Euthyphro’s Dilemma - - Why it doesn’t work

[JM]

It's like asking, "have you stopped beating your wife?" If you answer yes, then you admitt that you beat your wife. If you answer no, you admitt that you're still beating her.

Background - - Plato made the challenge, “is an act right because the gods say it’s so, or do the gods say it’s so because it’s right?†When I was first presented with this argument by a member of this forum, I wanted to write in response, “Plato isn’t an authority on what is good, the Bible is.†This of course is wouldn’t be saficent. This is a perfect topic to discuss across the board, with both believers and unbelievers, it’s simple logic. So lets get down to it, here’s the gist of the argument…

Socrates: And what do you say of piety, Euthyphro? Is not piety, according to your definition, loved by all the gods?

Euthyphro: Certainly.

Socrates: Because it is pious or holy, or for some other reason?

Euthyphro: No, that is the reason.

Socrates: It is loved because it is holy, not holy because it is loved?

Big trouble in little China - - It wasn’t a bad movie, had a logical plot and the fight sceens were well thought out, unlike this false dilemma presented. Euthyphro becomes perplexed because he’s being forced to decide between the two options, this is logically false. The problem is, the modern Christian is now being presented with Euthyphros false dilemma, having to choose between two views that are contrary to the Christian view of God…and they’re finding themselves perplexed like poor Euthyphro.

First horn [ethical voluntarism]: As Christians we view God’s goodness as an attribute of His nature and refuse to diminish His nature [which is good] to His power, this is called “ethical voluntarism.†What this does is reduce morality to the impulse of God allow God to see no difference between right and wrong. This is common in the Islamic view of God, not the Christian view. Allah for example can lie; YHWH cannot [Hebrews 6:18].

Second horn [God as subject]: Now, the Law of God cannot be more then the Law giver, and this is the “horn†DN was trying to place the Christian on. If the Law God gave to man is the benchmark, and is such that God Himself can’t violate it, that would place God under the Law. Which wouldn’t allow for God to be the dreaded ARTHOR OF SIN! [Oh my gosh, did write that! He did, he did.] Now lets move on.

As you can see, Big Trouble in Little China, the Christian faces a lose/lose situation. The first horn reduces God’s nature and attributes to His power, the second makes Him subject to something higher, His Law for example. Both horns reduce God and make Him less then what Scripture declares, that’s the falsity of this dilemma. More options are needed.

Bottom Line - - A higher standard exists, believe that. This standard of morality is found in the unchangeable character of God Himself and His Laws are not impulsive but rooted in His nature as pure holiness. So, morality does exist before God as this false dilemma will propose, it’s a matter of God’s nature, His character and morality is the expression of this nature. To quote, “what ever a good God commands will always be good.†When we read in the Scriptures that God is good it simply means, “God has the nature and character that God has.†The essence of the statement is God is God…period. Nothing else needs to be added, the word “good†doesn’t describe God, and God describes good. To further example JM is Jason, both are the same and what’s true of JM is true of Jason, so it is with God and good. Two names that are equal in terms of what they refer to and refer to the same thing…in essence. Euthyphro’s dilemma is a false dilemma when we apply it to the Christian God, neither horn is acceptable and neither horn grasps the nature of G displayed in the Bible. “Goodness is neither above God nor merely willed by Him.†Goodness is found in the nature of God, morality is grounded in Him. Moral decision of God are not impulsive but are “fixed and absolute, grounded†in God’s un-changeable nature.

JM

 

[Novum]

Bottom Line - - A higher standard exists, believe that. This standard of morality is found in the unchangeable character of God Himself and His Laws are not impulsive but rooted in His nature as pure holiness. So, morality does exist before God as this false dilemma will propose, it’s a matter of God’s nature, His character and morality is the expression of this nature. To quote, “what ever a good God commands will always be good.†When we read in the Scriptures that God is good it simply means, “God has the nature and character that God has.†The essence of the statement is God is God…period. Nothing else needs to be added, the word “good†doesn’t describe God, and God describes good. To further example JM is Jason, both are the same and what’s true of JM is true of Jason, so it is with God and good. Two names that are equal in terms of what they refer to and refer to the same thing…in essence. Euthyphro’s dilemma is a false dilemma when we apply it to the Christian God, neither horn is acceptable and neither horn grasps the nature of God displayed in the Bible. “Goodness is neither above God nor merely willed by Him.†Goodness is found in the nature of God, morality is grounded in Him. Moral decision of God are not impulsive but are “fixed and absolute, grounded†in God’s un-changeable nature.

I cannot agree that

a) you have presented a convincing case that the dilemma is a false one, or
b) you have resolved the situation adequately.

To restate the dilemma more simply:

Ethical voluntarism states that a god is the source of all morality. Whatever that god should command is moral, just, and right.

"God as subject" (to use JM's term) states that morality and justice are independent of a god. One can be moral and ethical without having a subscribed belief in a diety.

These positions are mutually exclusive by definition.

JM, notice that nowhere in ethical voluntarism is it described from where a god must derive his own morality. Regardless whether god determines morality by a mere coin flip or by nature of his character, whatever he commands must be just and right if ethical voluntarism is true.

In your argument, you are still advocating ethical voluntarism but justifying your position by stating that God is always good by nature of his character. However, to use your logic, a perfectly evil god would still be justifiable under ethical voluntarism.

It is irrelevant whether god is good, evil, apathetic, intoxicated, or turquoise. You still push for ethical voluntarism. Merely claiming that, conventiently, your god is "good" is circular, in avoidance of the issue at hand, and a logical fallacy.

 

[JM]

In your argument, you are still advocating ethical voluntarism but justifying your position by stating that God is always good by nature of his character. However, to use your logic, a perfectly evil god would still be justifiable under ethical voluntarism.

If that's what I lead you to believe, I apologize, what I'm saying is goodness is good because it's nature is similar in charater to God's. God defines what is good.

It is irrelevant whether god is good, evil, apathetic, intoxicated, or turquoise. You still push for ethical voluntarism. Merely claiming that, conventiently, your god is "good" is circular, in avoidance of the issue at hand, and a logical fallacy.

Ahhhh, but that's not the point. The point of this thread and the op is to show how that Euthyphros dilemma is false, my intention was never to "prove" the Christian concept of God, this is your error. Please, stay on point. The Euthyphros dilemma is a false dilemma, this much I've proven. Limiting the answers down to two, is a false dilemma, now isn't it.

What I haven't proved or attempted to prove is the Christian concept of God, but again, that isn't my point.

JM

 

[Novum]

If that's what I lead you to believe, I apologize, what I'm saying is goodness is good because it's nature is similar in charater to God's. God defines what is good.

Exactly - God defines what is good. This is the very definition of ethical voluntarism, and it therefore falls prey to all the criticisms of ethical voluntarism.

Ahhhh, but that's not the point. The point of this thread and the op is to show how that Euthyphros dilemma is false, my intention was never to "prove" the Christian concept of God, this is your error.

I didn't mention the Christian god on purpose in my post, as I wanted to extend my response to include all deities. I apologize if it was interpreted as being about the Christian god.

The Euthyphros dilemma is a false dilemma, this much I've proven.

Again, I don't see this. Just above, you said "God defines what is good". This statement appears to me that you are endorsing the dilemma as valid (and, indeed, arguing for ethical voluntarism) rather than showing it to be false.

Perhaps you could go into a little more detail on why you believe the dilemma to be false?

Limiting the answers down to two, is a false dilemma, now isn't it.

Absolutely not. Let's look at Novum's famous Breakfast Dilemma. Assuming that Novum will have breakfast, which will it be?

A) Novum will have raisin bran for breakfast.
B) Novum will have something else for breakfast.

There are only two choices in this dilemma, yet it is not logically a false dilemma. There are all kinds of real dilemmas with only two choices; it is silly to call a dilemma false just because there are only two choices.

 

[JM]

I'm sure you don't see many aspects of life as false but they are...maybe this will help...

