Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Euthypro Dilemna
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2321 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 136 of 181 (540078)
12-22-2009 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by iano
12-21-2009 6:39 PM


Re: How do we know good when we see it?
Thanks, iano. Your responses do clarify things.
iano writes:
The internal state of someone who is operating contrary to God (whilst believing they are acting in accordance with God) is addressed in two ways.
a) It is not God they are believing. They might be believing in a false view of the Abrahamic God (as per Judaism or Islam). Or they might be believing in a false god of another name.
Okay, so Christians alone can rightfully claim sole possession of the imprimatur of moral behavior and knowledge of God's will. Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, etc, are all simply without morals, while Jews and Muslims, in addition to having no proper basis of morality, are also excluded from knowing God's will, given their false view of the Abrahamic God.
Well, that's clear enough, if we just skip the question about which denomination(s) of Christianity we should include, and which ones we should exclude, as the true holders of this distinction.
No doubt the Jews and Muslims would make equally well-founded arguments that all Christians would be excluded, though they would perhaps make reference to different consequences for the Christians, compared to the consequences you invoke for the Jews and Muslims. (And what difference does that make, I wonder?)
b) they are doing evil whilst believing they are doing good. A person arrives at this point when their conscience (that which provides a knowledge of good and evil - as per God's view) isn't operating/operating effectively. With nothing left to guide them to Gods' good they are at the mercy of Satan (who can entice them to believe all sorts)
Great. Now, if only I could be certain that you yourself are not one of these people being used as a mouthpiece for Satan. What basis do I have for this, other than your own words?
Oh, I know: I just need to be a believer like you, and believe exactly what you believe. Of course, I do have the option of holding some "flavour" of belief different from yours, for whatever reason (alternate interpretation of scripture, etc), making you the mouthpiece for Satan. Then it's just your belief against mine. That's perfectly solid.
If the person isn't a believer I'm not sure they'd give a hoot what God's will is.
I can help clarify that a bit for you: for the non-believer, there most likely is no God, hence nothing having a will in that sense. There really is nothing to give a hoot about. It's one's own intentions, and the intentions of other people, and ways to resolve conflicts among them all in a manner that yields the most desirable outcome in the broadest possible sense, that are the proper focus of attention.
When it comes to believers, sure there's disagreement. But I don't see how it matters very much in the heel of the hunt - it's the individual Christian who gets to stand before God and give an account of their actions and views...
... after the damage is done, and after it's too late for an offender to make amends to the parties who suffered from the damage. You'll forgive me if I say that raising issues about immaterial consequences imposed by an imaginary being is a waste of time merely for the sake of creating obfuscation. Really, what God decides after a person's death regarding that person's sins in life is a matter of no practical importance, and it baffles me that believers devote so much time, energy and verbiage to promote so many variations of this vague and mystifying system of belief.
(I wonder if you'll conclude that this is Satan talking through me. Do you find that Satan has a way of interfering often when it comes to people expressing viewpoints you do not share?)
And each skeptical agnostic and atheist has access to principles that are explicitly stated, culturally ingrained and/or logically, naturally entailed...
That's all very fine and dandy - were it not for the fact that you can't attach these principles to anything concrete. Call what you call good 'good' if you like. Without concrete moorings you're as much at sea as you suppose I am.
And what do you have that is "concrete"? Oh, right: nothing... unless you want to count your particular interpretation of 2000-year-old scripture as "concrete", in contrast to all the others who use different interpretations of the same text as "concrete" for their own purposes. That's some pretty malleable concrete you have there.
So, you don't actually want to admit to being as much "at sea" as I am? Well, at least you acknowledge that I do suppose you are "at sea" in your stance on morality.
There is no absolute resolution of this debate - short of your death...
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you are not trying to threaten me.
... or Christ's return
Let's not hold our breath in any case, eh?
But you may be right that there is no absolute resolution of this debate. Actually, though, I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to here. If it's the debate between "God-given morality" vs. "naturally evolved/induced/agreed-upon morality", there is another exit point for closing the debate: when people finally give up obsolete superstitions and meaningless notions about being manipulated imaginary entities.
If it's the debate about what really is vs. what really is not "moral behavior", that's an evolving issue, which humans will be working on (and arguing about) continuously until one of two things happen: (a) we become extinct, or (b) we evolve to acquire some resolution that is as inconceivable to us now as winged flight was to the first reptiles.
You'll forgive me if I don't find this supposed objectivity anything but bootstrap by nature.
Nothing to forgive on that point, friend. "Bootstrap by nature" is actually a very good way of referring what I've been trying to explain. What I would find hard to forgive is your unwillingness to see this as a sufficient basis for understanding moral behavior.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : No reason given.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by iano, posted 12-21-2009 6:39 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by iano, posted 12-22-2009 6:52 AM Otto Tellick has seen this message but not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 137 of 181 (540099)
12-22-2009 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Otto Tellick
12-22-2009 1:07 AM


