The Universe as a prison

You have failed to address in any way the argument that I made. Of course, you were under no obligation to have done so, but likewise I'm under no obligation to pretend that you have.
You haven't made an argument, merely offered a set of assumptions none of which I subscribe to. You're offering a causal chain that doesn't make sense in any but the most superficial way, and produced a contingent deity in the same way atheists do. The God I believe in, the only one that makes any kind of sense to me, is a self-existent being that comprises everything that is true and good. Whether God is good or good is God is a philosophical non sequitur, not a serious mode of enquiry.
 
Since you can't even recognise the argument that's been made, it seems pointless to continue. Be well.
Has it not occurred to you that the premise of your argument is flawed, and from that fallacy all subsequent assumptions are misplaced? To assume lack of intellectual or philosophical rigour for not occupying the same view of a deity is more than a little pompous. If you'd care to rephrase the question in the light of what I assume to be true of God, we can continue the discussion, otherwise I'm arguing for a dilemma/impasse/incongruity I don't recognise exists.

An introduction to the nature of God: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm
 
Last edited:
Has it not occurred to you that the premise of your argument is flawed

It has not. As I wrote previously, the only premise of the argument is that both God and objective morality ("the good") exist, with which I understand you to agree. The dilemma then can't be escaped.
 
It has not. As I wrote previously, the only premise of the argument is that both God and objective morality ("the good") exist, with which I understand you to agree. The dilemma then can't be escaped.
If God is perfect and omnipresent I don't see how the thing we call morality, an innate voice that offers a compass to the individual but appears to be common, can be spoken of as separate from God in any way. If the source of the voice is divine, our acting upon it reflects the divine. We do not have to follow conscience because we have free will (see predestination and reprobation in the link), so the act of piety is not external and causal (as implied by Plato's question) but reflective.

I suspect the origins of our difference is in the nature of predestination and grace.
 
Laird/Gabriel,

I've found this dialogue interesting; so thank you. I tend to be more aligned with Gabriel's perspective here so I have a question for Laird. What would be your reaction to the following?

The Euthyphro Dilemma

I'm of the opinion that Euthyphro should have been the one asking Socrates the questions. Roughly, the modern defender of the alleged dilemma asks, "is something good because God wills it, or does God will something because it is good?" Let's tackle this question by separating each part of the disjunction:

A. X is good because God wills it.

B. God wills X because X is good.

Now, in order for this to be a true dilemma, B must be the negation (or the equivalent to the negation) of A. Otherwise, the disjunction that Socrates presents is a false dilemma. Euthyphro should have asked Socrates why A and B are contradictory. Why can it not be the case that both A and B?

In debating the question over the years, it has become clear to me that defenders of the dilemma are making a very crucial assumption. What the Euthyphro Dilemma requires in order to work properly is the implication that B entails independence of God. A and B should really be rephrased like this:

A'. X, which is good, is dependent on God.

B'. X, which is good, is independent of God.

Obviously, A' and B' are mutually incompatible, but this raises an even more obvious question: why not simply state the dilemma like this? The answer is likely that Euthyphro would have simply affirmed A'. Hence, there is no dilemma for him to consider. What Socrates and his modern counterpart have to defend is that B entails B'. Are there any forthcoming arguments to support this? I doubt it. In any case, the theist should not accept the burden of proof in trying to explain away the (false) dilemma. Rather, the dilemma's defender ought to accept responsibility for arguing that B and B' are ultimately identical.

Source: http://dougbenscoter.blogspot.com/2011/10/euthyphro-dilemma.html
 
"Now, in order for this to be a true dilemma, B must be the negation (or the equivalent to the negation) of A. Otherwise, the disjunction that Socrates presents is a false dilemma".

Indeed so.
 
Well, here's the thing: "the Infinite" doesn't have a perspective. It is not conscious. Morality necessarily relates to conscious experience, and only consciousness has a perspective. So we can right off the bat drop your notion of recurrence to some sort of "Infinite Perspective". And if "the Infinite" was conscious, then it would be just as prone to those objective aspects of conscious experience as the rest of us are, and would recognise implicitly that to cause harm to others for no good reason is objectively wrong.

