The Chapel

[Haumana]

I'm just not really into God as an anthropomorphic entity that "loves/hates/decides/judges"

I see the divine as more immanent or transcendent... as the principle or set of principles that shape our experience and that when lived by or embodied bring grace and transcendence.

It still boils down to a story that one tells oneself. Leap of faith. Who doesn't haven't one?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I'm just not really into God as an anthropomorphic entity that "loves/hates/decides/judges"

I see the divine as more immanent or transcendent... as the principle or set of principles that shape our experience and that when lived by or embodied bring grace and transcendence.

I meant that as a simplified version of the Euthyphro dilemma.

Is it good because god loves it, or does god love it because it is good?

If we just make good and divine interchangeable words, than we haven't really answered the question, we have just fudged the language.

[DrYouth]

I meant that as a simplified version of the Euthyphro dilemma.

Is it good because god loves it, or does god love it because it is good?

If we just make good and divine interchangeable words, than we haven't really answered the question, we have just fudged the language.

All of this is about fudging language...
God is a word...
In the beginning there was the Word.
You could waste a lot of time splitting hairs about the words.

The spiritual quest is about living the good life... encountering the sacred... transcending the mundane.

That little dilemma of yours isn't really moving me along that path.

Has in inspired you in some way?

Oh, wait - it was Heraclius who brought up that dilemma, wasn't it?

[nickle7]

God's actions would be arbitrary because of the fact he is not basing them off of any principles. If you accept there is no moral compass outside of the actions of God, that means the actions of God cannot be based on any principles of "good" or "just" or "wise." It isn't because the moral standards change, it's because there are no moral standards before action 0 (God's action). action 1 is defined by action 0, but action 0 cannot be defined simply due to the fact it is the first action.

There are a lot of interesting dilemmas like this for theists to take into account. There is no actual right answer, but the answer you choose often shows a lot about the worldview one has.

I see what you're saying but I can also see how the dilemma would be eliminated once the paradox of the situation is aknowledged. The paradox being that god doesn't need principles to base any of his actions off because he is everything represented by our concept of what those principles are. God doesn't need to command or be commanded by principles because he is those principles.

I'll admit, this doesn't make sense to my (i like to think) logical mind or any logical mind. This brings to mind Kierkegaard's "leap of faith."

Yes but why would God represent those principles? Are you arguing that we are basing our morality off of the actions of God because of the fact that he ultimately represents justice? How do we know that the actions of God are justice? Is it because we have come to the independent conclusion that they are just, or did God himself tell us that these actions are just? If you take this approach to the dilemma you still don't answer how these actions are not arbitrary as it does not address how the understanding of moral codes comes into play. It requires a God to be able to work outside of the principles of logic which means that an attempt to analyze faith with any sort of reasoning turns into a fruitless endeavor.

I'm not entirely sure where I stand on this. But one line of thinking I've thought about is that as people, we are born with an inherent seed of understanding. If "God" or some supreme power/force created us, we reflect characteristics of that creator/creative force. One of those characteristics is our understanding of truth, justice, and morality, which God embodies. If your definition of God is a man in the sky with human characteristics, the dilemma comes into play. But if your definition of God is truth, justice, and morality, then the dilemma is a moot point. If God is justice, then by definition, "God's" actions are just. At that point, there is no deciding to be done about whether God's actions are just or not. We can argue they're not just from our perspective, but in this line of thinking, the problem is in our definition of justice. We are trying to ascribe an alternate and false definition. Sorry if it seems like we're dancing in circles around this...

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

I meant that as a simplified version of the Euthyphro dilemma.

Is it good because god loves it, or does god love it because it is good?

If we just make good and divine interchangeable words, than we haven't really answered the question, we have just fudged the language.

All of this is about fudging language...
God is a word...
In the beginning there was the Word.
You could waste a lot of time splitting hairs about the words.

The spiritual quest is about living the good life... encountering the sacred... transcending the mundane.

That little dilemma of yours isn't really moving me along that path.

Has in inspired you in some way?

Oh, wait - it was Heraclius who brought up that dilemma, wasn't it?

If I were pressed, I would say the dilemma is interesting to me because it is about whether we people get to invent morality. I think we do, which is both freeing and a terrible burden.

[Xenophon]

EDIT: Post removed because I have reading comprehension problems.

[DrYouth]

If I were pressed, I would say the dilemma is interesting to me because it is about whether we people get to invent morality. I think we do, which is both freeing and a terrible burden.

I don't think we get to invent it.

We get to encounter it.

When you encounter immorality or morality you experience the consequences of it.
Either as the agent or the recipient.
Spiritual teachings are all elaborations on these encounters handed down over generations by a culture.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

If I were pressed, I would say the dilemma is interesting to me because it is about whether we people get to invent morality. I think we do, which is both freeing and a terrible burden.

I don't think we get to invent it.

We get to encounter it.

When you encounter immorality or morality you experience the consequences of it.
Either as the agent or the recipient.
Spiritual teachings are all elaborations on these encounters handed down over generations by a culture.

Which is the crux of the dilemma. Do we encounter a moral situation, ore do we encounter an amoral situation that we construct ethics to deal with.

[DrYouth]

I'm not sure what the purpose of this thread is, other than to bash theists. It seems pretty masturbatory.
‬‬

How is this thread bashing theists?

[Xenophon]

I'm not sure what the purpose of this thread is, other than to bash theists. It seems pretty masturbatory.
‬‬

How is this thread bashing theists?

Maybe I mistook the vibe.

EDIT: Upon further reflection, I'm an idiot. Carry on.