Euthyphro dilemma

[The Grand Nudger]

Would you expect a more robust discussion from their a team?

Sure.

Do they exercise more complex mental gymnastics or less? Lol.

With the a-team...you may not agree with their position..but at least -they- agree with their position. More than we've seen on display in this thread, and that counts for something.

[Edwardo Piet]

We don't exactly get the a-team, and that's worth remembering.

Wut?

The greatest theistic debaters alive would lose to one 8th of my scrotum.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Whether or not God could have lacked the property says nothing about whether the standard of goodness resides with God, or outside of him. Those are the only two options, and dressing it up with fancy terms like "necessary property" do nothing to evade the dilemma….The question is not, "Is God good?" but rather, "Why is God considered to be good?"…Either the standard of goodness comes from God, in which case it's arbitrary, or it comes from outside him, and he is not the source of morals. There is no third place it can come from…Essentially, all you're saying is that God is good because you define him to be so; that isn't any kind of "third option."

Stomping your feet doesn’t change a thing. There really is no problem with God being both the standard of goodness and its source. He is what He is. We don’t define that God is good; we recognize that He is. It’s just like accepting the value of pi as fixed independent of what anyone thinks it should be or even if no one around to know it’s value. Pi is what it is by necessity. The only thing that is arbitrary is your choice of whether or not to accept it, i.e. do you demand that God conform His nature to what you think is good or do you conform your nature to His goodness?

Now I know that a wooden and literal reading of the Bible presents God anthropomorphically – commanding this and commanding that, which is fine for a shallow exegesis. And I can understand how some atheists read it that way and are appalled. If that's the limit of their curiosity, who am I to say otherwise? However, once someone understands that God’s eternal will and nature is unchanging he or she comes to see that God only appears to be one way or another depending on how we approach Him. The bible tells us that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, but really that was how Pharaoh’s heart responded to God. The same sun that hardens clay will soften butter. The rains are the same, but the house of the foolish man who built is house on sand washes away while the house of the wise man who built on rock stands firm.

It’s an existential choice: your way or His way. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting.

[SteveII]

Are God's eternal unchanging moral properties arbitrary? Could they have been any other way? Perhaps, perhaps not--I don't think that is clear. I don't think it matters however, because you need God's nature to be arbitrary not in the sense that if could have been different, but that it still can be different.

This is simply false.  The question of arbitrariness at issue is whether there is any justification for God's morality external to himself, as this is the question of whether God's morals have a foundation or not.  If they have no foundation other than himself, than you have grounded yourself on the horn of the dilemma which says that God's morals are arbitrary.  Whether they "still can be different" is irrelevant with regard to the dilemma.  Since the rest of your postulates follow upon this supposition, they too are irrelevant.   You have no way of ascertaining the goodness of God's morals except by assuming that God's morals are good.  It doesn't matter whether or not God "can change" or not.  His being unable to change his ways provides no justification for those ways in the first place.  It is in this sense that his morals are arbitrary, and it is the only sense in which it matters with respect to the dilemma.  The dilemma in its basic formulation is all about how God justifies his morals.  Whether they can change or not matters not a whit to the dilemma.

A nature that changes is a defect and not compatible with omniscience so that is not a coherent argument. If it is unchanging, and governs the actions of God consistently, then the dilemma is broken because neither horn applies.

As noted, this is simply false.  Claiming the dilemma is broken and showing that it is are two different things.   You've done nothing to deflect that God's morals are arbitrary in the sense that matters to the dilemma.  

Again, you are equivocating. You need arbitrary  to mean "contingent on God's choice" NOT "it could have been some other way". If you use the second definition, then the horn does not have the unpleasant conclusion you need it to have to be a dilemma.

Contingency and necessity are red herrings.  No he doesn't need arbitrary to mean that.  He needs arbitrary to mean that God has no justification (aside from his own self) for the morals that he accepts.  You keep trying to dictate what we mean by arbitrary in order to provide you with an "out" for God.  Since the question is whether God's morals are justified by something other than himself, or only with reference to himself, the question of from whom or what God receives that justification is the only sense that matters.  If his morals refer only to himself, then they are arbitrary by definition, and thus without moral significance.

But then you use the phrase: "depending on whatever gods nature or will was". Which one of these makes all the difference in the unwanted conclusion. If nature (which would be unchanging), then unpleasant conclusion avoided. Morality (including God's actions and commands) are rooted in something unchanging = objective.

If God's morals are rooted only in himself, then they are just arbitrary artifacts of the way God is, without any moral significance.  Objective doesn't mean "rooted in something unchanging."  Even if my preference for chocolate ice cream were inviolate, it would not make that preference "objective".  No, "unpleasant conclusion avoided" is just wishful thinking.

The first horn was whether a thing is good because God says it is good. The entire reason that the dilemma is even discussed is that this horn leaves Christians with the uncomfortable position that God has decreed what is good (which is arbitrary). I am saying that God has not decreed what is good. I am moving one step back and explaining that God is bound by his eternal inviolable nature wrapped up in the definition of God. God decreeing what is good and God being bound by his unchanging good nature are not the same thing therefore it is a third option and the dilemma is broken. 

You contend that in order to get away from the first horn you need the definition of goodness to be external to God. That's clearly not the case. Since if God is bound by his nature and could not decree anything contrary, then you need to reword the horn to say the good is good because it proceeds from the eternal inviolable nature of God. Such a statement is not remotely uncomfortable for Christians. 

Your chocolate ice cream example falls way short of a parallel because you used the word "preference". If God is bound by his nature, then there is no "preference". 

Regarding why God's nature has moral significance, it's part of the definition of God to be supreme or perfect in all of his attributes. I think anchoring morality in an eternal unchanging nature that even God is bound by is as objective as you can get.

[Angrboda]

Whether or not God could have lacked the property says nothing about whether the standard of goodness resides with God, or outside of him.  Those are the only two options, and dressing it up with fancy terms like "necessary property" do nothing to evade the dilemma….The question is not, "Is God good?" but rather, "Why is God considered to be good?"…Either the standard of goodness comes from God, in which case it's arbitrary, or it comes from outside him, and he is not the source of morals.  There is no third place it can come from…Essentially, all you're saying is that God is good because you define him to be so; that isn't any kind of "third option."

Stomping your feet doesn’t change a thing. There really is no problem with God being both the standard of goodness and its source. He is what He is. We don’t define that God is good; we recognize that He is. It’s just like accepting the value of pi as fixed independent of what anyone thinks it should be or even if no one around to know it’s value. Pi is what it is by necessity. The only thing that is arbitrary is your choice of whether or not to accept it, i.e. do you demand that God conform His nature to what you think is good or do you conform your nature to His goodness?

You're right, stomping your feet doesn't change things. You saying that is all the more remarkable because that is all you've done. You let loose with a barrage of bare assertions that don't even begin to approach the question. I gave reasons for why considering God as the sole standard for good results in arbitrary morals. You give me dogma. "He is what he is. hurr durr. All hail Columbia!" The fact of the matter is that saying God is good is meaningless if God is both the standard and source for good. All you're saying is that "God is God." How would things be different if God's nature were any different? You'd still be saying that he's good, and necessarily so. Your words don't pick out a particular reality, but rather whatever the case happens to be, that's what your words describe. So your words are meaningless placeholders. God is good (whatever he happens to be). And maybe you're a little unfamiliar with the English language, but that is an arbitrary standard, your bollocks exclamations to the contrary. No, Neo, I approached the question with reason and logic; you return with empty slogans. You've ground yourself on the second horn of the dilemma, and your happy with that. So live with your choice. You worship a God whose morals are arbitrary and without any moral significance.

Now I know that a wooden and literal reading of the Bible presents God anthropomorphically – commanding this and commanding that, which is fine for a shallow exegesis. And I can understand how some atheists read it that way and are appalled. If that's the limit of their curiosity, who am I to say otherwise? However, once someone understands that God’s eternal will and nature is unchanging he or she comes to see that God only appears to be one way or another depending on how we approach Him. The bible tells us that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, but really that was how Pharaoh’s heart responded to God. The same sun that hardens clay will soften butter. The rains are the same, but the house of the foolish man who built is house on sand washes away while the house of the wise man who built on rock stands firm.

Oh do fuck off, Neo. I give you a rational argument and you give me a sleepy sermon. The biblical evidence is that your God is not unchanging. That's just more unreasoning dogma on your part. Before the flood, God thought it was okay to drown all of humanity. After the flood, he changed his mind and decided that he wouldn't do it ever again. That's a change. This idea that God is changeless is just one more empty, dogmatic slogan. The fact of the matter is that your so-called "god" is nothing more than an infinitely malleable superhero. He is whatever your argument needs him to be. Need to leap tall buildings in a single bound? Done! Need to stop speeding bullets? Done! The reason he is so malleable is because he is nothing more than a product of your imagination. Need him to be unchanging? Done! He's whatever your wish stewed brain wants him to be.

