[Poul]

My reaction to the specific wording of the Euthyphro is that the “God wills something because He is good…” part can only be understood as saying that something is good because God wills it. But this leads to the conclusion that theocracy is better than democracy, which is a position that I don’t expect Craig to hold.

Another pertinent observation is that if killing a human is absolutely forbidden by God, you would expect conservative states like Texas, Iran and Saudi Arabia to have abolished the death penalty. Reality is that they are the states that use the death penalty most often.

[Pater]

I don’t know what Craig’s thinking is on the question of best form of government. My thought is that government by a King or Queen who always follows God’s will would be the best form of government by far. The problem is that that person doesn’t exist.

God forbids murder. God does not forbid the death penalty. The state of Texas believes that some people willingly forfeit their right to stay alive through their own criminal behavior. The states of Iran and Saudi Arabia add political crimes and religious crimes to the list of infractions that earn the death penalty. But they worship a different god.

[Poul]

It seems you are wishing for a theocratic North Korea.

The biggest moral problem with the death penalty is that innocent persons get convicted and executed. It has happened and it will happen again as long as law enforcement sees a conviction as a win.

[Pater]

Poul said: “It seems you are wishing for a theocratic North Korea.”

I can’t say that I understand why you would say that. I don’t see the connection to the discussion.

Poul said: “The biggest moral problem with the death penalty is that innocent persons get convicted and executed. It has happened and it will happen again as long as law enforcement sees a conviction as a win.”

You started out good. That would be a tragedy, although I don’t know of specific cases. Most people in law enforcement see catching and punishing criminals as a win for good. That is changing as society in general becomes more Godless and confused. Rejection of God’s objective morality is an instrumental cause of all sorts of injustice.

Your objections center on the frailties and imperfections of people. On that we agree. It seems obvious that societies and a world that agreed on the objective morality of a holy God would be best.

[Poul]

I take that back. You were arguing for a Christian Saudi Arabia.

“Most people in law enforcement see catching and punishing criminals as a win for good.”

The problem is that “we have to catch the murderer” too easily becomes “If we can find someone to blame, we have a win; if not we lose”.

[Pater]

Again you say something that has no connection and is false. Why do you keep doing that?

I’m reminded of a verse from Titus: “To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.”

It may be quite difficult for you to believe that there actually do exist police officers, lawyers, and judges who have Godly, or at least altruistic motives. But that’s because of what’s inside of you, not what’s inside of them.

[Poul]

PA: “My thought is that government by a King or Queen who always follows God’s will would be the best form of government by far. The problem is that that person doesn’t exist.”

PO: You were arguing for a Christian Saudi Arabia.

PA: “Again you say something that has no connection and is false. Why do you keep doing that?“

PO: You don’t see the connection? If the king of Saudi Arabia argues that he always follows God’s will (as I’m sure he does), how are we to know that he doesn’t? I think that question is very much on topic.

PA: “It may be quite difficult for you to believe that there actually do exist police officers, lawyers, and judges who have Godly, or at least altruistic motives. But that’s because of what’s inside of you, not what’s inside of them.“

PO: I don’t doubt that they exist. But the law enforcement system encourages different motives.

[Poul]

Pater: “God does not forbid the death penalty.“

I would think the death penalty conflicts with the christian message of forgiveness. I specifically asked perplexity “Does Christianity offer forgiveness in this life” and it told me:

“Yes, Christianity offers forgiveness in this life. The core message of Christianity is one of forgiveness, where God loves people but they have rebelled against Him and need to be forgiven. This forgiveness is not something that can be earned or deserved, but is offered by God through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ“.

[jayceeii]

I presume you mean “Perplexity AI,” and I’m impressed how well a machine can accept and restate the formula. Can any preachers do better? Now drill in on the particulars, see if we’ll have AI preachers before long, in humanity’s evident quest to replace themselves.

[jayceeii]

I tried it and see what I got. It looks like the debate you and Pater have been having!

Based on the search results provided, the Bible and Christianity do not have a clear, unambiguous stance on the death penalty. Here is a summary of the key points:

• The Old Testament law prescribed the death penalty for various crimes, indicating that capital punishment was accepted and even commanded by God at that time.

• However, Jesus and the New Testament teachings emphasize love, forgiveness, and not taking revenge, which some interpret as rejecting the death penalty.

• There are differing Christian views on the death penalty - some see it as biblically justified, while others argue it goes against Jesus' teachings of mercy and not condemning others.

• Concerns are raised about the death penalty system being flawed, with the possibility of executing innocent people and racial biases in its application.

• Overall, the Bible and Christianity do not provide a clear, unambiguous stance on the death penalty. There are reasonable arguments on both sides within the Christian tradition.

In summary, the Bible and Christianity do not definitively state that the death penalty is wrong. There are reasonable arguments on both sides of this issue within the Christian faith.

[Pater]

Poul said: “My reaction to the specific wording of the Euthyphro is that the “God wills something because He is good…” part can only be understood as saying that something is good because God wills it.”

Then you’ve missed the difference. According to your interpretation, and the Euthyphro dilemma, God could be selfish or capricious, but we would have to agree with Him that anything He wills is good just because He said so. Craig’s point is that God is good by His immutable nature. He is the objective definition of goodness. Therefore, anything God wills is good.

• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  Pater.

[Poul]

But we can’t read the mind of God. If we assume he is all good, we have to conclude that he only wills what is good. And if we want to know what is good, we have to listen to what he wills, don’t we? The difference is a tiny epistemic detail that effectively makes no difference.

[Pater]

We’re talking about the Euthyphro dilemma, which is a classical argument about the ontology of goodness. Craig’s argument is that it’s a false dilemma. It successfully defeats the argument. It sounds like you want to make an “evil god” argument, which is different altogether. I don’t see the usefulness of conflating the two.

• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  Pater.

[Poul]

Not at all. I’m just saying that the epistemic problem of knowing God’s will makes Craig’s argument pointless in reality.

[jayceeii]

I thought it humorous that at a Christian forum, the software faithfully tried to look up “God.org” as you mentioned it, and finding nothing, glibly reported that it is “not found.”

Craig’s argument is faulty, and you list valid reasons against it.

PO: Craig argues that we should take our morality from God because God is the very definition of good.

JC: I’d agree with you that this is circular. Trying to say goodness is because it is the way God is, or that anything God does is automatically good, disappears into a kind of vacuous hole. Goodness as defined by creatures, must be immediately relevant to them. Saying that God defines the good by His essence, says nothing without statements about His essence. Then when you do that, you have the question how this relates to creatures.

PO: We are also told that God is omnibenevolent.

JC: I’d agree that this is also circular. It rides on the definition of benevolence, where in fact selfish ones could bind God down to their desires, insisting God be benevolent to them even though it harms their neighbors. If God’s benevolence is to be understood, it would seem creatures must arise to an objective comprehension of what that means. And if they do that, is it on their own grounds, or just because God happens to exist that way?

PO:

1: If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2: Objective moral values do exist.
Therefore, God exists.

JC: The angels establish their own morality independent of God except for the assurance of immortality. Without that, full awareness of eventual disappearance eviscerates morality. There is then no nobility, nor reputation among the noble. This has not been understood, for lack of faculty to comprehend nonexistence. The morality between angels establishes them all in mutual glory and perpetual joy. They can do this among themselves without God’s oversight because of their intense spiritual knowledge about the soul and its properties. This is the angelic plane, that God agrees is well implemented.

The argument thus has a fuller form, of which Craig has presented only the surface.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist since all is transitory and there is no ultimate benefit.
2. Angels establish objective morality among themselves without God’s oversight.
3. It follows the angels have extremely good evidence and proofs of God’s existence and His intent and power to support their souls eternally.

PO (quotes from Euthyphro): Is something good just because God wills it or does God will it because it is good?

JC: This one is tricky, since without God’s Will nothing whatsoever exists. If God does not will it, it does not exist. Therefore anything good can only exist because God willed it, and just because of that. It can draw no independent goodness without admitting its source.

Nonetheless if God wills independent entities into existence, they now have an opportunity to apply what powers and abilities He willed to existence in them. As God continues to support them, He is willing it because it is good. However there are degrees of good, and the goodness of animals is below what God expects from intelligent entities.

PO (quotes from Euthyphro): Neither: God wills something because He is good.

JC: This becomes circular, until the good is defined. The remark misses something critical, that because He is good, God would not will something into existence that is evil, like devils or angels (beings of power) who could become devils. Yet in this case the willing crosses up with what was made, for once there is power the entity is organized, precluding evil. Evil passions arise from disorganized entities who have little bliss.

Once God has willed a being of power into existence, that being will always himself be good. So the remark is taking an undue shortcut to God, when it should concern itself with beings of power, the angels. What the angels will is good, from their organization.

PO (quotes from Euthyphro): God is the standard of moral values …

JC: No, power becomes the standard, along with self-awareness as spirit and purity. The angels become the standard of moral values for their plane, lacking only reassurance of immortality which can only come through the Incarnation, as Jesus said the Invisible God is inaccessible but through Him.

PO (quotes from Euthyphro): The more closely a moral action conforms to God’s nature, the better it is.

JC: The (actual) devils might have a saying like this in their domain, but God and angels looking on see they are so distant from the lowest of God’s standards that it becomes macabre. Their moral actions are always self-serving, their attempts at worship mere flattery. Like Jesus might have said, all their religion is hypocrisy.

PO (quotes from Euthyphro): But if atheism is true, there is no ultimate standard…

JC: The theists have not found an ultimate standard to boast like this. I’d thus concur with you here: “But honestly: I’m not sure the moral values that we can all agree on necessarily deserve to be called objective. But neither do the scriptures.”

PO: And why are Gods or their local representatives to be trusted, anyway? Atheists don’t think so.

JC: Indeed, this morning I listened to a radio preacher saying the environment can be trashed because man is the center of God’s creation. He’d sacrifice his habitat, and himself.

PO: Even if we were to agree across cultures that God does indeed exists, we are still no closer to a shared, objective moral code, because the scriptures disagree, even internally.

JC: This is absolutely so. The world indeed does not have a “god.org” it can refer to. It means God is a poor communicator, or man is a poor listener and God was aware of this.

PO: Divine command theory really isn’t a good idea.

JC: I like how you put this. The religionists say they have been given a firm morality by God, but the evidence is quite contrary to this, with huge schisms even within each religion. The Bible slammers have not closely examined what they’ve been slamming.

[James]

For the premise …

1: If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

… I would argue that it is unsound.

The argument makes a hidden assumption that moral properties must be intrinsic to be objectively real, otherwise they cannot exist objectively all. That is a false dilemma. For example, if moral properties can be thought of as extrinsic and objectively real in the absence of a God (which I think they can) then P1 is demonstrably unsound because it is a non-sequitur (the consequent does not follow from the antecedent being true).

And what would an “objective value” look like?

• This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by  James.

[Poul]

It would seem that the penal code of every nation places objective value on human life. Does that mean we should have as many children as we possibly can?

Military conflicts also present a long list of relativism in relation to human life.

[Poul]

If God is the definition of moral good, how are we to understand the story of Abraham and Isaac? Is it OK to make extreme demands from your subordinates just to test their loyalty?

[Maeve]

Starting off, to your point of God publishing the “current version”, morals do not change over time and are not meant to be updated based on public opinion. There is no “current version” of morals because they are inherent to human life and are not dependent on societal changes. To the argument outline, this argument structure falls into the fallacy of confirming the consequent. For this logic structure to work, you would have to affirm that God exists and therefore, objective morals exist. From a Christian perspective, I affirm this adjustment to the argument and because God exists, there are morals that human beings must abide by.

The Euthyphro is fascinating in the topics and discourse that occurs between Socrates and his friend. The quote that you included makes sense to me, as I accept God as defining goodness and therefore, the course of morals. This poses issue when taken into consideration by an atheist. If some does not believe in God’s existence, how can they accept that He is the course of morality? People consider morals to be intuitive and a deep conviction of people. Everyone agreeing upon a set of morals and using that as a compass of how to operate can be very dangerous. people can be persuaded of many things that are immoral. If popular perception was the dictator of morals, then events like slavery and the Holocaust can be justified, as those were the popular beliefs and assumed morals at the time. Everyone agrees that these events are awful and very immoral. I would like to adjust the original argument to something like this:

1. Morals are universal truths that reflect the most good in society.

2. God is the definition of good.

3. Morals are truths that reflect God’s goodness.

This argument simply correlated the definition of God and what morals are. From this understanding, God continues to dictate morals, as He is the definition of good. His character qualifies Hid position in moral consideration. Qualifying His character gives credibility to His teaching and the Bible regardless if someone believes His existence. How this comes into practice with the way that Christians live their lives may not always perfectly reflect Biblical teachings. However, the Book is for our ultimate good and if something is for our betterment, then it is worth pursuing.

[Jabberwock]

Everyone agrees that these events are awful and very immoral.

But that is the exact issue: even if we ignore the few dissenters (e.g. neo-Nazis do not believe these events were awful), it is still just that NOW everyone agrees. If you made the very same argument several hundred years ago, you might say ‘but everyone agrees that heretics should be burned!’. On the other hand, Maeve from four hundred years in the future might say ‘everyone believes that eating animals is horrible!’. Yet medieval Maeve, you and future Maeve might be equally convinced that it is her version of morality that is ‘universal’ and those from the past (and from the future) are simply wrong. The conviction that out of the whole human history it is somehow us that just happen to get it right is naive at best.

[jayceeii]

This is right, @Jabberwock, the standard of all humans agreeing shifts continually in history, often conflicts across national boundaries, and fails even within the religions. People have an idea there must be objective morality just because it isn’t total chaos. When you look close there are conflicts in all directions, agreeing only about most laws.

[James]

Starting off, to your point of God publishing the “current version”, morals do not change over time and are not meant to be updated based on public opinion.

But according to the Bible, God did publish a “latest version” of what was expected from people, morally. For example, in the teaching of Jesus where he says things like “You have heard it said … but I tell you …” (Matthew 5).

To the argument outline, this argument structure falls into the fallacy of confirming the consequent.

If you’re talking about the moral argument …

P1. If God doesn’t exist then objective moral values don’t exist.

P2. Objective moral values exist.

C. Therefore, God exists.

.. then it does not commit the fallacy. P2 denies the consequent of P1 making it a valid modus tollens. If the argument fails then it is because the premises are not true and not on account of the argument structure.

For this logic structure to work, you would have to affirm that God exists and therefore, objective morals exist.

If P2 affirmed God’s existence then it would end up denying the antecedent of P1, rendering the structure of the argument invalid.

[Poul]

Maeve: “Starting off, to your point of God publishing the “current version”, morals do not change over time and are not meant to be updated based on public opinion. There is no “current version” of morals because they are inherent to human life and are not dependent on societal changes.“

The version morality that I would expect to find at http://www.god.org if divine command theory were true (which of course I don’t believe) may or may not change over time. How are we to know if/when God changes his mind? If we are in doubt on a moral problem, shouldn’t there be an iPhone app of divine origin that we can ask? If not, just who are we supposed to ask? The clergy? Try persuading atheists of that.

Maeve: “Everyone agreeing upon a set of morals and using that as a compass of how to operate can be very dangerous…“

So you are saying that democracy is dangerous. May I remind you that the nazis got rid of it as soon as they came into power. As to the catholic church & the holocaust, perplexity.ai has found that “In summary, the Catholic Church under Pius XII did not push back on the Holocaust in the same way that other organizations or individuals did.” and “After 1933, the Catholic Church and its leaders were largely complicit with the Nazi regime“.

god.org

My Bible

My Bible

[James]

Everyone agreeing that God has commanded them to do something, can be very dangerous too, if that command involves causing others to suffer in some way. Let’s call the whole thing off. We shouldn’t agree on anything!

[Poul]

Kristi Burke doesn’t subscribe to Divine Command Morality anymore – with good reason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEcwo76WDJ8

[Thomas]

The problem is deeper than epistemology. Even if we all agreed that God existed, and even if we had complete knowledge of God’s nature, that would still not establish that God’s nature is the source of objective morality. For just as we can ask why we should care about the flourishing of sentient creatures if someone puts that forward as the source of objective morality, we can ask why we should care about God’s nature if someone puts that forward as the source of objective morality. It is just as hard to get from the “is” of God’s nature to the “ought” of we should act in accordance with God’s nature (as expressed in His commandments) as it is to get from the “is” of sentient creature flourishing to the “ought” of we should promote sentient creature flourishing.

In sum, it may well be that it is hard to establish objective morality from an atheistic point of view, but it is just as hard to do so from a theistic point of view — the same problems apply in both cases. Alex O’Connor has made this point very well — I will find the link and post it. (Note: There are nuances/elaborations here that I have left out for the sake of brevity but that we can get into if desired.)

[James]

Thomas is absolutely correct, as far as I can see. I like to summarise it, this way.

P1. If a being lacks a maximally great cause then their opinions on right and wrong are just preferences and not binding on anyone else.
P2. The uncaused cause of the universe lacks a maximally great cause (tautologically true).
C. Therefore, the uncaused cause’s opinions on right and wrong are just preferences and not binding on anyone else.

P2 cannot be false because assuming that something defined as uncaused has a maximally great cause entails a contradiction. Even if we grant that there is an uncaused cause and that the uncaused cause is a person (in some sense), you still need to convince me that P1 is mistaken in order to convince me that the uncaused cause could be maximally great.

This exposes an even greater problem for this particular theistic position. If the theist truly believes P1 then their assumption that the first cause is maximally great is just an act of special pleading against the assumed truth of P1 (even if they happen to be correct about them having a mind, thoughts and so on).