The Source Of Morality: Euthyphro's Dilemma

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by spy66

God is thee creator. Creation is Gods plan and Gods work. God makes the rules.

In that case, would you argue that those things which god commands are automatically, inherently moral? That is, morality is sourced directly to god?

God put the tree of knowledge "of good and evil" in the midst of the garden. I would say that, since God put such a tree there. God also had to inform and command Adam and Eve not to take from it. "Which God did".

I would say that, God made a correct moral choice. Since he had created such a tree and put it in the garden with Adam and Eve. There is nothing immoral by creating such a tree, if you also inform and give a command not to take from it.

God was the moral one. He spoke the truth about the tree and what would happen. The Snake didn't directly lie. Adam and Eve didn't die right of way. But they died non the less in the end.

That does make the Snake the immoral one since he lied.

Originally posted by spy66

God put the tree of knowledge "of good and evil" in the midst of the garden. I would say that, since God put such a tree there.

Where does the good and evil come from? Do they come from god? Or do they exist apart from god and he merely reports on it?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by spy66

God put the tree of knowledge "of good and evil" in the midst of the garden. I would say that, since God put such a tree there.

Where does the good and evil come from? Do they come from god? Or do they exist apart from god and he merely reports on it?

God tels us that the tree gives us "the knowledge between good and evil". It also kills you. "But God can not die and God has not experienced death". But still God knows what death will mean for Adam and Eve.

Having the knowledge between good and evil does not make you evil until you have committed a evil or a immoral act. God knew how good and evil would be experienced by Man.

Who would God have been evil to before he created?

Originally posted by spy66

Who would God have been evil to before he created?

Well, I don't know. But are you implying god has the ability to be evil?

I'm really interested in where you think the source of morality is. Does it come from god? Or does it exist separately from god?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

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.

Saying that God would never command evil (or lie) in itself shows that God gets his morals from an outside source. If God would never command rape and murder because they're evil (or lie) then where did he get the determination that they were evil (or lies)?

Because they are contrary to his own will. You're still seeing God and good as being two separate things, but they are not. God is good. God is the source of the notion of good.

The claim that God would not command evil (or lie) because it goes against God's nature does not actually change the problem, but only reorganizes it. The question might then be reasonably asked, "Where does God's nature come from?"

That is somewhat akin to me asking you where your arm came from, metaphorically. It didn't "come from" anywhere, it is God. It is part of who he is. It emanates from him.

Did God create it himself? If so then God's whims are still behind what he considers right and wrong, and the dilemma still applies.

Even if this were the case (and I don't know that it is or it is not, I would lump this into an awful lot of the incomprehensibility piece,) what's the big deal? The Christian God is eternal and unchanging, so if he "decided" that good was this and evil was that, then that's what they are and that's what they will stay. You are not compelled to agree with him, or even to follow him, so what's your beef? Resentment that someone out there has the cajones to say that these acts are good, and those acts are not?

You bandy about the word "whim", implying that God just randomly changes his mind and just because rape is seen as evil today, it doesn't mean that he won't pronounce it good tomorrow. As far as the Christian God is viewed, however, this could not happen.

Knowing your fondness for the Old Testament, I'll give you a passage from Numbers:

God is not a man, that he should lie,
nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?
- Numbers 23:19 (NIV)

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by spy66

Who would God have been evil to before he created?

Well, I don't know. But are you implying god has the ability to be evil?

I'm really interested in where you think the source of morality is. Does it come from god? Or does it exist separately from god?

I believe God can be what ever he wants to be morally. He has the authority to choose.

God created Man in he's image as a living being. But this being God created lives on earth, and observes reality on earth. God created Man as a specific dimension and gave it life and the image "spirit" of him self. In the beginning Adam and Eve were moral, because they had only God to learn from.

If God is everything. Then God is also the moral source. There are no other places morality can come from.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

Well, so you declare, but how is this any different than avoiding the question by unilaterally dismissing it? You've simply evaded the dilemma by declaring your god to have qualities that transcend it, though you have not established that any of these qualities, or your god, actually exist.

Because it is what it is. Its not necessarily avoiding the question, its the fact that life is what it is before any of our ideas of it. Besides that I'd much rather experience something directly than to just talk and think about it as I believe most would also.

This isn't some "my God" or "their God" deal ...this is the infinity of all thing everywhere and is not owned by any creed or culture. Does oxygen or the universe belong to anyone? Hence the frameworks of duality.

