A few thoughts on the Euthyphro dilemma

[ILOVEJESUS]

It is an interesting press to the theist. Demi is right regarding the actual nature of play put forward. Demi did however show you the ultimate silliness of the belief in "right" coming from a creator, in as much as a creator without choice in its actions can hardly be the god worshipped, adhered to in the first place. There would be no all powerfullness. Nice thread though.

[Eternal]

psychodiva wrote

meanwhile back in the real world I'll go off to do some work and maybe help a few people and worry about the morality of it all afterwards- or maybe just have a drink?

I'd go with the drink.

[psychodiva]

me too! only I have to drive to go see the Avengers before i can open a bottle

[Demigod79]

ILOVEJESUS wrote

It is an interesting press to the theist. Demi is right regarding the actual nature of play put forward. Demi did however show you the ultimate silliness of the belief in "right" coming from a creator, in as much as a creator without choice in its actions can hardly be the god worshipped, adhered to in the first place. There would be no all powerfullness. Nice thread though.

With regard to Christianity, I think there's a comparable scenario when Jesus was taken into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. A common question for Christians is, could Jesus have failed the test? Could he have given in to the devil's temptation? If not then it was a pointless exercise to begin with and Jesus was never really tempted in any way. If so, then it's possible for Jesus to have sinned and, if Jesus is God, it follows that God can also sin or be immoral. The latter scenario is the only one that makes any sense, but it goes against the idea of morality being in God's nature.

Of course a theologian might argue that the test was valid because of Jesus' human side, what with him being 100% human and 100% God... but that's another issue altogether:p .

[Kinich Ahau]

psychodiva wrote

meanwhile back in the real world I'll go off to do some work and maybe help a few people and worry about the morality of it all afterwards- or maybe just have a drink?

The Laphroaig Dilemma:

Is drinking good because you feel like it or do you feel like it because it"s good?

[Smellyoldgit]

Gosh, that's deep, so profound.
We should discuss and over-anal-ise it for centuries.
It's so obviously worthy of its own branch of brain wank & wiki page.

[Kate]

[shinydarkrai94]

Demigod79 wrote

Well, looking up the dictionary, for something to be meaningful it has to provide significance, purpose or importance. Your scenario of morality being equated with God's nature is meaningless since it provides no information on what makes an action right or wrong (morality is simply asserted). It makes God and morality a tautology - remember that just because a statement is true does not make it meaningful (e.g., 1 = 1 is true but is essentially meaningless). Such a theory has no significance and nothing important to convey - you might as well just say "God is moral because he is moral".

To establish a relation, only two entities (in this case, God's character and objective moral values) are needed. Establishing this relationship between God's character and objective moral values is not meaningless or tautological. A tautology would be saying, "10 = 10" or "objective moral values are objective moral values". An analytic statement (what I'm saying) is, "3 + 7 = 10" or "objective moral values result from God's nature".

I am asserting that things are moral because they are in God's nature and God's nature is moral for no reason. That there is no reason is often asserted to be a problem, but I don't see any problem with this.

[Smellyoldgit]

Philosophy of Drink

[Demigod79]

shinydarkrai94 wrote

I am asserting that things are moral because they are in God's nature and God's nature is moral for no reason. That there is no reason is often
asserted to be a problem, but I don't see any problem with this.

Then I don't see why you're even bothering with logical arguments at all. The whole point of doing philosophy is to provide a reason for something (deduce a conclusion from some premises, based on reason and logic).

Let me ask you, if someone said the Koran contains the only true words of God and it is this way for no reason, what would you say? What would this statement be worth to you?

[West491]

...loading mental gymnastics

[ghoulslime]

Smellyoldgit wrote

You carry on hypotheticalising - I'll eye-roll & cringe at the bollocks of it all from the sidelines.

I'm going to be drinking some beer and jacking off to ladyboy porn, just in case anybody needs me.

[psychodiva]

LOL Love the video Smelly more things twixt heaven and earth etc etc etc etc - hopefully most of them are either pickled or about to be

[dogpet]

shinydarkrai94 wrote

If there is any reason for doubting any of these premises, then there is doubt as to whether we ought to kill someone. If I thought that I heard God telling me to kill someone, I would not have absolute certainty about all of those premises, so I would instead seek a doctor .

Which bits are you having trouble with? Could it be you would disobey god* without incontrovertible proof of his existence?

[Demigod79]

dogpet wrote

Which bits are you having trouble with? Could it be you would disobey god* without incontrovertible proof of his existence?

Yeah, that's not the Abrahamic God at any rate. God told Abraham to kill his son, he carried it out until God told him to stop, and he was rewarded for his obedience.