The euthyphro dilemma.

[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?

[HeyItsZeus]

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?

"Gods words are not literal."-Skeptical Christians

[Watson]

That's not quite right, Zeus. God's words can be literal and non-literal. They can even be both. It's just a matter ofunderstanding them.

As for your question, VOID, I thank you for posting it. I find it to be a very interesting one. My answer to you would not be either of the supplied answers, as I posit that God is good- that is, He is the source of goodness which radiates outward from Him. God is goodness, essentially, and goodness is God.

[theVOID]

Firstly, HeyIt'sZeus - That doesn't answer a thing

Assuming God exists, as this Dilemma does, Morality is either what he likes, or he likes something because it is moral - It doesn't matter whether or not we are to take the bible literally because even if the bible is not necessarily God's nature, God is still either responsible for moral authority or gets morals from elsewhere.

[Watson]

As I said, why does God have to be responsible for or receiving of moral authority? Isn't it, in fact, possible for God to be the source of goodness without being seperate from it(goodness)?

[theVOID]

As for your question, VOID, I thank you for posting it. I find it to be a very interesting one. My answer to you would not be either of the supplied answers, as I posit that God is good- that is, He is the source of goodness which radiates outward from Him. God is goodness, essentially, and goodness is God.

All you have done is obfuscate the dilemma without answering it.

You say God is good, according to what?

Is he good because he complies with an external standard of good, or is he good simply because whatever he is (and wills to be) is good (making it arbitrary and subjective)?

---

As I said, why does God have to be responsible for or receiving of moral authority? Isn't it, in fact, possible for God to be the source of goodness without being seperate from it(goodness)?

Yes, if god defines (or is) what is good = HORN 1 - This means goodness is arbitrarily what God wills it to be, and don't pretend you don't think God has a will.

[Tiberius]

Morality was created by McVities in order to keep people from tasting of the confectionary of Mr Kipling. Simple.

[theVOID]

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

[Godscreated]

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?

Both statements are wrong, why do you believe you can apply your standards to God? Why did you say assuming God.... in one of your statements to Watson when your two statements imply God. Stop trying to manipulate the answers that are given to this argument. 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. 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. God is good and His goodness sets the standard for the things that are good and the things that are not good. 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. 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.

[Watson]

Godschild pretty much has it.

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. 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.

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.'

Similarly, God possesses goodness and is the definition of good. From Him, all good things radiate and show through the universe and the way in which it works. 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.