Our Moral God

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
That assumes that God has to abide by some standard outside Himself. If He defines right and wrong, then He could indeed declare devils to be saints.

Can you tell me why that isn’t possible?
No it doesn't assume any such thing. It assumes that God is rational, nothing else.

And yes, it is not possible for God to declare devils to be saints. It would be a contradiction. He could no more do that then He could declare cubes to be spheres. He could turn a cube into a sphere but that isn't the same thing and He wouldn't even be able to get that far in regards to devils and saints because the definition of those terms is moral in nature and thus one is only able to makes one's self into a devil or a saint. That is, while one may have been created holy, one only becomes a devil by choosing to rebel against that creation and the One Who did the creating. One could speculate about a hypothetical god who created devils but that again would be a different issue altogether.

The bottom line is that words mean things and contradictions cannot exist in reality. God is real and is therefore incapable of making something it's opposite because to do it would be not to do it. Those previous called devils would still hurt people and saints would still benefit others. All that would happen is that the words being used would lose their meaning. It is an openly self-contradictory absurdity.

Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
God is good and bad is bad, even if God has not said so.
I'm pretty sure you didn't understand the point of the question.

It's called Euthyphro's Dilemma. It's only been a subject of philosophical significance for a few thousands years and one that has direct bearing on whether Christianity (or any other monotheistic religion) is true or false so it's sort of a big deal.

It was originally brought up by Aristotle in the writings of Plato but there are more modern versions, probably the most important of which is the following...

"If you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation: Is that difference due to God’s fiat or is it not? If it is due to God’s fiat, then for God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God’s fiat, because God’s fiats are good and not good independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God." - Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian

You have landed yourself squarely on the latter horn of the dilemma.

So, in the spirit of I Peter 3:15, how would you answer Plato and Russel?

Don't know? That's okay! Not everyone knows everything but we here at TOL try are best to fill such voids. There are two excellent ways to answer Euthyphro's dilemma, both of which are right here on TOL.

Our Moral God - by Clete Pfeiffer (me!)

Does God Exist? - Battle Royale VII - Bob Enyart vs. Zakath (post #39 part 4)

Clete
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
@marke: Clete is right, you seem to rely on a tautology to make your point. That may not be wrong when one is considering the source of morality. But it makes one wonder if God could have chosen a different moral construct, where adultery, theft, and murder are preferred. I don’t think so, at least without endangering His creation.

Thus it appears that either God has adopted a morality that is either independent from Himself (making Him less almighty), or that the morality he has chosen is the one He knows will result in good to His creation (which is indicative of His wisdom), which also happens to reflect His own character.
I should point out, for the sake of clarity, that I was only saying that marke's form of argument was tautological and was not attempting to say that the statement "God is good" is a tautology. An attribute of a thing is not the thing itself but marke's form of argument seemed to be implying exactly that.

Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
God cannot lie because He said so. Do you think God can do wrong and call it right?
Titus 1:2
In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
Why won't you read the opening post?

Is it because I've asked you to?

Is it because you want to waste both your time and mine?

Read it or go away!
 

marke

Well-known member
I'm pretty sure you didn't understand the point of the question.

It's called Euthyphro's Dilemma. It's only been a subject of philosophical significance for a few thousands years and one that has direct bearing on whether Christianity (or any other monotheistic religion) is true or false so it's sort of a big deal.

It was originally brought up by Aristotle in the writings of Plato but there are more modern versions, probably the most important of which is the following...

"If you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, you are then in this situation: Is that difference due to God’s fiat or is it not? If it is due to God’s fiat, then for God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God’s fiat, because God’s fiats are good and not good independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God." - Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian

You have landed yourself squarely on the latter horn of the dilemma.

So, in the spirit of I Peter 3:15, how would you answer Plato and Russel?

Don't know? That's okay! Not everyone knows everything but we here at TOL try are best to fill such voids. There are two excellent ways to answer Euthyphro's dilemma, both of which are right here on TOL.

Our Moral God - by Clete Pfeiffer (me!)

Does God Exist? - Battle Royale VII - Bob Enyart vs. Zakath (post #39 part 4)

Clete
There is no dilemma to those who have been enlightened by the Lord. Let me quote you. (the issue is) "one that has direct bearing on whether Christianity ... is true or false." Bertrand Russel was a fool. He apparently never came to the knowledge of the truth in spite of all his worthless learning.

2 Timothy 3:6-8
King James Version

6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
There is no dilemma to those who have been enlightened by the Lord. Let me quote you. (the issue is) "one that has direct bearing on whether Christianity ... is true or false." Bertrand Russel was a fool. He apparently never came to the knowledge of the truth in spite of all his worthless learning.

2 Timothy 3:6-8​

King James Version​

6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
Why are you even here?

Good bye.
 

Derf

Well-known member
When it comes to Christianity/theology I prefer scripture! Philosophy has a lot of hypotheticals. Not too impressed.
I wasn’t trying to impress you. Thanks anyway.

But you should be careful what you eschew. Philosophy is the love of (leading to the seeking of) wisdom. The scriptures you prefer tell us to love and seek wisdom. You can’t both “prefer” scripture and ignore its mandates.

Proverbs 4:5-7 (KJV) 5 Get wisdom, get understanding: forget [it] not; neither decline from the words of my mouth. 6 Forsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: love her, and she shall keep thee. 7 Wisdom [is] the principal thing; [therefore] get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
 

Bradley D

Well-known member
I was a religion/philosophy major at Spring Arbor University. I still study philosophy today. I prefer the wisdom which comes from the Bible.
 

marke

Well-known member
I disagree with Clete's hypothesis and agree with Derf. Here's why.

God is three persons in one. Therefore the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons. A person cannot be an inanimate force or concept. Therefore love cannot be God. That would make God an inanimate force or principle. That's called pantheism: God being a force that exists in all animate and inanimate objects but having no personality or personhood.

God has principles, but principles are not God. There's a profound difference between a principle and a person with principles.
I agree. The Bible does not say love is God but that God is love. I believe there is a difference between the two statements and that one statement is not accurate while the other is.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I agree. The Bible does not say love is God but that God is love. I believe there is a difference between the two statements and that one statement is not accurate while the other is.
Why should anyone care what you believe?

Here, let's try something different.....

I'm going to make an argument in the form of a question and you respond by both answering the question AND explaining how it doesn't present any sort of problem for your position.

If A=B and B=C then does A=C?

Answer the question directly and then apply the answer to your stated position and explain why you think it doesn't imply the need to at least qualify your stated position (note that I know IN ADVANCE that you WILL NOT be persuaded to alter your position in ANY way by fourth grade level logical reasoning).

Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I disagree with Clete's hypothesis and agree with Derf. Here's why.

God is three persons in one. Therefore the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons. A person cannot be an inanimate force or concept. Therefore love cannot be God. That would make God an inanimate force or principle. That's called pantheism: God being a force that exists in all animate and inanimate objects but having no personality or personhood.

God has principles, but principles are not God. There's a profound difference between a principle and a person with principles.
Wow! You could take Marke to school on how to at least make it look like you've made an argument to the point that it deserves a response! You get to come off my ignore list because of this post, not that you'd care about that. (Don't worry, I doubt very much that it will last long!)

So you make the following argument...

Premise 1: God is three persons in one.

This premise is a fact that is not in dispute and that is not germane (i.e. not relevant) to the question at hand.

Conclusion 1: Therefore the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons.

While this statement is another fact that is not in dispute, this conclusion does not follow from the previous premise, nor could it follow from any argument because there has been no argument made. You simply stated a premise and then went straight to stating a conclusion. The best you could accomplish here is to say that the two statements are equivalent to each other but there is nothing in either the premise or the conclusion to substantiate such a claim. Again, the factual truth of the statement is not in dispute but all you've really done here is to state two opinions that have nothing to do with the question being debated. If I thought you were skilled enough at debate I'd suspect you had done this intentionally in order to set your audience on a path of agreement with you. Make two statements in a row that everyone agrees with and sort of hope that the just keep on agreeing with you as you proceed. That's a real tactic that many people have employed in many debates to excellent effect but I seriously doubt that you were doing that. You somehow think that you've started a real argument with these two statements but you haven't. In reality you actual argument states with the next stated premise....

Premise 2: A person cannot be an inanimate force or concept.

This premise fails for several reasons. First of all, and most importantly, SAYING IT DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!! What are we supposed to do, take your word for it that this premise is true?

It further fails because love is not an inanimate force or concept. Love, by definition, must be personal, relational and volitional. That's just about as opposite of inanimate you could conceivably get!

Further, this premise has already been responded to in the opening post where I stated the following in respond to basically this exact objection...

"Now, there are some who object to such a translation thinking it improper to equate the living God with some abstract concept such as logic. But it should be noted that those who make such an objection never object to God being equated with the abstract concept of "Word", nor are they typically capable of offering any explanation as to what exactly it means to say "the Word as God". In other words, people who object on the grounds of referring to God as an abstraction, typically have no real problem with abstractions so long as the abstraction being used can't be made any sense of at all."
So, let's continue with your post...

Conclusion 2: Therefore love cannot be God.

This premise fails because it is based on a false premise as established above but that's not the only reason it fails....

1 John 4:8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.​
1 John 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.​

The Greek in both sentences is "Theos este agape" and there is no other way to translate it or to even understand it. It does say flatly that "God is love." Thus, speaking of love in any sense in which you aren't also talking about God is to alter the meaning of the words as they are being used in this context and thus to change the subject. In other words, there are different kinds of love and therefore the word "love" has a wide sphere of meaning that is determined by the context in which the word is used. The Greeks had three different words that are translated into English as "love" and all three of those words have their own sphere of meaning, all of which we would simply call "love" in English. The point being that there is some effort required to remain in keeping with the intended message of the opening post and that it would be easy to take what I've said too far, especially if one wanted to find a reason - any reason - to disagree.

QED

The rest of your post is just repetitive restatements of previous premises/quasi conclusions and an ad hominem thrown in for flavor that need not be addressed.

Clete


Now, you see Marke?! That's how substantive debate works. It can be accomplished with even the feeblest attempts at actual argumentation and it is far more interesting than just stating your position and then repeating yourself endlessly like some sort of broken record.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Like yours?:p
Was that supposed to be an insult?

If you can refute a syllable of what I've said, I'd hear (read) it gladly!


(I happened to reread some of the earlier posts in the thread and it makes the think that this wasn't intended as an insult. If so, I don't get it. Either way, I'm not offended by it and I mean it when I say that I'd gladly hear any argument that refutes my position.)
 
Last edited:
Top