A Christian Answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma.

[MichaelHuggins]

A Shift, not an Answer

A Shift, not an Answer

Bob, your article basically concedes the whole argument in your third paragraph below the heading "Divine Command View," when you write that "moral laws are discovered, not invented." Unless you are adding the parenthetical condition, "that is, they are discovered by everyone except God," then presumably, that principle applies to everyone, God included. If it does not apply to God, we should know why you would leave Him out.

Your answer to the "anterior standard" horn of the dilemma seems to consist of several points. One notes that God is consistent. Not to be flippant, but so was Michael Corleone. Another notes that God contains many persons and that these all corroborate each other. The same, again, could be said of the Corleone family.

Finally, you note that God has committed to doing what is "in the best interests" of his creation, that He has never deviated from this, and that all persons of the Trinity would support this perfect record, not only toward creation but toward each other.

That still does not answer the question of what "best interest" consists of and whether it is commanded or discovered. At this point, you seem content to declare the dilemma resolved because God is apparently his own standard of righteousness. But that puts us back at the same point we started, because we then have to decide why we call it "righteousness"--by command or discovery?

You get close to an answer when you refer to Michael Jordan and note that it would be idle to say that only Michael Jordan was Michael Jordan. Quite true, and the only thing that gives it meaning is that anyone who says such a thing must be referring to a standard anterior to Michael. You seem to think this needn't apply to God, but I fail to see why.

Your argument is interesting in its distinction between a Trinitarian and Unitarian God and because it doesn't fall back on the unspoken assumption apparent in many Christian arguments that "God is right because He's bigger than us and we'd better do what He says." But I can't see that you've ever given a reason for deciding what "right" is in the first place--on God's part or ours. I'm not saying it doesn't exist--only that there has to be a standard for deciding what it *is.* If that standard flows from God's being, then we might as well praise someone for being tall or having red hair. If the standard is decreed, then you are right to call it arbitrary. If it is discovered, then it had to be discovered by God as much as anyone else. If you think otherwise, I would be interested to know why.

 

[Quake203]

Hi Bob. Thanks for your thoughtful post. I haven't read the rest of the posts so I apologize if someone has already brought this up, but I was thinking about your argument in terms of Occam's Razor. The point of Euthrypho's Dilemma is that once a theist recognizes that morality stands on its own, God is superfluous. Yes, your explanation is logically consistent, but it makes volumes of assumptions that have no reason to exist except to make your argument logically consistent.

 

[LosingMyReligion]

First, a reminder of what is at stake:

Thus by the recorded judgment of Jesus Christ Himself, if Euthyphro's dilemma is ultimately unanswerable then Christianity is falsified.

So then if Euthyphro's second option is invalid, and if Socrates did not leave out other plausible solutions, then for Christianity to be true the first horn must be correct.

If the standard for righteousness emanates from outside of God, He would not be the ultimate authority, and thus the God we believe in would not exist.

Now, in order to stay on topic, I will use your own outline for an "intellectually honest answer" and select option #1:

1. Given the premise of Christianity’s triune God, the flaw in the O.P. argument is __________.

Now I will fill in the blank.

Given the premise of Christianity's triune God, the flaw in the O.P. argument is that the necessary testimony of the three witness is hearsay and that the simple presense of 3 witnesses is sufficient for truth to be established and therefore the assertion that the first horn must be true is not fulfilled. Also, the standard for truth of a witness account is not simply the number of witnesses but a judgement from someone other than the witnesses that the testimony is valid evidence or that the testimony even took place. This violates the third quote above that says "If the standard for righteousness emanates from outside of God, He would not be the ultimate authority, and thus the God we believe in would not exist." If a witness is allowed to judge the truth of another witness then we are back to the command horn that you have already rejected. A true witness can not judge the veracity of other witnesses. Only a judge who is not also a witness can do that. This is why judges that are part of cases cannot preside over their own case. Also, for evidence to not be heresay, the witness must be available for cross-examination. The bible is the only record of said testimony and the veracity of that document is not proven. Nor is it clear that the 3 parts of the triune actually submitted the testimony you claim in support of the other 2. The fact that three parts are capable of providing witness doesn't mean they did or that this testimony would pass basic tests of submission as evidence based on rules of hearsay.

Without denying the premise of the trinity, I have shown the flaw in your argument and Christianity is now falsified. Your only intellectually honest responses are:
1) To admit I have fulfilled the challenge and declare Christianity as false.
2) Show how I have made an error.
3) Retract your statement that you believe this discussion can prove or disprove Christianity and we must look elsewhere.

 

[LosingMyReligion]

As I argued in the OP, if theologians had invented the Trinity to answer Socrates, the temptation would be strong to dismiss the claim as a convenient secondary assumption like the inflationary period of the Big Bang. But the plurality of the Godhead is well attested from Genesis 1:1 as described above.

This assumes that the dilemma didn't exist as a concept prior to Genesis 1:1 being written. Just because Socrates voiced the dilemma later doesn't matter. Nor does the attempt for science to broaden its understanding of something when new data comes in automatically mean that it is a lie or convenient. These are logical fallacies on your part. By the timeline measure, it's convenient that Jesus came later to complete the concept of the trinity.

You have simply declared that your argument isn't circular but have failed to say how. If your witnesses are god then they could arbitrarily testify which brings you back to the command view you rejected. That is the very definition of circular. Several people have posted valid responses to you and you merely reject them out of hand. Were you ever going to accept an answer? You have bet the whole farm on the joint testimony of the godhead but then fail to see that the godhead, by your own measurement, can't participate in that which eventually becomes the measure of morality, i.e. the testimony.

Thanks for trying.