Re: A Christian Answer to Euthyphro's Dilemma

On Mar 16, 9:33 am, Qarel <text...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 16 mrt, 03:50, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Mar 15, 2:44 pm, Qarel <text...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 15 mrt, 20:16, Friar Broccoli <Elia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 12, 4:37 pm, sdguy2005 <samrig2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi everyone. I thought some of you might be interested in reading this
article that was posted at TheologyOnline.com called, "A Christian
Answer to Euthyphro's Dilemma."http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47024

I was interested that a problem that has long been at the
center of my thoughts has such an ancient name. So I skipped
down to the:

Conclusion

Is something good because God commands it so (i.e., because He
decides that a certain trait, like honesty, will be good rather
than bad)? No. Scripture reinforces the judgment of the
conscience that God put within man, both of which indicate that
morality, like truth, is non-contradictory and could not survive
even the potential of embracing immorality.

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.

* How does God reveal His standard to men? This and so many
other questions go beyond Euthyphro's Dilemma. But see Battle
Royale VII, Does God Exist?, Bob Enyart vs. Zakath for more
information, available for free online at TheologyOnline.com's
Coliseum or in print at KGOV.com.

Thus the Christian answers the skeptic with a logically
consistent explanation of how morality can flow from God Himself
without requiring that God arbitrarily decide what kinds of
traits will be considered "good," by showing how the triune God
can objectively know righteousness.

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
[credible]. 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."

Does anybody think that this even resembles a reply?

Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor:http://www.semware.com

--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------

No, and I am a Christian. In the first place I thoroughly
dislike it when people start using the Trinity in arguments,
as if it is something that is well understood. It isn't;
it is essentially a mystery, not a completely satisfying
answer.

More importantly I see a problem with the third point:

* If the standard is Himself, how could God know it is valid? By
the eternal concurring witnesses of the Trinity.

This only removes the complaint about disagreeing Gods,
not the complaint (used against unitarian Gods in the
same article) of self-deception by God. When three agree
they are not right by definition. The witnessing that the
article talks about and that is supposed to save God from
self-deception, refers only to actions within the trinity
itself (if we can ever talk about such things), not to
the actions of the trinity outside itself. And then the
complaint against the unitarian gods returns in full
force.

My personal dilemma goes a bit deeper than that. I ask myself:
Suppose the supreme being was in no way good. What standard
could I use to discern, what is truly good, against his will?

.

I agree that this is a dilemma, in the sense of "a problem"
but isn't the answer just: "no way"? Without an evil deceiver
people have all kinds of ways to argue and (dis)agree about
the good, with an ED we cannot trust our own arguments.
But perhaps I misunderstand the thrust of your question.

Reading your reply, I realize that I made my point (to the
extent I had one - I just muddle along) badly. You suggested
that God might be a victim of his own self-deception, an idea
which I find extremely unrealistic for a being at that level. I
think it more likely that a god would just see things completely
differently from us. Thus we don't need to postulate an Evil
Deceiver or a Self Deceiver to wonder if His version of "The
Good" is the "true" one.

The standard which I have gradually developed over the years is:
Minimum hurtful action, and maximum truth. To what extent does
The Creator care about these attributes? If He disagrees in
some way, are my ethical standards then faulty?


Cordially;

Friar Broccoli
Robert Keith Elias, Quebec, Canada Email: EliasRK (of) gmail * com
Best programmer's & all purpose text editor: http://www.semware.com

--------- I consider ALL arguments in support of my views ---------

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Panentheism [was Re: The Times of London on "Christian Darwinism"]
    ... it is orthodox to say that God is one. ... it is never correct/orthodox to say "God is one" ... 'Trinity' means: that God is both one and three. ... for original sin and other standard Christian doctrines. ...
    (soc.religion.christian)
  • Re: The Doctrine Of The Trinity
    ... doctrine of the Trinity was and that it is no way simple or clear, ... The central Christian affirmations about God are condensed and focused ... the second person of the Trinity who "was with God." ...
    (alt.religion.christian)
  • ibn anwar on trinity in the nt
    ... of the trinity we are in actual fact discussing that which is ... The Hindus believe in ONE God namely, ... UNITY I have yet to find one Christian scholar who would consider them ... Remember the verse of Jesus coming back on clouds ...
    (alt.religion.islam)
  • Re: A Christian Answer to Euthyphros Dilemma
    ... article that was posted at TheologyOnline.com called, "A Christian ... Is something good because God commands it so (i.e., ... the eternal concurring witnesses of the Trinity. ... mystery of the Trinity, Three Persons in One God, is the one God ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Doctrine of the Trinity
    ... I can't answer you as a Trinitarian, nor even as a Christian. ... answer you as someone who has a triune god. ... The Triple Goddess represents the same thing as the Trinity: ... required, but simply knowledge of and belief in Jesus, and of the nature ...
    (alt.religion.christian)