Euthypro Dilemna

Hi Son Goku, I thought this would be a better place to discuss my comments on this. Message 104Would that make 4 wills altogether, or just 2?In any case, would this extra human will that didn't agree with his divine will make him a sinner, using the concepts exposited by iano above? Message 141Or, at the very least, is this what we mean when we say that Jesus is "good" in the sense that he does not sin, but could have?. . .Hi iano, I'm dragging the Trinity in here because most of your audience are becoming more and more unsatisfied with your defense. To make this clear, I'm going to summarize the dilemma again. Either goodness is something separate from God, to which his behavior can be compared, in which case the statement that "God is good" has a practical meaning, ie that he is trustworthy, has our best interest in heart, may work in mysterious ways but only because he has inside information. It is similar in quality to saying "My dad is cool." OR goodness is merely a word for whatever the will of God commands, in which case the claim that "God is good" is just a syllogism, with no real substantive meaning at all. This is similar to saying "My dad is the source of my Y chromosome."The position that you are taking, that the will of God is what created our sense of goodness at all etc., regardless of how true it may be in your worldview, simply looks like fence-sitting in regard to the actual dilemma. It's not a solution, merely avoidance of the problem, which reduces God to a cypher.The normal theological solution to problems like this one is the Trinity. This makes it possible to postulate a) goodness, beyond our judgement, as the arbitrary nature of God (the Father); b) goodness as something external to himself, which can be submitted to by God (the Son); and c) goodness as a mediated relation between the created and the creator God (the Spirit).What's keeping you from using the tools you have for arguments like these? I'm a wicked sinner, why is my understanding of theology and logic so much better than yours?

Thanks! I was just wondering. More about this please, as you get the chance in working your argument.Specifically more about what the "flavor of God" is like. I assume that if I'm considering doing something, and get the sudden feeling that I have been eating crackers and grape juice, that that isn't a clincher in the decision-making process.Edited by Iblis, : removed inaccurate crap -- praps a bit less liquor next year huh

I'm afraid I have to disagree with your semantics. When we use the word "objective" we imagine ourselves as looking down on a situation from above, seeing the whole picture free of involvement and resultant bias. That is exactly how he imagines God's viewpoint, and to a much greater extent (ie "perfect") than we can hope for. Arguing that he is wrong in believing this isn't a dictionary call, he is using the word correctly within the constraints of his worldview.He's a nice guy though, he's already tabled the Trinity just to avoid confusing the question with extra entities, so he may comply with your request; in which case I would offer up the word "transcendent" for his use in trying to convey the same idea without getting people-who-think-they-own-words on his case. But I do feel it's kind of shameful for us to sound just like the folks who claim they own the words "fundamentalist" and "Christian" and can exclude others from reasoned use of them.