Re: How do we know good when we see it?
iano writes:
The internal state of someone who is operating contrary to God (whilst believing they are acting in accordance with God) is addressed in two ways.
a) It is not God they are believing. They might be believing in a false view of the Abrahamic God (as per Judaism or Islam). Or they might be believing in a false god of another name.
Otto writes:
Okay, so Christians alone can rightfully claim sole possession of the imprimatur of moral behavior and knowledge of God's will. Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, etc, are all simply without morals, while Jews and Muslims, in addition to having no proper basis of morality, are also excluded from knowing God's will, given their false view of the Abrahamic God.
Christians too can believe they are acting according to the will of God when they are not. They do sin, afterall.
Non-Christians can certainly act in accordance with Gods will (all men have a God-given guide called 'conscience').
-
No doubt the Jews and Muslims would make equally well-founded arguments that all Christians would be excluded, though they would perhaps make reference to different consequences for the Christians, compared to the consequences you invoke for the Jews and Muslims. (And what difference does that make, I wonder?)
I haven't made a founded argument. I'm merely stating the Christian position.
-
Great. Now, if only I could be certain that you yourself are not one of these people being used as a mouthpiece for Satan. What basis do I have for this, other than your own words?
Oh, I know: I just need to be a believer like you, and believe exactly what you believe. Of course, I do have the option of holding some "flavour" of belief different from yours, for whatever reason (alternate interpretation of scripture, etc), making you the mouthpiece for Satan. Then it's just your belief against mine. That's perfectly solid.
The above comment applies here too: a position stated (not "well founded") for the purposes of extracting from you (or anyone else) what the dilemma for ME is supposed to be. That you don't believe and have no access to that which permits me to hold the position that I do is not a dilemma for ME.
That's the topic here.
-
I can help clarify that a bit for you: for the non-believer, there most likely is no God, hence nothing having a will in that sense. There really is nothing to give a hoot about. It's one's own intentions, and the intentions of other people, and ways to resolve conflicts among them all in a manner that yields the most desirable outcome in the broadest possible sense, that are the proper focus of attention.
There are a lot of different opinions on what constitutes "most desirable". Rendering such a thing purely subjective. Which puts you in the same boat as you suppose I'm in.
Listen Otto, there doesn't seem much point in progressing in this vein, the topic isn't about proving Christianity true. As I say, only death will add concrete to either of our positions (although when it comes to your position, you'll never know whether it was true or false )
-
But you may be right that there is no absolute resolution of this debate. Actually, though, I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to here. If it's the debate between "God-given morality" vs. "naturally evolved/induced/agreed-upon morality", there is another exit point for closing the debate: when people finally give up obsolete superstitions and meaningless notions about being manipulated imaginary entities.
You'd accept that if God exists as commonly understood then there would be no problem with him making his existance known to a person? Such would render objections such as "how do you know it's God and not a delusion" objections void.
In which case, the potential exists that the entity God isn't imaginary. And so the debate will never close. Not this side of death/Christs return.
It's back to topic henceforth, okay? The Supposed Euthypro Dilemma and how it can be attached to a Christian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Otto Tellick, posted 12-22-2009 1:07 AM Otto Tellick has seen this message but not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 138 of 181 (540102)
12-22-2009 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Briterican
12-21-2009 8:53 PM


Re: How do we know good when we see it?
Briterican writes:
Okay so... would you like to see the death penalty enacted for those found guilty of adultery in today's society? Would that be God's will in action? Would those executions be undeniably "good" by this "Good=God's Will" moral code?
God instructed so for a particular people at a particular time for a particular reason. And that is fine with me: I understand Gods aim and rational. God has changed tack and now hands men over to their sin; for a particular time for a particular reason. This too I find fine; I understand God's aim and rational.
I'm not in favour of the death penalty for adultery. Man hasn't been, I don't think, given permission by God to act so.
-
Women are given the short end of the stick from the word go in the Bible. Woman was created, almost as an afterthought, from one of Adam's ribs. Fanciful notion, and a perfect way to set the stage for an implied dominance of men over women, perpetuating the idea that women are wholly dependent on men. God is a male after all, isn't he? The ladies just can't get a break here!
I can't say I agree. There is a particular order in the relationship between men and woman as designated by God. That order does involve mans headship over a woman but I'd understand the problems that have arisen with that to derive from mans sinfulness - not from the order so set up.
Women are told to submit to their husbands headship. And much affront is taken by women (and fair minded men) from that. What you never see quoted however is the instruction given to men in that same passage "sacrifice yourselves for your wives". This doesn't mean throw yourself in front of an oncoming truck. It means laying down your entire self-centred approach to life to serve your wife. As one woman in my Bible study quipped when we discussed this Ephesians passage recently "it wouldn't be hard to submit to a man like that"
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Briterican, posted 12-21-2009 8:53 PM Briterican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Briterican, posted 12-22-2009 3:23 PM iano has not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3939 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 139 of 181 (540175)
12-22-2009 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by iano
12-22-2009 7:04 AM


Re: How do we know good when we see it?
iano writes:
God instructed so for a particular people at a particular time for a particular reason.
Okay, so is there a 2010 edition of the Bible coming out soon where God gives us an update? That would really help out, since so much of the religious world places so much weight on these instructions that were meant "for a particular people at a particular time for a particular reason".
iano writes:
And that is fine with me: I understand Gods aim and rational.
Aim = stop sin? Tactic = execution? I don't know, you tell me since you "understand".
iano writes:
I'm not in favour of the death penalty for adultery.
I'm pleased to hear this, but I wonder upon what grounds you have decided that this part of the Bible is not applicable today, and upon what grounds other parts are? In order to come to these conclusions, you must draw upon resources outside of the Bible. And I, who consider the Bible to be a collection of fictional short stories, can come to conclusions about what is "good" without reference to those stories and without praying to God for guidance.
iano writes:
What you never see quoted however is the instruction given to men in that same passage "sacrifice yourselves for your wives". This doesn't mean throw yourself in front of an oncoming truck. It means laying down your entire self-centred approach to life to serve your wife.
Your interpretation is one of nobility and kindness. But again, by what method do you and the people in your Bible study group decide what is meant by these passages? In the absence of a Biblical footnote, you must draw upon resources outside of the Bible to decide what is meant by each and every sentence. There is no ultimate truth involved, only your interpretation of passages that might very well have been meant "for a particular people in a particular time for a particular reason".
PS - Please forgive the occasional "snippy" tone - I'm passionate about this, probably as passionate as you are in your belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by iano, posted 12-22-2009 7:04 AM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Taz, posted 12-31-2009 2:34 AM Briterican has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 140 of 181 (540922)
12-30-2009 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by iano
12-19-2009 2:43 PM


Hi Iano,
I still don't know what good is. It seems you are basically shrugging your shoulders on the issue.
As near as I can tell God wills us to love our neighbour as a tactic in some ambiguous war. I'm not sure how this works, and I have no way of being able to determine what any given tactic's effect on the war effort will be.
To paraphrase Socrates again
quote:
Alas! my companion, and will you leave me in despair? I was hoping that you would instruct me in the nature of good and evil; and then I might have cleared myself of Meletus and his indictment. I would have told him that I had been enlightened by Iano, and had given up rash innovations and speculations, in which I indulged only through ignorance, and that now I am about to lead a better life.
At best we have learned that the word 'good' is redundant, and it has merely been replaced with another phrase 'god's will' and that this is focussed towards the aforementioned war.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by iano, posted 12-19-2009 2:43 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by iano, posted 12-30-2009 6:07 PM Modulous has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 141 of 181 (541016)
12-30-2009 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Modulous
12-30-2009 4:09 AM


