Euthyth… Eutythrow… Euthyphro’s Dilemma – by Godless teen

December 29, 2012 in Answers, General

Since I’ve been talking a ton about morality, I thought I’d throw this out there: Euthy… Euthyph… Euthyphro’s Dilemma (trying saying that name five times fast). Basically the dilemma is the following: does God only report what is already moral and what is immoral, or does he determine what is moral and what is immoral?

For the first option, we discover that- ok, if God’s only reporting what is moral, not declaring something moral, then clearly he isn’t the root of objective morals. For one thing, this completely and utterly defuses any arguments from theists from the standpoint of morality, that tend to claim that objective morality is dictated by God. However, not only that, but suddenly, God’s not the omnipotent, all-knowing being he used to be any more; after all, if he cannot control what is moral and immoral, then that completely defies the very definition of omnipotence.

The second option basically declares that morality is God’s opinion. I could go into depth about this one, but one particular Christian website that I found, ironically, puts it into pretty good words. I’ll copy and paste them right into here…

…Ethicist Scott Rae describes the view: “A divine command theory of ethics is one in which the ultimate foundation for morality is the revealed will of God, or the commands of God found in Scripture.”[4] This view is known as ethical voluntarism.

At first blush this seems correct, until we realize the liabilities. The content of morality would be arbitrary, dependent on God’s whim. Though God has declared murder, theft, and debauchery wrong, it could have been otherwise had God willed it so. Any “immoral” act could suddenly become “moral” by simple fiat.

Further, it reduces God’s goodness to His power. To say that God is good simply means that He is capable of enforcing His commands. As Russell put it, “For God Himself there is no difference between right and wrong.”

This is the position of Islam,[5] but it is unacceptable to the Christian. Morality is not arbitrary. God is not free to call what is wrong right, and what is right wrong. The text is clear: “It is impossible for God to lie” (Hebrews 6:18). God cannot sin.

In another words, theists are suddenly faced by multiple problems. If they choose this stance, then morality does indeed become arbitrary. It becomes based on an opinion- a god’s opinion, granted, but that still means that morality is based upon a judgement that has no actual basis in fact- it’s no longer objective, but subjective. As mentioned above, there’s also the problem of there being no difference between right and wrong, as displayed in the Russel quote. Finally, there’s the problem of “oh hey there’s a bible contradiction… and a pretty big one… and lying is a sin… oh…”.

Of course, I would be unfair if I only cut and pasted that excerpt from the website. The web site does claim that

…”a ‘moral’ atheist is like a man sitting down to dinner who doesn’t believe in farmers, ranchers, fishermen, or cooks. He believes the food just appears, with no explanation and no sufficient cause.”[8]The atheist’s morality has no grounding.

Now, I’ve written extensively about this topic, and I will continue to do so in the future, so, that considered, let’s put that away for now, and look at what really matters here.

The Christian rejects the first option, that morality is an arbitrary function of God’s power. And he rejects the second option, that God is responsible to a higher law. There is no Law over God.

The third option is that an objective standard exists (this avoids the first horn of the dilemma). However, the standard is not external to God, but internal (avoiding the second horn). Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness.

Could God simply decree that torturing babies was moral? “No,” the Christian answers, “God would never do that.” It’s not a matter of command. It’s a matter of character.

So the Christian answer avoids the dilemma entirely. Morality is not anterior to God–logically prior to Him–as Bertrand Russell suggests, but rooted in His nature. As Scott Rae puts it, “Morality is not grounded ultimately in God’s commands, but in His character, which then expresses itself in His commands.”[9] In other words, whatever a good God commands will always be good.

Ok.

So, let’s take this apart…

First of all, just looking at this whole thing, here’s what I observe. Originally, we started off with two options: God doesn’t determine what is moral, and God does determine what is moral. Of course, that’s not the actual wording, but it is essentially what the argument says. This website hopes to try and leap those two options, but, in the process, somehow tries to mash the two ideas together.

Secondly, the idea that “an objective moral standard exists” gets rid of the thinking that “God reports what is moral and immoral” is absurd. To quote the website…

And he rejects the second option, that God is responsible to a higher law. There is no Law over God.

However, that’s based on the initial assumption that the Bible is true, that a God exists, etc, etc. Of course, if somebody tries to use that argument, then any argument that they attempt to use against atheists fall apart. This is because their thinking of how morality has come to be originally is based on the assumption that a God does exist, and that he/she/it does not obey a higher power. Thus, the argument for God is based on the assumption of God. Of course, the theist could always say “hey, God doesn’t necessarily need to not follow a higher law”, but then you get the same issue as earlier: then does that mean that God only reports what is immoral and what is moral? It also means that God cannot be omnipotent, as before.

Now, the part that I want to get to is the third option:

The third option is that an objective standard exists (this avoids the first horn of the dilemma). However, the standard is not external to God, but internal (avoiding the second horn). Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness.

Could God simply decree that torturing babies was moral? “No,” the Christian answers, “God would never do that.” It’s not a matter of command. It’s a matter of character.

So the Christian answer avoids the dilemma entirely. Morality is not anterior to God–logically prior to Him–as Bertrand Russell suggests, but rooted in His nature. As Scott Rae puts it, “Morality is not grounded ultimately in God’s commands, but in His character, which then expresses itself in His commands.”[9] In other words, whatever a good God commands will always be good.

The last part is, at best, laughable, and, at worst, completely argument-shattering for the theist. Yes, if God is good, and he commands what is good… That means that he defines what “good” is, and God’s “goodness” is only determined by him. Again, you could get around this with the “higher-than-God-authority” argument, but this runs into the same issues as mentioned before. So, that last part, by itself, is meaningless- it says that God is automatically good because whatever he says is good is good and thus he is good.

That’s a lot of “goods”.

Now, another thing to mention: the whole “God would never do that” argument. Well, we’re not talking about “woulds” here, we’re talking about “coulds”. I would never jump five hundred feet in the sky, but, then again, I can’t jump five hundred feet in the sky anyways. Now, God may never do something or another, but can he? Well, if he can’t- au revoir, omnipotence. And if he can? Then, again, he is arbitrarily declaring what is good and what is bad, still. He’s saying that such-and-such is moral why this-and-this is immoral, but it’s only based on opinion and no objective fact. Again, granted, his opinion, but I’ve already shown the problem with it being even a god’s opinion in the first place.

Another thing to consider with that: if God would never do such a thing, then that must be because there is something stopping him from doing it. The example mentioned here was God’s unchanging character/holiness. However, this runs right back into the initial problem again: God is no longer omnipotent, and he’s being controlled by “higher laws” that he can’t control himself. They are what determine what is moral and what is not, not God. Thus, again, God is only reporting what is/isn’t moral.

And then, yet again, we look at the assumption that “well, God’s character is immutable”, which again assumes theism and God being one specific way. Which, yet again, defuses any arguments from morality for theism, and thus makes all such arguments invalid, due to the fact that they are based on an initial unjustifiable assumption.

In this excerpt, the author, Gregory Koukl, tries to be a little too greedy. He wants the best of both worlds: he wants to show that morality is not based on a power higher than God, yet he also wants to try to show that morality can only come one way, through God’s character. Either way, the argument fails from the same problems as before: either one concedes that God is not omnipotent, that he does not determine what is and what is not moral, or that his morality is opinionated. Other problems occur: the cracks in the initial assumptions, for one thing. Also, because, through this argument, it is still technically God who decides what is and what is not moral, then there’s no initial baseline for morality. In other words, God’s morality is still opinionated because it’s based on initial unjustifiable concepts that could just as well be anything else. In another reality, God could declare that eating your sister’s first newborn child is moral, and there is no way that God would ever declare otherwise. In that scenario, then morality is still opinionated, as it isn’t based on any actual fact. The only difference is that, this time, that morality doesn’t change, but that’s not any improvement. One still has to ponder how these morals came to be in the first place; eventually, the only possible explanation is just the same as before: arbitrarily.

Now let’s look at the second part of this article that I’d like to mention:

The Christian’s job is not done, though, because Bertrand Russell’s observation suggests a second problem. Socrates’ challenge to Euthyphro has not been met. What is “good”? It doesn’t help to say that God is good unless we know what the term refers to.

If the word “good” means “in accord with the nature and character of God,” we have a problem. When the Bible says “God is good,” it simply means “God has the nature and character that God has.” If God and goodness are the very same thing, then the statement “God is good” means nothing more than “God is God,” a useless tautology.

The answer to this problem hinges on the philosophical notion of identity, expressed symbolically as A = A. When one thing is identical to another (in the way I’m using the term), there are not two things, but one.[10] For example, the president of Stand to Reason (Gregory Koukl) is identical to the author of this article. Everything that’s true of the one is true of the other.[11] The author and the president are the same. They are not two, but one.

According to Christian teaching, God is not good in the same way that a bachelor is an unmarried male. When we say God is good, we are giving additional information, namely that God has a certain quality. God is not the very same thing as goodness (identical to it). It’s an essential characteristic of God, so there is no tautology.[12]

I found this a bit confusing. So, let’s look at this.

Ok, so “goodness” is not defined as being in “in accord with the nature and character of God”. That’s fair.

The second part begins the confusion. I don’t see any reason why the A = A philosophy is necessary here, if we’re already ok with the idea that “goodness” isn’t the same thing as “God”.

The last part, again, reaffirms the first part, that “God” and “good” are two separate entities.

What really bugs me, though, is the comparison of this idea with this quote:

In other words, whatever a good God commands will always be good.

Well, now that we know that the terms “good” and “God” are separate, suddenly we realize that there is a “higher law” than a god. For now we see that it is not God, nor any part of him, that determines what is good, but… Something else. And, due to that something else, God cannot command something that is not good. In other words, God is no longer omnipotent, no longer declares what is good and what is bad (“If the word ‘good’ means ‘in accord with the nature and character of God,’ we have a problem.”), because doing so would create an inherent contradiction. The funny thing is, this article completely contradicts itself with two lines:

Morality is not anterior to God–logically prior to Him–as Bertrand Russell suggests, but rooted in His nature.

 

If the word ‘good’ means ‘in accord with the nature and character of God,’ we have a problem.

Well, which is it? In one line, you claim that morality comes from (is “rooted in”) the nature of God, yet, in the other, you say that morality being rooted in God’s nature is a problem. You can’t say that what was meant is that morality is part of God’s nature, and that therefore the contradiction is dropped (because morality is no longer rooted in God’s behavior, but his behavior is based upon it), because then the issue becomes that Bertrand Russel was actually correct- morality is logically prior to a God.

And so forth.

Clearly, Euthyphro’s Dilemma continues to be a dilemma to theists, and one that can’t be easily answered (assuming that it can be answered at all). So, in all reality, morality arguments for God can be pretty easily defused, or, at worst, weakened, with this Dilemma.

19 responses to Euthyth… Eutythrow… Euthyphro’s Dilemma – by Godless teen

  1. Thumbs up ^

  2. Is it Ok for me to paste a link to this in a Facebook discussion I’ve been having with somebody from Answers in Genesis? It seems to be making good arguments that are beyond my intellectual level.

    • Haha thanks you two!

      @Dave: sure, go ahead. Anything on my blog can be shared, I don’t have any problem with that.

      Also, I apologize that you’ve found yourself arguing with… Those people. *shudder*

  3. Well your post just supported the theist stance that there is no Euthyphro’s dilemma. But you, and the quoted article, go beyond just the dilemma.

    If it can be shown that there is a 3d option than it is not a true dilemma.

    You have shown this to be the case.

    To disagree, you have to show why only the first two premises can be valid and not the third – as posited by theists.

    • sorry chris, not quite sure i follow you? What is the 3rd option that theists posit?

    • Cool, I’d like for you to actually point out flaws and not act as if I never said anything to rebut the third option. :)

      Love, Godless Teen

    • You know, isn’t it funny that your attention span is so incredibly low that you *only* noticed that I mentioned the argument of a third option, and completely and utterly discounted the rest? Isn’t it funny that you, of all people, claim that my argument is completely invalid because it only supports yours when everybody else says that (or at least acts like) I didn’t make any such errors in the post?

      You know, I think that’s very funny indeed.

    • I quite clearly showed that the alleged “third option” was inherently a mash up of the first two, trying to somehow fit in that morality isn’t God’s opinion and yet that he doesn’t follow a higher law (to put it briefly). Even if this could be considered a third option, I clearly showed that it is still a major problem for theists, and really makes no sense.

      So, if you have any actual objections, please back them up with evidence and not blurt out random claims.

  4. You missed the point…again…

    For something to be a Euthyphro Dilemma – a problem must have only TWO options.

    All a theist need to is posit a third…which was done.

    Thus the dilemma was made void.

    And that is ALL a Euthyphro’s Dilemma deals with.

    As I stated in my reply – you AND the article go beyond this. Into semantics and epistemology.

