Euthyphro Dilemma

[Sair]

(Continued)

Now let’s derive some practical conclusions from this (you could derive millions of things), here are a few:

1. Smoking is not consistent with human nature.
   A.Our bodies were not made to ingest such harmful chemicals that do nothing but harm us.
2. Therefore, smoking is bad/ immoral.

It’s also true that seeking the kind of high/stimulus response generated by smoking, for example, is perfectly consistent with human nature. On closer examination, we do a lot of things that are largely harmful to us - some people derive benefit of an internal nature (the high) whilst others tend to see this as only a transitory benefit. That obviously doesn’t matter to some people.

1. Bestiality is not consistent with human nature (man was made to have sex with his own species).
2. Therefore, bestiality is bad/ immoral.

There are plenty of other reasons to consider bestiality as wrong - after all, every other species was ‘made’ to have sex with its own kind as well (assuming it is a species that reproduces sexually). This is not a merely human concern.

1. Polygamy is inconsistent with human nature (humans are pair-bonders by nature).
2. Therefore, polygamy is bad/ immoral.

That is widely open to debate. The very difficulty of maintaining monogamous relationships between humans, and the effort that goes into pushing this agenda, would suggest it is not so natural as some suppose; furthermore, there is concrete physiological evidence that humans are actually not predisposed for monogamous pair-bonding at all.

1. To excel in our rational faculties is consistent with human nature.
2. Education excels our rational faculties.
3. Therefore, education is consistent with human nature.
4. Therefore, education is good/ moral.

What about humans who will never excel in their rational faculties, such as the intellectually disabled? What about those people who are more adept at working in practical trades than intellectual study? I would never dispute the importance of education, but I think it’s a very narrow conception to assume education is only for the rational faculties.

1.To be vegetarian is inconsistent with human nature (man is naturally omnivorous).
2.Therefore, being a vegetarian (when it is not dictated by some medical reason[though I know of none]) is immoral.

Yet it is also consistent with human nature to feel empathy for others and to recoil at injustice and abuse - that some people make the ethical decision to be vegetarian is in no way inconsistent with human nature, especially since we now have access to a much more varied diet than our ancestors, making it nutritionally sound to adopt a vegetarian diet.

1. Slavery is inconsistent with human nature.
   A.There are no natural rulers among men. There are no equivalents of queen bees(who naturally rule their beehives) among men.
2. Therefore, slavery is bad.
   Just a side note: Yes Christ did tell slaves to obey their masters, but slaves in the 1st century were not slaves in today’s sense of the word. Today they would be called servants.

Were the slaves paid? Slavery is as slavery does. I doubt that slavery was fundamentally different in the first century CE than it has been at any other time; it’s just that the early Christians tended to adopt an apocalyptic view, in which it was better to remain as one was than to rock the boat whilst waiting for the end times. What’s more, slavery is quite inconsistent with the natural conditions of most animals humans have domesticated and in whom we have manufactured weakness and docility through selective breeding - is this also immoral in your view?

Hopefully this has demonstrated that human nature, as such - and as only one part of a wider scheme of nature - is not a simple collection of attributes but a vast and varied tapestry. Morality is seldom, if ever, an issue of black-and-white choices.

 

[tonyrey]

I
Were the slaves paid? Slavery is as slavery does. I doubt that slavery was fundamentally different in the first century CE than it has been at any other time; it’s just that the early Christians tended to adopt an apocalyptic view, in which it was better to remain as one was than to rock the boat whilst waiting for the end times.

That is not the only reason. The early Christians were a small, persecuted minority who knew - like their Master - that it would be futile to attempt to change society overnight. It was difficult enough to survive let alone have such grandiose schemes but their belief in equality - also following the example of Jesus - was abundantly clear:

“All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had.” Acts 4.32

 

[VeritasSeeker]

Most philosophers agree that God is either necessary or impossible, but most philosophers also agree that God has essential as well as contingent properties, so He could have been different in some ways… What you will have to show is that God’s moral nature is essential to Him, but I fear that, if you do so, you will find yourself stuck on the first horn of the Dillemma.

I still do not understand what you are saying. What are you talking about? God is simple. There is no ‘moral nature’ that is to be distinguished from his nature, which is God. When we speak of God’s nature we speak analogously. God is his nature, essence and existence are one in God. However, your use of the term ‘moral nature’ is not only confused on this ground. When you say that God has a ‘moral nature’ you are applying to God some prior definition of what you mean to be moral, you are ignoring what I said—viz., that goodness is correspondence to God’s nature. What is good is what corresponds to God’s nature. I am giving you a definition of good here. God is necessarily good because he necessarily corresponds to himself. Things other than God are good in so far as they correspond to God. God has no accidental properties in the sense that he has some potentiality that is actualized.

i. God is not distinct from His nature.
ii. God’s properties are not distinct from one another.
iii. God’s nature is not distinct from His existence.

This neither falls prey to the first or second horns of the dilemma. God is necessary, he is essentially who he is, he could not have lacked a property (analogously speaking) which he has now. Or in analytic terms, God is absolutely similar in all possible worlds. Since God does not change, he cannot “change his mind” about what is good, for the same reason he cannot make himself not God—it is logically impossible. Morality is thus neither subjective nor independent of God, who is unchanging, eternal, and necessary.

 

[belorg]

I still do not understand what you are saying. What are you talking about? God is simple.

OK

There is no ‘moral nature’ that is to be distinguished from his nature, which is God. When we speak of God’s nature we speak analogously. God is his nature, essence and existence are one in God. However, your use of the term ‘moral nature’ is not only confused on this ground. When you say that God has a ‘moral nature’ you are applying to God some prior definition of what you mean to be moral, you are ignoring what I said—viz., that goodness is correspondence to God’s nature.

That’s the first horn of the dilemma.

What is good is what corresponds to God’s nature. I am giving you a definition of good here. God is necessarily good because he necessarily corresponds to himself.

All beings correspond to themselves.

Things other than God are good in so far as they correspond to God. God has no accidental properties in the sense that he has some potentiality that is actualized.

i. God is not distinct from His nature.
ii. God’s properties are not distinct from one another.
iii. God’s nature is not distinct from His existence.

This neither falls prey to the first or second horns of the dilemma.

It falls prey to both horns, actually.

God is necessary, he is essentially who he is, he could not have lacked a property (analogously speaking) which he has now. Or in analytic terms, God is absolutely similar in all possible worlds.

Then all that exists is necessaru too. In every possible world, God creates exactly the same beings, there is only one possible world.

Since God does not change, he cannot “change his mind” about what is good, for the same reason he cannot make himself not God—it is logically impossible

.

Then God could not have created anything else than what He created. He might as well be an automaton.

Morality is thus neither subjective nor independent of God, who is unchanging, eternal, and necessary.

Morality as yoi describe it, it most certainly independent on God, because God could not be God if He didn’t live up to absolute morality. If you claim that there is no possible world in which God is possible, you are denying God can have contingent properties and you have to answer the question : why must God necessarily have the properties He has? And the answer to that question, Veritas, is what grounds morality.

 

[VeritasSeeker]

All beings correspond to themselves.

Sure, but I didn’t say that something is good if and only if it corresponds to itself. I said that something is good if and only if it corresponds to God’s nature.

Then all that exists is necessary too. In every possible world, God creates exactly the same beings, there is only one possible world.Then God could not have created anything else than what He created. He might as well be an automaton.

No. I said God has no accidental properties in so far as there is no potential in God that can be actualized. God’s relation to the world is not a ‘real’ relation–i.e., it is not a change in God. As St. Thomas says, “since therefore God is outside the whole order of creation, and all creatures are ordered to Him, and not conversely, it is manifest that creatures are really related to God Himself; whereas in God there is no real relation to creatures, but a relation only in idea, inasmuch as creatures are referred to Him” (ST I.13.7).” God’s creation of the world does not entail a change in God Himself. I recommend Edward Feser’s post on Divine simplicity

Morality as you describe it, it most certainly independent on God, because God could not be God if He didn’t live up to absolute morality.

Given what I have explicated earlier regarding God being simple, you are just saying “Morality is certainly independent on God, because God could not be God if he didn’t correspond to himself” What???

If you claim that there is no possible world in which God is possible, you are denying God can have contingent properties and you have to answer the question : why must God necessarily have the properties He has? And the answer to that question, Veritas, is what grounds morality.

You are just asking why God is the way he is, a question which is impossible to answer. As Dr. Edward Feser notes, your asking a nonsensical question–viz., “What imparted a sufficient reason for existence to that thing which has its sufficient reason for existence within itself and did not derive it from something else?”

 

[tonyrey]

*You don’t know if creating something from nothing is positive? *

Positive is primarily concerned with existence as opposed to non-existence.

God is grounded in Himself - as you might expect where the Necessary Being is concerned!

A necessary being is grounded in its necessity, not in Itself.

Necessity presupposes the reality of the Necessary Being. It doesn’t exist in a void.

I have already pointed out that God is is positive in every aspect of His Being: existence, development, love, fulfilment and joy.

I think you are equivocating on the meaning of ‘positive’ here.

Please explain why.

                          I am not God! Nor do I claim to understand how God exists but it stands to reason that He must at the very least **be creating Himself**; otherwise He wouldn't be the Necessary Being.

Necessary beings are uncreated, so they don’t ‘create themselves’

The Necessary Being is uncreated by virtue of being Self-Created.

God does not want pain to occur but He permits it because it is necessary for the survival, development and fulfilment of sentient beings.

That may be the case, but then His nature can be such that He thinks it necessary to condone rape, murder, eternal torture etc.

God does not “condone” in the sense of “disregard or overlook” or “give tacit approval”. He** permits** rape, murder and eternal rejection of Himself because He knows our independence is more important than anything else: otherwise we are incapable of love or self-determination.

 

[belorg]

Sure, but I didn’t say that something is good if and only if it corresponds to itself. I said that something is good if and only if it corresponds to God’s nature.

You seemed to imply that God responding to Himself is something special and admirable, while it’s just what every entity does. Hitler responded to himself, does that mean Hitler’s morality was objective?

No. I said God has no accidental properties in so far as there is no potential in God that can be actualized.

Who is saying anything about a potential in God that can be actualized?

God’s relation to the world is not a ‘real’ relation–i.e., it is not a change in God. As St. Thomas says, “since therefore God is outside the whole order of creation, and all creatures are ordered to Him, and not conversely, it is manifest that creatures are really related to God Himself; whereas in God there is no real relation to creatures, but a relation only in idea, inasmuch as creatures are referred to Him” (ST I.13.7).” God’s creation of the world does not entail a change in God Himself. I recommend Edward Feser’s post on Divine simplicity

I am well aware of what ‘Saint Thomas’ has to say about God’s simplicity, but that is totally irrelevant here.

Given what I have explicated earlier regarding God being simple, you are just saying “Morality is certainly independent on God, because God could not be God if he didn’t correspond to himself” What???

No, that’s not what I am saying. What I am saying is that if God only has to correspond to Himself, He is no different from any other entity.

You are just asking why God is the way he is, a question which is impossible to answer.

Well, since you are the saying that God can only be the way he is, I would expect you to at least have some reason why that is so. But I guess you weer just asserting something.

As Dr. Edward Feser notes, your asking a nonsensical question–viz., “What imparted a sufficient reason for existence to that thing which has its sufficient reason for existence within itself and did not derive it from something else?”

No, that’s not what I am asking. I am asking what this sufficient reason is, whether it’s in God or somewhere else does not matter. God is not the reason for God’s existence. the reason for God’s existence is that his exsitnece is necessary, IOW that His non-existence would be a contradiction.
So 2 questions arise

1 What exactly would be the contradiction in God’s non-existence?
and more imporatnatly for this discussion

2 What would be the contradiction in God having different beliefs than you think He actually has?

And neither of these questions can be answered by referring to divine simplicity.

 

[belorg]

Positive is primarily concerned with existence as opposed to non-existence.

OK

Necessity presupposes the reality of the Necessary Being. It doesn’t exist in a void.

No, a necessary being exists because it is necessary. Necessity is logically prior to a necessary being. It is not because this being exist that necessity exists.

Please explain why.

Becasue 'love ’ and ‘joy’ are positive in a qualitative way, while you seem to mean positive in a quantitative way. Love and joy are not merely concerned with existence, but with the quality of existence. Without love you would still exist, but your exisuence would lack quality.

The Necessary Being is uncreated by virtue of being Self-Created.

It’s either created or uncreated. Self-created is not somethinh in between. BTW, hardly anybody nowadays believs that God is self-created.

God does not “condone” in the sense of “disregard or overlook” or “give tacit approval”. He** permits** rape, murder and eternal rejection of Himself because He knows our independence is more important than anything else: otherwise we are incapable of love or self-determination.

I am not saying that God condones rape, I am asking you (and everybody else in this thread) why it is impossibkle for His nature to be such that He would condone rape.

 

[Contarini]

The primary problem with this conception is that the primary means of knowing what is consistent with God’s nature (at least historically) is, in fact, scripture

Primary for whom? For all monotheists? That seems like a very odd claim to make.

Natural revelation has been consistently affirmed by “Abrahamic” monotheists as the basis for accepting Scriptural revelation in the first place. See Paul’s sermon on the Areopagus in Acts 17. Scriptural revelation goes beyond natural revelation but does not contradict it.

Furthermore, in most traditional forms of monotheism, Scripture is interpreted as part of a tradition. An outsider to the tradition has no business telling insiders how to interpret their own Scriptures. I have consistently maintained this on this forum with regard to Christians interpreting the Qur’an, and the same applies when non-Christians interpret our Scriptures.

• and according to scripture, God countenances or even actually commits actions which most human moral systems find repugnant, such as genocide, rape, incest, murder, infanticide and so forth.

See above!

A literalist model of Scripture certainly runs into this problem. However, the historic Christian approach of seeing Jesus Christ as the center and focus of Scripture makes it clear that God does not, in fact, countenance these things at all.

It therefore seems difficult to argue from a monotheistic perspective that such things are objectively wrong, and if we consider them wrong from a subjective perspective, a monotheist could easily claim that our merely human subjective opinions count for nothing against the subjective opinion of an all-powerful god.

A monotheist who holds to divine command theory and a literalistic interpretation of Scripture and who rejects natural revelation, certainly. But that doesn’t describe the central theological traditions of Christianity for sure, or for that matter Judaism–I don’t think it’s fair to Islam either, but I don’t want this to turn into another debate about Islam!

If the god of classical theism has arbitrary whims, what does that say about any theistic argument for objective morality? Is it sufficient to fall back on the claim that God can do what he likes, because he’s God?

Not at all. On the contrary, we “fall back” on the obvious fact that the Bible records God’s revelation as received by human beings in a particular cultural context, and that the principles being revealed by God in a given story are true, while the way in which God’s people acted on those principles in their cultural context may have been mistaken or even deeply morally repugnant.

It’s our tradition. We get to interpret it.

Even if you think my position is arbitrary and irrational (obviously I would disagree, but I’m anticipating an objection and trying to avoid a red herring!), the arbitrariness is in the way I treat my own Scriptures and not in the God I believe in, leaving the response to the Euthyphro dilemma untouched. In other words, you can make the argument (and more fundamentalist Christians would) that I’m too much of a natural-law theist and don’t take Scriptural revelation seriously enough, but that doesn’t affect the present discussion.

Edwin

 

[tonyrey]

Positive is primarily concerned with existence as opposed to non-existence

Then you agree that:

1. Bringing persons and things into existence is a positive act
2. Existence is more valuable than non-existence - unless one is a nihilist!

Necessity presupposes the reality of the Necessary Being. It doesn’t exist in a void.

No, a necessary being exists because it is necessary.
Necessity is logically prior to a necessary being.

Necessity cannot be logically prior to the Necessary Being because:

1. Nothing can exist without the Necessary Being
2. Necessity cannot apply to nothing
3. Necessity refers to reality
4. Nothing is the absence of reality
5. Necessity is an attribute of the Necessary Being

It is not because this being exists that necessity exists.

1. How could necessity exist without the Necessary Being?
2. How can nothing be necessary or the source of necessity?

'love ’ and ‘joy’ are positive in a qualitative way, while you seem to mean positive in a quantitative way. Love and joy are not merely concerned with existence, but with the quality of existence. Without love you would still exist, but your existence would lack quality.

You are right … but

1. Without Love nothing at all would exist
2. Bare existence is a fiction
3. Existence is intrinsically valuable because it is a source of opportunities for activity, development, creativity, exploration, enjoyment and fulfilment - which is impossible without love!

The Necessary Being is uncreated by virtue of being Self-Created.

It’s either created or uncreated. Self-created is not something in between. BTW, hardly anybody nowadays believes that God is self-created.

1. What people believe or disbelieve does not affect the nature of reality.
   14.The created-or-uncreated dilemma applies to all created things and persons but the Creator is not in the same category as His creatures. “Self-created” simply means “Causa Sui” - which also reveals the limitations of language because the First Cause is obviously totally different from every other cause.

God does not “condone” in the sense of “disregard or overlook” or “give tacit approval”. He** permits** rape, murder and eternal rejection of Himself because He knows our independence is more important than anything else: otherwise we are incapable of love or self-determination.

I am not saying that God condones rape, I am asking you (and everybody else in this thread) why it is impossible for His nature to be such that He would condone rape.

1. Rape is evil
2. God is infinitely good and opposed to evil
3. Your belief that rape is evil is justified.
4. It implies that good and evil are not merely human conventions but objective aspects of reality.
5. God is the Source of all that is good and evil.
6. He permits evil because it is the inevitable consequence of finitude.
7. If good and evil are illusions life is meaningless and purposeless.

 

[belorg]

Then you agree that:

1. Bringing persons and things into existence is a positive act

Under your definition, of course. If positive is concerned with existence, then bringing something into existence is positive. But that’s really complmetely tautological, so what’s the point in this.

1. Existence is more valuable than non-existence - unless one is a nihilist!

Maybe it is, but that does not follow from your definition.
And I find existence more valuable than non-exsitence, but that may be because I am biased, because I exist. We should ask a second opinion of someone who doesn’t exist. Let’s ask God, shall we?

Necessity cannot be logically prior to the Necessary Being because:

1. Nothing can exist without the Necessary Being

And the necessary being cannot exist if necessity does not exist.

1. Necessity cannot apply to nothing

Unless nothing is necessary. But necessity applies to being. A necessary being exists because it is necessary.

. Necessity refers to reality

It means that reality is necessary, yes.

1. Nothing is the absence of reality

Is it?

1. Necessity is an attribute of the Necessary Being

Yes.

1. How could necessity exist without the Necessary Being?

Because necessity is an abstract objectand not a being.

1. How can nothing be necessary or the source of necessity?

Necessity isn’t nothing. Necessity is a condition for the existence of a being.

You are right … but

1. Without Love nothing at all would exist

Apparently, the Necssary Being would. It does not require love to exist.

1. Bare existence is a fiction

I have no idea what you mean by that.

1. Existence is intrinsically valuable because it is a source of opportunities for activity, development, creativity, exploration, enjoyment and fulfilment - which is impossible without love!

Well, that’s what you say, but I would like to see an argument for it.

1. What people believe or disbelieve does not affect the nature of reality.

That is correct, but if hardly any contemporary philosopher belive this, it should make you think twice.

14.The created-or-uncreated dilemma applies to all created things and persons but the Creator is not in the same category as His creatures. “Self-created” simply means “Causa Sui” - which also reveals the limitations of language because the First Cause is obviously totally different from every other cause.

“Causa Sui” is an obsolete concept and it most certainly does not mean that the Creator is Self-Created. It means that the creator has no external cause.

1. Rape is evil

Says who?

1. God is infinitely good and opposed to evil

Sure, but what if rape is not evil?

1. Your belief that rape is evil is justified.

I think it is, but not by God.

1. It implies that good and evil are not merely human conventions but objective aspects of reality.

Yes

1. God is the Source of all that is good and evil.

Then God is not Good?

1. He permits evil because it is the inevitable consequence of finitude.

It is not the inevitable consequence of finitude.

1. If good and evil are illusions life is meaningless and purposeless.

That’s a nice assertion, but some arguments may help.

 

[empther]

God’s commandments are about what is good for man.
For example: “Thou shalt not kill” is obviously a good law for man.

This is good for men’s moral interaction. It is the reason for God’s laws.
This would seem to answer the dilemma question written below. What is morally good, that is what is good for men’s interactions, is good for that reason.

“Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?”

It is conceivable that on another planet there is another race of intelligent creatures living in unimaginably different circumstances. Their set of Ten Commandments might be different from ours. How, I can’t imagine, but assume such a thing was possible.
In that case, God’s commandments would be good because they are morally good for the creatures to whom they are given, because since they vary from one world to another they are not good simply because God gives them but because they are needed by his creatures.

 

[tonyrey]

1. Bringing persons and things into existence is a positive act

You have agreed that positiveness is primarily concerned with existence - and therefore bringing into existence…

1. Existence is more valuable than non-existence - unless one is a nihilist!

Maybe it is, but that does not follow from your definition.

I haven’t defined existence!

And I find existence more valuable than non-existence, but that may be because I am biased, because I exist.

That argument is worthless because it is applicable to anything or anyone.

We should ask a second opinion of someone who doesn’t exist. Let’s ask God, shall we?

Sarcasm is discourteous, unnecessary, uninformative and a breach of Forum Rule 1.

1. Nothing can exist without the Necessary Being

And the necessary being cannot exist if necessity does not exist.

You are reifying necessity.

1. Necessity cannot apply to nothing

Unless nothing is necessary.

How can nothing be necessary?

But necessity applies to being.

Necessity is an attribute of the Necessary Being not a precondition.

A necessary being exists because it is necessary.

Tautology!

Necessity refers to reality

It means that reality is necessary, yes.

Reality is certainly necessary because the Necessary Being is Reality!

1. Nothing is the absence of reality

Is it?

What else?

1. Necessity is an attribute of the Necessary Being

Yes.
NB **Attributes don’t exist without substantives.
**

1. How could necessity exist without the Necessary Being?

Because necessity is an abstract object and not a being.

Necessity is not an object in any sense of the term except as an object of thought.

1. How can nothing be necessary or the source of necessity?

Necessity isn’t nothing. Necessity is a condition for the existence of a being.

I agree! **The **Necessary Being is not a being.

1. Without Love nothing at all would exist

Apparently, the Necessary Being would. It does not require love to exist.

Love not only makes the world go round but makes it!

1. Bare existence is a fiction

I have no idea what you mean by that.

Existence without attributes is a fiction.

1. Existence is intrinsically valuable because it is a source of opportunities for activity, development, creativity, exploration, enjoyment and fulfilment - which is impossible without love!

Well, that’s what you say, but I would like to see an argument for it.

Do you deny that existence is a source of opportunities ?

1. What people believe or disbelieve does not affect the nature of reality.

That is correct, but if hardly any contemporary philosopher believe this, it should make you think twice.

Source of statistics?

14.The created-or-uncreated dilemma applies to all created things and persons but the Creator is not in the same category as His creatures. “Self-created” simply means “Causa Sui” - which also reveals the limitations of language because the First Cause is obviously totally different from every other cause.

“Causa Sui” is an obsolete concept and it most certainly does not mean that the Creator is Self-Created. It means that the creator has no external cause.

To be precise it means “the cause of itself”. It is only obsolete in your opinion because it is a valid concept.

1. Rape is evil

Says who?

You! - by implication…

1. God is infinitely good and opposed to evil

Sure, but what if rape is not evil?

Then your objection collapses!

1. Your belief that rape is evil is justified.

I think it is, but not by God.

Then why?

1. It implies that good and evil are not merely human conventions but objective aspects of reality.

No response!

1. God is the Source of all that is good and evil.

Then God is not Good?

It is a lesser evil to permit evil rather than create nothing through fear of evil.

1. He permits evil because it is the inevitable consequence of finitude.

It is not the inevitable consequence of finitude.

Physical evil is due to finitude and moral evil is ultimately due to ignorance because evil is ultimately self-destructive - in accordance with the Greek concept of Nemesis.

1. If good and evil are illusions life is meaningless and purposeless.

That’s a nice assertion, but some arguments may help.

What is the meaning and purpose of life without good and evil?

 

[tonyrey]

It is conceivable that on another planet there is another race of intelligent creatures living in unimaginably different circumstances. Their set of Ten Commandments might be different from ours. How, I can’t imagine, but assume such a thing was possible.

I believe the Ten Commandments apply to all rational beings because they are based on love - without which they cannot live in harmony.

 

[belorg]

You have agreed that positiveness is primarily concerned with existence - and therefore bringing into existence…

I have agreed that you could define positive that way, yes, but that does not bring us any further.

I haven’t defined existence!

Nevertheless, what you say is merely an assertion.

That argument is worthless because it is applicable to anything or anyone.

An argument that is applicable to anything isn’t worthless, it’s universal.

Sarcasm is discourteous, unnecessary, uninformative and a breach of Forum Rule 1.

You should try a little bit of humour every now and then, Tony.

You are reifying necessity.

I don’t think so.

How can nothing be necessary?

There is nothing that is necessary because nothing is possible.

Necessity is an attribute of the Necessary Being not a precondition.

The Necessary Being cannot exist without necessity.

Tautology!

Not at all.

Reality is certainly necessary because the Necessary Being is Reality!

The necessary being is part of reality. If it exists.

What else?

A reality that contain nothing but the true proposition that nothing exists.

Yes.
NB Attributes don’t exist without substantives.

Substantives don’t exist without attributes.

Necessity is not an object in any sense of the term except as an object of thought

.

That what you belive.

I agree! **The **

Necessary Being is not a being.

Well, then it doesn’t exist.

Love not only makes the world go round but makes it!

It doesn’t make The Necessary Being.

Existence without attributes

is a fiction.

Too bad for Thomists who claim that God is pure existence without any attributes.

Do you deny that existence is a source of opportunities ?

No, but it does not follow that it is therefore valuable.

Source of statistics?

Just llook it up for yourself.

To be precise it means “the cause of itself”.

Yes, thta’s the literal translation but it’s hardly ever used that way these days.

It is only obsolete in your opinion because it is a valid concept.

I think it is a nonsensical concept.

You! - by implication…

According to you, that’s just my opinion.

Then your objection collapses!

Why would it?

Then why?

By the fact that it hurts other beings.

No response!

What do you mean? I said “yes”.

It is a lesser evil to permit evil rather than create nothing through fear of evil.

It may be a lesser evil, but it’s not good.

Physical evil is due to finitude and moral evil is ultimately due to ignorance because evil is ultimately self-destructive - in accordance with the Greek concept of Nemesis.

Ignorance is not a sin, so why is the Catholic Church making such a fuss over sin?

What is the meaning and purpose of life without good and evil?

Life is what it is and what you and I make of it.

 

[empther]

Tonrey wrote:
I believe the Ten Commandments apply to all rational beings because they are based on love - without which they cannot live in harmony.

Angels are rational beings. How do these Commandments apply to them?

Remember thou keepeth the Sabbath day.
Honor thy father and thy mother.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.

 

[tonyrey]

Angels are rational beings. How do these Commandments apply to them?

Remember thou keepeth the Sabbath day.
Honor thy father and thy mother.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.

Some of the angels become devils and inspire human beings to commit those crimes.
They certainly don’t honour their heavenly Father! You have omitted the First and most important Commandment: love God and your neighbour…

 

[empther]

Some of the angels become devils and inspire human beings to commit those crimes.

But don’t commit the crimes themselves. So the commandments don’t apply.

I just wanted to set you thinking.
On another world, the creatures’s souls may have different ways of controlling their bodies than ours. Their bodies may have different influences on their souls than ours.
In fact, these beings may be very different in nature from us.
So their commandments will be morally good for them, but irrelevant for us,
which is related to the subject of the thread.

 

[tonyrey]

I have agreed that you could define positive that way, yes, but that does not bring us any further.

It brings you no further because you don’t want to go any further.

Nevertheless, what you say is merely an assertion.

Then disprove it.

An argument that is applicable to anything isn’t worthless, it’s universal.

Absurdity is also universal.

You should try a little bit of humour every now and then, Tony.

I do but w/o breaking the rules.

I don’t think so.

Why not?

There is nothing that is necessary because nothing is possible.

We’re not dealing with possibility but reality.

The Necessary Being cannot exist without necessity.

Wordplay!

Not at all.

Not at all what?

The necessary being is part of reality. If it exists.

The Necessary Being is Reality.

A reality that contain nothing but the true proposition that nothing exists.

Absurd!

Substantives don’t exist without attributes.

Indeed!

That what you believe.

Disprove it.

Well, then it doesn’t exist.

An assumption.

It doesn’t make The Necessary Being.

The Necessary Being doesn’t need making.
.

Too bad for Thomists who claim that God is pure existence without any attributes.

I’m not a Thomist - to that extent.

No, but it does not follow that it is therefore valuable.

Then neither is your opinion!

Just llook it up for yourself.

You made the assertion.

Yes, thta’s the literal translation but it’s hardly ever used that way these days.

Validity is not determined by usage.

I think it is a nonsensical concept.

Why?

According to you, that’s just my opinion.

Prove that it isn’t.

By the fact that it hurts other beings.

A hedonist’s assumption.

It may be a lesser evil, but it’s not good.

It’s still justified.

Ignorance is not a sin, so why is the Catholic Church making such a fuss over sin?

Ignorance is often culpable.

Life is what it is and what you and I make of it.

You assume we have a choice - in spite of not having free will!

 

[empther]

Don’t you love this kind of debate, folks?