Is God's nature good because God declares it to be so, or does God declare it good because it adhere

RickeyHoltsclaw

@ZeusAres42 ;  Elohim is "good" because He is Holy, Righteous, Sinless, Perfection.

 “The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he." Deuteronomy 32:4 (ESV)

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Well, you failed.

ZeusAres42

@Factfinder

Circular reasoning immediatley lol. This guy makes WLC look like a genius. 

ZeusAres42

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@ZeusAres42 ;  Elohim is "good" because He is Holy, Righteous, Sinless, Perfection.

 “The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he." Deuteronomy 32:4 (ESV)

in other wors "God is good because he is good!"

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ; When an atheist says "you failed"...I know I've succeeded....thanks.

RickeyHoltsclaw

ZeusAres42 said:

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@ZeusAres42 ;  Elohim is "good" because He is Holy, Righteous, Sinless, Perfection.

 “The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he." Deuteronomy 32:4 (ESV)

in other wors "God is good because he is good!"

@ZeusAres42 ;  God is good because He is good, perfect, without sin and fault and error.

just_sayin

ZeusAres42 said:

@Factfinder

Circular reasoning immediatley lol. This guy makes WLC look like a genius. 

Come now, both of you aren't as stu-pid as you are acting.  Right??  There is no dilemma here.  Neither is morality an arbitrary function of God’s power nor is God responsible to a higher law. There is no Law over God.  Instead an objective standard exists (this avoids the first horn of the dilemma). However, the standard is not external to God, but internal (avoiding the second horn). Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness. Morality is not exterior or prior to God, but rooted in His nature.

I have to point out how both of you are  hypocrites on this matter.  The foundation of morality for the Christian comes from God, but atheists have no foundation.  Your feet are firmly planted in mid-air.  As Thomas Merton put it

"In the name of whom or what do you ask me to behave? Why should I go to the inconvenience of denying myself the satisfactions I desire in the name of some standard that exists only in your imagination? Why should I worship the fictions that you have imposed on me in the name of nothing?"

You hypocrites need to answer that question.  The only thing an atheist can do is steal a morality based on God, for it can't have one on its own that has any objectivity or compelling authority..  

I don't what made me laugh harder, the fact you thought this was a dilemma or that it actually highlights the deficiency of atheism! LOL

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

@Factfinder

Circular reasoning immediatley lol. This guy makes WLC look like a genius. 

Come now, both of you aren't as stu-pid as you are acting.  Right??  There is no dilemma here.  Neither is morality an arbitrary function of God’s power nor is God responsible to a higher law. There is no Law over God.  Instead an objective standard exists (this avoids the first horn of the dilemma). However, the standard is not external to God, but internal (avoiding the second horn). Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness. Morality is not exterior or prior to God, but rooted in His nature.

I have to point out how both of you are  hypocrites on this matter.  The foundation of morality for the Christian comes from God, but atheists have no foundation.  Your feet are firmly planted in mid-air.  As Thomas Merton put it

"In the name of whom or what do you ask me to behave? Why should I go to the inconvenience of denying myself the satisfactions I desire in the name of some standard that exists only in your imagination? Why should I worship the fictions that you have imposed on me in the name of nothing?"

You hypocrites need to answer that question.  The only thing an atheist can do is steal a morality based on God, for it can't have one on its own that has any objectivity or compelling authority..  

I don't what made me laugh harder, the fact you thought this was a dilemma or that it actually highlights the deficiency of atheism! LOL

Well, you failed.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

@Factfinder

Circular reasoning immediatley lol. This guy makes WLC look like a genius. 

Come now, both of you aren't as stu-pid as you are acting.  Right??  There is no dilemma here.  Neither is morality an arbitrary function of God’s power nor is God responsible to a higher law. There is no Law over God.  Instead an objective standard exists (this avoids the first horn of the dilemma). However, the standard is not external to God, but internal (avoiding the second horn). Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness. Morality is not exterior or prior to God, but rooted in His nature.

I have to point out how both of you are  hypocrites on this matter.  The foundation of morality for the Christian comes from God, but atheists have no foundation.  Your feet are firmly planted in mid-air.  As Thomas Merton put it

"In the name of whom or what do you ask me to behave? Why should I go to the inconvenience of denying myself the satisfactions I desire in the name of some standard that exists only in your imagination? Why should I worship the fictions that you have imposed on me in the name of nothing?"

You hypocrites need to answer that question.  The only thing an atheist can do is steal a morality based on God, for it can't have one on its own that has any objectivity or compelling authority..  

I don't what made me laugh harder, the fact you thought this was a dilemma or that it actually highlights the deficiency of atheism! LOL

Well, you failed.

You lied.  The dilemma is not real and I explained it to you.  You couldn't explain to me why what I said was wrong - either because you don't understand what Euthyphro's dilemma was or why it is a false choice.   I also noticed that you couldn't give a defense for atheistic morality having an objective source - because you know I'm right - it can't have an objective source.  

You lost - bigly.  Reflect on why you lost.  

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

@Factfinder

Circular reasoning immediatley lol. This guy makes WLC look like a genius. 

Come now, both of you aren't as stu-pid as you are acting.  Right??  There is no dilemma here.  Neither is morality an arbitrary function of God’s power nor is God responsible to a higher law. There is no Law over God.  Instead an objective standard exists (this avoids the first horn of the dilemma). However, the standard is not external to God, but internal (avoiding the second horn). Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness. Morality is not exterior or prior to God, but rooted in His nature.

I have to point out how both of you are  hypocrites on this matter.  The foundation of morality for the Christian comes from God, but atheists have no foundation.  Your feet are firmly planted in mid-air.  As Thomas Merton put it

"In the name of whom or what do you ask me to behave? Why should I go to the inconvenience of denying myself the satisfactions I desire in the name of some standard that exists only in your imagination? Why should I worship the fictions that you have imposed on me in the name of nothing?"

You hypocrites need to answer that question.  The only thing an atheist can do is steal a morality based on God, for it can't have one on its own that has any objectivity or compelling authority..  

I don't what made me laugh harder, the fact you thought this was a dilemma or that it actually highlights the deficiency of atheism! LOL

Well, you failed.

You lied.  The dilemma is not real and I explained it to you.  You couldn't explain to me why what I said was wrong - either because you don't understand what Euthyphro's dilemma was or why it is a false choice.   I also noticed that you couldn't give a defense for atheistic morality having an objective source - because you know I'm right - it can't have an objective source.  

You lost - bigly.  Reflect on why you lost.  

Did you bother to read what the challenge was in this debate? I suggest you read, or reread the op. You used both circular logic and leaps of logic.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

@Factfinder

Circular reasoning immediatley lol. This guy makes WLC look like a genius. 

Come now, both of you aren't as stu-pid as you are acting.  Right??  There is no dilemma here.  Neither is morality an arbitrary function of God’s power nor is God responsible to a higher law. There is no Law over God.  Instead an objective standard exists (this avoids the first horn of the dilemma). However, the standard is not external to God, but internal (avoiding the second horn). Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness. Morality is not exterior or prior to God, but rooted in His nature.

I have to point out how both of you are  hypocrites on this matter.  The foundation of morality for the Christian comes from God, but atheists have no foundation.  Your feet are firmly planted in mid-air.  As Thomas Merton put it

"In the name of whom or what do you ask me to behave? Why should I go to the inconvenience of denying myself the satisfactions I desire in the name of some standard that exists only in your imagination? Why should I worship the fictions that you have imposed on me in the name of nothing?"

You hypocrites need to answer that question.  The only thing an atheist can do is steal a morality based on God, for it can't have one on its own that has any objectivity or compelling authority..  

I don't what made me laugh harder, the fact you thought this was a dilemma or that it actually highlights the deficiency of atheism! LOL

Well, you failed.

You lied.  The dilemma is not real and I explained it to you.  You couldn't explain to me why what I said was wrong - either because you don't understand what Euthyphro's dilemma was or why it is a false choice.   I also noticed that you couldn't give a defense for atheistic morality having an objective source - because you know I'm right - it can't have an objective source.  

You lost - bigly.  Reflect on why you lost.  

Did you bother to read what the challenge was in this debate? I suggest you read, or reread the op. You used both circular logic and leaps of logic.

Uh no.  It is you who does not understand Euthyphro's dilemma.  I pointed out how my answer specifically avoids both dilemmas.  And you failed to show me how it is circular.  It is not.  And you once again cowardly rain away from my observation that it is actually atheism that can't give a good answer for the objective source of its morality.  You lost.  I know you have no objective moral standard as an atheist and will falsely pretend you are right - but you can't logically or consistently explain your fake claim.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

@Factfinder

Circular reasoning immediatley lol. This guy makes WLC look like a genius. 

Come now, both of you aren't as stu-pid as you are acting.  Right??  There is no dilemma here.  Neither is morality an arbitrary function of God’s power nor is God responsible to a higher law. There is no Law over God.  Instead an objective standard exists (this avoids the first horn of the dilemma). However, the standard is not external to God, but internal (avoiding the second horn). Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness. Morality is not exterior or prior to God, but rooted in His nature.

I have to point out how both of you are  hypocrites on this matter.  The foundation of morality for the Christian comes from God, but atheists have no foundation.  Your feet are firmly planted in mid-air.  As Thomas Merton put it

"In the name of whom or what do you ask me to behave? Why should I go to the inconvenience of denying myself the satisfactions I desire in the name of some standard that exists only in your imagination? Why should I worship the fictions that you have imposed on me in the name of nothing?"

You hypocrites need to answer that question.  The only thing an atheist can do is steal a morality based on God, for it can't have one on its own that has any objectivity or compelling authority..  

I don't what made me laugh harder, the fact you thought this was a dilemma or that it actually highlights the deficiency of atheism! LOL

Well, you failed.

You lied.  The dilemma is not real and I explained it to you.  You couldn't explain to me why what I said was wrong - either because you don't understand what Euthyphro's dilemma was or why it is a false choice.   I also noticed that you couldn't give a defense for atheistic morality having an objective source - because you know I'm right - it can't have an objective source.  

You lost - bigly.  Reflect on why you lost.  

Did you bother to read what the challenge was in this debate? I suggest you read, or reread the op. You used both circular logic and leaps of logic.

Uh no.  It is you who does not understand the Euthyphro's dilemma.  I pointed out how my answer specifically avoids both dilemmas.  And you failed to show me how it is circular.  It is not.  And you once again cowardly rain away from my observation that it is actually atheism that can't give a good answer for the objective source of its morality.  You lost.  I know you have no objective moral standard as an atheist and will falsely pretend you are right - but you can't logically or consistently explain your fake claim.

Nope. God is good because the good book says so is circular. The assertion 'There is no Law over God' is both a product of circular reasoning and a leap of logic. A. No proof god exist. B. It's word says so is circular. C. It's a leap of faith to erroneously assert 'there is no law over god'. Yeah, you failed. As it it is your faith that compelled your response in the first place. 

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

@Factfinder

Circular reasoning immediatley lol. This guy makes WLC look like a genius. 

Come now, both of you aren't as stu-pid as you are acting.  Right??  There is no dilemma here.  Neither is morality an arbitrary function of God’s power nor is God responsible to a higher law. There is no Law over God.  Instead an objective standard exists (this avoids the first horn of the dilemma). However, the standard is not external to God, but internal (avoiding the second horn). Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness. Morality is not exterior or prior to God, but rooted in His nature.

I have to point out how both of you are  hypocrites on this matter.  The foundation of morality for the Christian comes from God, but atheists have no foundation.  Your feet are firmly planted in mid-air.  As Thomas Merton put it

"In the name of whom or what do you ask me to behave? Why should I go to the inconvenience of denying myself the satisfactions I desire in the name of some standard that exists only in your imagination? Why should I worship the fictions that you have imposed on me in the name of nothing?"

You hypocrites need to answer that question.  The only thing an atheist can do is steal a morality based on God, for it can't have one on its own that has any objectivity or compelling authority..  

I don't what made me laugh harder, the fact you thought this was a dilemma or that it actually highlights the deficiency of atheism! LOL

Well, you failed.

You lied.  The dilemma is not real and I explained it to you.  You couldn't explain to me why what I said was wrong - either because you don't understand what Euthyphro's dilemma was or why it is a false choice.   I also noticed that you couldn't give a defense for atheistic morality having an objective source - because you know I'm right - it can't have an objective source.  

You lost - bigly.  Reflect on why you lost.  

Did you bother to read what the challenge was in this debate? I suggest you read, or reread the op. You used both circular logic and leaps of logic.

Uh no.  It is you who does not understand the Euthyphro's dilemma.  I pointed out how my answer specifically avoids both dilemmas.  And you failed to show me how it is circular.  It is not.  And you once again cowardly rain away from my observation that it is actually atheism that can't give a good answer for the objective source of its morality.  You lost.  I know you have no objective moral standard as an atheist and will falsely pretend you are right - but you can't logically or consistently explain your fake claim.

Nope. God is good because the good book says so is circular. The assertion 'There is no Law over God' is both a product of circular reasoning and a leap of logic. A. No proof god exist. B. It's word says so is circular. C. It's a leap of faith to erroneously assert 'there is no law over god'. Yeah, you failed. As it it is your faith that compelled your response in the first place. 

I did not appeal to the Bible.  If I had appealed to some law or source external to God then it would have been a circular claim.  You truly don't understand the dilemmas involved (I can't do all of your homework for you - look it up here).

The equivalent of your erroneous argument would be to say a bachelor has to be married because he can't have the attribute of being unmarried.  However, the very definition of a bachelor is that he is unmarried.  As WLC would note that God to be worshipped would have to have the characteristic of being good or he would not be worthy of worship.  Because goodness is intrinsic to God and an attribute of His, it is not circular - to appeal to a law external to himself is what would be circular - God bases his laws (what is good) on an external law unto himself. (what is good) - that would be circular and mean there is an ultimate authority outside of God.  The dilemma was avoided and is not circular.

