The Problem Of Good

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Symmetric Chaos
So imagine God makes a statement that something is good or should be done. Their are two possibilities: either the statement is inherently true or it is subjective.

In either case it seems to cause a problem for theism.

If it an intrinsic good then we do not need God because the thing/idea being good in independent of God.
If is is not an intrinsic good then God's position in no more valid than mine or yours and thus we do not need God anymore than any other philosopher.

Thoughts? Third options?

Autokrat
Isn't this the euthyphro dilemma?

I would think the theist's response would be to call this a False Dilemma and argue that the Good is intrinsic to God's character and that God's character is unchanging.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Autokrat
Isn't this the euthyphro dilemma?

Ah, I knew it had a name.

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So imagine God makes a statement that something is good or should be done. Their are two possibilities: either the statement is inherently true or it is subjective.

In either case it seems to cause a problem for theism.

If it an intrinsic good then we do not need God because the thing/idea being good in independent of God.
If is is not an intrinsic good then God's position in no more valid than mine or yours and thus we do not need God anymore than any other philosopher.

Thoughts? Third options?

I think a philosopher of the big three would say it is the second option, and that God, in his infinite wisdom, has chosen the correct path for man. For Christians and Muslims, the changes in the nature of the lord from earlier scripture allows for God to even change his mind on some issues.

Autokrat
Originally posted by inimalist
I think a philosopher of the big three would say it is the second option, and that God, in his infinite wisdom, has chosen the correct path for man. For Christians and Muslims, the changes in the nature of the lord from earlier scripture allows for God to even change his mind on some issues.

Would that have the implication of God tacitly admitting that he made a mistake or realized he could do something better?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So imagine God makes a statement that something is good or should be done. Their are two possibilities: either the statement is inherently true or it is subjective.

In either case it seems to cause a problem for theism.

If it an intrinsic good then we do not need God because the thing/idea being good in independent of God.
If is is not an intrinsic good then God's position in no more valid than mine or yours and thus we do not need God anymore than any other philosopher.

Thoughts? Third options?

How would God make a statement?

Could intrinsic be interpreted as a statement made by God?

Can you name one thing that is intrinsically good?

I think it is a false problem because there is no such thing as intrinsically good.

Autokrat
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How would God make a statement?

Could intrinsic be interpreted as a statement made by God?

Can you name one thing that is intrinsically good?

I think it is a false problem because there is no such thing as intrinsically good.

Many theists of the three Abrahamic faiths make the claim that certain actions are intrinsically good because God has declared them to be good through scripture or revelation.

That is where the dilemma comes into play.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Autokrat
Many theists of the three Abrahamic faiths make the claim that certain actions are intrinsically good because God has declared them to be good through scripture or revelation.

That is where the dilemma comes into play.


But all books are written by humans. Therefore, the claim that there is something intrinsically good is made up by humans.

Can you prove that something is intrinsically good?

Autokrat
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But all books are written by humans. Therefore, the claim that there is something intrinsically good is made up by humans.

Can you prove that something is intrinsically good?

That isn't the point of this thread (at least, I don't think it is.) I'm an atheist so obviously I agree that all the books are written by humans and don't prove that anything is intrinsically good.

The point of this thread is the philosophical problem faced by people who make such claims and so for the sake of the argument, it is assumed that God exists and made claims about what is intrinsically good.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Autokrat
That isn't the point of this thread (at least, I don't think it is.) I'm an atheist so obviously I agree that all the books are written by humans and don't prove that anything is intrinsically good.

The point of this thread is the philosophical problem faced by people who make such claims and so for the sake of the argument, it is assumed that God exists and made claims about what is intrinsically good.

I am a theist, and I still think it is a false problem.

Autokrat
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am a theist, and I still think it is a false problem.

Yes, but your version of God is, well I don't know what it is, and most people probably don't operate under your definition of God. The majority of apologetic philosophers and theologians are going to be talking about the Abrahamic deity. They will also try to establish a stable definition before they enter into the debate.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How would God make a statement?

Don't be stupid.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Could intrinsic be interpreted as a statement made by God?

I can't seem to parse that sentence.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Can you name one thing that is intrinsically good?

No, I don't believe in intrinsic goods. But that's irrelevant because this thread isn't about me.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think it is a false problem because there is no such thing as intrinsically good.

Irrelevant.

The belief in intrinsic good exists, the belief in God exists. Thus the problem exists.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Don't be stupid.

I don't know what you are talking about. I asked you a question.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I can't seem to parse that sentence.

It's not that hard. Could your problem be nothing but definitions?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, I don't believe in intrinsic goods. But that's irrelevant because this thread isn't about me.

Then you have made an assumption that is incorrect.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Irrelevant.

I don't care.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The belief in intrinsic good exists, the belief in God exists. Thus the problem exists.

But not all theists believe that. You should define your thread better.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It's not that hard. Could your problem be nothing but definitions?

Blueberries 47 smilie face you fire ten ghost.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But not all theists believe that. You should define your thread better.

