Euthyphro's "dilemma"

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
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.

Hmm... you've stopped me dead in my tracks here! I genuinely don't understand what you mean by "your definition of 'good' lacks any tension"

Could you elaborate a little?

Originally posted by Agerg
Hmm... you've stopped me dead in my tracks here! I genuinely don't understand what you mean by "your definition of 'good' lacks any tension"

Could you elaborate a little?

For instance, integrity.
Some think it is nothing more than telling the truth, sans any discernible filter.
If that were the case, any nut job standing on a street corner coukd be construed as possessing integrity.
Yet we know something is missing from that nut job's presentation which prevents us from ascribing to him the quality of integrity.
In his particular situation, he lacks a connection with realuty---- among other things.

God is not so encumbered by foibles or the follies of humanity.
He is not lacking lacking in any aspect of character by any measure.
He has a proscribed and measured method of relating and handling each and every unique situation with an equally unique manner.
His approach is informed by His character.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
For instance, integrity.
Some think it is nothing more than telling the truth, sans any discernible filter.
If that were the case, any nut job standing on a street corner coukd be construed as possessing integrity.
Yet we know something is missing from that nut job's presentation which prevents us from ascribing to him the quality of integrity.
In h ...[text shortened]... very unique situation with an equally unique manner.
His approach is informed by His character.

Well this is all well and good but the assertions you make about God and his character are given by entirely by decree (by you!), and you kind of have to believe these assertions fully before this argument is convincing in the first place.

Like a proof by induction without establishing the base case, whatever further results you derive after delivering the proof, one would be absolutely correct to demand you demonstrate the existence of at least one domino that can fall without requiring that another fall onto it first.

On that basis, if the only tension my notion of goodness lacks is the lack of endorsement on your part that it has sufficient tension, then I see little reason to believe the parallel I made earlier is compromised!