Euthyphro dilemma: Does God command things because they are intrinsically good or.... Watch

Henry_Tudor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
Does God command things because they are intrinsically good or are they good because God has commanded it?

Discuss & Debate....what are your views do you agree with the latter for the former?



EDIT I have just found this!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgGB4Oxs5VU

0
reply
The Epicurean
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
I think the Euthyphro dilemma proves that God is not needed to explain morality.

I debated this before with a religious member on TSR and it wasn't very successful.
0
reply
Henry_Tudor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#3
(Original post by The Epicurean)
I think the Euthyphro dilemma proves that God is not needed to explain morality.

I debated this before with a religious member on TSR and it wasn't very successful.
However some Christians would say that God is the source of all good he is 'omibenevolent' therefore he cannot produce evil. How would you respond to this?
0
reply
The Epicurean
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by Henry_Tudor)
However some Christians would say that God is the source of all good he is 'omibenevolent' therefore he cannot produce evil. How would you respond to this?
Well, this answer in itself creates more questions than answers. We have to then try and comprehend where evil comes from. To pass the buck onto Satan in not helpful as God created Satan and he is only as imperfect as God created him.

Also, if we are assume that God is omnibenevolent, then Gods other attributes become contradictory. As Epicurus said:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent.
Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?
If God is benevolent, then we can assume that he is willing to prevent evil. However, as evil still exists and God is benevolent, the only reason this could be so is that God is not omnipotent. If God is both omnipotent and benevolent, evil should not exist. Are Christians willing to settle with the assumption that God is not omnipotent in order for God to maintain his benevolence in the face of the existence of evil?

Now a common Christian reply to this is to say that God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent and that the existence of evil is necessary in creating beings with freewill. However this is not true at all. If man was created wholly good, he could still possess the free will to choose between several different good actions. God did not have to make man susceptible to evil in order to give them freewill.

Also, human freewill fails to take account of natural evil. Earthquakes, tsunamis and other natural evils are completely unrelated to human freewill. Such evils have no basis in a world created by an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God.

For evil to exist, God can not be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. He is either one or the other.
0
reply
Henry_Tudor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#5
(Original post by The Epicurean)
Well, this answer in itself creates more questions than answers. We have to then try and comprehend where evil comes from. To pass the buck onto Satan in not helpful as God created Satan and he is only as imperfect as God created him.

Also, if we are assume that God is omnibenevolent, then Gods other attributes become contradictory. As Epicurus said:



If God is benevolent, then we can assume that he is willing to prevent evil. However, as evil still exists and God is benevolent, the only reason this could be so is that God is not omnipotent. If God is both omnipotent and benevolent, evil should not exist. Are Christians willing to settle with the assumption that God is not omnipotent in order for God to maintain his benevolence in the face of the existence of evil?

Now a common Christian reply to this is to say that God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent and that the existence of evil is necessary in creating beings with freewill. However this is not true at all. If man was created wholly good, he could still possess the free will to choose between several different good actions. God did not have to make man susceptible to evil in order to give them freewill.

Also, human freewill fails to take account of natural evil. Earthquakes, tsunamis and other natural evils are completely unrelated to human freewill. Such evils have no basis in a world created by an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God.

For evil to exist, God can not be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. He is either one or the other.
The Problem of Evil, what As Epicurus said:



Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent.
Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent.
Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?



I very similar to J.L. Mackie 'Evil and Omnipotence'.

A Christians would respond by saying that God is Omni x3 (-benevolent, -potent and -scient).
They would also state that in the beggining the world was in natural state of perfection until the utopia was broken through the 'misuse of free will' thus passing the buck onto Satan-however at the start Satan was a perfect angle until he too misused his free will thus he was banished to the earth subsequently temping Eve to break the promise to God ect...

Moral Evil: through our own misuse of free will.
Natural Evil: the break of the natural state of perfection due to the misuse of free will.

Therefore God can still be Omni x3 subsequently as God is all-good he sent his only son so whoever believes in him will pass from death to life.
0
reply
Architecture-er
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
(Original post by The Epicurean)
If God is benevolent, then we can assume that he is willing to prevent evil. However, as evil still exists and God is benevolent, the only reason this could be so is that God is not omnipotent. If God is both omnipotent and benevolent, evil should not exist. Are Christians willing to settle with the assumption that God is not omnipotent in order for God to maintain his benevolence in the face of the existence of evil?
But this is assuming that God wants to eradicate evil, so a failure to do so fails him as omnipotent..?