You do realize you just completely proved my point right? Morality cannot exist outside of our individual heads because we're the only ones that have perspective thus it is completely individualized? How did you not notice this?

You just rewrote my entire argument and somehow think that it's proof of the contrary.

If it were objectively wrong, people/animals wouldn't be doing it, but they do do it, therefore it can't be objectively wrong. Period.
 
Last edited:
So, anyway, dude, love your experimentation and prowess with magic and psi, but on morality, you are hopelessly mistaken.

I don't go so hard on this because I want everyone to go out murderizing their neighborhoods. But rather because it pays to recognize that:

1: There are people out there who would have no problem doing it to you.
2: The universe isn't going to step in to solve your problems just because you're crying about it.
3: It's hard to respect other things when you can't even respect yourself.

One of the fundamental tenets of pretty much any martial art I've studied or read about states that you gain power in the hopes you will never need to use it.

You're not taught how to rip peoples eyes out because the Masters intend for you to go out doing that. You're taught how to rip someones eyes out in case you need to do that to protect yourself or someone you care about.
 
What would be your reaction to the following?

Hi Silence. My reaction would be as follows:

"Now, in order for this to be a true dilemma, B must be the negation (or the equivalent to the negation) of A".

Uh, sorry, no, dude. Look up the definition of a dilemma. That its two horns be contradictory (the negation of one another) is not part of it.

"Why can it not be the case that both A and B?"

I'll go out on a limb and suggest: because that's circular.
 
You do realize you just completely proved my point right?

Nonsense.

Morality cannot exist outside of our individual heads because we're the only ones that have perspective thus it is completely individualized? How did you not notice this?

My point was that only conscious beings can recognise morality, which is like saying that only conscious beings can recognise mathematical truths.

If it were objectively wrong, people/animals wouldn't be doing it, but they do do it, therefore it can't be objectively wrong.

Honestly, this is childish. People do the wrong thing sometimes. That doesn't mean there's no right thing.
 
Actually, on the main and major moral evils, there is almost unanimous convergence.

Almost unanimous is not unanimous, thus not objective. Plus even if it was it doesn't prevent the possibility that someone could come along and disagree... unless you think we're all deterministic robots who are only capable of following the moralistic programming embedded in us...?
 
Almost unanimous is not unanimous, thus not objective.

Killer blow, man. Seriously, it's a waste of time discussing this with you, given your cheap "gotchas". Not everybody gets the answer to a maths problem right - therefore there is no objectively right answer. I mean, this is the level of your argumentation.
 
Hi Silence. My reaction would be as follows:

"Now, in order for this to be a true dilemma, B must be the negation (or the equivalent to the negation) of A".

Uh, sorry, no, dude. Look up the definition of a dilemma. That its two horns be contradictory (the negation of one another) is not part of it.

"Why can it not be the case that both A and B?"

I'll go out on a limb and suggest: because that's circular.
Okay. I probably shouldn't have tried to get into the technical argument.

I'll put it this way. While I'm not sure where I stand on the subject of "God", I've never had any problem reconciling objective morality and the God concept. For me there isn't any chicken and egg dilemma with which to wrestle. Maybe I'll try it this way:

God stands apart from reality. Objective morality fits within it. God "created" objective morality. Where's the conflict?

Am I missing the heart of the Euthyphro Dilemma?
 
Am I missing the heart of the Euthyphro Dilemma?
I don't believe so. It's appeal is to a linear classical logic of causality. There's no reason to believe a creative mind, especially the ultimate create mind has to conform or submit to billiard ball logic. Some things are consequential, some are not. There's no logical precursor to the Big Bang, if such an event occurred. Dilemmas are the stock in trade of atheists, people who cannot or will not accede to anything that cannot be diagnosed reductively. Even the terminology of Plato's enquiry begs the question, assuming a relationship between beings whose interaction can be understood.
 
God "created" objective morality.

OK, so, recall the dilemma: "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"

You've just chosen the second horn of the dilemma: that which is morally good is commanded ("created" in your words) by God. This is problematic because there would appear to be no reason why God could not have commanded ("created") some radically different morality - i.e. the question becomes: Why did God command ("create") this particular objective morality?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top