The establishment of that these qualities and this God exist is to look for yourself. However those of antiquity that have looked and found all have the same thing to say; This reality of God is beyond thought, the mind, logic and reason. ANd why is that? Because these are all frameworks that we are taught, programmed into using, from the moment we are born.

So in a sense, it is necessary to strip one's self to get to the bottom of the original state of awareness before any of this programming took place. And when one undergoes this, there at the end of the tunnel ....is the direct experience of this God Omni-present in all things and transcendent.

So we have:
1. Those who took the journey and found this to be true.
2. Those that haven't taken the journey and so don't know if this is possible i.e (speculation)
______________________________________________________________________

If such a thing can only be accessed through subjective experience how can you then discern it from hallucination or delusion?

1. Because the end results (even approaching this whole deal with skepticism) ends up being exactly as was described by those who have seen this reality before me, or before others.
2. How can you discern that the state and level with which you see things now isn't some mass hallucination or delusion

3. Personally it cant be hallucination or delusion because in this state all biases, the filters of the mind, the limits of the senses, the limits of logic/reason are all transcended and new faculties that can take in infinity and transcendence and timelessness seem to appear. It is absolute freedom.

How can you recognize it as "absolute truth" by rejecting all relatives, ideas and concepts?

Because for something to be absolute it would mean that it does not rely on any relatives, ideas, or concepts. In this case, the direct knowing or experiencing of this Absolute happens to be beyond any of these things.

So at the end of the day there are 2 parties. One says that this Absoluteness is real and can be experienced and they tell how they got "there" and that it truly is beyond all frameworks. And another party which never took the journey, has no idea what lies at the end of it, and is not only forced too, but stuck within the limited frameworks of the programming of this world's relative level of understanding, logic, and reason.

Originally posted by dominicus
This isn't some "my God" or "their God" deal ...

Actually, it is. Everyone has a different definition for "god".

However those of antiquity that have looked and found all have the same thing to say; This reality of God is beyond thought, the mind, logic and reason.

Incorrect. Many religions claim to know exactly those things about "god".

1. Because the end results (even approaching this whole deal with skepticism) ends up being exactly as was described by those who have seen this reality before me, or before others.

Such consistency is not a method to discern such things. We can find people with similar tales about alien abduction. It doesn't mean any of them were actually abducted by aliens.

So at the end of the day there are 2 parties. One says that this Absoluteness is real and can be experienced and they tell how they got "there" and that it truly is beyond all frameworks. And another party which never took the journey, has no idea what lies at the end of it, and is not only forced too, but stuck within the limited frameworks of the programming of this world's relative level of understanding, logic, and reason.

How again is this beyond logic and reasoning and how is this not avoiding the dilemma? Do you at least agree that there exists such a thing as morality?

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

Actually, it is. Everyone has a different definition for "god".

But what I'm talking about is beyond definition, is not relative to anyone's definition, has existed before there even was anyone to create definitions, and definitions of it pale in comparison to its reality. In that case it goes right back to not being a case of "my God or their God." It is what it is and is not owned by anyone or anyone's definition.

Incorrect. Many religions claim to know exactly those things about "god".

Perhaps, but the differences are strictly based on on the creations of the people who came after wards and start trying to reinterpret what is nondual within the dual frameworks of thought. And so its very easy to get lost in translation. But the core principals are all the same. Put 10 individuals in a room all who have claimed to have experienced the Absolute and there will be mostly agreement and a knowing that whatever is said is immediately out of the confines of the reality of that.

Just like we can read and talk about what it must be like to have Ice Cream. But to actually have it and experience knocks reading and talking about it out of the water.

Such consistency is not a method to discern such things. We can find people with similar tales about alien abduction. It doesn't mean any of them were actually abducted by aliens.

But thats just the thing..... you can call me an "Alien Abduction Agnostic" because I just dont know if that is a reality or not. It is definitely a possibility or can be mass delusion sure. But for me to really know I would have to inspect every single detail of this, meet the people who say they were abducted, stay with them for a while to see if it happens to me, hook them up to lie detectors, study their brains MRI style, and completely submerge myself in everything that has to do with that to see if this true including tactics that are out there that say if you follow them will result in an abduction.

ANd so just like with the Absolute, some have completely submerged themselves in it and found it to be true.

The difference? Alien abduction seems to be random and out of ones control, where as the path towards the direct experience of Absolute truth can be repeated and is something that you can control the speed of to a certain extent. Once at certain depths however ......things seem to continue on ...on their own.

How again is this beyond logic and reasoning and how is this not avoiding the dilemma? Do you at least agree that there exists such a thing as morality?

BEcause everything conceptual, thought based, and ideas are not real. They are the realm of imagination and mind. The thought of something is not the reality of that something, just like the thought of the rock in my hand is not the same as the actual rock in my hand.

ANd so all of this philosophizing, subjectivity, biases, likes and dislikes, amongst our whole frame of reference is primarily based on the illusion of thought, which is just painting over the reality of what already is.
___________________________________________________________________________
Is there morality? Yes I would say so. However its not so cut and dry as to be relative or not, as to be based on cultural programming. There are functions going on within us that are barely if at all understood by the scientific community. We now have to take into consideration a conscience that communicates before mind even reflects on it. Besides conscience there are deeper inner hidden faculties at work within mankind. However most of these are forgotten, lost, not tapped into, completely covered up by westernized programming, materialism, over intellectualizing, etc.

These are things yet beyond the current knowledge base's level of understanding. The reason God is involved at all in this debate on morality, is because it seems the closer one gets to God/Absolute truth, the more balance seems to occur within giving access to inner intuition, inner conscience, and a clear set of morals that are not programmed or affected by where and how you grew up. Let alone when one reaches the Absolute truth as a direct experience, it leads to the melting away of the sense of self and the revelation that everything is United (just like what Quantum physics says about mathematical models that prove quantum states.)

And so with a clear view of what the conscience shows unobstructed by what we think about it, add to that the experience of No-Self ...it makes one much more caring and loving and wanting to help others because then others are seen as an extension of the self.

It gets much more complicated than that ....however the main points are made.

reply to post by dominicus


Once again, you've made certain definitions of "god", even calling it beyond definition. You have attributed certain qualities to it. You have referred to it as "absolute truth". Yet you have not established the existence of such a thing, just asserted it. Is there any way at all you can support your claims with tangible, testable, scientific evidence?

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

Once again, you've made certain definitions of "god", even calling it beyond definition. You have attributed certain qualities to it. You have referred to it as "absolute truth". Yet you have not established the existence of such a thing, just asserted it. Is there any way at all you can support your claims with tangible, testable, scientific evidence?

Yes perhaps certain definitions were made on my part, but the understanding is that they mean nothing in the face of the reality of experiencing the Absolute truth. Beyond qualities, beyond description, and yet entirely real. I is necessary to use words to even mention the existence of such, but at the end of the day, "that" stands on its own.

You want "tangible, testable, scientific evidence", but yet all of these 3 are conditional branches of academia that you want to use to prove what is unconditional? Its apples and oranges.

Science studies material substances. The Absolute is both material and immaterial so the fact that material even exists and that possibly Infinity may be a reality right there alone is enough to start up a whole semantic theological argument for the existence of the Absolute.

Science only recently moved past studying consciousness itself as being psuedo-science and taboo, 2 things it was once considered but now being slowly integrated into the main-stream.

The current state of science is limited and incomplete. You want to use a limited and incomplete knowledge base the primarily studies material to prove the existence of Absolute Truth? Again apples and oranges.

Your scientific evidence for this reality cannot currently be done except in the act of MRI scans of those who experience this reality will show areas of the brain lit up that aren't in those who dont experience this. Just like we know the area of the brain when a person is directly experiencing eating an observable apple.

You want "tangible" but what does that exactly mean? Tangible is relative and depends on senses and units of measure. We still have units of measure undiscovered by science (in example trying to trap anti-matter is a recent gig in science that just 20 years ago was deemed impossible). We think only the 5 senses resemble the functions to qualify something as tangible and yet there is conscience, intuition, creativity, and many other inner workings yet not understood. And you still want tangible according to your own idea of it?

You want "testable"? Well in that arena there are possibilities. I also approached this "Absolute" as a skeptic and at the very beginning as an Atheist, then later an agnostic. I found there were techniques, practices, and methods that would get a person to the experience of the Absolute. I tested these and found that there was something that revealed itself within reality at the end of these testable "paths".

And so the only way as of know to see if there is an absolute is take up one, a few, or all of these methods to get there to see for one's self what is there. However just speculating and wondering about the methods alone results in nothing but more speculative and conceptual thinking and the resulting conclusions based on such parimeters as having only thought about but not looked for one's self.