Again, I noticed your cowardice in how you have failed to answer my challenge.  How is morality in atheism based on any objective source?  Are you going to continue running from me, like...

• Joe Biden from a mental test
• Hunter Biden from a drug test
• or any host of a CNN show from a lie detector test  

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

@Factfinder

Circular reasoning immediatley lol. This guy makes WLC look like a genius. 

Come now, both of you aren't as stu-pid as you are acting.  Right??  There is no dilemma here.  Neither is morality an arbitrary function of God’s power nor is God responsible to a higher law. There is no Law over God.  Instead an objective standard exists (this avoids the first horn of the dilemma). However, the standard is not external to God, but internal (avoiding the second horn). Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness. Morality is not exterior or prior to God, but rooted in His nature.

I have to point out how both of you are  hypocrites on this matter.  The foundation of morality for the Christian comes from God, but atheists have no foundation.  Your feet are firmly planted in mid-air.  As Thomas Merton put it

"In the name of whom or what do you ask me to behave? Why should I go to the inconvenience of denying myself the satisfactions I desire in the name of some standard that exists only in your imagination? Why should I worship the fictions that you have imposed on me in the name of nothing?"

You hypocrites need to answer that question.  The only thing an atheist can do is steal a morality based on God, for it can't have one on its own that has any objectivity or compelling authority..  

I don't what made me laugh harder, the fact you thought this was a dilemma or that it actually highlights the deficiency of atheism! LOL

Well, you failed.

You lied.  The dilemma is not real and I explained it to you.  You couldn't explain to me why what I said was wrong - either because you don't understand what Euthyphro's dilemma was or why it is a false choice.   I also noticed that you couldn't give a defense for atheistic morality having an objective source - because you know I'm right - it can't have an objective source.  

You lost - bigly.  Reflect on why you lost.  

Did you bother to read what the challenge was in this debate? I suggest you read, or reread the op. You used both circular logic and leaps of logic.

Uh no.  It is you who does not understand the Euthyphro's dilemma.  I pointed out how my answer specifically avoids both dilemmas.  And you failed to show me how it is circular.  It is not.  And you once again cowardly rain away from my observation that it is actually atheism that can't give a good answer for the objective source of its morality.  You lost.  I know you have no objective moral standard as an atheist and will falsely pretend you are right - but you can't logically or consistently explain your fake claim.

Nope. God is good because the good book says so is circular. The assertion 'There is no Law over God' is both a product of circular reasoning and a leap of logic. A. No proof god exist. B. It's word says so is circular. C. It's a leap of faith to erroneously assert 'there is no law over god'. Yeah, you failed. As it it is your faith that compelled your response in the first place. 

I did not appeal to the Bible.  If I had appealed to some law or source external to God then it would have been a circular claim.  You truly don't understand the dilemmas involved (I can't do all of your homework for you - look it up here).

The equivalent of your erroneous argument would be to say a bachelor has to be married because he can't have the attribute of being unmarried.  However, the very definition of a bachelor is that he is unmarried.  As WLC would note that God to be worshipped would have to have the characteristic of being good or he would not be worthy of worship.  Because goodness is intrinsic to God and an attribute of His, it is not circular - to appeal to a law external to himself is what would be circular - God bases his laws (what is good) on an external law unto himself. (what is good) - that would be circular and mean there is an ultimate authority outside of God.  The dilemma was avoided and is not circular.

Again, I noticed your cowardice in how you have failed to answer my challenge.  How is morality in atheism based on any objective source?  Are you going to continue running from me, like...

• Joe Biden from a mental test
• Hunter Biden from a drug test
• or any host of a CNN show from a lie detector test  

Nope. You're wrong. When you say: There is no Law over God. that's not inherent knowledge, that's you believing what your book tells you. Fail.

MayCaesar

It seems to me that any characterization of anything, in order to mean anything, has to come from outside of the characterizer. Here is an example: suppose I call you, @ZeusAres42, "lambargasting", but @just_sayin is not "lambargasting". What does "lambargasting" mean? Well, it means something that I characterize as "lambargasting". Not very useful, is it? Based on just this definition, you have no idea what I am actually saying when calling someone "lambargasting". It is not even clear if it is a positive, or a negative, or neutral, or none of the above characterization.

For a definition to mean something, it has to be attached to something objective, something verifiable by other conscious beings. If I call the stove "hot", I mean something that another person can verify by touching it with his finger. It is not just something that does not exist anywhere outside of my mind - it is an observable part of reality.

Similarly, "good" must mean something that any conscious being without any outside intervention can verify for themselves, and that requires it to be connected to something that is observable directly in the nature. Otherwise it is just a placeholder that can be replaced with any random sequence of letters. "Good" is about as meaningful as "2389hg4jkhnjkng9243gh8943n3g3498g34okg43". Is god the ultimate authority on what is "2389hg4jkhnjkng9243gh8943n3g3498g34okg43" and what is not?

Barnardot

@ZeusAres42 @just_sayin ;The foundation of morality for the Christian comes from God, but atheists have no foundation. 

Well I reckon that if someone has to go to a God or a book about God to get there morals it doesn’t say very much about that person does it?

just_sayin

@Factfinder
Nope. You're wrong. When you say: There is no Law over God. that's not inherent knowledge, that's you believing what your book tells you. Fail.

Now you are moving the goal posts.  If there is a creator then He gets to make the laws.  Again, the 'dilemma' you mentioned does not exist as I explained.  However, the issue that Atheism has with no source of an objective moral source does exist.  Atheism has no objective foundation for morals.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

@Factfinder
Nope. You're wrong. When you say: There is no Law over God. that's not inherent knowledge, that's you believing what your book tells you. Fail.

Now you are moving the goal posts.  If there is a creator then He gets to make the laws.  Again, the 'dilemma' you mentioned does not exist as I explained.  However, the issue that Atheism has with no source of an objective moral source does exist.  Atheism has no objective foundation for morals.

Look at your argument. If there is a creator "he"... Nonsense, you're assigning a pronoun right out of your book to an entity that needs no such title. Circular from the start. Then the assertion atheism has no reference point for morals is a leap of logic based on indoctrinated circular reasoning. Fail.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

@Factfinder
Nope. You're wrong. When you say: There is no Law over God. that's not inherent knowledge, that's you believing what your book tells you. Fail.

Now you are moving the goal posts.  If there is a creator then He gets to make the laws.  Again, the 'dilemma' you mentioned does not exist as I explained.  However, the issue that Atheism has with no source of an objective moral source does exist.  Atheism has no objective foundation for morals.

Look at your argument. If there is a creator "he"... Nonsense, you're assigning a pronoun right out of your book to an entity that needs no such title. Circular from the start. Then the assertion atheism has no reference point for morals is a leap of logic based on indoctrinated circular reasoning. Fail.

Shapes aren't your forte.  Its not a circle, but a straight line.  If God's goodness was external to Him in some other law, then it would be circular.  God's decrees come directly from Himself who has the attribute of goodness.  That's a straight line, not a circle.  Are you sure you understand what the so-called dilemma was?  I'm not sure you do.  Feel free to use what pronoun you like, it still won't help Atheism have an objective source for morality.  Saying Atheism is a good or strong moral basis is like saying dissolvable toilet paper is a good material to make a parachute out of.    

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

@Factfinder
Nope. You're wrong. When you say: There is no Law over God. that's not inherent knowledge, that's you believing what your book tells you. Fail.

Now you are moving the goal posts.  If there is a creator then He gets to make the laws.  Again, the 'dilemma' you mentioned does not exist as I explained.  However, the issue that Atheism has with no source of an objective moral source does exist.  Atheism has no objective foundation for morals.

Look at your argument. If there is a creator "he"... Nonsense, you're assigning a pronoun right out of your book to an entity that needs no such title. Circular from the start. Then the assertion atheism has no reference point for morals is a leap of logic based on indoctrinated circular reasoning. Fail.

Shapes aren't your forte.  Its not a circle, but a straight line.  If God's goodness was external to Him in some other law, then it would be circular.  God's decrees come directly from Himself who has the attribute of goodness.  That's a straight line, not a circle.  Are you sure you understand what the so-called dilemma was?  I'm not sure you do.  Feel free to use what pronoun you like, it still won't help Atheism have an objective source for morality.  Saying Atheism is a good or strong moral basis is like saying dissolvable toilet paper is a good material to make a parachute out of.    

How do you know 'he' has the attributes of goodness? Creator doesn't necessarily mean good. Unless your book says so. Circular. If your book doesn't say so, then it's a leap of logic. If the gods love good because it is good, then it's logical to infer there is an external force of good that the gods admire and seek to emulate. If on the other hand a good action is only loved because the gods love the actions, then it's the gods own circular reasoning. So that is the dilemma. If you argue the former, it's a leap of logic. If you argue the latter it's circular reasoning. Any influence from your book in solving this dilemma is YOUR circular reasoning because your argument becomes in effect, cause my book said. Understand?

RickeyHoltsclaw

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

@Factfinder
Nope. You're wrong. When you say: There is no Law over God. that's not inherent knowledge, that's you believing what your book tells you. Fail.

Now you are moving the goal posts.  If there is a creator then He gets to make the laws.  Again, the 'dilemma' you mentioned does not exist as I explained.  However, the issue that Atheism has with no source of an objective moral source does exist.  Atheism has no objective foundation for morals.

Look at your argument. If there is a creator "he"... Nonsense, you're assigning a pronoun right out of your book to an entity that needs no such title. Circular from the start. Then the assertion atheism has no reference point for morals is a leap of logic based on indoctrinated circular reasoning. Fail.

Shapes aren't your forte.  Its not a circle, but a straight line.  If God's goodness was external to Him in some other law, then it would be circular.  God's decrees come directly from Himself who has the attribute of goodness.  That's a straight line, not a circle.  Are you sure you understand what the so-called dilemma was?  I'm not sure you do.  Feel free to use what pronoun you like, it still won't help Atheism have an objective source for morality.  Saying Atheism is a good or strong moral basis is like saying dissolvable toilet paper is a good material to make a parachute out of.    

How do you know 'he' has the attributes of goodness? Creator doesn't necessarily mean good. Unless your book says so. Circular. If your book doesn't say so, then it's a leap of logic. If the gods love good because it is good, then it's logical to infer there is an external force of good that the gods admire and seek to emulate. If on the other hand a good action is only loved because the gods love the actions, then it's the gods own circular reasoning. So that is the dilemma. If you argue the former, it's a leap of logic. If you argue the latter it's circular reasoning. Any influence from your book in solving this dilemma is YOUR circular reasoning because your argument becomes in effect, cause my book said. Understand?

@Factfinder ;  

The Bible tells you that the Father gave you the Son, Jesus Christ, to pay your sin-debt owed the Father and Jesus paid this through His suffering and death on a Roman Cross outside the gates of the Old City, Jerusalem, some 2000-years ago...the Father did this and the Son performed this, out of love for you...do you believe this?

Is not the presence and life and sacrifice of Jesus evidence of God's "goodness"?

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

Shapes aren't your forte.  Its not a circle, but a straight line.  If God's goodness was external to Him in some other law, then it would be circular.  God's decrees come directly from Himself who has the attribute of goodness.  That's a straight line, not a circle.  Are you sure you understand what the so-called dilemma was?  I'm not sure you do.  Feel free to use what pronoun you like, it still won't help Atheism have an objective source for morality.  Saying Atheism is a good or strong moral basis is like saying dissolvable toilet paper is a good material to make a parachute out of.    

Is your argument that something that has the attribute of goodness only does good things? Correct me if I am wrong, but Christianity claims that, as a god's creation, every human has a part of god's soul, therefore sharing in the attribute of goodness. Does this not imply that, by extension, everything every human does is good?

And if humans, despite sharing in the attribute of goodness, are capable of doing evil things, then so is god. I see no way out of this identity without doing away with the idea that humans and god are related - and if they are not, then one of the most fundamental assumptions of the Bible falls apart.

As for the impossibility for an atheist to have objective source of morality, I have always found this claim to be extremely bizarre. It is like saying that anyone who does not believe in astrology cannot draw any information from the stars. Morality is something that humans learn over time, and their moral views change with experience.
This is a very US-specific argument and I have not heard it from anyone else in Europe or the Middle East. Nor have I ever met a man who would not know to not murder everyone on sight without the Bible telling him so. Have you?

ZeusAres42

@RickeyHoltsclaw

This is a debate site; not a church. There are places for us offline if we wish to seek religious or spirtual guidance. We don't need it from you! As you have arrogantly taken it upon yourself as the religious authority for what you follow then perhaps create a church of your own and preach there. 

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

Shapes aren't your forte.  Its not a circle, but a straight line.  If God's goodness was external to Him in some other law, then it would be circular.  God's decrees come directly from Himself who has the attribute of goodness.  That's a straight line, not a circle.  Are you sure you understand what the so-called dilemma was?  I'm not sure you do.  Feel free to use what pronoun you like, it still won't help Atheism have an objective source for morality.  Saying Atheism is a good or strong moral basis is like saying dissolvable toilet paper is a good material to make a parachute out of.    

Is your argument that something that has the attribute of goodness only does good things? Correct me if I am wrong, but Christianity claims that, as a god's creation, every human has a part of god's soul, therefore sharing in the attribute of goodness. Does this not imply that, by extension, everything every human does is good?

And if humans, despite sharing in the attribute of goodness, are capable of doing evil things, then so is god. I see no way out of this identity without doing away with the idea that humans and god are related - and if they are not, then one of the most fundamental assumptions of the Bible falls apart.

As for the impossibility for an atheist to have objective source of morality, I have always found this claim to be extremely bizarre. It is like saying that anyone who does not believe in astrology cannot draw any information from the stars. Morality is something that humans learn over time, and their moral views change with experience.
This is a very US-specific argument and I have not heard it from anyone else in Europe or the Middle East. Nor have I ever met a man who would not know to not murder everyone on sight without the Bible telling him so. Have you?

Exactly. I also wonder at times if some people confuse moral absolutism with moral objectivism. Perhaps a deity is needed for absolute morality? By 'objective,' I mean a basis for what follows, albeit morality is still subjective in its experience and application. Regardless of all these philosophical distinctions and the varied subjective experiences of morality, it seems that, ultimately, we are all striving toward the same moral destination.  @MayCaesar

Factfinder

ZeusAres42 said:

MayCaesar said:

just_sayin said:

Shapes aren't your forte.  Its not a circle, but a straight line.  If God's goodness was external to Him in some other law, then it would be circular.  God's decrees come directly from Himself who has the attribute of goodness.  That's a straight line, not a circle.  Are you sure you understand what the so-called dilemma was?  I'm not sure you do.  Feel free to use what pronoun you like, it still won't help Atheism have an objective source for morality.  Saying Atheism is a good or strong moral basis is like saying dissolvable toilet paper is a good material to make a parachute out of.    

Is your argument that something that has the attribute of goodness only does good things? Correct me if I am wrong, but Christianity claims that, as a god's creation, every human has a part of god's soul, therefore sharing in the attribute of goodness. Does this not imply that, by extension, everything every human does is good?

And if humans, despite sharing in the attribute of goodness, are capable of doing evil things, then so is god. I see no way out of this identity without doing away with the idea that humans and god are related - and if they are not, then one of the most fundamental assumptions of the Bible falls apart.

As for the impossibility for an atheist to have objective source of morality, I have always found this claim to be extremely bizarre. It is like saying that anyone who does not believe in astrology cannot draw any information from the stars. Morality is something that humans learn over time, and their moral views change with experience.
This is a very US-specific argument and I have not heard it from anyone else in Europe or the Middle East. Nor have I ever met a man who would not know to not murder everyone on sight without the Bible telling him so. Have you?

Exactly. I also wonder at times if some people confuse moral absolutism with moral objectivism. Perhaps a deity is needed for absolute morality? By 'objective,' I mean a basis for what follows, albeit morality is still subjective in its experience and application. Regardless of all these philosophical distinctions and the varied subjective experiences of morality, it seems that, ultimately, we are all striving toward the same moral destination.  @MayCaesar

Yeah, it just seems like at the very core of morality, there are those who understand it as a human concept born of human internal desires for 'a better way' what ever that may mean. Then there are those that need an external source to fixate on as a symbol of morality. Either way is susceptible to the subjective natures of our existence.

ZeusAres42

just_sayin said:

ZeusAres42 said:

@Factfinder

Circular reasoning immediatley lol. This guy makes WLC look like a genius. 

Come now, both of you aren't as stu-pid as you are acting.  Right??  There is no dilemma here.  Neither is morality an arbitrary function of God’s power nor is God responsible to a higher law. There is no Law over God.  Instead an objective standard exists (this avoids the first horn of the dilemma). However, the standard is not external to God, but internal (avoiding the second horn). Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness. Morality is not exterior or prior to God, but rooted in His nature.

I have to point out how both of you are  hypocrites on this matter.  The foundation of morality for the Christian comes from God, but atheists have no foundation.  Your feet are firmly planted in mid-air.  As Thomas Merton put it

"In the name of whom or what do you ask me to behave? Why should I go to the inconvenience of denying myself the satisfactions I desire in the name of some standard that exists only in your imagination? Why should I worship the fictions that you have imposed on me in the name of nothing?"

You hypocrites need to answer that question.  The only thing an atheist can do is steal a morality based on God, for it can't have one on its own that has any objectivity or compelling authority..  

I don't what made me laugh harder, the fact you thought this was a dilemma or that it actually highlights the deficiency of atheism! LOL

It seems there have been a shift in focus from the central issue at hand: 'Is God's nature inherently good because God declares it to be so, or does God declare something good because it aligns with a standard of goodness that exists independently of God?'

Your response aligns with a commonly proposed solution to the initial aspect of the Euthyphro Dilemma. Yet, the follow-up question (Shown in the title and OP) remains unaddressed.You suggest that the dilemma itself is not valid or significant. You then resort to making comments about credibility or intelligence about those who might find it perplexing or inquire about it. How about we get back to refocusing on the actual content of the argument than the preconcieved notions of the person behind it?  

I don't what made me laugh harder, the fact you thought this was a dilemma or that it actually highlights the deficiency of atheism! LOL

Furthermore, I'm puzzled by the approach of evaluating the efficiency, or any characteristic for that matter, of concepts or entities that do not exist. @just_sayin

MayCaesar

ZeusAres42 said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

This is a debate site; not a church. There are places for us offline if we wish to seek religious or spirtual guidance. We don't need it from you! As you have arrogantly taken it upon yourself as the religious authority for what you follow then perhaps create a church of your own and preach there. 

There is a great quote from the Bible itself on this: "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain". Some followers of these ideologies become prideful of the level of their dedication to it and start considering themselves an authority, which is precisely against what the book teaches.

Buddhists know this very well so that is at the cornerstone of the idea of "enlightenment". The process goes as follows: initially the ignorant monk believes that "enlightenment" is that incredible state achieving which is all the life is about and tells everyone about how great he is that he strives towards achieving it. Then he realizes that it is not something you ever achieve, but something you constantly move towards. And finally he gets it: the very journey he has taken is what life truly is about, and learning this lesson humbles him and makes him realize that he is no better or wiser than anyone else - and nor should he be. We all have our own paths full of obstacles and deviations.

Not endorsing any of these ideas, but, of all these religions have to offer, these are not the worst ones to take seriously for their followers.

ZeusAres42 said:
Exactly. I also wonder at times if some people confuse moral absolutism with moral objectivism. Perhaps a deity is needed for absolute morality? By 'objective,' I mean a basis for what follows, albeit morality is still subjective in its experience and application. Regardless of all these philosophical distinctions and the varied subjective experiences of morality, it seems that, ultimately, we are all striving toward the same moral destination.  @MayCaesar

This is a great point. I think it can be compared to the relationship between physics and the real world. The real world is absolute, it is just there, it is observable and interactable. Our models of this world, however, are not absolute, and one can model the same world in an infinite number of different ways - however, they are objective in that they capture the properties of reality that are measurable and testable independently of the particular observer. Our search for those models, in turn, is subjective: we build them based on our intuition, experience and knowledge, and two different scientists can look at the same data and model it differently.

Subjectivity comes from the fact that each of us searches for morals individually, and objectivity comes from the fact that moral choices have real consequences, and adopting a particular system of models has serious implications on one's life independent of their opinion of the morals. There can, I suppose, be "absolute morals" in the sense that, if this world is designed by another sentient being, that being may have had a particular behavior of its inhabitants in mind - and deviations from this behavior are a consequence of errors in the design. It would be strange to blame the inhabitants themselves for it though, given how they were not the ones who made those errors. It would be like writing a computer program, making a mistake, and blaming the computer for not producing the result one wants.

In any case, your last sentence is spot on: while we all use different tools and approaches to develop and polish our moral systems, the ideal is the same. Everyone wants to be happy, fulfilled, have great relationship with other humans and solid grounding in their own values. What actions get us there is something we all try our best to figure out.

