So I had an interesting conversation on MSN that I thought would cause a good discussion here on TOTSE. I'm Jarl S. Berg, my friend is Asphalt Cowboy, and the Platonic Dialog Euthyphro kicked off the conversation.

quote:Jarl S. Berg says: It's about the question "Is something good because God loves it or does God love something because it is good"

Asphalt Cowboy says: i thought God loves everything

Jarl S. Berg says: Well, I thought in Christianity God loves "everyone" not "everything".

Asphalt Cowboy says:



Jarl S. Berg says: Let's change the phrasing, to make it more accurate: "is something good because god says it is good, or is it good in itself"

Jarl S. Berg says: In Islam, the good is good because God says it is good, in ancient Greece the gods said it was good because it was good in itself.

Jarl S. Berg says: In Christianity, it's generally both, which is a vicious circle.

Asphalt Cowboy says: i;d go with the greeks

Jarl S. Berg says: "Is the Pious loved because it is Pious, or Pious because it is loved?"

Jarl S. Berg says: Well if you go with the greeks, then you have a problem because that means God didn't create everything.

Jarl S. Berg says: But if you go with Islam, then good is totally arbitrary and if God said murder is good, then murder is good.

Asphalt Cowboy says: which is why they blow themselves up

Jarl S. Berg says: But if God didn't create everything, then what created good?

Asphalt Cowboy says: humans

Jarl S. Berg says: How do humans create good? It's exactly the same question: is it good because a human says it is good, or is it good in itself?

Asphalt Cowboy says:



Jarl S. Berg says: I think that if you want to both believe in good and a god that created everything, then you have to go with the Islamic belief.

Jarl S. Berg says: Which really makes good totally arbitrary.

Asphalt Cowboy says:



Jarl S. Berg says: Which is really what I believe and is why I am a utilitarian, which is non-objective.

Asphalt Cowboy says:



Jarl S. Berg says: to you too

Asphalt Cowboy says: woo

Jarl S. Berg says: Which really means then that love is not good in itself. I like love. That's it. I like love. It's good because I like it. Then utilitarianism, I supposed egoism is a better term, is getting as much of what I like as possible and minimizing what I dislike as much as possible.

Asphalt Cowboy says:



Jarl S. Berg says: ?

Asphalt Cowboy says: does it matter?

Jarl S. Berg says: Well... on the one hand, you would have intrinsic goodness, on the other, you would have arbitrary goodness.

Jarl S. Berg says: Either it is totally arbitrary and God can say that child molestation is good and then it becomes good, or it is intrinsic and that means God didn't create it.

Jarl S. Berg says: It's kind of a catch 22 for the theist.

Jarl S. Berg says: Unless he doesn't beleive in morality, which is always an option.

Jarl S. Berg says: Kind of like Berkeley, who believed God was nothing but an infinite mind that created the world and keeps it in existence by perceiving it because he claimed to be is to be perceived.

Jarl S. Berg says: Or you can just believe in a contradiction.

Jarl S. Berg says: A vicious circle that makes no sense.

Asphalt Cowboy says: Polytheism is more fun

Jarl S. Berg says: Polytheism races the exact same question.

Asphalt Cowboy says: no, cause they didn;t creat everything, and they do bad things, and fight eachother

Jarl S. Berg says: Exactly!

Jarl S. Berg says: What is pious? What the gods love. But the gods disagree on things so what is pious cannot be what the gods love. OK then, what is pious is what ALL the gods love. Is it pious because all the gods love it or do all the gods love it because it is pious?

Asphalt Cowboy says:



Jarl S. Berg says: It either wasn't created by a god or is totally arbitrary.

Jarl S. Berg says: Personally, I think the latter makes the most sense.

Jarl S. Berg says: so...

Asphalt Cowboy says: what you doing tomorrow



[This message has been edited by Hare_Geist (edited 02-02-2007).]