Atheist Dialog 1: Euthyphro Dilemma

[Sir Pwn4lot]

Hey guys,

I'm an Agnostic Atheist who came here to ask you about your religion. I'm trying to improve my answers to Christian's questions so I would like to know all the objections to the argument layed out below. Thanks.

Dialog 1: The Euthyphro Dilemma

Socrates was standing outside the courthouse (on charges of Atheism and impiety) and saw a man named Euthyphro.

He asked him: "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" basically this means: "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"

If you choose the first proposal; God only commands what is already moral. independent of him, then you have admitted that God is just as bound by morality as his creation; morality is something that he didn't create.

if you choose the second proposal; whatever God commands is by definition moral, then morality becomes arbitrary, because it is defined as whatever God feels like doing. In this way morality becomes arbitrary (Or at least as arbitrary as you claim the Atheist's morality is)

The fact that neither can be true for an omnipotent being who created everything (ie; God) is a refutation of the concept of objective morality from a theological standpoint, and in a more important sense, of the concept of God itself.



Thanks guys. I'll look forward to some responses.

 

[Free]

It's a false dilemma.

 

[Sir Pwn4lot]

It's a false dilemma.

You're gonna have to go into more detail than that, at least provide an alternative.

 

[Free]

It's a false dilemma.

You're gonna have to go into more detail than that, at least provide an alternative.

God's nature is what determines what is morally good.

 

[Sir Pwn4lot]

It's a false dilemma.

You're gonna have to go into more detail than that, at least provide an alternative.

God's nature is what determines what is morally good.

And God's nature is what exactly? I would define someone's nature as what they would or wouldn't do. For example, it's in the nature of a violent bank thief to shoot people.

In this way it's simply a restatement of the second side of the dilemma; "Good" is what is in God's nature and God's nature is goodness.

 

[Free]

And God's nature is what exactly? I would define someone's nature as what they would or wouldn't do. For example, it's in the nature of a violent bank thief to shoot people.

In this way it's simply a restatement of the second side of the dilemma.

By God's nature I mean his essential properties. His nature is the good.

The real problem comes when the atheist asks himself where moral goodness comes from, what defines what is good.

 

[Sir Pwn4lot]

And God's nature is what exactly? I would define someone's nature as what they would or wouldn't do. For example, it's in the nature of a violent bank thief to shoot people.

In this way it's simply a restatement of the second side of the dilemma.

By God's nature I mean his essential properties. His nature is the good.

The real problem comes when the atheist asks himself where moral goodness comes from, what defines what is good.

His properties eh? A property is a basic or essential attribute shared by all members of a class (In this case God). So it's in his nature that he's good.

It's just a restatement of the 1st side this time; whatever God does is good, where that property came from in the first place is entirely arbitrary, really all you've done is push the 1st side back a step.


I'll be happy to explain Atheistic morality, but this is a very specific topic and I don't want to go on a tangent, I'll make another topic on that later on, or you can PM me. That said, as far as I can see any moral adherence has a secular meaning behind it, otherwise it wouldn't be immoral. If it doesn't have a secular meaning then the detriment provided by the act is non-existent and therefore amoral. Please don't debate this here, PM me or create a topic yourself lol.

For now I'm going to bed, it's 5.21am lol, it's been an interesting conversation.

 

[Free]

For now I'm going to bed, it's 5.21am lol, it's been an interesting conversation.

Good. lol I need some time to finish my argument that shows where the error is. Have a good night.

 

[mondar]

It's a false dilemma.

You're gonna have to go into more detail than that, at least provide an alternative.

Free is right, this is a false dilemma. Certainly the arbitrary, subjective, fickle God pictured by SirPwn4lot would present an ethic on the same level as Atheism. The Christian God who is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow is not so capricious and does not change. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Can Sir Pwn4lot conceive of a God any better then a tyrant who wakes up in the morning and determines the morality of the day depending upon how well God slept last night and what he had for breakfast?

 

[Aaron the Tall]

I would choose the second - in your words that whatever God commands is moral by definition.
You are right that if God is bound by some higher concept of morality than He can't be the ultimate authority. You would have to find the One who came up with the standard of morality that God must follow - and that One would be the ultimate God - for morality must come from a moral Being. It can't exist on it's own.
But, I would say that God's morality is not arbitrary - it is perfect - because He is perfect. If God's morality is perfect - then He gets it right each and every time He commands something. He doesn't need to adjust His words later because He arbitrarily concludes that He made a mistake the first time around.

Now, our ability to comprehend God's perfect morality is a different story. We would have to be perfect in nature as God is perfect - and be able to discern the beginning and the end - and know all things - in order to fully comprehend how God's morality is perfect.

 

[Sir Pwn4lot]

It's a false dilemma.

You're gonna have to go into more detail than that, at least provide an alternative.

Free is right, this is a false dilemma. Certainly the arbitrary, subjective, fickle God pictured by SirPwn4lot would present an ethic on the same level as Atheism. The Christian God who is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow is not so capricious and does not change. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Can Sir Pwn4lot conceive of a God any better then a tyrant who wakes up in the morning and determines the morality of the day depending upon how well God slept last night and what he had for breakfast?

It doesn't matter if he is constant in his morality (slavery, capital punishment, homophobia, killing children with bears anyone?); the point still stands. If you're going to propose a false dilemma you have to show another option lol. I'm asking you to define morality (What is goodness?) and so far all you've come up with is "Morality is the knowledge of good and evil, goodness is what is in God's nature, and God's nature is good", which seems fairly self-eliminating (need I say more?)

If you believe it's a false dilemma then fine, present your alternative.

 

[Free]

By God's nature I mean his essential properties. His nature is the good.

The real problem comes when the atheist asks himself where moral goodness comes from, what defines what is good.

His properties eh? A property is a basic or essential attribute shared by all members of a class (In this case God). So it's in his nature that he's good.

It's just a restatement of the 1st side this time; whatever God does is good, where that property came from in the first place is entirely arbitrary, really all you've done is push the 1st side back a step.

This actually doesn't push the problem back one step at all. It's not "in his nature that he's good," but rather his nature is the good; it is the standard for the good. God cannot not be good. To even state "where that property came from in the first place is entirely arbitrary," is to begin changing the definition of the Judeo-Christian God.

To try and push it back one step changes the dilemma to ask questions that don't really make sense: is God's nature good because it recognizes the good, or is something good because his nature creates the good? But natures don't create or recognize anything; they are simply the essential attributes or properties.

We have to keep in mind that this dilemma was raised at a time and place in history when there were numerous gods who used deception, who would go to war with each other, have relations with humans, etc., and any morality derived from them really was arbitrary. As such, none could be said to be the standard for morality; there was no standard. The Judeo-Christian God is vastly different from any Greco-Roman god.

 

[Physicist]

Judge Judy

By God's nature I mean his essential properties. His nature is the good.

The real problem comes when the atheist asks himself where moral goodness comes from, what defines what is good.

His properties eh? A property is a basic or essential attribute shared by all members of a class (In this case God). So it's in his nature that he's good.

It's just a restatement of the 1st side this time; whatever God does is good, where that property came from in the first place is entirely arbitrary, really all you've done is push the 1st side back a step.

This actually doesn't push the problem back one step at all. It's not "in his nature that he's good," but rather his nature is the good; it is the standard for the good. God cannot not be good. To even state "where that property came from in the first place is entirely arbitrary," is to begin changing the definition of the Judeo-Christian God.

To try and push it back one step changes the dilemma to ask questions that don't really make sense: is God's nature good because it recognizes the good, or is something good because his nature creates the good? But natures don't create or recognize anything; they are simply the essential attributes or properties.

We have to keep in mind that this dilemma was raised at a time and place in history when there were numerous gods who used deception, who would go to war with each other, have relations with humans, etc., and any morality derived from them really was arbitrary. As such, none could be said to be the standard for morality; there was no standard. The Judeo-Christian God is vastly different from any Greco-Roman god.

But it still is totally arbitrary. YHWH is all-powerful according to Christian dogma, so what you are saying is that 'might makes right.' We have to follow YHWH's whim and declare it good because he has the biggest stick. This makes your moral system completely subjective, dependent upon the whim of YHWH. Why not follow the whim of Judge Judy? She seems much more in tune with most people's concept of morality. At least she does not advocate slavery or killing of children.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Hey guys,

I'm an Agnostic Atheist who came here to ask you about your religion. I'm trying to improve my answers to Christian's questions so I would like to know all the objections to the argument layed out below. Thanks.
....
Thanks guys. I'll look forward to some responses.

God perceived and conceived and commanded. There are many gods, real and imagined, but there is only one who is the beginning of life and the creator of all things. A person who is a god means that they have life immortal.

 

[Free]

But it still is totally arbitrary. YHWH is all-powerful according to Christian dogma, so what you are saying is that 'might makes right.' We have to follow YHWH's whim and declare it good because he has the biggest stick. This makes your moral system completely subjective, dependent upon the whim of YHWH. Why not follow the whim of Judge Judy? She seems much more in tune with most people's concept of morality. At least she does not advocate slavery or killing of children.

Sure God is all-powerful, but he is also many other things. There is no "whim" when it comes to the Judeo-Christian concept of God. If his nature is the standard of what is morally right, then it is not, and indeed cannot be, based on what God wants from moment to moment. To argue to God having a whim is to once again put the Good outside of the nature of God, which is problematic.

I can pretty much guarantee you that any argument to objective morality outside of the Judeo-Christian concept of God, will in the end prove to be subjective. That is not to say that atheists can't or don't believe in objective morality because many do. However, if there is no absolute moral standard, then really it is all ultimately subjective.

Regardless, I believe I have sufficiently shown that there is indeed a third choice and shown that the Euthyphro Dilemma is indeed a false dilemma.

There are many gods, real and imagined, but there is only one who is the beginning of life and the creator of all things. A person who is a god means that they have life immortal.

Uhh...no. According to Christian Scripture, there is only one true God.

But that is not the topic of this thread.

 

[glorydaz]

Re: Judge Judy

But it still is totally arbitrary. YHWH is all-powerful according to Christian dogma, so what you are saying is that 'might makes right.' We have to follow YHWH's whim and declare it good because he has the biggest stick. This makes your moral system completely subjective, dependent upon the whim of YHWH. Why not follow the whim of Judge Judy? She seems much more in tune with most people's concept of morality. At least she does not advocate slavery or killing of children.

Now that's just plain silly. God does not advocate slavery or killing children.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Uhh...no. According to Christian Scripture, there is only one true God.

But that is not the topic of this thread.

Psalm 82:6
"I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.' John 10:31. Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

34Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? 35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?

 

[glorydaz]

Uhh...no. According to Christian Scripture, there is only one true God.

But that is not the topic of this thread.

Psalm 82:6
"I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.' John 10:31. Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

34Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? 35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?[/size]

Jesus was referring to judges. It has nothing to do with being gods.
The same word is used for...

whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
God's representative or viceregent
of magistrates and judges

This is the scripture our Lord was pointing to as what was written in the law...it's judges...not actual gods.

1God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. 2How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. 3Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. 4Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. 5They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. 6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 7But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. 8Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

This is referring back to...

For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

Mr. Sir,

You said:

It doesn't matter if he is constant in his morality (slavery, capital punishment, homophobia, killing children with bears anyone?); the point still stands. I... I'm asking you to define morality (What is goodness?) and so far all you've come up with is "Morality is the knowledge of good and evil, goodness is what is in God's nature, and God's nature is good"...

Just for the sake of argument, I'll use your list of God's supposed moral endeavors: slavery (commended by God?) capital punishment, homophobia (God fears homosexual folk?), killing children with bears...

What makes you say that these things are wrong for God to do? What standard are you using to judge God's morality?

 

[Physicist]

Re: Judge Judy

But it still is totally arbitrary. YHWH is all-powerful according to Christian dogma, so what you are saying is that 'might makes right.' We have to follow YHWH's whim and declare it good because he has the biggest stick. This makes your moral system completely subjective, dependent upon the whim of YHWH. Why not follow the whim of Judge Judy? She seems much more in tune with most people's concept of morality. At least she does not advocate slavery or killing of children.

Now that's just plain silly. God does not advocate slavery or killing children.

Consider Deuteronomy 20:13-14. However, we are getting off topic here. Why is morality as decreed by YHWH objective but morality as decreed by Judge Judy subjective? It seems to me that they are both subjective, Granted, one has more power, but are we then to conclude that might makes right?