14 And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
Exodus 32:14

19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Numbers 23:19

It’s an existential choice: your way or His way. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting.

More slogans. Try reasoning about the propositions, Neo. Your position won't be so easy to dismiss if you do. The proof is in the tasting? Really? Considering that you'd reply that it tastes good, regardless of how it actually tastes makes your declaration hollow.

---

This is simply false.  The question of arbitrariness at issue is whether there is any justification for God's morality external to himself, as this is the question of whether God's morals have a foundation or not.  If they have no foundation other than himself, than you have grounded yourself on the horn of the dilemma which says that God's morals are arbitrary.  Whether they "still can be different" is irrelevant with regard to the dilemma.  Since the rest of your postulates follow upon this supposition, they too are irrelevant.   You have no way of ascertaining the goodness of God's morals except by assuming that God's morals are good.  It doesn't matter whether or not God "can change" or not.  His being unable to change his ways provides no justification for those ways in the first place.  It is in this sense that his morals are arbitrary, and it is the only sense in which it matters with respect to the dilemma.  The dilemma in its basic formulation is all about how God justifies his morals.  Whether they can change or not matters not a whit to the dilemma.


As noted, this is simply false.  Claiming the dilemma is broken and showing that it is are two different things.   You've done nothing to deflect that God's morals are arbitrary in the sense that matters to the dilemma.  


Contingency and necessity are red herrings.  No he doesn't need arbitrary to mean that.  He needs arbitrary to mean that God has no justification (aside from his own self) for the morals that he accepts.  You keep trying to dictate what we mean by arbitrary in order to provide you with an "out" for God.  Since the question is whether God's morals are justified by something other than himself, or only with reference to himself, the question of from whom or what God receives that justification is the only sense that matters.  If his morals refer only to himself, then they are arbitrary by definition, and thus without moral significance.


If God's morals are rooted only in himself, then they are just arbitrary artifacts of the way God is, without any moral significance.  Objective doesn't mean "rooted in something unchanging."  Even if my preference for chocolate ice cream were inviolate, it would not make that preference "objective".  No, "unpleasant conclusion avoided" is just wishful thinking.

The first horn was whether a thing is good because God says it is good. The entire reason that the dilemma is even discussed is that this horn leaves Christians with the uncomfortable position that God has decreed what is good (which is arbitrary). I am saying that God has not decreed what is good. I am moving one step back and explaining that God is bound by his eternal inviolable nature wrapped up in the definition of God. God decreeing what is good and God being bound by his unchanging good nature are not the same thing therefore it is a third option and the dilemma is broken. 

You're equivocating, Steve. The original Euthyphro dilemma was presented. You responded that it was avoided by God's goodness being a part of his nature. I responded with a reformulation of the dilemma that applied to that case. That is what we are discussing now. Do try to keep up.

The version of the dilemma which we are currently discussing is: "Is God's character the way it is because it is good [horn 1] or is God's character good simply because it is God's character? [horn 2]"

You contend that in order to get away from the first horn you need the definition of goodness to be external to God. That's clearly not the case. Since if God is bound by his nature and could not decree anything contrary, then you need to reword the horn to say the good is good because it proceeds from the eternal inviolable nature of God. Such a statement is not remotely uncomfortable for Christians.

Ignoring that you're behind a page in the argument, what you're saying now is directly contrary to the notion that your God has free will. If your God is "bound by his nature" then he does not have free will; he is an automaton; a robot. The moral decrees of a being without free will are, according to traditional thought, empty of moral import. Your God cannot be the source of morals if his behavior is determined by his nature. 

Your chocolate ice cream example falls way short of a parallel because you used the word "preference". If God is bound by his nature, then there is no "preference". 

I said my preference was inviolate, which means that I was bound by that preference. You don't win points by omitting context.

Regarding why God's nature has moral significance, it's part of the definition of God to be supreme or perfect in all of his attributes.

