A Christian Answer to Euthyphro's Dilemma

[sdguy2005]

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

In case you're not familiar with Euthyphro's Dilemma, it's a
philosophical argument that atheists like to use to claim that
morality cannot flow from God, because any absolute moral standard is
either a) arbitarily commanded by God, in which case even murder would
be OK if He said so, or b) a moral standard external to God would
exist, which would mean that some being is superior to Him.

This particular answer to the dilemma proves that only the Christian
deity (a triune god) can objectively know that an absolute moral
standard exists, because of the consistent, eternal witness within the
Godhead. In other words, Allah could not know for sure that he was
good.

Check it out!

[DKleinecke]

Post by sdguy2005
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
In case you're not familiar with Euthyphro's Dilemma, it's a
philosophical argument that atheists like to use to claim that
morality cannot flow from God, because any absolute moral standard is
either a) arbitarily commanded by God, in which case even murder would
be OK if He said so, or b) a moral standard external to God would
exist, which would mean that some being is superior to Him.
This particular answer to the dilemma proves that only the Christian
deity (a triune god) can objectively know that an absolute moral
standard exists, because of the consistent, eternal witness within the
Godhead. In other words, Allah could not know for sure that he was
good.
Check it out!

The article posted uses an awful lot of words to suggest a simple
idea.

The answer to Euthyphro is really simple - there are no absolute moral
standards.

But to suggest that the Trinity somehow validates some set of
standards that a preacher espouses is foolish in the eyes, not only of
Muslims (and Jews), but also of Christian Unitarians.

There is no need for absolute moral standards. What matters is LOVE
and love cannot be legislated.

That is, and this seems to me to be the real answer to Euthyphro, how
can we possibly extend LOVE into the details of human life in any
other fashion than as what lawyers would call case law (in this case
this is what is moral - in that case perhaps something else holds)?

I see no evidence that this can be done. Certainly there is no
historical evidence that it ever has been done.

[Matthew Johnson]

Post by DKleinecke

Post by sdguy2005
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

[snip]

Post by DKleinecke
The article posted uses an awful lot of words to suggest a simple
idea.

He does a lot more than that with his "awful lot of
words". Unfortunately, it contains outright blunders like the foolish
description of Euthyphro as a "state's attorney"; there _was_ no such
thing in his day. And the article makes bigger blunders, such as the
references to threeness in QED and the fundamental forces of nature.

Post by DKleinecke
The answer to Euthyphro is really simple - there are no absolute
moral standards.

The answer to _Euthyphro_, or the answer to "Euthyphro's Dilemma"? The
two are very different, since the latter is so badly mis-named.

In either case, as with most such "really simple answers", this answer
is wrong. Of course there are "absolute moral standards".

Post by DKleinecke
But to suggest that the Trinity somehow validates some set of
standards that a preacher espouses is foolish in the eyes, not only
of Muslims (and Jews), but also of Christian Unitarians.

Well, so _what_ if it is foolish in _their_ eyes?

Post by DKleinecke
There is no need for absolute moral standards. What matters is LOVE
and love cannot be legislated.

This "simple idea" is too simple. It is drastically oversimplified.

Post by DKleinecke
That is, and this seems to me to be the real answer to Euthyphro, how
can we possibly extend LOVE into the details of human life in any
other fashion than as what lawyers would call case law (in this case
this is what is moral - in that case perhaps something else holds)?
I see no evidence that this can be done. Certainly there is no
historical evidence that it ever has been done.

Sure, there is. So the real question is, why do you miss the evidence?
Is it because you are demanding too much, demanding that it extend to
an entire Church? In that case, I would say you have not understood
the parable of wheat and tares (Mt 13:24-30). Or is it because you
don't recognize the love that is shown to you? That, alas, is very
common these days.