[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 132 KB, 700x544, Cima_da_Conegliano,_God_the_Father.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17591847 No.17591847 [Reply] [Original]

It's not clear to me that morality would be objective even if God did exist. To those who disagree, which horn of the Euthyphro dilemma do you take?

>> No.17591889

>>17591847
I've said the same thing repeatedly here. Me saying something is wrong is a subjective opinion. God saying something is wrong is a subjective opinion. God can not give you objective morality.

>> No.17591908

Good is based on God’s nature. God appeals to nothing other than his own character for the standard of what is good and then reveals what is good to us. It is wrong to lie because God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), not because God had to discover lying was wrong or that he arbitrarily declared it to be wrong. This means that God does not declare something to be good (ignoring his own nature) or say that something is good by nature (recognizing a standard outside of himself). Both of these situations ignore the biblical option that good is a revelation of God’s nature. In other words, God is the standard of what is good. He is good by nature, and he reveals his nature to us.

>> No.17591930

>>17591908
Meaningless gobbledy gook. If it's based in God's nature it's subjective to him. If I have an opinion according to my nature is that subjective or objective?

>> No.17591934

>>17591847
Christians should affirm both God’s sovereignty and His non-derived goodness. Thus, we don’t want a standard that is arbitrary nor one that exists outside or above God. Fortunately, God is both supremely sovereign and good. Therefore, God’s nature itself can serve as the standard of goodness, and God can base His declarations of goodness on Himself. God’s nature is unchangeable and wholly good; thus, His will is not arbitrary, and His declarations are always true. This solves both issues.

How is God the standard of goodness? Because He is the creator. A thing’s goodness is determined by its purpose. A dull knife is not a good knife because the purpose of a knife is to cut. Sharpness is bad for a shoe, however, for a good shoe is one that is comfortable and supportive to a foot. God, as creator, is the determiner of all purposes of His creation. What He makes is made purposefully, and anything that stands in the way of that purpose is bad. Rape is evil because that is not what sex is made to be. Murder is evil because it is not the purpose of humans to arbitrarily decide when people should die. (Note that this does not necessarily vilify all human-caused deaths, such as capital punishment or war. If God has stated guidelines for these actions, then it is no longer arbitrary human will being carried out.)

A thing is good to the degree that it fulfills its purposes. Because God is the creator of all things, according to His own good nature, He is therefore both the standard and declarer of goodness.

>> No.17591943

>>17591889
I think your answer is entirely dependent on god being within A realm. What if God is outside of everything?

>> No.17591960

>>17591930
Your opinion is based on time having a starting point. What if there is no starting point?

>> No.17591964

>>17591943
Everything is every thing that exists. If God is outside of everything he doesn't exist.

>> No.17591989

>>17591908
>>17591934
but if good is defined just in terms of God's nature, it wouldn't mean anything to say "God is good." that would just be a tautology. "good" is a property that could only be ascribed to things that aren't God, right?

>> No.17592029

>>17591964
I guess my primary point is it’s not beyond shocking for me to imagine how god could easily be in two apparently contradictory states of being at once. I mean he’s god I don’t get why people attempt to say no he can’t do this according to human logic. It just makes no sense. If he is capable making nothing out of something or being there before there was anything it really wouldn’t surprise me if he was totally unconstrained by our human understanding.

>> No.17592321

I think you’re getting confused. If you just accept blanket theism - i.e. a God exists but we can’t know him and we have no way of knowing which interpretation of God is true, then yeah, I think you would have a plurality of morals and thus no objective morals. But if you accept that God exists, you’re actually wrong to just accept blanket theism. If God exists, then objective truth must also exist and if objective truth exists there must also be a set of interpretations of God which can be said to be true. And if a set of interpretations of God can be said to be true, then it follows other sets of interpretations of God must be false. Thus, specific and objective morality would be implied by truths pertaining to God. I can start up a cult that has some set of moral codes but if my interpretation is not truthful then obviously my morals are wrong. That’s where the objectivity comes from.

>> No.17592442

>>17592321
oh I'm not saying there aren't true and false interpretations of God's word. even if there were and we somehow had a way of knowing which interpretations were correct, I don't see how that closes the is-ought gap. so I agree there could be objectively true interpretations of God's word, but I don't see why his word would be objectively virtuous, in other words

>> No.17592484

>>17592442
It’s not an is-ought problem. If God exists and Christianity is true, then the Christian law as delivered through the Holy Tradition is objective morality. It comes from outside mankind and applies to all of mankind. The fact that God is is a separate idea.

>> No.17592498

>>17592484
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and ESTABLISHES THE BEING OF A GOD, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.

Hume was a notorious atheist. Is/Ought definitely applies to God

>> No.17592576

>>17592484
>If God exists and Christianity is true, then the Christian law as delivered through the Holy Tradition is objective morality.
this is the leap I'm not understanding. I don't think objectivity just consists in something being "outside mankind."

>> No.17592774

Without God, it’s not possible to establish objective morals. Without God, a collection of subjective preferences based on the personal opinions and desires of the collective whole of society and the declared moral truth that unnecessary suffering is wrong is the best that can be offered without God. But, ultimately, it fails because it is subjective, not universal. If you think it is universal because all people don’t like unnecessary suffering, then think again. There are people who prefer unnecessary suffering. The mentally ill, for example. Are they wrong for preferring it? If you say it’s okay for them, then the moral is not universal since it doesn’t apply to them. If you say it’s not okay for them, then you are imposing of value on others and what gives you the right to do that in a subjective world?

Without God, objective moral standards cannot be established, and universal moral truths cannot be defended. All that is left is subjective experience. But, what makes one’s subjective opinion better than another? In fact, how would they know that his subjective opinion is right in the first place? He could not know. Therefore, his position leads to skepticism and can’t be trusted.

In Christianity, God is the necessary precondition for moral objectivity. He would be the Revelator. He would be the one who reveals his moral character, and since he is the greatest of beings and the creator of all the universe, he has the right to do with his creation as he desires (Romans 9:20-23) and declare the moral standard that he, its creator, demands.

>> No.17592789

>>17592774
Again why is God's opinion any less subjective than mine? Do you know what subjective and objective mean?

>> No.17592798

>being an Atheist and referencing Plato

Re-read The Republic, or just read Physics/Metaphysics and try to explain to me how there isn't a prime mover.

>> No.17592808

>>17592798
Euthyphro is from Plato you pseud

>> No.17592810

>>17592789
He knows what is good for you, in every extent of the word good, moreso than you do.

One hundred percent.

>> No.17592817

>>17592789
> treating god as just some other being

>> No.17592822

>>17591847
If god did create everything else, then his created morality would be as objective as his created physics. They'd both be artificial and arbitrary to us, but we wouldn't consider physical laws to be any less objective so why would we consider moral laws otherwise?

>> No.17592823

>>17592810
Because he says so? How is that not a subjective opinion?

>> No.17592824

>>17592808
That's what I said.

IN THE POST, you retard.

Apparently Atheists cannot read.

>> No.17592845

>>17592817
He is a being isn't he?
>Subjective
>1.
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

If something isn't subjective it can't just depend on one being. A morality that can only come from God is by definition subjective

>> No.17592859

>>17592823
Because he is the being that has designed you.

This world interferes with your own perception of what is truly 'good'. Besides that, even if Satan and evil did not exist, you would still have difficulty understanding what absolute good is, since it is something that is learned, as told to us by various writers like Plato, Aristotle, Roger Bacon, Jeremy Bentham, etc. etc.

This is something important: consider that you do not know everything when you are young. There is a life ahead of you, and you have much to learn about what is right, and wrong in the world. Simply because you fancy that you feel the world is a certain way, is not proof it is. Show us that the world is that way, because trust me when I say that there will be people who object. You will have your values shaken, torn, and purged in fire, and at the end, you will have a perfect set of values. This is your quest as a philosopher, and it is your quest on God's earth, and he would not have it any other way, because the purpose of life is, as it always has been, to find Good in this world.

>> No.17592863

>>17592824
So what are we talking about then? Euthyphro is explicitly demonstrating how objective morality can't come from God

>> No.17592886

>>17592845
If god, who by any definition transcends the objective laws of physics, and by many definitions is a logos, a law, which stands above all other laws, cannot outsource objective morality, then what could?

You're also mistaken to believe God is necessarily a being when some definitions would even clash with that idea, as it would limit God as the source of all.

>> No.17592889

>>17592859
>Because he is the being that has designed you.
And again you run straight into is/ought. Why does the "is" of God designing me lead to the "ought" of me obeying him?

>> No.17592897

>>17592863
Meanwhile, The Republic uses God as an example to follow, and an ideal to strive for.

The Republic is a god damn THEOLOGICAL text. You are absolutely insane for asserting that, in any way, Plato was an atheist.

>> No.17592912

>>17592889
You should either see in time, as you grow older, or you remain blind and burn.

This is your quest as someone who seeks to find truth, not all are successful. Every single person on this Earth has their proofs: they have their moments when God shows them he is real.

>> No.17592916

>>17592886
Nothing can, Hume was attacking the idea of objective morality with is/ought. Christcucks somehow misread it as supporting God but that's only because they're retarded

>> No.17592928

>>17592897
>>17592863
Not only that, we have writers like Roger Bacon who assert that Plato was literally directly influenced by the Hebrew religion.

In other words, it isn't absurd to think that his concept of a singular God, like the God in The Republic, is similar to that of Yahweh because he either visited or talked with individuals who understood the Hebrew religion.

>> No.17593052

>>17592774
>and since he is the greatest of beings and the creator of all the universe, he has the right to do with his creation as he desires
this is presupposing ethical rights, so that can't be the origin point of an objective ethics.
>>17592822
well physical laws, even supposing they are determined by God, aren't normative so their objectivity doesn't run into the same problems.
>>17592897
>>17592798
Plato being a theist is very obviously irrelevant to whether the Euthyphro dilemma puts objective theist morality into question