Answering The Euthyphro Dilemma

Tim Barnett describes the Euthyphro Dilemma and offers a third alternative.

#StandtoReason #Apologetics #Christianity

————— CONNECT —————

————— GIVE —————

[NeillGuitars]

That is not an answer. Does God choose his nature, or is it God's nature chosen for him? It is not a third horn (in which case, it's a trilemma) it's another two horns on top of the second horn. And you can keep adding in different words to try to fix the dilemma, but it just leads to an infinite regression.

[ryanwolfe]

That doesn't answer the euthyphro dilemma, it just moves it back a step. Is it good because it reflects gods nature, or does gods nature reflect what is good? If the first would it be good if God had a different nature, hatred, anger, violence, etc., if the latter, then gods nature has nothing to do with good, because good is still beyond God. Yet it leads to another question, why is gods nature good? Is gods nature good because it reflects an external standard of good, or is it good because gods nature is the standard? The former makes God irrelevant, the latter makes good arbitrary.

[nathanielevan]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but "God is good" is basically just a re-worded version of "It's good becaude God wills it." See the correlation?

"God is good."
"Something is good, because God wills it."

It doesn't present a new answer.

[regularsherlock]

Not only does this not really answer the dilemma but it actually makes less sense than either horn. To say “God is morality ” is to basically say “we need god because without god there is no morality” as “we need god because without god there is no god”. This answer makes the invocation of god a complete tautology in the first place

[Michaelclayatc]

This doesn’t answer the dilemma at all and the fact you think it does is fairly embarrassing. God commanded Abraham to kill his son, and yet one of the Ten Commandments is thou shall not kill. God contradicts himself. Is murder good or bad? Should we be murdering our children or not?

[jto-mtb]

Onother Q.;
Is God omniscent of loving?

[skooma]

This doesn't answer the objection. Either God has a reason for his moral commands or he has no reason at all. If he has no reason, then this system of divine morality is no more objective than any other naturalistic system. However, if he does have a reason, then it's this underlying principle that makes something right or wrong, not God's fiat. So this gives us an independent foundation for morality.

All epistemic chains of justification terminate with primitives. And maybe for you, God's verdict is the stopping point, beyond which no further justification is required. But there are two important points to note here: this is not objective morality, since actions are no longer inherently good or bad, they are only good or bad because God said so, and secondly this puts your divine system of morality on the same level as any naturalistic system. If anything, we have reason to prefer naturalistic system of ethics since it comes with less metaphysical baggage

[dougmasters]

The true issue is the premise involved with arbitrariness. Its an inherent fault. Something being good because God wills it does not make him arbitrary. He simply is good, all that is good. Bad, or evil, is the absence of God.

Saying that the things that come from God are good because they come from God is not the same thing as saying good is arbitrary, or that God is arbitrary

[kravitzn]

Is God just because justice is good, or is justice good because God is just? You have not answered the dilemma. No theist can. They suppress the truth in self righteousness and are without excuse. Sorry Plato killed DCT 400 years before Jesus lol.