately, so to speak?

I'm not surprised at all that you would say that. However, he/she/it connects the lines more accurately for you, not for me. I see god nowhere. god is not something that fits into the equation as I see it.

And why does your not having seen anything to suggest such mean there is no God, or even lend credence to the idea that there is no God?

Since you're so assertive, I might ask you the same question in reverse.

I don't look for things that aren't there. I see the world the way it is laid out before me. If I looked for signs of unbelievable things everywhere, I would believe in a lot more than your god, but I don't. It's a waste of time.

Just because you have not seen something does not mean it does not exist or is not possible.

There's no arguing that, unless. . . My perception is my reality. god does not exist in my perception. Therefore, he does not exist in my reality, nor is he/she/it possible. I see no reason to believe that he exists in yours, either, aside from the fact that you want him to.

What is your concept of God, anyway?

I have no concept of god. It is a figment of the imagination of far too many people.

Why do you consider it outside your realm of possibility? Isn't that a bit close-minded?

Why do I consider it outside of the realm of possibility? Well, I'll never have the time to answer that question fully. I can say that there are too many inconsistencies on behalf of believers and their sacred texts. For example, Christian A says "seek god in the world around you." Christian B says, "Look for god within yourself." Both ideas are preposterous and inconsistent with one another.

What if your concept of God is wrong?

That's not possible. See above.

It sure didn't take you a very long amount of time.

Actually, that's the conclusion I came to after years of being inundated with the story. Assumptions, Watson, tsk, tsk.

I would suggest you open your eyes a little wider, and observe the world around you a little more thoroughly. That is the best way to come to an understanding about God. There is evidence all around you, if only you will open yourself to experiencing it.

I've heard that before. How do you know that I haven't? How do you know you are not wrong? Did god tell you? /joke

And yes, you do need to expand your understanding of fables. It would certainly help, because your current understanding is lacking.

Baloney. Aesop's lessons are clear and concise, if a bit dated.

Well that's a very blind way to read a story, Shell B. When you read other books that actually serve as parables, do you simply read it for the story, or the underlying message as well? Similarly, do you just listen to music for what is spoken, or what is actually being said/the message that is being conveyed?

Music, like the bible, is interpreted differently by different people.

That's the point of reading in general.

Perhaps for you.

And my understanding of God is based on a thorough examination of the outside world around me. Do you take issue with that?

No, I simply think your examination was based on preconceived notions. That is my preconceived notion of Christians.

He is God, He has not yet and has been merciful thus far.

If god truly existed, he has been anything but merciful. I think the worst thing I ever saw in my life was a six-year-old boy with leukemia. I used to babysit for him. If god existed, he would have that to answer for.

[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.

[Entropist]

If a creator of the universe is deemed "good" because that god is the one who defines what is and is not good, then morality is purely arbitrary: such a god could have just as well said raping infants is "good." And morality then is merely following the whims of a creator.

If a creator of the universe is deemed "good" because we have a supposed standard by which we can compare him to and say, "yup, he is in fact good" then this morality is external to this god and exists independently of him.

But additional snag is that, assuming (as it almost always is) that the god in question is the Christian one, then there are many instances where this god's "goodness" are highly questionable (to put it nicely), namely in terms of genocide (either directly himself or by direct order). Anyone doing these things would normally be regarded as a criminal, so why does this god get off the hook?

[theVOID]

---

Theists, what is your response to this Dilemma? Do you chose to take one of the horns, or do you have a solution for getting around the dilemma?

For those who do not know, the euthyphro dilemma was proposed by Plato in one of his socratic dialogs, phrased in a modern and relevant way read as follows:

Is something good simply because God likes it OR is does God like it because it is good?

With this dilemma you have two apparent options:

1) Either something is good because God likes it and therefore morality being the commandments of God is subjective and arbitrary - If God liked rape or torture then rape or torture then rape and torture would be morally good.

2) Moral standards exist apart from God and therefore God is not the giver of morals. This posits the existence of "intrinsic values" as would require that God follows them.

Which option do you chose?

---

I am not farmiliar with the arguement and don't really have time to research it. I think I stopped at post 12, only for time constraints, but here's my opinion on the OP.

It is an uninformed dichotomy and given the options present I would choose 1. I believe 2 is also true. Morality, however as this is leading to is, is defined as subjective morality while we're trying to explain that God is an objective morality thus it's more along the lines of an equivocation fallacy. I don't get my subjective morals from God, but from myself. Then there are societal morals by which a society calls itself civilized. I do however model my morality towards the objective moraility of God rather to the shifting virtues of society.

Thanks for actually answering the question coherently, you could teach these theist kids a thing or two

Let shift this explicitly to authoritative morality - Is god the authoritative and final source for what is morally good? I know you get your morality from yourself, this is a given and acknowledges your morality is not necessarily that of God, but when this is considered "wrong" morality rather than "subjective" morality, do you still see all final decisions about what is morally good and morally evil down to the judgement of God?

And if that is the case then would it be fair to say that because morality is judged by God if there were a hypothetical god who judged rape moral then in that possible world rape would in fact be moral? Or perhaps a more close-to-home example, If Yahweh does actually think eating shellfish is immoral does this actually make eating shellfish immoral?

[tackattack]

---

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.

---

I think I showed where it wasn't sound. We all use subjective morlity to make moral decisions. Wheter we believe God told us to do something or not, we are personally accountable, and will be judged by the societal values we live in. The Christian perspective adds another layer to it and holds that all of that is true, but we'll also be held to a higher standard (by virtue of it's absoluteness) on a day of judgement in the future. This delima doesn't delineate between subjective morality and absolute morality by nature. If it's trying to get to the point of is God the author of morals.. (something like " If your morality comes from within you then God is not the author of your morality, at best an influnce" would have been a better dichotomy) then it fails. It's simply 2 correct statements with regards to the type of morality each independantly references which is an equivocation fallacy.

Perhaps you see it as nonsense because it wasn't conveyed properly. From my perspective as a Christian, God doesn't radiate good or anything so overly dramatic. When I say God is good, what I'm saying is God Exhibit's the qualities I define as good through his revelations to me. It's like saying the Ball is blue . It may be small, round rubber and sparkly, but it's also blue. God is, whatever he is, which we don't know. One of his aspects as whatever that is, is goodness from an omnimax perspective. That perspective is far greater than anything achievable from within the universe so it's treated like an absolute, or at least a goal. Whether it is an absolute , probably not, it's dependant on God's nature.

---

If a creator of the universe is deemed "good" because that god is the one who defines what is and is not good, then morality is purely arbitrary: such a god could have just as well said raping infants is "good." And morality then is merely following the whims of a creator.

If a creator of the universe is deemed "good" because we have a supposed standard by which we can compare him to and say, "yup, he is in fact good" then this morality is external to this god and exists independently of him.

But additional snag is that, assuming (as it almost always is) that the god in question is the Christian one, then there are many instances where this god's "goodness" are highly questionable (to put it nicely), namely in terms of genocide (either directly himself or by direct order). Anyone doing these things would normally be regarded as a criminal, so why does this god get off the hook?

---

As I stated above. morailty is simply a judgement and by nature judgement is independant of any object save the judger. The Christian view is God is the final judge, therefore an authoratative source for developing better morality and judgement, not author of our own individual judgements. In reference to yoursnag; There are lots of Biblical references to attrocities and wonders, all in God's name. Rather then rehash an old argument it boils down to The Christian God is a personal God and therefore be judged off his revelations, or lack there of, subjectively and determined whether he is either good or evil.

---

Theists, what is your response to this Dilemma? Do you chose to take one of the horns, or do you have a solution for getting around the dilemma?

For those who do not know, the euthyphro dilemma was proposed by Plato in one of his socratic dialogs, phrased in a modern and relevant way read as follows:

Is something good simply because God likes it OR is does God like it because it is good?

With this dilemma you have two apparent options:

1) Either something is good because God likes it and therefore morality being the commandments of God is subjective and arbitrary - If God liked rape or torture then rape or torture then rape and torture would be morally good.

2) Moral standards exist apart from God and therefore God is not the giver of morals. This posits the existence of "intrinsic values" as would require that God follows them.

Which option do you chose?

I am not farmiliar with the arguement and don't really have time to research it. I think I stopped at post 12, only for time constraints, but here's my opinion on the OP.

It is an uninformed dichotomy and given the options present I would choose 1. I believe 2 is also true. Morality, however as this is leading to is, is defined as subjective morality while we're trying to explain that God is an objective morality thus it's more along the lines of an equivocation fallacy. I don't get my subjective morals from God, but from myself. Then there are societal morals by which a society calls itself civilized. I do however model my morality towards the objective moraility of God rather to the shifting virtues of society.

Thanks for actually answering the question coherently, you could teach these theist kids a thing or two

Let shift this explicitly to authoritative morality - Is god the authoritative and final source for what is morally good? I know you get your morality from yourself, this is a given and acknowledges your morality is not necessarily that of God, but when this is considered "wrong" morality rather than "subjective" morality, do you still see all final decisions about what is morally good and morally evil down to the judgement of God?

And if that is the case then would it be fair to say that because morality is judged by God if there were a hypothetical god who judged rape moral then in that possible world rape would in fact be moral? Or perhaps a more close-to-home example, If Yahweh does actually think eating shellfish is immoral does this actually make eating shellfish immoral?

---

Thank you for the compliment, but we could all stand to learn some things sometimes, myself included. Learning is a process not a check on a list.
Back to the convo. I think I illustrated above, yes I see God as an authoritative morality due to his perspective and my perceptions of right and wrong. To answer your question about a God commanding rape to be moral would it then be moral, no. Individual accountability has to be factored into the conversation here. I (my morality) would not follow a decree from a God (final authority) to rape. In a final judgement scenario, this God could say that I should have raped someone, and I'd get whatever his punishment is for it. The Chrisitian God though says that God's laws are written on your heart (and several other things) which boils down to "Don't be stupid, use common sense, and your own sens of right and wrong to validate what you think I want you to do". I hope that's clearer than it appears.