Gather 'round, boys and girls.
We're about to put a stake in one of atheists' favorite go-to responses in those situations where the topic is rational discussion, and how such supposedly is at odds with a belief in God.
This is what they quote when they wish to put a stake in the heart of the contention of the goodness of God.
The basic problem, according to atheists, is that God's goodness is arbitrary and subjective and therefore, irrational--- it doesn't hold to a standard independent of Him.
"Are moral acts willed by God because they are good, or are they good because they are willed by God?"
This is a fairly good representation of the alleged problem.
This framing offers two choices, but the problem is inbred: the picture offers but two failures.
If God wills good on the basis of good, then good is outside of God.
If the will of God is good, regardless, then the arbitrariness of good makes it suspect, specious... worthless and meaningless, really.
The third option which is not discussed by the dilemma shows the dilemma was based upon a rationale which lacked all of the necessary information, or simply ignored it when formulating its question.
What is that third option?
That God, Himself, is good.
That good is based upon Who and What God is.
Anything less than good is less than God; anything less than God is less than good.
From now on, when an atheist pulls out their objections to the goodness of God by invoking the Euthyphro dilemma, we can simply reference this thread and let the matter rest.
You're welcome.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThere's a fourth "dilemma": that God is evil even by his own standards. For example:
Gather 'round, boys and girls.
We're about to put a stake in one of atheists' favorite go-to responses in those situations where the topic is rational discussion, and how such supposedly is at odds with a belief in God.
This is what they quote when they wish to put a stake in the heart of the contention of the goodness of God.
The basic problem, acc ...[text shortened]... thyphro dilemma, we can simply reference this thread and let the matter rest.
You're welcome.
2 Chronicles 28:3
He burned sacrifices in the Valley of Ben Hinnom and sacrificed his children in the fire, engaging in the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites.
God apparently disapproves of the burning of one's children by fire. Hypocritical, because God burns countless numbers of his children in hell.
Originally posted by vivifyTry to stay focused, little one.
There's a fourth "dilemma": that God is evil even by his own standards. For example:
2 Chronicles 28:3
He burned sacrifices in the Valley of Ben Hinnom and sacrificed his children in the fire, engaging in the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites.
God apparently disapproves of the burning ...[text shortened]... 's children by fire. Hypocritical, because God burns countless numbers of his children in hell.
I know it's hard with all of the confusing thoughts rummaging around in your wee head, such as: pants first then shoes? or, when is eat time? but do your best to stay on topic as much as possible, okay?
Apparently, staying on topic to Freaky involves staying within limited parameters invented by himself, so he doesn't get refuted. But what I said is simply an option that's possible. I don't see why I can't add one, since Freaky did the same.
Curiously, there's a fifth option not discussed by the OP: that God, himself is simply bad; and that "bad" is based on who and what God is.
It's interesting that Freaky omitted adding such an obvious possible option, since Freaky added one of his own. From now on, remember this whenever invoking Euthyphro's dilemma.
You're welcome.
God never lets a good deed go unrewarded. This is not only impossible for humans it is rather inconceivable, part of the uncomprehensible nature of what is an absolute good. I wish I could put more into words except they often become worries.
"Not only the twilight in that town, but all their life on earth too, will then be seen by the damned to have been Hell... They say of some temporal suffering, 'No future bliss can make up for it,' not knowing that Heaven, once attained, will work backwards and turn even that agony into a glory. And of some sinful pleasure they say, 'Let me but have this and I'll take the consequences':" - The Great Divorce, C. S. Lewis
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Gather 'round, boys and girls.
We're about to put a stake in one of atheists' favorite go-to responses in those situations where the topic is rational discussion, and how such supposedly is at odds with a belief in God.
This is what they quote when they wish to put a stake in the heart of the contention of the goodness of God.
The basic problem, acc ...[text shortened]... thyphro dilemma, we can simply reference this thread and let the matter rest.
You're welcome.
LMFAO.
Yes, this argument that has stood for hundreds of years is going to be dismissed by an RHP forum half-wit who fancies himself an intellectual.
Keep 'em coming.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo your resolution to this problem is just to reiterate your definition of "God" as something that is good!??
Gather 'round, boys and girls.
We're about to put a stake in one of atheists' favorite go-to responses in those situations where the topic is rational discussion, and how such supposedly is at odds with a belief in God.
This is what they quote when they wish to put a stake in the heart of the contention of the goodness of God.
The basic problem, acc ...[text shortened]... thyphro dilemma, we can simply reference this thread and let the matter rest.
You're welcome.
Bit of a crap argument I'm afraid 😞
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*edit* hold on, it might actually be a good argument, let's see if it can make Hitler
Hitler, himself, is good.
That good is based upon who and what Hitler is.
Anything less than good is less than Hitler; anything less than Hitler is less than good
Whoah Hitler ... what a guy, what a flaming guy!
You know what? this argument is bloody brilliant, if I ever encounter a bug in my code I can just define it to be correct functionality and the problem just vanishes. If I ever furnish a mathematical question with a wrong answer, I can simply define it to be the correct answer, pat my self on the back for being such a clever sausage in getting the right answer, and move on to harder problems.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Gather 'round, boys and girls.
We're about to put a stake in one of atheists' favorite go-to responses in those situations where the topic is rational discussion, and how such supposedly is at odds with a belief in God.
This is what they quote when they wish to put a stake in the heart of the contention of the goodness of God.
The basic problem, acc ...[text shortened]... thyphro dilemma, we can simply reference this thread and let the matter rest.
You're welcome.
"Are moral acts willed by God because they are good, or are they good because they are willed by God?"Are all moral acts willed by God? If we are just puppets on strings then there isn't really a justification for punishing us for what we had to do anyway. If we do have free will, which I think we need to have in order for a final judgement to make any sense, then not all moral acts are willed by God. So I don't think your statement of the dilemma is internally consistent.
Originally posted by vivifyBut what I said is simply an option that's possible.
Apparently, staying on topic to Freaky involves staying within limited parameters invented by himself, so he doesn't get refuted. But what I said is simply an option that's possible. I don't see why I can't add one, since Freaky did the same.
Curiously, there's a fifth option not discussed by the OP: that God, himself is simply bad; and that "bad" is bas ...[text shortened]... f his own. From now on, remember this whenever invoking Euthyphro's dilemma.
You're welcome.
Absurdity is decidedly not an option.
Nor is schizophrenia.
This is why you received the pat on the head.
You're offering nonsense: God (who doesn't break from character) calls Himself good, but acts in accord with evil?
I'm sure your belly button receives more contemplation than this.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemI wonder how you're sitting down, little buddy, since your ass seems to be missing in action.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
LMFAO.
Yes, this argument that has stood for hundreds of years is going to be dismissed by an RHP forum half-wit who fancies himself an intellectual.
Keep 'em coming.
Yes, this argument that has stood for hundreds of years...
Um, math much?
We're talking over 2400 years since Euthyphro and Socrates had their discussion about piety.
Don't take airs and then overlook such errs.
It just makes you lose credibility with your very precise cohorts.
Socrates wished to know--- desperately needed to know--- the indivisible truth: what insoluble describes piety, goodness, God?
Socrates hadn't received an answer other than 'out of time, game over' and therefore concluded the dilemma couldn't be answered satisfactorily on this plane.
Several flaws are presented with the story, one of which was highlighted with my solution, although some of which remain unspoken.
But to claim this dilemma "has stood for... years?"
Tsk-tsk.
Such claims are even worse than your poor math.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf referencing this thread solves the Euthyphro Dilemma, for once and all, it definitely needs to be submitted to every philosophy and theological journal for peer review
Gather 'round, boys and girls.
We're about to put a stake in one of atheists' favorite go-to responses in those situations where the topic is rational discussion, and how such supposedly is at odds with a belief in God.
This is what they quote when they wish to put a stake in the heart of the contention of the goodness of God.
The basic problem, acc ...[text shortened]... thyphro dilemma, we can simply reference this thread and let the matter rest.
You're welcome.
Then we will see the learned philosophers and theologians have the same arguments and end up in the same places as those on this forum.
But I thank you for bringing up a philosophically interesting topic. Maybe first we should revisit the Chicken and Egg Problem and see if it applies here.🙂 As you suggest, God and Good might be a special case.
Edit: you seem to be saying that God and the Good are coexistent.