If what god wishes is good then if good wishes rape & murder, rape & murder are good. Unacceptable. — Agent Smith

Christians have often responded that there is a third option. Objective morality exists but this standard is not outside of god - morality is grounded in the nature of god himself, who is the perfection of the good. Commands are not based on caprice but are founded on his very being. In this way, god could not command us to do evil things as his nature and goodness are identical. Apologist William Lane Craig has an entire routine based upon this kind of argument which I have hastily summarised from memory.

"Thou" sayest that your post is unnecessarily confusing... this is, of course, a classic question in religious and moral philosophy: is a thing good because God likes it, or does God like it because is is good? Either answer is unacceptable.

If God likes a thing because it is good, this is tantamount to saying that the criterion of goodness is independent of God's will; consequently, God is irrelevant to the definition of moral goodness. On the other hand, if a thing is good because God likes it, then there is no fixed criterion of goodness, since God has the power to change His mind at any time; and so the criterion of goodness may change from day to day. If the good is what God likes, and God decides to "like" the massacre of infidels, then the Talibaan will become the guardians of goodness, and we should all live by their rule.

Nice! A(n) (omni)benevolent being, is benevolence itself (re virtue ethics). Be one with the ball mon ami until no one can tell the difference between you and the ball.

Yet, if God were a being and goodness is an idea (with practical consequences of course), we could offload the responsibility onto a machine; after all morality boils down to a calculus with two variables, vice & virtue. The actual calculations will obviously be extremely complex, but still, doable i.e. computable. I've heard of AI scientists developing a virtual doctor - one has to input one's signs & symptoms, lab & imaging reports, and out pops a diagnosis with, wonder of wonders, a treatment plan. Can we build an AI judge to preside over legal cases? That would be our first step towards an automating God. Sic parvis magna (greatness from small beginning).

Muchas gracias for explaination. Your post makes it crystal clear what Euthyphro's dilemma is.

To All

What do you do with a book that you've read, after you've grokked the book? Some keep it in a library, others lend it to friends, etc. but the point is you don't need the book anymore, at the very least not as much as you needed it before you read it.

What do you do with a book that you've read — Agent Smith

Usually, I keep it. I still think about books that I did not keep. I miss some books from fifty years ago and I can still feel their heft and the scent of the paper, ink and glue. Well, you asked. But even I think I'm extreme...

Why do you keep it, the book? Assume you've got the message the book contains. Do you need the book now for the message in it? Nope, oui?

P. S. I couldn't come up with a better example. Wait, one springs to mind - disposable syringes (after the drug has been delivered, the syringe can be disposed of).

Why do you keep it, the book? — Agent Smith

Because I now know that I will miss it in the way described if I dispose of it. It's a harmless vice. I don't keep used syringes, love letters or anything else that might be a danger to health and well-being.

Indeed, some might retain the book they've finished reading but for reasons other than its contents like emotional ones (you mentioned you might miss it). In other words if the book's main purpose is to deliver a message, once you've read it, that purpose is fulfilled.

Some keep it in a library, others lend it to friends, etc. but the point is you don't need the book anymore — Agent Smith

I have some books I have read many times over the years. I still have not "grokked" them. In some cases, I am losing ground.

Is it that what god wishes is good OR is it that god wishes what is good? — Agent Smith

I see that you got really involved with dilemmas! :smile:

Now, this could be a dilemma, only that "God" is a concept with characteristics that we humans have created. It reminds of the "God omnipotence" paradox. These are what I like to call "paradoxes", and this is also a "dilemma" --the quotes indicating of course "supposed-to-be".

Your (Euthyphro's) question has a meaning only if we describe God as knowing what good is --actually, the "Absolute Good"-- and that he wishes that for us, right? But then, in order to formulate such a description, we must have previously formulated a concept of "good", isn't that so?

Therefore, on a first level, the answer to the question is "What God wishes is good, because in our [description of him, we want him to wish that."

Then, on a second level, if we also assume that God is omnipotent --which is usually the case-- he wouldn't need to wish anything, would he? It's only us who wish.

Thus, this is indeed a "dilemma", or better, there's no dilemma at all! :smile:

If god wishes what is good then god is not the authority on ethics. Unacceptable. — Agent Smith

Right. Yet, don't forget this very important fact: It's we who have created the concept and characteristics of God. So, whether he is an "authority on ethics" on ethics or not, depends on our description of him.

Siddhartha Guatama (founder of Buddhism) opts to remain tightlipped about God, neither affirming nor negating god's existence — Agent Smith

That's why I like Buddhism! :smile:

but then he went on to, in a sense, extract the essence of God (ethics + system that tracks our moral trajectory, records sins & virtuous acts for later accounting purposes, karma). Karma as you can see is a fully-automated system that replaces God. — Agent Smith

I can question the "essence of God", but this would be outside the point.
And also, I can't see how karma can replace the concept of God.

Anyway, since the title of the topic is "Siddhartha Gautama & Euthyphro", I can say that what these two subjects have in common as it appears from your description, is that both God and Karma are concepts created by us, so there is no meaning to pose questions about what they really are, their characteristics, etc. We can only make comparisons between them. And, our definition/description of Karma has nothing in common with our definition/description of God. In the Christian world, karma is connected to "fate" & "destiny", paradise & hell, doomsday (Last Judgment) and similar things.

Buddhism is a hundred times as realistic as Christianity it is part of its living heritage that it is able to face problems objectively and coolly; it is the product of long centuries of philosophical speculation. — The Antichrist

Re: "The Euthyphro" – God is irrelevant (vide Epicuus). :fire:

If it's a profoundly good or funny book, then I'll need to read it again ... and again ... and again ....

If it's a profoundly good or funny, then I'll need to read it again ... and again ... and again — 180 Proof

:up:

I have some books I have read many times over the years. I still have not "grokked" them. In some cases, I am losing ground — Paine

Interesting to say the least.

Well, this isn't about us to tell you the truth. It concerns God & ethics, whether the former is necessary/desirable.

(

Well, this isn't about us to tell you the truth. It concerns God & ethics, whether the former is necessary/desirable. — Agent Smith

When, a few years ago, I heard for the first time the well known question "Has God created Man or has Man created God?" I found it cute, even if the answer was obvious to me. But I now find this question just silly. You see, well some established ideas take a long time to be faced openly and the truth about them --i.e. their nature-- get revealed.
In most cultures, questioning --and even worse, the denial-- of the existence of God --as he is described by different religions and cultures-- was always and still is considered immoral or a sign of immorality. This view and belief was so strong in the past, that people were condemned to death if people manifested such a behavior.

The good news though are that eventually logic and truth prevails, and these tabbos and prejudices eventually fall down or apart. And the truth in our case is that "God is a concept created by us". And "it is about us to tell". And it concerns us and our ethics (also a concept that we have created), not God or ethics (as something outside us).

***

Important note: When we talk about the existence of God, we must always have in mind that we are talking about the God as he is described in a certain culture and religion. Because descriptions and beliefs about a "God" differ between cultures and religions. In our case, we refer of course to the Judeo-Christian God. And, if I say that "I don't believe in God", I mean specifically that God. Because I may well believe in the existence of some other Supreme Being or Supreme Power, which is very far from the humanized, anthropomorphic Judeo-Christian God, the concept of whom is based on human form, desires and needs.

Arguendo, let's say we created God. Necessity is the mother of invention i.e. God doesn't "exist" for no rhyme or reason. Euthyphro's dilemma is designed to clarify that as far as ethics goes, God is neither necessary (ethics is independent of God) nor desirable (ethics is God's whim &fancy).

Necessity is the mother of invention i.e. God doesn't "exist" for no rhyme or reason — Agent Smith

Right.

Euthyphro's dilemma is designed to clarify that as far as ethics goes, God is neither necessary (ethics is independent of God) nor desirable (ethics is God's whim &fancy). — Agent Smith

I'm not sure if I get that right. Do you mean that Euthyphro is wrong --and hence there's no dilemma-- because God is neither a necessity nor desirable?
Because "ethics is independent of God" and "ethics is God's whim &fancy" are contradictory or conflicting statements? (Since the second has no sense if the first is true.)

There are, as far as I can tell, only 2 reasons why God should exist:

1. Ethics is dependent on Him
2. God's desirable (we want Him to exist)

Euthyphro's dilemma, what it does, is inform us that neither is acceptable, based on ethics and ethics alone.

When I say ethics is independent of God (God is unnecessary) , I also imply false that ethics is/can be God's whim and fancy (God is undesirable). No contradiction.

Siddhartha Guatama (founder of Buddhism) opts to remain tightlipped about God, neither affirming nor negating god's existence
— Agent Smith
That's why I like Buddhism! — Alkis Piskas

Take the plunge... atheism. Gets rid of a lot of prefab thoughts that force you into illogical thoughts. Not only liberating, but pleasant, pleasurable.

Siddhartha Guatama (founder of Buddhism) — Alkis Piskas

I am quite ignorant when it comes to Buddhism. But would it not be the Buddha who had founded Buddhism? After all, it was Christ who founded Christianity, Marx who founded Marxism, and Terror who founded Terrorism.

reasons why God should exist — Agent Smith

OK, I can certainly accept "should".

1. Ethics is dependent on Him — Agent Smith

Where is this based on? Isn't it true that it is us who we have established both concepts (God & ethics)?
I could only aceept "Ethics should be dependent on Him", as a condition in our description of God. This will be in accordance with "God should exist".
Where I stumble on, as you see, is switching from "is" to "should be" and vice versa.

2. God's desirable (we want Him to exist) — Agent Smith

Right. It is us who want Him to exist. But there are a lot of things that are desirable to us: a Superman, who can save people in danger, and all sort of superheroes fighting crime and administer or restore justice. And we have indeed created such heroes. But we know that they exist only in our imagination. Some small children prey to their heroes to help them and do this and that. They also prey to God, of course. But both entities are in their mind, as they have been described to them by their parents or as images of entities the have created themselves from books and movies. The difference between the two kinds is that God is described a having much more power and different powers --in fact he can do anything (omnipotent)-- whereas the superheroes have only special, limited powers. So the attraction on feels about God is much greated in proportion.

BTW, here's a question and idea "of the moment": Where does the need for superheroes come from? And not only superheroes, but war heroes and simple, everyday "heroes" who defend and protect people in various ways and even save lives? If people felt secure and had enough protection from God, would all these "heroes" be needed? Or is it thet God has nothing to do with the protection of life in general? In which case, what benevolence are we talking about and what is its meaning?
Just think about it. (Although most probably you have already thought about it! :smile:)

Euthyphro's dilemma, what it does, is inform us that neither is acceptable, based on ethics and ethics alone. — Agent Smith

OK.

When I say ethics is independent of God (God is unnecessary) , I also imply false that ethics is/can be God's whim and fancy (God is undesirable). No contradiction. — Agent Smith

OK.

I believe we're on the same page albeit on different paragraphs. We're cool.

↪Alkis Piskas I believe we're on the same page albeit on different paragraphs. We're cool. — Agent Smith

There is nothing better than settling philosophical arguments by the fireside, with Cuban cigars and a fine Port, agreeing to disagree, or to lull oneself into a state of pleasantness in which agreement is more important than triumphing by using nothing but the tools and daresay weapons of logic alone.

I' got plenty of logic, pleasurable thoughts and practical stuff (applications in life, etc.) from Buddhism! And I'm certainly the only one and I have not practiced on a regular basis as millions of people have!

As for atheism, I don't have to "take a plunge". I consider myself already an "atheist", since I don't believe in God, esp. the God that is created by Judeo-Christians-- or any supreme being in particular. But this does not mean that I exclude the existence of some Supreme Being or Supreme Power, in general.

As for atheism, I don't have to "take a plunge". I consider myself already an "atheist", since I don't believe in God, esp. the God that is created by Judeo-Christians-- or any supreme being in particular. But this does not mean that I exclude the existence of some Supreme Being or Supreme Power, in general. — Alkis Piskas

Same here. The possibility exists that god exists. Despite all probabilities that arise from what we (as a species) know.

But would it not be the Buddha who had founded Buddhism? After all, it was Christ who founded Christianity, Marx who founded Marxism .... — god must be atheist

No, Buddhism is not created by Buddha. You might find some who say so, but it's inaccurate. Buddhism is founded --we don't know by whom- based on the treachings of Buddha.
No, it is not Christ who founded Christianity. The Christian religion was founded by his disciples and other followers based on his teachings.
No, it is not Marx who founded Marxism. Marxism is based on the works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

:up:

Right.

No, it is not Christ who founded Christianity. (... etc.) — Alkis Piskas

I have to agree with you on those although a bit reluctantly. But I can't raise an intelligent argument against it, so I accept your position.

There is nothing better than settling philosophical arguments by the fireside, with Cuban cigars and a fine Port, agreeing to disagree, or to lull oneself into a state of pleasantness in which agreement is more important than triumphing by using nothing but the tools and daresay weapons of logic alone. — god must be atheist

Well, I'm not alone in being partial to mutual agreement. We all want to get along with each other - in fact it seems to be #1 on our wish list - and one condition for that is purportedly agreement on pragmata. However, some have gone a step further and are perfectly fine with what is expressed in the phrase "agree to disagree". In my estimation there's more to beliefs than justification alone - there are, for instance, psychological "reasons" that decide what we consider worthy/unworthy of belief. Euthyphro's dilemma manages to address both aspects of belief adoption - on the one hand we have justified belief (God isn't logically necessary for ethics) and other hand we have a psychological impetus (God isn't desirable).

If we reduce this to mathematics:
Does 1+1 equal 2 because God created the rules of math, or does God proclaim that 1+1 = 2 because 1+1 = 2?
Is there a third option? That God IS the rules of math?

What is the basis for axioms. Philosophy and science, any knowledge endeavor, relies upon axioms. Where do axioms get their authority from? What are axioms? Physical, mental, or something else?

Axioms don't strike me as physical. Therefor I am inclined to think they rest upon some absolute "mind" sort of reality.

Are axioms true because God says so, or does God proclaim the axioms because they are true, or is God the apex axiom?

But I can't raise an intelligent argument against it, so I accept your position. — god must be atheist

That's a wise desision! :grin: