Euthypro Dilemna

No, of course not. Not only just morals, though, He's really not required for anything at all. If you can show me a single thing that God is actually required for, I'd be very interested.In fact, saying "God is the perfect embodiment of ..." anything at all (morals, virtues, good...) actually reduces that ideal. That is, whenever an action is referenced as being "from God," it is always possible to think of an action that would be a bit more loving or good or whatever. In which case, either God is not a perfect embodiment of those ideals, or He is a perfect embodiment of lesser ideals.For example:God sacrificed His only Son so we could be "saved" or "have eternal life" or whatever...But, how is this perfect?There are greater sacrifices... sending His only Son while not being able to resurrect Him would be a greater sacrifice. Or resurrecting Him in 3 weeks instead of 3 days would have been greater.Or, God could have found a way to "save" us without requiring the need for a sacrifice at all. This would be a better embodiment of Love.Either way, there are always better, or more "perfect" options that can be thought up.This is likely because the stories about God are man-made. Obviously it is easy to think up more pefect options to human-created stories... and this is what we see. If the stories are divinely inspired, why is it so easy to think of more perfect options that could have been taken? If God was restricted into taking these less-than-perfect options (perhaps they're 'the only way it can be done') we're left with wondering what's restricting a perfect God? In which case, again, we have God being restricted by things that would not restrict the ideals (virtues) themselves.With what we know of God from the Bible and from people who profess to know Him... it's just plain silly to claim God as a perfect anything.Obviously, in regards to the Euthypro Dilemma... I don't feel there is a dilemma at all because I don't feel that there is a God at all. Therefore, I would answer that God does what is Good because there is a greater Good that God answers to... the ideals of the virtues themselves.This, actually, makes God an honourable and worthy-of-respect God.The only way to earn an intelligent being's respect is to show that you are capable of adhering to the same rules/regulations/morals/laws that they hold respect for.If God adhere's to the same morals we find respectful, then we will respect God. It's the actions of choosing to defend and stand for something that is more than ourselves which earns respect. If there is nothing that is "more than God" then it is impossible for God to earn respect.If God is the source of the morals we find respectful, then God is only capable of doing those things which we find respectful. Therefore (as Taz has mentioned) God doesn't actually make any decisions. God becomes a mere zombie following whatever it is we find respectful. There is no honour or respect for such a being.

Please disregard the following post. I got confused with what hooah212002 said and made a boo-boo. I'm arguing a straw-man here, this isn't what he was talking about.Actually, read on, I shall leave my shame here for all to see!(hooah212002 was talking about God not answering to anyone, not God being perfect). In response to that I completely agree with Him that anyone who believes in the Abrahamic God certainly has a dilemma to consider.)--------------------- Funny. I'd say that if you actually think God is perfect, then it is you who isn't thinking of the Abrahamic Lord and have created your own personal God. Have you read the Bible? The old testament is full of God making mistakes and rash decisions. The new testament contains a more thoughtful and spiritual-related God, but still far from perfect.The thought of a perfect God is nothing more than immature religious leaders running away with a My Dad is Bigger Than Your Dad complex."Perfect" is such a subjective term that it's impossible to meet anyway. Perfect in what? I guarantee you that a God you think is perfect is not a God that I will find perfect or a God that many other people will find perfect. The idea of a perfect God is so obviously immature and human-created, I can't believe so many people actually take it seriously.If you think a perfect God can make perfect choices, please provide a situation from the Bible (or anywhere else that is attributed to God) where you think God made a perfect move. I guarantee you that I can think of some other thing God could have done that would have been "better."Edited by Stile, : Whoops, got carried away My apologies to hooah212002

Your entire arguement begins and depends upon this statement: ...which is incorrect. Unless you can explain why this must be so?I am a given person, I am not actually connected to any other, yet plenty of other people "matter" to me. I do not understand why you think other people don't matter?Whether other people matter or not is a subjective decision we all must make.
Some religious people only think other people matter because some deity tells them that it should be so. Personally, I find such a moral basis to be horriffic and kinda smelly.
I am quite capable of making the subjective decision that other people matter on my own. Although it can be explained through instinctual grounds (survival of the group is good for the individual...), such an explanation is unnecessary. I am intelligent enough to make this subjective decision on my own. I subjectively choose to have other people "matter" because that's what I want.Really, that's all that's required.Besides, if someone doesn't want other people to matter, then I don't want to live with them as a neighboor. That's why we've created laws and jails and police and such.Unless you can show how your above statement must be true, your arguement is a failure. And kind of a scary statement about your own morality. I think I'll have the police keep a close eye on you if you don't think other people matter.

So you agree that your arguement holds no merit? Good.It was your contention that other people do not matter, and that this would rationally lead to atheists being selfish, evil losers.I agreed that if your contention was right, then your conclusion would rationally follow.But, I showed how your contention was wrong, and therefore, your conclusion was wrong as well.And now you agree with me that your original contention was wrong, therefore agreeing that your conclusion is also wrong.Thanks, that was the easiest debate ever. A bit confusing why you gave up so easily on your original contention, but I'll take the win. I need it, I don't get many. Can you show this to be true? I don't think you can. Scientists cannot, anyway.It may be true, and for the puposes of showing how you're wrong I'll grant that it is true. 'Cause it doesn't make a difference.Even if I am hardwired to matter most to myself, as I said in my last post, I am intelligent enough to overcome this hardwiring and make my own subjective decisions about what is important to me.Perhaps you are not intelligent enough to overcome your natural hard-wiring. I don't think all humans are. It doesn't take much though, really, I'd guess that over 90% of humans in the G7 (advanced) nations are quite capable of acquiring the necessary level of intelligence. But if you're not quite there yet, don't worry, I'll pray for you. It only must be that way to have your conclusion rationally follow. I agree with you that it doesn't have to be that way, and it isn't, in which case, your conclusion is invalid. Thanks, again, for making this debate easy and bowing down like a gentleman. Your utter defeat is taken kindly. However, I'm not a gentleman, so I will sneer a bit and act with a slight air of superiority. Your mother is a hamster and your father smells of elderberries. Of course it is, all subjective decisions are irrational. I told you I made a subjective decision in my previous post. There doesn't exist any objective basis to make a rational decision. It's impossible, unless you have some verifiable objective information to show otherwise? No absolute moral code has ever been identified. And, since morals are obviously subjective, none likely ever will. We all have to decide for ourselves if we want to be good people who care for others, or bad people who don't care for others. Our priorities are set subjectively and irrationally, at the very basic level, anyway.However, once we make that decision, it most certainly is rational to live that way.I'll take your inability to make any coherent sense as an acknowledgement that you're not intelligent enough to overcome your own monkey-ancestral hard-wiring. But please try to focus and absorb what it is we're talking about. The difference between subjective and objective is something that hopefully you too can understand. One day. I'm not going to hold my breath, but I'll send you good thoughts, I promise.I can run faster than you, so please don't act like you're capable of anything fascinating in your next post.Fetchez la vache.

Yes, you are expected to defend that which you propose. Let's see what you originally said: So, your contention is that other people do not matter, and that this would rationally lead to atheists being selfish, evil losers.Then you say: Which is an admittance that people actually do need other people. That is, they certainly do matter.It's what you said, no one is making anything up. So yes, you are expected to respond. And yes, you are expected to show that what you say is actually true. You are expected to defend your proposal. This may be a foreign concept for you, but this is how the real world works. If what you say is nothing more than words, then it isn't worth the monitor it's displayed on.So far you've made a claim.
Then you contradicted your own claim and took it back.
Now you're wondering if you should have to explain yourself?I suppose you don't have to, I'm perfectly fine leaving things where they are, I'm not the one with his pants around his ankles...

It's not a waste of time if it's fun
Besides, I don't get to passive-aggressively insult other members because they all tend to deserve respect.I am, however, sad to be a part of drifting the topic away from what it is supposed to be - the Christian Dilemma of where Good comes from. Which is a very good topic. It's thinking of such things as this dilemma that began my walk away from man-made Christain dogma and towards reality.Does God create Good?
Does God follow Good?Does it matter?I think it does matter. And I think it's very important that God must follow Good and not create Good.As soon as anything creates or constructs "Good"... then we lose the core element of what Good really is.Good is subjective and knowable. It is impossible to create Good because it is so dependant on how different people react.Let's say God creates a simple Good thing - it is good to open doors for other people when they are in a hurry and you're right there to do so and help them out.
Sounds fantastic, right?But what about the blind-man who's in a hurry?Likely, he'll love it that you held the door open for him.But, what if he's in a hurry, and also is fed-up with everyone always trying to help him out and he just wants to do some things for himself because everyone always seems to "take pity" on him, which can be very condescending.You open the door for that fellow, and it is not a good thing.Good things depend on the reactions of the people that are affected.It's quite possible that the very same action is good for one person and yet bad for another.Like hunting seals in Northern Canada.Good for those who's lives depend on the market.
Bad for those who's heads are up their asses and think seals are too cute to allow a human to get food and shelter... as if there are alternative methods in the frozen tundra.Exact same single action, good for one person, bad for another.As soon as God (or any other being) creates good they actually do the very opposite. They remove Good from what it really is, they cripple Good, they are against Good.Part of what Good is, is the freedom of being defined by the intelligent beings who are affected by others' actions. When you remove that freedom, you destroy Good. Arphy's already here! I don't want to insult our other theists though... saying our other theists are more intelligent than AChristianDarkly is like saying a shard of glass is sharper than jello. Boo-yah!!

The core of this arguement (that, logically, atheists should be evil) has nothing to do with the topic of this thread (Euthypro Dilemma involving whether Good comes from God or is a standard that God also follows).So, I've responded to you in Message 21 in another thread where it is more on-topic (Problems with Atheism).Feel free to drop on over and reply in that other thread whenever you get a chance.