Euthyphro Dilemma

[belorg]

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

actually I want to go a lot further

Then disprove it.

You are the one making the positive claim, so you have the burden.

Absurdity is also universal.

A sarcastic thought crossed my mind, but since this forum consists of very sensitive people, I’ll let you draw your own conclsuions from what you say here.

Why not?

Because i don’t belive in absurdities.

We’re not dealing with possibility but reality.

Since we are dealnig with necessity, we are actually dealing with possibility.

Wordplay!

Just read it again.

Not at all what?

It’s not a tautology.

The Necessary Being is Reality.

AFAIK I am real, but AFAIK I am not necessary.

Absurd!

Maybe, but that’s actually something people use to prove that nothingness is impossible.

Disprove it.

Not my burden, Tony.

An assumption.

If the being is not a being then it doesn’t exist. Pure logic.

The Necessary Being doesn’t need making.

.

Yet you assert that it made itself.

I’m not a Thomist - to that extent.

Are you a cafeteria Thomist then?

Then neither is your opinion!

Maybe nothing is, who knows?

You made the assertion.

William Lane Craig, Edward Feser, Wes Morriston, among others.

Validity is not determined by usage.

No, only by common sense. And you don’t even seem to belive iot anyway.

Why?

Because for something to create istself, it has to exist, which means it must be created by itself before it can create itself. That seems absurd to me.

Prove that it isn’t.

You make the assertion, so it’s your burden.

A hedonist’s assumption.

Sure, but there is nothing wrong with hedonism. Even my good friend Tony says so

tonyrey:

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

It’s still justified

We are talking about ‘good’, not about ‘justified’

Ignorance is often culpable.

Y

A naked assertion.

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

Well, if you don’t believe we have free will, then why are we discussing this?

 

[belorg]

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

I find it very amusing.

 

[tonyrey]

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

It’s not a debate but a debacle!

 

[tonyrey]

actually I want to go a lot further

You are the one making the positive claim, so you have the burden.

A sarcastic thought crossed my mind, but since this forum consists of very sensitive people, I’ll let you draw your own conclsuions from what you say here.

Because i don’t belive in absurdities.

Since we are dealnig with necessity, we are actually dealing with possibility.

Just read it again.

It’s not a tautology.

AFAIK I am real, but AFAIK I am not necessary.

Maybe, but that’s actually something people use to prove that nothingness is impossible.

Not my burden, Tony.

If the being is not a being then it doesn’t exist. Pure logic.

.

Yet you assert that it made itself.

Are you a cafeteria Thomist then?

Maybe nothing is, who knows?

William Lane Craig, Edward Feser, Wes Morriston, among others.

No, only by common sense. And you don’t even seem to belive iot anyway.

Because for something to create istself, it has to exist, which means it must be created by itself before it can create itself. That seems absurd to me.

You make the assertion, so it’s your burden.

Sure, but there is nothing wrong with hedonism. Even my good friend Tony says so

We are talking about ‘good’, not about ‘justified’

Y

A naked assertion.

Well, if you don’t believe we have free will, then why are we discussing this?

We’re not discussing anything as far as I can see! I leave you to play with others.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

You have omitted the First and most important Commandment: love God and your neighbour… Doesn’t that apply to them?

 

[belorg]

We’re not discussing anything as far as I can see! I leave you to play with others.

Isn’t sarcasm against forum rules, Tony?

 

[empther]

Originally Posted by empther

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
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.

You have omitted the First and most important Commandment: love God and your neighbour… Doesn’t that apply to them?

Sure it does. That’s why I left it off the list that don’t apply to them; “Thou shalt not commit adultery” etc.

What is your point?

 

[belorg]

It’s not a debate but a debacle!

Very courteous of you to admit your defeat, Tony.

 

[tonyrey]

Very courteous of you to admit your defeat, Tony.

It is impossible to be defeated by a defeatist!