Euthypro Dilemna

A mere few posts, and I realize already that rational, logical thinking is lost on this chap. Hence why I cannot bring myself to respond to his mindless lunacy.Thanks T&U.

Any day, my fellow noodly-blessed friend.T&U

Hi T&ULet's take this back to the beginning. In the beginning God was. Then he created beings (angels & people) with a free will. One of them being lucifer. Now as such there is nothing right or wrong with pride (or "glorifying"). Lucifer gave glory to something that did not deserve it (himself). In that sense it was simply an incorrect thing to do. i.e. it was not the truth. So what is truth? It is not a moral as such. Telling the truth may be moral but as such truth just is. God is truth i.e. his reality is correct. A lie and the truth are always in confrontation just because of what they are. Basically everything immoral (or sin) is this type of conflict.Take murder for example. There is a conflict because we act as God if we take life. God is the one who gives and takes life. If we show pride and think that we know better than God then this is a lie. It is "incorrect". If God tells you to kill something then this is not incorrect because everything belongs to God therefore he is the appropriate authourity who can give and take away as he sees fit.So in essence sin is wrong because it does not reflect who God is. And because God is truth all sin is essentially a lie.So morals aren't decided by God or anyone else as such. Rather, they come as extension of what is true as opposed to being a lie.Hmm... This is not very easy to understand, but it is not an easy thing to put into words. Will keep on trying to find better ways of saying what I mean, but hope the above is helpful in the meantime.
Thanks,Arphy

Hi Arphy, glad to see a sane religious person who isn't trolling Ok. I'm good with that. Fun with the devil!...Ok, back to the response. Well, I see pride as all right but 'glorifying' just seems to me a step too far. I could see something as praiseworthy and respectable, but in need of glory? Not really. That seems like a Roman Emperor kind of mindset. Why did he not deserve it?
Did he stop glorifying God as well?
How do you qualify 'deserving'? Then what would be 'the truth' in this situation? I kind of get this and kind of not. I understand what you're saying about what is true being moral; however, I just don't feel that it is biconditional.
For example, I don't see how 'laws' as layed out in the bible can be 'truthful' or not. This is OT, but take the circumcision of males: how would that be 'truthful'? I was agreeing mostly with you until I got to that last sentence. I believe, as a humanist. that giving something does not give the ability to just as easily take it away. This especially the case when dealing with sentient free-willed creatures: Yes, you gave it to me, so thanks a lot, but could I please get on with what I have to do now?God's murder is the same as any other. How do you know that God is always correct? If something belongs to a sentient, thinking individual then it is always wrong to take something of theirs, whether you made them or not.Imagine thinking robots...
Yup, I don't think that you would agree with the principle of 'I give and I take away' in that case- a double standard. How do you know God is truth?
What is truth for you?
Is truth universal and objective? No problem Arph- happens to the best of us.T&U

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.

Troll. Of course I am a Troll. You have so spoken. I dub thee Jack The Egyptian Ass.Please. Do call a mod. I would like to see of a mod would agree with you. You will no doubt be filled with joy at this: if the mod is as blind as you are, then I will make my account inactive and leave. Happy?
Tell me, if you broadcast that someone is a Troll, and the mod finds that you were wrong, misrepresenting what I said, do you get banished for a while instead? I would like to know. Perhaps they will play politics and ban us both. What do you think? I think in that case I will stay. Sorry.Take note of the following, if you wish.Post 27 was aimed at Stile. Do you perhaps have 2 logins?
Post 28 was aimed at hooah212002. Do you perhaps have 3 logins?Some of my responses were to those people, specifically. Making as if they were aimed at you as well is ridiculous. Unless you completely agree with them... ...then they do. Enjoy, Jack.Post 27. Me reacting to being labelled horrific & smelly; reacting to what could be easily construed as a threat to actually notify the police that I am a ‘crazy-hater’ (in these wonderful days of hate-crimes/thought-crimes.) Note that this reads as a statement of intent to act, since I have clearly stated that I do no think that other people matter: ‘as a matter of logic’ being the caveat. There are no obvious indicators that this is a joke. So as far as I know, my posts have been noted with the FBI (or whatever the relevant legal entity is.)
Technically I would argue for a life-long ban for making a statement like that. Wouldn’t you? Or are you also too damn stupid to distinguish between an abstract argument and a statement-of-intent-to-do-harm? I assumed that the relevant knuckle-head was kidding. So I let it slide. I really should not, but what can I do? What are my alternatives? Contact the FBI and ask them if I have been reported-on? Do you think I could complain to them if so? Don’t you just love big-government?
Do you see my... problem... yet, Jack. Just how calmly am I supposed to react to this sort of thing, Jack. I think I did amazingly well, Jack.
Oh dear, but YOU have to go and call in the mods. Because I was a widdle bit nasty. YOU declare that I am a Troll... why, because you feel like it.
Little. Child.But let me continue.Stile, in my opinion, did not get my point. (You did not get it either.)
Desire is not Reason. Desire has sweet blue nothing to do with it.
I am not saying WHAT kind of evil would occur: that would depend on the individual demoniac. I am not even saying that evil necessarily WOULD occur.
A.1) Observe that there is no direct link between any two humans.
A.2) Logic dictates: GIVEN that there is no binding reason to care about other humans in the slightest, it follows that:
A.3) Conclusion: Do what you want. (Good and evil are irrelevant.)A.3. should inevitably lead to evil. Or what is called evil by most people, most of the time. Which is the sum total of my point: a Gate, if you will, through which evil may pour.
(A minor implication of this is then: An atheist may not lay claim to both rationality and ‘goodness.’)Care to explain to me how ‘desire’ is a requisite of the above? This is not an issue of emotion, it is an issue of logic. Do you get my point(s) yet? Or are you skimming again?So. If you do not mind, I am not going to ‘Prove Desire.’ If you do mind, note that I do not care. I could be cute and call your ‘requirement’ an excellent example of a strawman, but I think your intentions were probably worse that merely that. (So why call you something better than what you are.) What is annoying, how your misreading (lets be nice for a moment) leads to calling me all sorts of fluffy and loving things.=Post 28 was a response to: Was this deserving of a response better than the one I gave? Really?
a) Yes. Deep. Oh the depth of this response to the central point of my little posting. It overwhelms me little mind.
b) you Christians. Minor insult. I asked for it. Although ‘waiting for the theists’ did not predispose me to niceness.
c) We are only classified as such... Missed the point completely. I mean, REALLY completely.
So us christians are scum. Fine. So. hooah212002, You are scum! Neener.Also, given how hooah212002 responded to me (see ‘a’ above), how do you justify calling my You are attempts at humour (given the rationale-less 'Yes') Trolling? You are REALLY starting to annoy me, by the way. Who the damned Hell are you? Big Brother? Judge of All? Twit? (So hard to decide...) * * You are wrong. Minor point. You could at least have done a word search before effectively claiming that I am inventing/lying. That is the problem I have with forum rules on this site: you can smear me, and claim misunderstanding. You can do similar things, several times, and I am not allowed to call you a dishonest liar. That really sucks.You would call these two brights reasonable poster(s). Interesting. I do not see how that is possible, but what do I know. Maybe you just have really low standards. Or maybe your idea of ‘reasonable’ has ethically evolved into a new kind of moral equivalence via your vast insight and intellect.=====I am not going to address all the points you raised. None of them really matter, anyway, since you made several miss-judgements.=Defining good & evil.
