The "Goodness" of God & the Euthyphro Dilemma

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

The "Goodness" of God & the Euthyphro Dilemma

Post #1

Post by Jagella »

The Euthyphro Dilemma, attributed to the Greek Philosopher Plato, might be applied to the god of Christianity in the following way:
Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?
This question poses a dilemma to Christians regarding how they may base their morality in their god. On the one hand if their god must command what is good, then not only is he limited in that he must adhere to moral standards beyond his will, but he is not needed for morality. All one must do to know what is moral is to look to those moral standards, and any god is irrelevant.

On the other hand, if morality is simply what the Christian god commands, then morality reduces to "my god said so, and that's that." If the Christian god commands men to rape their mothers, then they must do so, and doing so would then be "moral"!

It should come as no surprise that Christian apologists have resolved the Euthyphro Dilemma, or so they believe. A common way of slipping out of this sticky situation is for apologists to simply say that God commands what is good because he is good! His very nature is moral, and therefore what he commands is moral. Problem solved.

Question for Debate: Have apologists adequately resolved the Euthyphro Dilemma?

I don't think so. Note that the "solution" to this problem involves saying that the Christian god is "good" and "moral." Apologists are unwittingly comparing their god to some standard of goodness. In doing so they demonstrate that the Christian god must live up to this standard of goodness to be moral, and he is not needed to know what is moral.

TheGreatDebate
Student
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 10:44 pm

Re: The "Goodness" of God & the Euthyphro Dile

Post #61

Post by TheGreatDebate »

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

I don't understand the dilemma. If there is a deity that created everything then of course "morality" would fall under that. "Morality" would be nothing more than His opinion. A true deity would not be beholden to higher laws of "morality" or anything else other than Himself. We can superimpose whatever views that would be reprehensible to us today or acceptable to us today (that may or may not represent mankind in general at different points in time) and compare God to them (as I believe Satan did in the garden) but what an arrogant piece of biomass we would be to tell our creator that he offends us.

I actually do believe in a deity and it is the one spoken of in both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. This is an old argument (read Rom 9) and I thank you for bringing up modern Christian hypocrisy. As the scriptures say, "I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isa 45:7)" The answer to that supposed "dilemma" is discussed in Romans 9.

My questions to you would be that if there was a verifiable deity that created you and that you accepted as real and he told you to do something that you didn't like, would you refute him? Would you quote unquote fall into the same dilemma as modern Christianity does with their god?

If there wasn't, would you arbitrarily subject everyone else to your personal opinions of morality? Or would you fall in line with the subjective moral majority of the given time?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14192
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 912 times
Been thanked: 1644 times
Contact:

Re: The "Goodness" of God & the Euthyphro Dile

Post #62

Post by William »

[Replying to post 61 by TheGreatDebate]
I don't understand the dilemma. If there is a deity that created everything then of course "morality" would fall under that. "Morality" would be nothing more than His opinion.
Getting a GODs opinion is fraught with problematicism.

It is all very well proclaiming some verbally expressed script as being a GODs opinion, but by then it is already too late to count as a matter of fact. The problem is the medium. Once a GOD uses a Medium, "problematicism"
A true deity would not be beholden to higher laws of "morality" or anything else other than Himself.
Panentheism has it that a 'true deity' amounts to anyone who can do this. In relation to the 'made in GOD's image' theory {explained in greater detail here} all human beings have the same potential, although most swap that power for false promises from the worlds Mods.
We can superimpose whatever views that would be reprehensible to us today or acceptable to us today (that may or may not represent mankind in general at different points in time) and compare God to them (as I believe Satan did in the garden) but what an arrogant piece of biomass we would be to tell our creator that he offends us.


That is the problem right there. Welcome to the forum!
When one has been convinced by the world Mods that one was 'created', (or 'evolved') one essentially gives up the understanding of being an aspect of GOD. One now believes that a GOD (or a mindless process) "created" them and that one is merely a "piece of biomass" and an arrogant one at that!

Problematicism

I actually do believe in a deity and it is the one spoken of in both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament.


So one publicly confesses to ones exchanging of one's power to the Mod's of False Beliefs for the comforting pillow of promise of rewards to come.
This is an old argument (read Rom 9) and I thank you for bringing up modern Christian hypocrisy. As the scriptures say, "I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isa 45:7)" The answer to that supposed "dilemma" is discussed in Romans 9.