What if he simply observes us creating our own evil? Then he's omnipotent, but choosing not to use it. It doesn't make him malevolent, because the evil is of our own doing and we need to deal with the consequences :dontknow:

Of course this doesn't address natural events, a christian would say that those are simply symptoms of a sick world, to imply that satan created them would infer that god is indeed non omnipotent nor benevolent.
1
reply
Plantagenet Crown
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
I think it must be the 2nd option, because if things are intrinsically good, it's implying that they're good independently on what God thinks of them and hence it begs the question, what or who made those things good in the first place, or how are they intrinsically good?
0
reply
Henry_Tudor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
I think it must be the 2nd option, because if things are intrinsically good, it's implying that they're good independently on what God thinks of them and hence it begs the question, what or who made those things good in the first place, or how are they intrinsically good?
Agreed.
0
reply
The Epicurean
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by Henry_Tudor)
I very similar to J.L. Mackie 'Evil and Omnipotence'.

A Christians would respond by saying that God is Omni x3 (-benevolent, -potent and -scient).
They would also state that in the beggining the world was in natural state of perfection until the utopia was broken through the 'misuse of free will' thus passing the buck onto Satan-however at the start Satan was a perfect angle until he too misused his free will thus he was banished to the earth subsequently temping Eve to break the promise to God ect...

Moral Evil: through our own misuse of free will.
Natural Evil: the break of the natural state of perfection due to the misuse of free will.

Therefore God can still be Omni x3 subsequently as God is all-good he sent his only son so whoever believes in him will pass from death to life.
That is because my view was influenced by J.L. Mackie's "Evil and Omnipotence" :mmm:

You are basically following the line of the Augustinian Theodicy. The problem is that if God created the perfect universe, then evil should not exist. A flawless creation should not go wrong. So like J.L Mackie's opinion that freewill can be created without the need for evil, then so follows that us humans and the angels (Satan included) could of exercised our freewill without breaking the natural state. A perfect state should remain perfect. The fact that the perfect state was able to collapse shows that all was not perfect to begin with.

(Original post by Architecture-er)
But this is assuming that God wants to eradicate evil, so a failure to do so fails him as omnipotent..?

What if he simply observes us creating our own evil? Then he's omnipotent, but choosing not to use it. It doesn't make him malevolent, because the evil is of our own doing and we need to deal with the consequences :dontknow:

Of course this doesn't address natural events, a christian would say that those are simply symptoms of a sick world, to imply that satan created them would infer that god is indeed non omnipotent nor benevolent.
That is an interesting point actually. But I still can't comprehend how an omnibenevolent God could willingly sit back and watch us create our own evil while having the omnipotence to prevent it. Your point sort of ties in with Irenaean Theodicy. The idea behind his theodicy is that our battle with evil helps to make us better. It reminds me of a quote:

"A gem cannot be polished without friction, nor a man perfected without trials"

For humans to grow and become better, we need obstacles. He views this world with all its evil as the best possible world that could exist as it allows for ultimately good actions to happen. However, such a view of the world fails to take account of the infant deaths and many other similar problems. How does a infant who has suffered and died at a young age benefit or grow from such an event?
0
reply
Henry_Tudor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by The Epicurean)
That is because my view was influenced by J.L. Mackie's "Evil and Omnipotence" :mmm:

You are basically following the line of the Augustinian Theodicy. The problem is that if God created the perfect universe, then evil should not exist. A flawless creation should not go wrong. So like J.L Mackie's opinion that freewill can be created without the need for evil, then so follows that us humans and the angels (Satan included) could of exercised our freewill without breaking the natural state. A perfect state should remain perfect. The fact that the perfect state was able to collapse shows that all was not perfect to begin with.
But we cannot have true 'free will' if there was not the option to do evil.

Yes the Augustinian Theodicy!.
0
reply
The Epicurean
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by Henry_Tudor)
But we cannot have true 'free will' if there was not the option to do evil.

Yes the Augustinian Theodicy!.
Ok, let us assume that true freewill requires the option to do evil. The issue with this is that freewill fails to explain natural evil. What has natural evil got to do with our own freewill? How does the Asian Tsunami of 2004 have anything to do with my choices between good and evil?
0
reply
Henry_Tudor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#12
(Original post by The Epicurean)
Ok, let us assume that true freewill requires the option to do evil. The issue with this is that freewill fails to explain natural evil. What has natural evil got to do with our own freewill? How does the Asian Tsunami of 2004 have anything to do with my choices between good and evil?

The Natural State of Perfection created by God in Genesis 1 was ruined through the abuse of the free will thus breaking the natural state of perfection Augustine call this the 'penile consequences of sin' thus evil entered the world.
0
reply
Starrstruck
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by Henry_Tudor)
The Natural State of Perfection created by God in Genesis 1 was ruined through the abuse of the free will thus breaking the natural state of perfection Augustine call this the 'penile consequences of sin' thus evil entered the world.
But why should other people have to suffer as a result of original sin? Surely if God was omnibenevolent he would want to prevent this?
0
reply
The Epicurean
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by Henry_Tudor)
The Natural State of Perfection created by God in Genesis 1 was ruined through the abuse of the free will thus breaking the natural state of perfection Augustine call this the 'penile consequences of sin' thus evil entered the world.
But that contradicts evolution. Homosapiens are relatively recent on planet earth. The Earth and all its natural phenomenons such as earthquakes and tsunamis pre-date us. So it is illogical to say that our freewill brought about the break in the natural state of the world. Before the first human was around to even commit a sin, there existed natural evil which inflicted untold atrocities on dinosaurs and other creatures which existed long before us.

The Augustinian Theodicy fails to account for natural evil in a world where it is clear that natural evil pre-dates human existence.
0
reply
Henry_Tudor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by The Epicurean)
But that contradicts evolution. Homosapiens are relatively recent on planet earth. The Earth and all its natural phenomenons such as earthquakes and tsunamis pre-date us. So it is illogical to say that our freewill brought about the break in the natural state of the world. Before the first human was around to even commit a sin, there existed natural evil which inflicted untold atrocities on dinosaurs and other creatures which existed long before us.

The Augustinian Theodicy fails to account for natural evil in a world where it is clear that natural evil pre-dates human existence.
That's a very powerful critique of the Theordicy, unfortunately I do not know the answer to that. I will ask a more experienced Christian about this!

Thank you for your criticisms I like to challenge my faith
0
reply
Arketec
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
I agree with the former.
0
reply
Henry_Tudor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by Starrstruck)
But why should other people have to suffer as a result of original sin? Surely if God was omnibenevolent he would want to prevent this?
It does seem strange that God would want people to suffer from other peoples wrong doings thus questioning his all-goodness however some people say that we are born sinners because of Adam & Eve. But the Augustine Theodicy is not totally water tight.

See here for Theodcies and Critiques.
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafav...s_tutor2u.html
0
reply
The Epicurean
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by Henry_Tudor)
That's a very powerful critique of the Theordicy, unfortunately I do not know the answer to that. I will ask a more experienced Christian about this!

Thank you for your criticisms I like to challenge my faith
I personally prefer the Irenaean Theodicy over that of the Augustine Theodicy although it does somewhat contradict the Genesis account and the whole belief of original sin. From what I understand, it does still have its basis in Genesis.

Genesis 1:26 ‘Let us make man in Our image, in Our likeness.’
Irenaeus saw the world as a path towards achieving Gods image and likeness. Essentially we need to be free beings who grapple with the challenges in order to perfect ourselves. Courage would have no point in a world without danger or difficulty. If we lived in a world without harm or evil, there would be no possibility for humans to exercise heroism or charity. The environment we live in, with all its problems, it intended to assist in the growth of us as free beings. Though the 2004 Tsunami was awful, people from all over the world were united in the desire to help and aid those affected.

I still don't find it answers all the issues perfectly, but I think it better answers the issues of moral evil and natural evil. The other alternative theodicy I know of is Process Theodicy, but that requires a whole alteration in the traditional Christian view of God.
0
reply
Henry_Tudor
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by The Epicurean)
I personally prefer the Irenaean Theodicy over that of the Augustine Theodicy although it does somewhat contradict the Genesis account and the whole belief of original sin. From what I understand, it does still have its basis in Genesis.



Irenaeus saw the world as a path towards achieving Gods image and likeness. Essentially we need to be free beings who grapple with the challenges in order to perfect ourselves. Courage would have no point in a world without danger or difficulty. If we lived in a world without harm or evil, there would be no possibility for humans to exercise heroism or charity. The environment we live in, with all its problems, it intended to assist in the growth of us as free beings. Though the 2004 Tsunami was awful, people from all over the world were united in the desire to help and aid those affected.

I still don't find it answers all the issues perfectly, but I think it better answers the issues of moral evil and natural evil. The other alternative theodicy I know of is Process Theodicy, but that requires a whole alteration in the traditional Christian view of God.
My order of preference is Augustinian>Ireanan>Process.
Process is just awful as it changes the nature of God by saying that that he is not Omnipotent!
0
reply
The Epicurean
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by Henry_Tudor)
My order of preference is Augustinian>Ireanan>Process.
Process is just awful as it changes the nature of God by saying that that he is not Omnipotent!
Haha, I can understand you not liking Process Theodicy :mmm:

May I ask why you prefer Augustinian over that of Irenaean?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have a food intolerance or allergy?

Yes - a food intolerance (45)
12.36%
Yes - a food allergy (39)
10.71%
Yes - an autoimmune disorder (i.e coeliac, colitis) (11)
3.02%
Yes - I have an intolerance and allergy (9)
2.47%
No (260)
71.43%

Watched Threads

View All