Euthyphro dilemma

[The Grand Nudger]

Lol. So you agree that these two things can SIMULTANEOUSLY be true:

1) Someone/something (e.g. billy, bob, god, no-one in particular) can be created "the way it is"

AND

2) "The way it is" has own goodness.

?

It is possible that billy-bob makes a thing AS having its own inherent goodness <= option 3

If there -is- an inherent goodness.....that's option 1.  It doesn't matter who created x, if anyone or no one created x, x would still be as good as it is.  The good is loved by the gods because it -is- good.

I understand that you'd like to reject this even as you accept it, by commenting on your gods creative acts or telos, but to do so is to invoke option 2...and is most emphatically -not- a coherent option, let alone a coherent third option.

[Mystic]

God is ultimate love, and all various hues of love are created through him and all rights are created through his loving reality.

As for goodness, it is all acting on right love.

As for evil, it is all that is loved out of hate towards the right love.

And the right love is a balanced vision and power to act on that vision, and the power is the vision and the vision and power. So sight power is love and love is sight power. The balanced vision on truth is that which gives things their proper due and is generous towards them and compassionate towards them, due to vision through truth.

[The Grand Nudger]

There goes the neighborhood.

[Whateverist]

Lol! Funny on multiple levels that I didn't know what that is.

Thanks, ignoramus!

How much of your offline life do you share online? I imagine you are either a college student or, more likely, a fairly recently minted grad. Any where near the mark?

[Ignorant]

If there -is- an inherent goodness.....that's option 1.  It doesn't matter who created x, if anyone or no one created x, x would still be as good as it is. [1] The good is loved by the gods because it -is- good.

apparently you just carry their baggage in reference to creative acts and telos.  / shrugs [2]

1) YES! Now stop right there and think a moment: x is STILL inherently good EVEN IF it is created. That means you admit that inherent goodness and creation are not mutually exclusive.

IF x is created, that means that its inherent goodness is DIRECTLY related to the way-in-which-it-is-created. You originally said that inherent goodness MEANS goodness without relation to god, HERE.

2) If I subscribed to the idea that god's will is NOT determined by his intellect, you would be right. If my words make it appear to you that I do subscribe to that (despite my explicit rejections of voluntarism), then I apologize. Any creative act involves an act of divine will, yes, but it is not determined by the will. The divine intellect determines the will to create in just-this-way for the sake of communicating the divine goodness.

---

How much of your offline life do you share online?  I imagine you are either a college student or, more likely, a fairly recently minted grad.  Any where near the mark?

I don't share much online, and yes, you are very close.

[The Grand Nudger]

1) YES! Now stop right there and think a moment: x is STILL inherently good EVEN IF it is created. That means you admit that inherent goodness and creation are not mutually exclusive.

IF x is created, that means that its inherent goodness is DIRECTLY related to the way-in-which-it-is-created. You originally said that inherent goodness MEANS goodness without relation to god, HERE.

A god can create a good thing.  So can I.  Neither of our relationships to those things are what makes them good, if the good is inherent to those things.  

2) If I subscribed to the idea that god's will is NOT determined by his intellect, you would be right. If my words make it appear to you that I do subscribe to that (despite my explicit rejections of voluntarism), then I apologize. Any creative act involves an act of divine will, yes, but it is not determined by the will. The divine intellect determines the will to create in just-this-way for the sake of communicating the divine goodness.

Wonderful, and if the divine intellect recognizes the good.................then the good is loved by the gods because it is good.

The euphyro dilemma is explicitly asking whether good is recognized or created. That's why theres no escape, no third option. The third option would be that good is neither recognized nor created.

[Ignorant]

A god can create a good thing.  So can I.  Neither of our relationships to those things are what makes them good, if the good is inherent to those things. 

It's interesting that you even described this with "creative" language (i.e. what MAKES them). See if you follow me:

You determine to make a thing which, if it ever comes to-be, will have its own inherent goodness. Not-being-anything-at-all-yet, that thing is neither good nor inherently good (it is nothing).

