So Christcucks, what is the answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma?

So Christcucks, what is the answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma?

Watch if you still dont understand.
youtube.com/watch?v=wRHBwxC8b8I

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/wBvi_auKkaI
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

The Euthyphro Dilemma is based on a flawed premise - that there are only 2 options, and those options are chosen by a mere man.

I would answer the so-called dilemma by suggesting one of many 'third options', for example..

3. God allows it because he wants to

>God allows it because he wants to

How is this different from the Arbitrariness Horn?

replied to wrong post, was meant for

you act as if science is able to prove anything and anything, like half the shit out there aren't just theories and hypothesis. there are questions to everything but eventually we will know the answers, if we're so lucky

>you act as if science is able to prove anything and anything
When did OP say anything about science?

user, the word 'theory' has a specific meaning in the context of science. A scientific theory is not speculation:

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."

What's the problem with it being arbitrary? Why is that nad?

God is the final moral standard himself.

>crash course

am i on www.facebook.com?

How the hell do I know what God wants?

>God's commands are arbitrary
Fundamentally flawed. God is the ultimate judge of right and wrong. There is nothing arbitrary about this. He is the source of logic and reason.

>Crash Course Philosophy
kys

God know everything.
The moral is the best logical efficient right way.
Therefore, God knows morals better and he must judge us.

>God allows it because he wants to
in legal speak arbitrary means exactly that

It's different because both option in your chart say God "commanded" it. I said God "allowed" it. This removes any sense that God is driven by what is 'Good', and simply says that he "allows" it either way.

Your dilemma cannot touch a Deistic view of God, which says a creator allows things to unfold regardless of silly ideas of 'Good' and 'Bad'.

I would say the second horn is correct, but the way in which the implications of that choice are a bit skewed. If you were to take the second horn and say morality is an objective thing rather than subjective, it would imply that God would always do the right thing since God is all good. Its not that his omnipotence is limited because he could act immorally if he wanted to but because of his nature as a all good being he never would.

>God is the ultimate judge of right and wrong.

What guiding principle are his judgements based on? If there is no guiding principle, his judgments could be accurately described as 'arbitrary'.

>3. God allows it because he wants to

So he's arbitrary.

It's still arbitrary in that God could have chosen right, wrong, logic, and reason to be anything he wanted.

What is the problem with the left one?

How do you know he is all good though? Even in scripture there are references to him being the source of all that is evil.

God's kigdom its not from this world, He gave us free will so all bad things comes from sins, he doesnt command good or bad. We have His word and free will, so its on us salvation or hell.

Catholicism its truth. You circuncided cucks will never understand.

absolute nonissue

Theistic nihilism master race

His guiding principle is himself. God is the thing which is all good and therefore is the ultimate model for what is moral. Immorality is a deprivation of morality and therefore God wouldn't express of a deprivation. Its not that he couldn't its that his nature as an all knowing and all good being allows him to make the moral choice 100% of the time.

>Proving his point this hard.

He does bad shit all the time, unless you think typhoons and earthquakes are caused by satan

X is right because God says it is. It isnt arbitrary though. His nature is unchanging so God will never say X is wrong later down the line. X will always be right

This is a dilemma for the fedora.

Is X right because the atheist says so? Then morality is subjective where every atheist has their opinion making nothing right or wrong.

Is X right because its right? How would something abstract, non/rational/causal such as X is right interact with the concrete physical world/fedora? There would be no way of knowing "the right" having that relationship.

That the definition of God, all good, all powerful, first cause, blah blah blah. evil is a deprivation of what is good. God created beings and told us it was good in genesis, not to mention God is all good so therefore nothing he creates will be intrinsically evil, anywho the point is God created all things good and by their own accord the beings with free will (humans, satan, etc) act against God and express the privation that is evil

>X is right because God says it is. It isn't arbitrary though. His nature is unchanging so God will never say X is wrong later down the line. X will always be right

The argument is not in him changing his stance, it is that he could have chosen that killing babies for blood sacrifice is morally good and for all eternity the life under god would be a deluge of baby killing sprees because it was his original chosen stance on morality.

The universe is God's creation, and by extension a part of Him. That which we call Good is what aligns with His nature, while Evil is whatever is anathema to Him. It's not arbitrary if it's a natural aspect.

>Fedoras trying to figure out the meaning of life with their tiny ant brains to gain MUH EUPHORIA

b-but he c-could have done this

literal meme argument

Arbitrary stances have nothing to do with natural being, as he can arbitrarily choose what is natural.

Why is this so hard for you people to understand?

The only truth is the Imperial Truth desu

Glory to the Emperor

No, it is not, it is a liable argument in the face of a discussion on gods arbitrary principles of morality, and spouting fedora memes and using a rudimentary ad-hominem on my arguments themselves does not change the nature of the logical process.

It is His nature that determines good and evil. I suppose He could change His nature, but He does not. He is as He is.

Is a movie good because you liked the movie, or is it good based on standards outside yourself? It is a metaphysical question not specific to god.

>Snobfags not being specific so that they give the impression of sounding educated.

