The Euthyphro Dilemma and Appeals to God as Source of Morality

[nPeace]

@TagliatelliMonster and @Koldo seem to be doing a fine job. When you can answer the question in my OP, as well as my follow up to you, let me know.

I answered.
See my post above.
Communication problem?

 

[nPeace]

No. That's not saying that God is not perfect in all his ways. A theist could come along and say that perfection entails having sovereignty over morality and that you are denying God's sovereignty and therefore his perfection. Another could simply disagree.

You need to remember that not everyone uses words in the exact same way you do.



I am afraid that's not the case. The problem is the logical leap taken.



'Holy' could mean anything in practice.
You need to elaborate if you want to be understood.

Same goes for you, apparently.

 

[Left Coast]

I answered.
See my post above.
Communication problem?

You didn't. The communication problem appears to be on your end.

 

[Koldo]

Same goes for you, apparently.

I am sorry, but I don't quite get what you mean by this.

Are you asking me why the moral standard has to be independent from God?

 

[nPeace]

You didn't. The communication problem appears to be on your end.

I say it's yours. Another circle... going nowhere?

 

[nPeace]

I am sorry, but I don't quite get what you mean by this.

Are you asking me why the moral standard has to be independent from God?

I'm saying we don't seem to be understanding each other.

 

[Left Coast]

I say it's yours. Another circle... going nowhere?

When you have a coherent response to the replies given to you in this thread, let me know.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think you are just repeating the OP, in other words.
So, it's like going in circles... and going nowhere.
We probably can't understand each other.

I was addressing YOUR post.

Yes, in the OP it is correctly said that it has to be one or the other (either things are good because god says they are, or god says things are good because they are good for some other reason then god just saying so).

You first say that things are good because god says they are good.
But when you elaborate, you are making statements that imply that god says things are good because they are good for some other reason.

I am merely pointing out this contradiction in your replies.

You claim that whatever god says is the standard.
But when you actually talk about morality, you imply that there is some other standard.

If whatever god says is the standard, then statements like "god wouldn't say a bad thing is actually good" is utterly meaningless.


So let's just cut this short.

In your own words, please answer these two questions... Your answers may be simplistic. Let's just bottom line this...

In your opinion:
- what does it mean to say that "action X is moral"
- what does it mean to say that "action X is immoral"

Or otherwise put:
what makes something moral?
what makes something immoral?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm saying we don't seem to be understanding each other.

I would dare to submit that everybody here understands what I said just fine.
The lack of understanding seems to be completely one sided on your end.

But let's just start over. Please answer my 2 questions in my previous post and we'll go from there.