Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-09-2016, 12:15 AM
RE: Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
In response to the starting post this fools final response is straight up stupid as are some of theistic defenses

Perfect=good this is circular because it starts with the assumption god is good. The thing the theist is being asked about .Saying that god is good because he's perfect not lacking something is silly

As for having superior knowledge of whats good for us. That again presumes his goal is what's good for us and not what merely suits his purpose which in itself my not be good. This insists upon blind trust of intentions and can easily be reversed on the theist.

Next saying lacking god is the standard of evil is silly it once again makes the circular assumption god should be the standard of good this is pointless as hell and is no different then saying the lack of Hitler is evil same thing

Now there going go back but god is perfect but because he lacks nothing again this is silly because perfection can't be objectively

As for freewill who was it again that created freewill .we sure as hell didn't so no matter what our moral agency itself was not imposition not a choice .Which is ironic because if a breach of freewill is immoral then imposing freewill on us must be immoral (dose god even have freewill?)

I could go on but i think this expresses my opinion

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes OrdoSkeptica's post
20-09-2016, 10:32 AM
RE: Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
(19-09-2016 01:49 PM)ssmith Wrote:  Catholics, under the thinking of Thomas Aquinas refute that evil "exists." God is the source of all existence, so all that exists shares in God's life and holds truth. Evil is merely the absence of God; it is a consequence of free will, and the fallen human nature (it is human nature to share in God's love since we were created out of love, but sin separates us from God's will). Evil does not exist, just as cold does not exist. Cold is only defined by the absence of heat. Likewise, evil is only defined as the complete absence of God, who is goodness.
Yeah, this is exactly the kind of thing that believers tell themselves to calm the cognitive dissonance. But it's simply wrong - god or no god. Look at it like a number line. Good is the positive numbers, evil is the negative numbers. Absence of good = absence of evil = 0.

Said another way, prove that evil is simply the absence of good rather than good being the absence of evil... Your error is that you start with the assumption that there is a god who created everything, but that's not a given. Drinking Beverage

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
01-10-2016, 12:31 AM (This post was last modified: 01-10-2016 03:54 PM by Glossophile.)
RE: Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
Heywood Jahblome, "moral caprice" cannot be goodness because it renders the word "goodness" semantically vapid. Caprice of any sort, as I understand it, implies a lack of consistency. If what we are trying to label as "good" is not sufficiently consistent as to enable a cohesive definition, one that would allow us to reliably distinguish good phenomena from bad ones, then the word "good" becomes meaningless. The only escape from this problem is to define "good" as whatever God decrees, which lands you right back where you started with the original dilemma.

Changing the criteria from God's commands to God's eternal nature, as has already been said, just pushes the problem back an extra layer. Is God's nature as it is because such a nature is good, or is such a nature good because it is God's? The whole "consistent with God's nature" argument solves absolutely nothing. Also, you seem to have forgotten one very important thing about the metal bar in France that serves to define a meter: IT DEMONSTRABLY EXISTS! Since it is unambiguously real and therefore interacts with reality in verifiable and empirical ways, we can objectively verify that something is a meter long by comparing its length to that of the standard-setting object. Before we can define good as that which is congruent with God's nature and then use that definition in any reliable or meaningful way, we must be able to objectively investigate and observe what exactly is God's nature in order to establish the basis for comparison. But we can't do that, because his very existence is still questionable, so we cannot empirically demonstrate anything about him.

Imagine if the oblong hunk of metal that defined a meter was at best lost in the sands of history and at worst completely mythical. Still, you want us to rely on an ancient text full of measurements that seems to give the same length to objects that are clearly longer and/or shorter than each other. At the same time, you claim to know where the legendary bar is and how to find it, but when asked to deliver on that, you come up with various excuses. "It's quantum-locked," you might say, "so it becomes invisible as soon as a conscious being (or at least any camera invented by such beings) tries to behold it and analyze it."

In short, your God is to science what the Weeping Angels from Dr. Who are to conscious perception (rendered immobile by observation). How could you expect us, then, to define anything, much less something as important as morality, based on any of his alleged attributes, which we can never hope to confirm? The Bible is certainly a dubious source of any reliable description, given how self-contradictory it can be. And therein lies another paradoxical dilemma that I think bears mentioning here. It is my contention (though I don't think I'm the first to propose it) that religious moderation relies on the tacit admission that morality must be external to God. The inevitable cherry-picking that enables moderate theists to paint a rosy picture of God raises a crucial question. How do they judge which verses are straightforward reflections of God's nature and which are either no longer applicable or were only ever applicable in some non-literal sense?

Cite Exodus 21:20-21 to a liberal Christian, and he/she'll likely respond with something to the effect of "God would never condone slavery, because slavery is bad, and God is good." Ask him/her how they know that God is good, and you're likely to get some other verse in return, perhaps the bit about "turning the other cheek." But how can you know that the latter passage is the one to be taken literally to heart while the former is either obsolete or figurative? How do you know that it's not vice-versa? "Because no good and loving God would condone slavery and condemn or at least fail to promote pacifism," the theist may reply. Again, how do you know that God is good and loving? As Scott "Theoretical Bullshit" Clifton once put it, "Round and round you go!"

The only escape from this vicious cycle is to appeal to some moral criteria external to God and the Bible against which the various and often conflicting verses are weighed. Those that meet such extrinsic criteria for goodness are accepted as having fairly straightforward interpretations, while those found wanting are given more figurative readings if they're even considered still relevant at all. The progressive theist is ultimately and inescapably using a moral standard independent from God and the Bible. So this creates a whole new dilemma for the modern theist. He/she must either acknowledge that morality is external to God and that therefore God is ultimately redundant in that regard or adhere to the Bible's barbaric dictates so literally that, as Aron Ra has said, "they would be a criminal in every country on Earth."

The only sacred truth in science is that there are no sacred truths. – Carl Sagan
Sōla vēritās sancta in philosophiā nātūrālī est absentia vēritātum sanctārum.
Ἡ μόνη ἱερᾱ̀ ἀληθείᾱ ἐν φυσικῇ φιλοσοφίᾳ ἐστίν ἡ ἱερῶν ἀληθειῶν σπάνις.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Glossophile's post
01-10-2016, 01:59 AM
RE: Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
this should be more than enough

















last I checked 1meter = 39.4inches because that how many inches it takes to reach a length that equals ONE METER!!!!, its literally defined that way and its true as long as people agree to use that definition
inches, cm, m, km are all units of measuring of distance between two points
1km = 1,000m... why ? because that how its defined to be like
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2016, 06:47 AM (This post was last modified: 01-10-2016 09:47 AM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
(01-10-2016 12:31 AM)Glossophile Wrote:  Heywood Jahblome, "moral caprice" cannot be goodness because it renders the word "goodness" semantically vapid. Caprice of any sort, as I understand it, implies a lack of consistency. If what we are trying to label as "good" is not sufficiently consistent as to enable a cohesive definition, one that would allow us to reliably distinguish good phenomena from bad ones, then the word "good" becomes meaningless. The only escape from this problem is to define "good" as whatever God decrees, which lands you right back where you started with the original dilemma.

Changing the criteria from God's commands to God's eternal nature, as has already been said, just pushes the problem back an extra layer. Is God's nature as it is because such a nature is good, or is such a nature good because it is God's? The whole "consistent with God's nature" argument solves absolutely nothing. Also, you seem to have forgotten one very important thing about the metal bar in France that serves to define a meter: IT DEMONSTRABLY EXISTS! Since it is unambiguously real and therefore interacts with reality in verifiable and empirical ways, we can objectively verify that something is a meter long by comparing its length to that of the standard-setting object. Before we can define good as that which is congruent with God's nature and then use that definition in any reliable or meaningful way, we must be able to objectively investigate and observe what exactly is God's nature in order to establish the basis for comparison. But we can't do that, because his very existence is still questionable, so we cannot empirically demonstrate anything about him.

Imagine if the oblong hunk of metal that defined a meter was at best lost in the sands of history and at worst completely mythical. Still, you want us to rely on an ancient text full of measurements that seems to give the same length to objects that are clearly longer and/or shorter than each other. At the same time, you claim to know where the legendary bar is and how to find it, but when asked to deliver on that, you come up with various excuses. "It's quantum-locked," you might say, "so it becomes invisible as soon as a conscious being (or at least any camera invented by such beings) tries to behold it and analyze it."

