The Euthyphro dilemma

[KingOfTheIsles]

This dilemma asks whether something is good because it is commanded by God, or if it commanded by God because it is good. Now, this presupposes the fact that morality is objective, which is a notion that I reject, but assume it is true for the dilemma. Now, you have two possibilities:

1. Something is good because God commands it: this implies that morality is arbitrary, and based entirely on the whims of God. Therefore, "good" is an entirely meaningless term, as anything could have been good if God decided so.

2. God commanded it because it is good: this argument implies that God is bound by morals too; he didn't create them, he just passes on to humans what already existed.

Now, Thomas Aquinas argued that God is intrinsically good, therefore the morals he creates are, by definition, good. However, seeing as how God must have created the universe, it is necessary that at one time, the only being in existance was God. Now, because the term "good" is relative, how can there be good if there is no "evil" to compare it to? Thus, if God was at one time the only being in existence, how could he be good? He would just be.

My question is, then, how can God be, objectively, good?

[Zenith Darksea]

However, seeing as how God must have created the universe, it is necessary that at one time, the only being in existance was God.

This depends of course on your view of 'time'. I do not believe that God experiences time in anything like the way humans experience time.

[I Have a Clever Name]

This depends of course on your view of 'time'. I do not believe that God experiences time in anything like the way humans experience time.

Well the important thing is that you whether you accept the notion that there were moral laws in place before God or not. Most Christians as far as I'm aware believe that God is infinite, that he had no beginning as such. Thus morality is dependent on God's own perspective - but is this a sound foundation to say that God's morality is superior to any other viewpoint?

One might say that God's opinion mirrors our own as we are his creations. But is this really objectively good? And we must also take into consideration that many do not agree with some of God's moral values. The secular explanation of course reverses this - in that God was created within the imagination of man, and that his morality is more or less on a parallel with our own purely because of this origin.

[Barbarian-Bob]

As I understand it, athest views say that because God is omnipotent, his morals are variable. Christians would say that His morals are adamant, so it's not really considered a problem among christians.

[HMMcKamikaze]

When you try to explain things from a religious prespective you are always going to run into walls. I dont really belive in god as a sentient being. I dont think that there is some invisible man in the sky who watches everything i do and punishes me when i do wrong. Such an explanation for why things happen to people seems rather foolish. There are much easier ways to explain why things happen. According to Occam's Razor, the simplest answer is the best answer, and using Newton's third law you can say that everything you do has an equal reaction. So if you do something selfish you will be have to pay, but if you do something out of charity good things will come to you. This form of retribution is given the name Karma, which also involves reincarnation which explains why bad things can happen to good people, because in another life they did something selfishly. Obviously this is my way of explaining things, and cannot be taken as fact, but using logic i find that such an explantion is much more satisfying.

Morals were created by man, and we projected them onto our idea of god, in a way to give them meaning. "If god says this is good then it is good" etc...

[Barbarian-Bob]

That's an interesting thought. But if we are to take the example of Newton's third law, it would still involve believing in something that there is not rock-solid proof for, just like in Religion. If Newton's third law was correct, no one would do anything for their own gain, because it would always backfire at them.

[HMMcKamikaze]

People dont have to follow it for it to be true. And its not like any selfish act will have dire consequences. If you save somone you love because you cant live without them it is a selfish act, yet there wont be consequence because it was benifiting somone else to. Its like a huge scale.