Exactly what almost every "piece of biomass" human being does and can confess to being able to do.
My questions to you would be that if there was a verifiable deity that created you and that you accepted as real and he told you to do something that you didn't like, would you refute him?
Hardly matters. It is more than enough that there are "pieces of biomasses" going around proclaiming to speak for such a he-GOD, and I am able to refute them. They threaten me with a time when the GOD will come through some inter-dimensional portal and deal to me, at some unknown point in the future, but I suspect they are scare-mongering on behalf of the World Mods.
Would you quote unquote fall into the same dilemma as modern Christianity does with their god?
It doesn't sound like that would be something I would contemplate.

If some inter-dimensional entity species proclaiming to be my creator GOD, turned up on the world stage today, I would think of it like most modern day, critical-thinking human beings would think of such an event.

I even created a thread hereabouts to discuss that very subject!

Jesus' Return
Problem's associated with this belief...


And;

Talking About Aliens ... About Jesus Returning...

If there wasn't, would you arbitrarily subject everyone else to your personal opinions of morality? Or would you fall in line with the subjective moral majority of the given time?
I would tolerate it if it allowed any opportunity for me to be able to try and encourage Christians to stop waiting for the promise of Jesus to return to reward them by him doing something for them which they all could have helped achieve for themselves and everyone else.

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: The "Goodness" of God & the Euthyphro Dile

Post #63

Post by Jagella »

TheGreatDebate wrote:I don't understand the dilemma. If there is a deity that created everything then of course "morality" would fall under that. "Morality" would be nothing more than His opinion. A true deity would not be beholden to higher laws of "morality" or anything else other than Himself.
The Euthyrphro dilemma is a problem for those people who wish to believe their god is the source of morality yet does not arbitrarily make up whatever he wants to be right or wrong. If he's the source of morality, then morals reduce to whatever that god wants. If he's not the source of morality, then unbelievers don't need him for morality.
My questions to you would be that if there was a verifiable deity that created you and that you accepted as real and he told you to do something that you didn't like, would you refute him? Would you quote unquote fall into the same dilemma as modern Christianity does with their god?
That's a great question. I suppose it depends on what that god would do to me if I disobeyed him. I'd probably do what he ordered if I knew I faced eternity in hell.

And by the way, the dilemma you posted above is not the Euthyrphro Dilemma but is a dilemma over obedience in the face of punishment versus doing what one thinks is right.
If there wasn't, would you arbitrarily subject everyone else to your personal opinions of morality? Or would you fall in line with the subjective moral majority of the given time?
All morality is subjective, but if I had the power I would impose my morality on others.

User avatar
Filthy Tugboat
Guru
Posts: 1726
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:55 pm
Location: Australia
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: The "Goodness" of God & the Euthyphro Dile

Post #64

Post by Filthy Tugboat »

[Replying to post 60 by dio9]

I think that we are of the same mind, morality, does seem to be subjective.
Religion feels to me a little like a Nigerian Prince scam. The "offer" is illegitimate, the "request" is unreasonable and the source is dubious, in fact, Nigeria doesn't even have a royal family.

PaulofSarja
Student
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2019 7:18 am

Re: The "Goodness" of God & the Euthyphro Dile

Post #65

Post by PaulofSarja »

Jagella wrote:
PaulofSarja wrote:
Jagella wrote:A) questions if morality does not originate in God while B) questions if morality does originate in God. So the Euthyphro Dilemma questions the following:
  • A) Morality does not originate in God.
    B) Morality does originate in God.
You may have pointed out a flaw in the Euthyphro Dilemma, some religions like Christianity hold that morality is eternal (like logic and mathematics), so it does not originate at any time.
If morality has no origin, then it does not originate in God and fits into case B) Morality does originate in God.
Morality may be a property of God, a part of God or God itself.
So your dilemma could still be split like this
  • A) Morality does not originate in God.
    B) Morality does originate in God.
    C) Morality is God
If morality is a property of God, then it originates in God, Case A.
Did you get A and B inverted?
Jagella wrote: So you've arrived at two mutually exclusive conclusions.
I can see more than two mutually exclusive conclusions.
  • 1) Morality does originate in God.
    2) Morality does originate in something other than God.
    3) Morality is eternal and separate from God.
    4) Morality is eternal and co-equal to God.
    5) Morality does not exist.

Case 1 would make B true, cases 2,3,4 and 5 would make A true and 4 would make C true.
Jagella wrote:The error in your logic is that you are trying to violate the Law of the Excluded Middle.
The error in your logic is subtle. Like this
  • A) You did stop beating your wife.
    B) You did not stop beating your wife.
Jagella wrote: But morality is not a conscious agent like God is believed to be.
How do you know that morality is not a conscious agent? If we have an obligation to behave in a certain way, how is it possible to be obligated to something that is not a conscious agent?

dio9
Under Probation
Posts: 2275
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2015 7:01 pm

Re: The "Goodness" of God & the Euthyphro Dile

Post #66

Post by dio9 »

Jagella wrote:
dio9 wrote:Jesus said people are good and to be loved because they simply are loved by God .
Why should we love anything if the Christian god presumably loves it or them? If the Christian god loved excrement, then would we be required to love excrement too? I don't need any gods to tell me that it's generally best to have a positive attitude toward other people. Since I can figure that out on my own, anything the Bible god says is irrelevant.
Hey the anus and the brain are each essential parts of the body. We can't live without either. honestly I love a good shit. :P

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #67

Post by Elijah John »

[Replying to post 66 by dio9]


:warning: Moderator Warning


The last line of your post there. Not good. Not acceptable, and you should know that.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

User avatar
Jagella
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3667
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:01 am
Been thanked: 2 times
Contact:

Re: The "Goodness" of God & the Euthyphro Dile

Post #68

Post by Jagella »

PaulofSarja wrote:Did you get A and B inverted?
Yes. I was unable to edit my typo. I meant to argue the following:

If morality has no origin, then it does not originate in God and fits into case A, Morality does not originate in God.
If morality is a property of God as you say, then it originates in God, Case A.

I'd grant that if "morality is God," then God may not arbitrarily choose what is or is not moral, but then you would need to concede that God is limited in what he can do; he cannot change himself. Do you concede that God is limited and impotent?

I should also point out that to claim morality is God is still a category error unless you wish to define "God" as a way of thinking and acting on what ought to be done. Is God a way of thinking and acting on what ought to be done?
1) Morality does originate in God.
2) Morality does originate in something other than God.
3) Morality is eternal and separate from God.
4) Morality is eternal and co-equal to God.
5) Morality does not exist.
You can collapse that list into this list:
1) Morality does originate in God, and morality is eternal and co-equal to God.
2) Morality is eternal and does not originate in God.

And we're right back to the Euthyrphro Dilemma!

As for 5 and the details regarding eternality and equality you added in 2, 3, and 4, such is not important to asking whether or not morality originates in God. The Euthyphro Dilemma is a dilemma about what morality originates from if anything, and the age and equality of morality is irrelevant.
The error in your logic is subtle. Like this
  • A) You did stop beating your wife.
    B) You did not stop beating your wife.
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. I'd say the Euthyrphro Dilemma is more like the following:
  • A) Your beating your wife is a moral that originated in God.
    B) Your beating your wife is a moral that never originated in God.
How do you know that morality is not a conscious agent? If we have an obligation to behave in a certain way, how is it possible to be obligated to something that is not a conscious agent?
As far as I know morality doesn't do anything, so it cannot be a conscious agent. But whatever it can do, I can be obligated to it or anything else.

Sheesh--you apologists sure keep me busy untwisting all that convoluted logic!

dio9
Under Probation
Posts: 2275
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2015 7:01 pm

Post #69

Post by dio9 »

[Replying to Elijah John]

excuse me . it won't happen again. But if I had used Jagella's word "excrement " would that have been OK? However I thought he had asked the question , If God love excrement do we have to too? I thought the answer was yes. Maybe I used a rude word but argue it was on topic. . Saying IMO if God loves we are morally obliged to love or try to love.

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #70

Post by marco »

dio9 wrote: [Replying to Elijah John]

excuse me . it won't happen again. But if I had used Jagella's word "excrement " would that have been OK? However I thought he had asked the question , If God love excrement do we have to too? I thought the answer was yes. Maybe I used a rude word but argue it was on topic. . Saying IMO if God loves we are morally obliged to love or try to love.



Moderator Comment


I'll take your first six words as an apology but your further comment might be seen as a challenge to your warning. Don't comment on a moderator's action. Use a PM if you have anything to say.



Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Post Reply