Euthyphro Companion Thread for Enyart's Answer

[Frank Ernest]

Interesting Frank, still I'd say there lies the problem with a poorly reasoned understanding of perfect will, goodness, and justice on the part of Islam and their unitary idea as defined if it works to that conclusion...but my point is as readily made with either or any expression of God. That is, in the end, to be meaningful He must be the standard from which even the idea of standards is derived and so perfect in any meaningful understanding of the word and (following) perfect in both being and expression.

God is righteous because God is righteous? Don't think I can do that.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Because it only "answers" the question if you already believe. I've already said that personal faith can get around the dilemma in other ways than Enyart's proposed solution, but you can't have it both ways. Either it relies on faith, in which case it isn't a problem for anyone with faith anyways, or you use reason and the solution fails.

Then you're stuck with the dilemma as proposed by Socrates and Euthyphro which relies on reason based on the faith that such a pantheon of gods actually exist. There is no dichotomy between faith and reason as you would have it.

I wasn't trying to "negate" the argument, just point out that it requires something more than logic to make it work- faith.

There is no dichotomy between faith and logic. Your entire argument is here is based on your faith that there is.

 

[Town Heretic]

God is righteous because God is righteous? Don't think I can do that.

You start there with an errant premise. God is not righteous because He is righteous. God IS righteousness. It is His nature. There is no causal agent involved, no condition. The concept of righteous is our attempt to label the perfect nature of God as He expresses it. There is no because to a first cause. He simply is what He is and cause flows from (not to) that source. That's very different from your declaration.

Absent that God becomes capricious, capable of the arbitrary and less than perfect--less than that which we can conceptualize. We reduce Him to Zeus, dragging thunderbolts about...

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Then you're stuck with the dilemma as proposed by Socrates and Euthyphro which relies on reason based on the faith that such a pantheon of gods actually exist. There is no dichotomy between faith and reason as you would have it.

There is a difference between faith and logic. :duh: Whether you call that difference a dichotomy or not is irrelevent because they aren't interchangeable.

There is no dichotomy between faith and logic. Your entire argument is here is based on your faith that there is.

Prove it.

 

[Frank Ernest]

You start there with an errant premise. God is not righteous because He is righteous. God IS righteousness. It is His nature. There is no causal agent involved, no condition. The concept of righteous is our attempt to label the perfect nature of God as He expresses it. There is no because to a first cause. He simply is what He is and cause flows from (not to) that source. That's very different from your declaration.

You are free to believe whatever you believe. However, if God has no free will, then how do we, created in His image and likeness, have it?

Absent that God becomes capricious, capable of the arbitrary and less than perfect--less than that which we can conceptualize. We reduce Him to Zeus, dragging thunderbolts about...

Strawman.

 

[Frank Ernest]

There is a difference between faith and logic. :duh: Whether you call that difference a dichotomy or not is irrelevent because they aren't interchangeable.

:darwinsm: I see you're about done.

Prove it.

*sigh*

 

[Town Heretic]

You are free to believe whatever you believe. However, if God has no free will, then how do we, created in His image and likeness, have it?

Who said God lacked free will? Do you really suppose that there is only one moral choice in every instant, that perfection is a limitation, a continuous line of flawless unmoving...We're evidence that God has choice. But unlike us, God cannot choose evil. The "choice" is in itself only a word holding the place of error. God is perfect. He cannot err.

You assume something not in evidence.

Strawman.

One word dismissal in lieu of argument. But of course, you're free to do so...Zeus wasn't perfect, just powerful. If God is less than perfect, whatever the expression, however divergent from the pantheists He might be in any other way, you have reduced Him to a variation of that same, ancient theme. I argue against it.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

:darwinsm: I see you're about done.

Nope.

*sigh*

Can't? That's OK.
I see you're about done.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Who said God lacked free will? Do you really suppose that there is only one moral choice in every instant, that perfection is a limitation, a continuous line of flawless unmoving...We're evidence that God has choice. But unlike us, God cannot choose evil. The "choice" is in itself only a word holding the place of error. God is perfect. He cannot err.

Muddling the issue and confusing an attribute of God with the essential nature of God.

You assume something not in evidence.

Your are assuming that attributes are essential. Attributes are attributes. God is perfect existence. The Godhead does not err. God does not choose evil. You may consider that to indicate a flaw, but it doesn't.

One word dismissal in lieu of argument. But of course, you're free to do so...Zeus wasn't perfect, just powerful. If God is less than perfect, whatever the expression, however divergent from the pantheists He might be in any other way, you have reduced Him to a variation of that same, ancient theme. I argue against it.

Nope. Didn't do that. You are misrepresenting what I said totally.

 

[Town Heretic]

Muddling the issue and confusing an attribute of God with the essential nature of God.

What nonsense. I'm not confusing predicate dei necessaria, ob essentiam ei tribuenda with anything else…The distinction between them being seeundum nostrum concipiendi modum. That is, the distinction here between attributes and nature is really one of subjective necessity on our part. God’s attributes are qualities that inhere in the being of God and are identical with His being. We cannot apprehend the whole perfection of God and so reduce the argument to consider Him in perfect parts, like goodness or justice. But that should not cause any confusion. God’s perfect Goodness springs from His greater real and perfect being and the implications of that perfection are inescapable.

Your are assuming that attributes are essential. Attributes are attributes. God is perfect existence. The Godhead does not err. God does not choose evil. You may consider that to indicate a flaw, but it doesn't.

Ah, that’s certainly clear enough…now who’s muddying the water? Attributes are attributes? Marvelous. That sets it all straight then…Attributes are little more than an expression of the larger reality that we cannot wrap our noggins around. One will not find an attribute of God contradicted by the nature of God. To even suggest such a thing is the road to madness and a God who cannot be known as man must know Him.

He is perfect, flawless in power, thought, and being—perfect wholly and in part and in the expression of that in the particular moment, act, or state contemplated.

The question is can God err? I say He cannot. You seem to suggest He will not. A god who can choose evil for any reason is not God. For evil itself is moral error. Play whatever semantic games you would with that concept and you will not alter it.

Nope. Didn't do that. You are misrepresenting what I said totally.

Easily enough done perhaps because you said so little. I could have sworn your only answer was "strawman." It's difficult to know what you meant by that...I am in the habit of taking objection at its face.

If I say the sky is blue and you say “ha!” I will naturally enough presume to understand you object to my declaration. If you only object to my grammar you will have to say so plainly. But if you support the idea of a god who can err, or who could choose evil, but doesn't, you support folly and a reduced, Zeus-like creature who cannot be the embodiment of perfection. If you do not support this idea it's a wonder we're still talking about it, my presentation being straight forward enough.

 

[Frank Ernest]

What nonsense. I'm not confusing predicate dei necessaria, ob essentiam ei tribuenda with anything else…The distinction between them being seeundum nostrum concipiendi modum. That is, the distinction here between attributes and nature is really one of subjective necessity on our part. God’s attributes are qualities that inhere in the being of God and are identical with His being. We cannot apprehend the whole perfection of God and so reduce the argument to consider Him in perfect parts, like goodness or justice. But that should not cause any confusion. God’s perfect Goodness springs from His greater real and perfect being and the implications of that perfection are inescapable.

You're trying to have it both ways. :nono:

Ah, that’s certainly clear enough…now who’s muddying the water? Attributes are attributes? Marvelous. That sets it all straight then…Attributes are little more than an expression of the larger reality that we cannot wrap our noggins around. One will not find an attribute of God contradicted by the nature of God. To even suggest such a thing is the road to madness and a God who cannot be known as man must know Him.

Strawman

He is perfect, flawless in power, thought, and being—perfect wholly and in part and in the expression of that in the particular moment, act, or state contemplated.

Never said He wasn't.

The question is can God err? I say He cannot.

The question is does God err? He does not.

You seem to suggest He will not. A god who can choose evil for any reason is not God.

A God who cannot know evil is not God. (Genesis 3:22-23 KJV)

For evil itself is moral error.

Knowing the difference between good and evil is not moral error.

Play whatever semantic games you would with that concept and you will not alter it.

Strawman.

Easily enough done perhaps because you said so little. I could have sworn your only answer was "strawman." It's difficult to know what you meant by that...I am in the habit of taking objection at its face.

Distorting the argument so you can more easily deal with it?

If I say the sky is blue and you say “ha!” I will naturally enough presume to understand you object to my declaration. If you only object to my grammar you will have to say so plainly. But if you support the idea of a god who can err, or who could choose evil, but doesn't, you support folly and a reduced, Zeus-like creature who cannot be the embodiment of perfection. If you do not support this idea it's a wonder we're still talking about it, my presentation being straight forward enough.

Embellishing your strawman argument is not helpful. Thank you for refreshing my memory about Gnosticism.

 

[Town Heretic]

You're trying to have it both ways. :nono:

Wrong and no response of substance. I can break it down if that's the difficulty.

Strawman

So much easier than attempting to counter the point, no?

Never said He wasn't.

You never said a lot of things...the trend continues here.

The question is does God err? He does not.

The question is also why does God not err? That is, can He or is it a matter of chance? You appear to lean in the latter direction, but again, who knows? That you're arguing against me is grounds for raising the point.

A God who cannot know evil is not God. (Genesis 3:22-23 KJV)

Know evil? Who said God can't comprehend evil? But if you're suggesting a God who can choose to be evil then it's time to drag out the thunderbolts.

Knowing the difference between good and evil is not moral error.

So basically the only time you're going to even appear to argue is when you're arguing against points that aren't being made? An interesting strategy...I never made a statement counter to your proposition. Next.

Strawman.

Cowardly lion...

Distorting the argument so you can more easily deal with it?

Making a claim without illustrating it or setting out by argument a) how I err or b) your counter and allegedly more on point understanding?

Embellishing your strawman argument is not helpful. Thank you for refreshing my memory about Gnosticism.

And now we reach it--the last, desperate hope for a losing argument. It is a moral wrong to lie and dishonorable to suggest a conclusion that one has every reason to know is a false one. I am no more a gnostic than you have been reasoned. But quick, guess my eye color! You'll have as much impact and at least a mathematical chance of being in the right (a new experience for you I'd guess).

 

[Frank Ernest]

Wrong and no response of substance. I can break it down if that's the difficulty.

So much easier than attempting to counter the point, no?

You never said a lot of things...the trend continues here.

The question is also why does God not err? That is, can He or is it a matter of chance? You appear to lean in the latter direction, but again, who knows? That you're arguing against me is grounds for raising the point.

Know evil? Who said God can't comprehend evil? But if you're suggesting a God who can choose to be evil then it's time to drag out the thunderbolts.

So basically the only time you're going to even appear to argue is when you're arguing against points that aren't being made? An interesting strategy...I never made a statement counter to your proposition. Next.

Cowardly lion...

Making a claim without illustrating it or setting out by argument a) how I err or b) your counter and allegedly more on point understanding?

And now we reach it--the last, desperate hope for a losing argument. It is a moral wrong to lie and dishonorable to suggest a conclusion that one has every reason to know is a false one. I am no more a gnostic than you have been reasoned. But quick, guess my eye color! You'll have as much impact and at least a mathematical chance of being in the right (a new experience for you I'd guess).

Ok. You want the chest-thumping sine qua non of argument removal. Have at it and have fun.

 

[Town Heretic]

Ok. You want the chest-thumping sine qua non of argument removal. Have at it and have fun.

And this would be noticeably different how? :e4e:

Sorry Frank, you're a decent sort and I bear you nothing remotely resembling animosity. I responded humorously where I might be inclined to assert a stronger negative (not without justification) for that reason. I didn't call you a pantheist, I said that if one reduces the concept of God it amounts to the same thing...where you actually stand is anyone's guess since you spent our entire conversation either saying no (straw man) or misstating my position while failing to clarify your own. :idunno:

That just isn't sufficient and it deserved to be called for it. Withdraw if you like. I certainly can't blame you.

 

[rbdeli]

It is good because God Loves it.

It is good because God Loves it.

God can obviously recognize what is good. Doesn’t a painter recognize his own painting? Doesn’t a composer recognize his own music? Is a beautiful work of art a masterpiece only because it has been created or recognized as good by its maker? Does recognizing his own work as something that is good mean that the composer or painter could not have created it? Obviously not, and neither could God's recognition of his own creation. The atheists assumption that God's recognition of his own creation proves he cannot be a unitarian God is wrong. But unlike a musical composition or a work of art, true goodness is not a matter of personal interpretation, preference or taste, anyway. Something that is genuinely good must be universallly agreed upon as good. There are plenty of things that are prosperous (or good) for some people, yet disasterous for others. Look at weather, for one example: Would a flood that destroyed thousands of homes in the midwest be considered good, if it brought needed drinking water to thousands of people stricken by a drought in the south?

