Euthypro Dilemna

But if the definition of good used runs along lines such a good = pours from God's nature, good = what God does, God = what God wills/wants, etc. then there is surely no problem with the self-referencing? There would be no need to reference and external chart if, by definition, what God does is good.Suppose we insert the appropriate version of the definition (good = Gods will) into the sentence posited earlier."God killed the tribe because it was his will".God killing because he wanted to (as opposed to his being cornered into it, killing by mistake, killing by act of omission, etc) is a reason. We can't tell whether that reason was a whimsical one or not from this sentence. We can only say it is good. Per definition.- There are all kinds of standards we can hang our hats one. God's is but one and I haven't yet seen how his standard can be considered whimsical (given that the 'or' option in your original tribe killing condundrum hasn't yet been rendered). And if not choosing his standard you'll inevitably choose 'the whims of another'. We're all in the same boat in that regard: we choose what standard of good to hang our hats on. Ultimately, your standard of good is your own - taken no doubt from the menu of options laid before you.God's standard vs. your own personal one (that happens to agree with both God's standard and others peoples standard in places)I don't have to follow God's orders btw - indeed my not doing so won't even result in my damnation. I choose to try to follow his lead because I find his standard the best of all - and not at all consisting of his condoning rape, murder etc. as contortedly supposed in thread.- Fair enough, the above lays it out in some respects. I ask for your definition of good because I don't know what to insert when you speak of good/morality etc. Without a definition I can only insert a blank into the space.- We have seen that all God does is good per definition.- An element which raises no dilemma.- Lacking a definition for what you mean by 'good' I can't make head nor tail of this sentence. I've already pointed out that whimsy need not be behind Gods actions.You are not obliged to be a yes-man. You can also say No!. A No! answer (finally) attracts certain consequences.. as does a Yes! answer (God being entitled to attach consequences to our choices - indeed choice wouldn't be choice without them).There's little point in objecting "but if we say No! we'll go to Hell" given that Hell is but a consequence of the No! choice. You are not obliged to finally answer No! btw.So; Hell is a consequence effectively chosen by you - should you choose to continue saying No! I cannot see how one can object to receiving the consequences of one's choice.-Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I was dealing with the suggestion that it was God who was doing the instructing. Not an invisible man.Do try to walk a straight line on this will you?- Why not? I'm assuming you're back to it being God who tells me so. Not a delusion, not an invisible God, but the Creator of the Universe and everything in it. Why wouldn't do as he says - especially if I believe he is the goodest thing there possibly can be?- Hopefully by now you'll have decided who is supposed to be doing the talking to me God/belief/invisible man. Please inform me as to your decision.

I'm merely stalemating your point. If neither of us are in a position to say who a Christian is, then this particular arrow just sits there in your quiver awaiting a way to wend it's way to your bow.There's no need to read the link when the point can be stalemated outright. Apols for not clarifying this sooner.Certainly, that a person is a pastor doesn't necessarily count for a whole lot. You ever heard of cultural Christianity? There's a lot of it about.

The reality of my statement assumes your original IF condition to be true. If God said..Retract that IF condition (by muddling it up with all sorts of instruction-givers) and there is nothing left to deal with. If there's no IF, then there's no THEN.- I think you've just unravelled yours, to be honest.The topic itself has to do with a supposed dilemma, which has yet to be rendered as far as I can see.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Sure, but what you seem to be ignoring is that, in my response it is assumed that God has actually instructed me (hooahs original query asked "If God said..").In Hitlers case we don't know whether God actually instructed Hitler or not. All we have is Hitlers claim.So the two cases aren't comparable. All you seem to be looking at is the output - irrespective of the input. And measuring that output against your own notions of good/evil. You vs. God.There is, as already pointed out, no dilemma for me as a believer in plumping for Gods view of good and evil and not yours. I should add at this point that I think it extremely unlikely that God would ask any such thing. We're only dealing with a logical hypothetical and should bear that in mind. Logically hypothetically, cows can jump over the moon- Sure (and believers too, in so far as we don't conform to Gods' will). Good/morality/perversion - all are related to God-the-standard.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

The man falling from a tall building might not see he has a problem but that doesn't alter his having one. You are that falling man.That someone says they're a Christian doesn't necessarily mean they are. Otherwise the con-man knocking at the old ladies door telling her he's the gas man is a gas man.Why would someone lay claim to the title? Well perhaps they were brought up to believe that they met the criteria for being a Christian but those that told them so were in error? Perhaps they were wolves in sheeps clothing? Perhaps they liked the social/community aspects of Christianity and rowed in alongside.Someone can be genuine. But genuinely wrong.

quote:

---

"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

---

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

But we're all in the same defintional boat. You might call kindness good but have no way to knowing this to be true outside a definition which says "kindness is good".This dilemma was supposed to be a believers dilemma wasn't it?(I'm not sure what this has to do with Hitler vs. Me btw.)- The are not comparable because in the one case, God is assumed (for the sake of argument) to be talking to the person (me). In the other case, it is not known whether God is talking to the person (Hitler).Which means the possiblity exists for me killing my family to be Gods request of me and Hitlers killing of many not to be Gods request of him (despite his claims)Which means you're comparing apples and pears.- Fair enough. But the root of this dilemma ultimately rests on reference to a.n.other moral standard. And so the dilemma isn't really a dilemma, it's a matter of which moral standard do I choose.- There is no dilemma because good is defined in the way defined. Because I chose this definition - as opposed to other possible definitions (with an undefined concept not being a concept at all) I am free from having to involve any assumptions.The only interesting question - and one you seem to unconciously acknowledge in your argumentation in this thread - has to do with possible connections between what God considers good and what you consider good. In the meantime, your dilemma is that The Supposed Dilemma supposes a standard of good against which God need be measured as a check (but against which he cannot be measured if he himself is good).Which is truly Alice in Wonderland stuff!- I sure do. Although I cannot of course prove this. Not that it matters. I'm only suggesting it highly unlikely that God would ask me to kill my family. This, in order to indicate my opinion that there's not as much distance between your standard and Gods standard as you'd like to think.- Given that I fail to do things that God askes of me that would be far more simple to do than kill my family, I'm inclined to think that I wouldn't in practice. We're dealing with hypotheticals here you should bear in mind.But I'd have no moral issue with doing it (supposing I was certain it was God doing the asking). My not doing so would be the result of sin - in the case that I didn't.- And not according to you. Like I say, this is all about comparing standards. It's not about a true dilemma.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

We're not talking reality, we're talking for arguments sake. And for arguments sake God is doing the asking - not Satan/delusion or the invisible man. Therefore there need be no hesitancy, and certainly not remorse.- For the sake of argument God would have spoken to me (so says the poster who began all this). Whereas who spoke to Hitler is unknown. Potential apples and pears for want of further information.Thus the link: iano/Hitler cannot be made.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Fair enough. And that 'why?' would stem again from his nature. Looking at it simplistically (because apparent punishment isn't always punishment) we can say that consequences attach to choices and God killing the tribe delivers consequences for their choices. Why does God deliver the particular consequences attaching to particular choices? Well that would have to do with his nature:- that which acts 'anti' his nature (his nature lies behind the commands expressed us-ward) attracts consequence x.- that which acts 'pro' his nature attracts consequence yThere is no why about this anymore than there is a why about God's omniscience. It just is. What is being said that that which is pro God is defined as 'good' and that which is anti God is 'evil'.- The above should make clearer that he doesn't do it because it's good, he does it because it's his nature. And because his nature is good (by definition) it will automatically be moral (by definition).Where to now for this "dilemma"?- Indeed. He is a standard - that is the point. And all that remains is to compare what we call good (according to whatever standard we choose) to what he calls good to see whether our good meets his standard.If so, then consequences y for us. If not, the consequences x.- It's a subjective opinion. I think that if the world lived according to his standard (as I understand it) then the world would be heaven on earth. The fact that the world doesn't makes the world the way it is - other than heaven on earth. Now it might be that others like the world the way it is - I'm only telling you what I think.And please, for those so inclined (not you Mod - you're above this ) spare me the Hitler/God comparisons.- Whimsy will have been dispensed with above, to your satisfaction hopefully..- We'll have seen that morality derives from God and that everything he does is good. If he didn't tolerate sin at all it would be good. If he tolerated it forever it would be good.What are you not getting about him being the standard?- Without a definition of 'good' to go by I've no idea if that sentence makes even the slightest bit of sense. If good is defined as "jumping up and down excitedly" then I'm in 80's Japanese Instruction Manual Wonderland and agree to nothing of the sort.Isn't it correct to say that we are all assuming (even if silently) a certain definition of the word ' good'.I would say that God is good by nature. And that because he is good what he does is good. Tied up inextricably with that notion is God doing things because they are good(=in his nature to do)- Because God is the source of good this either/or distills down to a singularity where both are true. Similar to the redunancy of the question "which way is North" when standing at the North pole.- God says what the options that go are - indeed. We chose which of those options we want.- Then Hell would be empty.But seeing as it's not going to be, your analogy must contain a flaw. Let me suggest a possible (and plausible) reworking of it: a gun has been put to your head, but you don't actually believe it. So long as that is the case, do you suppose you'll retain possession of your money?And what it takes to maintain disbelief is choosing to suppress that which would bring you to belief (regarding that which would result in your salvation). Edited by iano, : No reason given.

The intention behind Gods law issued to man (especially effected through conscience) was to:a) restrain mankinds sinful nature from Total Expression - which, if not restrained, would result in self-inflicted carnage to a degree never before seen (but hinted at from time to time - especially in time of war). God has a plan regarding man and that plan requires man existing for more than the nano-second it would take to wipe himself out were it that he was not so restrained.b) convince man that man is a sinner. The law lets man know what is good and evil. Man can measure his own actions according to that law (and hopefully come to the conclusion about himself that God intended
him to come to - as a result of the law being issued). I mean, if there was no law, how could man know he does that which God hates?That's the purpose of the law issued to us. I see nothing in that that should restrain God from acting as he pleases regarding us.- I dunno about that. Murder is generally understood as an unrighteous killing. On what basis can God be said to kill unrighteously - he owns our life: gives it, takes it away again? Now if he promised unconditional life terminating in a natural death at 95 years of age .. and broke that promise, you might have a case.- The fruit eaten at mans fall also happened to contain the (potential) antidote to his falling: a knowledge of good and evil. Adam ate and received into himself a conscience.The written law only reflects that which is within man from the fall anyway. Witness Cains sulky, denying reaction to Gods query regarding Abels whereabouts. He knew he had done wrong. Even Adam and Eve were ashamed..- No, but they are allowed to rebut Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I agree. I'll skip past sub-ideas such as 'better = good', 'hurt = bad' which go to render "kindness=good" because they too rely on being simply defined so. Must we not finally conclude that "what is good" is something arrived as an expression our humanity and that even though there are individual variations in opinion, there is an overall agreement.We must now turn to the notion of man "made in the image and likeness of God" as ask whether our sense of good can't reasonably be connected to our being made so - assuming we are made so. Firstly God did share in our experiences. He walked the earth as a man.Secondly, what is good is, I argue, derived from mans humanity which is derived from Gods own nature. Man's 'experience' is merely a canvas which allows the painting of his humanities expression to take the form it does. Whilst the painting varies from time to time, the essential essence of it stays the same - as does his morality.I mean, man might have once held slaves and find that objectionable now. But he will still permit people to live in effective penury in order to ensure a constant supply of cheap clothing to flow in his direction.Once it was slavery unto cotton. Now it's slavery unto cotton clothing.- I haven't assumed that God wasn't insructing Hitler. I said the "possibility exists" that God wasn't instructing Hitler (whereas it is being assumed he was instructing me to kill my family). And so the comparison iano/Hitler is missing a vital componant. It's a narrow point.Granted, God could have hardened Hitlers heart in the way he did Pharoahs.I'd note that God hardening doesn't necessarily mean God is the prime mover in the subsequent calamity. A hardened heart is something required by someone whose desire is to do evil. See it as a peg on the nose holding back the stench. If someone is intent on functioning in a pigsty and God is an enabler of choice, then provision of a peg can be seen as part of that enablement.The persons choice is the prime mover in the subsequent calamity however. God is merely the enabler.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I'm not sure this rendering is the same as mine. "Good is that which is good" is a nonsense definition. It's like saying "a dog is that which is a dog". Whereas "good is that which God wills" isn't a nonsense definition. Like, you have to be able to attach some or other word to mean "that which God wills". And the word 'good' happens to be it.I'd feel a sense of dilemma with what you're proposing (it seems a nonsense). Whereas I don't feel any sense of dilemma with what I'm proposing (which is simply a definition)- This is a different dilemma in that it might not be known what Gods will is in the circumstances. And that dilemma could well be one I'd have to face. If Gods will was known however and it was (for instance) an assisted death, then the dilemma is resolved."The right thing to do is what God wills be done"
"And what would God will in this case?"
"That you assist your loved one to die as soon as is practical - that's the right thing."- If only that bolthole was left open to you.God says you have a knowledge of what he considers good and evil - which, if true, means you also have a way of discerning what's good and evil (irrespective of whether you believe that discernment is God-sourced or otherwise). And your response to that knowledge is posited as forming the basis by which your decision regarding God is made by you.- will you love the truth finally - truth as defined by God and discernible as opposing lies, also defined by God. If so, you will convinced by it and will be turned to God by it and will be saved.- or will you hate the truth finally. And stay turned from God and be lost.You don't need to believe in God in order to believe what God says to you about you.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

A dog is a four legged creature. A four legged creature is synonymous with a dog therefore we can substitute them and say a four legged creature is a four legged creature. Which is how you arrive at a nonsense definition.- The prime question being asked of you is: what do you choose to love ultimately, truth or lie / good or evil. What you choose to love in this time and space has eternal consequences attaching - eternal ice below the surface of a temporal iceberg.There is no need for you to be aware of all the ice below the surface in order that the direction of your love be chosen by you. All that's below the surface of either iceberg is more of the same. More of what you love in either case. You can have no complaints that the consequences of choosing to love either truth or lie is more of the same, eternally.You are not compelled to obey - because you don't believe there's a gun pointed to your head. There isn't really a gun pointed to your head in any case: you're being offered an eternity with the consequences of that which you love, whichever way that happens to go. You do have a choice as to what you set your heart on though - because you do know good from evil. And both good and evil have their enticements.You don't, like I say, need to know all the consequences of your choice in order to choose. Indeed, we never know all the consequences of our choices.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

And I thought the point would be made without having to be too rigorous..dog = animal with this (holds up genetic coding for all to see) genetic coding. This genetic coding is synonymous with dog - therefore I can substitute 'this genetic coding' for 'dog' and you get:this genetic coding = this genetic coding.That's a nonsense definition. 'God = good' isn't a nonsense definition, anymore than 'dog=animal with this genetic coding' is a nonsense definition.- Comparing to Gods standard of good/evil and right/wrong, your choice will always be the right one because Gods primary desire is that you choose what you truly want - even if that means rejecting him (or more properly, rejecting his love/accepting his wrath)Comparing to your own standard of right and wrong? Well, if choosing the path that leads to Hell (though strictly speaking, you're already on it) you'll likely find that you'd prefer not to experience those consequences once they are made fully evident. But those consequences wouldn't be the result of making the wrong choice, they would be the result of making the right (according to you) choice given the tip-of-the-ice-berg evidence available to you. Remember that there is tip-of-the-ice-berg evidence available to aid a choice for the Heaven direction too. But that of the two options (assuming equally balanced evidence for either direction) you choose Hell-bound. If arguing that the consequences for the Hell-bound direction should be made more apparent than they already are, you'd have to agree that the consequences for the Heaven-bound direction be cranked up also - in order to maintain balance of choice.Which leaves you back where you started. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Let me try a slightly different tack.Rather than speak of definitions, let me speak of a.k.a. (also known as). For example, one can hold up a concoction of ingredients and say that this concoction is also known as Coca-Cola. Similarily, God holds up Gods motivations, actions, nature, etc. and says these are also known as 'good'. Good is, in a sense, a trademark of God ("why do you call me good" said Jesus "only God is good") in that it's a word used to describe his attributes and actions.It's also a word used to describe actions of those of us who act in accord with Gods will (as as result of Gods influence). 'Good' produced under licence, as it were, by those made in the image and likeness of God.Would this resolve any dilamma which asks a believer how does he know God is good? If so, the question turns to what's left: how does what God sees as good relate to what man sees as good.- As pointed out, the information at your disposal is sufficient to provide a balance in your choice. If you were given more information on Heaven & Hell (in the sense that you actually believed in Heaven as Heaven is & Hell as Hell is) then your choice would be skewed to chose Heaven (naturally). Rendering that a non-free, skewed choice.Supposing that a primary concern, the right choice is the choice made under balanced conditions, irrespective of the totality of information available.