    I’m a bit surprised, however, that you opted for this article rather than the very good articles William Lane Craig has on this very subject. You claim to read WLC – yet do not use any of his articles as they are, in my opinion, better than the one you cited.

    Such as this one: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/euthyphro-dilemma

    this one: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-euthyphro-dilemma-once-more

    and this one as well — http://www.reasonablefaith.org/christianity-today-article

  5. You as I said go beyond the dilemma.

    The third option is this: God will’s something, because HE is good.

    It’s God’s nature that determines what is “good.”

    Now, this defeats the ED.

    I agree with you the two “horns” have lacking areas, which is why they “fail” for their explanation as to how morals could be grounded in God.

    the third option, however, stands firm and is a valid third option – thus NO dilemma.

    If you wish to continue to claim ED – then you have to argue why this third option isn’t valid. Your argument goes BEYOND this (not saying it isn’t an argument worth having, but doesn’t deal with ED specifically).

    Just based on the premises alone, you have to make an argument why the third option isn’t viable.

    • Ok, so because I think that you missed my point, I’m going to simplify things for you.

      The third option is nothing more than the first option (reporting what is and isn’t moral), no matter how you look at it.

      If God is by nature good, we have two options:
      1. God’s nature defines goodness
      2. God’s nature does not define goodness

      If we choose option 2, then we simply land back at the beginning: this means that God does not define what is good and what is not good. Thus he is not omnipotent and simply reports what is and isn’t moral from a higher authority.

      If we choose option 1, we are again faced by two more options:

      1. God defines his nature.
      2. God does not define his nature.

      If God does define his nature, then what is good and what isn’t is none other than his own choice. This brings us to option 2: God arbitrarily assigns moral values, because he defines his own nature.

      However, if God does not define his nature, then we are brought back one last time to option 1 (God only reports morality). This is because he must obey a higher law than him- his nature- that he cannot go against. It would be no different from a computer program; the program cannot step outside of the boundaries set by code; the code dictates what the program does. Similarly, God must abide by a certain set of rules, embodied in his “nature”, and, should this be the case, he cannot control everything because he cannot even control himself! His “nature” can exist by itself without having to deal with the conscious, omnipotent mind that you want to throw in there. So, yet again, you’re brought back to the problem that God must obey a higher set of rules that determine what is and is not moral, and thus he is not omnipotent and not all-powerful.

      That, in a nutshell, is what I argued in my post. I certainly didn’t word it the way above, but all of the points that I made supported this point of view that I had.

      Thus, you’re still stuck with two options: God arbitrarily assigns moral values, or he must bow down to some kind of higher law. There is no real “third option”. And, even if this could be considered a “third option” (which it can’t, but I’m doing this just to please you), then the problem still stands. Sure, it now has three options, but it’s still a problem to theists because it suffers from the same problems as the first two options.

      Also, may I mention that your opinion is clearly subjective and not based on evidence, and thus I am just as correct when I say that my opinion is that this article was better than WLC’s. :) plus, I don’t check RF every day (sorry to burst your bubble, but their arguments tend to be incredibly mainstream), and WLC seems to argue the exact same thing that was argued in the article that I cited.

      Now, let me ask you:

      Can you actually tell me what “point” I missed out? Because, according to you, I certainly did miss one. Of course, you fail to explain what it was that I missed out, who that point came from, and how I missed it, but who cares about logic, right?

      Also, you said that I have to make an argument why the third option isn’t viable. Well, I certainly did do that, and I just did it again for you, so I’d like you to at least consider reading what I wrote before you decide to tell me that I’m wrong again.

  6. Quote: If God is by nature good, we have two options:
    1. God’s nature defines goodness
    2. God’s nature does not define goodness

    If we choose option 2, then we simply land back at the beginning: this means that God does not define what is good and what is not good. Thus he is not omnipotent and simply reports what is and isn’t moral from a higher authority.

    If we choose option 1, we are again faced by two more options:

    1. God defines his nature.
    2. God does not define his nature.”

    Now, we are moving along.

    This is a much better argument, not sure why you didn’t just present it this way…much clearer and more concise. Kudos to you!

    However, this isn’t quite a dilemma.

    As I will offer – his nature is Good necessarily. As if he isn’t maximally good necessarily, he isn’t God.

    God – a maximally “good”, all powerful being worthy of worship.

    so, all that we deem “good” – and more that we are unaware of of – that’s God.

    Or as St. Anselm says: the greatest conceivable being.

    But let’s get back to you:

    QUOTE: “However, if God does not define his nature, then we are brought back one last time to option 1 (God only reports morality). This is because he must obey a higher law than him- his nature- that he cannot go against.<<<<<<

    Wrong.

    He is good necessarily.

    God need not define his nature as his nature is necessarily.

    QUOTE: It would be no different from a computer program; the program cannot step outside of the boundaries set by code; the code dictates what the program does.<<<<<<

    Correct, because a computer program is created – thus defined by it's creator.

    God, as classical theism implies, is NOT created.

    QUOTE: Similarly, God must abide by a certain set of rules, embodied in his “nature”, and, should this be the case, he cannot control everything because he cannot even control himself!<<<<<<

    This is incorrect. He doesn't HAVE to "abide" by rules. God does not command himself anything, thus no rules. By his necessary nature, he acts accordingly, willfully. Thus, because of this, morality can be grounded in him.

    Read: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-god-able-to-do-evil

    (BTW if he's mainstream, it's because of him, he's been doing this longer than you've been an atheist.)

    QUOTE: His “nature” can exist by itself without having to deal with the conscious, omnipotent mind that you want to throw in there.<<<<<

    His nature doesn't exist by itself – it necessarily abides within him.

    QUOTE So, yet again, you’re brought back to the problem that God must obey a higher set of rules that determine what is and is not moral, and thus he is not omnipotent and not all-powerful.<<<<<<

    Nope, we've established this isn't the case.

    See you are working backward, rather than forward.

    What you define as "good" God IS by his nature.

    Live music is live music – by it's nature is necessarily LIVE.

    Is it live because we say it's live? Was it live before or after we "defined" it as such? Or was it live because of it's necessary nature?

    QUOTE: "Thus, you’re still stuck with two options: God arbitrarily assigns moral values, or he must bow down to some kind of higher law. There is no real “third option”. And, even if this could be considered a “third option” (which it can’t, but I’m doing this just to please you), then the problem still stands. Sure, it now has three options, but it’s still a problem to theists because it suffers from the same problems as the first two options."<<<<<<<<

    Well, as I just showed – with mainstream WLC – that your "new" dilemma isn't.

    I just gave you another 3rd option – God's nature is necessarily embodied in him.

    The definition IS Him…

    QUOTE: "Also, you said that I have to make an argument why the third option isn’t viable. Well, I certainly did do that, and I just did it again for you, so I’d like you to at least consider reading what I wrote before you decide to tell me that I’m wrong again."<<<<

    I did consider it. And considered the above as well.

    So now can I tell you, you are wrong?

    Further reading, with the live music more aptly described: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-euthyphro-dilemma-once-more

    • I’m sorry if you didn’t understand my argument the first time. It was based more on the article that I cited rather than standing alone.

      That aside, I feel that most of your comment doesn’t need addressing by me- I feel satisfied with what I’ve said- but I will address a few things:

      I’m pretty sure that you legitimately missed my point this time. I do not claim that God must consciously abide by some rules, as you seem to think that I said (This is incorrect. He doesn’t HAVE to “abide” by rules.). I never claimed that God says “Oh, I’m going to kill a few people today” but then looks at his notebook and says “Oh, well now, looks like that’s against the rules. Looks like I can’t do that”.

      What I did claim was this:

      Similarly, God must abide by a certain set of rules, embodied in his “nature”…

      In case it isn’t clear, here’s what I mean. For example, the human body experiences pain if we cut ourselves (in most situations). Now, no matter how hard we try, we cannot break that rule (without the assistance of drugs, of course).

      Similarly, what I’m claiming is that, by your theology, God must either arbitrarily create moral values, or he must abide by a certain set of rules that are part of his nature, like the pain analogy that I just brought up. Now, look over my arguments again, and then tell me that I’m wrong.

      As for the “live music” argument… My point would be that the music is live by nature, but it does not define what being “live” is. The characteristic of “live” affects the music, and makes it “act” in a certain way, and yet music cannot control that aspect of itself. I’m arguing the same with God: in one of the options/”horns”, God must obey a certain set of rules. Where these rules are, or how they embody themselves, is of course an entirely different subject, but you seem to argue that, because they’re a part of God’s nature, that he defines morality. That’s not really true, however. It is no more God who defines morality than it is me that defines what my hand looks like. I cannot control it; a “higher power”, genetics, does. Similarly, with God, a “higher power” of a sorts- his nature, his “genetics”, for our purposes- define what he does, not him. Because he must abide by his “genetics”, he cannot be omnipotent because he must answer to a higher law that can exist without the conscious part of himself.

      The last part that annoys me:

      QUOTE: It would be no different from a computer program; the program cannot step outside of the boundaries set by code; the code dictates what the program does.< <<<<<

      Correct, because a computer program is created – thus defined by it's creator.

      Ok, you completely and utterly decided to change my analogy into something that it clearly was not in the first place. It’d be like me saying that your music analogy is incorrect because “Well what if it’s jazz music?”, which makes no sense whatsoever in the context of the analogy that you brought up. I never mentioned anything about a creator, I just mentioned the boundaries of the code. Please look at my analogy again before you decide to just shove it off like that.

  7. As to abiding:

    “Similarly, God must abide by a certain set of rules, embodied in his “nature”, and, should this be the case, he cannot control everything because he cannot even control himself! ”

    This is not correct.

    To go against his nature would be illogical, not a lack of power or ability. God can’t do illogical things, which would stand to reason.

    So to not “abide” in his nature would be illical – remember you are working backward. Using def. applying it to God rather than seeing that God IS the def.

    QUOTE: “My point would be that the music is live by nature, but it does not define what being “live” is. The characteristic of “live” affects the music, and makes it “act” in a certain way, and yet music cannot control that aspect of itself”

    Correct, the live music cannot control it’s aspect (this is where the analogy eventually fails) however, the point of the analogy is this: live music IS live necessarily.

    It cannot be anything but live. To be otherwise 1) makes it not live, 2) is illogical as it can’t be “not” live AND live at the same time.

    Thus God cannot be maximally good and “arbitrary” at the same time – that’s illogical.

    God cannot be fully in his nature, yet act against it. That would be illogical.

    As for your computer code – thanks for clarifying. Certainly it would only work within it’s parameters…but unlike God…programs can 1) malfunction, 2) be infected, 3) and ARE created – that one still stands.

    • First of all, the term “illogical” is insanely vague. It simply means “not following the laws of logic”… And that’s it. In one scenario, such a thing could be the example of having both a true and a false version of an event happening. For example, if I was born in Alabama and not born in Alabama, that would defy the laws of logic.

      However, if another circumstance, I could say that it’s illogical for a person to smack their face with a chainsaw because (and this is a general situation, I’m not talking about every single possible situation) it doesn’t provide that person with and sort of benefit.

      These are two very different uses of the word “illogical”, so I’d like you to clarify on your meaning.

      Still, even with that, I can read enough to see that your position holds no ground.

      For one thing- if God is omnipotent and all-powerful, doesn’t he control the laws of logic? Didn’t he create the laws of logic? Or are you going to say that he embodies them again? Certainly, the last option can’t be valid, because that would mean that logic is grounded in God’s nature. However, if that’s the case, then, according to his nature, it is illogical not to follow his nature. Fair enough, but now we run into the problem of God’s lack of omnipotence again. He’s bound to laws that he cannot control, that he cannot violate, and thus he is not omnipotent. It would mean that God’s nature forces God to follow his nature (for doing otherwise would be illogical, and were God to do something illogical, he certainly wouldn’t be omnipotent. It would also mean that God can arbitrarily assign moral values again). According to you, God is bound to the laws of logic- whether he embodies them or not- and they keep him from doing the things that he likes to do; he is no longer omnipotent. So clearly that can’t work.

      Back to the music thing again- yeah, live music is necessarily live… By definition. It obeys a “higher law” that keeps it live. The same would have to go for God, according to Euthyphro’s Dilemma.

      God cannot be fully in his nature, yet act against it. That would be illogical.

      Well, that’s exactly my point (more or less). According to you, God “cannot” go against his nature (doing otherwise, again, would be illogical, not to mention that it would mean that he can actually assign arbitrary moral values and that he is not the ultimate being because he can act illogically). If that’s the case, then he is bound to his nature; he cannot go against it. That defeats the whole purpose of omnipotence, because he cannot do everything; he is bound to “higher laws” that control it.

  8. QUOTE: First of all, the term “illogical” is insanely vague. It simply means “not following the laws of logic”… And that’s it. In one scenario, such a thing could be the example of having both a true and a false version of an event happening. For example, if I was born in Alabama and not born in Alabama, that would defy the laws of logic.”<<<<<

    Correct. That is illogical.

