This is why as an agnostic, i believe it is entirely possible that there is a higher power or divine force, but i doubt to the highest extreme that he is benevolent towards his creations and if the day should come that such a being would judge me, i will be judging that hypocrite right back.
Right it is all very well until something goes against us - what if Muslims justify their killings because God told them to? And it is our little grandchild that died? Not so great then, is it? I can't believe that this is a problem
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
@@kyriltolbertyeah but the bible wasn’t written by God himself. it was written by a bunch of old fashioned men who wanted people to turn to christianity. If there is a God out there, he may be nothing like what the bible depicts him as.
One option I have been pondering is that God could have created morality not only by his commands but through what "is." Let me explain: I am aware of the "is-ought problem" but it seems to me that morality is about how we ought to behave towards others. It is "other -oriented" based on the beings involved. So I can exterminate termites in my house, but to do so to people would be egregious. And when one shark kills another shark we don't call it murder. Why the difference? It is because God created humans with some special value not given to bugs. Some Christians would call this being made "in the image of God." Because we are creatures made worthy of respect, then moral obligations are made not by command alone, but by the very existence of respect worthy creatures. Everything ought to be treated according to its kind. People, all people, deserve basic respect for what they are. Thus, even before God gave the law to Moses that one should not murder, it was wrong for Cain to kill his brother. The moral law exists without the command because moral obligations are self evident based on the creation order. So atheists can recognize that people have a basic human dignity and thus desire the flourishing of people as a practical foundation for morality. But they cannot ground why people might be worthy of more respect than a termite in the first place. And this does not mean that God cannot issue commands that have moral weight, but it also means that moral realities can exist apart from God's commands - and yet still be dependent on his creation and plan. In this light, the Euthyphro problem seems like an odd one. There is no higher moral authority because nothing existed apart from God in eternity. And yet God's internal workings as multiple people included a way for Him to love himself perfectly. This is the paradigm of "the good." Do God's commands become morally binding (creating the good)? Obviously, assuming God cannot or would never command something against his self. But are there moral obligations aside from those commands? Yes, but in the context of the world that God made - and thus are ultimately dependent on him. Ultimately, only a multi-person view of God would allow him to be both good and exist alone. In that way, the Father can treat the Son and the Spirit how they "ought" to be treated, and they could do the same in return. So God can be good by himself because he can fulfill this sense of being "other oriented." Moral realities then becomes an extension of that existence to the rest of the created order. I am sure this thinking needs some work but it seems to answer the question or at least demonstrate why Euthyphro presumes the wrong things about the foundation for what is "the good."
Well the words they use are “pious” and “impious”. Essentially they are asking how we can determine what is pious or impious, especially in the most morally complicated cases, not just general moral axioms like “murder is wrong” and so forth. The Devil is in the details, because, in the face of complicated moral decisions, is there really always just one moral way of proceeding? That’s part of the larger problem that seems to arise from this dialogue. It’s not just “was it wrong to kill” but “was it wrong to kill when you consider all of these other unique factors”? Could one of those factors immediately make an otherwise moral action immoral, or vice versa? Could one or two factors make the action immoral, but then a third introduced makes it immediately moral again? That’s the greatest complication of the Euthyphro as a dialogue, not necessarily just the classical dilemma itself.
Someone has recently claimed that a response by theists to this dilemma is to claim that God is the good. I don't fully understand the claim or the argument and I suspicious that it assumes some kind of idealism. If you have more information, please provide me with the argument!
It seems like a necessity excwpt with greek Gods that arent omnibenevolant. If God is omnibenevolent then they wouldn’t declare something good if it was something they wouldn’t do.
@@ShawnSwanderexcept God has caused people to suffer and it has been considered good, if you take the bible literally. In the story of Noah’s ark, he literally drowns billions of people.
