Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Standard for god's benevolence

socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 2:01:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I have seen a few threads so far that seek an answer to this questinon and I have yet to find one so I am asking for anyone who knows the answer to share it with me.

This is the basic Euthyphro dilemna, is something good because god wills it or was it already good? If it be the first then morality is arbitrary and if it be the second than god is unnecessary.

One answer I have seen is that it is the first but morality is not arbitrary because god only chooses things to be good or bad based on his own omni-benevolence.

But doesn't this just bring us around to the same question only now we are asking to what standard is god's omni-benevolence applied? Did he choose what is benevolent(arbitrary) or was there some standard before god to which he applies?

If anyone has an answer I would be much obliged to hear it.
Thank you.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 2:09:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 2:01:23 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I have seen a few threads so far that seek an answer to this questinon and I have yet to find one so I am asking for anyone who knows the answer to share it with me.

This is the basic Euthyphro dilemna, is something good because god wills it or was it already good? If it be the first then morality is arbitrary and if it be the second than god is unnecessary.

One answer I have seen is that it is the first but morality is not arbitrary because god only chooses things to be good or bad based on his own omni-benevolence.

But doesn't this just bring us around to the same question only now we are asking to what standard is god's omni-benevolence applied? Did he choose what is benevolent(arbitrary) or was there some standard before god to which he applies?

If anyone has an answer I would be much obliged to hear it.
Thank you.

God didn't choose what is benevolent. Omni-benevolence is in his nature.

However, I still believe the Euthyphro is effective because it still demonstrates the arbitrariness of Theist morality. Basically, whatever "good" is in his nature is still arbitrary and not there through any sort of means of reasoning.

A non-arbitrary standard of morality would have to be reached through means of reason, which is not the case in Theistic moral theory.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 2:10:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 2:09:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
God didn't choose what is benevolent. Omni-benevolence is in his nature.

Says who!?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 2:20:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 2:10:37 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/23/2011 2:09:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
God didn't choose what is benevolent. Omni-benevolence is in his nature.

Says who!?

If that is his nature then can he choose something to be moral then does he have the ability to choose something which goes against his nature?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 2:25:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm tired of explaining this here in the forums. Someone debate me on Euthyphro.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 2:30:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 2:25:59 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'm tired of explaining this here in the forums. Someone debate me on Euthyphro.

You've even addressed the contention I brought up?

I don't have time for a debate, so perhaps you can address that point here.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
awatkins69
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 4:35:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 2:20:07 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/23/2011 2:10:37 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/23/2011 2:09:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
God didn't choose what is benevolent. Omni-benevolence is in his nature.

Says who!?


If that is his nature then can he choose something to be moral then does he have the ability to choose something which goes against his nature?

No, he cannot choose something which goes against his nature. That would be impossible. This is consistent however with his omnipotence, which says that God can do anything which is logically possible. I also think it is consistent with God's having significant freedom.
awatkins69
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 4:38:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 2:30:22 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/23/2011 2:25:59 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'm tired of explaining this here in the forums. Someone debate me on Euthyphro.

You've even addressed the contention I brought up?

I don't have time for a debate, so perhaps you can address that point here.

It's an interesting point you bring up; but if I'm interpreting you correctly you're saying that it's arbitrary because it just happens to be that what God's nature is is the Good, and you'd rather it be through some sort of intellectual process?

No offense meant or anything, but I'm a little bit confused about what you would consider non-arbitrary? Maybe explicate on that a little more and I can try my best to give an answer.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 4:42:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 4:35:10 PM, awatkins69 wrote:
At 3/23/2011 2:20:07 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/23/2011 2:10:37 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/23/2011 2:09:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
God didn't choose what is benevolent. Omni-benevolence is in his nature.

Says who!?


If that is his nature then can he choose something to be moral then does he have the ability to choose something which goes against his nature?

No, he cannot choose something which goes against his nature. That would be :impossible. This is consistent however with his omnipotence, which says that God :can do anything which is logically possible. I also think it is consistent with God's :having significant freedom.

So god canot do something which is logically impossible? I doubt most theists will agree with you here but that clearly goes against the definition of omnipotence.