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... lemma.html

Description of False Dilemma
A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning":

Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
Claim Y is false.
Therefore claim X is true.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because if both claims could be false, then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false. That this is the case is made clear by the following example:

Either 1+1=4 or 1+1=12.
It is not the case that 1+1=4.
Therefore 1+1=12.
In cases in which the two options are, in fact, the only two options, this line of reasoning is not fallacious. For example:

Bill is dead or he is alive.
Bill is not dead.
Therefore Bill is alive.
Examples of False Dilemma

Senator Jill: "We'll have to cut education funding this year."
Senator Bill: "Why?"
Senator Jill: "Well, either we cut the social programs or we live with a huge deficit and we can't live with the deficit."

Bill: "Jill and I both support having prayer in public schools."
Jill: "Hey, I never said that!"
Bill: "You're not an atheist are you Jill?"

"Look, you are going to have to make up your mind. Either you decide that you can afford this stereo, or you decide you are going to do without music for a while."

I've given proof, in respect to the op and the extent I set out to accomplish, please refrain from the posts that are not on topic. This kind of posting side tracks the tread. Simply read the description given above, this is a basic dilemma listed on many websites... by limited the way in which someone can answer a false dilemma is set up...a false dilemma is false...that I've shown.

JM

 

[Novum]

I'm sure you don't see many aspects of life as false but they are...maybe this will help...

Ad hominem noted.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

<long quote>

JM, you misunderstand. I know quite well what a false dilemma is. It's one of many logical fallacies with which I am familiar.

I've given proof, in respect to the op and the extent I set out to accomplish, please refrain from the posts that are not on topic.

JM, I asked you direct questions about your proof. How are my questions, about your proof, at all "not on topic?" Here's a better question: If my questions were off topic, what would be on topic?

This kind of posting side tracks the tread. Simply read the description given above, this is a basic dilemma listed on many websites... by limited the way in which someone can answer a false dilemma is set up...a false dilemma is false...that I've shown.

Yes, you keep repeating that you have proved the dilemma false. I disagree and I have made specific comments and questions about your argument. Why do you ignore my questions, instead repeating your claim that the dilemma has been proved false?

 

[DivineNames]

The solution suggested does help the theist in one way, in that morality would not be something outside of God, but grounded in God's nature. However, morality would still be something outside of God's control. If you aren't bothered about this, then you have an answer to the dilemma, and I guess you could say that the dilemma is "false" in that circumstance.

Nevertheless, to say that morality is grounded in the nature of God is really a way of taking the first horn of the dilemma and involves a rejection of divine command theory. So the dilemma isn't false, the solution suggested merely allows the theist to take one horn of the dilemma in a way that is more palatable.

But here is the important point- the solution suggested by JM will not help a Calvinist. (Which is the context in which I have mentioned the Euthyphro dilemma.) Would a Calvinist be happy with the idea that God is bound by a standard of morality? The natural instinct of the Calvinist, I suspect, is that God should be able to do whatever he likes.

 

[DivineNames]

Second horn [God as subject]: Now, the Law of God cannot be more then the Law giver, and this is the “horn†DN was trying to place the Christian on. If the Law God gave to man is the benchmark, and is such that God Himself can’t violate it, that would place God under the Law. Which wouldn’t allow for God to be the dreaded ARTHOR OF SIN! [Oh my gosh, did write that! He did, he did.] Now lets move on.

What on earth are you talking about? :D

Your understanding of the problem involved in taking the second horn of the dilemma is seriously confused. You don't seem to have a clue what you are talking about here.

I will also say that I didn't try to "place" the Christian on either horn. I merely said that a particular Christian, Vincent Cheung, had clearly taken the second horn of the dilemma.

 

[JM]

A proper understanding of Christian teaching on God removes one problem, yet we still face another: What is "good"? How can we know goodness if we don't define it first?

Abraham new what was good when God wanted to destory Sodom and Gomorrah:

Gen 18:25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

Answer me this, [keeping in mind commandments were yet revealed] how did Abraham know the wicked were to be treated different then the righteous?

Even those who deny God understand what is moral and what is not, just as Abraham knew what goodness and righteousness are without the commandments. Through moral intuition. He didn't need God to define justice (divine command). He knew it directly. His moral knowledge was built in...just like God's goodness is "built in" and outside of this false dilemma offering another option.

 

[DivineNames]

JM, if you think that God is bound by a standard of morality, would that include the principle that responsibility requires freedom?

 

[Novum]

Even those who deny God understand what is moral and what is not, just as Abraham knew what goodness and righteousness are without the commandments. Through moral intuition. He didn't need God to define justice (divine command). He knew it directly. His moral knowledge was built in...just like God's goodness is "built in" and outside of this false dilemma offering another option.

This does not at all provide a third option for the dilemma.

The term "built in" that you're using is problematic. Who, or what, "built in" goodness to your god? Are you proposing there is another, more powerful being than your god? If so, why don't we worship that being instead? If not, then your god "built in" goodness himself either because he chose to be good (the first horn) or because he chose to conform with an outside code of morality (the second horn).

The dilemma essentially asks the following question: "From where comes the Right?". Your claim of goodness being "built in" does not provide a third answer to this question.

 

[JM]

lol, you're so blind.

The Attributes of God - The Goodness of God by Arthur Pink

'The Goodness of God endureth continually' (Psa 52:1). The goodness of God refers to the perfection of His nature: 'God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all' (1 John 1:5). There is such an absolute perfection in God's nature and being that nothing is wanting to it or defective in it, and nothing can be added to it to make it better.

'He is originally good, good of Himself, which nothing else is; for all creatures are good only by participation and communication from God. He is essentially good; not only good, but goodness itself: the creature's good is a superadded quality, in God it is His essence. He is infinitely good; the creature's good is but a drop, but in God there in an infinite ocean or gathering together of good. He is eternally and immutably good, for He cannot be less good than He is; as there can be no addition made to Him, so no subtraction from Him' (Thomas Manton).

God is summum bonum, the highest good.

The original Saxon meaning of our English word God is 'The Good.' God is not only the greatest of all beings, but the best. All the goodness there is in any creature has been imparted from the Creator, but God's goodness is underived, for it is the essence of His eternal nature. As God is infinite in power from all eternity, before there was any display thereof, or any act of omnipotency put forth, so He was eternally good before there was any communication of His bounty, or any creature to whom it might be imparted. Thus, the first manifestation of this divine perfection was in giving being to all things. 'Thou art good, and doest good' (Psa 119:68). God has in Himself an infinite and inexhaustible treasure of all blessedness, enough to fill all things.

All that emanates from God--His decrees, His creation, His laws, His providences--cannot be otherwise than good: as it is written, 'And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good' (Gen 1:31). Thus, the goodness of God is seen, first, in creation. The more closely the creature is studied, the more the beneficence of its Creator becomes apparent. Take the highest of God's earthly creatures--man. Abundant reason has he to say with the Psalmist, 'I will praise Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are Thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well' (139:14). Everything about the structure of our bodies attest to the goodness of their Maker. How suited the hands to perform their allotted work! How good of the Lord to appoint sleep to refresh the wearied body! How benevolent His provision to give to the eyes lids and brows for their protection! And so we might continue indefinitely.

Nor is the goodness of the Creator confined to man; it is exercised toward all His creatures. 'The eyes of all wait upon Thee; and Thou givest them their meat in due season. Thou openest Thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing' (Psa 145:15,16). Whole volumes might be written, yea have been, to amplify this fact. Whether it be the birds of the air, the beasts of the forest, or the fish in the sea, abundant provision has been made to supply their every need. God 'giveth food to all flesh, for His mercy endureth for ever' (Psa 136:25). Truly, 'The earth is full of the goodness of the LORD' (Psa 33:5).

The goodness of God is seen in the variety of natural pleasures which He has provided for His creatures. God might have been pleased to satisfy our hunger without the food being pleasing to our palates--how His benevolence appears in the varied flavors which He has given to meats, vegetables, and fruits! God has not only given us senses, but also that which gratifies them; and this too reveals His goodness. The earth might have been as fertile as it is without its surface being so delightfully variegated. Our physical lives could have been sustained without beautiful flowers to regale our eyes with their colors, and our nostrils with their sweet perfumes. We might have walked the fields without our ears being saluted by the music the birds. Whence, then, this loveliness, this charm, so freely diffused over the face of nature? Verily, the tender mercies of the Lord 'are over all His works' (Psa 145:9).

The goodness of God is seen in that when man transgressed the law of His Creator a dispensation of unmixed wrath did not at once commence. Well might God have deprived His fallen creatures of every blessing, every comfort, every pleasure. Instead, He ushered in a regime of a unmixed nature, of mercy and judgment. This is very wonderful if it be duly considered, and the more thoroughly that regime be expanded the more will it appear that 'mercy rejoiceth against judgment' (James 2:13). Notwithstanding all the evils which attend our fallen state, the balance of good greatly preponderates. With comparatively rare exceptions, men and women experience a far greater number of days of health than they do of sickness and pain. There is much more creature-happiness than creature-misery in the world. Even our sorrows admit of considerable alleviation, and God has given to the human mind a pliability which adapts itself to circumstances and makes the most of them.

Nor can the benevolence of God be justly called into question because there is suffering and sorrow in the world. If man sins against the goodness of God, if he despises 'the riches of His goodness and forbearance and longsuffering, and after the hardness and impenitency of his heart treasurest up unto himself wrath against the day of wrath' (Rom 2:4,5), who is to blame but himself? Would God be 'good' if He punished not those who ill-use His blessings, abuse His benevolence, and trample His mercies beneath their feet? It will be no reflection upon God's goodness, but rather the brightest exemplification of it, when He shall rid the earth of those who have broken His laws, defied His authority, mocked His messengers, scorned His Son, and persecuted those for whom He died.

The goodness of God appeared most illustriously when He sent forth His Son 'made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons' (Gal 4:4,5). Then it was that a multitude of the heavenly host praised their Maker and said, 'Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, good will toward men' (Luke 2:14). Yes, in the Gospel the 'grace [which word in Greek conveys the idea if benevolence or goodness] of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men' (Titus 2:11). Nor can God's benignity be called into question because He has not made every sinful creature to be a subject of His redemptive grace. He did not bestow it upon the fallen angels. Had God left all to perish it would have been no reflection on His goodness. To any who would challenge this statement we will remind him of our Lord's sovereign prerogative: 'Is it not lawful for Me to do what I will with Mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?' (Matt 20,15).

'Oh that men would praise the LORD for His goodness, and for His wonderful works to the children of men!' (Psa 107:8). Gratitude is the return justly required from the objects of His beneficence, yet is it often withheld from our great Benefactor simply because His goodness is so constant and so abundant. It is lightly esteemed because it is exercised toward us in the common course of events. It is not felt because we daily experience it. 'Despisest thou the riches of His goodness?' (Rom 2:4). His goodness is 'despised' when it is not improved as a means to lead men to repentance, but, on the contrary, serves to harden them from the supposition that God entirely overlooks their sin.

The goodness of God is the life of the believer's trust. It is this excellency in God which most appeals to our hearts. Because His goodness endureth for ever, we ought never to be discouraged: 'The LORD is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble, and He knoweth them that trust in Him' (Nahum 1:7).

'When others behave badly to us, it should only stir us up the more heartily to give thanks unto the Lord, because He is good; and when we ourselves are conscious that we are far from being good, we should only the more reverently bless Him that He is good. We must never tolerate an instant's unbelief as to the goodness of the Lord; whatever else may be questioned, this is absolutely certain, that Jehovah is good; His dispensations may vary, but His nature is always the same' (C. H. Spurgeon).

 

[Novum]

lol, you're so blind.

lol, omg lol. u can post long links lol.

Instead of plagiarizing material that is not yours and writing like a 13 year old, how about you respond to the points people have been making?

 

[JM]

lol, you're so blind.

lol, omg lol. u can post long links lol.

Instead of plagiarizing material that is not yours and writing like a 13 year old, how about you respond to the points people have been making?

If made a valid point I'd address it, until then, simply refusing to accept a point doesn't make it invalid. Just so you're aware, plagiarizing means I tried to pass off anothers work as my own, I didn't. Both the title and name were included in my quotation.

If we took away an aspect of what makes you who you are, some aspect that defines you, such as your enmity against God, you wouldn’t be Novum anymore but someone different in nature. That can't happen until you are born again.

If we take “goodness†from God and place it outside of Himself and make Him subject to “goodness†as if it’s distinct and an external law, we diminish who God is. God isn't God anymore. If we make “goodness†as a matter of His power and not His nature, then God isn’t God anymore because He lacks the “goodness†that makes Him who He is.

The false dilemma does just that. It forces a Christian to accept one or the other by reducing God’s nature.

 

[Novum]

If made a valid point I'd address it, until then, simply refusing to accept a point doesn't make it invalid.

Sure. Good thing I didn't do that; instead, I posted some questions and concerns - as did DivineNames.

If we took away an aspect of what makes you who you are, some aspect that defines you, such as your enmity against God

It is logically impossible for me to love, hate, enjoy, fear, or be bored of something that I do not believe exists. This is a very common theist fallacy - the belief that, for some reason, atheists "hate" god.

Similarly, JM, why do you hate the invisible pink unicorn that lives in your bedroom? The question is meaningless, since you do not believe it exists. So it is with me and your god.

If we take “goodness†from God and place it outside of Himself and make Him subject to “goodness†as if it’s distinct and an external law, we diminish who God is. God isn't God anymore. If we make “goodness†as a matter of His power and not His nature, then God isn’t God anymore because He lacks the “goodness†that makes Him who He is.

The false dilemma does just that. It forces a Christian to accept one or the other by reducing God’s nature.

It is irrelevant what you think the consequences of the dilemma might mean for your beliefs. What is relevant, however, is your continued repetition of your claim that the dilemma is a false one. Also prevalent is your continued avoidance of the questions DivineNames and I have asked of you.

If you are unable or unwilling to answer these questions, simply indicate as such and I'll bow out of the thread. But if you continue in this intellectual dishonesty, I'll always be around to call you on it.

 

[JM]

I don’t have much time so I’ll make it quick.

Euthyphro’s dilemma is false when applied to YHWH, to God as revealed in the Bible. The horn is changed when we recognize the god of Euthyphro’s dilemma are not “good†in the same sense as God is good. Plato has created a false dichotomy between God and good, one which Christians will not and cannot make. I quoted A. W. Pink in an effort to describe God and how His goodness are one, it’s who He is, it’s essential to what makes goodness good. Everything has a nature, good as finite man perceives it in the revelation of Scripture finds “goodness†defined by God because it’s found in His nature.

The modern atheist tries to use this dilemma to force Christians to think of “goodness†as being either a command of God and therefore a “whim†as some say, or a law that even God himself is subservient to. We know that God cannot lie, as Scripture teaches, but He cannot lie not because it’s a “lawâ€Â, it’s because it’s contrary to His nature…what makes Him who He is.

As for DN, we have a history. He plagues me with questions but refuses to answer any of mine. That’s fine, I’ve come to the point where I don’t care what he has to say, his on ignore. We never have a meaningful exchange because he refuses to have an equal exchange, he wants to sit on the outside and ask questions and never offer anything in return.

As for intellectual dishonestly, you bring a truckload with you. You refuse to acknowledge what I’ve posted; I’ve effectively changed the horn by giving you the Christian definition of God. Your understanding of YHWH is absurd. If we took a poll asking the question among Christian theologians if what this dilemma suggests is possible, you’d find that it isn’t. From Augustine to Aquinas, they respond in unity…â€Âgoodness†is defined by God’s nature and is not an external law or a whim of His will. To say how we understand God is irrelevant to the question is not only false, but proves the dilemma is false by focusing on only your definition of what goodness is.

Simply repeating your weak objections doesn’t make your argument valid.

Another point of intellectual dishonestly can be found in your refusal to admit that you believe in God. I contend that you believe in God, you don’t trust in God and you don’t have faith in God for who He is, but you still believe. The word enmity means hostile. For a person who spends their time on Christian forums discussing, debating and arguing against God, I don’t buy it. Your mind is hostile to God and at the very least, hostile to the concept of God. No one hates pink unicorns! I doubt you spend your time on unicorn forums discussing, debating and arguing against unicorns…

If you are unable or unwilling to accept a Christian definition of God [which you cannot and will not accept], simply indicate as such. We cannot go any further in this thread until you understand that what this dillemma suggests cannot be asked of the Christian God, hence, it is false.

If you continue in this intellectual dishonesty, I'll have to call you on it.

JM

 

[Novum]

Euthyphro’s dilemma is false when applied to YHWH, to God as revealed in the Bible. The horn is changed when we recognize the god of Euthyphro’s dilemma are not “good†in the same sense as God is good.

There were no gods specifically named in Plato's dilemma. It applies to all conceivable gods - past, present, and future.

I quoted A. W. Pink in an effort to describe God and how His goodness are one, it’s who He is, it’s essential to what makes goodness good. Everything has a nature, good as finite man perceives it in the revelation of Scripture finds “goodness†defined by God because it’s found in His nature.

Okay, so god is good because god is good. He's inherently good. We get it.

The modern atheist tries to use this dilemma to force Christians to think of “goodness†as being either a command of God and therefore a “whim†as some say, or a law that even God himself is subservient to.

JM's logical fallacy #1: Broad Brush Fallacy. It is ridiculous to make such broad claims about all atheists.

We know that God cannot lie, as Scripture teaches, but He cannot lie not because it’s a “lawâ€Â, it’s because it’s contrary to His nature…what makes Him who He is.

Okay. So your god is truthful not because he follows any external law, but because it is in his nature. In other words, you are advocating the first horn - ethical voluntarism. Not lying is good because god does not lie. God's nature is irrelevant.

As for intellectual dishonestly, you bring a truckload with you. You refuse to acknowledge what I’ve posted; I’ve effectively changed the horn by giving you the Christian definition of God. Your understanding of YHWH is absurd. If we took a poll asking the question among Christian theologians if what this dilemma suggests is possible, you’d find that it isn’t.

JM's logical fallacy #2: yet another Broad Brush Fallacy, this time laughably claiming that all Christian theologians are in agreement on this one point.

From Augustine to Aquinas, they respond in unity…â€Âgoodness†is defined by God’s nature and is not an external law or a whim of His will. To say how we understand God is irrelevant to the question is not only false, but proves the dilemma is false by focusing on only your definition of what goodness is.

Please find a post of mine in this thread where I held your god to my standard of goodness or even defined what I believe goodness to be. Blatant lies do not help your case, JM.

Another point of intellectual dishonestly can be found in your refusal to admit that you believe in God. I contend that you believe in God, you don’t trust in God and you don’t have faith in God for who He is, but you still believe.

1. You demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of atheism.
2. You demonstrate a fundamental lack of basic human manners by declaring what my beliefs are for me.

JM's logical fallacy #3: Ad hominems. This does not help your case, JM.

The word enmity means hostile. For a person who spends their time on Christian forums discussing, debating and arguing against God, I don’t buy it. Your mind is hostile to God and at the very least, hostile to the concept of God. No one hates pink unicorns! I doubt you spend your time on unicorn forums discussing, debating and arguing against unicorns…

JM's logical fallacy #4: Additional Ad hominems.

If you are unable or unwilling to accept a Christian definition of God [which you cannot and will not accept], simply indicate as such. We cannot go any further in this thread until you understand that what this dillemma suggests cannot be asked of the Christian God, hence, it is false.

That's where you're wrong. Your argument essentially boils down to "god is good because god is good". It's in his nature, you claim. Therefore, all which he commands will be in alignment with his nature - in other words, he will command goodness. Once again, you provide for this forum the very definition of ethical voluntarism.

You have yet to show how JM-voluntarism is at all different from ethical voluntarism. Please do so, but try to avoid the logical fallacies this time.

 

[JM]

The modern atheist tries to use this dilemma...

This is not a broad brush fallacy, the context is, "the modern atheist tries to use this deliemma..." Not all modern atheists use this dilemma, therefore, the modern atheists who does use it in the manner uses it to trap a Christian on two horns which cannot represent "goodness" as we understand it. The proper term is "hasty generalization." You have to prove it is, you can't simply claim it.

JM's logical fallacy #2: yet another Broad Brush Fallacy, this time laughably claiming that all Christian theologians are in agreement on this one point.

I'm ready to hear the evidence, post something from an orthodox Christian theologian on this topic and if I'm wrong, I'll make a post saying so. If not, your guilty of a type of Argumentum ad Hominem, poisioning the well, so folks will disreguard what I've posted.

Please find a post of mine in this thread where I held your god to my standard of goodness or even defined what I believe goodness to be. Blatant lies do not help your case, JM.

Considering the quote you responded to was aimed at the false dilemma and not you, I have to say, you’re a little quick to call me a liar. You’re guilty, once again, of Ad Hominem. You’ve presented an irrelevant personal attack.

JM's logical fallacy #3: Ad hominems. This does not help your case, JM.

I responded to a personal comment, that doesn't help my case, it's not ad hominem...the hostile comment was but you quoted it below. :wink:

"god is good because god is good"

As long as well agree that goodness is not external to God's nature and not a law, I don't see any need to continue.

JM

 

[Novum]

This is not a broad brush fallacy, the context is, "the modern atheist tries to use this deliemma..." Not all modern atheists use this dilemma, therefore, the modern atheists who does use it in the manner uses it to trap a Christian on two horns which cannot represent "goodness" as we understand it. The proper term is "hasty generalization." You have to prove it is, you can't simply claim it.

More unsubstantiated claims. Instead of playing with semantics, perhaps you could stop shifting the subject from your argument. It's much easier to debate semantics than defend your position, isn't it?

I'm ready to hear the evidence, post something from an orthodox Christian theologian on this topic and if I'm wrong, I'll make a post saying so.

Gentle forum lurker, notice how JM has changed his claim. In his previous post, he argued that all "christian theologians" would agree with his arguments. In this post, he has changed his claim to read that all "orthodox Christian theologians" would agree.

This is called "shifting the goalposts", and is a most unimpressive logical fallacy.

Considering the quote you responded to was aimed at the false dilemma and not you, I have to say, you’re a little quick to call me a liar. You’re guilty, once again, of Ad Hominem. You’ve presented an irrelevant personal attack.

Stop changing the subject. You accused me of defining my own standard of goodness and applying it to your god. Either back up your claim with evidence from my posts or stop making false accusations.

As long as well agree that goodness is not external to God's nature and not a law, I don't see any need to continue.

Precisely. Goodness is part of your god's nature, therefore he commands and acts in accordance with his nature, or in accordance with goodness. Once again, this is basic ethical voluntarism.

You appear to be admitting now that your argument has fallen apart through your lack of defense.

 

[JM]

Here's what posted: If we took a poll asking the question among Christian theologians if what this dilemma suggests is possible, you’d find that it isn’t. From Augustine to Aquinas, they respond in unity…â€Âgoodness†is defined by God’s nature and is not an external law or a whim of His will.

Now who's the liar?

You appear to be admitting now that your argument has fallen apart through your lack of defense.

Nope. Stop with the pseudo intellectual posturing, it's not becoming. The arguement is this, good is good not do to command but due to God's nature. That's it in a nut shell. The false dilemma is asking is "good" good because God commands it, I respond, no. God commands what is good based upon His nature and not for the sake of something being good.

JM