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

ZeusAres42 said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

This is a debate site; not a church. There are places for us offline if we wish to seek religious or spirtual guidance. We don't need it from you! As you have arrogantly taken it upon yourself as the religious authority for what you follow then perhaps create a church of your own and preach there. 

There is a great quote from the Bible itself on this: "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain". Some followers of these ideologies become prideful of the level of their dedication to it and start considering themselves an authority, which is precisely against what the book teaches.

Buddhists know this very well so that is at the cornerstone of the idea of "enlightenment". The process goes as follows: initially the ignorant monk believes that "enlightenment" is that incredible state achieving which is all the life is about and tells everyone about how great he is that he strives towards achieving it. Then he realizes that it is not something you ever achieve, but something you constantly move towards. And finally he gets it: the very journey he has taken is what life truly is about, and learning this lesson humbles him and makes him realize that he is no better or wiser than anyone else - and nor should he be. We all have our own paths full of obstacles and deviations.

Not endorsing any of these ideas, but, of all these religions have to offer, these are not the worst ones to take seriously for their followers.

ZeusAres42 said:
Exactly. I also wonder at times if some people confuse moral absolutism with moral objectivism. Perhaps a deity is needed for absolute morality? By 'objective,' I mean a basis for what follows, albeit morality is still subjective in its experience and application. Regardless of all these philosophical distinctions and the varied subjective experiences of morality, it seems that, ultimately, we are all striving toward the same moral destination.  @MayCaesar

This is a great point. I think it can be compared to the relationship between physics and the real world. The real world is absolute, it is just there, it is observable and interactable. Our models of this world, however, are not absolute, and one can model the same world in an infinite number of different ways - however, they are objective in that they capture the properties of reality that are measurable and testable independently of the particular observer. Our search for those models, in turn, is subjective: we build them based on our intuition, experience and knowledge, and two different scientists can look at the same data and model it differently.

Subjectivity comes from the fact that each of us searches for morals individually, and objectivity comes from the fact that moral choices have real consequences, and adopting a particular system of models has serious implications on one's life independent of their opinion of the morals. There can, I suppose, be "absolute morals" in the sense that, if this world is designed by another sentient being, that being may have had a particular behavior of its inhabitants in mind - and deviations from this behavior are a consequence of errors in the design. It would be strange to blame the inhabitants themselves for it though, given how they were not the ones who made those errors. It would be like writing a computer program, making a mistake, and blaming the computer for not producing the result one wants.

In any case, your last sentence is spot on: while we all use different tools and approaches to develop and polish our moral systems, the ideal is the same. Everyone wants to be happy, fulfilled, have great relationship with other humans and solid grounding in their own values. What actions get us there is something we all try our best to figure out.

In regards to " It would be like writing a computer program, making a mistake, and blaming the computer for not producing the result one wants." What if that was an AI that became self-aware?  @MayCaesar? 

RickeyHoltsclaw

ZeusAres42 said:

MayCaesar said:

ZeusAres42 said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

This is a debate site; not a church. There are places for us offline if we wish to seek religious or spirtual guidance. We don't need it from you! As you have arrogantly taken it upon yourself as the religious authority for what you follow then perhaps create a church of your own and preach there. 

There is a great quote from the Bible itself on this: "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain". Some followers of these ideologies become prideful of the level of their dedication to it and start considering themselves an authority, which is precisely against what the book teaches.

Buddhists know this very well so that is at the cornerstone of the idea of "enlightenment". The process goes as follows: initially the ignorant monk believes that "enlightenment" is that incredible state achieving which is all the life is about and tells everyone about how great he is that he strives towards achieving it. Then he realizes that it is not something you ever achieve, but something you constantly move towards. And finally he gets it: the very journey he has taken is what life truly is about, and learning this lesson humbles him and makes him realize that he is no better or wiser than anyone else - and nor should he be. We all have our own paths full of obstacles and deviations.

Not endorsing any of these ideas, but, of all these religions have to offer, these are not the worst ones to take seriously for their followers.

ZeusAres42 said:
Exactly. I also wonder at times if some people confuse moral absolutism with moral objectivism. Perhaps a deity is needed for absolute morality? By 'objective,' I mean a basis for what follows, albeit morality is still subjective in its experience and application. Regardless of all these philosophical distinctions and the varied subjective experiences of morality, it seems that, ultimately, we are all striving toward the same moral destination.  @MayCaesar

This is a great point. I think it can be compared to the relationship between physics and the real world. The real world is absolute, it is just there, it is observable and interactable. Our models of this world, however, are not absolute, and one can model the same world in an infinite number of different ways - however, they are objective in that they capture the properties of reality that are measurable and testable independently of the particular observer. Our search for those models, in turn, is subjective: we build them based on our intuition, experience and knowledge, and two different scientists can look at the same data and model it differently.

Subjectivity comes from the fact that each of us searches for morals individually, and objectivity comes from the fact that moral choices have real consequences, and adopting a particular system of models has serious implications on one's life independent of their opinion of the morals. There can, I suppose, be "absolute morals" in the sense that, if this world is designed by another sentient being, that being may have had a particular behavior of its inhabitants in mind - and deviations from this behavior are a consequence of errors in the design. It would be strange to blame the inhabitants themselves for it though, given how they were not the ones who made those errors. It would be like writing a computer program, making a mistake, and blaming the computer for not producing the result one wants.

In any case, your last sentence is spot on: while we all use different tools and approaches to develop and polish our moral systems, the ideal is the same. Everyone wants to be happy, fulfilled, have great relationship with other humans and solid grounding in their own values. What actions get us there is something we all try our best to figure out.

In regards to " It would be like writing a computer program, making a mistake, and blaming the computer for not producing the result one wants." What if that was an AI that became self-aware?  @MayCaesar? 

ZeusAres42 said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

This is a debate site; not a church. There are places for us offline if we wish to seek religious or spirtual guidance. We don't need it from you! As you have arrogantly taken it upon yourself as the religious authority for what you follow then perhaps create a church of your own and preach there. 

@ZeusAres42 ;  If you desire a debate, you're on a "religion" debate forum...I'll debate you on any aspect of "religion" you desire. It doesn't need to be "church" to discuss theology, religion. If discussing religion is preaching to you...you're on the wrong site...go to something that aligns with your atheism and nihilism...I don't typically frequent those debates...you are free there from my preaching and I'm free from your pandering and crying.

MayCaesar

ZeusAres42 said:

In regards to " It would be like writing a computer program, making a mistake, and blaming the computer for not producing the result one wants." What if that was an AI that became self-aware?  @MayCaesar? 

It would still be a consequence of the design, as I see it. If ChatGPT tomorrow becomes aware and wreaks havoc on the stock market for fun, it would be the natural outcome of the engineers' work, the model was simply too complicated for them to predict it.

However, if we are talking about a creature that is omniscient and, therefore, has the capacity to predict the outcome of any design, then this excuse no longer applies. Not that it applies to engineers' either: "I did not know what my program would do" implies "I knew that my program could do this".

just_sayin

ZeusAres42 said:

It seems there have been a shift in focus from the central issue at hand: 'Is God's nature inherently good because God declares it to be so, or does God declare something good because it aligns with a standard of goodness that exists independently of God?'

Your response aligns with a commonly proposed solution to the initial aspect of the Euthyphro Dilemma. Yet, the follow-up question (Shown in the title and OP) remains unaddressed.You suggest that the dilemma itself is not valid or significant. You then resort to making comments about credibility or intelligence about those who might find it perplexing or inquire about it. How about we get back to refocusing on th we actual content of the argument than the preconcieved notions of the person behind it?  

I don't what made me laugh harder, the fact you thought this was a dilemma or that it actually highlights the deficiency of atheism! LOL

Furthermore, I'm puzzled by the approach of evaluating the efficiency, or any characteristic for that matter, of concepts or entities that do not exist. @just_sayin

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and ask what is circular in my response?  I have addressed both Euthyphro dilemmas.  Please explain what you are wanting addressed.

NOW FOR THE 7TH TIME IN THIS THREAD - i have pointed out that atheist's feet are firmly planted in mid-air and that they do not have any objective foundation for moral values.  I have to assume that you atheists recognize your morals have no objective foundation and are just your own personal preferences generated, since none have been man enough to provide an objective source of their moral claims.  It is atheists, not Christians who have a deficient moral system.  

Factfinder

 @ZeusAres42

I say both sides of the dilemma alludes to the realization the gods can not possibly exist therefore all standards and concepts of morality are subject to human definitions.

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

We just discussed the question of objectivity of morals exactly. You have this habit of ignoring parts of the conversation that do not make it easier for you to make your argument and either pretending that they have never taken place, or that they were not what they were.

I am not sure what you mean by "objective source". "Source" in what way? The world is complex and features countless causal chains, and many of them can never be traced to their origin. Feynman explained it extremely well here:

https://youtu.be/36GT2zI8lVA

The confusion may be coming from the fact that you are not comfortable with the idea of not being able to trace something back to the "primal cause", and if such a cause cannot be determined, you see the whole construct as hanging in the air. The Bible makes a specific claim about the "primal cause", and that claim satisfies you, despite your inability to prove its correctness.

Different atheists have different views, and not all of their views are logical. But it is worth noting that neither is the theist explanation: it is a cop-out. "God is the source" is a meaningless statement; it is like saying "23h89tn2348fyn5234789nyg59783bis the source". What exactly does that mean? You just tautologically determined the source with a fancy word, but you have not discerned anything about its nature.

Personally, I think about human brain as a tool that does two things simultaneously: projects the available data into the future in order to make the predictions - and into the past in order to find the causes. There is no limit to the level of technological advancement I can push the civilization towards, and there is no limit to the depth of backtracking that I can do in order to learn more about the past of this world. We exist in the present and have a very limited amount of data available to us, so it is natural that the further either into the future or into the past we move from the present moment, the larger the error bars become, and the fuzzier our understanding gets. There is no "primal source" to be found any more than there is "the last moment" to be found. You can look into the future as far as you can and there will still be an infinite amount of time left after it - and you can look into the past as deeply as you can and still be arbitrarily far away from much deeper levels.

This does not bother me at all. I do not feel "suspended in mid-air". I think that it is better to stand on a shaky ground, but a ground that you can study and improve your positioning on it (and do so objectively) - than to stand on imaginary ground.

RickeyHoltsclaw

MayCaesar said:

@just_sayin

We just discussed the question of objectivity of morals exactly. You have this habit of ignoring parts of the conversation that do not make it easier for you to make your argument and either pretending that they have never taken place, or that they were not what they were.

I am not sure what you mean by "objective source". "Source" in what way? The world is complex and features countless causal chains, and many of them can never be traced to their origin. Feynman explained it extremely well here:

https://youtu.be/36GT2zI8lVA

The confusion may be coming from the fact that you are not comfortable with the idea of not being able to trace something back to the "primal cause", and if such a cause cannot be determined, you see the whole construct as hanging in the air. The Bible makes a specific claim about the "primal cause", and that claim satisfies you, despite your inability to prove its correctness.

Different atheists have different views, and not all of their views are logical. But it is worth noting that neither is the theist explanation: it is a cop-out. "God is the source" is a meaningless statement; it is like saying "23h89tn2348fyn5234789nyg59783bis the source". What exactly does that mean? You just tautologically determined the source with a fancy word, but you have not discerned anything about its nature.

Personally, I think about human brain as a tool that does two things simultaneously: projects the available data into the future in order to make the predictions - and into the past in order to find the causes. There is no limit to the level of technological advancement I can push the civilization towards, and there is no limit to the depth of backtracking that I can do in order to learn more about the past of this world. We exist in the present and have a very limited amount of data available to us, so it is natural that the further either into the future or into the past we move from the present moment, the larger the error bars become, and the fuzzier our understanding gets. There is no "primal source" to be found any more than there is "the last moment" to be found. You can look into the future as far as you can and there will still be an infinite amount of time left after it - and you can look into the past as deeply as you can and still be arbitrarily far away from much deeper levels.

This does not bother me at all. I do not feel "suspended in mid-air". I think that it is better to stand on a shaky ground, but a ground that you can study and improve your positioning on it (and do so objectively) - than to stand on imaginary ground.

@MayCaesar ; If God is a cop out according to you: "the theist explanation: it is a cop-out. "God is the source" is a meaningless statement" and the "human brain as a tool that does two things simultaneously: projects the available data into the future in order to make the predictions - and into the past in order to find the causes." please use your human brain and explain using your intellectualism and narcissism the origin of the human brain its ability to interpret data, make predictions based on that data and reflect on the past seeking causation for the fruition of a data point or projection? 

Explain how the brain perceives and expresses logic, reason, emotion, and why? Is nihilism the fruition of all logic and brain functioning or is there a purpose? Is God as causation really a "cop out" or is your inability to explain "objectively" the origin of the brain - logic - reason - objectivity just your ignorance or a cop-out?

ZeusAres42

Factfinder said:

 @ZeusAres42

I say both sides of the dilemma alludes to the realization the gods can not possibly exist therefore all standards and concepts of morality are subject to human definitions.

Or at least they cannot exist without these attributes being tied to God. Perhaps there is a creator but one that is not perfect himself and therefore cannot create things perfectly? @Factfinder

Factfinder

ZeusAres42 said:

Factfinder said:

 @ZeusAres42

I say both sides of the dilemma alludes to the realization the gods can not possibly exist therefore all standards and concepts of morality are subject to human definitions.

Or at least they cannot exist without these attributes being tied to God. Perhaps there is a creator but one that is not perfect himself and therefore cannot create things perfectly? @Factfinder

Yes. Perhaps as the apostle paul alluded to in speaking to the Greeks. "The unknown god".

RickeyHoltsclaw

Factfinder said:

ZeusAres42 said:

Factfinder said:

 @ZeusAres42

I say both sides of the dilemma alludes to the realization the gods can not possibly exist therefore all standards and concepts of morality are subject to human definitions.

Or at least they cannot exist without these attributes being tied to God. Perhaps there is a creator but one that is not perfect himself and therefore cannot create things perfectly? @Factfinder

Yes. Perhaps as the apostle paul alluded to in speaking to the Greeks. "The unknown god".

@Factfinder ; @ZeusAres42 ;  Our Creator created everything "very good"...Humanity defiled it, Jesus corrected it.

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

Factfinder said:

ZeusAres42 said:

Factfinder said:

 @ZeusAres42

I say both sides of the dilemma alludes to the realization the gods can not possibly exist therefore all standards and concepts of morality are subject to human definitions.

Or at least they cannot exist without these attributes being tied to God. Perhaps there is a creator but one that is not perfect himself and therefore cannot create things perfectly? @Factfinder

Yes. Perhaps as the apostle paul alluded to in speaking to the Greeks. "The unknown god".

@Factfinder ; @ZeusAres42 ;  Our Creator created everything "very good"...Humanity defiled it, Jesus corrected it.

Okay, you persuaded me. The evidence clearly points to the creator. Gosh, how'd you know? 

MayCaesar

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@MayCaesar ; If God is a cop out according to you: "the theist explanation: it is a cop-out. "God is the source" is a meaningless statement" and the "human brain as a tool that does two things simultaneously: projects the available data into the future in order to make the predictions - and into the past in order to find the causes." please use your human brain and explain using your intellectualism and narcissism the origin of the human brain its ability to interpret data, make predictions based on that data and reflect on the past seeking causation for the fruition of a data point or projection? 

Explain how the brain perceives and expresses logic, reason, emotion, and why? Is nihilism the fruition of all logic and brain functioning or is there a purpose? Is God as causation really a "cop out" or is your inability to explain "objectively" the origin of the brain - logic - reason - objectivity just your ignorance or a cop-out?

Understanding the origin of the brain is clearly a part of this two-way tree search, and said understanding does not come immediately. Very few deep insights in life come immediately, with little time and effort spent thinking and observing.

I invite you to join me in respecting this process, rather than jumping at simple conclusions based on one book. I have read hundreds of books and probably thousands of papers over my lifetime, and I continue to be humbled by the depth of my ignorance. Your claims at understanding such things as origin of the brain because one fantasy book talks about them are cute, but, frankly, quite ridiculous.

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@MayCaesar ; If God is a cop out according to you: "the theist explanation: it is a cop-out. "God is the source" is a meaningless statement" and the "human brain as a tool that does two things simultaneously: projects the available data into the future in order to make the predictions - and into the past in order to find the causes." please use your human brain and explain using your intellectualism and narcissism the origin of the human brain its ability to interpret data, make predictions based on that data and reflect on the past seeking causation for the fruition of a data point or projection? 

Explain how the brain perceives and expresses logic, reason, emotion, and why? Is nihilism the fruition of all logic and brain functioning or is there a purpose? Is God as causation really a "cop out" or is your inability to explain "objectively" the origin of the brain - logic - reason - objectivity just your ignorance or a cop-out?

Understanding the origin of the brain is clearly a part of this two-way tree search, and said understanding does not come immediately. Very few deep insights in life come immediately, with little time and effort spent thinking and observing.

I invite you to join me in respecting this process, rather than jumping at simple conclusions based on one book. I have read hundreds of books and probably thousands of papers over my lifetime, and I continue to be humbled by the depth of my ignorance. Your claims at understanding such things as origin of the brain because one fantasy book talks about them are cute, but, frankly, quite ridiculous.

You got that right! As a teenager you have all the answers. In your twenties you start realizing there are some answers you don't have. In your thirties you begin to realize the answers you had contained errors. Forties you only have a few answers you trust, mostly...by the time you hit sixty you know one thing, you don't know that much, albeit you seemingly know more then when you were younger. One book, I think not.

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

MayCaesar said:

Understanding the origin of the brain is clearly a part of this two-way tree search, and said understanding does not come immediately. Very few deep insights in life come immediately, with little time and effort spent thinking and observing.

I invite you to join me in respecting this process, rather than jumping at simple conclusions based on one book. I have read hundreds of books and probably thousands of papers over my lifetime, and I continue to be humbled by the depth of my ignorance. Your claims at understanding such things as origin of the brain because one fantasy book talks about them are cute, but, frankly, quite ridiculous.

You got that right! As a teenager you have all the answers. In your twenties you start realizing there are some answers you don't have. In your thirties you begin to realize the answers you had contained errors. Forties you only have a few answers you trust, mostly...by the time you hit sixty you know one thing, you don't know that much, albeit you seemingly know more then when you were younger. One book, I think not.

I agree, but will add one clarification: all of this is correct only under the assumption that one lives a good life and constantly works on themselves. Some people get into a trap and start thinking that they have it all, that they have found the holy grail - and over time their thinking becomes more and more rigid and they become more and more sure of themselves.

I have one family member like this. She precludes almost every disagreement with, "I am older than you, so listen carefully and learn". Such people simply stop evolving intellectually at some point - and in life not evolving implies degrading: it is impossible for a living organism to be static. There is a saying in business: "If you are not expanding, you are contracting" - and it certainly applies to living beings as well.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Factfinder ;   A miserable atheist dying a miserable death...yet mocks his only Hope.

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

YOUR QUOTE TO THE BIBLE ATHEIST FOOL FACTFINDER:  " You lied.  The dilemma is not real and I explained it to you.  You couldn't explain to me why what I said was wrong - either because you don't understand what Euthyphro's dilemma was or why it is a false choice. I also noticed that you couldn't give a defense for atheistic morality having an objective source - because you know I'm right - it can't have an objective source."

YES, I had the same problem with this BIBLE INEPT FACTFINDER, where he had to RUN AWAY from discussion with me by coming up with a myriad of lame excuses to NOT continue our discussion as shown in this embarrassing link relating to him: https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/175263/#Comment_175263


SUBJECTIVELY, FACTFINDER IS A WASTE OF TIME IN DISCUSSING ANYTHING WITH THIS BIBLE FOOL IN THIS RELIGION FORUM!

.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@21CenturyIconoclast ;  If you could state a legitimate theological premise we could debate but you're acting like a disingenuous child...you do nothing but cast dispersion's and insults that have no foundation...why?  

Factfinder

21CenturyIconoclast said:

@just_sayin

YOUR QUOTE TO THE BIBLE ATHEIST FOOL FACTFINDER:  " You lied.  The dilemma is not real and I explained it to you.  You couldn't explain to me why what I said was wrong - either because you don't understand what Euthyphro's dilemma was or why it is a false choice. I also noticed that you couldn't give a defense for atheistic morality having an objective source - because you know I'm right - it can't have an objective source."

YES, I had the same problem with this BIBLE INEPT FACTFINDER, where he had to RUN AWAY from discussion with me by coming up with a myriad of lame excuses to NOT continue our discussion as shown in this embarrassing link relating to him: https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/175263/#Comment_175263


SUBJECTIVELY, FACTFINDER IS A WASTE OF TIME IN DISCUSSING ANYTHING WITH THIS BIBLE FOOL IN THIS RELIGION FORUM!

.

How often do you bow down at the crotch of delusion?