Not as harmful as driving it, though.
2 Likes
I’m not sure if you’re not just trying to be funny here.
On the assumption that you intend this as a serious response: There is nothing in my analogy that requires that the bars “wanted to be known.” They are inanimate objects.
I’ll try make it even simpler: There is a committee of people who have decided to establish a measure of length called a “metre”. It has selected three meteal bars at random of various lengths, one of which will be chosen as the standard.
On what basis could it be argued that only one of the bars can serve as the standard?
Please just answer the question rather than trying to find ways to weasel out of it, thanks.
Exactly wrong.
Using a car to grow plants is good for the environment.
Driving it will destroy the environment.
The more crucial point: You have now contradicted your position, and tied morality to the consequences of one’s actions, rather than to the ends for which something was intended.
I don’t see how that is the case at all. People tend to think of morality in terms of consequences. You’ve just done that yourself.
Once again, you’re one step ahead of me. 
4 Likes
My response was serious.
And again, anytime you bring in someone who is establishing the standard, you’re bringing back in the false dilemma. So the question doesn’t apply.
You were the one comparing a standard bar to the idea of God. What I’m saying is this. If we compare God to a bar and He wants to be known, he creates us, shows us His nature and tells us He is the standard. We then “use” Him as the standard unless we decide to rebel and make our own.
Why won’t you simply answer the question?
2 Likes
I did answer that it’s a false dilemma.
I would be logically inconsistent to answer the question as asked since the false dilemma leads to answer that God does not exist. It’s simply the case that He can possibly exist.
Wrong. You can only choose one bar as the standard, since to have two or three different standards makes no sense. And if one of the bars is chosen, then neither of the other two can be chosen. So this is not a false dilemma.
But since you seem to want to just play games rather than actually answer a simple and direct question, I will spell out the argument that I was hoping you would reason your way to on your own.
The answer to the question is that there is no way to argue only one of the bars can serve as the standard. Any one of the three can serve equally well, though each would result in a different standard length. The choice is entirely arbitrary.
And the same applies to your choice of God as the standard for morality. God might say it is moral to do one thing, someone else will say it is not moral, and another person might a different opinion from either.
You have provided no basis on which to declare that God provides the possible correct standard. All you have done is describe some of the properties you ascribe to God, and then tack on “therefore he is the only possible standard for morality.” But that is just a non-sequitur.
Creating the universe does not entail being the standard of morality. Neither does being all-powerful, or being uncreated, or existing eternally, or any of the other qualities you might ascribe to him.
Your argument is the equivalent of saying “Bar #1 is the only possible standard for the length of a metre, because it’s silver-grey in colour, and weighs 10 kg.” The two propositions have nothing to do with one another.
I hope that helps.
3 Likes
Oops. You got this part wrong. That is the standard definition of God by secularists and non-secularists alike. So, yes, if such a being existed, his definition of morality would be the supreme standard. This is where your argument breaks down.
[Sorry to butt in but when I see this fatal mistake made over and over again, I simply have to jump in and correct it. Never mind me]
1 Like
Interestingly, I also notice that you make the fatal mistake of getting this exactly backward. No, of course, there simply is no reason to assume that a god is the supreme standard of morality. And making reference to a non-existent “standard definition” wouldn’t help your case even if that non-existent standard existed.
Sorry to butt in, but when I see this fatal mistake made over and over again, I simply have to jump in and correct it.
5 Likes
The issue at hand is whether the “standard definition” applies to anything that actually exists.
The standard definition of a unicorn is a horse with a horn growing out of its forehead.
So even if we establish that a horse exists, that does not mean it is a unicorn if it does not have a horn growing out of its forehead.
Similarly, if God is defined as an all-powerful, uncreated eternal being that is the standard for morality, we have not demonstrated that God exists just by showing that an an all-powerful, uncreated eternal being exists, unless we can show that it is also the standard for morality.
Now, of course, determining whether a horse has a horn growing out its forehead is a very simple matter.
But how does one determine that a being is the standard of morality? That’s not really my problem, is it?
4 Likes
Again, you’re repeating the false dilemma.
You’re confusing two arguments. No, I have not shown that God exists - just the He CAN exist.
The next argument would be that he MUST exist because we need an objective standard of morality for any of us to have any sense of right and wrong. For that, we should start a new thread.
You both are obligated to prove out his non-existence. Yours is a belief-standard that God does not exist just like ours is a belief-standard that he does. It is no easier for him to exist than not exist. Therefore, you do not have the luxury of claiming his non-existence and doing nothing to prove it.
If this being we call God exists, then he is the very standard of morality.
It is very much your problem. You share the burden to defend your position, something you have not done.
Wrong.
Like I said, you don’t get to make up beliefs that I do not hold and attribute them to me. If that’s the only way you can win an argument, just go make up some imaginary friends to argue with and don’t waste my time.
OK, time for lunch. I’m getting crabby from hypoglycemia again.
3 Likes
It has everything to do with this discussion because you have not proven that God cannot exist.
This is uncalled for and should be flagged. @thoughtful statements are fully coherent.
This is a great time for you to bow out of a discussion you cannot win. Bring proof of God’s non-existence and we can begin again.
The Euthyphro dilemma is a dilemma about whether God CAN exist or not.
The answer is that this is a false dilemma and God is good because He is Good. God loves X because He is good.
It does get confusing and I tried to tell @structureoftruth he was also confusing the two arguments. I don’t think he responded to me.
A different argument, one for the existence of God would be this:
If so, only incidentally.
Not a solution to the dilemma. I have explained why. You didn’t understand the explanation. So it goes.
3 Likes
Yes, correct, only incidentally. The argument is that the dilemma creates a situation where God cannot exist because it makes morality independent of God anyway (like atheists are arguing) or that it’s arbitrary.
Perhaps it’s not me misunderstanding your explanation, but you missing the logic of mine? 
I’m trying as best I can…
I don’t deny that you’re trying.
1 Like
Perhaps a Bible verse can better illustrate why this
is a false dilemma.
Romans 5
For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
God doesn’t love us because we are good but because He is good and He is love.
1 John 4
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
Entirely correct. Perhaps Plato failed to identify the fact that a god can be good because the gods he had to choose from in his day were no better than humans regarding morality.
Anyway, the Euthyphro dilemma is easily solved upon identifying the true and living God - the God of the Hebrews. He is innately the very definition of good.
1 Like