In short, your God is to science what the Weeping Angels from Dr. Who are to conscious perception (rendered immobile by observation). How could you expect us, then, to define anything, much less something as important as morality, on any of his alleged attributes, which we can never hope to confirm? The Bible is certainly a dubious source of any reliable description, given how self-contradictory it can be. And therein lies another paradoxical dilemma that I think bears mentioning here. It is my contention (though I don't think I'm the first to propose it) that religious moderation relies on the tacit admission that morality must be external to God. The inevitable cherry-picking that enables moderate theists to paint a rosy picture of God raises a crucial question. How do they judge which verses are straightforward reflections of God's nature and which are either no longer applicable or were only ever applicable in some non-literal sense?

Cite Exodus 21:20-21 to a liberal Christian, and he/she'll likely respond with something to the effect of "God would never condone slavery, because slavery is bad, and God is good." Ask him/her how they know that God is good, and you're likely to get some other verse in return, perhaps the bit about "turning the other cheek." But how can you know that the latter passage is the one to be taken literally to heart while the former is either obsolete or figurative? How do you know that it's not vice-versa? "Because no good and loving God would condone slavery and condemn or at least fail to promote pacifism," the theist may reply. Again, how do you know that God is good and loving? As Scott "Theoretical Bullshit" Clifton once put it, "Round and round you go!"

The only escape from this vicious cycle is to appeal to some moral criteria external to God and the Bible against which the various and often conflicting verses are weighed. Those that meet such extrinsic criteria for goodness are accepted as having fairly straightforward interpretations, while those found wanting are given more figurative readings if they're even considered still relevant at all. The progressive theist is ultimately and inescapably using a moral standard independent from God and the Bible. So this creates a whole new dilemma for the modern theist. He/she must either acknowledge that morality is external to God and that therefore God is ultimately redundant in that regard or adhere to the Bible's barbaric dictates so literally that, as Aron Ra has said, "they would be a criminal in every country on Earth."

Great post! Thumbsup

This reminded me of one of the ten commandments that derive from an external source.

In Exodus 20:8 -Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

God apparently used the Sumerian/Babylonian calendar that featured 7 day weeks and arbitrarily based his commandment on one of those days. You could literally be killed if you engaged in too much activity on one of the Babylonian days of the week. Facepalm

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2016, 12:13 PM
RE: Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
(01-10-2016 12:31 AM)Glossophile Wrote:  Heywood Jahblome, "moral caprice" cannot be goodness because it renders the word "goodness" semantically vapid. Caprice of any sort, as I understand it, implies a lack of consistency. If what we are trying to label as "good" is not sufficiently consistent as to enable a cohesive definition, one that would allow us to reliably distinguish good phenomena from bad ones, then the word "good" becomes meaningless. The only escape from this problem is to define "good" as whatever God decrees, which lands you right back where you started with the original dilemma.

Changing the criteria from God's commands to God's eternal nature, as has already been said, just pushes the problem back an extra layer. Is God's nature as it is because such a nature is good, or is such a nature good because it is God's? The whole "consistent with God's nature" argument solves absolutely nothing. Also, you seem to have forgotten one very important thing about the metal bar in France that serves to define a meter: IT DEMONSTRABLY EXISTS! Since it is unambiguously real and therefore interacts with reality in verifiable and empirical ways, we can objectively verify that something is a meter long by comparing its length to that of the standard-setting object. Before we can define good as that which is congruent with God's nature and then use that definition in any reliable or meaningful way, we must be able to objectively investigate and observe what exactly is God's nature in order to establish the basis for comparison. But we can't do that, because his very existence is still questionable, so we cannot empirically demonstrate anything about him.

Imagine if the oblong hunk of metal that defined a meter was at best lost in the sands of history and at worst completely mythical. Still, you want us to rely on an ancient text full of measurements that seems to give the same length to objects that are clearly longer and/or shorter than each other. At the same time, you claim to know where the legendary bar is and how to find it, but when asked to deliver on that, you come up with various excuses. "It's quantum-locked," you might say, "so it becomes invisible as soon as a conscious being (or at least any camera invented by such beings) tries to behold it and analyze it."

In short, your God is to science what the Weeping Angels from Dr. Who are to conscious perception (rendered immobile by observation). How could you expect us, then, to define anything, much less something as important as morality, on any of his alleged attributes, which we can never hope to confirm? The Bible is certainly a dubious source of any reliable description, given how self-contradictory it can be. And therein lies another paradoxical dilemma that I think bears mentioning here. It is my contention (though I don't think I'm the first to propose it) that religious moderation relies on the tacit admission that morality must be external to God. The inevitable cherry-picking that enables moderate theists to paint a rosy picture of God raises a crucial question. How do they judge which verses are straightforward reflections of God's nature and which are either no longer applicable or were only ever applicable in some non-literal sense?

Cite Exodus 21:20-21 to a liberal Christian, and he/she'll likely respond with something to the effect of "God would never condone slavery, because slavery is bad, and God is good." Ask him/her how they know that God is good, and you're likely to get some other verse in return, perhaps the bit about "turning the other cheek." But how can you know that the latter passage is the one to be taken literally to heart while the former is either obsolete or figurative? How do you know that it's not vice-versa? "Because no good and loving God would condone slavery and condemn or at least fail to promote pacifism," the theist may reply. Again, how do you know that God is good and loving? As Scott "Theoretical Bullshit" Clifton once put it, "Round and round you go!"

The only escape from this vicious cycle is to appeal to some moral criteria external to God and the Bible against which the various and often conflicting verses are weighed. Those that meet such extrinsic criteria for goodness are accepted as having fairly straightforward interpretations, while those found wanting are given more figurative readings if they're even considered still relevant at all. The progressive theist is ultimately and inescapably using a moral standard independent from God and the Bible. So this creates a whole new dilemma for the modern theist. He/she must either acknowledge that morality is external to God and that therefore God is ultimately redundant in that regard or adhere to the Bible's barbaric dictates so literally that, as Aron Ra has said, "they would be a criminal in every country on Earth."

Moral caprice isn't a bad notion. In fact it's pretty close to what the Babylonians and early Hebrews thought was the definition of evil. Chaos. Good and evil were really (to them) order and chaos. It's a long explanation, (here if you're interested
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid160188 )
but there are clues in the language in Genesis that the priests who assembled Genesis had not lost these notions, (which are almost completely missing today, in any discussion of what they thought about good and evil).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2016, 10:49 PM
RE: Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
(11-10-2013 06:21 PM)Brickparade Wrote:  ....... God is in a unique position to inform us .......
I see, what you are the thinking person.

1) When you get insulted because of envy, please look at your warning level. If it is zero percent - you are just been bullying.

2) Please follow my ideas and posts in this forum. The Healthy Atheist does reject all the false gods. But the True God remains in his mind.

3) If the Creation of the Universe is good deed, then the True God made the very first good deed. Without the very first good deed, there are no good deeds possible. We can gift a money to the poor, so there are good deeds. Therefore, the Holy Trinity is good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2016, 10:52 PM
RE: Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
(01-10-2016 10:49 PM)theBorg Wrote:  Please follow my ideas and posts in this forum.

I strongly advise using the washroom beforehand, as there is a reasonable possibility of pissing oneself laughing.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Astreja's post
02-10-2016, 02:17 AM
RE: Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
(01-10-2016 10:49 PM)theBorg Wrote:  
(11-10-2013 06:21 PM)Brickparade Wrote:  ....... God is in a unique position to inform us .......
I see, what you are the thinking person.

1) When you get insulted because of envy, please look at your warning level. If it is zero percent - you are just been bullying.

It has already been explained to you the warning level is not used here. You are being very, very stupid.

Quote:2) Please follow my ideas and posts in this forum. The Healthy Atheist does reject all the false gods. But the True God remains in his mind.

Do you not know what a contradiction is? An atheist rejects all gods.

Quote:3) If the Creation of the Universe is good deed, then the True God made the very first good deed. Without the very first good deed, there are no good deeds possible. We can gift a money to the poor, so there are good deeds. Therefore, the Holy Trinity is good.

“The story so far:
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.”
-Douglas Adams

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
02-10-2016, 03:28 AM
RE: Responding to a Catholic Critique of the Euthyphro Dilemma
(02-10-2016 02:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  ....... An atheist rejects all gods. ....
All the false gods?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: