The Chapel

[Fife]

X

[nickle7]

A) God did it.
B) I don't know who did it but I'm too lazy to figure it out. (Requires one extra step)

Being a theist isn't that easy, you know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

If you mean difficulty for the average person; is it any harder for an atheist layperson to hold science as gospel than for the average theist to hold religious laws as gospel? Both are just quoting what they believe to be hard truth because people in authority told them that is the truth.

I agree with you to some extent that authority has significant bearing on what we regard as truth. But as a theist, there's a much less empirical method of "showing your work."

As for the Euthyphro dilemma, the severity of the "dilemma" is contingent on ones concept of "morality" and "god." The dilemma is only relevant if those concepts are distinctly differentiated from each other. That makes it a chicken-or-egg sort of question. But if morality and god are one and the same, there's no dilemma to be had.

[Two Man]

And logically, how do you justify an unchanging God creating a morality that is always changing? I don't believe in an objective morality. That is a construct of man.

[DrYouth]

Looked up the Euthypro dilemma... and maybe it's cuz it's Friday night and I've had a few beers... but... I'm getting nothing on that one.

Not exactly sure how being a Theist or Atheist is hard work.

Accepting God... there is a lazy way and a hard way

Refuting God.... there is a lazy way and a hard way.

Harder still is wrestling with God... putting the hard questions to God...
Breaking God down to his godly bits...
Taking those bits and putting them together into something you can live with and maybe even grow through.

I honestly don't know what pew I would sit in...
I'm probably in my mystic phase... seeing if I can encounter the divine...
I've gained a lot of respect for God in the process...
But the question is which God?

[Two Man]

I imagine God to be simply existence itself. Not a moralist.

[Heraclius]

A) God did it.
B) I don't know who did it but I'm too lazy to figure it out. (Requires one extra step)

Being a theist isn't that easy, you know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

If you mean difficulty for the average person; is it any harder for an atheist layperson to hold science as gospel than for the average theist to hold religious laws as gospel? Both are just quoting what they believe to be hard truth because people in authority told them that is the truth.

I agree with you to some extent that authority has significant bearing on what we regard as truth. But as a theist, there's a much less empirical method of "showing your work."

As for the Euthyphro dilemma, the severity of the "dilemma" is contingent on ones concept of "morality" and "god." The dilemma is only relevant if those concepts are distinctly differentiated from each other. That makes it a chicken-or-egg sort of question. But if morality and god are one and the same, there's no dilemma to be had.

Well this gets into the issue of whom it is that we are discussing. The average individual of either side isn't really showing their work on these arguments. For the most part, they're regurgitating opinions that they have heard from those they have decided to put on a pedestal, as the majority of people do. Those that do "show their work" for deep questions involving a higher power or the lack of are not the norm and I really don't see how one side has to do harder work over the other.

I feel like the initial question was making the point that it is harder for an atheist to prove something happens because of a natural law and that a theist has an easier time due to the fact he can simply attribute it to a higher power that does not need to be understood. However, this belief is based on a false premise as it is not fair to attribute scientific gains as an atheist quality. The only just comparison between the two relates to philosophical discussions such as the Euthyphro dilemmna, but that's just my opinion.

And if you take that approach to the dilemma, that god and morality are the same, then that means the actions of God are arbitrary. If the actions of God are arbitrary, he cannot be a wise and rational being.

[Ex-California]

Are animal sacrifices even legal?

I'd like to start worshipping the Greco-Roman pantheon. Anyone is welcome to join, I can get a tax break too

[DrYouth]

The only just comparison between the two relates to philosophical discussions such as the Euthyphro dilemmna, but that's just my opinion.

And if you take that approach to the dilemma, that god and morality are the same, then that means the actions of God are arbitrary. If the actions of God are arbitrary, he cannot be a wise and rational being.

Ok help me out here Haraclius:

The Euthyphro dilemma rests on a modernised version of the question asked by Socrates in the Euthyphro: “
Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?”

How does this help us with the God thing?

The damn thing is giving me a headache.

[Heraclius]

The only just comparison between the two relates to philosophical discussions such as the Euthyphro dilemmna, but that's just my opinion.

And if you take that approach to the dilemma, that god and morality are the same, then that means the actions of God are arbitrary. If the actions of God are arbitrary, he cannot be a wise and rational being.

Ok help me out here Haraclius:

The Euthyphro dilemma rests on a modernised version of the question asked by Socrates in the Euthyphro: “
Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?”

How does this help us with the God thing?

The damn thing is giving me a headache.

The dilemma comes from a dialogue of Socrates with a man named Euthyphro, a famous priest in Athens, who is prosecuting his own father for a murder he did. The entire dilemma effectively is based around the question of what is a pious action.

This dilemma is based on the most difficult part of the argument presented by Socrates

Socrates is in effect asking whether what is "good" is willed by God because of the precise fact it is "good." Thus, this would imply that God knew what was good prior to these actions, which in turn implies a moral compass that exists outside of the control of God. If that does not exist, then the second statement is true, which implies that actions are good because they are willed to be good by God. This means morality does not exist outside of the actions of god.

In summary: Are good acts willed by God because they are good? Or are they good because they are willed by God?

For full text: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html

Sorry if this still doesn't make it clear. It's one of the most difficult segments of Socrates that I've had to wrestle with so there is a possibility that my analysis is wrong. I'm sure Socrates would poke all kinds of holes in it.

[Montegriffo]

Got a pew for new age pagans?
I've smoked a chillum sat on the altar stone at Stonehenge on the winter solstice.
If not I'll sit with the agnostics.