[split] Are Questions About God Important?

[SimpleCaveman]

What fallacy?  If there's a good for a god to be then there's good.  End of.  I don't give a shit about a god.  I seek the good for it's own sake.  God could blip into or out of existence and it doesn't matter a single iota, to the good.

Yes, of course. That’s the point you’re always trying to make. It’s been made. Understood.

But then you tried to use that the argument based on the premises I stated to make your point. I tried to discuss the argument. Then you dropped the argument to make the statements above. That is really just saying that you didn’t mean the argument or don’t want to continue making it because it doesn’t help you anymore.

I am going to try one more time to discuss the dilemma.

Like I said, I'll end up the only realist in the thread.  You're describing theological subjectivism.  Through biological subjectivism, no less.  What is good or bad is what is natural to us.  Naturalness is the good-making property.  I disagree.  We do all sorts of..oh, what was the term..."devil  stuff".  Don't you think?  I'm pretty sure it's natural to us.  What do you think.  What would that say about the author of human nature, if that were true?  Does it not know better, or is there just no better?

You know, as I was reading your post, I was trying to understand why we were talking across each other. When I got here, I realized what the problem is.

You take “nature” here to be the individual nature of each human being. If that’s what I was talking about, then you would be right. If you want to continue with that understanding of Nature, then that’s fine, but I won’t.

In Catholic thinking that’s not at all the case. Nature here is more like (may be the same as) the Natural Law that defines all of us. (I’ll use a capital ‘N’ to distinguish.) I thought the examples I gave would have made that clear. This Nature is objective. And not only in Catholic thinking. This is one of the truths that Catholics have brought to us from the Greeks.

It wasn’t until the 1700’s that the recognition of a Natural Law started to darken. Here’s a quote from the Encyclopaedia Britannica. (We’ll see if the link is allowed. Probably not. I’m still a newbie.)

The philosophy of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), as well as the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), served to weaken the belief that “nature” could be the source of moral or legal norms. In the mid-20th century, however, there was a revival of interest in natural law, sparked by the widespread belief that the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler, which ruled Germany from 1933 to 1945, had been essentially lawless, even though it also had been the source of a significant amount of positive law. As in previous centuries, the need to challenge the unjust laws of particular states inspired the desire to invoke rules of right and justice held to be natural rather than merely conventional. However, the 19th century’s skepticism about invoking nature as a source of moral and legal norms remained powerful, and contemporary writers almost invariably talked of human rights rather than natural rights.

Thus, I think my counter to the dilemma you proposed is valid with that understanding. (Well, it’s not my counter. I’m just posting it.) If you can’t discuss it with that understanding, then fair enough. We can stop.

I suppose we could continue under your understanding, i.e. there is no Nature. Human nature is subjective and individualized. However, that’s a different god than I profess. It might be an interesting discussion, but I’d probably agree with you pretty quickly.

[Angrboda]

Let's see if this works. God's morality comes from:

Nature ---[which comes from]---> God's creation ---[which comes from]---> God's morality ---[which comes from]---> Nature ---[which comes from]---> .....

I think you've got a problem.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Whether you try to define it as Natural Law or human nature, it still is allegedly the creation of your creator god. It rather undermines any claims about his perfection.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Let's see if this works.  God's morality comes from:

Nature ---[which comes from]---> God's creation ---[which comes from]---> God's morality ---[which comes from]---> Nature ---[which comes from]---> .....

I think you've got a problem.

I’m dizzy just from reading that.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, of course. That’s the point you’re always trying to make. It’s been made. Understood.

But then you tried to use that the argument based on the premises I stated to make your point. I tried to discuss the argument. Then you dropped the argument to make the statements above. That is really just saying that you didn’t mean the argument or don’t want to continue making it because it doesn’t help you anymore.

I am going to try one more time to discuss the dilemma.

I couldn't possibly use your or the other posters subjectivist understanding of meaning or morality to make any point of my own.  I'm not a subjectivist.  

You know, as I was reading your post, I was trying to understand why we were talking across each other. When I got here, I realized what the problem is.

You take “nature” here to be the individual nature of each human being. If that’s what I was talking about, then you would be right. If you want to continue with that understanding of Nature, then that’s fine, but I won’t.

In Catholic thinking that’s not at all the case. Nature here is more like (may be the same as) the Natural Law that defines all of us. (I’ll use a capital ‘N’ to distinguish.) I thought the examples I gave would have made that clear. This Nature is objective. And not only in Catholic thinking. This is one of the truths that Catholics have brought to us from the Greeks.

It wasn’t until the 1700’s that the recognition of a Natural Law started to darken. Here’s a quote from the Encyclopaedia Britannica. (We’ll see if the link is allowed. Probably not. I’m still a newbie.)

I find "catholic thinking" thoroughly unimpressive.  The meaning we apprehend or the moral understandings we have based on -all- of our natures, human nature in total, is still subjectivist.  As opposed to relativist - which describes differences between groups of otherwise similar agents (like human societies).  Or objectivist, which does not refer to any subjects nature, god or man, one or many, to explain or justify the content of it's assertions.

Thus, I think my counter to the dilemma you proposed is valid with that understanding. (Well, it’s not my counter. I’m just posting it.) If you can’t discuss it with that understanding, then fair enough. We can stop.