Modulous writes:
I still don't know what good is. It seems you are basically shrugging your shoulders on the issue.
That's hardly the case. Rather than plumping for "god's will" I've suggested something along the lines of "the flavour of God's doings (whether by him or through us because we're made in his image and likeness" We could have gone on to discuss what those doings are (for we would find wide ranging agreement on the flavour associated with doings such as kindness, patience, justice, etc).
Suffice to say that that discussion would be secondary to the supposed dilemma of the OP.
-
As near as I can tell God wills us to love our neighbour as a tactic in some ambiguous war. I'm not sure how this works, and I have no way of being able to determine what any given tactic's effect on the war effort will be.
God willing you to love your neighbour (in the sense of having that notion delivered to you with power-to-effect-that-result (ie: conscience) places you in the position of choice. Your sin-loving nature can do one of two things in response to this "ought to". It can have it's own, anti-God way (which involves suppressing the suggestion as to what you ought to do so as to clear the way for what your sin-nature would have you do). Or your will can remain unexpressed in the face of conscience. In which case you will do what you "ought to do". You do it because of the power supplied by conscience (God's power if you like).
The war is between your (contra-God) will and God's will. Your choices (involving compliance with his will or suppression of his will and expression of your own) are the blows struck in that war. It's not that ambigious.
At best we have learned that the word 'good' is redundant, and it has merely been replaced with another phrase 'god's will' and that this is focussed towards the aforementioned war.
If you want to know what good is then look at God's will of you: that you be kind, loving, patient, generous, selfless. Not that that's the point really - the point is that you can't be good. Not all of the time - or anything like it.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Modulous, posted 12-30-2009 4:09 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Modulous, posted 12-31-2009 2:50 AM iano has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3282 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 142 of 181 (541070)
12-31-2009 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Briterican
12-22-2009 3:23 PM


Re: How do we know good when we see it?
Briterican writes:
I'm passionate about this...
Are you Richard Dawkins?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Briterican, posted 12-22-2009 3:23 PM Briterican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Briterican, posted 12-31-2009 11:42 AM Taz has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 143 of 181 (541071)
12-31-2009 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by iano
12-30-2009 6:07 PM


That's hardly the case. Rather than plumping for "god's will" I've suggested something along the lines of "the flavour of God's doings
You can call it the hue of God's underpants if you like, but it is not more of an answer.
Sweetness is a flavour. I can talk a little about it - that it seems to exist to encourage is to seek out fruits which are vital for the ongoing operation of our bodies.
If we want to regard morality as a flavour, then it exists to increase cooperation amongst animals which serves to increase the replication of the genes that create brains that are receptive to morality.
But you seem unable to explain the point of goodness, or its 'essence'. There is no particular reason why it is specifically 'love thy neighbour' and not something else.
It seems, like flavour, that different people have differring 'tastes' in morality. So clearly, in order to know if something is good we cannot simply rely on our 'taste receptors'.
Now - we can break 'sweetness' down to certain molecules and certain receptors for those molecules. We can examine certain foods such as as refined sugar and conclude, without putting it into mouths that we will consider it 'sweet'. That way, if our personal 'sweet receptors' are non functional, we can still learn what would be considered 'sweet' by a normally functioning human.
Can you explain what properties something that is 'good' has that we can learn if it would be consistent with or have the 'flavour of' god's doings?
We could have gone on to discuss what those doings are (for we would find wide ranging agreement on the flavour associated with doings such as kindness, patience, justice, etc).
But I've explicitly not asked for a list of examples. I'm asking for the attributes that make these things 'good'. Why does 'god's doings' include these things and exclude others?
Suffice to say that that discussion would be secondary to the supposed dilemma of the OP.
Have you read the dialogue? I've asked this a number of times, but I still don't know. Being able to identify goodness is key to the whole thing. The dilemma arises out of this conundrum.
My point is that you can attempt to define your way out of the dilemma, but that throws the baby out with the bathwater and we are left not really knowing the answer to the question at all!
God willing you to love your neighbour (in the sense of having that notion delivered to you with power-to-effect-that-result (ie: conscience) places you in the position of choice...
The war is between your (contra-God) will and God's will. Your choices (involving compliance with his will or suppression of his will and expression of your own) are the blows struck in that war. It's not that ambigious.
Then I don't know why God will's that I love my neighbour. The war paradigm would still exist, suffering and inability to meet standards would still exist, if God willed that I hate my neighbour.
So what's special about loving my neighbour?
Another problem arises too: Why is my will able to express itself independent of God's? Is it God's doing that this is so? In which case is it not true that expressing my will independently of God's will is by definition, good? Do we not simply end up in the position that all things are good?
If you want to know what good is then look at God's will of you: that you be kind, loving, patient, generous, selfless. Not that that's the point really - the point is that you can't be good. Not all of the time - or anything like it.
But what's so interesting about being kind, loving, patient etc., etc?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by iano, posted 12-30-2009 6:07 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by iano, posted 12-31-2009 11:07 AM Modulous has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 144 of 181 (541087)
12-31-2009 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Modulous
12-31-2009 2:50 AM


Modulous writes:
You can call it the hue of God's underpants if you like, but it is not more of an answer.
Sweetness is a flavour. I can talk a little about it - that it seems to exist to encourage is to seek out fruits which are vital for the ongoing operation of our bodies.
If we want to regard morality as a flavour, then it exists to increase cooperation amongst animals which serves to increase the replication of the genes that create brains that are receptive to morality.
But you seem unable to explain the point of goodness, or its 'essence'. There is no particular reason why it is specifically 'love thy neighbour' and not something else.
What is the point of the laws of nature if not "no point" - according to your naturalistic view. Yet there they are. Perhaps it would help if you were to see goodness (the flavour of God) in the same light - pointless until such time as God decides to assign a point to it. Until then God is simply as God is - without there needing to be a point to his being the way he is.
That said, one point of goodness has already been furnished you: it's use as a tool in the setting up of choice for us. Which will we love: God's flavour or the flavour of anti-God? The point of furnishing choice having to do with whether we are to become son's of God or not.
Perhaps your post will counter this application of "love thy neighbour" later on. We'll see.
-
It seems, like flavour, that different people have differring 'tastes' in morality. So clearly, in order to know if something is good we cannot simply rely on our 'taste receptors'.
Now - we can break 'sweetness' down to certain molecules and certain receptors for those molecules. We can examine certain foods such as as refined sugar and conclude, without putting it into mouths that we will consider it 'sweet'. That way, if our personal 'sweet receptors' are non functional, we can still learn what would be considered 'sweet' by a normally functioning human.
Can you explain what properties something that is 'good' has that we can learn if it would be consistent with or have the 'flavour of' god's doings?
That different people have different moralities is neither here nor there: all men have a knowledge of good and evil (as defined by God) and all men suppress that knowledge in this way and that and to this degree and that as it suits them. And so you end up with different 'moralities' (or different degrees of departure from the absolute standard which men are given knowledge of). What men will be judged against is the knowledge supplied them - not the morality they have made up for themselves (whether individually or by consensus)
You might begin to appreciate that it's not all that relevant that you can classify good and evil (as God sees it) so as to be able to look at any particular action (yours or others) so as to decide whether it sits on this side or that side of Gods will. There are so many influences to be taken into account before you can extract that element of the action involving a mans own heart alone. That's the bit that God is interested in. That's the bit for which you will be judged. Truly, only God could carry out the distillation process to arrive at mans heart.
But to give an indication along the lines you're looking for:
Goodness (God-style) has at it's source, love. Love in this case being that which is selfless (agape). If a man's action (or element thereof) has this as it's motivation then that element of the action would be considered good (even if other non-selfless motivations drove other elements of the same action). Selflessness is the central property attaching to the biblical God's view of goodness. And so we can say that meekness, servitude, humility are subsets of the overarching notion called 'good'. I'm sure you can add your own examples to this
-
But I've explicitly not asked for a list of examples. I'm asking for the attributes that make these things 'good'. Why does 'god's doings' include these things and exclude others?
Attributes given above. The why has to do with God's nature. He simply has that flavour s'all. There's no more reason to ask why he's omnipotent as ask why his flavour is the way it is. God is love (selfless)
-
My point is that you can attempt to define your way out of the dilemma, but that throws the baby out with the bathwater and we are left not really knowing the answer to the question at all!
Assuming you accept that at some point you must expect to come up against a brick wall ("I AM what I AM") then hopefully the attribute given will prove an assistance to progressing the discussion.
-
Then I don't know why God will's that I love my neighbour. The war paradigm would still exist, suffering and inability to meet standards would still exist, if God willed that I hate my neighbour.
So what's special about loving my neighbour?
God demanding that you obtain to his standard of good will result in one of two things. Either;
- you'll be convinced that you can't obtain to God's standard (don't worry too much how this manifests in practice to an as-yet-unbeliever) in which case you'll be faced with no option but to seek God's salvation. You will then be saved and God's loving desire regarding you (that you become a son of his) will be accomplished.
- you'll suppress God's attempt to convince you that you can't obtain to his standard and so won't meet that standard. And so you will be justly condemned for the wilful evil you have carried out. In which case God's wrathful desire concerning you and your wilful sin will be satisfied.
A result satisfying to God in both cases.
If God demanded that you hate your neighbour (by, for example, removing the constraint of conscience and leaving you to your capable-of-only-evil-only will) then you could neither be saved nor condemned. Not saved because you aren't righteous. And not damned because you had no option but to do that which God finds objectionable. Which would kind of miss the point of the exercise: that you get to chose whether to be a child of God or not.
-
Another problem arises too: Why is my will able to express itself independent of God's? Is it God's doing that this is so? In which case is it not true that expressing my will independently of God's will is by definition, good? Do we not simply end up in the position that all things are good?
Expressing you're will independently from God involves suppressing God's will regarding what you do. That isn't good. And penalties attach to that - eventually to be paid in full. It is good (obviously ) that God permitted you the potential to act contra his will - for it made possible for God's will to be done with regard to a greater goal. That he would have son's of God. In other words, without the potential that created beings turn finally from God, there could be no potential that created beings (some at least) turning to God and so becoming sons.
Consider it permitting the temporary existance of evil in order to achieve a greater good. With the temporary evil itself being cancelled out by the suitable punishement being executed at some point - cancelling it out as it were. Which is also good*.
And so all that remains is good.
-
* The general sense we have that evil be punished = good (leaving aside the problem of who's standard we apply) arises from our being made in God's image and likeness: his will is, in a sense, installed in us via conscience. And there is this general sense that what constitutes evil is, (as indicated earlier if comparing with good), that which involves greed, selfishness, pride.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Modulous, posted 12-31-2009 2:50 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-31-2009 3:30 PM iano has replied
 Message 156 by Modulous, posted 01-01-2010 12:18 PM iano has replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3939 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 145 of 181 (541097)
12-31-2009 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Taz
12-31-2009 2:34 AM


Passionate!
Taz writes:
Are you Richard Dawkins?
Regrettably no, but he and I are made of the same types of atoms, and we both descended from a common ancestor, so I like to think of myself as similar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Taz, posted 12-31-2009 2:34 AM Taz has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3091 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 146 of 181 (541112)
12-31-2009 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by iano
12-31-2009 11:07 AM


Perhaps it would help if you were to see goodness - the flavour of God - as pointless until such time as God decides to assign a point to it? Until then God is simply as God is - without there needing to be a point to it.
So you are going to obey a being in which is by nature arbitrary and from which we cannot discern what is right or wrong accept solely by whether he approves or disproves. Yes, I know you assume God is righteous/good but you really have no method to determine this except through circular reasoning.
Yet one point of goodness (in the sense of your dealing with the flavoutr of God) has already been furnished: it's use as a tool in the setting up of choice for us.
That is ridiculous and illogical. Goodness by your definition is an attribute of God, specifically his behavior. Therefore to say the purpose of goodness is to differentiate it from evil is like saying the purpose of the chocolate flavor of ice cream is to differentiate it from vanilla or the purpose of my blond hair is to differentiate it from brown hair. Saying it has a purpose or "is a tool in the setting up of a choice for us" implies that there is an even more fundamental principle that regulates goodness/evil that is more fundamental of God.
That different people have different moralities is neither here nor there: all men have a knowledge of good and evil (as defined by God) and all men suppress that knowledge in this way and that and to this degree and that as it suits them.
Really? So mentally handicapped people, children, elderly people suffering from demensia, those suffering from PTSD and the like (in other words nearly all humans on this planet) all have equal knowledge and comprehension of your stark black and white "good" and "evil"?
If we took a child and placed him/her in an environement in which social norms and right and wrong implications of there actions are not taught to them from birth, do you think they would have a very strong comptehension of good and evil, even if they call it something else? I think not.
If normally decent human beings can succomb to the pressure of social experimentation for short durations of time i.e. the Stanford "Prison" Experiment, it is not a stretch in the least to understand how much of our conscience is a result of social programming from birth, though I do believe "nature" (genetics) has a role in this as well as "nuture" (social programing after birth).
You might appreciate that it's not all that relevant that you can classify good and evil (as God sees it)
Your god in the Bible can't even maintain consistency with his own rules and regulations in the Bible much less any human alive or dead.
goodness has at it's source love. Love in this case being that which is selfless - truly selfless (agape).
This coming from a God who merciliessly and indiscrimanetly murders innocent children and others in the Bible while at the same time demanding people to bow down and worship him for eternity. If this is selfless I would hate to see a real selfish entity.
You see you think your religion is simple in its beliefs when in reality it is not when you dig into this fabrication. Life is not this simple. Morality is not this simple. Humanity is not this simple. It definately is not this monocrome good vs evil fairytale you make it out to be. It reminds me of politics where one side calls anyone that opposes them liberals, socialists and communists and the other side labels the other right wing extremists. This (both religious and political) is a cop out for thinking deeply and scientifically about subjects and trying to determine the true nature of things (what is reality) rather than painting everything with an absurdly broad brush of groundless assumptions and religious/political pandaring. As Jesus himself says "What is truth?".
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