So, what is the one common denominator of what is truly good? It comes through love. True love is selfless, fruitful, faithful and everlasting. If it is not worthy as good to everyone, it cannot be genuinely good to anyone. If we believe that God made us in his own image, and only through God, we are capable of doing and recognizing things that are good ourselves, and we agree that God is love, then we must know that genuine goodness and truth can only come through that love. God must love it for it to be good because love cannot lie or deceive. Something cannot be partly good or even simply believed by some to be good if it does not benefit all. Only through the very fullest expression of love can anything be wholy good. Love is what separates the good from the bad. But what does it mean for the non-believer? Could a non-believer deny that goodness requires love? No, and I doubt they would try, but they will argue that love is a by-product of nature, the natural selection process or some other evolutionary means of survival, and not of a creator. I say, fine. Prove it. The burden of proof lies with the atheism's explanation of love. Until an atheist can give me a good scientific explanation for love, I will maintain that the answer is,

"Something is good because God loves it."

By the way, I am not knocking Bob Enyart's brilliant essay on the Trinity.
I agreed with most all of it - I just don't believe it directly addresses the false assumption behind the atheists view of the Euthyphro question.

 

[Ecumenicist]

If by “Love is the very substance of God,” you mean that God cannot will to do otherwise, then Dave you overstate the case.

Dave, yes, Love is fundamental to who God is, and only a handful of attributes are more fundamental to who God is, than Love. In order of preeminence, the only and eternal God is Living, Personal, Relational, Good and Loving.

Interesting list, and I wouldn't dispute that God has these attributes, but I would dispute the
"preeminence" you assign to them. Remember the list from Scripture:

Genesis 31:50 - ...God is a witness ...
Deuteronomy 7:9 - ... God is God...
Deuteronomy 4:24 God is a consuming fire
John 4:24 God is spirit
Galatians 3:20 God is one
1 John 1:5 God is light
1 John 4:8 God is love

Regardless, you seem to be inferring that by accepting what Scripture says, i.e. God is Love,
this somehow conflicts with the attributes you describe as pre-eminent. I disagree. There is
no conflict in stating that God's Love is Alive, God's Love is Personal, God's Love is Relational,
God's Love is Good, and Loving. Same holds true for all the other attributes, God's Witness,
God's consuming Fire, God's Spirit, God's Whole Oneness, and God's Light. All Alive,
Personal, Relational, and Good.

Is God Good because God is Love, or is God Love because God is good? Scripture, I believe
suggests the former.

I'm not disputing your Trinitarian answer, its very clever, I'm proposing another possibility, one
that's perhaps not as clever, but need not conflict either. God recognizes Love because God
Is Love. Just as God Witnesses God's Self in the Trinitarian sense you propose, God
witnesses God's Self alive and active in God's Creation, and God sees that it is Good.

Your JONAH sermon is very nice, and I don't dispute it either. But I would suggest that again
regarding the nature of Christ, the attributes of Witness, God, Consuming Fire, Spirit, Wholeness,
Light and Love may prove more "pre-eminent," given that these are the attributes Scripture
assigns directly to God's Being. Christ is Witness. Christ is God. Christ is a Consuming Fire.
Christ is Spirit. Christ is One. Christ is Light. Christ is Love. Sounds right to me.

Thanx for entertaining my input on your thread.

Have a Blessed Day!

Dave Miller

 

[larryniven]

Larry, you’ve made distinctions in the roles of the Persons of the Trinity that do not appear, and have nothing to do with the OP argument, as though we’ve claimed that the morality of one Person preceded another.

Have I? If my language made it seem that way, my apologies - that wasn't my intent. I fully understand that these facts don't follow the same rules of time that normal ones do. Nonetheless, this answer still doesn't subvert my questions. To say that the three Persons verify each other in a meaningful way must mean that they gain their morality independently of each other and evaluate each other's morality using a meaningful standard, regardless of how this happens with respect to time. I don't see how your response allows for either of these. I'm more troubled, though, by the following...

The eternal testimony within the Trinity that they have no accusations against each other can objectively corroborate to themselves the truth of their own claim to righteousness.

