Another Christian Being Offered On The PC Alter?

[The Thinker]

Thinker if God's law are grounded in His immutable moral character then how can that be arbitrary? For instance Scripture says that God is truth, that God can not lie. Not that He chooses not to lie but by nature He can not lie. He is truthful by nature - and can't not be otherwise. How is that arbitrary?

There are a couple of ways I can respond to this.

First, scripture also says god deceives, and to deceive is to lie. (Ezekiel 14:9)

Second, your statement assumes scripture (i.e. the Bible) is accurate and is the word of god. That's an assumption. You can never demonstrate this to be true.

Third, what is it about lying that is bad, that god cannot do it? Saying god cannot lie says nothing about whether or not lying is good or bad.

Forth, if the arbitrary option is not practical, the theist still has the first option, that objective morality exists independently of god, which is the only reasonable position a theist can take, and the one I would take if I somehow became a Christian. Even if it were the case that Yahweh's nature was not arbitrary, that says nothing about whether or not objective morality cannot exist independently of him.

[seer]

Forth, if the arbitrary option is not practical, the theist still has the first option, that objective morality exists independently of god, which is the only reasonable position a theist can take, and the one I would take if I somehow became a Christian. Even if it were the case that Yahweh's nature was not arbitrary, that says nothing about whether or not objective morality cannot exist independently of him.

I'm not going to argue scripture with you at this point. So do you agree that if God's laws flow from His immutable moral character that they are not arbitrary?

[Joel]

Your third sentence does not follow from the first two. "Maximum suffering is good" is also logically consistent with your first two sentences.

No it doesn't. You have to redefine 'good' in order to get that.

The very question is what is good. If you start out assuming a definition (that has to be 'redefined' to suppose any alternative) is begging the question.

In the rest of my post below, I respond to the Euthyphro stuff. I had a bigger reply, responding to everything you wrote, but it was too big, so I stripped it down to simplify and to avoid side tangents and repetition.

If it's an objective standard, than it is a standard that exists independently of god.

That doesn't follow. If there exists an objective standard, there is no reason why that standard cannot be God.

Yes it does. You must demonstrate that an objective standard cannot exist independently of god. There is no reason why god could not co-exist with the standard.

You just shifted there.
Your previous claim there is that if there is an objective standard it does (must) exist independently of God.
Now you are suggesting that it could exist independently of God.
Those aren't the same thing. Even if you were to show that it could exist independently of God, that doesn't show that it must exist independently of God.

I'm asking you to answer why loving is good in a way that is not circular. If you cannot do that, then you must admit loving is good independently of god.

The latter does not follow. A person's inability to do the former is an epistemological problem, that has no bearing on the truth (or otherwise) of the latter.

The dilemma shows that the theist has only 1 of 2 responses: morality existed independently of god or is arbitrarily decided by god. That's it.

No, that's not true, which I and others have repeatedly explained. I don't see how you can just keep claiming that.
The horns of the dilemma are: (1) Things are Good because God commands/does/etc them, or (2) God commands/does/etc them because they are good.
Horn (2) simply implies that there is an objective standard. It does not imply anything about whether that standard is external or internal to God. A Christian can consistently hold horn (2) and hold that that standard is internal to God. (Again, note that the standard can be internal to God and yet be distinct from God's commanding/doing/etc them.)

No I don't just assert that they exist, I demonstrate logically, that via the euythyphro dilemma, that no theist can claim that objective moral values cannot exist independently of god.

The Euthyphro dilemma says no such thing. Nothing follows from it about whether morality cannot exist independently of God.

I don't care about authority. I'm not 8 years old.

You are just being contradictory here. If your objective moral standard is not morally authoritative (that is, it does not determine whether anything is good or bad), then it isn't an objective moral standard.

You must demonstrate with facts and logic that the standard is eternally existent.

I assumed that you already agreed with that, because you claim to have objective morality. You don't?

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.

Is god good because he has these properties or are these properties good because god has them?

Neither.
"loving is good" is an attribute of God's nature. But I'm not claiming that that property makes God good.
Rather, what makes God good is a different property: that God conforms to the Standard.
That's why it's not circular: they are two different properties. (Like I said elsewhere, one could possibly attempt to imagine an evil god that both is the standard (including the property "loving is good"), and yet is evil (is not loving)).

In my sentence that you quoted, the statement would not fall under (1), it would fall under (2), where your (2) is justified because "the standard is internal to God." So in my sentence, the example is saying that racism is good because the standard of racism being good "is internal to God." But you would never accept this. Likewise, I have no reason to accept that "loving is good" based on your justification that "the standard is internal to God." That's a non-answer.

Sure. I haven't attempted to argue anything about what the particular contents of the standard are.

[Joel]

You seem to keep missing the point.
What's to stop someone, using the same reasoning, from saying that, likewise, no person can legally marry their sibling. So, in short, people attracted to their own sibling(s) are unconstitutionally discriminated against in law. Surely both bans were unconstitutional or both were not?

[Bill the Cat]

You seem to keep missing the point.
What's to stop someone, using the same reasoning, from saying that, likewise, no person can legally marry their sibling. So, in short, people attracted to their own sibling(s) are unconstitutionally discriminated against in law. Surely both bans were unconstitutional or both were not?

Or their child.

[JimL]

You seem to keep missing the point.
What's to stop someone, using the same reasoning, from saying that, likewise, no person can legally marry their sibling. So, in short, people attracted to their own sibling(s) are unconstitutionally discriminated against in law. Surely both bans were unconstitutional or both were not?

Because that would be flawed reasoning. Not to mention fear mongering. There are good reasons in the interests of the state to deny sibling marriages, as well as polygamous marriages, whereas there are no good reasons for the state to deny two consenting adults who happen to be Gay to marry. It is also changing the subject. If you have good reason to deny the same rights to Homosexuals that are afforded to Heterosexuals, other than your personal belief that homosexuality is unatural, then argue that case alone. If you don't have good reason, then you have no case.

[Tassman]

Really? So do alpha apes recognize these as negative qualities?

Did the Nazis or Communists recognize these as negative qualities? What the hell are you taking about?

Germany now recognizes that its behaviour was wrong just as whites in the US now recognize that their treatment of blacks was wrong. Very few today would argue that such behaviour was acceptable, because we instinctively know it wasn't.

Inviolable means incapable of being violated; incorruptible; unassailable.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Inviolable

So again when Nazis gas Jewish children, or when we kill unborn human beings where are their inviolable rights?

See above.

I just proved that they are.

Nope. You just showed that people can behave badly. You've also, unwittingly, shown that we instinctively recognize wicked behaviour when it occurs and try to rectify it...if not at the time then in retrospect.

[Tassman]

Thinker if God's law are grounded in His immutable moral character then how can that be arbitrary?

Very true, but this is a hypothetical, you've produced no substantive evidence your hypothetical deity exists.

For instance Scripture says

I see no good reason the regard scripture as authoritative; why would you quote it to an theist?

that God is truth, that God cannot lie. Not that He chooses not to lie but by nature He can not lie. He is truthful by nature - and can't not be otherwise. How is that arbitrary?

So what are these immutable, non-arbitrary laws you keep wittering on about. You've never yet been able to say what they are which makes them pretty useless...even if they existed? Not to mention that your assertions about God not lying and being truthful by nature are completely unsupported by credible evidence. They're fantasies!

Really, you just assert that objective moral values exist? No logical argument for how or where such moral values could exist independently? And like I asked - even if these values did exist what authority do they inherently have? What compels us to follow them?

You're the one, not The Thinker, whose asserting that objective moral values exist merely based upon your unsubstantiated belief in an invisible deity? See above.

[Tassman]

You seem to keep missing the point.

There's no valid point to miss.

What's to stop someone, using the same reasoning, from saying that, likewise, no person can legally marry their sibling. So, in short, people attracted to their own sibling(s) are unconstitutionally discriminated against in law. Surely both bans were unconstitutional or both were not?

Unlike between homosexuals, there's a biological cost to incest, especially with first degree relatives such as one's sister. But if you feel you can make a case for incestuous unions then go ahead.

[seer]

Are you daft? When a alpha male takes the female and food from a weaker male are they recognizing these as negative qualities?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Inviolable

Right Bevis, prohibiting violation means it can't be violated (to prohibit means to prevent). Inviolable rights do not exist in your universe, nor can they.

[seer]

You're the one, not The Thinker, whose asserting that objective moral values exist merely based upon your unsubstantiated belief in an invisible deity? See above.

Actually Tass, try and keep up. Thinker is also asserting that objective moral values exist, based on, well, his opinion.

[seer]

There are good reasons in the interests of the state to deny sibling marriages, as well as polygamous marriages.

Really Jim, what good reasons rise so high that you would deny these people their Constitutional rights?

[hamster]

Unlike between homosexuals, there's a biological cost to incest, especially with first degree relatives such as one's sister. But if you feel you can make a case for incestuous unions then go ahead.

Two brothers, a father + son, etc. can't conceive a baby

[seer]

Unlike between homosexuals, there's a biological cost to incest, especially with first degree relatives such as one's sister. But if you feel you can make a case for incestuous unions then go ahead.

Why does it have to be sexual? How about marriage for financial benefits? A father could marry his daughter so she could get his social security benefits after he dies, or other financial benefits. Why deny them their Constitutional rights?

[The Thinker]

I'm not going to argue scripture with you at this point. So do you agree that if God's laws flow from His immutable moral character that they are not arbitrary?

IF that is the case than yes, but IF that is the case, it means that the other horn of the euthyphro dilemma holds, that morality exists independently of god, which is the view I hold.