In a manner, one becomes a spiritual scientist testing the paths, methods, and techniques by those who claim the Absolute and the resulting methods they left behind for others to traverse. Having tested most of them as an agnostic, I walked away completely convinced through a direct knowing that Absolute Truth is real and alive and infinite amongst many other things. But the descriptions themselves are semantics and pale in comparison to the direct realization of the real thing itself.

Definitely testable and some would say tangible. But science is very far off from understanding this. It will take some time before they acknowledge this and yet we have very similar accounts that parallel this reality in Quantum physics and the study of quantum math and quantum states.

Its just a loss of translation and semantics. Basically God = Quantum State = Infinity = Mathematical proof of the existence of infinite quantum states = pure objectivity = pure unlocalized Consciousness = (can keep going and going in what-ever lingo you would like be it scientific, mystical, spiritual, laymen, etc) The labels of it dont change what it already is.

Tha which is, already is ....what is said about it though is a whole different realm.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Question has been put 'Does God exist?'

God does exist - to have a concept of God is to create God, be it just a concept, from this point we begin to imbue God with characteristics that we believe are appropriate,the most important one of these for the sake of the moral arguement is empathy.
An empathic God knows our pain and does not want us to suffer so we imbue God with a set of guidelines that prevent suffering (morals).
Add love, compassion, hope and faith to the mix and the mind has created a powerful concept, and that concept is true and utterly real for that individual.
Unfortunately the concept is then used as a form of control.

But there again there may be a divine entity that naturally embodies the principles laid out for a man made God and maybe those same principles held true when that entity became self aware (Concept of self).

Nice thread btw

Originally posted by dominicus
You want "tangible, testable, scientific evidence", but yet all of these 3 are conditional branches of academia that you want to use to prove what is unconditional? Its apples and oranges.

Science studies material substances. The Absolute is both material and immaterial so the fact that material even exists and that possibly Infinity may be a reality right there alone is enough to start up a whole semantic theological argument for the existence of the Absolute.

You claim above that this "absolute truth" is material. This means it can be tested.

Your scientific evidence for this reality cannot currently be done except in the act of MRI scans of those who experience this reality will show areas of the brain lit up that aren't in those who dont experience this. Just like we know the area of the brain when a person is directly experiencing eating an observable apple.

All this shows is that one's experiences reside in the brain, not that some "absolute truth" is real.

You want "tangible" but what does that exactly mean?

Something that can confirm the existence of the Absolute Truth God to other people without relying solely on your testimony.

You want "testable"? Well in that arena there are possibilities. I also approached this "Absolute" as a skeptic and at the very beginning as an Atheist, then later an agnostic. I found there were techniques, practices, and methods that would get a person to the experience of the Absolute. I tested these and found that there was something that revealed itself within reality at the end of these testable "paths".

Are you talking about ingestion of substances? Perhaps some yoga or meditation? Is there anything to indicate that the Absolute Truth God exists outside of the human brain?

And so the only way as of know to see if there is an absolute is take up one, a few, or all of these methods to get there to see for one's self what is there. However just speculating and wondering about the methods alone results in nothing but more speculative and conceptual thinking and the resulting conclusions based on such parimeters as having only thought about but not looked for one's self.

How is this proving the objective existence of Absolute Truth God? You're still relying on subjective experience.

In a manner, one becomes a spiritual scientist testing the paths, methods, and techniques by those who claim the Absolute and the resulting methods they left behind for others to traverse. Having tested most of them as an agnostic, I walked away completely convinced through a direct knowing that Absolute Truth is real and alive and infinite amongst many other things. But the descriptions themselves are semantics and pale in comparison to the direct realization of the real thing itself.

It's not "spiritual science", it's metaphysics. Philosophy that pretends to be science for lack of a laboratory.

Definitely testable and some would say tangible. But science is very far off from understanding this. It will take some time before they acknowledge this and yet we have very similar accounts that parallel this reality in Quantum physics and the study of quantum math and quantum states.

Apologies, but whenever quantum physics is invoked to validate something mystical and unproven it immediately raises red flags. This is quite common in new age and mystical claims.

Its just a loss of translation and semantics. Basically God = Quantum State = Infinity = Mathematical proof of the existence of infinite quantum states = pure objectivity = pure unlocalized Consciousness = (can keep going and going in what-ever lingo you would like be it scientific, mystical, spiritual, laymen, etc) The labels of it dont change what it already is.

Let's see some actual math instead of more definitions of Absolute Truth God.
-------

This has been a futile exercise in avoiding the dilemma posted in the OP. The topic is ultimately the source of morality and how it relates to what is considered the divine. It is not about your god with unique qualities that exempts itself from the OP - which you cannot prove exists. Do you have any discussion on Euthyphro's Dilemma?

Originally posted by Jamjar
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Question has been put 'Does God exist?'

God does exist - to have a concept of God is to create God, be it just a concept, from this point we begin to imbue God with characteristics that we believe are appropriate,the most important one of these for the sake of the moral arguement is empathy.

God does not exist because it's conceptualized, no more than unicorns exist because they're conceptualized.

An empathic God knows our pain and does not want us to suffer so we imbue God with a set of guidelines that prevent suffering (morals).
Add love, compassion, hope and faith to the mix and the mind has created a powerful concept, and that concept is true and utterly real for that individual.

Thinking that something is real and it actually being real are separate things. If people receive benefit and false hope from imaginary things, those things are still imaginary.

Unfortunately the concept is then used as a form of control.

Many religions will use the god concept to control others.

But there again there may be a divine entity that naturally embodies the principles laid out for a man made God and maybe those same principles held true when that entity became self aware (Concept of self).

Huh?

Sure, there may be a divine entity somewhere. Where is it?
-----

As much as I love the "does god exist" topic I'm afraid this thread deals with the subject of morality. Do you have any opinions on the source of morality?

reply to post by 547000


And none of that sounds like gibberish to you?

I mean -- if my employer told me to divorce my wife or lose my job, what should I do? They employ me after all, and who am I to argue with those who put bread on my table, even if they command me to do something thoroughly insane, like murder my own kids or divorce my wife?

IMO -- Christianity would be better served if it NEVER mentioned the old testament at all.

Morality comes from a psycho-social contract we share with every other living creature on the planet, especially other humans. Normal people feel it instinctively, and do not randomly kill, rape, burn or destroy. Others need religion to provide a framework, and I am glad they have it, because having seen the way some of their leaders act out in public, a lot of them would be monsters without their mythology.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


It's a good question, why don't we just all slaughter each other and take what we want when we want it? Most people have a sense of morality...where did it come from, did it evolve?

Originally posted by didact
It's a good question, why don't we just all slaughter each other and take what we want when we want it? Most people have a sense of morality...where did it come from, did it evolve?

Indeed, where did it come from. I have a good idea where it came from, but I'm interested in where YOU think morality came from.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


I don't think I was clear,

Source of morality is our own desire not to experience discomfort and God can be percieved as a conceptual creation to develop further and enforce that morality.

And I must argue that whatever is created within mind is real to the individual experiencing it, be it God or Unicorns, in the same way when we dream those experiences are as real as our waking ones.

The other stuff was a little cryptic and probably of topic (sorry)

Alternatively morality may have developed with other religious concepts when grooming was no longer an effective method of social bonding due to primate troop size (if you want i'll go into this one further, off to bed now)

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

You claim above that this "absolute truth" is material. This means it can be tested.

nevermind you misunderstood my point. Material is just one aspect of God. Material is obvious and science has proven it. It is just one aspect of many....

All this shows is that one's experiences reside in the brain, not that some "absolute truth" is real.

DId you read what I wrote? We can watch a man eat an apple, and at the same time register the area of the brain that lights up when this happens. So what you are saying is the eating of the apple is not real? It only resides in the brain? In that case all of reality then only resides in the brain according to your above statement.

Something that can confirm the existence of the Absolute Truth God to other people without relying solely on your testimony.

Yes the direct experience of that reality confirms that reality. Then one can tell others how to experience that and they do to and can confirm its real.

Are you saying the direct experience of something is not real?

Are you talking about ingestion of substances? Perhaps some yoga or meditation?

No has nothing to do with the ingestion of substances ...that would just be hallucination. But in the case of the experience of Absolute truth, it becomes permanent and is an advantage in perspective over those who do not experience this. For those that don't, they operate subjectively with filters and biases. Those who do experience Absolute truth see everything objectively unfiltered, pure empathy, unbiased unadulterated. Its the pinnacle of how One can be.

Is there anything to indicate that the Absolute Truth God exists outside of the human brain?

Is there anything that indicates that anything exists outside of the human brain from your perspective?

Over here in the experience of the absolute it is inside oneself and at the same time outside and everywhere. Its nonlocalized.

How is this proving the objective existence of Absolute Truth God? You're still relying on subjective experience.

Because in the experience of the absolute ...subjectivity melts into objectivity of seeing all things at once, and yet the seeing is from everywhere and not from a subjective self. These are realms beyond words.

Ultimately there are blueprints on how to get "there" and those that follow the blueprints even skeptically will always walk away 100% knowing that there is an Absolute.

It's not "spiritual science", it's metaphysics. Philosophy that pretends to be science for lack of a laboratory.

Call it what you will, but it is exactly the same as science. Only that you yourself become the lab, the scientist, the experiment, and the testable result.

Your biased filters wont allow you to see it that way.

Apologies, but whenever quantum physics is invoked to validate something mystical and unproven it immediately raises red flags. This is quite common in new age and mystical claims.

Those red flags are biased filters on your part and therefor invalid. We can find people all over the world for whom these "red flags" dont exist when we bring up the quantum fields to validate the mystical. So in this case are your "red flags" 100% true and concretely valid?

What the mystics have said for thousands of years is entirely compatible with the recent findings in Quantum studies and mathematical studies and has nothing to do with new age. New Age is a recent movement from the last 30-40 years. Mysticism has been around for thousands of years.

Get over your self created biased red flags and then you'll see pieces of the puzzle fall together in an entirely intelligent and brilliant manner.

Let's see some actual math instead of more definitions of Absolute Truth God.

Google Georg Cantor and read up on his Infinite Math findings. I can give alot more but will take a few hours of research. Cantor is good though because he proves mathematically the existence of Infinity and infinite math. While all of that is symbolic of reality, in reality also we can substantiate the division of ever smaller units of measurements infinitely as well, i.e. the quantum fields.

This has been a futile exercise in avoiding the dilemma posted in the OP. The topic is ultimately the source of morality and how it relates to what is considered the divine.

Already showed how it relates to the divine. There is an inner conscience/intuition that seems to be the source of mans morals and this inner faculty is prior to the mind. First the conscience/intuition does its thing, then the mind comes in and says something about it. In this case we are circumventing the relative programmed aspect of taught morals and getting to something deeper within.

This within-ness seems to be connected to the idea of a soul and therefor an extension/connection to God. Thats how morals are ultimately considered "Divine"

Those who lack some of these universal inner morals, simply have gone through some kind of trauma or have completely forgotten or covered up that inner guidance.

It is not about your god with unique qualities that exempts itself from the OP

HAs everything to do with it because everything is inherently connected to the Absolute. Everything is an extension of Absolute Infinity.

Do you have any discussion on Euthyphro's Dilemma?

Yes its crap and means completely nothing in retrospect to the experiences of the ABsolute. Anyone can create a dilemma for anything using logic and reason.

(1a). The Good is willed by God because it is the Good.

Our egos completely block access to God and create ilusuory justifications for both good and bad.

(1b). The Good is the Good because it is willed by God.

Free will. Free will is the law of the land and so all are free to choose good or bad

2. If (1a) is true, then the Good is independent of God’s will.

IS anything we do that good independent of our own will? Good is an idea that can be projected into reality as action.

3. If (2) is true, then God did not create the Good, and is not Creator.

circular logic. God is the original source of all creation. But then creation itself can create more things. We make cars, houses, wars, good, and bad. Does that mean God is not the creator of these things? Yes because technically we make these things. But also No because we are extensions of the original source and all things are basically God. Add free will and wallah!!!!

4. If (1b) is true, then the Good is contingent and subjective (to God’s will).

u will have kids one day or already do/ You wish them the best and good things in life but ultimately leave them free to do as they wish within certain boundaries. They are free to do as they will.

The whole dilemma assumes and conceptualizes that God is a certain way. But he is completely beyond all certain ways.

reply to post by 0zzymand0s


It's not mumbo-jumbo. If the man had absolute control of your soul, you very well will do it to avoid his threats. Hell is not a pleasant place, and anyone would do anything to avoid it if they knew it was a reality. Being fired is temporary, but hell is permanent.

Without the Old Testament and the prophecies therein, there would be no New Testament. So I disagree that the world would be better without the OT.