The euthyphro dilemma.

[Shell B]

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.

[theVOID]

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.

Why did you say assuming God....

Because the Dilemma is only applicable to believers.

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.

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?

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 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.

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.

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

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

[Watson]

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.

[theVOID]

Godschild pretty much has it.

No, he doesn't have shit. He's just said god is Good because god is good.

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.[quote]

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

[quote]
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.

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?

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?

To observe God's goodness, one must observe the world and the way in which it is created. Since God is all-knowing, He internally understands in what ways His goodness must be put to use. Godness is within Him and is His very being. It is not created or instigated by outside sources, because it is from within.

You really don't seem to get the point, stop talking about Good in the general sense and get back to moral good.

Why is something morally good as opposed to morally evil?

[Shell B]

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

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.

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)?

I have read the Bible. It was extraordinarily dull. I have not, however, read any book written about atheism. No offense to anyone here, but I find it a little silly. I know what an atheist is. I know what I am. I don't need to read anyone else's convoluted opinion of it. I have to say that if Dawkins really thinks that, he's a knucklehead. How do you not understand that god supposedly killed nearly every human on Earth because he disapproved of their behavior? Yeah, that's not terrible or cruel at all. Give me a break.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

God's goodness is observable within the real world, not simply the Bible.

There is certainly a lot of observable good in the world and has been since the beginning of recorded history. Why, I've even been guilty of good acts myself from time to time. However,there is no evidence of any transcendent cause for any human act..

In my opinion there is far more observable evil than good in the world AND that the problem of evil is incompatible with the qualities ascribed to the Abrahamic god..

[Pippy]

it doesn't have to be theistic.

Is good or right so because the laws and legislation say so, or are the laws and legislation trying to adhere to an external good?

I think that good is larger than god, but (to make this confusing) she did make (design, create) good. She, as the theoretical maker of the existence made good (not really on purpose, good is just proper function, and evil is dysfunction), and that may seem that I choose that she deems it so. But no, I think that to us the Good is more relevant, and that is becomes objective when reality was created.

So good is good only because it represents proper function. God make function, and properness, but they are much larger than her now. They are in charge.

And to Padraic, why is the problem of evil incompatible with the Abrehemic? Both Yahweh and Allah were pretty ruthless and rude at times. The prelim of modern evil doesn't mesh with "You have dominion over the earth" or "throw down you jewelry and I will dcide what to do with you next"? I would think an Atheist may say that the problem with modernity is too much compatibility with abrehemic values.

[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.

[theophilus]

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

Why can't both of these options be true? Perhaps the reason they appear contradictory is that they are two aspects of some truth that we simply don't have the ability to comprehend. We are finite so we can't expect to understand everything about God. A time is coming when we will understand him more clearly. First Corinthians 13:12 says, "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." The important thing is that he has revealed what is right and wrong and we are required to live by the standards he has set whether we understand the reason for them or not.

In my opinion there is far more observable evil than good in the world AND that the problem of evil is incompatible with the qualities ascribed to the Abrahamic god..

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

The Bible explains why there is so much evil. God created the first humans with free will and they chose to disobey God. The evil we see is the result of their disobedience.

[Shell B]

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.

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

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."

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

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.

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

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.