Euthypro Dilemna

Yet the post where you cut this from contains the substance of my response to this supposed dilemma. Perhaps I'm just not understanding the conundrum correctly in order to see what the dilemma is. The above seems to resolve things easily enough. Your set up of things, DA, was clearly expressed whereas T&U's version seems a bit wooly and loose in comparison (no offence) so I won't go into that version of it here.

You originally wrote this below and it might be best if I deal with it as written

quote:

---

If God wills what is ‘good’ because it is good in of itself, then he bases his decision on what to command on what is already morally good outside of himself.. If moral goodness exists before God issues any commands, then moral goodness is independent of God’s commands. Therefore God’s commands aren’t the source of morality, but merely a source of information about a preexisting moral code.

---

My understanding of God willing something is that it will happen. God can also want something to happen - but his wanting it doesn't mean it will happen. For example: God wanting that none should perish doesn't mean none will perish. Some will perish, even though God doesn't want that they do.The second thing to say is that God is good. Or to put it another way: the definition of good is that which God is and does. Which also means he is the source and cause of goodness. Which appears to lead me to.. I'm not quite sure what you mean here. IF God is the source of goodness THEN he is the basis against which we measure. IF he is not THEN he is not. You cannot suppose God the standard in one breath (the IF condition in your statement assumed true) then state that you have no standard available, in the other.You seem to be saying that if God is indeed the source of good then we have no other standard by which to measure him to find out whether he is indeed good or not. Which is a nonsense: the nature of standards is to be definitional. We either accept the definition they posit or we don't. You don't 'prove' definitions as such.- I think I'm seeing the point(lessness) of this dilemma. What you are saying is that we aren't God. And because we are not, we cannot pull ourselves to the absolute height (independant from God) to know what is true - including whether God is good.It seems we are limited to experiencing what is true by virtue of alignment with Gods view of things: I view greed as evil because he views greed as evil.Is greed actually evil though? Who cares: evil is merely a word to describe acting greedily. And greed just a word to describe acting in a way which puts your own interests over others to excessive degrees. And excessive...God uses the word "good" to describe things that are experienced in a 'positive' sense: patience, kindness, love, joy, peace. If someone else wants to use the word "evil" to describe those same experiences then so what?- As pointed out, I prefer to steer clear of definitional jousting due to its pointlessness. Better to consider what God does and examine it in the light of what mankind generally considers good/evil. It's not an absolute measure of anything - but might give us enough to get an inkling into any harmony that might exist between mans version of goodness and Gods version of goodness.That loose standard of ours (which would find whimsy and capriciousness bad) shouldn't find God guilty of these things although...- ...examining consistancy would require our insight into all issues that were involved in God acting this way or that at a particular time. We might agree globally that he is consistantly hating of sin however. And consistantly exercising a degree of patience with sinners.- Ah...but my arguing for Gods goodness uses the only other standard we have available to use: the shaky, flaky but nonetheless useful standard of man made in the image of God. And that argument/standard frequently finds arguments against God flailing .. after a while.For example: stealing is considered wrong because we are taking something that doesn't belong to us. God cannot steal because everything belongs to him - including our lives. This latter deals with all the above hyperbole in that God cannot murder (which is a law from God governing mans dealing with another mans life (which isn't the first mans property) - not Gods dealing with mans' life (which is God's property).- Definitions are, like I say, circular. As to arguments? Well the above stealing/murder argument is a start. And I find nothing evil in God killing - not according to any standard that men can correctly apply to the issue.-It just occurs to me that whilst the unbeliever has no way to establish absolutely whether God is good (and can at best only apply the common standard of man as honestly as he can) the believer is in a different position.The believer has direct access to God - in the sense that God can reveal His view of things to the believer and so the believer can see things from Gods perspective and so become part of the Absolute view on goodness/evil. Again, we are dealing with definitions only - but given that I'll spend eternity in what is definitionally described as bliss, I'm not supposing to argue with definitions.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I think I really need to concentrate on what the dilemma is supposed to be so forgive that I don't answer your complete post.Some background:1) I'm stating God=good. In other words, I'm working off one possible definition of "good" that goes something like "good = that which God does". This means the above part of the supposed dilemma is the one that would apply2)That God is the source of good doesn't necessarily mean arbitrariness (in the sense: like a candle in a breeze). He could be consistant in his considerations of what he finds good and evil.3) Of course this definition could mean God finds murder and rape "good" (which I'd argue he doesn't - but no matter, that's not for this discussion)To your dilemma: What is the dilemma here?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. But what he does wouldn't be evil, by definition - so of course we don't have a moral basis for calling what he does evil. Morality, like goodness, would all relate to him.And if this person or that person thought otherwise, they could only be doing so if they utilise some other definition of good - in which case they would have a moral basis for declaring God evil. According to that definition.How can there be a dilemma if it's simply a question of which definition you pick?Edited by iano, : insert 'haven't' in a critical place 3rd para from bottom

I was thinking of another sense of arbitrary. And am happy to agree that he would be arbitrary in this sense.- 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.- 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?- Correction: according to his definition, not yours. I'm merely passing on what he says about himself.- 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.

Fair enough. I was merely making the point that independent verification isn't something the lack of which renders a dilemma.- 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)- Sorry, I thought we were assuming the Bible Gods word for the sake of argument. Your charging him with condoning rape/muder indicated so.- 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?

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".- ...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'- 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.- 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".- 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?- 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.- 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? 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

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 ofa) 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.- 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.- 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)- Fair enough. I withdraw my comments that "God says so". They were just an aside.- 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.

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.

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.

Hi T&U- 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.- 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.- 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.- 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.- 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.- 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.- 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)- 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.- 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 categoryHe 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.

All we've got is their say so that God told 'em to do what they did. Whether God did is another matter.I myself suspect that God didn't tell them to do what they did.

That's precisely what I was thinking about your argument. Indeed, you highlight the impression I have that this supposed 'dilemma' ultimately relies on comparisons between what God does and what man finds good, for it's existance.Which doesn't pose a dilemma at all - just a choice. You seem to be stating that if I'm faced with doing what God tells me or doing what man tells me I should chose to do what man tells me.How fucked in the head is that!?Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

If you read back a little you'll see I'm dealing with another posters IF query. "If God said...would you do it"The basis of my answer assumes the IF statement true. It doesn't attempt to investigate how God would tell me or how I'd satisfy myself that it's God doing the talking (although being God, I'm sure this would be no problem to him) but merely assumes that he has.If you've a problem with any of that, then I'd suggest you take it up with the poster who posed the IF question in the first place.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I could ask the same question of you. You seemed to have judged He has in their case. Care to tell me how you figure that? How do you figure that? Because someone calls themselves a Christian it means they are one?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

You mean to say I should place what hooah thinks above what God thinks? Why, pray tell, should I consider doing that? (non-emotive, rational answers especially welcome)