seeboh Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 For those who do not know, the Euthyphro Dilemma goes like this: Is what is good commanded by God because it is good, or is it good because God commanded it? Are there any other objections other than goodness is God's nature? I am still willing to discuss that objection, just looking for new stuff. Discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Is what is good commanded by God because it is good... I think this is a wrong statement - it sets up some standard called "goodness" separately, apart and above God. This is assuming that what is meant by "God" is the source of everything. If you have another definition of God, then I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I think both situations kind of suck proving a deity depending on how you think about it. Unless we are somehow created to fail, if there was some absolute that exists beyond god, why is god then needed in this area. The other saying gods nature is good makes a problem because how many rulers claim power by simply saying they follow there own character. Its just your character what power does it give you? None. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overcame Faith Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 If what is good is commanded by god because it is good, then goodness has a existence separate and apart from god. That would mean that god did not create everything. Additionally, god's power is limited because his only power when it comes to good is to recognize it and command it, not to create it. If what is good is good because god commanded it, then goodness eminates from god and god is able to create goodness as well as command it. However, when we introduce evil into the mix, we have at least two problems. First, god must be the author of both good and evil at the same time. If this is the case, then all that god does is not good but at least some of what god does is evil. Second, if god only creates good, and evil has a separate existence independent of god then, again, god is not the creator of everything and is limited in his power when it comes to evil. Either way we cut it, god is less than some say. He either has limited power but is the creator of good or has all power and is the creator of both good and evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galien Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 my brain hurts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator Margee Posted February 3, 2011 Moderator Share Posted February 3, 2011 For those who do not know, the Euthyphro Dilemma goes like this: Is what is good commanded by God because it is good, or is it good because God commanded it? Are there any other objections other than goodness is God's nature? I am still willing to discuss that objection, just looking for new stuff. Discuss. I don't know what 'dilemma' this would be....Maybe, 'Margee's dilemma'........Cause I want to ask this question also, just to confuse the issue because I personally think it needs to be part of Euthyphro's Delemma .... Is what is evil commanded by god because it is evil, or is it evil because god commanded it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 If what is good is good because god commanded it, then goodness eminates from god and god is able to create goodness as well as command it. However, when we introduce evil into the mix, we have at least two problems. First, god must be the author of both good and evil at the same time. If this is the case, then all that god does is not good but at least some of what god does is evil. Second, if god only creates good, and evil has a separate existence independent of god then, again, god is not the creator of everything and is limited in his power when it comes to evil. Yes, because the existence of "good" presupposes the existence of "evil" as well, otherwise its meaningless. Then we must grapple with that question as well. Hey I'm saying this after two glasses of wine.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeboh Posted February 3, 2011 Author Share Posted February 3, 2011 Is what is good commanded by God because it is good... I think this is a wrong statement - it sets up some standard called "goodness" separately, apart and above God. This is assuming that what is meant by "God" is the source of everything. If you have another definition of God, then I don't know. Well if you define God as good, then it becomes circular. What is God? Good. What is good? God. If you can define good without God, then God is unnecessary. Is what is evil commanded by god because it is evil, or is it evil because god commanded it? The former Yes, because the existence of "good" presupposes the existence of "evil" as well, otherwise its meaningless. Then we must grapple with that question as well. Not necessarily. If you define good as that which promotes well being of sentient beings and evil as that which inhibits the well being of sentient beings, then one does not presuppose the other. There are neutral actions as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagickMonkey Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Fictional stories just ain't as good when you over think them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overcame Faith Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Yes, because the existence of "good" presupposes the existence of "evil" as well, otherwise its meaningless. Then we must grapple with that question as well. Not necessarily. If you define good as that which promotes well being of sentient beings and evil as that which inhibits the well being of sentient beings, then one does not presuppose the other. There are neutral actions as well. Interesting. Like Deva I feel like good presupposes evil because one cannot have one concept absent a contrary concept with which to compare it. Sort of like in physics there is matter and anti-matter (though we've never seen anti-matter). Or with numbers, there are positive numbers and negative numbers. So if good is that which promotes the well being of sentient beings, well being can't be promoted unless there is something from which to promote it. In other words, if there is no evil then there is no need of promoting anything. Your introduction of neutrality into the equation is interesting. But even neutrality presupposes two opposing forces. Switzerland could not have been neutral during WWII unless there had been at least two opposing factions. So neutrality presupposes both good and evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagickMonkey Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Yes, because the existence of "good" presupposes the existence of "evil" as well, otherwise its meaningless. Then we must grapple with that question as well. Not necessarily. If you define good as that which promotes well being of sentient beings and evil as that which inhibits the well being of sentient beings, then one does not presuppose the other. There are neutral actions as well. Interesting. Like Deva I feel like good presupposes evil because one cannot have one concept absent a contrary concept with which to compare it. Sort of like in physics there is matter and anti-matter (though we've never seen anti-matter). Or with numbers, there are positive numbers and negative numbers. So if good is that which promotes the well being of sentient beings, well being can't be promoted unless there is something from which to promote it. In other words, if there is no evil then there is no need of promoting anything. Your introduction of neutrality into the equation is interesting. But even neutrality presupposes two opposing forces. Switzerland could not have been neutral during WWII unless there had been at least two opposing factions. So neutrality presupposes both good and evil. Well, it presupposes at least a hypothetical evil, but not necessarily the actual existence of evil. As far as neutrality, if I have an empty box, that doesn't presuppose boxes with stuff in it or boxes with less than nothing in it. If my bank account is empty, that doesn't mean there must be those with money in there accounts or those who have a negative balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
true-atheist Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Is what is good commanded by God because it is good, or is it good because God commanded it? Neither. Both statements are based on the false assumption that God exists. If you start with a false assumption, there's a good chance you'll reach a false conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overcame Faith Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Is what is good commanded by God because it is good, or is it good because God commanded it? Neither. Both statements are based on the false assumption that God exists. If you start with a false assumption, there's a good chance you'll reach a false conclusion. Of course, I agree with this completely. But you took the easy way out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted February 3, 2011 Super Moderator Share Posted February 3, 2011 Do rainbows find pots of gold or do pots of gold find rainbows? Now, THERE'S a dilemma! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 Is what is good commanded by God because it is good, or is it good because God commanded it? Neither. Both statements are based on the false assumption that God exists. If you start with a false assumption, there's a good chance you'll reach a false conclusion. Part of the common arguments for atheism is contradictions or paradoxes in theism, the dilemma takes that route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzy Posted February 4, 2011 Share Posted February 4, 2011 I was wondering about the meaning of the "good of God" in the last couple of days. It just bugs me how I could think of God as "good" for 20 years. I was totally blind of his atrocities documented in the Bible. I just accepted he was "good" because that's what the church teaches. But the Biblegod is anything but good. So how could this entity teach us of what is good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts