It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by adjensen
But God and "good" are not separate things, and the nature of "good" isn't a declaration of his, it is who he is. You may not have read the bit in Hebrews, but, in it, the author states that God cannot lie, and this is an accepted notion of the Christian God.
Then morality exists independently of god(s) and therefore cannot be sourced to the divine. The god(s) would additionally be subjected to these qualities, calling into question the concepts of the omnipotence of the god(s). .
Originally posted by eight bits
So, assuming that the Good existed apart from the gods, how is "calling into question" some attribute of gods a fatal problem? It's what theologians do all day.
As I showed in my post, a god, when presented with a proposition, might choose to be bound to observe it. For example, the Abrahamic god, Jesus, is said to have limited his omnipotence by choosing to be bound to revisit Earth someday.
If the god cannot bind himself, his omnipotence is limited, then, too. Since you haven't shown there are any adverse consequences of voluntary self-binding, you haven't perfected a dilemma.
If you would claim an "omnipotence" problem, then all you'd have actually shown is that omnipotence must be defined carefully, as everybody already knows from the "rock that a god can't lift" chestnuts.
Plato's culture's gods aren't omnipotent anyway, so there's no problem at all in that respect within the scope of the OP. And you haven't established that the Good is necessarily distinct from the Godhead, either.
Originally posted by Ausar
since this is in the philo and meta sub forum; the source of morals lies in the very nature of how the word is being manifest before the nature of the act.
Originally posted by spy66
Adam and Eve, was for the first time in their life faced with a moral choice. "Who to believe in"
"The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are then in this situation: is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good." -Bertrand Russell
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by spy66
Adam and Eve, was for the first time in their life faced with a moral choice. "Who to believe in"
Adam and Eve were also subject to and operating on Divine Command. They were told what to do and what not to do arbitrarily. Does this make eating the fruit "immoral" and not eating it "moral" simply becaue God decreed it?
Originally posted by dominicus
These are all arguments in the realm of the limited human understanding, limited mind, limited logic/reason.
In contrast to God who is unlimited, beyond limited understanding, transcendent, and so forth.
Euthyphro's Dilemma is an invention of a limited mind clawing and grasping at the beyond and in doing so trying to establish an intellectual hypothesis, rules, limits, and so forth. None of which at the end of the day are really applicable in the grand scheme.
The highest truth is to experience directly absolute truth, and on the way there reject all relativities, ideas, and concepts. That which is found at the end of the journey destroys all questions and all doubts..
Originally posted by spy66
Or would you have asked your self: Who has authority here: God or the Snake?
Originally posted by trekwebmaster
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
Morality and Ethics change with time and situation; is this question about morality really relevant?
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by spy66
Or would you have asked your self: Who has authority here: God or the Snake?
How could they have made any distinction if they had not yet acquired the knowledge of good and evil?
---
Originally posted by spy66
Adam and Eve live under the authority of God.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by spy66
Adam and Eve live under the authority of God.
Fair enough.
How do you think Adam and Eve relate to Euthyphro's Dilemma?
Originally posted by spy66
Adam and Eve was for the first time in their life,faced with a moral choice " A moral dilemma". "To fallow Gods command or the Snakes words".
I have a question for you. Was it immoral of God to command Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge?
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by spy66
Adam and Eve was for the first time in their life,faced with a moral choice " A moral dilemma". "To fallow Gods command or the Snakes words".
Apologies in advance, but I don't think that Euthyphro's Dilemma is a moral dilemma at all. It's more of a philosophical dilemma.
I have a question for you. Was it immoral of God to command Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of knowledge?
I believe so because of the circumstances, particularly if God is omniscient.
Originally posted by spy66
God is thee creator. Creation is Gods plan and Gods work. God makes the rules.