Euthyphro Companion Thread for Enyart's Answer

[fool]

No. The OP was worth repeating.

But you didn't really repeat it did you frank?
You quoted it, do you think people re-read it to get down to your comment or did they scroll?

 

[fool]

Of course three people can be wrong about something. But they would know if they have disagreed with each other and have accusations against each other. Fool. Unfortunately, you're not trying to think through the issue, you're just obfuscating. I have answered Euthyphro's dilemma. An atheist can bring up a hundred other questions that deserve a hundred other answers, but I have answered this one.

The two-fold challenge to Euthyphro is a dilemma, two apparently equally unanswerable (or uncomfortable) options.

The threefold eternal witness of the Persons of the Trinity testifies that neither has an accusation against, or has ever been threatened by, another, and thus They
testify that neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Spirit, for all of eternity, has
ever been selfish toward the other. This eternal commitment to one another is
their definition of righteousness. Thus, They can know by their eternal three-fold witness the truth of the assertion that They have no accusation against each other.

Once goodness is defined, then love is the outworking of that goodness. Thus, for the last 30 years, I've agreed with those who define love as commitment, specifically: commitment to the good of someone.

Fool, you don't have to convert to concede. If you think I haven't answered Euthyphro's dilemma, then repost:
* the two questions of the dilemma
* my very brief summary at the end

and then demonstrate how I haven't answered the questions.

Bob, you've put more horns on the Bull.
You've still got the two options, adding more people just puts more people on the Horns.
You could call this one "Enyart's Dilema".
Although I assume most people would prefer the traditional two horned bull to mess with but if some would rather have a six horned bull than to each his own.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Then explain, Stipe, how agreement between persons that are essentially the same has any meaning aside from essentially "a=a".

Three beings sharing an essential nature does not infer essential agreement among those beings. For instance, can you reasonably claim that two humans (essential nature) who come to agreement do so or are obliged to do so because they share a human nature?

 

[Delmar]

Would the use of "that" allowed you to say what you said without quoting a couple thousand words of OP?

The man just hit the quote button, for crying out loud. It's not like you have to pay extra for the bandwidth.

 

[fool]

The man just hit the quote button, for crying out loud. It's not like you have to pay extra for the bandwidth.

I know, I'm just messin with Frank.
I'll drop it and remain on topic "Enyart's Dilemma, hornier than Euthyphro's".

That didn't come out sounding too good.

 

[Delmar]

Thus Euthyphro's Dilemma is not the Christian's dilemma. Socrates' questions do not undermine the integrity of Christianity but rather provide the opportunity to show the strength of the triune God, for a three-fold cord is not easily broken and by the testimony of the Trinity's three witnesses the matter can be established. An atheist reading A Christian Answer to Euthyphro's Dilemma does not have to convert to agree that the dilemma has been answered, yet he cannot honestly use this dilemma again against Christianity unless he demonstrated a fatal flaw in this answer. So the triune Christian God, the mystery of the Trinity, Three Persons in One God, is the one God whose testimony we can trust because He recognizes something as good when it is consistent with His own nature. And He can affirmatively know that His divine nature is and always has been good by the three eternal concurring witnesses within the Godhead. Jesus continued (John 5:31-32, 36-37) in that Gospel passage: "If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true. There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true [and] the works which the Father has given Me to finish—the very works that I do—bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me. And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me."

Bob
I Guess I am glad that good Christian men speak to these issues. The truth is that the very mention of philosophy tends to make my eyes glaze over, sort of the way my daughters eyes do when my friends and I talk about politics. Philosophers have always sort of struck me, as people who are a little too impressed with there own intellect. I much prefer the example of my father, and his father before him! Bright uncomplicated farmers, who at every turn, showed me that intellect was far far less value than integrity.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Three beings sharing an essential nature does not infer essential agreement among those beings. For instance, can you reasonably claim that two humans (essential nature) who come to agreement do so or are obliged to do so because they share a human nature?

