Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Euthypro Dilemna
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 46 of 181 (538334)
12-05-2009 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by DevilsAdvocate
12-05-2009 3:27 PM


The definition of arbitrary as descibing a person or entity, in this case God, is "not restrained or limited in the exercise of power: ruling by absolute authority". Would this not describe the definition of your God? Is he not by this very definition, 'arbritary', meaning that there is no higher source, law, etc which can dictate how he behaves?
I was thinking of another sense of arbitrary. And am happy to agree that he would be arbitrary in this sense.
-
So the difficult choice aka dilemma, in the Euthyphro Dilemma is in trying to determine how goodness is derived from an all-powerful being such as God. Most Christians choose the second horn of this dilemma but as discussed before if they choose to do so they have no way of independently determining whether God is inherently 'good' or not.
They have no independent way for them to determine that God exists - other than God indicating to them that he does. And that isn't a dilemma.
I'm afraid I just can't see what the difficulty is. "God is good" is a definition - whether God approves of rape, incest, murder is neither here nor there when it comes to that definition.
-
All you seem to be saying is that if goodness is defined as what God does then we haven't a moral basis for calling what he does evil.
No I am not saying this. The moral base for calling what God does is evil comes from human standards not from God's standards. If I where a Christian I would have to call everything God does as good no matter how henious it would be from human standards.
Sorry, I mistyped in a critical place. I've changed the word 'have' to 'haven't. It should make the rest of my point clearer if you fancy going back and re-considering?
-
But what he does wouldn't be evil, by definition.
By your definition, not mine.
Correction: according to his definition, not yours. I'm merely passing on what he says about himself.
-
And if this person or that person thought otherwise, they could only be doing so if they utilise some other definition of good - in swhich case they would have a moral basis for declaring God evil.
Agreed
Therefore the real question is: why should you believe anything God says in the first place, much less worship and obey him? If you have no way of independently determining if God is good as Christians believe, why follow him?
This "independent verification' gig is looking a bit shabby DA. What 'dilemma' if the thing I apparently can't do doesn't amount to a hill of beans? What I can't do is verify if God inherently manages to match each persons subjective notiongs as to what 'good' is?
And your question: because what I truly regard as good happens to coincide with what God does and says (in the sense of it feeling right and proper). There are easy examples about which many subjective peoples notion of 'good' would agree (Jesus healing people for example). And there are examples most people would think of as 'evil': God flooding the world and killing nigh on everyone in it.
This arises, in all likelyhood, from God-life imparted to me on account of my being born again. Receiving God into your life means you begin to see things the way he sees them. I'm to become more and more the image and likeness of my father so it's little wonder I see good as he see's good (when I'm not sinning that is). Little wonder then that God is good becomes definitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-05-2009 3:27 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-05-2009 9:44 PM iano has replied
 Message 48 by Modulous, posted 12-05-2009 9:47 PM iano has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 47 of 181 (538342)
12-05-2009 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by iano
12-05-2009 7:16 PM


Iano writes:
Me writes:
So the difficult choice aka dilemma, in the Euthyphro Dilemma is in trying to determine how goodness is derived from an all-powerful being such as God. Most Christians choose the second horn of this dilemma but as discussed before if they choose to do so they have no way of independently determining whether God is inherently 'good' or not.
They have no independent way for them to determine that God exists - other than God indicating to them that he does.
And how does he indicate his existence to them?
And that isn't a dilemma.
I never said determining if God exists is a dillema. The Euthypro Dillema is about the ultimate source of morality (good and evil) not the existence or non-existence of God.
Iano writes:
I'm afraid I just can't see what the difficulty is. "God is good" is a definition - whether God approves of rape, incest, murder is neither here nor there when it comes to that definition.
So are you saying that it is ok that God approves/condones rape, incest, murder, etc? And yes, from a human perspective these acts are normally considered socially unacceptable/wrong/evil.
Sorry, I mistyped in a critical place. I've changed the word 'have' to 'haven't. It should make the rest of my point clearer if you fancy going back and re-considering?
Well, if you accept that whatever God does is good and whatever he opposes is evil than you have no method of rationalizing what is good and evil other than God. This is acceptable for Christians like yourself but than if someone challenges the behavior of your god like in him flooding the world and killing everyone except for a select few or damming everyone to hell because of original sin caused by Adam and Eve, than you have no choice but to call it good. Even when God advocates slavery, infanticide and ethnicide in the Bible, you have no choice but to call it good. Behavior which is normally acceptable by nearly everyone such as helping other human beings and being charitible have no moral backing for the Christian other than because God says it is good. And the same for the flip side i.e. bad/evil behavior.
Correction: according to his definition, not yours. I'm merely passing on what he says about himself.
Or so you say. What evidence do you have to back this up?
This "independent verification' gig is looking a bit shabby DA. What 'dilemma' if the thing I apparently can't do doesn't amount to a hill of beans? What I can't do is verify if God inherently manages to match each persons subjective notiongs as to what 'good' is?
The dissemenation of God's standard of goodness to humans is irrelevent to this 'Euthpro Dilemma' dialog. The Dilemma only stems on the ultimate source for this goodness.
And your question: because what I truly regard as good happens to coincide with what God does and says (in the sense of it feeling right and proper).
Yet it feels right and proper to oppose what I deem a horendous, evil god of the Bible. How do you know I am not right and you are wrong? How do you know that the god of the Bible is good?
This arises, in all likelyhood, from God-life imparted to me on account of my being born again. Receiving God into your life means you begin to see things the way he sees them.
Been there, done that.
I'm to become more and more the image and likeness of my father so it's little wonder I see good as he see's good (when I'm not sinning that is).
Yet, I see behavior by your God in the Bible that would be considered inaccusable by today's moral standards.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by iano, posted 12-05-2009 7:16 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by iano, posted 12-06-2009 4:25 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 48 of 181 (538343)
12-05-2009 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by iano
12-05-2009 7:16 PM


I'm afraid I just can't see what the difficulty is. "God is good" is a definition - whether God approves of rape, incest, murder is neither here nor there when it comes to that definition.
A number of issues arise though.
1. You might not consider it a problem that rape and murder could be morally good and charity could be morally evil but most people do.
2. God is good is not a definition. It is a property that God has 'goodness'. It is kind of touched in the dialogue, but it is difficult to translate it to morality because the actual topic was piousness and gods don't be pious. Goodness could be defined as 'that which god approves of' which would be better.
3. If it was carefully worded (getting around issue 2 above), it would be tautological and would tell us nothing about whether x is good under y conditions. Is it good to kill someone who is terminally ill or not? God knows (but we don't).
4. It falls prey to the naturalistic fallacy (defining goodness in terms of a fact about the world - in this case things God has said or done).
5. It leads to a potential paradox. If God commanded you to kill your neighbour then it would be 'good'. If God then damned you to an eternity of torture (death/separation whatever) because, in his words, 'you killed your neighbour which is evil' that would still be 'good'.
Like Aquinas your argument is that it is a false dilemma since goodness is an essential characteristic of God which I agree raises some points. You might not consider them problems, as I indicated earlier - but they are there and many people find at least some of the bothersome.
This all basically condensed and regurgitated from having just re-read the dialogue (it isn't that long so if you haven't already done so, give it a read - it's quite an entertaining exchange, quite similar to ones we see on forums today - including making excuses for avoiding the subject and attempting to exit the 'thread' gracefully ) and the wiki article about how it has been adapted and viewed over the millennia.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by iano, posted 12-05-2009 7:16 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by iano, posted 12-06-2009 1:37 PM Modulous has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 49 of 181 (538367)
12-06-2009 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by DevilsAdvocate
12-05-2009 9:44 PM


And how does he indicate his existence to them?
I never said determining if God exists is a dillema. The Euthypro Dillema is about the ultimate source of morality (good and evil) not the existence or non-existence of God.
Fair enough. I was merely making the point that independent verification isn't something the lack of which renders a dilemma.
-
So are you saying that it is ok that God approves/condones rape, incest, murder, etc? And yes, from a human perspective these acts are normally considered socially unacceptable/wrong/evil.
I don't say that God approves/condones (in the approving sense of that word) rape/murder.
If he did and good was still defined as what God did/is then I unlikely consider God good according to another definition - say humanities general definition (which I also share).
(I think humanities sense of good/evil closely aligns with Gods sense of good/evil in many regards: especially when your dealing with man and his aspirational view on good and evil. When it comes to man and his own interests then even mans sense of good/evil frequently goes by the wayside)
-
Or so you say. What evidence do you have to back this up?
Sorry, I thought we were assuming the Bible Gods word for the sake of argument. Your charging him with condoning rape/muder indicated so.
-
Yet it feels right and proper to oppose what I deem a horendous, evil god of the Bible. How do you know I am not right and you are wrong? How do you know that the god of the Bible is good?
We're back to this non-dilemma. The word 'good' has no meaning in this conversation. And you ask how I know God is a word that has no meaning?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-05-2009 9:44 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by hooah212002, posted 12-06-2009 7:52 AM iano has replied
 Message 51 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-06-2009 8:22 AM iano has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 50 of 181 (538378)
12-06-2009 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by iano
12-06-2009 4:25 AM


