Euthyphro's Dilemma.

Is something good because God says it´s so, or does God say it´s so because something is good?
—————
Plato's famous dilemma concerning the nature of goodness is still being raised today as a serious challenge to Christianity. How would you respond to it?

[RealTrentertainment]

Two things.
One: Even if you define good as "god's nature" instead of "god's invention", the dilemma still stands. You're still defining something as good because it comes from god and his authority, independent of reason, empathy, or anything else. So when god commands the slaughter of nations, for example, that command becomes intrinsically good.
Two: I find it ironic that Turek distinguishes between a dilemma and a false dilemma. Then goes on to say that humans can't have morality or rights without the existence of god. He's forcing A or not A. There are other options. We give ourselves morality and rights, and that's not just an opinion.

[mozzarellasandwich]

For those who are still confused, I recommend watching William Lane Craig's explanation in a video on YouTube entitled, "What is The Euthyphro Dilemma? (William Lane Craig)" or in another video, "The Euthyphro Dilemma (William Lane Craig)"

[Ben-oqwp]

How do we tell good gods from bad gods without already having some idea of what good is?

Do you expect all the theists from every other theistic religion to question the moral natures and commands of their gods and to go looking for a genuinely good god? Presumably you think that would be Jesus. But why wouldn't we judge Jesus to make sure that we've actually found that good god? And even Jesus expects us to judge him as a true prophet by evaluating whether or not he produces good fruit in words and deeds.

So it seems we have no choice but to judge God.

It is important to note that Christians who believe God is good are judging God. They are judging God as good while telling everyone humans aren't allowed to judge God, like a teacher who gives a student an "A" and claims that no humans are allowed to grade papers.

And Christians have actual reasons to believe their god is good. Those reasons can be evaluated and compared with a negative case to see which set of reasons is more consistent and true to reality. But that's where they know their case is weak and so they typically try to shut down the conversation to avoid the critical thinking they ought to be doing.

You believe that morality can be grounded in a sentient nature. Well, humans have a sentient nature. And that is, in fact, how we know anything about goodness or even care about it to begin with. People lacking certain brain functions don't care about the topic and any moral paradigm is going to struggle to appeal to them.

If I consult with myself and determine that it is good and right to try to do unto others as I would have them do unto me (and the morality of impartial desiring has been discovered independently by many cultures outside the cultural range of Christian influence) and a god comes to the same conclusion, why is it that my conclusion is not valid and sound? What is the difference? Infallibility? Okay, but this isn't exactly rocket science, so there's little reason we need infallibility here. Enforcement? Does might make right?

Christians are going to have a hard time figuring out why morality can only be grounded in their god's nature. Especially since their moral theory apparently expects us to ignore the sentient moral natures that we do have, can consult with, and can verify, and rely instead on a super sentient moral nature that we don't have, can't consult with, and can't verify.

People (including atheists) argue for their rights in the context of other sentient beings with moral natures to appeal to. We don't have to consult with the universe, or rocks, or trees, aliens, or anything that is just off topic. A god is just another sentient being presumably with some kind of moral nature. And so is superfluous to forging a just society.

[alive]

Frank is awesome!!! This man never fails to give a great answer!!! I aspire to be in his position one day!!

[Latter_broccoli]

This is not only an unconvincing answer, it is also very poorly explained. What does that even mean? And how is that 3rd option actually distinct?

[memecity]

If God's nature is goodness and God is immutable, then any action he takes or commands logically entails for it to be good. So every time God has killed or commanded others to kill, even babies and children, this means that killing under God's command is a morally good thing

[troyvanvliet]

The euthyphro dilemma is a total strawman argument

[Matthew-rlzf]

The explanation doesn't change the problem. You say that morality is God's character and not his choice. But in that case, we have to ask the same question: Are virtues like justice, mercy, love, etc. good because they are part of God's character? Or are they part of God's character because they are good?
If the former is true, (Frank's option C) then God's goodness becomes meaningless. If we regard virtues as good only because they are part of God's character, then by what measure can we see that God's character is good? We can't say that God is good because he posses a certain set of qualities, as these are only good because God already possesses these qualities.
To put it another way, if God's very character was one of hatred, deceitfulness and vanity, we would be obliged to ascribe these qualities as good. Option C of the Euthyphro dilemma renders the statement "God is good" utterly meaningless, and is therefore no less problematic.

[claudefox]

If God is the standard, how can he himself break those standards multiple times? You just displace the problem. Doesn’t convince me.

[rustlingbushes]

Turek actually denies the subjectivity of Morality. In Ecclesiastes 3, there's a time for everything. So, God authorizes good and evil to exist, and made it all according to Isaiah 45:7.

[joshward]

Moving the goalposts. Did god create his own nature, or was god's nature determined for him? You still have the same problem.

[jere]

This objection to the dilemma is circular. Goodness is godliness and godliness is goodness but based on what? You are defining god by good and good by god.

[jere]

It’s so contradictory. God IS the standard so it’s objective but god can commit acts outside of the objective standard and still be considered “good” god is the standard but humans would be considered evil if we did the things god did in the Bible. It’s subjective and relative. This is a prime example of why morals can’t be objective because you can justify ANY position based on your point of view. It’s absolutely pointless for god to be our standard when we can’t do the things god does and still be considered good.

[gonzaga]

The dilemma just gets moved to gods nature. Which is a worse position for the theist.

[JTPF]

God doesn’t like the government paying for health care (Ephesians, 2:12)

It's not a dilemma at all, yet you see leading atheists like sysyphousredeemed claiming that this proves that God doesn't exist. Great video!

[radnotion]

According to Turek, "He doesn't arbitrarily make things up. God is the standard."              False. Your God does arbitrarily make things up. Hebrews 8:13 "By calling this covenant "new, " he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear" (NIV). If God is the standard of good why does he arbitrarily break his own laws such as not to murder?

[GrammeStudio]

how is it that someone IS a standard? how can someone or something be EQUAL to being just, evil, or lazy?

[Masteralien]

This is literally just the first option in different words. The first option is its good because god does it saying god is the standard is just that but in different words.

[xiaoliechen]

God's nature is the standard of good, any deviation from that is evil, it's God's nature that he is kind, compassionate, all loving, impartial, sexist, obsessed with sacrificing animals, and watching people suffer. Got it