“Witnessed by others”? Who? Who here claimed that God came down and told them “be reasonable”? Just Bart — khaled

There are many historical examples of people claiming to have been told by God what to do. Prophet Mohammad was one of them. But it goes back to Hammurabi (1792 - 1750 BC) and many others:

“Hammurabi is best known for having issued the Code of Hammurabi, which he claimed to have received from Shamash, the Babylonian god of justice.”

Hammurabi – Wikipedia

It wasn’t clear from your post who you were referring to. I thought it was a general statement, hence I wanted to clarify that.

Or are you asking me to provide you with the content of one? — Bartricks

If it wasn't clear already. Yes. That's what "Give an example" means by the way.

What's an example of an imperative of reason?

Right but Bart is claiming that God issued the imperatives of reason to each of us individually. I don't remember that happening to me. And I don't know anyone who does either. That's all I'm saying. I didn't say that there are no people who at least claim to have been told things by God, just that I'm not one of them and neither are most people I know.

I didn't say that there are no people who at least claim to have been told things by God, just that I'm not one of them and neither are most people I know. — khaled

Fair enough. However, theoretically, at least, it is not entirely inconceivable that God has told some people what constitutes right conduct in the past and possibly still does.

Edit. Your statement "and neither are most people I know" suggests that some people you know do.

Because I am not religious. Why would I be? Presumably you think that if someone reasons to the conclusion God exists, they will then think 'well, I better go join a religion'. Why would I do that? How does one get from 'God exists' to 'the bible is correct about everything' or 'the Koran is correct about everything'?? Maybe they are or one of them is - but it is not implied by the argument on whose basis I believe in God. — Bartricks

You don’t need to presume what I think in order to answer what I asked. That you can’t answer suggests that you don’t understand the subject matter well enough to formulate an answer beyond I’m not religious because I’m not religious.

I recall such straight thinkers — Banno

Are you making reference to the meaning of Euthyphro's name?

I am just about done. I added some things to tie in some things beyond the text, but I think it better to leave them for further discussion.

If a proposition is true, do not believe that it is also false.

I told you umpteen times I am not religious and that I believe in God. This must puzzle you enormously because you keep asking me the same question over and over. I can only imagine that you must have superb instincts as otherwise I find it hard to see how you could navigate yourself around the world with so easily confounded a faculty of reason.

I'm glad you saw the joke. We need more straight thinkers willing to do the Right Thing.

If a proposition is true, do not believe that it is also false. — Bartricks

And you have memory of God conveying this to you? You sure it wasn't your teacher or parent or something?

And you think the mind that issues this imperative, is omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omnipresent? What happens when I issue it to someone? Do I become a triple omni God?

Mind reelaborating why the mind that issues the imperative "If a proposition is true do not believe that it is also false" is omnipotent first? Because clearly I can issue that proposition without becoming or being omnipotent. How come?

↪Bartricks
If a proposition is true, do not believe that it is also false.
— Bartricks

And you have memory of God saying this to you? — khaled

I take it you accept that this is indeed an imperative of Reason and thus you accept that premise 1 is true.

You are now changing the topic and wondering how we learn about the existence of these imperatives, yes? And you are thinking, with all the sophistication of a child, that if they are imperatives of God, then you must have met God on a cloud when he told you these things, right?

You have a faculty of reason - in your case an extremely ropey one - and it is via that faculty that you gain an awareness of these imperatives.

You do not have to know that it is God who is issuing them. That is as unbelievably stupid as thinking that water is not made of tiny molecules because you just drank some water and you don't recall drinking any molecules.

Maybe I can answer for you. You’re not religious because you have no faith in any religious doctrine or religious authorities that you know of.

You do not have to know that it is God who is issuing them. — Bartricks

That seems to be a reasonable statement. Lots of things happen to us without our being aware of the causes. What if God tells us what is right and wrong without letting us know that he does so?

Maybe I can answer for you. You’re not religious because you have no faith in any religious doctrine or religious authorities that you know of. — praxis

One of my favourite quotes is from Bertrand Russell: never trust a stupid man's report of what a clever man has said.

I was guessing, not reporting… oh, okay.

We need more straight thinkers — Banno

I could do with less "straight thinkers". Euthyphro says that he is laughed at. This type is laughable but unfortunately it does not deter them. For them any attention is preferable to being ignored, but I prefer to ignore them.

I was guessing, not reporting — praxis

I think it is fair to say that Russell would agree that just as one should not trust a stupid man's report of what a clever man has said, one should not trust a stupid man's guess about the matter either. (I can't remember, but I don't think the next line in the relevant passage was "But as for guessing..."

I take it you accept that this is indeed an imperative of Reason and thus you accept that premise 1 is true. — Bartricks

I'm asking for clarifications so far.

You have a faculty of reason - in your case an extremely ropey one - and it is via that faculty that you gain an awareness of these imperatives. — Bartricks

Ah so I didn't hear them or take the input in through any sensory channels but my faculty of reason detected a command to not believe a proposition to be true and false at the same time.... somehow.

Can you name any other "command issuing faculties" that we have? Does your faculty of sight tell you to stare at pretty girls/guys? Doubtful. Faculties don't issue imperatives. That can't be right. Try again.

You can't just brush it up to "We have a faculty that detected it". When talking about imperatives, every imperative must be a command, by someone, to someone, to do something. That's the definiton, you need those 3 components at least an issuer, a receiver, and an order. That command is heard, seen, or heck, telepathically communicated if you like. Point is you must receive some input. I'm asking if you have memory of receiving such an input. You don't seem to. I don't either. Neither did most people receive input by a divine being to act a certain way.

You do not have to know that it is God who is issuing them — Bartricks

Right but I must at least remember getting issued them. Again, for something to be an imperative it must have been issued by someone and received by another. However the only times I've ever been told to not believe a proposition to be true and false at the same time were all issued by non-omnipotent perfectly ordinary people. So I don't see the need to suggest that these imperatives were somehow issued by some divine entity.

I learn from the sign in the park that someone doesn't want me to walk on the grass. — Bartricks

But in this case there was no sign. There was no sound or sight imparted by any divine mind commanding you to not believe a proposition to be true and false at the same time. Go back through memory lane and you'll find every time someone told you to not believe a proposition to be true and false at the same time, it was always a particular person. Never some undetected God.

But regardless, let's assume I accept everything you said so far. So far we have a mind that issues (somehow without providing any detectible input) a command to all humans to not believe propositions to be true and false at the same time. Let's call this mind X. Mind showing how mind X is omnipotent for having issued a command to mankind to behave a certain way?

Yes, quite. I learn from the sign in the park that someone doesn't want me to walk on the grass. I don't have to know that it is Mr Brown whose attitude it expresses, or know that Mr Brown is the world's best chess player, even though those things are true and can, with dedication, be discovered.

I prefer to ignore them. — Fooloso4

It's a good policy. I don't know if history records the success of Euthyphro's case against his father. I wonder if it went for page after page, with folk taking it in turns to make the same points against him, without his even being able to recognise them?

You apparently rely heavily on authority figures like Russell so perhaps you’re a good candidate for religiosity and not so inclined to think for yourself.

More on that soon.

Doubtless...

Done.

Sweet! Thanks.

Ah so I didn't hear them or take the input in through any sensory channels but my faculty of reason detected a command to not believe a proposition to be true and false at the same time.... somehow. — khaled

Yes, that's what possessing a faculty of reason involves. Having one gives one some awareness - in your case, scant and very foggy awareness - of reasons to do and believe things, including imperatives to do and believe things. That's why it is called our 'faculty of reason'. Stupid people have a poorly operating one; clever people are well-operating one.

This is all very basic stuff that isn't seriously in dispute. It is also irrelevant, as you need to refute the proof I gave.

Right but I must at least remember getting issued them. — khaled

Er, why? Is that what your reason tells you - does your reason give you the impression that it is an imperative of Reason that if you are aware of an imperative, you must remember someone having issued the imperative to you? Weird. Like I say, your faculty is really ropey.

For example, my argument proves that imperatives of Reason are the imperatives of God. Now, to your mind this means that we have to be aware that they are imperatives of God and must remember encountering God and God telling us them. That's just bonkers. That is, like I say, as stupid as thinking that if someone demonstrates that water is made of tiny molecules, then you can refute them by just saying "no, water is NOT made of tiny molecules, because I am not aware it is. If it was made of tiny molecules I'd have to be aware of it. Indeed, someone would have had to show me each molecule and I'd have to see them gradually becoming a bit of water. I don't remember seeing any molecules coming out the tap last time I turned it on; I don't remember seeing any molecules in the river or the lake." That's you - that's how you reason. It's terrible.

The evidence that imperatives of Reason are imperatives of God is.....the argument. The proof. Not 'the fact you remember meeting God and him issuing imperatives to you'. Jeez. What is the point in arguing with people like you - I'm charitably assuming that you're actively going out of your way to misunderstand everything.

Yes, my objection to the anachronistic use of the "Euthyphro problem" to attempt to refute theism remains unaddressed here, so I have re-posted it in the Euthyphro thread.

I agree with you that religious belief is a matter of choice, not something which can be rationally justified or refuted.Amazingly many theists (of which I am not one, incidentally) don't want to admit that religious belief is not rationally justifiable, just as many atheists (of which I am not one either) don't want to admit that religious belief is not rationally refutable.

religious belief is not rationally refutable — Janus

So if I contrive some silly religion no one can rationally refute it?

Having one gives one some awareness - in your case, scant and very foggy awareness - of reasons to do and believe things, including imperatives to do and believe things. — Bartricks

Ah careful. Reasons to believe things =/= Imperatives to believe things. As I already said, faculties don't give imperatives. This is the part that's beyond dispute. Does your sense of sight itself tell you to do something? No that's ridiculous.

Is that what your reason tells you - does your reason give you the impression that it is an imperative of Reason that if you are aware of an imperative, you must remember someone having issued the imperative to you? — Bartricks

Yes. Precisely. If someone commanded me to do something I must remember someone having commanded me to do something. Or else I have no evidence that someone commanded me to do something. This isn't a very revolutionary idea. I struggle to see how you can not understand. I may not remember who the someone was, but I must remember being ordered to do something by someone, in order to have evidence that I'm being ordered to do something by someone....

I don't like your wording though. "Does your reason give you the impression that it is an imperative of reason" if all you mean is "Does it reasonably seem to you that" then sure. But it just seems like a very long winded way of saying it.

Does your reason NOT tell you this? Give one example of an imperative that was issued to you that you don't remember having been issued to you. Stupid question. If you're to have any reason it was issued to you, you must at least remember it...

Now, to your mind this means that we have to be aware that they are imperatives of God and must remember encountering God and God telling us them. — Bartricks

Not exactly "encountering and telling" but any sort of contact. Please give an example of an imperative from some mind A to mind B that mind B receives without any sensory input. You can't. Because it makes no sense. For something to be an imperative someone must convey to someone to do something. No such conveying has taken place between your mind and the mind of God. It has always been between you and your teacher, or you and your parent, telling you to behave this or that way. Not contact with God. Anyone would remember that.

That is, like I say, as stupid as thinking that if someone demonstrates that water is made of tiny molecules, then you can refute them by just saying "no, water is NOT made of tiny molecules — Bartricks

A terrible example considering that everything I observe is consistent with water being tiny molecules so I would have no argument to refute the claim. However what you're claiming is different. You're claiming that there is a mind X that issued a command to all humans to not believe a proposition to be true and false at the same time. First off, I disagree such a mind exists from a historical perspective, it just has NOT been the case that such a mind has made any contact with me or anyone I know.

But you don't seem to understand that this is a serious critique. You seem to be fine with having "Imperatives" that aren't actually issued from one mind to another by means of some input. You are somehow fine with "faculties" issuing imperatives. Just a result of hazy stupid definitons. And you can't give a single example of an imperative issued from one mind to another without some means of input. Because it makes no sense.

But fine, let's take that to be true. Let's say there IS in fact a mind X that told everyone not to believe something to be true and false at the same time (despite the fact that no one remembers this AND that you need some form of contact for an imperative to be issued so we SHOULD remember it). And let's take it that this mind is NOT a particular human such as a teacher or parent. Ok, what makes that mind X omnipotent. Please explain.

You skirted away from it last time but as I said: EVEN IF we give that a certain mind X has issued the command to not believe a proposition to be true and false at the same time, you have no way to go from that to omnipotence. If you do, show it.

As a simple example: If someone had a large enough speaker, they could tell everyone in the world to not believe a proposition to be true and false at the same time. Would that make the speaker owner omnipotent? No. Not at all.

The evidence that imperatives of Reason are imperatives of God is.....the argument. The proof. — Bartricks

So far we can grant that mind X exists. No where have you shown that that mind X is a triple omni God. Even in the argument you quoted above you didn't show it, you just stopped at "proving" that mind X exists.

You are really confused.

Ah careful. Reasons to believe things =/= Imperatives to believe things. As I already said, faculties don't give imperatives. This is the part that's beyond dispute. Does your sense of sight itself tell you to do something? No that's ridiculous. — khaled

Show me saying that faculties issue imperatives.

OUr faculty of reason is the faculty by means of which we gain an awareness of reasons to do and believe things, including imperatives of Reason. That is not - if one understands English - the same as saying that our faculty of reason issues the instruction.

Now, you reason really badly. I have provided a proof that Reason is God. Either challenge a premise or go away.