Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

The Euthyprho Dilemma

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 1:28:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is the best explanation of the Euthyprho dilemma that I've found. It goes like this:

"Is God good because he creates the good or because he recognizes the good? Think about that. If he creates the good, if he decides what is good, then he can make anything good. He can make murder good if it was up to him. But if he just recognizes good then why do we need God? If there is this other standard of good that God is recognizing, then why aren"t we appealing to that as our objective standard and not God?" -Dr Zachary Moore

I want to have a discussion on this topic because many atheists believe that God cannot ground objective morality because it what is good would either be (1) arbitrary or (2) a standard that exists apart from God.

Morality is "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."

Objective means to be definitively true.

Objective morality would read: "definitively true principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."

Here are some examples of objective moral standards: is it definitively true that punishing an innocent person is wrong? Is it definitively true that killing someone without sufficient cause is wrong? Is it definitively true that torturing babies is wrong? Is it definitively true that love and kindness is good?

These are examples of objective moral standards. Nothing mentioned above will ever deviate from the truth. For example: Could you ever say that punishing an innocent person is good? Would it ever be good to torture a baby?

So objective moral standards are grounded in truth. Truth is an abstract, invariant, and universal fact that is in accordance with reality. If something is abstract it only exists in the mind. If something is invariant it is definitive. If it is universal it is in all places. If something only exists in the mind, is definitive, and exists in all places, only a mind that is definitive and exists in all places could ground the truth. The mind that grounds all truth must be God. There are various formulations of this.

There are some objective logical absolutes.
We can have concepts of these logical absolutes.
These logical absolutes are not physical (you can't find them within the natural world).
These logical absolutes are therefore conceptual.
Concepts require a mind.
Since the logical absolutes are true everywhere they must exist within an infinite mind.
That mind is God.
God exists.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org...

If God is the mind that embodies all truth, then God's mind is invariant. Therefore God's mind can never (1) make arbitrary decisions or (2) have something be true apart from God. The Euthyprho Dilemma ends in a false dichotomy.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 4:23:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 1:28:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
This is the best explanation of the Euthyprho dilemma that I've found. It goes like this:

"Is God good because he creates the good or because he recognizes the good? Think about that. If he creates the good, if he decides what is good, then he can make anything good. He can make murder good if it was up to him. But if he just recognizes good then why do we need God? If there is this other standard of good that God is recognizing, then why aren"t we appealing to that as our objective standard and not God?" -Dr Zachary Moore

I want to have a discussion on this topic because many atheists believe that God cannot ground objective morality because it what is good would either be (1) arbitrary or (2) a standard that exists apart from God.

Morality is "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."

Objective means to be definitively true.

Objective morality would read: "definitively true principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."

Here are some examples of objective moral standards: is it definitively true that punishing an innocent person is wrong? Is it definitively true that killing someone without sufficient cause is wrong? Is it definitively true that torturing babies is wrong? Is it definitively true that love and kindness is good?

These are examples of objective moral standards. Nothing mentioned above will ever deviate from the truth. For example: Could you ever say that punishing an innocent person is good? Would it ever be good to torture a baby?

So objective moral standards are grounded in truth. Truth is an abstract, invariant, and universal fact that is in accordance with reality. If something is abstract it only exists in the mind. If something is invariant it is definitive. If it is universal it is in all places. If something only exists in the mind, is definitive, and exists in all places, only a mind that is definitive and exists in all places could ground the truth. The mind that grounds all truth must be God. There are various formulations of this.

"Universal" doesn't mean something literally exists everywhere, in the context you're using it. In the case of truth, it means it would be in accordance with reality in all instances where it is applicable. You've got some weird equivocation going on in your statement that makes it look rational, but you're actually committing a word crime.


There are some objective logical absolutes.
We can have concepts of these logical absolutes.
These logical absolutes are not physical (you can't find them within the natural world).
These logical absolutes are therefore conceptual.
Concepts require a mind.
Since the logical absolutes are true everywhere they must exist within an infinite mind.
That mind is God.
God exists.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org...

If God is the mind that embodies all truth, then God's mind is invariant. Therefore God's mind can never (1) make arbitrary decisions or (2) have something be true apart from God. The Euthyprho Dilemma ends in a false dichotomy.

Out of curiosity, have you found better evidence for the existence of moral absolutes other than your own claims about what is allowed or not in all past, present, and future societies?
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 11:22:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 1:28:15 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
This is the best explanation of the Euthyprho dilemma that I've found. It goes like this:

"Is God good because he creates the good or because he recognizes the good? ""

The Euthyphro dilemma, the question posed by Socrates, is:

Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?

The "is God good" reformulation above seems a poor substitute at best.