If he did and good was still defined as what God did/is then I unlikely consider God good according to another definition - say humanities general definition (which I also share).
So if you don't like what god says, go with man's point of view? How would god like that? How do you wrangle that in your head? Isn't god the final say?
(I think humanities sense of good/evil closely aligns with Gods sense of good/evil in many regards: especially when your dealing with man and his aspirational view on good and evil. When it comes to man and his own interests then even mans sense of good/evil frequently goes by the wayside)
Is it not possible that the qualities attributed to god were that of what man strived for? Attributes superimposed on this eternal being, placed there by the sheep herders who concocted him up?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by iano, posted 12-06-2009 4:25 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by iano, posted 12-06-2009 4:17 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 51 of 181 (538383)
12-06-2009 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by iano
12-06-2009 4:25 AM


Iano writes:
Me writes:
And how does he indicate his existence to them?
I never said determining if God exists is a dillema. The Euthypro Dillema is about the ultimate source of morality (good and evil) not the existence or non-existence of God.
Fair enough. I was merely making the point that independent verification isn't something the lack of which renders a dilemma.
The lack of independent verification makes it a dilemma to the religious believer because they have no way of determining good and evil apart from their perspective god's behavior. There god can call murdering innocent children good for no reason whatsoever and they have no choice but to call it good. That is a moral dillemma for the religious believer is it not?
I don't say that God approves/condones (in the approving sense of that word) rape/murder.
Yet it is in the Bible that he does. Or are you going to plead Nixon's defense for God's actions:
Richard Nixon writes:
Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.
So is God above his own laws? He can make and break them at will? That is called being capricious and morally inconsistent which I thought was not possible since God is the absolute standard and never changes. It is remarkable that Christians call atheists and non-believers moral relativists when their God is the epitome of moral relativity changing his moral standards at will throughout the Bible.
If he did and good was still defined as what God did/is then I unlikely consider God good according to another definition - say humanities general definition (which I also share)
(I think humanities sense of good/evil closely aligns with Gods sense of good/evil in many regards: especially when your dealing with man and his aspirational view on good and evil. When it comes to man and his own interests then even mans sense of good/evil frequently goes by the wayside)
I am sorry but I did not see another definition of good in what you just posted just more rephrasing what you earlier stated. Please elaborate.
Iano writes:
Me writes:
Or so you say. What evidence do you have to back this up?
Sorry, I thought we were assuming the Bible Gods word for the sake of argument.
Assuming God's word is what? When did I every assume anything about the Bible? All I assumed is that your equate your god=good. The only thing that I assume from the Bible is that the Bible is an accurate depiction of the philosophical background for Christians and that is where Christians derive their moral standards from. That is all I assume. I do not have to assume it to be true to argue my points concerning the Euthypro Dillemma. If so show me why.
The Euthupro Dillemma is not a dillemma for the un-believer but for the believer. It is you that has to get around the sticky subject of absolute morality. The non-believer has an easy way out by saying that morality is not absolute much less an ultimate source such as your god.
Iano writes:
Me writes:
Yet it feels right and proper to oppose what I deem a horendous, evil god of the Bible. How do you know I am not right and you are wrong? How do you know that the god of the Bible is good?
We're back to this non-dilemma. The word 'good' has no meaning in this conversation. And you ask how I know God is a word that has no meaning?
I never said that God is a word with no meaning. It has much meaning to the believers that believe it. I just do not believe in this god much less him being good or having any meaning whatsoever.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by iano, posted 12-06-2009 4:25 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by iano, posted 12-06-2009 3:01 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 52 of 181 (538410)
12-06-2009 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Modulous
12-05-2009 9:47 PM