In what sense can three Persons not be wrong about something that one Person can be wrong about? This would be akin to my arguing that The Beatles actually are lousy, because I and two of my friends have always thought so (or, if not I and two of my friends, then three independent standards of art evaluation I take to be accurate). Simply increasing the numbers does nothing to deflect the subjective nature of what's going on, not even if those numbers happen to behave that way in a logically necessary and eternal way (and especially if they happen to reside within the same...something). Surely they agree on something or other, but agreement alone is not, as you claim, evidence of goodness. It's only evidence of agreement (which, if the three Persons are all part of the same God, shouldn't exactly be surprising - but that's another argument).

For clarity's sake, I'm going to list my questions again here, because you haven't yet explicitly answered them, but if you think these are the wrong questions to ask (which it seems like you do), I suggest that you try to give replacement questions or, if absolutely necessary, a clear reason why these kinds of questions don't apply (which, sorry, you haven't done yet).

1. For each Person in the Trinity, does that Person's moral nature refer to some fact(s) outside of that Person, or not?
2. When this corroboration happens, does any Person refer to any facts outside of the Trinity, or not?

Again, I repeat: these events need not happen consecutively, or even in a timed manner at all. But in order for us to understand your argument whatsoever, you have to be able to answer something like these questions. Corroboration, for instance, cannot possibly happen without reference to facts - I'm merely asking which facts are involved in this particular case.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

(Stopping by in honor of Fellowship week.)

Herein lies the rub, if you will. This entire discussion would make more progress if Bob E. would take the time to clearly lay out his views on what he believes to be the nature of the Trinity and Incarnate Christ. As things stand, persons are talking past one another until a solid foundation is built. Trying to extract what Bob E. holds from his posts is problematic and fraught with possible misinterpretations.

For those interested, the orthodox view (my own) is given here and here. From which several questions are in need of answering by Bob E. if one is to understand the rationale he is using to declare the dilemma solved.

The silence from Bob is deafening. :think: See my original post for specific questions that need to be answered for a proper discussion of the Dilemma. :readthis:

 

[Jefferson]

The silence from Bob is deafening. :think: See my original post for specific questions that need to be answered for a proper discussion of the Dilemma. :readthis:

If you want Bob to respond, repost it in the original Euthyphro thread when it opens up again. Bob doesn't dialog in this companion thread.

 

[Ecumenicist]

Interesting list, and I wouldn't dispute that God has these attributes, but I would dispute the
"preeminence" you assign to them. Remember the list from Scripture:

Genesis 31:50 - ...God is a witness ...
Deuteronomy 7:9 - ... God is God...
Deuteronomy 4:24 God is a consuming fire
John 4:24 God is spirit
Galatians 3:20 God is one
1 John 1:5 God is light
1 John 4:8 God is love

Regardless, you seem to be inferring that by accepting what Scripture says, i.e. God is Love,
this somehow conflicts with the attributes you describe as pre-eminent. I disagree. There is
no conflict in stating that God's Love is Alive, God's Love is Personal, God's Love is Relational,
God's Love is Good, and Loving. Same holds true for all the other attributes, God's Witness,
God's consuming Fire, God's Spirit, God's Whole Oneness, and God's Light. All Alive,
Personal, Relational, and Good.

Is God Good because God is Love, or is God Love because God is good? Scripture, I believe
suggests the former.

I'm not disputing your Trinitarian answer, its very clever, I'm proposing another possibility, one
that's perhaps not as clever, but need not conflict either. God recognizes Love because God
Is Love. Just as God Witnesses God's Self in the Trinitarian sense you propose, God
witnesses God's Self alive and active in God's Creation, and God sees that it is Good.

Your JONAH sermon is very nice, and I don't dispute it either. But I would suggest that again
regarding the nature of Christ, the attributes of Witness, God, Consuming Fire, Spirit, Wholeness,
Light and Love may prove more "pre-eminent," given that these are the attributes Scripture
assigns directly to God's Being. Christ is Witness. Christ is God. Christ is a Consuming Fire.
Christ is Spirit. Christ is One. Christ is Light. Christ is Love. Sounds right to me.

Thanx for entertaining my input on your thread.

Have a Blessed Day!

Dave Miller

If Bob cares to address the assertions I make, I guess he can do so here. Apparently he finds
them too challenging to address in his closed forum. I see no further reason to address him
directly, since he's interpreting the rules as he goes and answering only the issues he finds
convenient.