In other words, it's just dogma. There is no reason for your belief, it's simply what you believe. This is what Christians inevitably retreat to when confronted with the dilemma, nothing but dogmatic assertions. How you conceive of your God does nothing to get him off the horns of the dilemma. I'll repeat what I said earlier, it's not a question of whether God is good, but rather why do we consider God to be good? Retreating to "that's simply our definition of him" does nothing to answer that question. That question leaves you with the choice repeated above, and neither horn of that dilemma results in God being a meaningful source for morals. And you've utterly failed to provide any third option. Instead, I get more assertions that God really, really, really, really, is good. That doesn't feed the bulldog, Steve.

I think anchoring morality in an eternal unchanging nature that even God is bound by is as objective as you can get.

Something is objective if it is not influenced by the preferences or opinions of a person or being. God's morals are definitely the opinion of a being. That makes them subjective. And as noted with Neo, regardless of the content of his morals, you would say the same things about him and his morals. Your words do not refer to a specific state of affairs, but to whatever the case happens to be. Perhaps what you mean is that God's morals "are as good as" objective. But they demonstrably aren't "just as good" as objective, as God's morals are arbitrary and not based on anything objective. You don't redefine the word objective by simply repeating an untrue proposition. God's morals aren't objective, no matter how many times you say that they are. That's just abusing the language and telling falsehoods.

[The Grand Nudger]

I really don't understand, if our christers are content with divine arbitrarity, why do they keep bitching?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Jor, I’m quoting you out of order to focus on individual topics.

Oh do fuck off, Neo. I give you a rational argument and you give me a sleepy sermon. The biblical evidence is that your God is not unchanging… Before the flood, God thought it was okay to drown all of humanity. After the flood, he changed his mind and decided that he wouldn't do it ever again. That's a change.

If you want to ignore a more nuanced interpretive approach that takes in the whole counsel of Scripture in favor of some overly-simplistic hermeneutic that’s your business. I really don’t feel like proof-texting with an atheist. Personally, I find it ironic when atheists criticize Christians for taking the Bible literally and then take the Bible literally in order to criticize it.

You let loose with a barrage of bare assertions that don't even begin to approach the question. I gave reasons for why considering God as the sole standard for good results in arbitrary morals. You give me dogma.

You did indeed give reasons. I don’t fault your reasoning. Maybe the problem is not your reasoning; but rather, the first principles from which you are reasoning. I don’t know where you are at philosophically at the moment, but my assessment of your past positions was that they were along the lines of not trusting reason and that there can be no certainties about the world as-it-is. If that is accurate and still the case then your reasoning from first principles that ultimately devolve into intellectual and moral nihilism. No wonder, you cannot resolve the dilemma!

And yes, I have my own set of dogmas (I call them self-evident first principles like the intelligibility of the world and the efficacy of reason). I accept them because they avoid intellectual and moral nihilism, and provide a rational framework for the acquisition of knowledge. You can choose otherwise, many do, but don’t be surprised when it leads you to paradox and absurdity.

The fact of the matter is that saying God is good is meaningless if God is both the standard and source for good. All you're saying is that "God is God." How would things be different if God's nature were any different? You'd still be saying that he's good, and necessarily so. Your words don't pick out a particular reality, but rather whatever the case happens to be, that's what your words describe.

You’re assuming that God’s nature couldbe different. There is not a possible world in which the God of Classical Theism could be other that what He is any more than the value of pi could vary in different possible worlds. Saying that pi is the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter does indeed pick out a particular reality…not just what happens to be, but also something that could not be otherwise. What goes for pi can be applied to God. It can only be what it is and nothing else. That’s not dogma so much as the logical conclusion of multiple demonstrations (5 to be exact) based on common observations about the world.

[The Grand Nudger]

As has been explained to death, it doesn't matter whether or not your god is so impotent and limited that it could not be different.

Whatever god happened to be, would be good.  According to you.  Okay.  If you say so, but if you say so, at least be comfortable saying so.

[Neo-Scholastic]

As has been explained to death, it doesn't matter whether or not your god is so impotent and limited that it could not be different.

Whatever god happened to be, would be good.  According to you.  Okay.  If you say so, but if you say so, at least be comfortable saying so.

If you’re asking whether or not accepting God as an objective, eternal and unchanging external reference for what is Good constitutes a personal choice that cannot be rationally justified, then to some extent I can live with that. All other known prospects are incoherent or self-referential. As the Book says, “Choose this day whom ye will serve…”

[The Grand Nudger]

You seem to have forgotten "arbitrary". Choosing whom ye serve has no moral significance, but, ofc, feel free. I doubt it;s a meaningful choice, in any case, as you'd "choose" whatever god happened to be, and so are choosing nothing in particular.