iano writes:
I'm afraid I just can't see what the difficulty is. "God is good" is a definition - whether God approves of rape, incest, murder is neither here nor there when it comes to that definition.
Modulous writes:
A number of issues arise though.
1. You might not consider it a problem that rape and murder could be morally good and charity could be morally evil but most people do.
What is moral is linked to what is good. If the definition of good is "that which God does (which stems from God's attributes/nature)" then rape and murder (were it that he approved of those things), would be morally okay too.
The only thing that would make them not morally okay is if the definition of good/morality was changed to "what most people think".
-
2. God is good is not a definition. It is a property that God has 'goodness'. It is kind of touched in the dialogue, but it is difficult to translate it to morality because the actual topic was piousness and gods don't be pious. Goodness could be defined as 'that which god approves of' which would be better.
...which, it is being stated, arises from God's own nature. Because God's nature is x, what he does and approves of is also x, ie: an x tree produces x fruit. And I'm defining x (but not assigning properties to it) as 'good'
-
3. If it was carefully worded (getting around issue 2 above), it would be tautological and would tell us nothing about whether x is good under y conditions. Is it good to kill someone who is terminally ill or not? God knows (but we don't).
I'm not sure I understand here. If what was carefully worded. And what would tell us nothing about whether x is good under y conditions. I mean, if what God does is good and God instructs the Israelites to kill then that is also good. Under the y condition: "God says" we can indeed tell whether x is good. By definition.
-
4. It falls prey to the naturalistic fallacy (defining goodness in terms of a fact about the world - in this case things God has said or done).
I'm afraid God got there ahead of the philosophers - he's the one who defines good so telling us that only God is good.
I'm not sure what fallacy your guilty of here but I'm sure you'll agree something amiss with your thinking when he who created the world is reduced to being a mere "fact about the world".
-
5. It leads to a potential paradox. If God commanded you to kill your neighbour then it would be 'good'. If God then damned you to an eternity of torture (death/separation whatever) because, in his words, 'you killed your neighbour which is evil' that would still be 'good'.
I'm having a hard enough time understanding what the dilemma is supposed to be. Could we leave aside potential dilemmas that need not ever arise?
-
Like Aquinas your argument is that it is a false dilemma since goodness is an essential characteristic of God which I agree raises some points. You might not consider them problems, as I indicated earlier - but they are there and many people find at least some of the bothersome.
Which is a different issue to the dilemma as stated by Devils Avocate. The issue you refer to (and him too at times) has to do with 'good' (as commonly agreed by mankind) not appearing to align with 'good' (= what God does). I'd agree there is bother there - given that so many people cry "how can you say God is good when...". Whilst I'm happy to discuss why God killing isn't murder elsewhere (by way of disarming the contention: murder is wrong & God murders), it falls outside the scope of the supposed dilemma.
-
This all basically condensed and regurgitated from having just re-read the dialogue (it isn't that long so if you haven't already done so, give it a read - it's quite an entertaining exchange, quite similar to ones we see on forums today - including making excuses for avoiding the subject and attempting to exit the 'thread' gracefully ) and the wiki article about how it has been adapted and viewed over the millennia.
I'm not sure what the nature of the dilemma is supposed to be yet. Look at the wording I'm dealing with if you would and point out to me what the problem is supposed to be?
DA writes:
If goodness is derived/sourced from God than 'goodness' has no meaning outside the definition of God himself and therefore God can arbitrarily call anything 'good' including what most humans consider evil atrocities i.e. murder, slavery, ethnocide, infanticide, rape, torture, etc and therefore we would have no moral backing to call these acts by God 'evil'. That is the gist of the Euthypro Dilemma.
So what if goodness has no meaning outside God? I mean, what's the dilemma in that? That someone can list potential problems (like your potential paradox) which stand only in relation to some other definition of good (which has no meaning outside itself either) doesn't mean those problems exist in fact.
The only dilemma I see is that "God is good" renders "what most people think is good" potentially erroneous.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by AdminPD, : Fix quote box

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Modulous, posted 12-05-2009 9:47 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Modulous, posted 12-06-2009 6:56 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 53 of 181 (538417)
12-06-2009 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by DevilsAdvocate
12-06-2009 8:22 AM


The lack of independent verification makes it a dilemma to the religious believer because they have no way of determining good and evil apart from their perspective god's behavior. There god can call murdering innocent children good for no reason whatsoever and they have no choice but to call it good. That is a moral dillemma for the religious believer is it not?
I don't see how.
Once 'good' is defined as "that which God does" there is no choice involved (unless one chooses to redefine good in some other way). Nor moral dilemma (what is moral deriving from what is good).
To be honest, there is only way I can envisage even the potential for a dilemma occurring. It would occur due to a combination of
a) comparing one definition of good, eg: "good=what God does" to another definition, eg: "what mankind generally understands to be good".
b) finding a believer who holds to both definitions and finding a conflict during the comparison process at a).
For example: I'd hold to humanities sense of good and evil in the main. I'd also hold to what God considers good and evil. If I cannot reconcile the two views (where an apparent conflict exists, then a dilemma comes into existance for me.
For example:
I hold murder to be wrong (sharing as I do, mankinds abhorrance of same). I also believe God holds murder to be wrong (he issued a command against same) and hold murder to be wrong on account of that too. Can I reconcile God supposedly murdering (unto genocide even)? If I cannot then a dilemma exists. But I can reconile things. What I do is realise that a man taking another mans life is not comparable to God taking a mans life. Man general abhorrance of murder has to do with man taking life from another man - but this general application cannot be simply extended to very special case involving God taking a mans life. The following point outline why, and completes the reconciliation applied by me.
-
So is God above his own laws? He can make and break them at will? That is called being capricious and morally inconsistent which I thought was not possible since God is the absolute standard and never changes. It is remarkable that Christians call atheists and non-believers moral relativists when their God is the epitome of moral relativity changing his moral standards at will throughout the Bible.
God cannot murder. His taking a persons life is:
- taking something back that belongs to God
- taking something back which is issued only for a time (as is his right, owning as he does, life)
- taking something that was given until Gods purpose in issuing it is served. As soon as that purpose is achieved, there is no particular reason to have a person continue living.
The notions that lie behind murder = wrong have to do with the unjust taking of a life. One reason why man is unjust in taking a life lies it the fact that another life isn't his possession to take.
God, on the other hand, owns everything. One would have to find something unjust about God taking a persons life in order for their objection to stand. Quoting a command issued to man to govern mans dealing with mans just won't cut it.
-
I am sorry but I did not see another definition of good in what you just posted just more rephrasing what you earlier stated. Please elaborate.
The above is an example argued out. Mankind generally considers murder to be wrong. God also considers murder to be wrong. I've outlined why I think God can't murder.
We can see how Gods view and mankinds view actually align (assuming we can get past God-can't-murder)
-
The Euthupro Dillemma is not a dillemma for the un-believer but for the believer. It is you that has to get around the sticky subject of absolute morality. The non-believer has an easy way out by saying that morality is not absolute much less an ultimate source such as your god.
Fair enough. I withdraw my comments that "God says so". They were just an aside.
-
I never said that God is a word with no meaning. It has much meaning to the believers that believe it. I just do not believe in this god much less him being good or having any meaning whatsoever.
I don't think I expressed myself well. Sorry. Perhaps I can end with the supposed dilemma and comment? Just to refocus?
[quote]If goodness is derived/sourced from God than 'goodness' has no meaning outside the definition of God himself and therefore God can arbitrarily call anything 'good' including what most humans consider evil atrocities i.e. murder, slavery, ethnocide, infanticide, rape, torture, etc and therefore we would have no moral backing to call these acts by God 'evil'. [quote] Correct. There is no dilemma there per se.
And as an aside (because it is an aside apart from the supposed dilemma); God doesn't approve of murder, genocide, infanticide (along the lines outlined above)
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-06-2009 8:22 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 12-06-2009 7:26 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 54 of 181 (538423)
12-06-2009 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by hooah212002
12-06-2009 7:52 AM


hooah writes:
So if you don't like what god says, go with man's point of view? How would god like that? How do you wrangle that in your head? Isn't god the final say?
By introducing another concept (like) you make what is already a complex juggling act (definitions of good abound unto confusion) impossible. Forgive me is I don't address this question for that reason - other than to say I don't like some things that God does, but still I find them good. His disciplining of me is one obvious example of what I don't like but find good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by hooah212002, posted 12-06-2009 7:52 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 55 of 181 (538426)
12-06-2009 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by iano
12-06-2009 1:37 PM


*Text deleted in edit*
A follow up question might make things interesting and help understand the dilemma: Why does god say 'kill that tribe'? Is it because killing that tribe is good? Or is it essentially a reasonless 'whim'?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by iano, posted 12-06-2009 1:37 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by iano, posted 12-07-2009 6:14 AM Modulous has replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4888 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 56 of 181 (538428)
12-06-2009 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by iano
12-06-2009 3:01 PM


Hi iano,
The lack of independent verification makes it a dilemma to the religious believer because they have no way of determining good and evil apart from their perspective god's behavior. There god can call murdering innocent children good for no reason whatsoever and they have no choice but to call it good. That is a moral dillemma for the religious believer is it not?
I don't see how.
Once 'good' is defined as "that which God does" there is no choice involved (unless one chooses to redefine good in some other way). Nor moral dilemma (what is moral deriving from what is good).
To be honest, there is only way I can envisage even the potential for a dilemma occurring. It would occur due to a combination of
a) comparing one definition of good, eg: "good=what God does" to another definition, eg: "what mankind generally understands to be good".
b) finding a believer who holds to both definitions and finding a conflict during the comparison process at a).
For example: I'd hold to humanities sense of good and evil in the main. I'd also hold to what God considers good and evil. If I cannot reconcile the two views (where an apparent conflict exists, then a dilemma comes into existance for me.
For example:
I hold murder to be wrong (sharing as I do, mankinds abhorrance of same). I also believe God holds murder to be wrong (he issued a command against same) and hold murder to be wrong on account of that too. Can I reconcile God supposedly murdering (unto genocide even)? If I cannot then a dilemma exists. But I can reconile things. What I do is realise that a man taking another mans life is not comparable to God taking a mans life. Man general abhorrance of murder has to do with man taking life from another man - but this general application cannot be simply extended to very special case involving God taking a mans life. The following point outline why, and completes the reconciliation applied by me.
iano, I think that there is one big difference between you and DA- you are arguing different things![
From DA's posts, I can gather that what he is defining as "good" is basically what he himself thinks is moral. His view, however, of 'God is good' is that of a tautology- in that whatever God does is good and thus could easily change all morality on a whim or otherwise. In other words, what is good is what God does.
From your perspective, I can see that you view God as always doing the 'good' thing. It is evident in many of your posts (not just in this thread) that you view God as always doing the correct thing, even if it is for reasons we do not or cannot understand. In other words, what God is good.
Here's your dilemna: DA says X is Y, while you say Y is X: the two are entirely different in representing where the subject matter originates from. Hopefully, you two can find common ground on this.
So is God above his own laws? He can make and break them at will? That is called being capricious and morally inconsistent which I thought was not possible since God is the absolute standard and never changes. It is remarkable that Christians call atheists and non-believers moral relativists when their God is the epitome of moral relativity changing his moral standards at will throughout the Bible.
God cannot murder. His taking a persons life is:
- taking something back that belongs to God
- taking something back which is issued only for a time (as is his right, owning as he does, life)
- taking something that was given until Gods purpose in issuing it is served. As soon as that purpose is achieved, there is no particular reason to have a person continue living.
The notions that lie behind murder = wrong have to do with the unjust taking of a life. One reason why man is unjust in taking a life lies it the fact that another life isn't his possession to take.
God, on the other hand, owns everything. One would have to find something unjust about God taking a persons life in order for their objection to stand. Quoting a command issued to man to govern mans dealing with mans just won't cut it.
Well, first I would just like to say that I find killing of any kind unacceptable. The only way where it would be justified would be if doing so would save a greater number of people (the train-track dilemma) and, in addition, was the only possibility. Needless to say, what will come next will not be quite so kind to God.
You say that God cannot "murder" in that he is only taking what already belonged to him. In a normal, mundane sense such as a baker taking back bread or a jeweler taking back a ring, you are correct. However, once God ventures into the realm of sentient and morally conscious beings, there is no "owning" that can be justified from that point. I would like to hope that you agree with me in that life is a fundamental human right; the one without which no other can exist. (Potentially, you could disagree with me on the afterlife principle, but it stands that a right granted must always exist; otherwise it is simply an allowance and not an inherent right)
Furthermore, whether God owns human life or not has no bearing on whether his taking of it is justified. As per the baker/jeweler example above, if either one took their products back without either compensation, consent, or a legitimate reason. the action would be unjustified and thus, at least by our own moral standards, evil or wrong.
Finally, giving God the right to take life arbitrarily only furthers the allownace of the Euthypro Dilemma in that there is no firm ground on which to stand on in relation to God's alleged goodness.
I am sorry but I did not see another definition of good in what you just posted just more rephrasing what you earlier stated. Please elaborate.
The above is an example argued out. Mankind generally considers murder to be wrong. God also considers murder to be wrong. I've outlined why I think God can't murder.
See above.
We can see how Gods view and mankinds view actually align (assuming we can get past God-can't-murder)
From what I'm reading, I can't see how anything God could do would be 'evil' in the traditional sense. Thus, you have effectively taken an unfalsifiable position.
quoteIf goodness is derived/sourced from God than 'goodness' has no meaning outside the definition of God himself and therefore God can arbitrarily call anything 'good' including what most humans consider evil atrocities i.e. murder, slavery, ethnocide, infanticide, rape, torture, etc and therefore we would have no moral backing to call these acts by God 'evil'.
Correct. There is no dilemma there per se.
And as an aside (because it is an aside apart from the supposed dilemma); God doesn't approve of murder, genocide, infanticide (along the lines outlined above)
The question is not whether God presently or ever will approve of murder, genocide, infanticide, etc. It is whether he is (meta)physically able to. I could say that I would never eat Italian food again. But would it be physically possible for me to do it? Absolutely.
In order to be an "ultimate" morality, it must apply in all hypothetical and real situations, which, from what I see, yours does not.
Bottom line: If God told you to rape and massacre your family, your friends, your neighbors and then kill yourself, would that be good?
T&U
Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given.

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts
I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes
"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by iano, posted 12-06-2009 3:01 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by iano, posted 12-07-2009 6:59 AM Teapots&unicorns has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 57 of 181 (538447)
12-07-2009 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Modulous
12-06-2009 6:56 PM


Modulous writes:
A follow up question might make things interesting and help understand the dilemma: Why does god say 'kill that tribe'? Is it because killing that tribe is good? Or is it essentially a reasonless 'whim'?
I'll register my overarching difficulty first, as it applies in my responding to this query as it has all other queries. It is asked "is this or that good?" without a definition of good being attached in order to evaluate against. If good is defined as "that which God does" then clearly killing the tribe is good - for it is just another thing that God does and all that God does is per this particular definition, good. Whether the tribe is killed for reason or whether it is killed on the basis of a whimsical wave of the hand would be neither here nor there. It would still be good - according to the definition. You can see that when this definition of good is used there is no 'or is it' linking the the second and third of your questions possible. It can be and/and.
It should be obvious that the definition (and properties) of good used above needn't necessarily connect at any point to the definition (and properties) of good as commonly utilised by mankind. That said, I'd suggest investigation would show alot of connection - even to the point where mankind can agree the killing of the tribe a good thing according to mans own application of the principles involved in 'good'.
By way of brief answer to your question (awaiting whatever definition of good you're using) I'll assume goodness to be that generally agreed by mankind to be good.
-
Killing that tribe is good and occurs for a reason. The reason it occurs is that God is prepared to tolerate mankinds sinfulness for a season but a point comes when he decides enough is enough. God being the giver of life is entitled to take it away again. And so he does. It is good that God discipline/punish man. Good that he discipline because those whom he disciplines are his children and we all agree it is good to discipline children. Good that he punish those who are not his children because we all agree evil doing attracts/deserves punishment.
The area for potential ojection lies in man possibly disagreeing that x is evil or that y should attract z level of discipline/punishment. That difference of opinion is resolved by accepting that Gods standards can well differ from mans. In which case God's idea of good doesn't equal Man's idea of good - even though they might connect at a couple of points of principle but differ in the detail of application.
-
I still don't understand the dilemma - which appears (silently) to set what God finds good against what mankind generally finds good. Then asks the believer "how can you know God is good when he does things that mankind generally doesn't find good". Which is hardly a dilemma. Or else the dilemma asks "how do you know God is good when you've no independent standard to measure him against" in which case we're all in the same boat because nobody has an independent standard against which to measure good.
The believer is left with Gods definition. And finds it doesn't confound any of the general principles held by man regarding what good is.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Modulous, posted 12-06-2009 6:56 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by hooah212002, posted 12-07-2009 7:10 AM iano has replied
 Message 61 by Modulous, posted 12-07-2009 9:38 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 58 of 181 (538451)
12-07-2009 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Teapots&unicorns
12-06-2009 7:26 PM


Hi iano
Hi T&U
-
iano, I think that there is one big difference between you and DA- you are arguing different things!
From DA's posts, I can gather that what he is defining as "good" is basically what he himself thinks is moral. His view, however, of 'God is good' is that of a tautology- in that whatever God does is good and thus could easily change all morality on a whim or otherwise. In other words, what is good is what God does.
What's stopping DA from doing precisely the same? No only is there nothing that I can see, I'm positive DA will let himself off the hook for things he condemns others. Is DA incapable of deceit, jealously, selfishness, malice? I know I do it - and everyone I know does it.
Isn't DA's version of good a tautology too?
God need not necessarily be capable of changing morality on a whim. If good stems from Gods nature and Gods nature is unchanging then goodness would be set in concrete. It would be absolute.
DA can argue a hypothetical if he likes. But I see no real dilemma for the believer in such hypothetical. You might as well ask me about the dilemma faced by the possibility of God disappearing in a puff of smoke tomorrow.
-
From your perspective, I can see that you view God as always doing the 'good' thing. It is evident in many of your posts (not just in this thread) that you view God as always doing the correct thing, even if it is for reasons we do not or cannot understand. In other words, what God (does-iano)is good.
We have seen there is no dilemma if all that is being done is a definition-comparison. I mean 'good=what God considers good' vs. 'good=what DA et al thinks is good' is hardly grounds for a dilemma for the believer.
When I say God is good I am always (even if unstated) supposing what God does to be good according to the sense of good commonly shared by mankind. And argue along those lines. If mankind disagrees it doesn't mean God isn't good. It just means that mankind disagree.
-
Well, first I would just like to say that I find killing of any kind unacceptable. The only way where it would be justified would be if doing so would save a greater number of people (the train-track dilemma) and, in addition, was the only possibility. Needless to say, what will come next will not be quite so kind to God.
Most people wouldn't share your view. Most people have no trouble with killing to defend one's nation against the attack of an aggressor. Alot of people would have no problem with the death penalty if it could be ensured that only the truly guilty would perish. Most people eat meat.
-
You say that God cannot "murder" in that he is only taking what already belonged to him. In a normal, mundane sense such as a baker taking back bread or a jeweler taking back a ring, you are correct. However, once God ventures into the realm of sentient and morally conscious beings, there is no "owning" that can be justified from that point. I would like to hope that you agree with me in that life is a fundamental human right; the one without which no other can exist. (Potentially, you could disagree with me on the afterlife principle, but it stands that a right granted must always exist; otherwise it is simply an allowance and not an inherent right)
1) The removal of life from a person removes an attribute temporarily granted and to which no right exists - other than under the terms granted by lifes giver - God.
2) The right to life (insofar and man considers another man to have it) arises because God commanded so (and empowers that command by giving mankind the restraint of conscience). God sustains our sense of a right to life. But he doesn't include himself under that remit. And for good reason...
3) I say "for good reason" because life is given to achieve a purpose of God - namely to extract our decision regarding our eternal destination. Our ultimate end is eternity - not the temporary temporal. Once Gods aim is achieved regarding his overall objective regarding us, then life has served his purpose. And ours.
4) God kills everyone.
5) Claiming sentiency as a way of elevating our rights doesn't close the gap between us and God. The Bible describes us a potters clay, so where do we get to supposing we have all these rights? To which court of appeal shall we bring our case?
6) As far as I can tell, the only thing that truly belongs to us, to which we have inalienably God-given rights is that our ultimate will be done. That doesn't mean we can will to flap our arms and fly - rather it means that our will with respect to our position before God will be respected for all eternity.
This means that for those whose hearts hate that which God stands for will spend eternity in a suitable existance. If they hate the truth then they will spend eternity away from truth. If they hate light they will spend an eternity in darkness. If they hate the fullness of life, they will spend eternity in all that deathliness entails. That right is, like I say, inalienable.
-
Furthermore, whether God owns human life or not has no bearing on whether his taking of it is justified. As per the baker/jeweler example above, if either one took their products back without either compensation, consent, or a legitimate reason. the action would be unjustified and thus, at least by our own moral standards, evil or wrong.
Yes, because we paid for our bread and ownership rights are reassigned to us. But our life is sustained by God and ownership rights haven't ever been reassigned. Indeed, even taking our own life only occurs with Gods permission.
-
Finally, giving God the right to take life arbitrarily only furthers the allownace of the Euthypro Dilemma in that there is no firm ground on which to stand on in relation to God's alleged goodness.
The firm ground is God's plan with regard to man. When man has achieved Gods purpose for man, mans life is extinguished. And not before. There is nothing random about it from Gods' perspective.
-
From what I'm reading, I can't see how anything God could do would be 'evil' in the traditional sense. Thus, you have effectively taken an unfalsifiable position.
I'm prepared to argue according to principles generally held by man - even when those principles can be transcended by application of those principles (eg: mans sense of inalienable right to life viz-a-viz other men transcended by the equally important human principle of property rights applied to the God/man relationship)
-
The question is not whether God presently or ever will approve of murder, genocide, infanticide, etc. It is whether he is (meta)physically able to. I could say that I would never eat Italian food again. But would it be physically possible for me to do it? Absolutely.
God is light, in him there is no darkness. And the Bible gives ample example of what light and darkness entail. Thus the idea is that God is unable to do dark.
-
Bottom line: If God told you to rape and massacre your family, your friends, your neighbors and then kill yourself, would that be good?
Well he asked the Israelites to slay the Midianites and that was good so I suppose him asking me to kill my family etc would be good too.
As far as I can recall, God doesn't condone rape so I'd place that in the impossible-for-God category
He was prepared to have himself sascrificed and that was good so I suppose there would be no particular objection from me on the 'goodness' front to that request.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 12-06-2009 7:26 PM Teapots&unicorns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by hooah212002, posted 12-07-2009 7:15 AM iano has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 59 of 181 (538454)
12-07-2009 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by iano
12-07-2009 6:14 AM


I guess you think this is good: http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2007/02/this_is_what_god_told_me_to_do.php This pastor sexually abused women "because god told him to". You must think he was doing the right thing, right? He was doing good? Who are we to question the almighty god?
What about all these people, did they do good? Were they good people?
God ordered parents' deaths. "God told me to" kill his parents, Philip Badowsky, 22, testified. He read the bible before shooting his parents, then dismembered them with a chainsaw on Dec. 2. His mother was a nurse and his father was an engineer in Nixson, Tenn. Source: Chattanoogan.com, Dec. 10, 2004
"Act of obedience." Edwin B. Baxter, 33, of Oregon, was convicted in December of attempting to circumcise his 8-year-old son. The fundamentalist Christian, who sat with a bible in the courtroom, decided to circumcise his son on Sept. 3 after reading the Old Testament: "I had no reason to think I would be in violation of any of God's laws. I felt it was an act of obedience." He put his son in a dirty bathtub on some towels and used a hunting knife, then called 911 when his son began bleeding profusely. His wife is pregnant with their 10th child. The boy recovered. Source: The Columbian, Dec. 8, 2004
Molester cites God. A man in Riverside, Calif., sentenced to 36 years to life for the repeated sexual abuse of his young stepdaughter, invoked God as his rationale. "God has a reason. Sometimes the things that happen in this life are so that we can learn from them," stated Miguel Angel Ordonez, 34. Ordonez was convicted of rape, forced oral copulation and repeated sexual abuse of the 12-year-old over a 7-year span. Source: Press-Enterprise, Jan. 8, 2005
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by iano, posted 12-07-2009 6:14 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by iano, posted 12-07-2009 2:34 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 60 of 181 (538455)
12-07-2009 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by iano
12-07-2009 6:59 AM


iano writes:
so I suppose him asking me to kill my family etc would be good too.
I seriously hope the police have you under surveillance. You are fucked in the head.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by iano, posted 12-07-2009 6:59 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by iano, posted 12-07-2009 2:36 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024