I suppose we could continue under your understanding, i.e. there is no Nature. Human nature is subjective and individualized. However, that’s a different god than I profess. It might be an interesting discussion, but I’d probably agree with you pretty quickly.

While I appreciate the irony of a natural creature in a natural world claiming that there is no nature, that has nothing to do with me.  I'm absolutely fine with there being facts of human nature.  I'm even fine with there being facts of a gods nature.  For their to be human meaning, and god meaning.  I don't think these two sets of meaning (or one set, your call) exhaust the category of meaning.

[Bucky Ball]

[quote pid='2181885' dateline='1701542149']
I am contending that it is our Christian history that gives us our values. And, obviously to my thinking, we have that history because God exists.

Totally false. You have that history, because the Emperor of Rome and his successors existed. 
Constantine called the Council of Nicaea. He didn't care what they agreed on, as long as they agreed on something. 
The churchy dudes VOTED non-unanimously on what would become "orthodoxy" and dogma. 
Also all the other councils ... you can watch them cook up Christianity over the decades / centuries. 
The proceedings of the councils are available on Fordham University's website. 
You should read them. Christian history does give you, your values, and along with the Inquisition,
Its nothing to be proud of.

The idea you did not get your values from Jesus himself, refutes your nonsense.

Your history is sordid and immoral. Catholics, Baptists, and all other sects.
They abused children.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4_hoy_fJWc

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Hi Boru,

Interesting thing here. When I replied to your post, intending to quote it, it didn’t keep the portion from your previous post. I had to go back to the original post you made. Surprising. I wonder why. Maybe so we don’t have Inception moments.

Before, you had said,

But if our values come from Christian history (they don’t, but I’ll play along), then it absolutely doesn’t matter if God exists, from a moral/ethical standpoint.

Then I was all like,

I am contending that it is our Christian history that gives us our values. And, obviously to my thinking, we have that history because God exists.

<I continued with an argument about why it would still matter, from a moral/ethical standpoint, whether God existed or not.>

And you responded with,

Of course you’d have Christian history if God didn’t exist - that’s blatantly obvious. The history of a religion - any religion - isn’t dependent on whether the god(s) of that religion exist. Simply because we have Aztec history is no reason to believe that Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli exists.

You’ve take a very silly, very indefensible position.

I was very surprised. It did not appear that you got past that sentence.

Still waiting for SC to explain why Christian history proves the existence of the Christian god (my hopes are not high).

And then you said this. And now I’m sure you didn’t read or grok the rest of the post. This isn’t what you asked or what (the majority of) my post was about.

Maybe you did read it all and still focused on this point. That’s fine. And, obviously, you can respond or not respond to whatever you want in the posts. No issues there. As Chuck Berry said, “This is a free country, live like you wanna live, baby!”

I’m just saying I took you as someone who rises above the usual level of <ahem> discussion.

Pax et bonum

I read your entire post and, quite frankly, it didn’t seem necessary to reply further, as it all hinges on the bit to which I responded. Until and unless you can demonstrate that the history of the Christian faith makes it obvious that God exists, the rest of your argument is just so much white noise.

Boru

[Confused-by-christianity]

... it didn’t seem necessary to reply further, ...

I think this about the whole thread.
It's not serious any longer.
It should be enjoyed obviously - with a decent sense of humour - but truth is, no one is taking god or any of the questions seriously.
Its basically over.  :-)

[arewethereyet]

... it didn’t seem necessary to reply further, ...

I think this about the whole thread.
It's not serious any longer.
It should be enjoyed obviously - with a decent sense of humour - but truth is, no one is taking god or any of the questions seriously.
Its basically over.  :-)

Where was it stated that this was a serious thread?

I have something to tell you, Scooter, it's not your call when a thread is dead.

Let's get back to talking about things that don't exist.

[Confused-by-christianity]

Confused-by-christianity is doing a good job here, but the Euthyphro dilemma is hard. I would like to support him by adding to the discussion.

Thanks @SimpleCaveman . That is welcome since i think you seem to know your stuff

The Grand Nudger’s question is trying to get at why something is good? Let’s be honest and say that while Plato may have honestly asked the question, I’d be very surprised if the Grand Nudger is doing it for any other reason than as a trap. But no worries, it’s a good question. Interesting to think about.

Yes - it was a trap question.
I saw the dilema and thought - why not, as a brainteaser :-)
It was a good to work out the question, but i couldn't seem to get the question to make sense without fundamentally changing god. I had to reimagine god as something else to make the question fit - but then we aren't talking about god any more ??!?!?! i got into that circle.

I decided not to look up any past thinkers because i wanted to answer it myself and see how far i got. (without help from previous intellectuals)

Lets hear your take on it :-)

I do not have any problem affirming that God commands an action because it’s good. The fallacy here is in the way of thinking what good is.
Because what is good and bad for human beings is determined by the ends set for us by nature. Any behavior that facilitates the achievement of our natural ends is considered good. If it frustrates those ends, then it is considered bad. For example, the way we were created/evolved says that drinking water is a good because it preserves our life. Procreation and rearing kittens are good for cats because they preserve the species.
And so, yes! God commands all actions that facilitate the achievement of our natural ends. Those actions he is commanding are good. He prohibits actions that frustrate those ends, “bad things, man.”
In summary, for premise 3, since human nature determines what is good and bad for us, and since God is the author of our nature, affirming that God commands something because it is good does not imply a standard of goodness independent of God.

Thank you - something for me to think about :-)