Euthyphro's "dilemma"

Originally posted by Agerg
So your resolution to this problem is just to reiterate your definition of "God" as something that is good!??

Bit of a crap argument I'm afraid 😞


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*edit* hold on, it might actually be a good argument, let's see if it can make Hitler[hidden]who will be second to ment ...[text shortened]... ack for being such a clever sausage in getting the right answer, and move on to harder problems.

Slight (maybe inconsequential, perhaps insignificant, depending on your view) problem: your definition of 'good' lacks any tension.

Go back to the drawing board, re-tool and give it another whack.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Gather 'round, boys and girls.

We're about to put a stake in one of atheists' favorite go-to responses in those situations where the topic is rational discussion, and how such supposedly is at odds with a belief in God.
This is what they quote when they wish to put a stake in the heart of the contention of the goodness of God.

The basic problem, acc ...[text shortened]... thyphro dilemma, we can simply reference this thread and let the matter rest.

You're welcome.

This actually might have been a reasonably interesting topic, the idea that Euthyphro's dilemma is not relevant if you accept the premise that God = good. It is too bad that you decided to spend so much time telling us how much smarter you are than the rest of us, and spend so much time making (non-relevant) ad hominem attacks.

Actual smart people don’t need to tell everyone how smart they are, and instead let their arguments show it. And if you are going to make ad hominem attacks, the least you could do is make them relevant and clever. Good ad hominem attacks use the words/ideas of your opponents against them, but your attacks are all completely generic and could have been generated by a random insult generator (and not a particularly good random insult generator).

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Gather 'round, boys and girls.

We're about to put a stake in one of atheists' favorite go-to responses in those situations where the topic is rational discussion, and how such supposedly is at odds with a belief in God.
This is what they quote when they wish to put a stake in the heart of the contention of the goodness of God.

The basic problem, acc ...[text shortened]... thyphro dilemma, we can simply reference this thread and let the matter rest.

You're welcome.

Do you define the goodness of a god in light of the apparent fact it killed all its land creations on Earth to get back at a few nasty humans, with the curious result that the former large genetic diversity is now sliced in pieces with only a few of each species including humans?

You figure that to be in the 'good' column?

Originally posted by PatNovak
This actually might have been a reasonably interesting topic, the idea that Euthyphro's dilemma is not relevant if you accept the premise that God = good. It is too bad that you decided to spend so much time telling us how much smarter you are than the rest of us, and spend so much time making (non-relevant) ad hominem attacks.

Actual smart people don’t ...[text shortened]... en generated by a random insult generator (and not a particularly good random insult generator).

The problem is that this thread went into attack and (ad hom, notably) counterattack right away, before any back and forth exploration of the issues was provided by either side.

Originally posted by JS357
The problem is that this thread went into attack and (ad hom, notably) counterattack right away, before any back and forth exploration of the issues was provided by either side.

I made no ad hom attacks, just brought up things supposedly attributed to this bible god.

Originally posted by JS357
The problem is that this thread went into attack and (ad hom, notably) counterattack right away, before any back and forth exploration of the issues was provided by either side.

The main cause of this was that the OP claimed that everyone else on the forum is of childlike intellect compared to the OP, and also declared that the discussion was over because the argument was supposedly unassailable. The OP is the primary reason the thread went into immediate attack mode.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Could you just make this crystal clear as to what you are saying?
please?
(you may assume I am very stupid)

Hey, wolfgang59.
Yes, I will try.

'Good' as described by God, is what looks like/agrees with Him.
He is multifaceted.
Imagine a tent with one pole: it won't stand and won't provide much of any shelter.
Two poles might stand for short time, might provide shelter, but will eventually topple.
Three poles will offer more stability, four greater still.

I am a very good looking man.
I am also very athletic.
On top of that, I have a dizzying intellect.
Funny? Charming? I'll have you laughing inside of sixty seconds.
My one weak spot?
I believe the first five characteristics, so described.

God is not so hampered by any such blindness.
When He speaks of His goodness, it is tempered by His other characteristics; in fact, it is ALL of His characteristics which join together to resound the chorus of His goodness.

I think myself good looking, but my perspective of symmetry is whack: who really cares what I think?
I see myself as athletic, but my grade is based on a curve of the fat-asses around me: can you trust my judgement?
I consider myself as without peer, intellectually, but I am exposed to little more than simpletons: great... but the scale is underwhelming, wanting.
And so on, and so forth.

God is able to say all of these--- and more--- and yet pass muster at every stage, as His standards for each is perfection.
Imagine a state of pi that ends in a number, unencumbered by decimals.
That's God's reality.

And I have never thought you stupid.

Originally posted by PatNovak
This actually might have been a reasonably interesting topic, the idea that Euthyphro's dilemma is not relevant if you accept the premise that God = good. It is too bad that you decided to spend so much time telling us how much smarter you are than the rest of us, and spend so much time making (non-relevant) ad hominem attacks.

Actual smart people don’t ...[text shortened]... en generated by a random insult generator (and not a particularly good random insult generator).

Thanks for bringing your insight to the thread, Patty.
Now, go back and re-read the OP.
Tell us all where yours truly spoke about his elevated intellect (either in comparison or otherwise).
No time was wasted on such a fruitless endeavor.

I'd dare say that the majority of folks on this forum are much brighter than me, and I ain't even mad.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Do you define the goodness of a god in light of the apparent fact it killed all its land creations on Earth to get back at a few nasty humans, with the curious result that the former large genetic diversity is now sliced in pieces with only a few of each species including humans?

You figure that to be in the 'good' column?

When you say it like that, it makes it seem so... dirty.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Thanks for bringing your insight to the thread, Patty.
Now, go back and re-read the OP.
Tell us all where yours truly spoke about his elevated intellect (either in comparison or otherwise).
No time was wasted on such a fruitless endeavor.

I'd dare say that the majority of folks on this forum are much brighter than me, and I ain't even mad.

For your benefit, since you are apparently the only one incapable of seeing it, here is just a mere sampling of your smarter-than-thou approach to this thread:

Gather 'round, boys and girls.

From now on, when an atheist pulls out their objections to the goodness of God by invoking the Euthyphro dilemma, we can simply reference this thread and let the matter rest. You're welcome.

Try to stay focused, little one. I know it's hard with all of the confusing thoughts rummaging around in your wee head, such as: pants first then shoes? or, when is eat time?

This is why you received the pat on the head.

Originally posted by PatNovak
For your benefit, since you are apparently the only one incapable of seeing it, here is just a mere sampling of your smarter-than-thou approach to this thread:

[b]Gather 'round, boys and girls.

From now on, when an atheist pulls out their objections to the goodness of God by invoking the Euthyphro dilemma, we can simply reference this thread and let t ...[text shortened]... nts first then shoes? or, when is eat time?

This is why you received the pat on the head.[/b]

I consider myself child-like and find no insult in either term.

"Little one" is purposely condescending, for the benefit of the person to whom it was directed.
It was not in the original post, but, given the first responder's refusal to play by the rules, it acted as an appropriate punch to the spout.

Ditto with the last quote, too.

Try to stay focused, Patty.
Don't make more of it than it is.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I consider myself child-like and find no insult in either term.

"Little one" is purposely condescending, for the benefit of the person to whom it was directed.
It was not in the original post, but, given the first responder's refusal to play by the rules, it acted as an appropriate punch to the spout.

The fact that you think the first responder's completely appropriate post "did not play by the rules," and your inappropriate response to the post, lends support to your hypotheses that you are "child-like" and that the "majority of folks on this forum are much brighter than" you. (See, that is how you do ad hominem right. You're welcome.).

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]But what I said is simply an option that's possible.
Absurdity is decidedly not an option.
Nor is schizophrenia.

This is why you received the pat on the head.
You're offering nonsense: God (who doesn't break from character) calls Himself good, but acts in accord with evil?

I'm sure your belly button receives more contemplation than this.[/b]

Do you know how many evil men have called themselves good? How many Catholic priests have considered themselves "good", yet did evil with young children?

How do you know God "doesn't break from character"? Because the Bible says so? If God is evil, then your source on God, which is supposed to be divinely inspired, is flawed, right?

Originally posted by JS357
The problem is that this thread went into attack and (ad hom, notably) counterattack right away, before any back and forth exploration of the issues was provided by either side.

FKBH can't fulfill his end of the bargain on that score. Hence the skipping of the exploration of issues.

Originally posted by vivify
Do you know how many evil men have called themselves good? How many Catholic priests have considered themselves "good", yet did evil with young children?

How do you know God "doesn't break from character"? Because the Bible says so? If God is evil, then your source on God, which is supposed to be divinely inspired, is flawed, right?

As already clearly stated, the good some use to describe themselves does not contain the required tension: it's jaded and sullied.

God's goodness is the sum total of His characteristics, with nothing hiding in the shadows, nothing short of the totality of all aspects.