A human nature is a little more diverse, I think you will agree, then a righteous nature and since the topic under discussion is what righteousness is I do think it is important. If three human beings met and agreed upon what the definition of "humanity" was based solely on the trios shared humanity byt apllicable to all humans I would be as filled with doubt (most genocides start with such a little meeting) as I am about the Trinity's ability to do so in a non-arbitrary way.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Because any contradiction will be visible.

To whom would it be visible and how? And what kind of contradiction could possibly occurr- the Trinity may differ in some aspects but they share the same definition of what is pleasing to them do they not? It's not arrived at by consensus. Unless I misread this was supposed to prove to Christians and non-Christians that the dilemma had been resolved for Christians and I don't see it at all. Three beings that are also one and share the same nature agreeing on what there nature is is just as essentially arbitrary (because their nature could have been different) as a Divine being that commands from on high that holy is this and profane is that.

Faith in God is not based on one testimony. It's based on the evidence of a relationship that has shown it can be trusted for one eternity. Why not another?

That isn't the issue at all. If you need to invoke faith to answer a logical dilemma then it isn't much of an answer.

 

[Frank Ernest]

A human nature is a little more diverse, I think you will agree, then a righteous nature and since the topic under discussion is what righteousness is I do think it is important.

More diverse than what? If you mean there are more humans than persons in the Godhead, that's wonderful, but it does not redefine essential nature.

If three human beings met and agreed upon what the definition of "humanity" was based solely on the trios shared humanity byt apllicable to all humans I would be as filled with doubt (most genocides start with such a little meeting) as I am about the Trinity's ability to do so in a non-arbitrary way.

The three persons in the Trinity do not have to decide what their essential nature is. Neither do you or any other group of humans. I do believe you are confusing essential nature with the possible attributes of that nature.

 

[kmoney]

I know, I'm just messin with Frank.
I'll drop it and remain on topic "Enyart's Dilemma, hornier than Euthyphro's".

That didn't come out sounding too good.

:freak: :rotfl:

 

[PlastikBuddha]

More diverse than what? If you mean there are more humans than persons in the Godhead, that's wonderful, but it does not redefine essential nature.

No, I mean more variable in terms of the essential nature and thus more arbitrary if three people are defining the terms for the rest of humanity.

The three persons in the Trinity do not have to decide what their essential nature is.

I never said they did. The claim is that their essential nature is to be righteous and because there are three of them they can agree on the non-arbitrary nature of that righteousness (that it didn't just happen that way but was necessarily a result of being God). That isn't valid. If three humans who smoke get together and decide that smoking is the natural state of humans this would be an arbitrary statement.

Neither do you or any other group of humans. I do believe you are confusing essential nature with the possible attributes of that nature.

I am making the claim that having a couple witnesses is not enough to elevate what may be contingent into an essential, universal attribute.

 

[Bob Enyart]

PB: you missed the whole argument...

PB: you missed the whole argument...

Allegedly replying to my Christian Answer to Euthyphro's Dilemma, PB wrote:

If it is merely self-recognition then it is just as arbitrary as if righteousness were decided by fiat.

[and regarding the three-fold testimony of the Trinity, PB wrote...]

Which are also one, right? Does it make any real difference whether it is One or Three? After all, isn't "righteousness" just as much a part of their nature? It seems to me that Christian solution is just a semantic bit of prestidigitation, swapping the pea of righteousness between members of the Trinity as though that eliminated the ultimate problem of whether something is pious because it pleases God or if it pleases God because it is pious. Saying that God is inherently pleasing to God doesn't really help, imho.

I get a kick out of watching you play. I took Euthyphro's dilemma seriously, and addressed Socrates' questions. You completely ignore my answer, and provide "a semantic bit of prestidigitation" and pretend you've rebutted. Please try harder.

-Bob Enyart

 

[Bob Enyart]

fool, I understand if you don't want to think...

fool, I understand if you don't want to think...

Bob, you've put more horns on the Bull.
You've still got the two options, adding more people just puts more people on the Horns.
You could call this one "Enyart's Dilema".
Although I assume most people would prefer the traditional two horned bull to mess with but if some would rather have a six horned bull than to each his own.

 

[Punisher1984]

[
Is something good because God recognizes it as good? Yes. Then to clarify:
- Is the standard He judges by anterior or superior to Himself? No.
- Is He Himself the standard that He judges by? Yes. Righteousness is the description of God's own nature.
- If the standard is Himself, how could God know it is valid? By the eternal concurring witnesses of the Trinity.

In other words, this "god" is it's own standard because all three parts of it agree on what is "good?" Sorry, but this doesn't solve Euthiphro's dillema at all: in fact, it just makes the dillema circular ("god" is "good" because all the part's of its own nature say that it's "good").

 

[Stripe]

In other words, this "god" is it's own standard because all three parts of it agree on what is "good?" Sorry, but this doesn't solve Euthiphro's dillema at all: in fact, it just makes the dillema circular ("god" is "good" because all the part's of its own nature say that it's "good").

Please ignore this. Punsihment believes everything he says has no meaning so we might as well too.

 

[Flipper]

It appears that Bob now accepts relativity as correct? It would seem that if you are prepared to accept the postulates of Special Relativity, you have little option but to accept General Relativity, once our frames of reference become relative.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Allegedly replying to my Christian Answer to Euthyphro's Dilemma, PB wrote:

Interesting choice of words.

[and regarding the three-fold testimony of the Trinity, PB wrote...]

I get a kick out of watching you play.

It's all about kicks, daddy-o.

I took Euthyphro's dilemma seriously, and addressed Socrates' questions.

You took it seriously enough to form an answer to it, which is more than most people would bother to do, and I am taking your answer seriously enough to read and consider it. It seems you believe that the members of the Trinity are seperate enough in nature so that their agreement is not mere internal affirmation but similar enough that they can all share the same concepts of righteousness/holiness/piety without it appearing either external or a consensus so that there is no question of landing on either horn of this dilemma but as an outsider looking in I can say that this is far from obvious.

You completely ignore my answer,

If you say so.

and provide "a semantic bit of prestidigitation

None of that here I assure you. See, nothing up my sleeves!

and pretend you've rebutted.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "rebutted". I think what I would say is that I found something that doesn't sit right with me and I'm bringing it up for discussion.

Please try harder.

-Bob Enyart

Always.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

For the record I think the best theist answer stems from this:

and if Socrates did not leave out other plausible solutions

 

[Frank Ernest]

No, I mean more variable in terms of the essential nature and thus more arbitrary if three people are defining the terms for the rest of humanity.

You are still confusing essential nature with the potential attributes of that nature.

I never said they did. The claim is that their essential nature is to be righteous and because there are three of them they can agree on the non-arbitrary nature of that righteousness (that it didn't just happen that way but was necessarily a result of being God). That isn't valid. If three humans who smoke get together and decide that smoking is the natural state of humans this would be an arbitrary statement.

Righteousness does seem to be a natural attribute of God. It is the same righteousness discovered in the laws of physics and also revealed in the Ten Commandments. The natural state of man has nothing to do with what any given man or group of men might decide to do. For instance, if three men get together and decide that mass murder is the natural state of man, what would you say about that? Is it simply arbitrary or it is basically unrighteous?

I am making the claim that having a couple witnesses is not enough to elevate what may be contingent into an essential, universal attribute.

It is if one is essentially universal and essentially extant. I doubt if God has any obligation to act according to the dictates of human beings or contend with the claims of same.

 

[Stripe]

It appears that Bob now accepts relativity as correct? It would seem that if you are prepared to accept the postulates of Special Relativity, you have little option but to accept General Relativity, once our frames of reference become relative.

:squint: