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
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Ok, so... God is good and good is God. Don't you think we are left with a bit of an emptiness?
This was St. Thomas of Aquinas's response: "good is an essential part of God's nature".
But you missed my point: as thinkers this leaves us at a complete impasse. Why is it good? Because it is God? It does not provide any answers whatsoever about the nature of morality nor the nature of God. I completely understand what you're saying, I just don't find it a satisfactory answer.
Something is good because is partakes in some way with God. A just act is good because it partakes in God's perfect Justice. A well constructed mathematical proof is good (but in a lesser sense) because it partakes in God's perfection. Even a rock is good because it's existence takes part in God's existence. I don't see an impasse at all. Goodness and thus morality (the practical action towards that good) is measured by how perfectly it partakes in God's goodness.
"Thus if God wills the damnation of any individual person the entirety of his creation is good simply because God wills it. From this point of view the definitive human virtue is an unquestioning obedience to the divine will, even if that divine will commands one to perform an act which God will then immediately condemn as evil and meriting eternal damnation. One might note that one would seem to be left with no objective standard by which to judge what is and what is not God's will. Any claims to immediate divine inspiration as imparting a knowledge of the divine will is ultimately authoritative only for the claiment and those who choose to believe him and it has to be assumed that any such claim is subject to the usual subconscious psychological forces that underlie and distort the human subjective consciousness, i.e., what traditional Christian ascetic tradition designates as the 'passions'."
I wish I could put it into better words, but this'll have to do.
The above is arguing against your second option (that God defines the Good arbitrarily), not against my position.
The situation presented in that quote wouldn't' occur if God is the Good. because God is perfect and unchanging, so what he wills can never change.
I have no idea where that quote came from, but assuming you copied and pasted it from wherever you got it, there's a spelling error in it....that alone makes me wary :P
What I'm trying to say is that if you simply accept that God is good and that good is God then you can't... explain the nature of either. Everything good is simply... Godly. We'd be left going in circles.
No, we can't explain his nature apart from the very basics (infinite, good, simple, intelligent, omnipotent, immutable, etc.).
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Morality as I see it is derived (as I've said before) from human empathy.
Where does empathy come from?
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Perhaps you could contend an different view? Where do YOU think morality is derived from?
I see spirituality and morality as completely separate entities. Morality as I see it is derived (as I've said before) from human empathy. You see heaven as the ultimate reward for being a moral being and hell as the ultimate punishment for being immoral (correct?), but my morality is derived from conscience and the basic human ability sympathize with others emotions.
Why should I be moral despite not believing in God? Because I
can
relate to other creature's emotions.
I think that one word says it all: "can." Morality isn't about
can
's it's about
ought
's. I
can
also do a lot of other things, it doesn't mean I ought to do them. Show my why I ought to relate to other creatures' emotions.
Post by
MyTie
Morality as I see it is derived (as I've said before) from human empathy.
Where does empathy come from?
The human ability to reason; we are social creatures.
What is reason? How can you say that we are reasoning, when, if there is no direction or objective purpose, perhaps we are just randomly contriving what we feel are correct answers, and chalking it up as 'reason'.
What makes this 'reasoning' anything but subjective opinion? What makes our empathy any more than subjective? What makes it good? What defines that?
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The above is arguing against your second option, not against my position: that God defines the Good arbitrarily.
The situation presented in that quote wouldn't' occur if God is the Good. because God is perfect and unchanging, so what he wills can never change.
Why is he perfect?
"Now God is the first principle, not material, but in the order of efficient cause, which must be most perfect. For just as matter, as such, is merely potential, an agent, as such, is in the state of actuality. Hence, the first active principle must needs be most actual, and therefore most perfect; for a thing is perfect in proportion to its state of actuality, because we call that perfect which lacks nothing of the mode of its perfection. "
Why is anything I do moral or immoral?
I've said this at least 3 times now. Because it's ordered to (or away from) God.
You've simply led yourself in circles saying that God is the good.
I can't help that you're wondering in circles on a straight road.
Why is it good?
What is "it" refering to?
I have no idea where that quote came from, but assuming you copied and pasted it from where ever you got it, there's a spelling error in it....that alone makes me wary :P
My book.
I wish I could put it into better words, but this'll have to do.
Wat?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Why should I be moral despite not believing in God? Because I
can
relate to other creature's emotions.
I think that one word says it all: "can." Morality isn't about
can
's it's about
ought
's. I
can
also do a lot of other things, it doesn't mean I ought to do them. Show my why I ought to relate to other creatures' emotions.
This is a stupid argument. My word choice is simple: "can" is being used as "having the ability to"; I'm sorry if not every word I've said is up to par, especially considering "ought" is technically not proper English.
And yes, I do think I
should
sympathize... I don't see what you're trying to get at here.
Why
should
I sympathize? You've given no reason apart from the fact that I'm able to do it. That's hardly a reason to do something.
Post by
283199
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
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.
Frankly this is a ridiculous caveat to a rational conversation (of course I'm an atheist).
Apparently you've never studied logic then. If/then arguments are very much a part of rational thought.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
"Now God is the first principle, not material, but in the order of efficient cause, which must be most perfect. For just as matter, as such, is merely potential, an agent, as such, is in the state of actuality. Hence, the first active principle must needs be most actual, and therefore most perfect; for a thing is perfect in proportion to its state of actuality, because we call that perfect which lacks nothing of the mode of its perfection. "
Why is this the answer? I should simply take it as it is? No more questions to be asked? God is perfect, accept it? Wouldn't you say that God also gave you the ability to think? Why would you stop doing so?
That is what we call a philosophical proof. If you don't agree with it usually you show where the fallacy is, or you offer a proof to the contrary.
I've said this at least 3 times now. Because it's ordered to (or away from) God.
And you've said nothing else! Don't repeat it another time, please!
You asked, I answered. Please don't make this a shouting match.
I can't help that you're wondering in circles on a straight road.
You're the one that simply advocates for me to accept God's perfection and not question it.
Nope, I've given about 5-6 philosophical proofs, none of which you've answered. You're the one who's simply advocating me to accept that I
ought
to sympathize with people for no reason and not to question it.
What is "it" refering to
Everything and anything.
I never said everything was good, so I still don't understand the question.
Wat?
I paraphrased it. You're getting ridiculous.
I just looked it up...direct cut and paste from wikipedia. Be honest please.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
184848
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Why
should
I sympathize? You've given no reason apart from the fact that I'm able to do it. That's hardly a reason to do something.
I'm aware that you're trying to squeeze
because God gave me the ability to
out of me. But that's the short and unsatisfactory answer and one that I do not believe.
Why do we sympathize? Why is there just one answer? Can we truly explain why? Maybe, partially I think. There's a matter of survival... we are deeply co-dependent; we have the emotional need to feel accepted.
So we sympathize in order so survive. Okay. Then, why is survival better than non-survival? If there's no morality except sympathy you can't say being > non-being.
Why do we have emotions? This is an unanswerable question... there
is
the matter of survival, but there are so many other factors involved it need not be restricted to one answer. Does that make the answer simply "because God made it so"? No, because it cannot be completely explained does not mean the answer is directly derived from God.
Emotions are changing. If your morality is based on emotions than it to must be changing. Do you accept that?
You and MyTie are just asking me questions you know I cannot answer just to squeeze "faith" out of me.
If you know you can't answer them, doesn't that show your system is flawed?
Post by
MyTie
You and MyTie are just asking me questions you know I cannot answer just to squeeze "faith" out of me.
No. I just want you to either point to an non religious objective source for reason and morals, or admit that non religious morals are subjective.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.