This has never been done. Demanding that I do is dishonest: unless it seemed as if I attempted to do so, of course. If it came across like that, then kindly note that that was not my intent.
When I use the terms, I use them as they are used generally: rape, bad; saving life of drowning kiddy at risk of own life, good. More than that, I do not know. Neither do you: so kindly do not pretend some great wisdom on this subject. Asking stupid questions is not smart. Why would you assume that I speak for all Christians? Or even that I serve as a rough example of a ‘good’ one? Given that I embrace a label like ‘heretic’, given that I hate churchies, given my general demeanour, what could possibly justify you making such a statement?
Q: You might have asked why I do not care if that person goes to Hell or not.
A: We little maniacs are commanded to spread the gospel. That has been done. After that, the ball is not in my court. Freedom of choice. Did you note my use of the word ‘fool’? That has a specific biblical context in this case, by the way: something about: No, God, Heart, Fool.
I do not care if you go to Hell or not, either. Why should I?Goodness removal of God’s free will...
Blah. Semantic-definition games. God made Hell. He made Heaven. He saves and He destroys.
You assume God does not exist, therefore you feel validated in playing games with words. I know he does exist (as much as anyone can, I guess), so I feel validated in not having a clue. Someday I will know. You will never know. My opinion on this (good) is stated a paragraph or two above this one. (Strawmen? May I ask for clarification on this? I have no idea what you are talking about.)
I’ve been through this kind of pseudo-rationality before. Took me a while to realize that it is a simple excuse to avoid having to answer questions. Keep it up, and I will label you an intellectually dishonest liar; and start insinuating so repeatedly: unless you can properly describe how my argument convoluted and lacking in substance. Then we can talk. (Annoying, isn’t it? Condescending, isn’t it?)
Oh! I am SO overwhelmed by your awesome BRAIN! Ohhh! I could just FAINT!
Do you have any idea how silly you come across as, dude? At least my poopyness is upfront. Perfect ignorance on the subject. I mean, you really have absolutely no clue. Ah, the silly philosophy argument. The one where the speaker sounds wise and intelligent, experienced in the ways of talking poopy (which is true.)
So you call me, in effect, stupid (speaking globally of all the posts.) Say that, in effect, my crazy ramblings are incomprehensible. But that you, the wise one, have granted them a glance and found them wanting. Well, you certainly are an evolutionist! I do not think you missed a single of the classics. (Actually I think you did, but I am not in the mood to waste more time on this part of your drivel, Jack.)
Sigh. Did you even try, a teeny bit, to grasp what I meant when I said that? Is it an 'argument' to state a highly obvious fact that there is no DIRECT link between humans? Is it? And the simple logic step based on that: does that qualify as being an 'argument'? Does it? I think not. Both are too simple, too basic to granted such august terminology. That is, of course, a matter of opinion. Words are only words, and you are free to name things as it makes you happy. Condescending.
Yes I am. Unlike you lot, I did actually slog my way through the whole business of finding out which God is the correct one, with all that that journey entails, devils and all.
I fail to see why I should respect your opinions on something which you have only a vague semi-academic interest in. Is this not rational? Is it not generally accepted that the opinion of a scientist (in a given area) trumps that of someone who is not? How is this different? I’ve been there. I’ve bled there. You couldn’t care less. I refuse to grant you, or anyone like you, equivalence on this.
Technically, Jack, YOU are being condescending for not granting that I might just not be a crazy incompetent liar: which alone could justify your placing an equivalence between us on this.
Boo. Hoo.
You see, I really do not care about a whole lot of things, like if Satan is the greatest power or not. (I really would quite happily start with the butchering if that was indeed the case.) Once I realized that supernatural things existed, I went and looked to see if ‘God’ existed. I really tried to do it right. In this, I am radically different from the churchies: Mystic and Heretic, I am called.
Am I proselytizing? Not my intension. (Like I’ve said: I do not care about you.)
So. I care, you do not. Period. Relatively speaking, of course: that was implied, I thought. Silly me. Strange that no matter how I try and cover most things, there is always wiggle room for ‘inventiveness’ by people like you.
Oh. TO THE MOD: please note how Jack took my ‘condescension’ on one very specific issue and, unfairly, generalized it: is this not a clear-cut case of misrepresentation? Note also how similar this was to the other instances where the specific magically goes over into the general. Are these not every one misrepresentations?