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 4:45:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 4:38:36 PM, awatkins69 wrote:
At 3/23/2011 2:30:22 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/23/2011 2:25:59 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'm tired of explaining this here in the forums. Someone debate me on Euthyphro.

You've even addressed the contention I brought up?

I don't have time for a debate, so perhaps you can address that point here.

It's an interesting point you bring up; but if I'm interpreting you correctly you're saying that it's arbitrary because it just happens to be that what God's nature is is the Good, and you'd rather it be through some sort of intellectual process?

No I don't mean an intellectual process is required. I'm saying that there has to be some explanatory principle behind the moral theory in order for it to be non-arbitrary. I'm using the Principles of Sufficient Reason to derive this conclusion.

No offense meant or anything, but I'm a little bit confused about what you would consider non-arbitrary? Maybe explicate on that a little more and I can try my best to give an answer.

See above.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
awatkins69
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 4:50:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 4:42:23 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/23/2011 4:35:10 PM, awatkins69 wrote:
At 3/23/2011 2:20:07 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/23/2011 2:10:37 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/23/2011 2:09:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
God didn't choose what is benevolent. Omni-benevolence is in his nature.

Says who!?


If that is his nature then can he choose something to be moral then does he have the ability to choose something which goes against his nature?

No, he cannot choose something which goes against his nature. That would be :impossible. This is consistent however with his omnipotence, which says that God :can do anything which is logically possible. I also think it is consistent with God's :having significant freedom.

So god canot do something which is logically impossible? I doubt most theists will agree with you here but that clearly goes against the definition of omnipotence.

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Most theologians and philosophers of religion have taken omnipotence to mean the ability to do whatever is logically possible. I wouldn't trust a normal dictionary like that to clearly explain what theism holds (the definition there is circular anyways since it uses "unlimited power" and "all-powerful" without explaining what it means; that's precisely what we're trying to figure out). The Catholic Encyclopedia for instance would be a much better source, considering that Catholicism (Augustine, Boethius, Anselm, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Scotus, Suarez, Descartes) has played such a central role in defining the concepts of classical theism.

http://www.newadvent.org...
awatkins69
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 4:53:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 4:45:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/23/2011 4:38:36 PM, awatkins69 wrote:
At 3/23/2011 2:30:22 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/23/2011 2:25:59 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'm tired of explaining this here in the forums. Someone debate me on Euthyphro.

You've even addressed the contention I brought up?

I don't have time for a debate, so perhaps you can address that point here.

It's an interesting point you bring up; but if I'm interpreting you correctly you're saying that it's arbitrary because it just happens to be that what God's nature is is the Good, and you'd rather it be through some sort of intellectual process?

No I don't mean an intellectual process is required. I'm saying that there has to be some explanatory principle behind the moral theory in order for it to be non-arbitrary. I'm using the Principles of Sufficient Reason to derive this conclusion.

No offense meant or anything, but I'm a little bit confused about what you would consider non-arbitrary? Maybe explicate on that a little more and I can try my best to give an answer.

See above.

That definitely clears some things up a bit; however, I'm still not sure what a non-arbitrary ethics would look like. In all theories about morality we're going to end up coming to some primitive axioms which are considered just to be necessary truths, aren't we? So what would a non-arbitrary moral system look like?
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 5:01:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 2:25:59 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'm tired of explaining this here in the forums. Someone debate me on Euthyphro.

I'll accept the challenge, or write one up and issue it tomorrow.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 5:02:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 4:50:34 PM, awatkins69 wrote:
At 3/23/2011 4:42:23 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/23/2011 4:35:10 PM, awatkins69 wrote:
At 3/23/2011 2:20:07 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 3/23/2011 2:10:37 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/23/2011 2:09:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
God didn't choose what is benevolent. Omni-benevolence is in his nature.

Says who!?


If that is his nature then can he choose something to be moral then does he have the ability to choose something which goes against his nature?

No, he cannot choose something which goes against his nature. That would be :impossible. This is consistent however with his omnipotence, which says that God :can do anything which is logically possible. I also think it is consistent with God's :having significant freedom.

So god canot do something which is logically impossible? I doubt most theists will agree with you here but that clearly goes against the definition of omnipotence.

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Most theologians and philosophers of religion have taken omnipotence to mean the ability to do whatever is logically possible. I wouldn't trust a normal dictionary like that to clearly explain what theism holds (the definition there is circular anyways since it uses "unlimited power" and "all-powerful" without explaining what it means; that's precisely what we're trying to figure out). The Catholic Encyclopedia for instance would be a much better source, considering that Catholicism (Augustine, Boethius, Anselm, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Scotus, Suarez, Descartes) has played such a central role in defining the concepts of classical theism.

http://www.newadvent.org...

If we're going to limit God's abilities to that which is logically possible, it seems a hard blow to the theist position since it is no longer the primacy of God's existence (or the primacy of the divine, if you want to phrase it as such) being emphasized, but the primacy of universal constraints; however, if we emphasize the primacy of the universe (of which God is allegedly the origin), we run into problems--primarily, problems of regress.
awatkins69
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 5:20:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm not sure what you mean by all of this. Where is the contradiction between saying God can do whatever is logically possible and that God is the creator of everything which exists other than himself? I have no problem affirming both propositions. Neither have the majority of classical theists.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 5:42:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 5:20:55 PM, awatkins69 wrote:

Where is the contradiction between saying God can do whatever is logically possible and that God is the creator of everything which exists other than himself?

How come God can not do what is logically impossible, why it is bound by logic?
awatkins69
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 5:46:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 5:42:09 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 3/23/2011 5:20:55 PM, awatkins69 wrote:

Where is the contradiction between saying God can do whatever is logically possible and that God is the creator of everything which exists other than himself?

How come God can not do what is logically impossible, why it is bound by logic?

God cannot do what is impossible because what is impossible is not possible! :)
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 7:21:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 5:46:07 PM, awatkins69 wrote:

God cannot do what is impossible because what is impossible is not possible! :)

And again, why is God bound by logic.
awatkins69
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 10:22:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 7:21:04 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 3/23/2011 5:46:07 PM, awatkins69 wrote:

God cannot do what is impossible because what is impossible is not possible! :)

And again, why is God bound by logic.

For essentially the same reason: breaking the laws of logic is not possible. It's analytically true that it's not possible to do something that's not possible.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 11:15:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 10:22:26 PM, awatkins69 wrote:

For essentially the same reason: breaking the laws of logic is not possible. It's analytically true that it's not possible to do something that's not possible.

Yes. but that just repeats the phrase - consider the simple situation where God thinks about something that is logically impossible, he then attempts to do it - what happens? If he can not do it then what exactly is it that is constraining God.

If the laws of logic are inherent to his will, then if he changes his will do they not change? If he changes his will and they do not change then what is the thing greater than God which makes them immutable to God's will?

Lets be specific, say God is chillin', and suddenly Moses come up complaining that Buddha and Confucius are playing ping pong and have been non-stop for 72 hours and it is driving him mental.

Now God does not want to stop the game as Buddha an Confucius loves them some pong, but he also does not want Moses to suffer the inane daily ponging. He suddenly realizes he just needs to make the pong both pong and not pong.

That way the two sages can be happy playing ping pong but Moses will not be bothered by the non-pong. So God decides to make this happen - now this violates the law of identity so what happens right at this moment?

Note that in general the laws of logic are not actually absolutes, I break them every day, especially the law of non-contradiction, I pay no attention to that one at all - my logic is fuzzy by nature.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2011 11:57:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 7:21:04 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 3/23/2011 5:46:07 PM, awatkins69 wrote:

God cannot do what is impossible because what is impossible is not possible! :)

And again, why is God bound by logic.

Logic is not something you can be bound by. Asserting that God can't do logically impossible things doesn't mean he is bound by logic, it just means that absurd contradictions dont exist and can't be realized.

For example, its absurd to say "if Gods omnipotent, why.can't he kill himself?"

Or even more absurd "if God is omnipotent, can God make himself both God and non-God simultaneously?"

These are not limits on God, its simply incoherent language.

Incoherent language =/= limits on God
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2011 12:19:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 11:57:02 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Logic is not something you can be bound by. Asserting that God can't do logically impossible things doesn't mean he is bound by logic, it just means that absurd contradictions dont exist and can't be realized.

All you are doing is simply repeating the affirmation, they can not be realized because they are impossible, they are impossible as they are illogical. Why is it impossible for God to perform a logically impossible act - and what exact laws of logic are the ones he can not break?
awatkins69
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2011 12:47:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 11:57:02 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/23/2011 7:21:04 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 3/23/2011 5:46:07 PM, awatkins69 wrote:

God cannot do what is impossible because what is impossible is not possible! :)

And again, why is God bound by logic.

Logic is not something you can be bound by. Asserting that God can't do logically impossible things doesn't mean he is bound by logic, it just means that absurd contradictions dont exist and can't be realized.

For example, its absurd to say "if Gods omnipotent, why.can't he kill himself?"

Or even more absurd "if God is omnipotent, can God make himself both God and non-God simultaneously?"

These are not limits on God, its simply incoherent language.

Incoherent language =/= limits on God

I don't think I could have said it any better myself.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2011 6:32:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 2:01:23 PM, socialpinko wrote:
I have seen a few threads so far that seek an answer to this questinon and I have yet to find one so I am asking for anyone who knows the answer to share it with me.

This is the basic Euthyphro dilemna, is something good because god wills it or was it already good? If it be the first then morality is arbitrary and if it be the second than god is unnecessary.

One answer I have seen is that it is the first but morality is not arbitrary because god only chooses things to be good or bad based on his own omni-benevolence.

But doesn't this just bring us around to the same question only now we are asking to what standard is god's omni-benevolence applied? Did he choose what is benevolent(arbitrary) or was there some standard before god to which he applies?

If anyone has an answer I would be much obliged to hear it.
Thank you.

God does not 'decide' in the same sense that we do, He is bound by His own Nature, He is the " SAME, yesterday, today and forever.. " and so He cannot be what He is not.. God IS good IS God.. Devil is evil is devil..
The Cross.. the Cross.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2011 7:11:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/24/2011 6:32:59 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

He is bound by His own Nature, He is the " SAME, yesterday, today and forever.. " and so He cannot be what He is not.. God IS good IS God.. Devil is evil is devil..

That is the exact dilemma, you just defined good to have no standard other than the nature of God, thus whatever God would do by definition is good and thus good is arbitrary.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2011 6:23:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/24/2011 7:11:33 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 3/24/2011 6:32:59 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

He is bound by His own Nature, He is the " SAME, yesterday, today and forever.. " and so He cannot be what He is not.. God IS good IS God.. Devil is evil is devil..

That is the exact dilemma, you just defined good to have no standard other than the nature of God, thus whatever God would do by definition is good and thus good is arbitrary.

But our judgment, our thought processes etc also come from God, so we cannot escape this truth; except if God gave us a way to willfully deceive ourselves.. like a tree of knowledge of good and evil perhaps?
The Cross.. the Cross.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2011 9:27:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/25/2011 6:23:33 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

But our judgment, our thought processes etc also come from God, so we cannot escape this truth;

What truth, if you define good to be the nature of God then good is arbitrary, it can mean anything because anything God does is good by definition. You do not even have a way to tell apart the actions of Satan and God.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2011 12:17:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/23/2011 4:38:36 PM, awatkins69 wrote:
At 3/23/2011 2:30:22 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/23/2011 2:25:59 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'm tired of explaining this here in the forums. Someone debate me on Euthyphro.

You've even addressed the contention I brought up?

I don't have time for a debate, so perhaps you can address that point here.

It's an interesting point you bring up; but if I'm interpreting you correctly you're saying that it's arbitrary because it just happens to be that what God's nature is is the Good, and you'd rather it be through some sort of intellectual process?

No offense meant or anything, but I'm a little bit confused about what you would consider non-arbitrary? Maybe explicate on that a little more and I can try my best to give an answer.

Non-arbitrary would mean there was a reason or something inherent about an action which lead god to determine that it was 'bad' or 'good'. Arbitrary is defined as simply because god says so or because it's god's nature.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.