Euthyphro and Divine Command Theory

Originally posted by telerion
I'm defending the DCT, so it is my choice to make.

Now if I'm attempting to undermine it, then you are right, I have to consider (3)(ii) as well. Bennet has offered the typical response to (3)(ii), namely (6) followed by either (7) and (8).

For anyone attempting to defend assumption (1) and (2), it seems that they have to make 2 choices. First, ...[text shortened]... e are still more avenues to cover with it though so that post isn't complete by any means.

I'm sorry I thought you were an atheist. I need to re-read your posts then.

Originally posted by Palynka
I'm sorry I thought you were an atheist. I need to re-read your posts then.

I am an atheist! 😉

I'm just playing "God's advocate" with the DOG.

And I'm playing "Devil's advocate" when I attempt to answer your HPD.

Originally posted by telerion
I am an atheist! 😉

I'm just playing "God's advocate" with the DOG.

And I'm playing "Devil's advocate" when I attempt to answer your HPD.

Ok, if I understand it, your Devil's advocating when answering my HPD was with the DOG and your God's advocating with the DOG has been attacked by me with the HPD.

Meaning, we are not getting anywhere. We must attack each other's point of view using the same premises or we, as atheists, run the risk of being stumped by anyone using the HPD or the DOG.

Originally posted by Palynka
Ok, if I understand it, your Devil's advocating when answering my HPD was with the DOG and your God's advocating with the DOG has been attacked by me with the HPD.

Meaning, we are not getting anywhere. We must attack each other's poin ...[text shortened]... run the risk of being stumped by anyone using the HPD or the DOG.

The DOG is not an attack of the HPD. Maybe that's where we got crossed up. It is an alternative defense of DCT that takes (3)(i) instead of (3)(ii). The DOG and the HPD are both defenses of the DCT.

I agree with you. I plan to deconstruct the HPD or at least make it such that it would be costly for a theist to use it. I look forward to the same treatment from you and others for the DOG.

Edit: Again the whole DOG argument has nothing whatsoever to do with HPD.

Originally posted by telerion
The DOG is not an attack of the HPD. Maybe that's where we got crossed up. It is an alternative defense of DCT that takes (3)(i) instead of (3)(ii). The DOG and the HPD are both defenses of the DCT.

I agree with you. I plan to deconstruct the HPD or at least make it such that it would be costly for a theist to use it. I look forward to the same ...[text shortened]... thers for the DOG.

Edit: Again the whole DOG argument has nothing whatsoever to do with HPD.

Ok, it all makes sense to me, now. It was quite obvious, in retrospective, shame on me for not seeing it before.

I thought your DOG was an attack on my HPD and that's why I was going on and on about the premises. I will think a little more about your DOG and try to come up with something, perhaps tomorrow. It's quite late here.

Thank you bbarr for the very interesting post; sorry I am so slow in attempting a response.

I am not an advocate for this divine command theory as stated, but I am a theist. The major problem I find is accepting the given definition of morality. I do not believe that an act is morally wrong ONLY if God forbade it (completeness).
I agree it is erroneous to adopt the view given. I am led to believe that there is, rather, a morality outside of the direct forbiddance of God. However, I don't find this to be evidence against His existence and/or importance. As the creator and omniscient being, His role is the creation and design of morality. In this sense, what God has forbidden is undoubtedly wrong, but that which he forbids is not exclusive. There are more moral standards that are not specified.
If this is so, morality is not independent of God (since he created it), but is more extensive than his direct commands.

To illustrate I refer to the Bible's story of the garden of Eden. The tree of knowledge of good an evil is quite an obvious way of stating knowledge of morality. There would be no need or possibility of such a thing if all of morality was declared explicitly by God. Of course Adam and Eve ate from the tree and "their eyes were opened." Does this mean that man is capable of knowing the system of morality that God has created? I don't pretend to know. If that were so, it seems we would hardly be in need of any direct forbiddings....

hi folks 🙂

I think lucifershammer hit on the right solution: Euthyphro's Dilemma presents an illusionary dilemma, at least in the Christian worldview. In reality, both options are true: Morality is both separate and yet has its source in God (just as creation is separate but created by Him). God created morality. So when He commands something as wrong, such as what we have in the Decalogue in Scripture, that is His affirming what He already created (morality) in order to reveal His Divine Will to a fallen world which is--due to Original Sin--no longer capable purely by its own reasoning to recognize absolute morality (Natural Law).

Telerion's Defense from Omniscient Guide is almost correct as it explains God's commands (revealing absolutely what already exists), but it makes the false assumption that morality is independent of God, which isn't true. It is something which God created, like nature, imbued in all spiritual beings (angels and humans) but God is still the source of it.

Originally posted by bbarr
First, God is not the creator of all things, because he did not create himself. Second, if you were right, then then it would be contradictory to claim that God had a reason for creating the universe. Finally, if a theist took this line, and claimed that God could not have had a reason for creating the world such that A was morally wrong, then this would commit that theist to (7) above.

God is indeed the Creator of all things, but to say that He did not create Himself is a little bit of nonsense. God is the Ultimate Creator, He created creation, He IS 'to create'. Put another way: you know that idea you have, in your mind? The one called up by the word "create"? Yeah, God (the Father) IS that. He is the Creator.
To say that God did not create Himself is akin to saying 'you did not you yourself.' Doesn't make sense. Let's just say that God is the source of everything.

So, God forbids murder (not killing, or war, but murder) and rape because they are morally wrong (note to telerion: nowhere in Scripture does God condone rape; you are reading into the text of Numbers 31). Yet, morality is itself created by God, has its source in God... so, ultimately--God forbids A because of God. That should be reason enough, I think. God's 'reason' for creation of course is Love.

Originally posted by bbarr
A: O.K. So, does God have a reason to will that we be happy? If so, what is it?

T: Uh... because He loves us?


Please feel free to pick at the holes in this post! 🙂


P.S. bbarr I do find it chilling that your 'total recs' at this time number 666. 😉

Originally posted by Neithan
hi folks 🙂

I think lucifershammer hit on the right solution: Euthyphro's Dilemma presents an illusionary dilemma, at least in the Christian worldview. In reality, both options are true: Morality is both separate and yet has its source ...[text shortened]... d it chilling that your 'total recs' at this time number 666. 😉

Anyone that considers war a moral thing has no concept of morality.
Anyone that ever read Joshua that can call the god that's portrayed there, a god of Love, has no concept of Love.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Anyone that considers war a moral thing has no concept of morality.
Anyone that ever read Joshua that can call the god that's portrayed there, a god of Love, has no concept of Love.

My dogma is bigger than yours.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Anyone that considers war a moral thing has no concept of morality.
Anyone that ever read Joshua that can call the god that's portrayed there, a god of Love, has no concept of Love.

Just War Doctrine:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_war_Doctrine_1.asp

Book of Joshua (slaughter of the Canaanites):
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08524a.htm
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/outrage.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html