I would also, should a Great Judgement occur, like to have a judgement on the fairness of Jack calling me a Troll. I, the idiot, call you: Moron.
Oh. And suffix: Condescending. (It sounds better that way... kind of technical, wouldn’t you say?) Do you seriously consider calling what I said proselytizing. Wow. And ‘allow’, no less. Super-Wow. You really do have incredibly low standards. If this is what you consider an example of Trolling, then you are a silly little person. Ah. Preparing for the Summoning of the Mod. Cute.
If my take on evil is correct, then the dilemma folds. Is that not on topic? Yes or No. When the other two Blind Ones either said nothing of relevance, and/or got what I was trying to say completely wrong (like you), is talking about that off-topic? Yes or No. A question. Given how annoying I find your statement, right now, am I allowed to respond in kind? Would you like me to curse your children? I can try, if you want. Hey, that sort of thing worked when I was a Satanist: maybe I’ll catch the Lord on an off day. Care to tempt me? You may have deduced that I am not kidding.
Or is a threat of, as far as you are concerned, imaginary violence requested from the Living God, the most Terrible Being in existence, frowned upon? Should I rather start adding-in demeaning comments on your children? (Fairness. You go after mine, so I go after yours. The Pretties are quite nice in this regard: I am not.) Would you perhaps prefer that instead? Please state your preference in this matter: I aim to please.
Otherwise perhaps a mod would like to comment on this: because know this, if people are allowed insults like this, then I WILL respond proportionately. It is only fair. This follows from the main point: that is why I said it. That should be clear. But you ignore the main point. So how do you propose I ‘prove it’? Strawman, much? Or does this travesty of logic have a fancy name of some kind. (Note: Feel free to post in whatever language makes you happy. Persoonlik dink ek dat al daai tik wat jy rook het you bietjie baie opgefok, boetie-boy: jy het die siel van 'n tik-hoer.)Off topic, but you asked:
ToE = 'science.' Ha. Scam is more like it.
a) Adaptive molecular evolution has never been proven (non trivially). Not even in the lab. Amazing, that. Oh, and keep the little 'it is too slow to see' nonsense: you lot only have to demonstrate the tail-end of the event. Ah. But how does one define 'event.' Why, track molecular change, base by base, and show how something... wonderful... came into being. Of course, non trivially. Would you settle for, oh say, 10 bases? 5? Too many? Dude, this could be settled in a lab... oh wait, all those ClimateGate scientists LIED... And the Great-Herd-Of-Scienists stood idly by... Oh dear. The over-view of your experiments have just become a nightmare...
b) The magnificent way in which the hypothesis which was chosen to fit the data (markov, etc.)... is proven by the fitting the data to the Hypothesis. Awesome science.
c) the towering dishonesty of conflating under "descent with modification"::
c1) specie adaptation to environment via allele freq. shifts.
c2) virus & bacteria acquiring genes from their environment.
c3) adaptive molecular evolution
c) ... and then screaming that 'evolution has been proven'. Of course it has. It has been defined so as to be true. c1 and c2 are easy. c3, the actual crux, remains as magic: 'proven' because 'evolution has been proven.' Would it be against forum rules to call the evolutionary scientists of the world deceiving bastards?
d) The amazing dishonesties you allow among your own: there are several on talk.origins: just two are: 'fact of evolution' misrepresentation; the way 'multiple-proofs' of the tree-of-life is stated as, rather than an increase in the power of the shape of the tree.
e) there is more, but I haven't cared about this for a few months now, so I cannot exactly recall. What does it matter anyway.Oh. And the fallout of ClimateGate are not ramblings. That the whole peer-review process collapsed so badly for climate-sciences, showing how, more than anything, ideology corrupted the science, will mean, logically, that you lot will not be able to use arguments like ">99% of scientists said" ever again. The presumption of functional self-governance was gifted to the sciences. And they sodomized it. So now it is gone. You see, all those hordes of religious idiots you (and I, but for different reasons) so despise, still had a basic trust in your general integrity. What they gave, they will take away. Perhaps they will even start chopping again... ah, those were the days :-)
I may be one of the first to point this out to you all, but that wave is coming in, sometime not too distantly. Surfs up, boys and girls, and them retard sharks are ticked-off.I could go on a bit more: 'needs' not being part of the logic involved. Etc. Etc.
Since none of you feel like responding to the actual point I've made, this is a waste of time.
Should someone wish to respond sensibly, feel free. But what are the odds of that happening. Another of those great lessons in life: the truism of 'liberals will never argue the point.'

Silly mortal. I am confused. Am I expected to respond to this? You have wildly misinterpreted what I said. Very wildly. Surprisingly wildly. Very, very wildly.
Easy to be silly. Show it to be true? I do not get your point. Pain. Hunger. Crack-addiction. Hardwired.
Oh. That old trick. Hello, BluJay Jnr. Sorry, I already try and go into hyper-detail when I post: but there are limits to that - if you wish to pretend not to understand even the relatively trivial, then knock yourself out. Thank you for the offer. But I do have to mention that I really hate your god. You know, Satan the lord of all fools.Blah. Blah.
My point. You. Missing In Action. Of course I am incoherent. You say so. Your Evo-friends say so. You all say so together.
Still doesn’t make you right. It just means that you are a mindless herd of Blind Ones.
I find your statement ironic. And quite amusing. Normally I would not care enough to enjoy your continued mis-comprehension, but I’m feeling very evil today.
Tell me, whatever will you do when you realize you’ve blindly mis-read what I wrote? Admit to it? Or continue to call me in-coherent? Or find something else to nit-pick on... that is your plan, right BluJay Jnr? I bet options 2 & 3. Unless someone else says: Oh. I get your point. But what about...Let me tell you what I told BluJay. If you want to reason, fine. If you start playing debate games, then I will ignore you. Likely, all your little friends will then retaliate in a like manner. Go ahead. Have I really tried to be fascinating? Acted like it, no less. I try and infuse humor into what I write: for that look of fascination in your eyes... I leave to the Lord for when He comes to kill you. I’m guessing you will be... riveted.
I am old and fat. I am sure you can run very fast. I liked the Death Wish approach to this situation. It was funny as hell. Now run along. Scoot. (Now where did I put Wildey...)

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 was simply a quote from Life of Brian; geez. Don't be so quick to take offense at a joke.Stile, don't waste your time. You've seen how he's just ignoring everything we say. Maybe some more intelligent theists will come along.T&U

---

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

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!!

Rule #10: Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.Although I have not been summoned, I do peruse. AChristianDarkly,Please refrain from creative and direct insults. Cut the extraneous commentary. If this is your attempt at humor, I suggest you stop. Not all humor comes through well in a written medium. Your humor is one of them. All Participants,Please stick to the topic, argue the position and not the person, and please stifle the insults. Since this is the Faith and Belief Forum, please maintain a respectful demeanor when referring to the faith or lack of faith of another.Thanks
AdminPDEdited by AdminPD, : Typo

---

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

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.

Sorry about the long absence, work keeps me pretty busy until the weekends. To get back on-topic I am going to rebutt Iano's earlier arguments below: Understood, but you are not addressing the core of the Euthypro Dilemma. Whether God wills 'good' to happen or commands 'good' to happen is irrelevant to the actual source of goodness. The question is, does 'goodness' exist independently of God or not. If it exists independently than God is not the ultimate source of goodness. 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 therefor we would have no moral backing to call these acts by God 'evil'. That is the gist of the Euthypro Dilemma. Why is this nonsense?I am not trying to prove the definition of God=good. I assume that you as a Christian already believe God=good. What I am doing is showing that by using this proposition you cannot say that God=good because you have no method for determining whether Godactually equals good or not. In other words you have no way of defining goodness seperately from the definition of God. It would be like saying Bob is a good guy because Bob is a good guy. It makes no sense. You have no way of determining whether Bob is good because you automatically assume he is good without the means or ability to use a standard to measure whether he was good or not.The standard of goodness either lays with your god or it does not. If not than the logical source for the standard of goodness lies with man himself and therefore we can use man’s standard of morality to judge whether or not your god is good or not based on man's general definition of goodness. You don’t even have to pull yourself up to his level. You have no standard to measure whether God is good or not other than God himself, which leads to circular reasoning. The question becomes why do you believe that (whatever event, behavior, thought or act) is evil just because he views (whatever event, behavior, thought or act) as evil? It matters not how greed is defined if you view anything that God says is good or evil. He could say putting on lipstick is evil and you would have to call it evil because he says so. You as a Christian have no choice in what he determines good or evil much less rationalizing why something is good or evil. Those who do not ascribe to God as the source of all morality are not bound to these restrictions and can determine what is good or evil based on human collective norms, values, ethics etc. Now you are just substituting word’s like positive for good. This does not get you off the hook on how can you determine whether God or his actions/behaviors are 'good' or not. You have no method for determine whether something is good or evil other than stating whether something is approved or disapproved by God. If God calls slavery, murder, or any other (fill in the blank) atrocity, good or acceptable you do to no matter what if you believe God is the source of all goodness. See how So now you are using man’s morality to judge God’s behavior. That is precisely the point I am trying to make. By your own ambition, implied or otherwise here, it is impossible to prove whether God’s actions are good or not without using an outside standard. In this case a human one. Of course not because human standards are relative and mutable (capable of being changed), while your god’s are supposedly not. Or that the morality of all of religion’s supernatural gods are a projection of man’s own system of morality. Yet it does. Actually no, all we have to do is look in the Bible at all the references of your God and see if his moral standards, commands and behavior are consistent or not. In many people’s opinions including mine, they are not, though I know you disagree. However, this would require a separate thread to discuss this fully. Says who? Unsubstantiated opinion. Unsubstantiated opinion. You make this too easy. By the definition you give above taking something that doesn’t belong to us, I could find many examples where even you would not consider wrong i.e. picking up a wallet dropped by someone on the street, finding a lost child, etc. These acts just described are not wrong. It is what is done after these initial acts that determine whether they are socially acceptable (‘right’) or not (‘wrong’).Also what about police, military and other authorities confiscating (‘stealing’ according to your definition) property of criminals and other people on the wrong side of the law?What about a child or adult in a 3rd world country stealing food and water to survive or keep their families alive?What about stealing away pets, children and property from other people to prevent those people from abusing them or themselves? How does this figure into your black and white, right or wrong view of God’s law? So if God tells you (or the Israelites) to murder their neighbors, that is acceptable? Yet many times (though not always) in the Bible God directs others to do his dirty work for him i.e. Israelites kill children and babies of other ethnic groups. Yet, according to you this is ok because God can do whatever the hell he wants without question. You find nothing wrong with God killing innocent children and babies, advocating slavery and even selling your children as sex slaves? Like I said before we can compare our socially accepted behavior to those ascribed to your god in the Bible to determine whether they are 'acceptable' i.e. 'good' or 'not acceptable' 'evil. Actually it is the other way around. The nonbeliever can say why your god is not good based upon his own human derived standards. The believer cannot. He has no standard to independently verify whether his god is good or not . Reveal how? By what means? Meaning you have no way of defending your position. You automatically assume God=good with no method to rationally defend this position. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.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

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

Understood. This is the definition most Christians and many other religious people would ascribe to. Rgr, understood. Agreed. Let's move on shall we. 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? By the way the behavior of a fame of a candle flickering in the breeze is not arbitrary as it is ultimately dictated by the physical 'laws' of the universe. True he could be, but consistancy does not define whether something is good or evil. However, based on the stories of the Bible I would have to disagree that your Christian god of the Bible is consistant in very much except in being inconsistent. Yes, I agree, using this horn of the dilemma would demonstate what you just said. Here is a good investigation of the word dilemma: So the difficult choice aka dilemma, in the Euthyphro Dilemma is in trying to determine how goodness is derived from a 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.Of course the easy way out is to say that God is not the source of all goodness or that God does not exist in the first place and that our system of morality is derived from humans themselves. 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. By your definition, not mine. Agreed.Therefor 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?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