Absurd Escapism

Originally posted by sonship
For now I am right about here on the Euthyphro Delimma

William L. Craig - [b] Euthyphro Dilemma Refuted
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRrgVLYCYv0[/b]

You're taking your philosophical cues from the likes of WL Craig? Yikes!

Originally posted by sonship
For now I'm just going to let you enjoy your good hearty laughter.
Since this is so very "hilarious" to you, for the moment, I'll just let you enjoy the hilarity of the whole thing.

Until i figure out why your fine distinction between meta ethics and the origin of a objective moral standard makes it impossible for you to discuss the latter, I'll pass on arguing further with you right now.

I urge you to check out the Uncyclopedia. The more I read the more hilarity that ensues. This is some of the content from its entry on "Christian Logic":

“That sounds like an oxymoron to me.”
~ Voltaire on Christian Logic

“So, you believe that a cosmic zombie (who was his own father), born from a 'virgin', can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in all humans because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree and thereby pissing off an invisible wizard who lives in the sky (who couldn't find the only 2 humans on Earth)? Yeah....makes perfect sense. ”
~ Any one with common sense.

Christian Logic is an oxymoron and a paradox of modern cognitive reasoning. In the main it appears to be a form of Socratic thinking answering often complex questions with another question, frequently "What Would Jesus Do?"

(...)

When interpreting the bible, it's important to remember that all the stories are supposed to be taken literally except for the ones which are not supposed to be. One can determine what parts are literal by relying on an intricate analysis system that consists of guessing, [crossed-out]thinking about it[/crossed-out] picking out what is convenient for you or seems nice and dandy, taking a bit or more of what your parents told you when you were a young child, or what one of your christian friends tells you is definitely true for sure, or best of all, what's shouted at you in a big building in the big voice of a big man who is thumping his pulpit and asking for you for donations for the lord. Also all parts of the Bible are true until it becomes obvious that they aren't and then a miracle happens and they immediately become things that were never meant to be taken literally to start with.

Etc, etc, etc.

Originally posted by LemonJello
You're taking your philosophical cues from the likes of WL Craig? Yikes!

Sure , I get some help from W L Craig. Should I be shocked that you don't approve ?

Originally posted by DeepThought

. Your attempt at mysticism does not produce a convincing escape from the dilemma.

Well. I tell you what. There IS a mystical realm about human life.

Human life does have a dimension which is divine and mystical.
I have found that to deny this short changes a portion of my total humanity.

I would say you do no favors to humanity by altogether denying that there is a certain divine and mystical realm to the relationship of God and man.

We should make it not too much as to be superstitious.
Nor should we make it too little as to reduce man to a material machine.

Originally posted by sonship

. Your attempt at mysticism does not produce a convincing escape from the dilemma.

Well. I tell you what. There IS a mystical realm about human life.

Human life does have a dimension which is divine and mystical.
I have found that to deny this short changes a portion of my total humanity.

I would say you do no favor ...[text shortened]... to be superstitious.
Nor should we make it too little as to reduce man to a material machine.

So what? It doesn't help you construct an escape from the dilemma. I'm not making any claims that a mystical experience isn't real to the person experiencing it or not of value, but any understanding gained is intuitive and unless it can be explained unhelpful in this kind of dialogue.

Originally posted by DeepThought
So what? It doesn't help you construct an escape from the dilemma. I'm not making any claims that a mystical experience isn't real to the person experiencing it or not of value, but any understanding gained is intuitive and unless it can be explained unhelpful in this kind of dialogue.

So what? So a married fellow with a " bachelor's degree " may be a cute play on words. But it doesn't do anything to convince me you're right that there is a Eythyphro dilemma for me.

Originally posted by sonship
So what? So a married fellow with a " bachelor's degree " may be a cute play on words. But it doesn't do anything to convince me you're right that there is a Eythyphro dilemma for me.

I'm sorry I put that in now, it was only an afterthought because you'd mentioned it and you seem to have latched onto it as if it were the centre-piece of my argument. I suppose the point of that is that if you define a bachelor as an unmarried man then all bachelors are unmarried, however people are called Bachelors of Art or Bachelors of Science and are therefore bachelors so if you define bachelor too narrowly you will come to the incorrect statement that all bachelors are married.

The horns of Euthrypro's dilemma are that either what is good is objectively good and therefore God has no authority over what is good, or what is good is good because God decided it is good and is therefore arbitrary depending on what God is like rather than an objective standard. Now, you have chosen the former in order to support your claim that what is good objective but attempt to get around God's lack of sovereignty over what is moral by making morality a part of God. However, this won't do, in essence what you're doing is asserting that what is objective is determined by God or by God's nature, but this makes it arbitrary and pretty much denies that there is any such thing as objective.

Originally posted by DeepThought

The horns of Euthrypro's dilemma are that either what is good is objectively good and therefore God has no authority over what is good, or what is good is good because God decided it is good and is therefore arbitrary depending on what God is like rather than an objective standard. Now, you have chosen the former in order to support your claim that what is good objective but attempt to get around God's lack of sovereignty over what is moral by making morality a part of God. However, this won't do, in essence what you're doing is asserting that what is objective is determined by God or by God's nature, but this makes it arbitrary and pretty much denies that there is any such thing as objective.

The question of God not being able to do something, doesn't bother me. There are some things I can do that God cannot do.

I can improve in goodness. God cannot be more good.
I can improve in being loving. God cannot be more loving.

I could assume more authority. God could not be more authoritative.
These are not statements on the limitations of God because He has all that He can have of these qualities. I do not have all that I could have.

The only reason that I could grow in these attributes is because I do not have all that I could possibly have. God has and is these values to the ultimate.

I think perhaps you cannot conceive of God as a Person. You can only conceive of something like a flowchart or a system.

I have no doubt that Righteousness is the nature of God. Maybe you're arguing that you can have control over this and decided you do NOT want to be righteous on some day. But if God IS righteousness He has no control. Poor God, He is not as powerful as we thought. There is no "omnipotence" with Him because He is "bound" to His nature.

So this you perceive as a limitation keeping in place your dilemma.

I am willing to re-visit and tune the definition of God's omnipotence if you think it means God should do something against His nature, like LIE in order to prove that He is really "omnipotent".

I don't know if you are a dad with kids or not. I was until they grew up and started their own families. I did need to let my family know that I was capable of doing some things. It never occurred to me (or I would resist) considering I should do something rather sick and twisted just to prove I really was "capable".

"God is only omnipotent if He can sin like me."

So if God is bound by His faithful nature to see that I am truly eternally redeemed through believing in the Son, that to you represents a lack of power in God ? That seems a bit sick and twisted to me.

IE. "If God really exercises His power to truly FORGET my sins, then there is a Euthyphro dilemma and God is not all powerful. Now if He would go BACK on His solemn promise to which He seems righteously BOUND, then I would consider Him truly omnipotent."

I think this is tragically warped thinking. And I'll stay with Love, Righteousness and Justice as flowing out of God's nature. Nothing above God is bestowing this on Him. That He is bound by His nature or just strong in His will NOT to go against His nature, maybe I can contemplate that in the ages to come.

In the meantime the characteristic of God really works in my favor. For He cannot fail to accomplish eternal redemption and salvation because of His plan. I pray boldly at times -

"Lord God, Whether You like me today or don't like me today, You are bound to your righteous plan that because I am in Christ, You will see to my complete and full salvation."

"God would not have His claim on two - first on His Son, my surety true, and then upon ME laid. " (Charles (?) Wesley)

" If we say that we do not have sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and **RIGHTEOUS** to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:8,9)

Yes, I believe that God is bound by His nature. I am counting on that. If you want to appear before God arguing the Euthyphro dilemma and God's un-omnipotence problem as an excuse for your sins, you go ahead.

No seriously now DeepThought. Think a little deeper about it.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] The horns of Euthrypro's dilemma are that either what is good is objectively good and therefore God has no authority over what is good, or what is good is good because God decided it is good and is therefore arbitrary depending on what God is like rather than an objective standard. Now, you have chosen the former in order to support your claim that ...[text shortened]... e for your sins, you go ahead.

No seriously now DeepThought. Think a little deeper about it.

But by insisting on God being perfectly righteous and having no choice to act unrighteously you constrain him to one single course of action. If he has to produce the best of all possible worlds then there is only one course of action and only one train of thought he can have. He is then compelled to act as if from a flowchart. So it is you and not I who is insisting on God not being a personality.

Originally posted by DeepThought
But by insisting on God being perfectly righteous and having no choice to act unrighteously you constrain him to one single course of action. If he has to produce the best of all possible worlds then there is only one course of action and only one train of thought he can have. He is then compelled to act as if from a flowchart. So it is you and not I who is insisting on God not being a personality.

There was one being, created "perfect" in his ways, who willed to do other than the will of God. All the sin, death, misery and darkness came from him. This being is Satan.

"You [the anointed cherub] were perfect in your ways from the day that you were created, until unrighteousness was found in you." (Ezekiel 28:15)

The source of sin and death is Satan. There's your powerful being that had the choice to do other than the will of God.

I think you are essentially asking - "Why doesn't God act as Satan acted to prove true omnipotence?"

Why not - may be a good philosophical puzzle to contemplate. But I want life not death.
And all that ever issued from this second will in the universe is sin and death.

I'll choose the God bound or willfully not going against the nature of God.
There is a pragmatic side of this.

Originally posted by sonship
Yes, I believe that God is bound by His nature. I am counting on that. If you want to appear before God arguing the Euthyphro dilemma and God's un-omnipotence problem as an excuse for your sins, you go ahead.

No seriously now DeepThought. Think a little deeper about it.

Ahh, the old 'God will sort this out and agree with me on Judgement day.' argument, coupled with a threat.
When will people learn that this sort of thing just doesn't work against atheists?

If your argument is valid support it. Claiming that your opponent is just trying to use his argument as an excuse for his sins and threatening him with punishment is just plain cowardice on your part and a clear sign you cannot support your argument more legitimately.

Originally posted by sonship
There was one being, created "perfect" in his ways, who willed to do other than the will of God. All the sin, death, misery and darkness came from him. This being is Satan.

[b] "You [the anointed cherub] were perfect in your ways from the day that you were created, until unrighteousness was found in you." (Ezekiel 28:15)

...[text shortened]... od bound or willfully not going against the nature of God.
There is a pragmatic side of this.[/b]

Blaming it all on Satan doesn't get you out of the problem of evil, which isn't what we are talking about, but hey:

1) God created Lucifer.
2) God is perfect.
3) Lucifer was perfect at the time of his creation.
4) Lucifer became Satan.
5) God is omniscient.

If God is omniscient then God created Lucifer knowing he would turn into Satan, but this implies that he knew he was creating something that would bring evil into the world. There is a best of all possible worlds available that would be an improvement (no evil) so God is either not precognitively omniscient or is capable of creating imperfect things, if the latter your argument collapses and we have arbitrary morals. I'm not sure a perfect being should make such a mistake.

Originally posted by DeepThought

Blaming it all on Satan doesn't get you out of the problem of evil, which isn't what we are talking about, but hey:

Some responsibility goes to Adam for joining Satan.

The innocent and neutral man was placed before two sources.

One - Satan represented by the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
It was a thrust for independence from God, following Satan, It result death

The other - God represented by "the tree of life . It was the to join the neutral and innocent man to God as life with all His nature - and eternal life.

1) God created Lucifer.

That is right.

2) God is perfect.

Praise God.

3) Lucifer was perfect at the time of his creation.

Of all creatures, I think he was the highest. How long he remained in this state we do not know. But his downfall began when he became obsessed with his own beauty.

He could not be above God. He could try to be "like the Most High". And this led to him being everything the opposite of God.

If God is light Satan would be darkness.
If God is truth Satan would be the lie and the liar.
If God is life Satan would be the death.
If God is righteous, holy, pure Satan would be unrighteous, unholy, impure.

Whatever God is he set out to be the other way, the opposing way.

4) Lucifer became Satan.

Lucifer is Latin for Daystar. The Daystar the 'Anointed Cherub became Satan the Devil. One third of the angels of God were deceived by him and joined him. Creatures of a previous world before Adam joined him. Adam joined him.

Christ defeats Him and rescues the saved from this deceiver, slanderer, Adversary with the power of death. Jesus defeated him as a Man.

Now that victory can be transmitted to the saved man.

5) God is omniscient.

God knows. God knew. He must know all things throughout all eternity.

If God is omniscient then God created Lucifer knowing he would turn into Satan,

I believe that you are correct here. God allowed there to be ONE grand repository into which ALL the rebellion of all creatures who want nothing to do with God, may be all subsumed under one leader.

In His foreknowledge God must know that some of His creatures, out of their free will, will choose not to want to have anything to do with their Creator. There is one grand repository into which ALL such creatures are collected that they may all be under one leader forever - Satan.

I think reality is more fascinating than fiction.

but this implies that he knew he was creating something that would bring evil into the world.

I would have to agree with you. God knew. He also knew that He had a wonderful plan of eternal salvation.

This kind of love and foreknowledge of God we really can make work on our behalf if we have a heart to.

There is a best of all possible worlds available that would be an improvement (no evil)

Such a universe is what we see in the completion of God's eternal purpose in Revelation 21 and 22. Unquestionably that is where the universe is headed.

This is headed up by God mingled and united with man, the Head of that eternal new heaven and new earth is Jesus Christ.

The promise of God is that He causes ALL things to work togther for good to those called according to His purpose.

" And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

Because those whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers.

And those whom He predestinated, these He also called, and those whom He called, these He also justified; and those whom He justified, these He also glorified." (Romans 8:28-30)

God's eternal purpose is to mass produce His Son Jesus in many sons. Christ is the standard Model. These men will have something the highest angel Daystar never had. They will have God living IN them, united to them, incorporated in them, blended, interwoven with God Himself.

This something the highest creature the Daystar never had. And all his foreknown rebellion just seems to go to aid God to fulfill His plan.

Maybe Satan rebelled because he knew that this was God's plan and he ran ahead to attempt to derail it. But this I do not know for sure. I know that Jesus is Lord. And God builds Himself into man and builds man into Himself for an eternal union and mingling in which we are Christ's Body and Christ retains the Headship.

so God is either not precognitively omniscient or is capable of creating imperfect things, if the latter your argument collapses and we have arbitrary morals. I'm not sure a perfect being should make such a mistake.

A world in which creatures are free to choose or reject God - I don't know why you would consider that flawed. Perhaps it is not flawed at all. It is the free choice of other than God which is the flawed decision necessarily stemming from free will.

But the objection is an old, old one. I have learned to live with these kinds of speculative grumblings of men. In the meantime the enjoyment of the Triune God as eternal life and purpose is too glorious.

Some are angry that God did not create robots. He could just press a button and they all would love God. It seems that this perfect world according to God, includes creatures with the freedom to choose or reject their Creator.

It seems He arranged so that ALL those who would reject fall into one grand repository following one leader who was the highest of all beings.

Afterwards in eternity future, there appears there will never be another Rebel to lead a grand revolt against God.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Nice. 🙂

I jumped to Chapter 2, and first paragraph I have questions. Looking forward to when you
open up new thread on this topic.

Originally posted by twhitehead

Ahh, the old 'God will sort this out and agree with me on Judgement day.' argument, coupled with a threat.

Ahh, the old notion that any mention of final accountability and divine judgment is a "threat".

When will people learn that this sort of thing just doesn't work against atheists?

I am still trying to figure out why atheists don't realize that I know that they are wrong that there is no God.

Not, I hope so.
Not, I assume so.
Not, I guess so.

I absolutely know so. God is.

I know that you do not have the truth here.
The knowledge that you are wrong was not given by the world.
And the world cannot take it away either.

If your argument is valid support it. Claiming that your opponent is just trying to use his argument as an excuse for his sins and threatening him with punishment is just plain cowardice on your part and a clear sign you cannot support your argument more legitimately.

1.) That God should "sort things out" is evident by creation. God sorted it out. You're TRYING to get it sorted with your atheist philosophy.

2.) That God is involved in love, justice, forgiveness, mercy, judgment and such things may all sound like "threats" to you.

All I need to do is see that the same Creator whose wisdom was at work in creation also applies divine wisdom to moral accountability.

You can role across the floor in hysterical giggles for all I care.
Please by my guest.
I think it is judgement enough to be so in the dark about reality as you are.

To dehumanize man and yourself as you have to do to deny God is sad judgment enough. I wouldn't want to return to that dark shadowy labyrinth of ignorance and emptiness.