Another Christian Being Offered On The PC Alter?

[The Thinker]

I agree with what? You are not making sense. In principle objective ethics could exist, if God did - in your world objective ethics can not exist, even in principle.

Agree with my broad definition of morality. You said:

Now I have nothing against this ideal. And if one accepts this ideal then there are most likely objectively better ways to reach that goal.

You still haven't shown how objective moral values cannot exist independently of god.

Nonsense - do you see what is happening in Europe? Rapid, unhindered immigration of Muslims and they are having 6-8 children to every 1 or 2 from the native Europeans. Demographically they will eventually swap Europe. Isn't it wonderful - evolution in action!

Christians are not converting to Islam in large numbers, that's what I thought you meant. They are leaving the religion and becoming non-religious. That's why Christianity is dying. Muslims are immigrating to Europe in large numbers - I know this, but this is not happening in the US.

[The Thinker]

And as I said Thinker, moral questions must stop somewhere, or you have an infinite regression. We believe they stop with God - where do moral questions stop in your world? BTW - I think Joel already answered this and you did not respond - why? And you still have not shown how an objective moral standard is logically possible in your godless universe - apart from assertion.

You didn't answer my question: is god good because he has these properties or are these properties good because god has them?

[The Thinker]

And as I said Thinker, moral questions must stop somewhere, or you have an infinite regression. We believe they stop with God - where do moral questions stop in your world? BTW - I think Joel already answered this and you did not respond - why? And you still have not shown how an objective moral standard is logically possible in your godless universe - apart from assertion.

You didn't answer my question: is god good because he has these properties or are these properties good because god has them?

[The Thinker]

I did in post #234. You replied to some of my post in post #250, and I followed up in post #257.

Can you link me to them? I find it hard to see what comments have been responded to in this format.

Quick sum-up, because you seem to keep forgetting:
I'm saying the objective standard (which, if it exists must be something) is God. And that's different from God being good. (One could perhaps attempt to imagine an evil God that is both the Standard (including "loving is good") yet who does not himself conform to the standard (e.g., he is unloving)).

Why is something like slavery wrong then? What makes something objectively wrong?

So the dilemma asks:
1) Is loving good because God says so? Is loving good because God is loving?
My answer: No, and No. (at least not in the sense being asked)
2) Is God loving (and commands loving) because loving is good?
Yes. But this poses no conundrum, because the standard that "loving is good" is not external to God, but is God.

Nothing here shows any internal inconsistency.

1) So why is loving good?
2) You're just asserting god is love, and I addressed that in my response to you. You must be able to show love is not good independently of god.

That's not relevant to the discussion. The question is whether they are internally inconsistent (and in particular does the Euthyphro dilemma reveal any such inconsistency). The answer is no.

It is absolutely relevant to the discussion. Because in order to get around the dilemma you have to argue that things you consider good are good because god has them or god is them. That doesn't at all demonstrate how or why anything is good. Suppose someone claims that racism is good because god is racist. You would never accept that as an answer of why racism is good. You need to justify the claim.

That was not my intent. My intent was to show that the Euthyphro dilemma reveals no internal inconsistency for Christians.

Maybe that wasn't your intent, but if you cannot show the non-existence of an objective standard without god, then theists cannot keep claiming that without god all morality is totally subjective.

[The Thinker]

I did in post #234. You replied to some of my post in post #250, and I followed up in post #257.

Can you link me to them? I find it hard to see what comments have been responded to in this format.

Quick sum-up, because you seem to keep forgetting:
I'm saying the objective standard (which, if it exists must be something) is God. And that's different from God being good. (One could perhaps attempt to imagine an evil God that is both the Standard (including "loving is good") yet who does not himself conform to the standard (e.g., he is unloving)).

Why is something like slavery wrong then? What makes something objectively wrong?

So the dilemma asks:
1) Is loving good because God says so? Is loving good because God is loving?
My answer: No, and No. (at least not in the sense being asked)
2) Is God loving (and commands loving) because loving is good?
Yes. But this poses no conundrum, because the standard that "loving is good" is not external to God, but is God.

Nothing here shows any internal inconsistency.

1) So why is loving good?
2) You're just asserting god is love, and I addressed that in my response to you. You must be able to show love is not good independently of god.

That's not relevant to the discussion. The question is whether they are internally inconsistent (and in particular does the Euthyphro dilemma reveal any such inconsistency). The answer is no.

It is absolutely relevant to the discussion. Because in order to get around the dilemma you have to argue that things you consider good are good because god has them or god is them. That doesn't at all demonstrate how or why anything is good. Suppose someone claims that racism is good because god is racist. You would never accept that as an answer of why racism is good. You need to justify the claim.

That was not my intent. My intent was to show that the Euthyphro dilemma reveals no internal inconsistency for Christians.

Maybe that wasn't your intent, but if you cannot show the non-existence of an objective standard without god, then theists cannot keep claiming that without god all morality is totally subjective.

[seer]

Agree with my broad definition of morality. You said:

Yes, I agree that there are objectively better ways to reach certain moral goals, but the moral goals are what are subjective. Did that get past you?

You still haven't shown how objective moral values cannot exist independently of god.

Are you joking? You are the one claiming that objective moral values exist - it is on you to show how that is possible.

Christians are not converting to Islam in large numbers, that's what I thought you meant. They are leaving the religion and becoming non-religious. That's why Christianity is dying. Muslims are immigrating to Europe in large numbers - I know this, but this is not happening in the US.

Not in the US, not yet. The point is you will not wipe out religion, religion may in fact wipe you out.

[Adrift]

BTW - I think Joel already answered this and you did not respond - why?

Also, it was answered by Craig in post #240.

[Sam]

Are you joking? You are the one claiming that objective moral values exist - it is on you to show how that is possible.

"We hold these truths to be self evident ..."

[rogue06]

"We hold these truths to be self evident ..."

"... in order to form a more perfect union"

How exactly does one make something "more perfect"?

[Sam]

"... in order to form a more perfect union"

How exactly does one make something "more perfect"?

"More perfect" = "closer to perfection"

Example: "Existing Roguetech is good and all but in progressing towards a more perfect system, we should incorporate unbreakable nanoscale production."

[rogue06]

"More perfect" = "closer to perfection"

Example: "Existing Roguetech is good and all but in progressing towards a more perfect system, we should incorporate unbreakable nanoscale production."

00000000000touche.gif

smiley watching-you.gif

[Joel]

Can you link me to them? I find it hard to see what comments have been responded to in this format.

You could find them by their numbers just as easily as I can. But I'll go ahead and do the work for you:
My post: 234
Your reply: 250
My follow-up: 257

Why is something like slavery wrong then? What makes something objectively wrong?

...

1) So why is loving good?

We could go into deep theories of moral philosophy, but I don't think it's necessary here.
You agree that there is an objective standard. Therefore, whatever that standard is, it is sufficient to determine what is right and wrong. Thus if slavery is objectively wrong (or not), it will suffice for our present purposes to say that it is so (or is not so) because that's what the objective standard says.
My point is simply that if that standard is God, then the Euthyphro dilemma raises no problem for Christians.

(And Christians can get to the conclusion that the standard is God by agreeing that the Standard is eternally existent, and agreeing that nothing is eternally existent but God, so therefore the standard must be an attribute of God's nature.)

2) You're just asserting god is love, and I addressed that in my response to you. You must be able to show love is not good independently of god.

Not exactly. I'm concluding (as the conclusion of reasoning) that "loving is good" is an attribute of God's nature.
Love is not good independently of the Standard (that would be absurd). The standard is God, so therefore love would not be good or bad independently of God.
There is still no internal inconsistency there.

You, as an atheist, no doubt object to the premise that "The standard is God." but that's not something I was debating with you. You can disagree with my premise while agreeing that I'm internally consistent on the matter.

It [how I arrive at premises about God] is absolutely relevant to the discussion. Because in order to get around the dilemma you have to argue that things you consider good are good because god has them or god is them. That doesn't at all demonstrate how or why anything is good. Suppose someone claims that racism is good because god is racist. You would never accept that as an answer of why racism is good. You need to justify the claim.

The Euthyphro dilemma does not demand a justification for why things are good. It simply asks whether (1) things are good because God commands them (or does them or loves them, etc), or (2) God commands them (or does them or loves them etc) because they are good.
This poses no problem of internal consistency for the Christian, who can simply answer "no" to the first and "yes" to the second. The only worry about the second is that it makes God subject to an external standard. But that isn't true if the standard is internal to God. So no problem.

You say, "Suppose someone claims that racism is good because god is racist." So? I've already said "no" to (1), so you know I don't agree with that someone. Again, the Euthyphro dilemma poses no problem. By going with (2), the dilemma does not require me to justify that (or why) things are good, other than say that the standard is God.

Such justifications make for an interesting discussion, but a different one.

Maybe that wasn't your intent, but if you cannot show the non-existence of an objective standard without god, then theists cannot keep claiming that without god all morality is totally subjective.

I haven't addressed any of that. I'd love to discuss it, if we could just settle the Euthyphro thing.

[seer]

"We hold these truths to be self evident ..."

What are these self-evident truths? That we are created by God, with God given rights?

[Joel]

Saying "then why can't I do X" is, again, a slippery slope

This is the slippery-slope fallacy

You are confusing logical conclusion with slippery slope.
Slippery slope (which is not necessarily a fallacy) is a claim that because Z happened, X will happen.

A logical conclusion is something like: You say that we should do Z because of reason R, so I point out that R justifies doing X, also.
That's different from a slippery slope because I would not be saying that X is going to happen. I would be saying that X would happen if your reason R were taken to its logical conclusion, though it's possible it won't happen if you will be logically inconsistent.

It's one thing to argue that incest will be legalized too.
It's another thing to argue that if you were logically consistent, you would also legalize incest (or at least advocate its legalization).
(for example)

[Sam]

What are these self-evident truths? That we are created by God, with God given rights?

If truth can be self-evident then your continued demand for others to establish their moral framework, with or without God, as "objective" is futile. Anyone could argue for their moral framework on the basis of self-evident basic beliefs.

If you're going to play with the language of epistemology, you ought to be able to be competent in the basics. Your question, no matter how often it's repeated, does not get you very far at all. A moral framework based on self-evident truths is coherent, with or without God as a basic belief.