    QUOTE: However, if another circumstance, I could say that it’s illogical for a person to smack their face with a chainsaw because (and this is a general situation, I’m not talking about every single possible situation) it doesn’t provide that person with and sort of benefit.”<<<<<<

    Irrational would be more like it.

    QUOTEThese are two very different uses of the word “illogical”, so I’d like you to clarify on your meaning. Still, even with that, I can read enough to see that your position holds no ground.”<<<<<<

    Let’s see.

    QUOTE: For one thing- if God is omnipotent and all-powerful, doesn’t he control the laws of logic? Didn’t he create the laws of logic? Or are you going to say that he embodies them again? Certainly, the last option can’t be valid, because that would mean that logic is grounded in God’s nature. However, if that’s the case, then, according to his nature, it is illogical not to follow his nature. Fair enough,”<<<<<<

    Hold up!

    Do you just see what you wrote?

    You answered your own question.

    Logic is grounded in God’s nature – correct. This option CAN be valid. You eventually recognized it as you stated: Fair enough.

    Well which is it? not a valid option or "fair enough"? You waver here.

    So yes, due to his nature God can’t be (illogical) IE – born in Alabama and not be born in Alabama. Because logic is grounded in God. He is the foundation for it.

    QUOTE: but now we run into the problem of God’s lack of omnipotence again He’s bound to laws that he cannot control, that he cannot violate, and thus he is not omnipotent..”<<<<<

    Incorrect. Not being able to be illogical has NOTHING to do with omnipotence.

    It’s necessary that God be logical, as a maximally great being. To be illogical, he wouldn’t be God.

    It’s not lack of power that God does not go against his nature. It’s because he’s God he doesn’t.

    His to be the foundation for Logic one cannot be illogical. This necessarily follows. Thus if God can be illogical, he wouldn't be God…a lesser god, perhaps, but not THE God of which logic can be and is grounded in.

    QUOTE:” It would mean that God’s nature forces God to follow his nature (for doing otherwise would be illogical, and were God to do something illogical, he certainly wouldn’t be omnipotent.”<<<<<

    Correct, if he was illogical, he wouldn’t be omnipotent…so since he IS logical, his omnipotence is unaffected.

    He can’t be non-omnipotent in both cases, yet you just agreed that if God WERE illogical, he wouldn’t be omnipotent.

    Then it necessarily follows: God is logical and is omnipotent.

    Unless you wish to argue that God is not omnipotent in either case.

    Again, his nature IS the law. He’s not his nature BECAUSE of the law. The law is BECAUSE of his nature.

    Quite a difference.

    QUOTE: It would also mean that God can arbitrarily assign moral values again). According to you, God is bound to the laws of logic- whether he embodies them or not- and they keep him from doing the things that he likes to do; he is no longer omnipotent. So clearly that can’t work.”<<<<

    Incorrect on my stance. God isn’t bound to the laws of logic – they are bound to him.

    So, yes it clearly can work.

    QUOTE: Back to the music thing again- yeah, live music is necessarily live… By definition. It obeys a “higher law” that keeps it live. The same would have to go for God, according to Euthyphro’s Dilemma.”<<<<<<

    No live music doesn’t obey a ‘higher law’ – if so, what higher law is it? Is there “more live” by which live music must adhere to?

    I showed how it’s not a ED – by presenting a third option.

    ME – God cannot be fully in his nature, yet act against it. That would be illogical.

    QUOTE :Well, that’s exactly my point (more or less). According to you, God “cannot” go against his nature (doing otherwise, again, would be illogical, not to mention that it would mean that he can actually assign arbitrary moral values and that he is not the ultimate being because he can act illogically). If that’s the case, then he is bound to his nature; he cannot go against it. That defeats the whole purpose of omnipotence, because he cannot do everything; he is bound to “higher laws” that control it.”<<<<<

    No, we just showed that the laws are bound to Him. He is what they are grounded in, he is not grounded into them.

    And you, as shown above, just argued for the fact that he still can be omnipotent while remaining in his nature.

    Basically, you have said that if God is "A" yet can't be "Not A" he's not omnipotent. But you argued (and agree with me) that if God WAS "Not A" he would for sure not be omnipotent.

    That's trying to have it both ways; saying in either case God is not omnipotent.

    But it doesn't logically follow because to be so omnipotent to be able to be "Not A" (which we agree is not omnipotent)…that's illogical.

    In short, your argument states that if God can't make himself not omnipotent, he's not omnipotent.

    Now, maybe you aren't trying to argue that…but that is in a nutshell what you just argued.

    God is the foundation for logic – logic is NOT the foundation for God.

    You are confusing which is the foundation of which.

    Thus it’s the same with goodness, etc.

    • Irrational would be more like it.

      Irrational and illogical are synonyms, Mr. Professor of English.

      Hold up!

      Do you just see what you wrote?

      You answered your own question.

      Logic is grounded in God’s nature – correct. This option CAN be valid. You eventually recognized it as you stated: Fair enough.

      Well which is it? not a valid option or “fair enough”? You waver here.

      So yes, due to his nature God can’t be (illogical) IE – born in Alabama and not be born in Alabama. Because logic is grounded in God. He is the foundation for it.

      And now we go into the same argument as before.

      Ok, so, according to God’s nature, which defines morality, God must be moral. Ok.

      According to logic, God must follow his nature. Ok.

      Logic is embodied in God’s nature. Ok.

      Thus, God’s nature makes it impossible for God to go against his own nature.

      Now you’re really in a trap.

      You seem to have ignored what I wrote. I’ve shown you that, according to your own logic, God is being ruled over by a “higher law”, his nature. His nature makes it illogical for him to go against itself. God cannot control this fact, because doing so would mean that God can go against his nature.

      Thus, God must obey his “nature”.

      Thanks for proving my point.

      And that “wavering”… I finish later, kid.

      Incorrect. Not being able to be illogical has NOTHING to do with omnipotence.

      It’s necessary that God be logical, as a maximally great being. To be illogical, he wouldn’t be God.

      It’s not lack of power that God does not go against his nature. It’s because he’s God he doesn’t.

      His to be the foundation for Logic one cannot be illogical. This necessarily follows. Thus if God can be illogical, he wouldn’t be God…a lesser god, perhaps, but not THE God of which logic can be and is grounded in.

      omnipotent: adj. (of a deity) Having unlimited power; able to do anything.

      Yay for you getting yourself stuck in a dilemma you created.

      If God is omnipotent, he can do anything. That includes illogical actions.

      If God can do illogical actions, though, that doesn’t make him the maximally great being from before.

      So now you have to concede something.

      Not to mention- God can’t just redefine what is logical either. After all, it is embodied in his nature, which you have admitted he cannot change himself.

      Plus, you’re just reaffirming the idea that God must also bow down to higher laws than he can. By definition (you admit this yourself), God cannot be illogical, or he would not be God. If that’s the case, then God must obey the laws of logic, which you have also said he cannot change (and if you think otherwise- if he can change it, he can also arbitrarily change moral values). So God is bound to the laws of logic that he has not created, but are instead bundled up in his “nature” which he has not control of and must bow down to himself.

      That is not omnipotence, that is obedience.

      Correct, if he was illogical, he wouldn’t be omnipotent…so since he IS logical, his omnipotence is unaffected.

      He can’t be non-omnipotent in both cases, yet you just agreed that if God WERE illogical, he wouldn’t be omnipotent.

      Then it necessarily follows: God is logical and is omnipotent.

      Unless you wish to argue that God is not omnipotent in either case.

      Again, his nature IS the law. He’s not his nature BECAUSE of the law. The law is BECAUSE of his nature.

      Quite a difference.

      Well, if God is logical, and must follow the laws of logic, he is not omnipotent.

      And your last statement was completely stupid. It tangled up your own logic.

      First, you say that his nature = the law.

      Then, you say that he doesn’t act according to his nature because of the law.

      Then you say that the law is caused by his nature.

      Excuse me, but how are two and three related at all? God could still act according to his nature because of the law even if the law is caused by his nature. In fact, that’s the only way it would make sense: God’s nature embodies the law, and the law, by definition, causes God to act in certain ways.

      Either way, God is still forced to act according to his nature.

      Incorrect on my stance. God isn’t bound to the laws of logic – they are bound to him.

      So, yes it clearly can work.

      Absolutely absurd.

      Logic is bound to God, yet he cannot change it? What sense of the word “bonding” are you using? Certainly, God can’t control logic- if he could, he could also assign arbitrary moral values- so to say that they’re bound to him is no different than my skin being bound to me. For all intents and purposes- I can’t consciously control my skin. I can’t suddenly make it completely peel off of my body. So, while maybe the skin belongs to me, it’s bound to me- at the same time, I cannot control it. In fact, it controls me.

      The same goes for logic.

      Unless you want to go back to God arbitrarily assigning moral values.

      So, uh, no, it clearly can’t work.

      QUOTE: Back to the music thing again- yeah, live music is necessarily live… By definition. It obeys a “higher law” that keeps it live. The same would have to go for God, according to Euthyphro’s Dilemma.”<<<<<<

      No live music doesn’t obey a ‘higher law’ – if so, what higher law is it? Is there “more live” by which live music must adhere to?

      I showed how it’s not a ED – by presenting a third option.

      Of course, the first time I said this, you had no reaction, but the second time- oh man, you’re screaming about it!

      Where the hell did you interpret “more live” from? By “higher law”, I mean a law that controls the music that it cannot control. This would be physics, which accounts for the bouncing of air molecules that result in us hearing the music. In another scenario, it would be the definition of “live”, which controls what is live and isn’t live music.

      And you conveniently ignore my rebuttal that I must have made at least three times to your argument; the rebuttal which you yourself responded to with

      This is a much better argument, not sure why you didn’t just present it this way…much clearer and more concise. Kudos to you!

      However, this isn’t quite a dilemma.

      As I will offer – his nature is Good necessarily. As if he isn’t maximally good necessarily, he isn’t God.

      So you conveniently dropped the rebuttal and tried to take a different point of view, and now you’re stating that you showed that there was a third option. You never object to my rebuttal originally, however, that the third option was nothing more than the first option or the second option (semantics).

      No, we just showed that the laws are bound to Him. He is what they are grounded in, he is not grounded into them.

      And you, as shown above, just argued for the fact that he still can be omnipotent while remaining in his nature.

      Basically, you have said that if God is “A” yet can’t be “Not A” he’s not omnipotent. But you argued (and agree with me) that if God WAS “Not A” he would for sure not be omnipotent.

      That’s trying to have it both ways; saying in either case God is not omnipotent.

      But it doesn’t logically follow because to be so omnipotent to be able to be “Not A” (which we agree is not omnipotent)…that’s illogical.

      In short, your argument states that if God can’t make himself not omnipotent, he’s not omnipotent.

      Now, maybe you aren’t trying to argue that…but that is in a nutshell what you just argued.

      God is the foundation for logic – logic is NOT the foundation for God.

      You are confusing which is the foundation of which.

      Thus it’s the same with goodness, etc.

      As usual, you use your convenient little method of swapping definitions, picking up things that you dropped ages ago, and all that nonsense that you use far too often.

      The mistake you seem to be consistently making is swapping “God”- everything about god, including his nature- with “God”, just his conscience. In the example of, say, me, the two different versions would be my entire body and conscience and just my conscience.

      Of course, I cannot consciously control certain aspects of my body. I cannot, for example, suddenly, consciously grow horns on the top of my head. That is something I can’t control. That’s what I mean by “higher law”, that God is controlled by his nature but cannot control it, and thus is not omnipotent. Similarly, I cannot control my nature (like the horns, for example), but it controls me.

      Your comment

      And you, as shown above, just argued for the fact that he still can be omnipotent while remaining in his nature.

      Is not only stupid and absurd, it’s utterly disgusting and ignorant. You apparently decide to throw away everything I said beforehand, make up something that I did not say, and then try to use it against me.

      So, if you’d kindly point out even one place where I said that God can be omnipotent while remaining in his nature, I will retract my claim against you.

      Until then, you can enjoy imagining me flipping you off.

      Then, you completely misrepresent what I said. According to the definition of omnipotence, something omnipotent has to have the ability to do anything. What that does not mean is that God has to be A and not A simultaneously. How you interpreted this crap from what I said is a complete and utter mystery.

      You use the verb “to be” to mean the same thing as “to be able to”. They aren’t the same thing. I’ve been saying that, for God to be omnipotent, he has to be able to do anything, yet you misquote me by saying that I said that God cannot be omnipotent if he isn’t something or another. Those are two very different statements.

      I might as well skip addressing a good deal of the things you wrote, as they have absolutely nothing to do with what I’ve said…

      And that, in a nutshell, is absolutely not even close to what the hell I argued.

      Then you confuse the two uses of “God”. You state that he isn’t rooted in logic, that logic is rooted in him, which would be okay with the first use of “God” (everything about him), but not with his conscience. He must obey a law that is greater than him, that he cannot control, therefore.

  9. Okay, let’s go through this again.

    QUOTE: “Ok, so, according to God’s nature, which defines morality, God must be moral. Ok. According to logic, God must follow his nature. Ok. Logic is embodied in God’s nature. Ok. Thus, God’s nature makes it impossible for God to go against his own nature.”<<<<<
    For the most part your conclusion is correct, but let’s clear some wording up.
    You say “must” but this is incorrect. There is no “command” or “order’ that God “must” do. God is moral necessarily. God’s nature is necessarily – he doesn’t “follow” his nature.
    QUOTE: “Now you’re really in a trap. You seem to have ignored what I wrote. I’ve shown you that, according to your own logic, God is being ruled over by a “higher law”, his nature.”<<<<<
    No, you are trying to make his nature OVER God- but that doesn’t follow. God is his nature NECESSARILY. His nature is not a “higher law” than God can be. God is the maximally great being – that is his nature necessarily. He’s not adhering to his nature – it IS his nature. Is there a nature higher than his? No, otherwise he wouldn’t be God – he POSSESSES his nature. Something that possess something else (God possessing nature) is not subservient to that which is possesses.
    QUOTE: “His nature makes it illogical for him to go against itself. God cannot control this fact, because doing so would mean that God can go against his nature. Thus, God must obey his “nature”. Thanks for proving my point.”<<<<<
    Not so quick!
    You’re confusing “has to” as in mandates vs. “has to” as in logically.
    You’re having issues with dealing with necessary elements. It’s not an issue of control. God cannot be illogical – if he could (as you agreed) he wouldn’t be omnipotent.
    This is a logical HAS TO. It has to necessarily follow.
    You miss the point that God willfully IS who he IS. It has nothing to do with power or control.
    God doesn’t HAVE to be maximally good because of some moral mandate or other mandate – he HAS TO be maximally good because of necessity, logically. If he didn’t, as you stated he wouldn’t omnipotent.
    Omnipotence has nothing to do with “changing” logic to illogic. As I showed before if illogic is not omnipotence – as you say – then why is not changing to illogic not omnipotence as well?
    Maybe you answer this in your next section…
    QUOTE: “omnipotent: adj. (of a deity) Having unlimited power; able to do anything. Yay for you getting yourself stuck in a dilemma you created. If God is omnipotent, he can do anything. That includes illogical actions. If God can do illogical actions, though, that doesn’t make him the maximally great being from before. So now you have to concede something. Not to mention- God can’t just redefine what is logical either. After all, it is embodied in his nature, which you have admitted he cannot change himself.”<<<<<
    Yay! You show your misunderstanding again!
    Unlimited power correct. However, this does NOT include illogical actions as you wish it did.
    Unless you care to make the argument that it does – of which outside of just stating it, you haven’t done so.
    However, again, as you just showed if God COULD do illogical actions he can’t be the maximally great being – thanks for siding with me on this.
    Thus it wouldn’t follow that a maximally great being WOULD do illogical actions – thus, just proved my point but thought your proved yours.
    I’ll show you.
    1. A maximally great omnipotent being would not do illogical things.
    2. God does not do illogical things
    3. God is a maximally great omnipotent being.
    You agree to premise one.
    Premise two follow –
    Therefore number three is necessarily follows.
    You have not established how “doing” something illogical is an ALL powerful action. I can make an illogical statement, but that says nothing to my power. Illogic is not difficult, in fact it’s quite easy – you do it often.
    It’s a matter of nature, again. A maximally great being WOULD NOT do illogical actions – as you and I just pointed out.
    Not that there isn’t an ability to do so.
    You confuse this.
    This is not about ABILITY – of which you are trying to side on. It’s about nature and WOULD. Not could.
    But even so, ability doesn’t imply ought. To press your argument further, you need to show this.
    QUOTE: “Plus, you’re just reaffirming the idea that God must also bow down to higher laws than he can. By definition (you admit this yourself), God cannot be illogical, or he would not be God. If that’s the case, then God must obey the laws of logic, which you have also said he cannot change (and if you think otherwise- if he can change it, he can also arbitrarily change moral values). So God is bound to the laws of logic that he has not created, but are instead bundled up in his “nature” which he has not control of and must bow down to himself.”<<<<<
    Again, you confuse which is grounded in which. Certainly if God were grounded in logic you would be correct. But that isn’t the case.
    Logic is grounded in God.
    This necessarily follows – otherwise, as you agree, God couldn’t be maximally great if he were able to be illogical.
    God is not “obeying” laws of logic – there is not mandate that he “has to” it’s a necessity. If he wasn’t logical, there would be no logic at all – where else would logic be grounded in? Chance?
    QUOTE:” Well, if God is logical, and must follow the laws of logic, he is not omnipotent. And your last statement was completely stupid. It tangled up your own logic. First, you say that his nature = the law. Then, you say that he doesn’t act according to his nature because of the law. Then you say that the law is caused by his nature.”<<<<
    1) where did I say God doesn’t act according to his nature because of the law?
    This is what I said: Again, his nature IS the law. He’s not his nature BECAUSE of the law. The law is BECAUSE of his nature.”
    Not sure how that’s confusing.
    But I’ll show you the difference.
    God’s nature is the law. His nature is not because of the law. One is being the standard, the other is following the standard.
    God’s nature is the law – being the standard.
    God’s nature is because of the law – following the standard.
    God’s nature is the law – he is the standard.

    QUOTE: Excuse me, but how are two and three related at all? God could still act according to his nature because of the law even if the law is caused by his nature. In fact, that’s the only way it would make sense: God’s nature embodies the law, and the law, by definition, causes God to act in certain ways.”<<<<<<
    Again, you have it backwards – see above.
    QUOTE: “Absolutely absurd.”
    Well, if one doesn’t understand another’s actual argument certainly it would seem absurd – which is why I always tell you to first understand what I say before reacting to it.
    QUOTE: Logic is bound to God, yet he cannot change it? What sense of the word “bonding” are you using? Certainly, God can’t control logic- if he could, he could also assign arbitrary moral values- so to say that they’re bound to him is no different than my skin being bound to me.”<<<<<
    By bonding – logic cannot exist without God. No God – no logic. As what would you ground logic into?
    God doesn’t “control” logic – he is the standard for logic. Control has nothing to do with it – but at least you are finally understanding that if logic isn’t grounded, then it’s arbitrary.
    God can’t be arbitrary…neither can logic.
    You just made a case for God. Nice job!
    QUOTE: For all intents and purposes- I can’t consciously control my skin. I can’t suddenly make it completely peel off of my body. So, while maybe the skin belongs to me, it’s bound to me- at the same time, I cannot control it. In fact, it controls me. The same goes for logic.”<<<<<
    For us, yes. But we aren’t the standard for logic – logic isn’t grounded in us. But as for skin – does skin exist if no creature that has skin exists?
    No.
    Does logic exist still if there’s no human to ascertain it?
    Yep.
    QUOTE: Unless you want to go back to God arbitrarily assigning moral values. So, uh, no, it clearly can’t work.”<<<<<
    Nope, it can, and I showed you how…again.

    QUOTE: Back to the music thing again- yeah, live music is necessarily live… By definition. It obeys a “higher law” that keeps it live. The same would have to go for God, according to Euthyphro’s Dilemma.”<<<<<<
    QUOTE: Where the hell did you interpret “more live” from? By “higher law”, I mean a law that controls the music that it cannot control. This would be physics, which accounts for the bouncing of air molecules that result in us hearing the music. In another scenario, it would be the definition of “live”, which controls what is live and isn’t live music.”<<<<<
    Correct, all analogies fail – but live music is live – the nature of live music is live music. Physics is the same whether or not the music is live, so what makes live music what it is?_________________
    QUOTE: So you conveniently dropped the rebuttal and tried to take a different point of view, and now you’re stating that you showed that there was a third option. You never object to my rebuttal originally, however, that the third option was nothing more than the first option or the second option (semantics).”<<<<<<<<
    Didn’t feel I needed to, see you are arguing “semantics” rather than grounding of values – which is exactly what I pointed out. That you argued sematics. Thanks for showing I was correct.
    QUOTE: As usual, you use your convenient little method of swapping definitions, picking up things that you dropped ages ago, and all that nonsense that you use far too often.”<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    Comparing nature vs. your physicality?
    You’ll need to make a better case than that.
    QUOTE: Of course, I cannot consciously control certain aspects of my body. I cannot, for example, suddenly, consciously grow horns on the top of my head. That is something I can’t control. That’s what I mean by “higher law”, that God is controlled by his nature but cannot control it, and thus is not omnipotent. Similarly, I cannot control my nature (like the horns, for example), but it controls me.”<<<<<
    Yes, you’ve said this time and again, and I showed you how your “higher law” fails. You are subject to your body, which shows you are not omnipotent. without your body you do not exist.
    We are talking about God – bad comparison for you to use yourself.
    QUOTE: Is not only stupid and absurd, it’s utterly disgusting and ignorant. You apparently decide to throw away everything I said beforehand, make up something that I did not say, and then try to use it against me.” So, if you’d kindly point out even one place where I said that God can be omnipotent while remaining in his nature, I will retract my claim against you.<<<<<<
    Because of your argument – as I showed you – did you not read it? Guess not. So let’s go back and see what my comment was to YOUR comment.
    Here is YOU quote that I replied to: “It would mean that God’s nature forces God to follow his nature (for doing otherwise would be illogical, and were God to do something illogical, he certainly wouldn’t be omnipotent.”
    So, as I showed you either are trying to argue in BOTH cases that God is not omnipotent, or he can be omnipotent and still in his nature – as you just said “doing so otherwise would be illogical and were God to do something illogical, he certainly wouldn’t be omnipotent.”
    Your words GT.
    God can remain in his nature and still be omnipotent as you just said, to do so otherwise would mean he wasn’t omnipotent.
    So what we are left (using your words)
    1. God can remain in his nature and be omnipotent
    Because
    2. to do so otherwise would be illogical and show him not to be omnipotent.
    However, you still even now are trying to argue that since he “can’t” be illogical, he’s not omnipotent.
    That’s saying: God can’t be omnipotent, because he can’t make himself not omnipotent.
    That’s like saying: God can’t be omnipotent because he can’t make himself not exist.
    Logically doesn’t follow.
    Your quoted words.
    QUOTE:Until then, you can enjoy imagining me flipping you off.”<<<<<
    Ouch, really, hurts…Flipping me off? Yep, classic retort, really shows you read your own writings…and it’s a mature thing to do as well…
    QUOTE: Then, you completely misrepresent what I said. According to the definition of omnipotence, something omnipotent has to have the ability to do anything. What that does not mean is that God has to be A and not A simultaneously. How you interpreted this crap from what I said is a complete and utter mystery.”<<<<<
    No, I quoted exactly what you said – please show exactly my wording that misrepresents the quotes I provided.
    And just as you said right above: “What that does not mean is that God has to be A and not A simultaneously.”
    Correct!
    That means God CANNOT become or make himself ‘illogical’ since he is ALWAYS logical.
    You are asking him to do both – which you just admitted doesn’t apply to omnipotence. Because why?
    Logic.
    QUOTE: You use the verb “to be” to mean the same thing as “to be able to”. They aren’t the same thing. I’ve been saying that, for God to be omnipotent, he has to be able to do anything, yet you misquote me by saying that I said that God cannot be omnipotent if he isn’t something or another. Those are two very different statements.”<<<<
    No, I quoted what you exactly said and showed you what you argued resulted in. your words quoted GT – nothing out of context. Go back and read.
    QUOTE:Then you confuse the two uses of “God”. You state that he isn’t rooted in logic, that logic is rooted in him, which would be okay with the first use of “God” (everything about him), but not with his conscience.”<<<<<
    Incorrect. As a mind is needed prior to logic for that mind to be grounded in it . As I said if God doesn’t exist – logic doesn’t either as to what would you ground it in? Why would it exists?
    Not to mention, why must you divide his conscience from his being? Show my why this necessarily has to follow?
    God is full encompassing, fully.
    If you must think of it a certain way – logic is grounded in his conscience, which in turns is apart of him “everything about him.”
    So, problem fixed – though I’m sure you’ll try to argue otherwise now and claim that I misquoted you.
    Do you not know that all original quotes are in prior posts? I can’t make you say something you did.
    Getting close again to calling me a liar, GT…
    Well, show me a lie, show me exactly where I misquote. Show the misquote that the real quote.
    Back it up GT, back up your accusations. Or show yourself to be another immature teen that stomps away when someone shows fault in your arugment..
    QUOTE: He must obey a law that is greater than him, that he cannot control, therefore.”
    Yeah, we dealt with that.
    So far, what we’ve seen is that you don’t even read what you have written, nor understand what your arguments mean when you state them.
    Flip me off when your words are used against you, because you don’t pay attention to what you write.
    And don’t take time to understand what someone else is writing, just react…
    And flip people off – without backing up their accusations…

Please leave a reply!

%d bloggers like this: