The Gods Nature Response to The Euthyphro Dilemma
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-09-2014, 11:19 PM
The Gods Nature Response to The Euthyphro Dilemma
Here is a challenge to the theist, but first, I will present something.
Is something good because God commanded it, or does God command it because it is moral?
The typical response is to say "neither, but it is actually Gods nature that is the standard". What does this mean? Well, I will show how it is incoherent.
So, to say Gods nature is the standard has now made the dilemma worse for the theist that advocates this position. Why? Well, the dilemma resurfaces.
(1)Is something like lovingness good because God (who is the standard of good and indeed, supremely good) has that trait, thus his goodness supervening on his traits and making them good?
Or,
(2) is God's nature good because it is loving?
The answer we go to intuitively is usually (2). Why? Well, because it makes sense and is COMPLETELY coherent. Why is it coherent? Well, this means that God is good not because of him, but because of the traits (lovingness, justness, etc) he has. This means that those traits are good by themselves and if God did not exist, they would still be good. This is a coherent answer but the issue for the theist is that God now loses his sovereignty. He is NOT the standard of good. Now, the theist might want to say "without God, we could not know what is good, therefore he is the standard". Now, if it were true that without God we could not know goodness, it would not mean that he is the standard. If anything, this is a red herring because all this means is that God is a messenger of this platonic idea of morality. This has nothing to do with humans, this is about Gods morality. Not ours.
So, lets say the theist chooses (1). This would indeed keep God's sovereignty but there is a major issue. How does one define goodness? In the 1st horn, God's goodness is logically PRIOR to his traits. Meaning, if you took his traits away, he would still be the standard of goodness. HIs goodness has nothing to do with his traits and only makes any traits he possesses good. In other words, lovingness (a trait of God) is only good because God's supreme goodness supervenes on it, thus making it good. The issue here is that you now cannot define Gods goodness by using his traits. If you cannot do this, how does one define Gods goodness without his traits? The second you define Gods goodness as loving, merciful, just, etc, it means that THOSE traits are the standard of God.
Thus, saying God is the standard of good is incoherent and one must admit that there is either no morality at all, or there is outside source independent of God.

“Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.

-Christopher Hitchens
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Just Another Atheist's post
28-09-2014, 06:44 AM (This post was last modified: 28-09-2014 06:53 AM by quip.)
RE: The Gods Nature Response to The Euthyphro Dilemma
(25-09-2014 11:19 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  how does one define Gods goodness without his traits?

Atheist -- as most theist -- understand God as a being amongst other (lesser) beings and as such assign "traits" and "standards" to this being ascribed as 'God'.

As theologian Paul Tillich states:

“God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him.” (1951: 205) “It is as atheistic to affirm the existence of God as it is to deny it. God is being-itself, not a being.” (1951: 237)

Now, I realize this is controversial per the conventional view of God, though if you interpret God as "being-itself" or by extention, "goodness-itself" (in the Platonic sense perhaps) then the problems you noted fail to persist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2014, 07:05 AM
RE: The Gods Nature Response to The Euthyphro Dilemma
(28-09-2014 06:44 AM)quip Wrote:  
(25-09-2014 11:19 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  how does one define Gods goodness without his traits?

Atheist -- as most theist -- understand God as a being amongst other (lesser) beings and as such assign "traits" and "standards" to this being ascribed as 'God'.

As theologian Paul Tillich states:

“God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him.” (1951: 205) “It is as atheistic to affirm the existence of God as it is to deny it. God is being-itself, not a being.” (1951: 237)

Now, I realize this is controversial per the conventional view of God, though if you interpret God as "being-itself" or by extention, "goodness-itself" (in the Platonic sense perhaps) then the problems you noted fail to persist.

Then it leaves the small problem of every religion on earth being bullshit. So, there's that. Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
28-09-2014, 07:07 AM
RE: The Gods Nature Response to The Euthyphro Dilemma
(28-09-2014 07:05 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-09-2014 06:44 AM)quip Wrote:  Atheist -- as most theist -- understand God as a being amongst other (lesser) beings and as such assign "traits" and "standards" to this being ascribed as 'God'.

As theologian Paul Tillich states:

“God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him.” (1951: 205) “It is as atheistic to affirm the existence of God as it is to deny it. God is being-itself, not a being.” (1951: 237)

Now, I realize this is controversial per the conventional view of God, though if you interpret God as "being-itself" or by extention, "goodness-itself" (in the Platonic sense perhaps) then the problems you noted fail to persist.

Then it leaves the small problem of every religion on earth being bullshit. So, there's that. Drinking Beverage

I really don't see that as problematic. Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2014, 09:02 AM (This post was last modified: 28-09-2014 09:16 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Gods Nature Response to The Euthyphro Dilemma
(28-09-2014 06:44 AM)quip Wrote:  
(25-09-2014 11:19 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  how does one define Gods goodness without his traits?

Atheist -- as most theist -- understand God as a being amongst other (lesser) beings and as such assign "traits" and "standards" to this being ascribed as 'God'.

As theologian Paul Tillich states:

“God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him.” (1951: 205) “It is as atheistic to affirm the existence of God as it is to deny it. God is being-itself, not a being.” (1951: 237)

Now, I realize this is controversial per the conventional view of God, though if you interpret God as "being-itself" or by extention, "goodness-itself" (in the Platonic sense perhaps) then the problems you noted fail to persist.

Am a big fan of Tillich, (as far as he goes ... I don't any longer agree with much of anything he says, but he was probably the "peak" of Western Theology, IMO, and besides, he save SHORT sermons ! Tongue ). He got, (as did Buber) the essence of ancient Hebrew thought, (which was VERY unusual). But he was also part of the fad, which said God was "the ground of all being". What does that even mean ? If "god IS being" then I am god. (I am not a god .. well except in my frat Facepalm . I've never seen or heard anyone tell us what "being itself" means. As far as I can see, it's a restatement of Pantheism.

"But the issue for the theist is that God now loses his sovereignty" is one way of putting it. It means that as long as the god(s) existed, along with it, also (outside and apart from - or *over and against it*) "something else" (the opposite of the standard of goodness) existed. If it is coherent to say "god is good", then some "otherness" ("evil" or non-goodness) also exists and always did, and so the origins of Reality (which includes all these elements) remains unexplained, as god was always only a portion of Reality, not ALL of Reality, which "being-itself" (if that means anything) would have to be.

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
28-09-2014, 11:15 AM
RE: The Gods Nature Response to The Euthyphro Dilemma
Interesting!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-09-2014, 11:22 AM
RE: The Gods Nature Response to The Euthyphro Dilemma
(28-09-2014 06:44 AM)quip Wrote:  
(25-09-2014 11:19 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  how does one define Gods goodness without his traits?

As theologian Paul Tillich states:

[i]“God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him.”

When an apologist starts talking like this, it sounds so facile. What does "being-itself" even mean? They're turning a verb into a noun and using it to describe something.

Is god "grunting-itself", is he "the essence of farting"? LOL! Silly word games...

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
28-09-2014, 04:34 PM
RE: The Gods Nature Response to The Euthyphro Dilemma
They tend talk a lot… it comes out as sophistry.

Saying things like "God is lovingness" or "God is everything" just robs the conversation of ethics of its language. They just stamp God on everything and claim it makes sense.

“Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.

-Christopher Hitchens
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Just Another Atheist's post
29-09-2014, 01:48 AM (This post was last modified: 29-09-2014 02:28 AM by quip.)
RE: The Gods Nature Response to The Euthyphro Dilemma
(28-09-2014 11:22 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(28-09-2014 06:44 AM)quip Wrote:  As theologian Paul Tillich states:

“God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him.”

When an apologist starts talking like this, it sounds so facile. What does "being-itself" even mean? They're turning a verb into a noun and using it to describe something.

Is god "grunting-itself", is he "the essence of farting"? LOL! Silly word games...

I'm not seeing your objection here. You're a human-being..is that "turning a verb into a noun"? Do you fail to understand the idea of being qua being, or the ontological concept in general? Or, do you just enjoy being acerbic? Wink

Anyway, "being-itself" would imply a relationship between god and the confused, multifarious totality of existing being....the good, bad, and ugly. Could this be an answer to many, if not all, the objections atheists pose in relation to the existence of god...specifically the argument from evil?

I find the idea interesting. Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-09-2014, 01:54 AM
RE: The Gods Nature Response to The Euthyphro Dilemma
(29-09-2014 01:48 AM)quip Wrote:  I'm not seeing your objection here. You're a human-being..is that "turning a verb into a noun"?


Um.. I'll let some one who's more versed in the language as to explaining what that is...

(29-09-2014 01:48 AM)quip Wrote:  Do you fail to understand the idea of being qua being.....

Yup. No idea what 'Qua' is.

(29-09-2014 01:48 AM)quip Wrote:  .....or the ontological concept in general? Or, are you just enjoy being acerbic? Wink

I've seen the ontological argument refuted/dismissed in many, varied ways both here and across the internet. You're saying it's okay because?

(29-09-2014 01:48 AM)quip Wrote:  Anyway, "being-itself" would imply a relationship between god the confused, multifarious totality of existing being....the good, bad, and ugly.

Um.. again, not seeing that.

(29-09-2014 01:48 AM)quip Wrote:  Could this be an answer to many, if not all, the objections atheists pose in relation to the existence of god...specifically the argument from evil.

Sorry... but I didn't catch the question.

(29-09-2014 01:48 AM)quip Wrote:  I find the idea interesting. Consider

*Nods* Indeed. Smile

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: