The Gods Nature Response to The Euthyphro Dilemma
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-09-2014, 05:28 AM (This post was last modified: 29-09-2014 05:32 AM by TheInquisition.)
RE: The Gods Nature Response to The Euthyphro Dilemma
(29-09-2014 01:48 AM)quip Wrote:  
(28-09-2014 11:22 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  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

A human "being", a human "exists" a human is not "being" itself. It's a meaningless concept when it's phrased nonsensically as god is "being itself".

Are you saying god is good, bad and ugly? Well, if god is evil I guess that would indeed explain the nature of suffering, though non-existence explains it better.

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
29-09-2014, 10:28 AM (This post was last modified: 29-09-2014 10:36 AM by Impulse.)
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.
So, in that case, everything in existence is part of God including all people. Sorry, but I can think of at least a few people where that just can't be true. Drinking Beverage

Edit: By the way, how is "being" different from "existence"? Consider Tillich tries to substitute being for existence, but they seem to be synonyms in their usage here.

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: