Euthyphro’s dilemma: Are God’s moral standards arbitrary?

[creationministriesintl]

See the full interview with Keaton Halley here: youtu.be/zdMiNwA3NAM

For more information and further reading, see:

→ What is ‘good’? (Answering the Euthyphro Dilemma) – creation.com/euthyphro
→ Why believe in objective morals? – creation.com/objective-morals
→ Can atheism possibly explain morality and reason? –

[freeborn]

I think it's not just the nature of God, it's literally his Holiness that implicitly defines what's good. For example, after the fall he couldn't just abandon us or he would not be holy. He did what he could to give us a chance to be with him literally because of his own Holiness. He is the essence of what is good.

[hrayrbarseghyan]

Also thing is same God who defines good and evil also made our consciousness, which is our tool by which we differentiate good and evil.

[lirich]

This guy never even read Euthryphro, he thinks Euthryphro posed the dilemma but Euthryphro was actually the opposing view who played the layman’s role. Socrates posed the dilemma.

[hrr]

Father...
Son...
Holy Spirit...
.
. THIS ONLY ONE GOD...
.
. His Sovereignty Rules...
.
. The ONLY LIVING GOD that exists...

[davidcook]

Proof is in The Holy Word, His Word doesn't fail, proof He is sovereign

[realnazarene]

There's a fourth option: The designer knows the intent and the parameters of operation of his design. He imposes rules accordingly; both for his purpose and for the optimal operation of his design. Some rules are meant to apply only during certain phases of operation as the instantiated design progresses towards its intended purpose.

[michaelw]

"Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales--whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water--you are to detest."

That seems absolute and definitive.

[dfjpr]

God would be superfluous. Yes thats fortunate, because otherwise his complete absence from the world would be a problem.

[PsalmCourier]

I always take note of how seculars view it. They view it as consensus. "Well its what society decides" take them through a cursory review of the 3rd reich and say "well society decided that was good so its good right?"
They dont believe in morality they believe in a consesus that they unwittingly without knowing, base off of biblical true morality. Which is, to oppose God on anything he says.
You built your house, but would you let someone that says you didnt build that house, tell YOU, what color it should be? Or what trees to plant? Or what blinds to put on the windows? No.

[badatpseudoscience]

The problem with the God's nature argument is that it is not a third choice. If you say that it's gods nature to be good then you are saying that either god is good because he conforms to a morality outside of God or God I good because he defines good. Either way, your just choosing one of the alternatives stated in the dilemma.

[boredrax]

And how can we so sure about the nature of god...we mere humans ....with our limited conception... judging the nature of something infinite and divine

[broddeyy]

what are the implications of this, and what does this even mean. Even if God didn’t change this still seems to be a sense of subjectivity from God if it is defined by his character (and obviously god can choose his character) but this also means god isn’t defined by good, good is defined by him

[jackperkins]

If someone has a Toyota they shouldnt look to Ford for maintenance instructions. Go to the creator for instruction.
It seems that the rules help us with the best life. The rules can be broken and life continues but with harm and consequences.

[jeremyparris]

I think that in order to understand anything about the Father, we first need to understand what He is. If you think of Him as a person or a god in the classical sense, you'll never get anything right. He is the underlying consciousness behind existence, and therefore reality. Why are certain acts evil? Look at the overall results. Same with good. Why do some people insist on doing evil? Because their minds are too simple to understand that there's enough good to go around, and also that doing evil can cancel out good.

For example, you see that your neighbor has an amazing wife. You can do good by complimenting them and seeking his counsel on what to look for in a wife and put his wisdom to work, or you can try to steal her away. But in stealing her away, you have ruined her status as a good wife, ruined his view of the wisdom that got him a good wife, and gained nothing good for yourself because all you got was an unfaithful second-hand bride. Doing the 'good' would have resulted in four goods, but now you have three evils.

So something being good is determined by the results, which is determined by reality, and reality is determined by the creator of that reality.

[MedRider]

all you did was kick the bucket. is the same argument.

[Chidds]

So God's nature could have been otherwise and what we recognise as good evil and evil good. So good and evil are just arbitrary?

[rosslogan]

The other, most obvious option is to just not believe in God.

[BajanBrownCow]

So its based on unsubstantiated assertions based on undemonstrated assumptions centered around a gos that camnot be shown to exist, having a nature it cannot be shown to have, based in attributes & abilities it cannot be shown to have. In ither words there is no demonstrable truth value to any of it. Got it!

[snakesandsticks]

Wow! thanks for giving me another argument against the idea morals are derived from god!
And I thought this channel was just trolling me…