@cardneades I am not a believer in the fundamental sense but I believe that I could make an argument for Divine Command Theory from a Christians perspective. Again I am not a believer personally. My argument goes this way. “As a Christian we are “blessed” to not only have the father and son as our lord and savior but Christ left us the gift of the Holy Spirit. This form of collective intuition tweaks our morality to evolve over time to adjust to what God desires and commands. So indeed things we find immoral today would have had justification and would not have been immoral at the time.” Now at first thought this may appear to be moral relativism but the moral evolution happens at a rate that is digested by society. To believe this one has to step back from their chrocentric presentism and be able to make distinctions on why things were the way they were. So they Christian who truly believes in Divine Command Theory must have the backbone to admit that things we find reprehensible today could have been indeed moral in the past. So as not to defend or justify things in the past that I find immoral, I will posit a future scenario. It’s the year 2300, no one eats meat. It’s seen to as barbaric as canabilsm and those who do eat meat are viewed in a Jeffery Dahmer lite. In fact there is a movement to tear down all memorials to the past. Now in this scenario some how some way Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa and Ghandi all get transported the future. Should they all be considered immoral? Ok Ghandi was a vegetarian but on occasion he ate a “vegiburger” which is nearly as immoral as eating meat because you are imagining eating a meat product. In short I have no doubt something like this could happen.
Interesting claims. The question from the perspective of the Euthyphro Dilemma is in virtue of what is something good and not evil? How does your holy spirit determine which way to lead people? Is God deferring to an objective code of morality that he can't change? Or is God determining what is right and wrong? Either method falls on a horn of the dilemma.
***** I am aware of that response. I have a video on it. God is the Good (William Lane Craig and the Euthyphro Dilemma) I also have a video that raises some greater concerns for such a response: The Free Will Dilemma
@Carneades.org your free will dilemma is a fallacy. Why? Your entire premise is God looks to a standard of good as we do as free will creatures. God has free will & that is why He can love. Love by definition has to be freely given. Humans are not the standard of good so therefore we look to a standard (God), and any deviation from that standard is what we call sin. What do I mean that God is the standard of good? Without an objective morally good, all that’s left is moral relativism. So.... anything “evil” such as murdering babies, & rape, etc... isn’t truly wrong but only ones opinion against another persons opinion. If God could commit evil, then He wouldn’t be God, because He would be having to look to standard of goodness above His own, therefore making whatever standard He is looking towards the true God. If free will was a dilemma, then God wouldn’t be God, because what God (standard of goodness) would predetermine or predestine His own children spending eternity out of His presence (hell)?
It's not a dilemma if you consider both to be in effect, it just becomes cyclical logic. Let's be real though, God says good things are good and therefore they're good - or else you'll be punished by your church.
The whole truth of the matter is that we can never decide which is good or bad, which is it, the first horn or the second, because we truly cannot and never will understand the concept of God. Who is he? What is he? Where did he come from? That it why faith is a reliance and fact cannot be.
Do you define why sugar is sweet? Or are you preprogrammed to recognize sugar? Similarly, do you define the sensation of physical pain or are preprogrammed to recognize pain? Is the discomfort you feel during an event, a sign of immorality because God says it is or do you feel that it is?
but what if we think God is a person who followed the "Principle of Nature" And who became a symbol which represents the Principle of Nature Thus God=Principle of Nature
I find that the first horn of the dilemma has some uncanny resemblance to Kurt Godel's "math is incomplete" theorem: Consider the set A of all sets that aren't contained in themselves. Would it be possible for A to contain itself? If math is completely logically sound, there are some statements in math that can't be proven true or false. Or, as the dilemma would probably say (bolded items are changed from the incompleteness theorem, but just to show how similar it is to the Euthyphro dilemma: is *something pious* because *the gods like it,* or do they *just* like it because it's *pious?* If *an ethical system* is completely logically sound, there are some *actions* that can't be proven to be *pious or impious.*
There is a third option: G-d is the good. The good is an exemplification of G-d’s nature, and His will is not arbitrary. His commands are grounded in His nature and His nature is intrinsically good.
@@meggie19 Exactly. If God told me to do something or not to do something, what would stop me from telling him to screw off and mind his own business, except for skewing the costs and benefits after the fact, by adding a glorified carrot and stick - Heaven and Hell respectively?
1)but can god change his good nature? if not, then his nature comes from another source 2) if god can change is good nature , then his goodness can be anything he decides HENCE MAKING IT ARBITRARY
@@sims3man1 Also, goodness is a relative assessment of an action or outcome. If nothing except God existed, God could not in any meaningful sense be good. Thus goodness cannot be his nature since it was not until after he created something else that he could be good.
The creator is not the source of human morals but provides the baseline or foundation for our moral laws, by giving us the capacity to feel, weigh and predict outcomes.
God can’t say that murder is good when He is the standard of good. It’s logically possible for Him to change His nature from good to bad, but it’s not achievable because it would be going against His very nature. It’s like saying why doesn’t God stop all the evil in the world? Though it’s logical it’s not achievable with a creation given free will. To remove evil would be removing free will. Removing free will means we would no longer truly feel joy, happiness, and love. For God to create us as free will beings with choosing to truly love Him or not to love Him is the results of being given free will. So is God powerful enough to change His nature from good to evil? Yes! Is it logically possible? Yes! But is it actually achievable? No! Because it would be going against His very nature
Riko's postmodern life how do you come to that conclusion? If it’s possible then He’s omnipotent. I never said it was impossible, just not attainable. It would be the same as saying make a square circle.
@@TheChristianApologist if he _can't_ do it, he _can't_ do it. The unachievable, the unattainable and the impossible are the same, you are just making excuses because you have cornered yourself.
Riko's postmodern life OmnipotenceA is the power to do anything. This power, if a being had it, would include the capacity to do all logically possible acts, such as create and destroy material objects, do math problems, and so on. This power would also include the capacity to do logically impossible acts such as create a square circle, or a married bachelor, cause 2 + 2 = 5, avoid unavoidable occurrences, and so on. OmnipotenceLP is the power to do anything that is logically possible. This power, if a being had it, would include the capacity to do any act that does not generate a logically contradictory state of affairs. So this being could create a world that has free rational beings in it, but it could not create a world that both has free, rational beings in it and that is a void world with nothing in it. This isn’t back myself into a corner, this is me not realizing I had to define omnipotent on a philosophical level.
if he can change his nature, then you're just biting the bullet on the arbitrariness horn of the dilemma. What does it mean for something to be possible but not achievable? because standardly saying something is unachievable is just to say it's impossible, though unachievable might have more metaphysical/physical possibility connotations Why can't we have free will but also not be able to do evil? God has free will but cannot possibly do evil. There's plenty of things we can't choose, yet we don't think they constrain our ability to freely chose, I can't fly, it's not up to me, however you wouldn't say because that's not a possibility available to me that my free will is constrained. Then the same could be done for evil, i could be created in such a way that i have a free will, but the only physically available options to chose from are good ones. Free will and incapacity to do evil are compatible.
A few objections. 1.Its not a proper dilemma just because its called one. 2. The second is perfectly acceptable and a bad argument because it breaks the 4th wall to have any appeal. Meaning we have to be able to point out that terrible things could be arbitrarily declared good. The argument loses the emotional appeal if you pretend morality is truly arbitrary i.e. “God could arbitrarily declare feeding the hungry to be good”. This seems reasonable perhaps because feeding the hungry is generally thought to be within the scope of Gods character even if you don’t believe such a God exists you probably understand this idea. Quotes like “God could arbitrarily declare murder good” just appeal to emotions that may be dependent on our sense of morality which according to the horn merely tells us what God is like. If God were a warrior or killer maybe we would generally understand killing infidels is good. Certainly there are extremists who believe this. An omnibenevolant couldn’t declare “good” to be something they wouldn’t do. So if you assume horn 2 is true and ignore the logical fallacies in the objections its a consistent view regardless of the fact that it emotionally bugs some people.
Shawn it is TRUE dilemma. Either what god does is good or god does it because it is good. Talking about god's nature is stupid. It just pushes the dilemma one step further.
No dilemma in my mind. Your second horn is really just working off the premise of the first horn i.e. judging God's arbitrary morality off an already existing moral standard. As for arbitrary...since God is the "first cause", His morality is not formulated as an effect, but also first cause. It therefore appears arbitrary to us and must appear that way. We must say God's morality is perhaps not entirely defined as arbitrary but fiat flowing from His character.
It might mean you generally form your ethics around religion, but are willing to disagree with religious authorities when they seem to be incorrect about morality.
Essentially because it’s circular logic, which wouldn’t make much sense. God says the things because they are moral, and they are moral because God says them. Honestly I find the example given in this video of “God saying X” to be really cumbersome awkward. I think you’d be better served just reading the Wikipedia article about the actual dilemma about piety.
Free will and the concept of predetermination usually reserved for Calvinist answer this question I’m not saying it’s true false God oh God I’m just saying from our human standpoint you can vote free will that you’re not an atomic Thanh you are not a robot you a full agency is then you never really be alive you just be doing a preset script over and over and over again if there’s a multi-verse or not
I'm a little confused by what you are saying. Are you a determinist, a compatibilist, or a libertarian about free will? ruclips.net/video/CEMj9nx1T-k/видео.html
Where is option C? The problems isn't the dilemma, the problem is that people think it's a dilemma, meaning you'd have to already presuppose a standard outside of God to justify what is good or bad.... but it's neither of those options because """God""" would be the standard of Good which moral characteristic would have to be derived. So... I guess stay skeptical of the skepticals everybody
There's no option C because there's only 2 possibilities: 1) God created morality or 2) God didn't create morality. If 1) then God is the standard of Good. If 2) the standard of Good exist outside of God, which undermines the existence of God. Therefore, the dilemma still stands.
I would say Euthyphro didn't know the true character of God (how could he?), besides knowing the characters of Olympian gods (I'm hoping all of them weren't sordid). This is why I would see the dilemma, not necessarily as a false one, just a misinformed or ignorant one; therefore making it not really a dilemma.
Why do you think so? What do you think makes something good? Do you think that God decides what is good, or there is an objective standard that God just relays?
Carneades.org The idea that "God is the good" is what the dilemma seems to not consider or is ignorant of. This is why I mention God's character, it is the center of the being - where all actions and thoughts stem from. Think of someone you know and say you notice that they start to act "out of character," not at all like their normal selves, would you think there's something amiss with them? If so, why? I would say because I haven't seen them act like that before, what would make them act different than they have in the past? Something must be up with them. They are not themselves, they seem to be "out of character." One's inner person makes them _how_ they are and that manifests in their thoughts and actions.
I have heard this argument. It states that god's nature is good so it's not a dilemma at all. God's nature is the 3rd option. Here is a video that explains it and seems to refute it convincingly in my opinion: watch?v=nI3MdrQMTUw
This argument attempts to demonstrate that if you assume that God exists and good is based on his word, an untenable position for the theist will be derived. It's an indirect argument of sorts, or as Socrates would call it, an elenchus.
This is why as an agnostic, i believe it is entirely possible that there is a higher power or divine force, but i doubt to the highest extreme that he is benevolent towards his creations and if the day should come that such a being would judge me, i will be judging that hypocrite right back.
Right it is all very well until something goes against us - what if Muslims justify their killings because God told them to? And it is our little grandchild that died? Not so great then, is it?
I can't believe that this is a problem
Good answer
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
@@kyriltolbertyeah but the bible wasn’t written by God himself. it was written by a bunch of old fashioned men who wanted people to turn to christianity. If there is a God out there, he may be nothing like what the bible depicts him as.
