This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
The Euthyphro Dilemma
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Is good commanded by God because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by God?
Neither. God is the Good. Solves both dilemmas. He can't will anything but good because that would be to deny his essence.
Saying that good is God and that God is good leaves us at an impasse (yes, this was the answer I was waiting for).
It's the equivalent of saying single is unmarried and unmarried is single
... it will not provide any answer about neither the nature of God nor the nature of good.
It becomes blind faith at this point; to simply accept divine command without asking
why is it so?
I will not accept this answer.
Where in the world did you get that analogy. The very definition of God (in the western tradition) is Good.
I'll quote some Thomistic proofs quick (no, these are not theological, they are completely philosophical).
Whether God is good?
To be good belongs pre-eminently to God. For a thing is good according to its desirableness. Now everything seeks after its own perfection; and the perfection and form of an effect consist in a certain likeness to the agent, since every agent makes its like; and hence the agent itself is desirable and has the nature of good. For the very thing which is desirable in it is the participation of its likeness. Therefore, since God is the first effective cause of all things, it is manifest that the aspect of good and of desirableness belong to Him; and hence Dionysius (Div. Nom. iv) attributes good to God as to the first efficient cause, saying that, God is called good "as by Whom all things subsist."
Whether God is the supreme good?
God is the supreme good simply, and not only as existing in any genus or order of things. For good is attributed to God, as was said in the preceding article, inasmuch as all desired perfections flow from Him as from the first cause. They do not, however, flow from Him as from a univocal agent, as shown above (Question 4, Article 2); but as from an agent which does not agree with its effects either in species or genus. Now the likeness of an effect in the univocal cause is found uniformly; but in the equivocal cause it is found more excellently, as, heat is in the sun more excellently than it is in fire. Therefore as good is in God as in the first, but not the univocal, cause of all things, it must be in Him in a most excellent way; and therefore He is called the supreme good.
Whether to be essentially good belongs to God alone?
God alone is good essentially. For everything is called good according to its perfection. Now perfection of a thing is threefold: first, according to the constitution of its own being; secondly, in respect of any accidents being added as necessary for its perfect operation; thirdly, perfection consists in the attaining to something else as the end. Thus, for instance, the first perfection of fire consists in its existence, which it has through its own substantial form; its secondary perfection consists in heat, lightness and dryness, and the like; its third perfection is to rest in its own place. This triple perfection belongs to no creature by its own essence; it belongs to God only, in Whom alone essence is existence; in Whom there are no accidents; since whatever belongs to others accidentally belongs to Him essentially; as, to be powerful, wise and the like, as appears from what is stated above (Question 3, Article 6); and He is not directed to anything else as to an end, but is Himself the last end of all things. Hence it is manifest that God alone has every kind of perfection by His own essence; therefore He Himself alone is good essentially.
So unless you can provide a proof that God is not Good (ie the supreme good), then I don't think your analogy holds up.
PS when I have the time I'll dig up both Plato's and Arisotles' proofs.
Post by
Skyfire
Have a care with discussion on open-mindedness. See
this video
about it.
Post by
448495
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Lionsprey
If god doesn't see the evil. how can we call him all knowing?
if god sees the evil but doesn't stop it how can we then call him good?
if god sees the evil but can not stop it how can we then call him god?
my favourite saying cant remember where i heard it though.
Personaly im a pastafarian makes a whole lot more sense then christianity.
besides who would want to be part of a religion whose center figure would probebly be mad if he came back and saw everything they had done?
however i find it easier to just ignore all those religius people simply becouse well they do not make any sense in my oppinion
A lot of the things in the world do seem to complex to just have appered through chance though like our eyes
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
If God is so good, why is there so much bad in the world? Have yet to hear that one explained.
Actually I was hoping someone would bring this up.
You just stated there is bad/evil in the world, correct?
Now let's assume there is no God. Let's then set up a model of time.
We start with nothing, out of which "erupts" the big bang, and time begins. Now fast forward to the end of time, or complete entropy, which is followed by nothing. (You could go on can say a new big bang happens out of the nothing and you get a cycle, but that doesn't come into play because literally "nothing" connects the two universes.) This is what's called a "closed system." There is no Author/Creator in such a system, therefore there is no plan. The universe is essentially a random ordering of chaos. Now if that's so, there is nothing to define good and evil. If I live a virtuous life and die, the universe will still descend into nothingness. If I live a horrible, heinous life, the universe will still descend into nothingness. Nothing has meaning. Therefore you can't complain about evil because there is no such thing.
Now, let's assume an open system. We start with an Creator/Author. He performs an act of creating the universe from nothing. However, since he his already infinitely perfect, and the universe adds nothing to him, it can only have been done as an act of infinitely perfect generosity. Now lets fast forward to the end; God is now our end, so there is a purpose to life. And because our existence is a perfect gift, it's end cannot be flawed in any way, thus out end is perfect happiness with him.
Now
you can complain about evil, because evil is something oriented away from that final end. There is a metaphysical standard you can measure good and evil with.
In short, I haven't addressed the problem of evil (yet),
but for you to admit there is a problem of evil to begin with, you have to assume God exists.
Post by
MyTie
If you wish to be part of this discussion, you must enter it with the idea that while reading this you believe in God regardless of whether you are a debout Christian, an atheist, or whatever else.
Is good commanded by God because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by God?
If you take the former: This means that an essense of good existed before God willed it, and thus the will of God is irrelevant because an action would be good regardless of whether God willed it or not.
If you take the latter: God's will defines what morality is and leaves us asking "why is it God's will?" Is it a completely arbitrary thing? Could murder and sodomy have been good if God had willed it so?
There's also another answer which I'm sure will come up and I will happily explain why it leaves us at an impass.
I think this is an excellent question. I think that 'good' and 'bad' are dependant on the reason we are created. If God created us to have a relationship with Him, then what is 'good' is something that drives us closer to have a relationship with him, and something that is 'bad' is something that drives us farther away from him. That's clearer than just saying 'God is good'.
So, we know that if it drives us closer to Him, it is good. Take 'sodomy' as your example. God's relationship with us is the point of being created right? God also modeled our relationship with Him, for us, with marriage. How a husband and wife become more knowledgable and closer, and how they love eachother more and more on deeper levels. That's the point of marriage. It isn't good because God says so. It is good because it is the model for how love works. A perversion of that intended model is a rejection of the instruction given to us.
It isn't like God went up to a massive white board and made two columns, one good and one bad, and started arbitrarily throwing acts in them. He made a world for us to grow in and grow in love with Him. Doing otherwise, or making our own way, contradictory to His, goes against our purpose.
Post by
Queggy
And you have to remember that God gave us free will too.
Why would a being who is so tuned in to what is "good" give man the ability to be bad? Wouldn't that be considered a flaw in the design? He had to know that we would fail before we were created... yet created us anyways.
God wanted someone to share his creation with, someone to worship him and be a companion. So God made humans. If God didn't give us free will, we would be mindless zombies that would have no will of our own. God would tell us to worship him, and we would have to do it. So God gave us free will, that way we can comprehend and understand. As an analogy, look at yourself and your vacuum cleaner. Your vacuum cleaner has no free will. It was created for a purpose, and you use it for that purpose. Do you go hang out with your appliances? Do you chat with them? Do you have discussions with them? Do they have a choice between cleaning your house or not?
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Does that not make it a selfish thing on God's part to have created us? He knew we would fail, but was more worried about companionship for himself than for our well-being? I just have a hard time buying into it. Seems more like a dictator than a loving creator.
Besides, didn't god the father have god the son to keep him company?
God did not make us for himself.
We add nothing to him.
I don't think that's a hard concept to get; God's infinite and prefect (ie, he's lacking in nothing). His act of creation couldn't have been anything else other than complete generosity because it in no way adds or takes away from him.
Post by
MyTie
Does that not make it a selfish thing on God's part to have created us? He knew we would fail, but was more worried about companionship for himself than for our well-being? I just have a hard time buying into it. Seems more like a dictator than a loving creator.
Besides, didn't god the father have god the son to keep him company?
If you were an omnipotent being and creater of the universe, then couldn't you say that everything you create is created because you wanted it, and therefore selfish?
And I don't think humanity is failing at pleasing God. I could theorize that certain humans probably are, but I think plenty are following His will.
Imagine that you created the universe, wouldn't you want to share it with someone?
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
LoL, someone just pulled the "there is no morality if there isn't a God" card. It's been debated before, we're not doing it again. If you can't make your point without using that in your argument, then your argument is flawed.
By the way, long time no see Mytie.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
LoL, someone just pulled the "there is no morality if there isn't a God" card. It's been debated before, we're not doing it again. If you can't make your point without using that in your argument, then your argument is flawed.
By the way, long time no see Mytie.
Notice that not a shred of evidence is supplied.
Without something eternal and immutable, right and wrong merely become subjective.
Post by
TheMediator
Yeah, I'm not supplying evidence, this argument has been done before and I don't care to argue it again.
Post by
MyTie
Yeah, I'm not supplying evidence, this argument has been done before and I don't care to argue it again.
Well, it does have a few elements that haven't been examined yet, but it is kind of a rehash. Still, that doesn't explain why it cannot be reexamined.
No God : Subjective morals.
God: Objective morals.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Well then don't argue it...my point still stands.
Post by
TheMediator
Well then don't argue it...my point still stands.
I'm simply saying, if your only defense for a particular point of view is that you believe that God is the source of morality, then I'd say that it'd not be worth getting into that argument. Now, if you had some other defenses, then go for it, but I wouldn't try to defend a point of view based on one shaky line of reasoning, because if one were to debunk your one defense, then you wouldn't have anything to defend your point of view with.
Post by
MyTie
Well then don't argue it...my point still stands.
I'm simply saying, if your only defense for a particular point of view is that you believe that God is the source of morality, then I'd say that it'd not be worth getting into that argument. Now, if you had some other defenses, then go for it, but I wouldn't try to defend a point of view based on one shaky line of reasoning, because if one were to debunk your one defense, then you wouldn't have anything to defend your point of view with.
Perhaps you could contend an different view? Where do YOU think morality is derived from?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Well then don't argue it...my point still stands.
I'm simply saying, if your only defense for a particular point of view is that you believe that God is the source of morality, then I'd say that it'd not be worth getting into that argument. Now, if you had some other defenses, then go for it, but I wouldn't try to defend a point of view based on one shaky line of reasoning, because if one were to debunk your one defense, then you wouldn't have anything to defend your point of view with.
I never said I believed anything. It's philosophically impossible to prove that there is some permanent morality if there is no deity. Once you remove God from the picture, the system becomes closed and can't have any purpose. And once you loose it's end, whether something is right or wrong (ie oriented towards that end or not) becomes meaningless.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.