God likes playing pranks on his kids and takes it a bit too far some times

Natural disasters are caused by sin. The explanation is a little strange but it goes something along the lines of God created a world that was all good (Eden) when sin was brought into the world the world became different from what it once was. Also we are all guilty of sin as humans. We act against God every day and therefore we are not deserving of him to come in and save us at a moments notice or during times of natural disaster for example.

what does it matter presently

So what if that was his original stance or any stance? Are you going to cry and say GOD IS EBIL!! The fact of the matter is God provides basis for objective morality while fedorism fails.

Only God is good. God is the source of all good. God orders only good.

You're not a sinner because you sin. You sin because you're a sinner.

There is nothing "arbitrary" about God's objective goodness. It is what it is.

While I respect you trying to bring up a logical point maturely, it is simply illogical.

Lets say for example that I am god, and I am making the world:

No matter what I chose to be the moral code for this new world it has no basis beyond the fact that I have dictated it to be as such, thus it has an arbitrary moral backbone.

Good thing we don't live in a world of "ifs" then idiot

>I suppose He could change His nature

No, He cannot.

youtu.be/wBvi_auKkaI

>doesn't watch video because it's "m-muh christcuck" talking

Nice refutation

Might as well call gravity arbitrary. There is nothing arbitrary about the source of existence itself.

The absence of God is evil. He is the standard of moral and reason in the world. Retarded fedoras use these banana Baptist-tier arguments because they think reading some random verses of Leviticus online makes them knowledgeable about theology.

t. Atheist

So if you happened to be in a universe where your god has stated he endorses the killing of infants in his holy scripture, you would be perfectly compliant with that?

Again, God is holy, just and righteous. Only He is good.

What you think is good is filthy rags to a holy God.

What if God is rightness itself?

It don't matter, none of this matters.

This.

If you want to have real nightmares, imagine God is the way the devil describes him to be.

Is living in the real world too much of a burden for you?

I think you're misunderstanding me. He didn't choose a moral code for the world. There are certain actions that bring us close to God because of who He is, and certain actions that push us away. It wasn't a purposefully made decision, but just the nature of our relationship to God as an individual. If you tell your parents that you hate them, for example, regardless of of whatever labels you want to put on that action it drives a wedge between you. That's what good and evil are.

Only eternal things matter. Everything else is flammable.

>All these idiots trying desperately to justify the second horn instead of just going with the first horn.

Plebs all of you.

But you wouldnt be "choosing a moral code" your nature would define the code of objective morality in the world you created. Another way of saying this is Gods nature as an all moral being is the moral code, there is no arbitrary moral backbone

His moral philosophy is still based in a arbitrary loop.

'Tis circular logic, and thus no logic at all.

Rightness is purely arbitray.

d'uh.

That doesn't make goodness arbitrary, that makes goodness defined as being like God. Retarded dichotomy is retarded

The standard of rightness is not independent from God.

It is God.

I could ask you the same question, as you are the one placing your faith and consequences in an unproven icon.

>purely arbitrary

Are you suggesting that God should not have absolute freedom? The implication of "arbitrariness" is always in contrast to an external standard (the left leg of this idiot picture). Your diagram has two left legs. This "dichotomy" is bull.

Can you literally not comprehend that both of these things are simultaneously true? God commands X because X is right, and X is right because God commands it. It's a tautology you goober.

But he didnt so we could play the what if game all day. For example what if there was a world where you didnt exist and i didnt have to share a planet with your stupidity.

What decides your nature and what constitutes the morality that your nature upholds?

And thus we have circled around to the first train of thought indicated in the dilemma

No, God designed existence according to his own character. What is right as far as God is concerned is right as far as we are concerned, because all of existence was designed on the basis of God's morality being right.

It's not arbitrary at all you dumb fuck. Does an engine "arbitrarily" run on gasoline? No. gasoline is what it was eengineered to burn.

Either possibility isn't a dilemma nor is it a moral problem.

There is nothing inherently evil about a rotating storm with high wind speeds. Is a tsunami that crashes against an empty beach evil?

If you think God is actively controlling every microcosm of an event at every second, then you're retarded. If you think death is inherently evil, you're still retarded. Everyone's time comes, and very few deaths are ever just. In fact, it's extremely rare.

Deistic views of God completely sidestep this basic bitch "argument." Not to mention the more fundamentalist, evangelical view presumes that the world was in a perfect state in the garden of Eden until man sinned.

>there are references to him being the source of all that is evil.
Cite some.

Not a Christfag, but can you really justifiably call anything God himself commands arbitrary? Just because he can command anything, doesn't mean he would; plus assessing whether or not one of God's dictates is arbitrary depends on the person doing the assessment having the same level of understanding of righteousness as God. Who is qualified to do that? Wouldn't that be projecting human sensibilities onto God?

What arbitrary loop? The moral code of everything is Gods all moral nature. The most moral thing is Gods nature therefore it is the model.

Resorting to ad-hominem is a fools tactic.

You clicked on this thread knowing full well that a plausibility argument would be brought to question, now bring forth an argument or begone from here.

Kek

There are certain morals that cant be different such as lying. It will be wrong in every possible universe because then it would make him unable to account for Laws of Logic.

So lets say from eternity past killing of infants was a good thing. My answer is the same - so what? If you cant provide an objective standard for morality, every moral complaint you have ,such as this one, can be dismissed since its just your personal opinion and not objective truth. Solve this dilemma with fedorism first.

A tautology is necessarily true, not two things which are simultaneously true.

>What decides your nature
Nothing decides the nature of the absolute originator of everything. He decides the nature of everything else: logic, morality, reason.

This is reddit-tier semantics. You are asking what decides the nature of the absolute.

I will refer you to as I believe it expresses my point better.

It's not unproven to me.

It's only unproven to you, by your choice.

God is good is a tautology.

So he decides the nature of himself?

Then what constitutes the moral objectivity that he upholds by existing?

He can not both be the creator of morality and the upholder of it by virtue of existence alone as that is an arbitrary loop.

My answer to your arbitrary dilemma is that it doesn't exist because your still arguing it in English. While the Latin translations use words with more defined purpose and meaning than the English translations of Biblical command because of right or because it is right.

You'd know that if you had any idea how simple modern English is. Your dilemma only exists because of the lack of proper translation.

And what God commands is necessarily right. I see no problem.

logical fallacy detected

X is right because God commanded it.
God commanded it because X is right.

These mean the same thing. To prove otherwise, you must find a counter-positive example where only ONE of these statements is true.

Yeah, fucking science quacks. God did everything lmao

You must be fun at parties... Obviously you didnt check the thread I've been making arguments.

Provide to me the proof that has determined your belief in the Christian god. I would very much so enjoy to analyze it.

idk, i aint god nigga. ask him

the wrongness of an action is determined by our essence. If it goes against our essence then its wrong. The standard isnt arbitrary yet it still depends on God (since he created our essence).

As to whether God can do wrong things, he cant, since he has no essence separate from his existence. That way no action can go against it.

The funny thing about this argument and the majority of atheist arguments, even if they did checkmate theists - they dont disprove the existence of God himself, just his attributes.

Are Platonic ideals arbitrary?

well deserved ad hominem because you became illogical first

"what if there was a universe where green was red" see now I just proved green is red

shit tier argument

Your "arguments" have consisted of already debunked moral arbitrary loops, and as such have no import onto the greater discussion.

It has to come from God. I demanded it of him, and he graciously provided it.

I suggest you demand it of him too. He did not run out of grace and mercy.

...

What a thing is defines your nature. And what defines your morality is your nature. If your God (which is defined as the all good being) then you are the thing which is all moral. So what you are defines your morality. Humans for example are flawed and therefore can express of privations such as immorality.

The tragedy is that atheists and agnostics are actually anti-theists.

Okay explaining the whole concept.

Lets start with how value systems and evaluative reasoning works. All reasoned decisions are based ultimately on value-judgements, wherein people choose to hold one thing as more desirable as opposed to other things. People make these judgments due to a formal or informal table of values, whereby some objects or concepts are deemed better then others.

These tables of values rank things by their desirability, often having many or even most of the items on the table desirable purely for the sake of some item higher up on the table that it serves as a means towards. From these facts, an objective ethic can be created. Simple declare your highest values, then create the most efficient means to those values realization, and you have an Objective Morality. Your values are true and your actions are the most efficient possible means to their realization.

The clutch of course is that the highest values in your system are axiomatic. They are determined arbitrarily. Even if God is saying them, even if God is saying them via reference to some fact of his own existence, this remains the case. The Stirner/Nietzche critique remains an issue, that all value-systems are ultimately arbitrary and determined by the volition of particular sentient beings [or Sentient Being as the case may be]. There are only two possible Christian responses to this, taking into account the above critique.

1. There exists subtle values explicit in the nature of consciousness such that all beings have the same highest subtle value[s] and thus to speak of 'alternate value systems' at the highest levels of evaluation becomes pointless. All beings seek fundamentally the same thing. Note that I say "subtle" because simple answers like pleasure, knowledge, or happiness are so obviously NOT universal only a philosophy or a theologian could pretend otherwise. The highest values in this system would have to be something like "becoming" or "craving".
[Cont]

2. The above criticism holds. The Deity's values are in some sense arbitrary insofar as they depend on you accepting the fundamental axioms behind them. It is entirely possible to hold systems of values contrary to those of the Deity, and the Deity has no position exterior to his own value system by which to critique that person. If this is the case, the situation becomes more complicated, as one could argue that Nature is designed such as to be conductive towards those goals of Deity and as such morality is actually a soft variant of Divine Command Theory made manifest through a teleological-ish system. In other words in a cosmic sense existentialism is true, but as a matter of pragmatism the universe was designed to facilitate and the divine order exists to facilitate a particular value system, so either follow it or git gud. This seems more harsh then the first answer, but the first answer has the problem of actually deducing those subtle highest values that unite all value systems.

>tfw fellow-believes can very rarely into metaethics.