A basic 'intorduction'. ☺
Clearly an evil deceiver prevented me from spelling the words correctly. :)
It was literally that Jay z quote that brought me here LMAO
lmfaoooo
The great Jay-Z
One option I have been pondering is that God could have created morality not only by his commands but through what "is." Let me explain: I am aware of the "is-ought problem" but it seems to me that morality is about how we ought to behave towards others. It is "other -oriented" based on the beings involved. So I can exterminate termites in my house, but to do so to people would be egregious. And when one shark kills another shark we don't call it murder. Why the difference? It is because God created humans with some special value not given to bugs. Some Christians would call this being made "in the image of God." Because we are creatures made worthy of respect, then moral obligations are made not by command alone, but by the very existence of respect worthy creatures. Everything ought to be treated according to its kind. People, all people, deserve basic respect for what they are. Thus, even before God gave the law to Moses that one should not murder, it was wrong for Cain to kill his brother. The moral law exists without the command because moral obligations are self evident based on the creation order. So atheists can recognize that people have a basic human dignity and thus desire the flourishing of people as a practical foundation for morality. But they cannot ground why people might be worthy of more respect than a termite in the first place. And this does not mean that God cannot issue commands that have moral weight, but it also means that moral realities can exist apart from God's commands - and yet still be dependent on his creation and plan. In this light, the Euthyphro problem seems like an odd one. There is no higher moral authority because nothing existed apart from God in eternity. And yet God's internal workings as multiple people included a way for Him to love himself perfectly. This is the paradigm of "the good." Do God's commands become morally binding (creating the good)? Obviously, assuming God cannot or would never command something against his self. But are there moral obligations aside from those commands? Yes, but in the context of the world that God made - and thus are ultimately dependent on him. Ultimately, only a multi-person view of God would allow him to be both good and exist alone. In that way, the Father can treat the Son and the Spirit how they "ought" to be treated, and they could do the same in return. So God can be good by himself because he can fulfill this sense of being "other oriented." Moral realities then becomes an extension of that existence to the rest of the created order. I am sure this thinking needs some work but it seems to answer the question or at least demonstrate why Euthyphro presumes the wrong things about the foundation for what is "the good."
Well the words they use are “pious” and “impious”. Essentially they are asking how we can determine what is pious or impious, especially in the most morally complicated cases, not just general moral axioms like “murder is wrong” and so forth. The Devil is in the details, because, in the face of complicated moral decisions, is there really always just one moral way of proceeding? That’s part of the larger problem that seems to arise from this dialogue. It’s not just “was it wrong to kill” but “was it wrong to kill when you consider all of these other unique factors”? Could one of those factors immediately make an otherwise moral action immoral, or vice versa? Could one or two factors make the action immoral, but then a third introduced makes it immediately moral again? That’s the greatest complication of the Euthyphro as a dialogue, not necessarily just the classical dilemma itself.
Someone has recently claimed that a response by theists to this dilemma is to claim that God is the good. I don't fully understand the claim or the argument and I suspicious that it assumes some kind of idealism. If you have more information, please provide me with the argument!
It seems like a necessity excwpt with greek Gods that arent omnibenevolant. If God is omnibenevolent then they wouldn’t declare something good if it was something they wouldn’t do.
@@ShawnSwander Nice philosophy, too bad it's a double negative that makes no goddamned sense hahahhahaha
@@ShawnSwanderexcept God has caused people to suffer and it has been considered good, if you take the bible literally. In the story of Noah’s ark, he literally drowns billions of people.
@cardneades I am not a believer in the fundamental sense but I believe that I could make an argument for Divine Command Theory from a Christians perspective. Again I am not a believer personally. My argument goes this way. “As a Christian we are “blessed” to not only have the father and son as our lord and savior but Christ left us the gift of the Holy Spirit. This form of collective intuition tweaks our morality to evolve over time to adjust to what God desires and commands. So indeed things we find immoral today would have had justification and would not have been immoral at the time.” Now at first thought this may appear to be moral relativism but the moral evolution happens at a rate that is digested by society. To believe this one has to step back from their chrocentric presentism and be able to make distinctions on why things were the way they were. So they Christian who truly believes in Divine Command Theory must have the backbone to admit that things we find reprehensible today could have been indeed moral in the past. So as not to defend or justify things in the past that I find immoral, I will posit a future scenario. It’s the year 2300, no one eats meat. It’s seen to as barbaric as canabilsm and those who do eat meat are viewed in a Jeffery Dahmer lite. In fact there is a movement to tear down all memorials to the past. Now in this scenario some how some way Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa and Ghandi all get transported the future. Should they all be considered immoral? Ok Ghandi was a vegetarian but on occasion he ate a “vegiburger” which is nearly as immoral as eating meat because you are imagining eating a meat product. In short I have no doubt something like this could happen.
Interesting claims. The question from the perspective of the Euthyphro Dilemma is in virtue of what is something good and not evil? How does your holy spirit determine which way to lead people? Is God deferring to an objective code of morality that he can't change? Or is God determining what is right and wrong? Either method falls on a horn of the dilemma.
***** I am aware of that response. I have a video on it. God is the Good (William Lane Craig and the Euthyphro Dilemma)
I also have a video that raises some greater concerns for such a response: The Free Will Dilemma
@Carneades.org your free will dilemma is a fallacy. Why? Your entire premise is God looks to a standard of good as we do as free will creatures. God has free will & that is why He can love. Love by definition has to be freely given. Humans are not the standard of good so therefore we look to a standard (God), and any deviation from that standard is what we call sin. What do I mean that God is the standard of good? Without an objective morally good, all that’s left is moral relativism. So.... anything “evil” such as murdering babies, & rape, etc... isn’t truly wrong but only ones opinion against another persons opinion. If God could commit evil, then He wouldn’t be God, because He would be having to look to standard of goodness above His own, therefore making whatever standard He is looking towards the true God. If free will was a dilemma, then God wouldn’t be God, because what God (standard of goodness) would predetermine or predestine His own children spending eternity out of His presence (hell)?
It's not a dilemma if you consider both to be in effect, it just becomes cyclical logic. Let's be real though, God says good things are good and therefore they're good - or else you'll be punished by your church.
The whole truth of the matter is that we can never decide which is good or bad, which is it, the first horn or the second, because we truly cannot and never will understand the concept of God. Who is he? What is he? Where did he come from? That it why faith is a reliance and fact cannot be.
Thank you
Do you define why sugar is sweet? Or are you preprogrammed to recognize sugar? Similarly, do you define the sensation of physical pain or are preprogrammed to recognize pain? Is the discomfort you feel during an event, a sign of immorality because God says it is or do you feel that it is?
Thanks! That was really helpful!
but what if we think God is a person who followed the "Principle of Nature"
And who became a symbol which represents the Principle of Nature
Thus God=Principle of Nature
I find that the first horn of the dilemma has some uncanny resemblance to Kurt Godel's "math is incomplete" theorem: Consider the set A of all sets that aren't contained in themselves. Would it be possible for A to contain itself? If math is completely logically sound, there are some statements in math that can't be proven true or false.
Or, as the dilemma would probably say (bolded items are changed from the incompleteness theorem, but just to show how similar it is to the Euthyphro dilemma: is *something pious* because *the gods like it,* or do they *just* like it because it's *pious?* If *an ethical system* is completely logically sound, there are some *actions* that can't be proven to be *pious or impious.*
There is a third option: G-d is the good.
The good is an exemplification of G-d’s nature, and His will is not arbitrary. His commands are grounded in His nature and His nature is intrinsically good.
Who or what decided what his nature would be? Did God decide what his nature would be, or was God's nature a product of something beyond God?
@@meggie19
Exactly.
If God told me to do something or not to do something, what would stop me from telling him to screw off and mind his own business, except for skewing the costs and benefits after the fact, by adding a glorified carrot and stick - Heaven and Hell respectively?
1)but can god change his good nature? if not, then his nature comes from another source
2) if god can change is good nature , then his goodness can be anything he decides HENCE MAKING IT ARBITRARY
@@sims3man1 Also, goodness is a relative assessment of an action or outcome. If nothing except God existed, God could not in any meaningful sense be good. Thus goodness cannot be his nature since it was not until after he created something else that he could be good.
@@meggie19 true
The creator is not the source of human morals but provides the baseline or foundation for our moral laws, by giving us the capacity to feel, weigh and predict outcomes.
Is this a Jujutsu Kaisen reference?
God can’t say that murder is good when He is the standard of good. It’s logically possible for Him to change His nature from good to bad, but it’s not achievable because it would be going against His very nature. It’s like saying why doesn’t God stop all the evil in the world? Though it’s logical it’s not achievable with a creation given free will. To remove evil would be removing free will. Removing free will means we would no longer truly feel joy, happiness, and love. For God to create us as free will beings with choosing to truly love Him or not to love Him is the results of being given free will.
So is God powerful enough to change His nature from good to evil? Yes! Is it logically possible? Yes! But is it actually achievable? No! Because it would be going against His very nature
Therefore his nature is _not_ that of Omnipotence.
Riko's postmodern life how do you come to that conclusion? If it’s possible then He’s omnipotent. I never said it was impossible, just not attainable. It would be the same as saying make a square circle.
@@TheChristianApologist if he _can't_ do it, he _can't_ do it. The unachievable, the unattainable and the impossible are the same, you are just making excuses because you have cornered yourself.
Riko's postmodern life OmnipotenceA is the power to do anything. This power, if a being had it, would include the capacity to do all logically possible acts, such as create and destroy material objects, do math problems, and so on. This power would also include the capacity to do logically impossible acts such as create a square circle, or a married bachelor, cause 2 + 2 = 5, avoid unavoidable occurrences, and so on. OmnipotenceLP is the power to do anything that is logically possible. This power, if a being had it, would include the capacity to do any act that does not generate a logically contradictory state of affairs. So this being could create a world that has free rational beings in it, but it could not create a world that both has free, rational beings in it and that is a void world with nothing in it. This isn’t back myself into a corner, this is me not realizing I had to define omnipotent on a philosophical level.
if he can change his nature, then you're just biting the bullet on the arbitrariness horn of the dilemma.
What does it mean for something to be possible but not achievable? because standardly saying something is unachievable is just to say it's impossible, though unachievable might have more metaphysical/physical possibility connotations
Why can't we have free will but also not be able to do evil? God has free will but cannot possibly do evil. There's plenty of things we can't choose, yet we don't think they constrain our ability to freely chose, I can't fly, it's not up to me, however you wouldn't say because that's not a possibility available to me that my free will is constrained. Then the same could be done for evil, i could be created in such a way that i have a free will, but the only physically available options to chose from are good ones. Free will and incapacity to do evil are compatible.
A few objections. 1.Its not a proper dilemma just because its called one. 2. The second is perfectly acceptable and a bad argument because it breaks the 4th wall to have any appeal. Meaning we have to be able to point out that terrible things could be arbitrarily declared good. The argument loses the emotional appeal if you pretend morality is truly arbitrary i.e. “God could arbitrarily declare feeding the hungry to be good”. This seems reasonable perhaps because feeding the hungry is generally thought to be within the scope of Gods character even if you don’t believe such a God exists you probably understand this idea. Quotes like “God could arbitrarily declare murder good” just appeal to emotions that may be dependent on our sense of morality which according to the horn merely tells us what God is like. If God were a warrior or killer maybe we would generally understand killing infidels is good. Certainly there are extremists who believe this. An omnibenevolant couldn’t declare “good” to be something they wouldn’t do. So if you assume horn 2 is true and ignore the logical fallacies in the objections its a consistent view regardless of the fact that it emotionally bugs some people.
Shawn it is TRUE dilemma. Either what god does is good or god does it because it is good. Talking about god's nature is stupid. It just pushes the dilemma one step further.
"Intorduction"
No dilemma in my mind. Your second horn is really just working off the premise of the first horn i.e. judging God's arbitrary morality off an already existing moral standard. As for arbitrary...since God is the "first cause", His morality is not formulated as an effect, but also first cause. It therefore appears arbitrary to us and must appear that way. We must say God's morality is perhaps not entirely defined as arbitrary but fiat flowing from His character.
mind bending
i think i am of the first horn.. so how much of this ideology dictates how i make decisions i wonder
It might mean you generally form your ethics around religion, but are willing to disagree with religious authorities when they seem to be incorrect about morality.
This argument totally disregards the concept of natural law ...
Why can't it be both?
Essentially because it’s circular logic, which wouldn’t make much sense.
God says the things because they are moral, and they are moral because God says them.
Honestly I find the example given in this video of “God saying X” to be really cumbersome awkward. I think you’d be better served just reading the Wikipedia article about the actual dilemma about piety.
Then it is a because b and b because a. Thats a circular fallacy
cuz both "horns" contradict each other so only either one can be true
dude sounds like john mullaney
Free will and the concept of predetermination usually reserved for Calvinist answer this question I’m not saying it’s true false God oh God I’m just saying from our human standpoint you can vote free will that you’re not an atomic Thanh you are not a robot you a full agency is then you never really be alive you just be doing a preset script over and over and over again if there’s a multi-verse or not
I'm a little confused by what you are saying. Are you a determinist, a compatibilist, or a libertarian about free will? ruclips.net/video/CEMj9nx1T-k/видео.html
You sound like the guy from some of the crash course videos.. Is that what you were going for?
You sound like a bitch. Is that what you were going for?
Drake Black 😂😂😂😂 Yes! thanks for catching on! Lol
Well that is a pointless question that we domt need to think about
Can you object to it? This is specifically an argument against Divine Command Theory, not religion in general.
we must think about EVERYTHING
Yeah, no....
Where is option C?
The problems isn't the dilemma, the problem is that people think it's a dilemma, meaning you'd have to already presuppose a standard outside of God to justify what is good or bad.... but it's neither of those options because """God""" would be the standard of Good which moral characteristic would have to be derived.
So... I guess stay skeptical of the skepticals everybody
There's no option C because there's only 2 possibilities: 1) God created morality or 2) God didn't create morality.
If 1) then God is the standard of Good.
If 2) the standard of Good exist outside of God, which undermines the existence of God.
Therefore, the dilemma still stands.
So what you're saying is morality is derived from God? That is just the second horn rephrased.
Mmmmm, this word salad you made is delicious hehe
The solution is that ethical nihilism is correct.
Both theories are very flawed
That's the point. If you are a divine command theorist you need to pick one, but neither is satisfactory.
I would say Euthyphro didn't know the true character of God (how could he?), besides knowing the characters of Olympian gods (I'm hoping all of them weren't sordid).
This is why I would see the dilemma, not necessarily as a false one, just a misinformed or ignorant one; therefore making it not really a dilemma.
Why do you think so? What do you think makes something good? Do you think that God decides what is good, or there is an objective standard that God just relays?
Carneades.org The idea that "God is the good" is what the dilemma seems to not consider or is ignorant of. This is why I mention God's character, it is the center of the being - where all actions and thoughts stem from.
Think of someone you know and say you notice that they start to act "out of character," not at all like their normal selves, would you think there's something amiss with them? If so, why? I would say because I haven't seen them act like that before, what would make them act different than they have in the past? Something must be up with them.
They are not themselves, they seem to be "out of character." One's inner person makes them _how_ they are and that manifests in their thoughts and actions.
You are comparing god to a human being?
VJScope God is a sentient being with intent, sensibilities and a mind.
Is he fallible too? If not, stop comparing god to humans!
I’m an atheist....I just don’t think there is sufficient evidence to give up my reality and give all credibility to a God.
@@mihaelamihaela3205 ...demonstrate those events happened and I'll take them seriously.
I have heard this argument. It states that god's nature is good so it's not a dilemma at all. God's nature is the 3rd option. Here is a video that explains it and seems to refute it convincingly in my opinion: watch?v=nI3MdrQMTUw
Overonator but it doesn't solve WHAT IS GOOD
@@hyruleanpaladin9212 It does if God IS the standard, God would be WHAT IS GOOD
Dennis Wilkerson That still doesnt solve the dilemma
@@denniswilkerson5536 What does "being the standard for good" mean? It is quite ambiguious.
Another terrified Christian who is scared of the dark. The test is true or false but it seems here you wrote "french fries." hahahhahahhaha
But there is no God.
This argument attempts to demonstrate that if you assume that God exists and good is based on his word, an untenable position for the theist will be derived. It's an indirect argument of sorts, or as Socrates would call it, an elenchus.
Carneades.org Interesting.
When do Canadians matter again?
i wonder why this comment did not start a comment war