Then, YOU fulfill the necessary conditions for actually causing that thing to-be AS having-its-own-inherent-goodness. Your fulfilling-of-those-conditions is what GIVES both the thing's-being AND the inherent goodness to the thing. That is to say, BOTH the thing itself and its inherent goodness DIRECTLY depend on your fulfilling-of-its-conditions for being-at-all.

Now, I suppose you would say that your relationship to the thing isn't related to what-makes-it-good? If so, I don't understand. Removing your relationship to the thing is the same thing as removing your fulfilling-of-its-conditions for being-at-all. Without you... it never becomes a thing at all.

[The Grand Nudger]

A god can create a good thing.  So can I.  Neither of our relationships to those things are what makes them good, if the good is inherent to those things. 

It's interesting that you even described this with "creative" language (i.e. what MAKES them). See if you follow me:

You determine to make a thing which, if it ever comes to-be, will have its own inherent goodness. Not-being-anything-at-all-yet, that thing is neither good nor inherently good (it is nothing).

If, before you've created some thing x, you recognize that it will have it's own inherent goodness..it's existence is dependent on you...not it's goodness.  If someone else created it, it would still be good.  If no one created it, it would still be good.  Conversely, if, before you've created some thing x, you recognize that it would not have it;s own inherent goodness, than your creative act would not make the thing good. Option 1.

Then, YOU fulfill the necessary conditions for actually causing that thing to-be AS having-its-own-inherent-goodness. Your fulfilling-of-those-conditions is what GIVES both the thing's-being AND the inherent goodness to the thing.

You gave existence to the thing, not goodness. 

That is to say, BOTH the thing itself and its inherent goodness DIRECTLY depend on your fulfilling-of-its-conditions for being-at-all.

If goodness is created, that's the second option, not the first..not both, and not a third.

Now, I suppose you would say that your relationship to the thing isn't related to what-makes-it-good? If so, I don't understand. Removing your relationship to the thing is the same thing as removing your fulfilling-of-its-conditions for being-at-all. Without you... it never becomes a thing at all.

It may never become a thing, but that has no bearing on whether or not it is or would be a good thing.  A non-profit that feeds people is a good thing regardless of whether or not I form, fund, and operate it.  It's because it is a good thing that I decide to do all of that in the first place.  My intellect recognizes the good...neither it, nor my will creates it.  Option 1

You;re wheedling back and forth between the two options present, not presenting a third. I understand why, despite an affinity to affirm one over the other, you don't wish to accept the consequences - but oh well. This is why it's a dilemma. It's not a dilemma at all for a person who's willing to accept those consequences of either position. If, for example, a person goes with option one, and accepts that there is some independent standard of goodness - no problem. A person who goes with option two, for their part, can accept the attendant arbitrary.

A person who believes, however, that there is no standard of goodness independent of their god, that their god is the author of morality cannot accept the first...and are often compelled to rail against the meaningful arbitrarity of the second. For reasons™ that hilariously swirl the drain of accepting some inherent goodness that they've already rejected.

[Edwardo Piet]

? Come on Ham that isn't fair. We both know that conclusions from other arguments can serve as premises for this one.

Yes we both do know that. That wasn't my point.

I am being fair. I asked if it was a premise for a reason.

When I asked if it was a premise I didn't just mean "Is that a premise for this specific argument?"

I meant was that a premise that you haven't reasoned to? How did you even get to that starting point?

My point being that it is no use using premises that entail your conclusions for this argument if that premise itself is unsound.

---

Is Socrates a rational animal because he is human or is he human because he is a rational animal?

Try neither.

[Neo-Scholastic]

You define a human as a rational animal, or you can define a rational animal as a human. There is no real dilemma.

The supposed dilemma is predicated on the idea that God's existence is different from His essence, which is not the case. God's existence and essence are identical. God is only a title for that which has multiple attributes including Goodness-Itself (the 4th Way of Aquinas, gradients of Perfection).