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 144 by iano, posted 12-31-2009 11:07 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by hooah212002, posted 12-31-2009 4:17 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied
 Message 149 by iano, posted 12-31-2009 5:59 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied
 Message 155 by iano, posted 01-01-2010 11:51 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3091 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 147 of 181 (541116)
12-31-2009 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by New Cat's Eye
12-11-2009 4:20 PM


Catholics don't say that god is omnibenevolent.
We are taught that he is Just.
Just curious what you consider the difference is between the two and why would you worship and obey an all-powerful being that is not omnibenevolent?

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 109 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-11-2009 4:20 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-07-2010 4:32 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 792 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 148 of 181 (541118)
12-31-2009 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by DevilsAdvocate
12-31-2009 3:30 PM


If normally decent human beings can succomb to the pressure of social experimentation for short durations of time i.e. the Stanford "Prison" Experiment, it is not a stretch in the least to understand how much of our conscience is a result of social programming from birth, though I do believe "nature" (genetics) has a role in this as well as "nuture" (social programing after birth).
Wow. Thanks DA. I just read about this experiment and it was brutal. It kind of puts a whole new spin on this discussion, at least for me.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-31-2009 3:30 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1931 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 149 of 181 (541122)
12-31-2009 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by DevilsAdvocate
12-31-2009 3:30 PM


Devils Advocate writes:
So you are going to obey a being in which is by nature arbitrary and from which we cannot discern what is right or wrong accept solely by whether he approves or disproves. Yes, I know you assume God is righteous/good but you really have no method to determine this except through circular reasoning.
I haven't really got the zest to re-thread this old tyre for you DA. But one last mile .. okay?
One doesn't need a "method to determine" an a.k.a. And that's all that's been done by me with the word "good" - assigning it to a.k.a. "the flavour of God's doings", "God's will" and the like (depending on the particular aspect you want to examine). When you insert that meaning into the above; where you talk of good/right/righteous (all versions of the same notion: good), your objection becomes a nonsense.
"Good" has no other meaning to me outside the one applied. Yes, there are derivatives of God's will or the flavour of God's doings which are too called good: kindness, gentleness, generosity, etc. When we do these things is it because of the image and likeness of God in which we are made expressing itself - and being derivative of God's will, those attributes and actions are also known as 'good'.
And so there is no euthypro dilemma for me.
I've not got time to deal with the rest of your post now. Perhaps you could address the above and formulate a response in the light of this 'new' info.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-31-2009 3:30 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 181 (541125)
12-31-2009 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Teapots&unicorns
11-28-2009 2:50 PM


Teapots&Unicorns writes:
At this point, most theists would probably respond with the idea that "goodness is an essential part of God's nature." However, this is only moving the goalposts. For one thing, it is still circular (God is good because God is good) and, also, if God's nature was such (hypothetically) that genocide and torture were morally commendable, would you think that moral too? In addition, just because God is a certain way, how do you deem that "good"?
Hi T&U. Jehovah, the god of the Bible has been shown to be the supreme designer and creator of all. If you want to know how to repair or tune up your automobile, you have a manual from the designer/manufacturer/creator. The maker knows what is best for the created product to make it hum along efficiently and smoothly.
Take sexual sins, declared sinful in the Biblical record, for example. It is known that they all have adverse health problems which will be avoided by abstinence from them and adherance to the guidelines set forth in the Biblical record by Jehovah. As well we know of the social problems which are related to Biblically designated sexual sins.
The bottom line here has to do with whether there is a supreme designer and administrator of the universe. If it be so, the owner's manual which the designer/manufacturer/creator has made available is what determines what is moral in any given situation.
For the past 200 years it has served our nation well. For 64+ years since I became a Christian it has served me and mine extremely well.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 11-28-2009 2:50 PM Teapots&unicorns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by hooah212002, posted 12-31-2009 9:20 PM Buzsaw 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