No. I used the words that would make the greatest number of people understand what I mean. given the amount of time you spend trying to not understand other people it's reasonable to say that this confusion you're faced with is entirely your fault.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Blueberries 47 smilie face you fire ten ghost.



No. I used the words that would make the greatest number of people understand what I mean. given the amount of time you spend trying to not understand other people it's reasonable to say that this confusion you're faced with is entirely your fault.

"Blueberries 47 smilie face you fire ten ghost"

I think that sums it up. And then you try to say I am confused.
laughing

If a theist believes in an evil god, then how is your question valid? It is only valid under certain beliefs, like Christianity.

inimalist
Originally posted by Autokrat
Would that have the implication of God tacitly admitting that he made a mistake or realized he could do something better?

I'm not aware of the Christian explanation, though I believe it is tied to Jesus, however Muslims explain that all revelations prior to that of Mohammed were incomplete, and Jesus, Moses, Buddah, Quetiezatelquatal, were all just partial revelations. God didn't change, he just hadn't fully revealed himself.

inimalist
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Blueberries 47 smilie face you fire ten ghost.

I've been saying that for years

Mindship
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So imagine God makes a statement that something is good or should be done. Their are two possibilities: either the statement is inherently true or it is subjective.

In either case it seems to cause a problem for theism.

If it an intrinsic good then we do not need God because the thing/idea being good in independent of God.
If is is not an intrinsic good then God's position in no more valid than mine or yours and thus we do not need God anymore than any other philosopher.

Thoughts? Third options? God is infinite. There is nothing independent of God. And I would consider such a being -- with his cosmic perspective and understanding -- to be more informed than any mere human philosopher when it comes to proper course of action with regard to the Big Picture.

King Kandy
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If a theist believes in an evil god, then how is your question valid? It is only valid under certain beliefs, like Christianity.
Yes, and that's obviously what this thread was aimed at, as would be apparent to anyone applying the slightest bit of analysis to the OP.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by King Kandy
Yes, and that's obviously what this thread was aimed at, as would be apparent to anyone applying the slightest bit of analysis to the OP.

Like you do?

King Kandy
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Like you do?
Like every single person in the thread besides you did. It was transparently obvious, as shown by the fact that you were the only one who tried pulling the "you must look at all definitions!" card.

Lately I see you doing little but posting in threads to try and force people to start acknowledging your definition of God in discussion... but nobody gives a shit about your definition because it's held by only one single (and increasingly pretentious) person, and is completely nonconducive to the discussions we have.

Shakyamunison

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by King Kandy
Like every single person in the thread besides you did. It was transparently obvious, as shown by the fact that you were the only one who tried pulling the "you must look at all definitions!" card.

Lately I see you doing little but posting in threads to try and force people to start acknowledging your definition of God in discussion... but nobody gives a shit about your definition because it's held by only one single (and increasingly pretentious) person, and is completely nonconducive to the discussions we have.

Sure, my position is in the minority, but do you have to always go around and tell the minority that they are wrong?

King Kandy
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sure, my position is in the minority, but do you have to always go around and tell the minority that they are wrong?
No, but the minority is in even less of a position to go around telling the majority they are wrong. You have only recently gotten hyper aggressive on this issue, somehow this never bothered you before but now you are going out of your way to post replies that have relevance only towards you, and will generate no discussion besides semantic arguments.

Shakyamunison

kava_kava
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If it an intrinsic good then we do not need God because the thing/idea being good in independent of God.
If is is not an intrinsic good then God's position in no more valid than mine or yours and thus we do not need God anymore than any other philosopher.

Thoughts? Third options?

yes, you could easy derive this conclusion...but Where does intrinsic good come from? Is if of our own quality and nature?

so you are trying to debate that man created God in order to have order and to set what is right and wrong- so man has intrinsic good but created God in their minds and created religion, to feel what? That good will have certain rewards over evil? For if there is not God then there is not a real need to be good, nor really a real consequence for being evil, for in that sense man knows good and evil, so why create a God to punish them for not obeying what is good?

good - God = 0

King Kandy
Originally posted by kava_kava
yes, you could easy derive this conclusion...but Where does intrinsic good come from? Is if of our own quality and nature?

so you are trying to debate that man created God in order to have order and to set what is right and wrong- man has intrinsic good but created God in their minds and created religion, to feel what? That good will have certain rewards over evil? For if there is not God then there is not a real need to be good, nor really a real consequence for being evil, for in that sense man knows good and evil, so why create a God to punish them for not obeying what is good?
What is "good" is what is conducive to functioning society... that is the source of the morals in religion.

King Kandy
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I haven't changed.
Have to. If I look at old threads about god, your first response was never things like "this doesn't apply to my definition of God", you actually went with the premise.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by kava_kava
... so why create a God to punish them for not obeying what is good?

good - God = 0

Power is the answer. It's the old, "if you don't do what I say, you will go to hell" story. big grin

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by King Kandy
Have to. If I look at old threads about god, your first response was never things like "this doesn't apply to my definition of God", you actually went with the premise.

Have you ever read anyone calling me the angry Buddhist? It was something I was trying to over come, but I got the name honestly.

kava_kava
Originally posted by King Kandy
What is "good" is what is conducive to functioning society... that is the source of the morals in religion.

So your taking the functional sociological approach, i see. Well the thing is that the "good" problem is only one of many things that have to be argued how to deny God.

if morals are created because it betters function in society, then what say you about societies that function well immorally? Do morals shift with whatever society demands?

and even so, one could say, ofcourse morals are so a society will function properly. I don't think God would want any evil society to function, so morals seem to be a derivative of the functional society, when in fact a functional society is a derivitave of morals. Morals came before a functional society. Good came before us.

inimalist
shakya just found the one truth, let him spam our threads with his truth so that relevant discussion (mine) is hidden below pages of squabling about an issue that 99% fo the people on this board are in agreement on

King Kandy
Originally posted by kava_kava
So your taking the functional sociological approach, i see. Well the thing is that the "good" problem is only one of many things that have to be argued how to deny God.

if morals are created because it betters function in society, then what say you about societies that function well immorally? Do morals shift with whatever society demands?

and even so, one could say, ofcourse morals are so a society will function properly. I don't think God would want any evil society to function, so morals seem to be a derivative of the functional society, when in fact a functional society is a derivitave of morals. Morals came before a functional society. Good came before us.
Morals are relative because what works in one society doesn't necessarily work in others.

inimalist
Originally posted by King Kandy
What is "good" is what is conducive to functioning society... that is the source of the morals in religion.

Isn't that close to what you are accusing shakya of?

in this thread, we are assuming that good is either an intrinsic value in itself or that good is a choice made by god

sure, it could be defined in that sense, but then the paradox is rendered moot. I can't imagine that any theologan would answer that good is a product of social necessity though.

kava_kava
Originally posted by King Kandy
Morals are relative because what works in one society doesn't necessarily work in others.

okay so relative, not derivative...hm...well then in that case you have no argument on "good" at all, for there is no clear definition of "good" if you say that morals are dependent upon and relative to a society's functioning.

So then we cannot even debate if morals are relative...what are morals ?

King Kandy
Originally posted by inimalist
Isn't that close to what you are accusing shakya of?

in this thread, we are assuming that good is either an intrinsic value in itself or that good is a choice made by god

sure, it could be defined in that sense, but then the paradox is rendered moot. I can't imagine that any theologan would answer that good is a product of social necessity though.
That was only a response to that one specific post... I will be the first to admit it doesn't relate to the opening post directly.

King Kandy
Originally posted by kava_kava
okay so relative, not derivative...hm...well then in that case you have no argument on "good" at all, for there is no clear definition of "good" if you say that morals are dependent upon and relative to a society's functioning.

So then we cannot even debate if morals are relative...what are morals ?
See, now you're getting it.

inimalist
Originally posted by King Kandy
That was only a response to that one specific post... I will be the first to admit it doesn't relate to the opening post directly.

fair enough

I do agree, societies morals are certainly based on what was needed at the time

what would you say about stuff that comes up with no real apparent relationship to that though? like some of the dietary and hygene laws, or some of the weirder rituals? do you think all religious rules have a purpose, or might some have just "piggybacked" with the others?

King Kandy
Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough

I do agree, societies morals are certainly based on what was needed at the time

what would you say about stuff that comes up with no real apparent relationship to that though? like some of the dietary and hygene laws, or some of the weirder rituals? do you think all religious rules have a purpose, or might some have just "piggybacked" with the others?
I read that kosher laws were mainly created to distinguish hebrews from other tribes of the time. But who knows, it was a long (poorly recorded) time ago.

kava_kava
technically the laws will never end until the source of good is found and wanted

King Kandy
Originally posted by kava_kava
technically the laws will never end until the source of good is found and wanted
I don't have a clue what that sentence even means. Please try and make future posts make sense.

kava_kava
technically the laws will never end until the source of good is found and wanted

what i mean to say is that society will never produce a functionally moral state without God, who has to be wanted first before he is found.

truthfully, most do not want a God because they do not to be morally restricted.

King Kandy
Originally posted by kava_kava
technically the laws will never end until the source of good is found and wanted

what i mean to say is that society will never produce a functionally moral state without God, who has to be wanted first before he is found.

truthfully, most do not want a God because they do not to be morally restricted.
That's clearly stated now, but it's still stupid. There are functional societies, and there are moral societies (I know this because you said some societies are immoral, meaning some aren't). If it is functional, then it must be moral, because people don't do things they don't feel are justified.

kava_kava
Originally posted by King Kandy
That's clearly stated now, but it's still stupid. There are functional societies, and there are moral societies (I know this because you said some societies are immoral, meaning some aren't). If it is functional, then it must be moral, because people don't do things they don't feel are justified.

again, what is "good"? there are cases of functional immoral societies. Some justify what other societies call immoral. So then we cannot define morality. Each man has his own. I guess this is why you need God, for each man has his own morality.

King Kandy
Originally posted by kava_kava
again, what is "good"? there are cases of functional immoral societies. Some justify what other societies call immoral. So then we cannot define morality. Each man has his own. I guess this is why you need God, for each man has his own morality.
What is a functional immoral society, they are moral to themselves because their morals are to the benefit of their society. If a society is immoral, it does not function, because people do things they think are justified and thus moral. A society where people do not think they are moral is a society in which people don't have drive, and those don't work.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
shakya just found the one truth, let him spam our threads with his truth so that relevant discussion (mine) is hidden below pages of squabling about an issue that 99% fo the people on this board are in agreement on

A thread where everyone agrees is no fun.

King Kandy
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A thread where everyone agrees is no fun.
No, but a thread where everyone agrees on which topic to discuss is loads of fun.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by King Kandy
No, but a thread where everyone agrees on which topic to discuss is loads of fun.

It's not really a paradox. It's a trick of words.

King Kandy
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It's not really a paradox. It's a trick of words.
There is no contradiction. This thread discusses the Judeo-Christian conception of god in relation to morality. The problem isn't that you disagree, it's that you're arguing about something that isn't even in the same topic everyone else is trying to discuss.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by King Kandy
There is no contradiction. This thread discusses the Judeo-Christian conception of god in relation to morality. The problem isn't that you disagree, it's that you're arguing about something that isn't even in the same topic everyone else is trying to discuss.

The thread starter is trying to set up a paradox that does not exist. I pointed that out by simply changing some of the words around. It's just a word game.

All a Christians has to say is that god created good, and humans are not capable of knowing what good is without god. There is no paradox.

The intrinsic part, in this case, would simply be god. However, this is a false point because there is no such thing as intrinsically good.

In order for the paradox to be real, intrinsic good would have to be real.

Deja~vu
A person doesn't have to be religious to be moral. It's just treating people how you would like to be treated and you don't need a god to do that.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Deja~vu
A person doesn't have to be religious to be moral. It's just treating people how you would like to be treated and you don't need a god to do that.

You would think that an atheist would know that. wink

Deja~vu
Yeah, you would.

King Kandy
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The thread starter is trying to set up a paradox that does not exist. I pointed that out by simply changing some of the words around. It's just a word game.

All a Christians has to say is that god created good, and humans are not capable of knowing what good is without god. There is no paradox.

The intrinsic part, in this case, would simply be god. However, this is a false point because there is no such thing as intrinsically good.

In order for the paradox to be real, intrinsic good would have to be real.
You didn't "point out" anything more than me changing "god" to "turkey" in the OP would have made the post nonsensical.

I agree with your point that it's not a terribly hard paradox to simply rationalize your way out of if you're a christian. However, in the context of the OP, we're supposed to be looking at it from a christian perspective. Changing the definitions in the OP is no different from when JIA replied to a "if you found out jesus was fake" with a "this lacks value, because he isn't fake". In a thread discussing a hypothetical, the conditions have to be accepted if any useful discussion about it will be generated.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by King Kandy
You didn't "point out" anything more than me changing "god" to "turkey" in the OP would have made the post nonsensical.

What in the hell are you talking about? I never said anything about turkey.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I agree with your point that it's not a terribly hard paradox to simply rationalize your way out of if you're a christian. However, in the context of the OP, we're supposed to be looking at it from a christian perspective. Changing the definitions in the OP is no different from when JIA replied to a "if you found out jesus was fake" with a "this lacks value, because he isn't fake". In a thread discussing a hypothetical, the conditions have to be accepted if any useful discussion about it will be generated.

A disagreement is not a paradox. The Christian would think you are wrong, and not capable of being right, and you would think that the Christian was being illogical. That is not a paradox. It maybe a paradox in the mind of an atheist who has no idea how a theist thinks, but that is not a true paradox.

Also, the term theist is too wide range of beliefs to fit within the claim made by the original post.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So imagine God makes a statement that something is good or should be done. Their are two possibilities: either the statement is inherently true or it is subjective.

In either case it seems to cause a problem for theism.

If it an intrinsic good then we do not need God because the thing/idea being good in independent of God.
If is is not an intrinsic good then God's position in no more valid than mine or yours and thus we do not need God anymore than any other philosopher.

Thoughts? Third options?

In other words, is the ethical value of an action determined by God, or is the ethical value of an action inherent, and simply recognized by God?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In other words, is the ethical value of an action determined by God, or is the ethical value of an action inherent, and simply recognized by God?

Pretty much.

King Kandy
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What in the hell are you talking about? I never said anything about turkey.
No, but you used a definition of theism about as far removed from the OPs intent as turkey would have been.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A disagreement is not a paradox. The Christian would think you are wrong, and not capable of being right, and you would think that the Christian was being illogical. That is not a paradox. It maybe a paradox in the mind of an atheist who has no idea how a theist thinks, but that is not a true paradox.
It's not a "disagreement", it's a contradiction in ideas (that has mostly been resolved by other posters) of one party. That's a paradox.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Also, the term theist is too wide range of beliefs to fit within the claim made by the original post.
Really, because you seem to be the only person who is having trouble with the concept.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Pretty much.

A theist would believe the former.

Autokrat
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
A theist would believe the former.

I've seen theists take both sides of the dilemma or call it a false dilemma and provide a third option.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
A theist would believe the former.

Probably. However I'm suggesting that this belief is enough to make a deity redundant because the truth can be realized without God.

I prefer this argument to The Problem of Evil because it's a bit less confrontational and lets one avoid the awful thing were atheists have to list off every awful thing in history (to disprove God via Prob of Evil) and then claim that they "believe in humanity".

Shakyamunison

Autokrat
A theist is generally seen as different from simply believing in god, but someone that believes in a personal god. I would define someone that simply believes in some form of impersonal diety as a deist. I mean, we wouldn't call somone that believes in an impersonal prime mover a theist.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Autokrat
A theist is generally seen as different from simply believing in god, but someone that believes in a personal god. I would define someone that simply believes in some form of impersonal diety as a deist.

What do you consider a person who believs in a natural god to be, an Atheist or Theist?

What I mean by a natural god would be like the Sun, Earth, Moon or natural forces.

Autokrat
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What do you consider a person who believs in a natural god to be, an Atheist or Theist?

What I mean by a natural god would be like the Sun, Earth, Moon or natural forces.

I would call that person a deist of a pantheistic strain, similar to Spinoza. I personally oppose to calling the universe or nature, god. I would ask, why not simply call it nature? Why call it god?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Autokrat
I would call that person a deist of a pantheistic strain. I personally oppose to calling the universe or nature god since I would ask, why not simply call it nature? Why call it god?

Because the belief is related to a religion. This relationship is best described with the term god. However, some religions don't use the word god, but the relationship is the same. I have read religious writings that go way out of their way to not use the word god, but the meaning is the same.

Autokrat
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Because the belief is related to a religion. This relationship is best described with the term god. However, some religions don't use the word god, but the relationship is the same. I have read religious writings that go way out of their way to not use the word god, but the meaning is the same.

Except, in a debate, it confuses the issue. If I see a debate relating to the euthyphro dilemma, I'm immediately going to think of Socrates' dialogue with Euthyphro and the nature of what is pious. Then, I will transfer that to the modern day monotheistic concerns of the Abrahamic faiths (Divine Command Theory,) because that is what the majority of people would be familiar with and it is what impacts our society the most.

I'm not going to consider deistic pantheism, because deistic pantheism is quite frankly, not a very common belief. Most of the population wouldn't even know what it is. Not only that, but the euthyphro dilemma is specific to a diety that acts in the world as a personal entity.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Autokrat
I've seen theists take both sides of the dilemma or call it a false dilemma and provide a third option.

The existence of an additional option, e.g. the ethical value of an action is subjective, would make the argument a False Dichotomy, but it would not make it a False Dilemma, because any additional option would be just as problematic to the notion of "god."

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Autokrat
Except, in a debate, it confuses the issue. If I see a debate relating to the euthyphro dilemma, I'm immediately going to think of Socrates' dialogue with Euthyphro and the nature of what is pious. Then, I will transfer that to the modern day monotheistic concerns of the Abrahamic faiths (Divine Command Theory,) because that is what the majority of people would be familiar with and it is what impacts our society the most.

I'm not going to consider deistic pantheism, because deistic pantheism is quite frankly, not a very common belief. Most of the population wouldn't even know what it is. Not only that, but the euthyphro dilemma is specific to a diety that acts in the world as a personal entity.

If this forum was frequented by Christians, then I would agree. This forum is mostly frequented by atheists who only want other atheists to reaffirm there belief. Therefore, the door is wide open to all theists.

Digi
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So imagine God makes a statement that something is good or should be done. Their are two possibilities: either the statement is inherently true or it is subjective.

In either case it seems to cause a problem for theism.

If it an intrinsic good then we do not need God because the thing/idea being good in independent of God.
If is is not an intrinsic good then God's position in no more valid than mine or yours and thus we do not need God anymore than any other philosopher.

Thoughts? Third options?

This may have already been suggested (Haven't read the entire thread) but, God being infallible in most Western interpretations of Him, my guess is that most theologians would attest to God's Word being intrinsic Truth. Ergo, if something is "good" by God's decree, it is inherently so. Most mainstream religions reject the idea of moral relativism, and adhere to some sort of supposedly divine dogma, so I doubt they could reconcile a Relatvism with God simply acting as the most powerful opinion on the subject.

Wherefore, then, the need for God? Simple, because it is God's Word and guidance that leads us to these inherent truths. We, as imperfect beings, cannot be expected to make infallible decisions on morality. So the truths are inherent, but God is the compass by which humanity is led to them. God himself can probably be viewed as an inherent truth, the sort of a priori existence that defies logic but fits snugly into faith-based belief.

Variations on this provide equal theistic quandries. A professor friend of mine is fond of asking students if something is good because God says it is, or if God says it is good because it inherently is. Similar structure to the problem. There are, of course, ways around this within a theistic worldview. My explanation above is merely one of them.

I prefer less philosophical challenges to religion. A buddy of mine who is a Jesuit has a way of sucking me into philosophical discussions where I end up having to reconcile some obscure philosophical maxim before I can begin to make my case, whatever it happens to be at the time. I inevitably lose such debates. The suspect nature of the Jesus myth, the literal veracity of the Bible (or lack thereof), and the utter lack of evidence for not just God but paranormal beliefs in general (either in the form of no positive evidence, or evidence against specific paranormal claims), provide much more solid ground upon which to stand in opposition to religion. Imo, at least.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If this forum was frequented by Christians, then I would agree. This forum is mostly frequented by atheists who only want other atheists to reaffirm there belief. Therefore, the door is wide open to all theists.

Bah! We don't need others to affirm our beliefs. We already know we're right.

313

But heck, I was a Christian when I started posting on KMC. Then (briefly) a Buddhist, Taoist, Agnostic, and lastly Atheist. Can I count as all of them? I would still say I don't oppose anything I've read in Taoism (which, admittedly, is hardly thorough, so I can only make this claim provisionally)...it's just needlessly wrapped in mysticism and religious terminology. As a philosophy and worldview that is removed from the idea of religion, I think it holds its own quite well.

Mindship
Originally posted by Digi
I inevitably lose such debates. I find that hard to believe.

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by Digi


But heck, I was a Christian when I started posting on KMC. Then (briefly) a Buddhist, Taoist, Agnostic, and lastly Atheist.

It looks like someone is lost and/or easily influenced.

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What do you consider a person who believs in a natural god to be, an Atheist or Theist?

What I mean by a natural god would be like the Sun, Earth, Moon or natural forces.

i don't get it?

are you really just pointing out the Eurocentric nature of the language we have defining people's positions toward god?

Like, seriously, this is 4 pages of you just deconstructing single words, which is not much more than a wank all over the boards

Quiero Mota
A person who believes in any god is not an Atheist.

"natural god"...what??

inimalist
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
A person who believes in any god is not an Atheist.

"natural god"...what??

I agree

however, "natural god" can sometimes refer to what is called "Spinoza's God", which is more like appreciating all things in nature as a God. Many people who could claim to be atheists see some value in this (Dawkins says he believes in Spinoza's God).

However, calling this God, especially in the context of what differentiates atheists and theists is useless. I don't believe a natural "god" to be a "god" at all.

Digi
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It looks like someone is lost and/or easily influenced.

facepalm

The point, it went that way *points* maybe you can hurry and catch it. I had thought that that portion of my post would clearly be seen as the "joking with shakya" portion. The meat of my point comes well before it. Maybe I needed more smilies.

Originally posted by Mindship
I find that hard to believe.

Erm, thanks? But I do. Reducing everything to football analogies, I'm best when my argument are 3 yards and a cloud of dust. Brief, to the point, not mincing words or terms. Philosophy mostly just serves to muddy whatever point I'm trying to make, so I don't do well when mired in it.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
i don't get it?

are you really just pointing out the Eurocentric nature of the language we have defining people's positions toward god?

Like, seriously, this is 4 pages of you just deconstructing single words, which is not much more than a wank all over the boards


From the first post: "In either case it seems to cause a problem for theism."

This is a false statement.

I have shown how a theist can resolve the "problem". I even showed how a Christian would resolve the problem.

The fact you think it is "wank" says to me that my point simply doesn't agree with your preconceived ideas about what a theist is.

theist
one who believes in the existence of a god or gods

This definition does not say anything about what this belief in god or gods is to be like. It also does not exclude beliefs that are in the minority, or even rare.

If atheism is the absence of a belief in a god, the theism is the presents of a belief in a god.

Mindship
Originally posted by Digi
Erm, thanks? But I do. Reducing everything to football analogies, I'm best when my argument are 3 yards and a cloud of dust. Brief, to the point, not mincing words or terms. Philosophy mostly just serves to muddy whatever point I'm trying to make, so I don't do well when mired in it. As much as I like to play with words at times, brief and to the point is best, like being interviewed for a job: don't volunteer unnecessary info; just answer the question.

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
From the first post: "In either case it seems to cause a problem for theism."

This is a false statement.

I have shown how a theist can resolve the "problem". I even showed how a Christian would resolve the problem.


theist
one who believes in the existence of a god or gods

This definition does not say anything about what this belief in god or gods is to be like. It also does not exclude beliefs that are in the minority, or even rare.

If atheism is the absence of a belief in a god, the theism is the presents of a belief in a god.

so yes, you are just doing word deconstruction...

everyone on the board agrees with the subjective interpretation of language, do you just want someone to tell you that, in your own closed logic system where you pick the definitions of things with no respect for the context of the thread, you would be correct?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The fact you think it is "wank" says to me that my point simply doesn't agree with your preconceived ideas about what a theist is.

I have little opinion as to what a theist is, i think the term is generally void, much like deist or agnostic. However, given the topic of the thread was interesting to me, I was able to overcome the fact that my own personal philosophies of religion might be different than other people's and get over my ego long enough to try and answer the question that was asked, rather than redefine the topic so that everyone is talking about me

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
so yes, you are just doing word deconstruction...

everyone on the board agrees with the subjective interpretation of language, do you just want someone to tell you that, in your own closed logic system where you pick the definitions of things with no respect for the context of the thread, you would be correct?

I have no idea what you are talking about, and to be honest, neither do you.

Originally posted by inimalist
I have little opinion as to what a theist is, i think the term is generally void, much like deist or agnostic. However, given the topic of the thread was interesting to me, I was able to overcome the fact that my own personal philosophies of religion might be different than other people's and get over my ego long enough to try and answer the question that was asked, rather than redefine the topic so that everyone is talking about me

What about the rest of what I said? You simply ignore the real definition for your own inadequate definition.

If atheism is the absence of a belief in a god, the theism is the presents of a belief in a god.

inimalist
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have no idea what you are talking about, and to be honest, neither do you.

unfortunate... deconstructionism and the symbolic nature of language aren't really tough subjects...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What about the rest of what I said? You simply ignore the real definition for your own inadequate definition.

If atheism is the absence of a belief in a god, the theism is the presents of a belief in a god.

but, your definitions are irrelevant to the topic, much as mine are

so, get over yourself and participate in the topic at hand, or make a thread that is called "this is how I define religious terms" and see how many people are really interested in nit-picking your semantics

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
unfortunate... deconstructionism and the symbolic nature of language aren't really tough subjects...



but, your definitions are irrelevant to the topic, much as mine are

so, get over yourself and participate in the topic at hand, or make a thread that is called "this is how I define religious terms" and see how many people are really interested in nit-picking your semantics

So, you consider debunking the assertion made by the thread to not be part of the topic? In other words, we are not allowed to disagree with the assumption made at the beginning?

inimalist
you are allowed to do whatever you want

its childish to persist in demanding that people accept your terms for the discussion before it is allowed to go forward. Everyone accepted your "I am a theist and I believe this is a false problem" statement, yet to you, it was important that all theism be discussed in relation to the "one truth" you have regarding its definition. Hell, the OP even clarified to you how theism is being used in the thread.

Save everyone agreeing with you, what else could you want from this topic? It is irrelevant to you, you expressed that

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
you are allowed to do whatever you want

its childish to persist in demanding that people accept your terms for the discussion before it is allowed to go forward. Everyone accepted your "I am a theist and I believe this is a false problem" statement, yet to you, it was important that all theism be discussed in relation to the "one truth" you have regarding its definition. Hell, the OP even clarified to you how theism is being used in the thread.

Save everyone agreeing with you, what else could you want from this topic? It is irrelevant to you, you expressed that

I am only responding to people who find it necessary to insult me. This need to insult shows a weak spot. In a debate, you always go for the weak spots.

I am being the antagonist. Why can't anyone show me how the assertion of this thread is a real problem. The constant attacks on myself, just confirms that I am right.

inimalist
you do have a point

people seem to be reacting to the way you go about debating things, rather than engaging you

it must be a flaw in everyone else

(you do have a point though, sorry, you managed to get a bit under my skin here, lol)

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by inimalist
you do have a point

people seem to be reacting to the way you go about debating things, rather than engaging you

it must be a flaw in everyone else

(you do have a point though, sorry, you managed to get a bit under my skin here, lol)

I'm not perfect, but I'm also not talking about you primarily. Read back, and you will see that this thread was just going to turn into a "lets beat on the theists' thread. What a waste of time. I set out to try and make it more interesting, if not for you, at least for me.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So imagine God makes a statement that something is good or should be done. Their are two possibilities: either the statement is inherently true or it is subjective.

In either case it seems to cause a problem for theism.

If it an intrinsic good then we do not need God because the thing/idea being good in independent of God.
If is is not an intrinsic good then God's position in no more valid than mine or yours and thus we do not need God anymore than any other philosopher.

Thoughts? Third options?

For Mormons, the second option is sort of the answer. We believe that there are eternal laws that surpass even God. God is on a level of famliarity with these laws that is so close, that they are really His own personal beliefs. Inside of his creations/relm/etc. these laws are eternal, correct, absolute, etc. There is the possibility of outside this plane and Mormons speculate that God could have peers with their own multiverse to take care of.


Bardock and I talked about this: moral absolutism.

So, I guess this is a 3rd option: the rabbit hole is deeper than we realize.

Mindship
Originally posted by dadudemon
We believe that there are eternal laws that surpass even God. Do these laws not belong to a 'Greater God'? Or are they simply a function of the physical universe rolling along?

...Mormons speculate that God could have peers with their own multiverse to take care of.
If He has peers, then is He truly 'God'? Perhaps what you have there is just a multiverse deity,

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mindship
If He has peers, then is He truly 'God'? Or just a multiverse deity?

Deconstructionism. mad


laughing laughing Sorry, but I couldn't resist.

Mindship
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Deconstructionism. mad


laughing laughing Sorry, but I couldn't resist. It just seemed an odd statement to me. I've heard of this before, I find it fascinating it's within a JudeoChristian context, and I've always wondered why it stops short (or so it seems).

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Mindship
It just seemed an odd statement to me. I've heard of this before, I find it fascinating it's within a JudeoChristian context, and I've always wondered why it stops short (or so it seems).

I know what you mean. It's almost like it was all made up by humans. wink

Digi
Originally posted by dadudemon
For Mormons, the second option is sort of the answer. We believe that there are eternal laws that surpass even God. God is on a level of famliarity with these laws that is so close, that they are really His own personal beliefs. Inside of his creations/relm/etc. these laws are eternal, correct, absolute, etc. There is the possibility of outside this plane and Mormons speculate that God could have peers with their own multiverse to take care of.


Bardock and I talked about this: moral absolutism.

So, I guess this is a 3rd option: the rabbit hole is deeper than we realize.

If it's deeper than we realize, then how do we realize it? Really, how can we even speculate on this? Seems like this is destined to remain unsubstantiated.

Red Nemesis
You're going to use this as a criticism of a particular religious belief?

Really?


Why not, for example, on any other faith?

King Kandy
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
You're going to use this as a criticism of a particular religious belief?

Really?


Why not, for example, on any other faith?
Oh, he certainly has. Read other threads in the forum.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by dadudemon
For Mormons, the second option is sort of the answer. We believe that there are eternal laws that surpass even God. God is on a level of famliarity with these laws that is so close, that they are really His own personal beliefs. Inside of his creations/relm/etc. these laws are eternal, correct, absolute, etc. There is the possibility of outside this plane and Mormons speculate that God could have peers with their own multiverse to take care of.

That seems to knock God off his pedestal quite a bit.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So, I guess this is a 3rd option: the rabbit hole is deeper than we realize.

How do we realize something we don't realize?

Red Nemesis
huh. Digi always seems so civil as to border on apologetic. That is, his responses to are always so unervingly civil and yet effective that I got the impression that Digi qualified for the Gerald award. (This is unquestionably a good thing.)

Digi
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
You're going to use this as a criticism of a particular religious belief?

Really?


Why not, for example, on any other faith?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Oh, he certainly has. Read other threads in the forum.

That.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
huh. Digi always seems so civil as to border on apologetic. That is, his responses to are always so unervingly civil and yet effective that I got the impression that Digi qualified for the Gerald award. (This is unquestionably a good thing.)

lol, thanks? I'm getting all sorts of ambiguous compliments in this forum today.

As for the civil yet affective comment (which I do take as an excellent compliment), I generally try to model what I have to preach to an unfortunate number of KMC members each day. That, and it just doesn't pay to get upset with ushome (who I believe is the large-fonted poster you referred to). As long as you're going to try to erode a brick wall, you might as well hump it gently instead of banging your head against it.

...or something.

embarrasment

crackers

HueyFreeman
Originally posted by Digi
That.



lol, thanks? I'm getting all sorts of ambiguous compliments in this forum today.

As for the civil yet affective comment (which I do take as an excellent compliment), I generally try to model what I have to preach to an unfortunate number of KMC members each day. That, and it just doesn't pay to get upset with ushome (who I believe is the large-fonted poster you referred to). As long as you're going to try to erode a brick wall, you might as well hump it gently instead of banging your head against it.

...or something.

embarrasment

crackers I can't do that effectively. If I approach aggressively I come off as on the prowl and condescending which in turn causes them to shut me out. If I approach with "kid gloves" they assume I'm wrong anyway. I tend to just say nothing and keep everyone happy.

Digi
Originally posted by HueyFreeman
I can't do that effectively. If I approach aggressively I come off as on the prowl and condescending which in turn causes them to shut me out. If I approach with "kid gloves" they assume I'm wrong anyway. I tend to just say nothing and keep everyone happy.

Correct humping technique is an acquired skill.

fdog

It's a fine line, and I do occasionally let myself be a bit more acerbic with posters with whom I have quite a history, very little of it agreeable. And though it may be unfortunate, my position as a global mod may also have something to do with it. There's undoubtedly a difference in the way I'm treated and/or listened to as a result of it. And while the position occasionally brings more criticism and dismissal, usually it's the opposite.

MRasheed
Originally posted by Lucius
Many theists of the three Abrahamic faiths make the claim that certain actions are intrinsically good because God has declared them to be good through scripture or revelation.

That is where the dilemma comes into play.

Like charity. I don't think that is a dilemma.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.