Euthyphro Once More.

[Phillysoul11]

You keep coming back god being the standard of greatness, but you keep missing my point.

If we had two possible conceptions of god, both of whom were all powerful, both of whom were all knowing, but one of them was pro, and the other opposed to child rape, how would we tell which one is greater? Since we do do not know which one is the "real" god, we cannot appeal to the nature of the "real" god to inform us, we must make a decision ourselves, on what basis do you propose we make this decision? When I asked why it is contrary to his nature, and replied that it violates his perfect moral standard, I was honestly, slightly annoyed. Just before, you claimed his moral standard was a consequence of his nature. S, which is it? Why is it contrary to his nature? Or why is it contrary to his perfect moral standard?

I apologize if I’m annoying you, that is not my intent. My goal is to get to the bottom of this.

I tried to address this situation in my last post. To summarize I said that it is logically absurd that a being could exist and not be subject to God's standard of goodness. In the same way that it would be logically absurd to believe that a being could exist outside God's standard of logic. If there were two beings that existed and one of them was God the other would by necessity be subject to the real God's standards. I feel this to be a sound argument; however, this was just one example you gave. If you see a hole in it let me know.

The process by which we determine which God is the real God is as I have mentioned before a topic of moral epistemology. Let my try to point out why. In this case we have two beings which are equally powerful an equally knowledgeable (already logical flaws, I will ignore these for now) Now we know that one of these beings is God according to the definition of “ultimate standard” the other being is a poser. The poser would have to be subject to the real Gods standards of morality to even be a logical possibility. Let us then say that the real God is anti rape and the poser is pro rape, the process by which we determine which one is the real God from the poser is essentially the same as the process we come to know what is really good and what isn't. That’s basically what moral epistemology is, the study of how we come to know what is, and what isn’t good. The fact that one is morally perfect is all we need to deal with. It seems as if you are attacking a faulty concept of God. I could be wrong though, let me know if I am.

Regarding moral epistemology some might argue that we know what is moral innately and this innate knowledge of right and wrong can be used to discover God’s moral nature, some might argue that we can know discover and know God’s moral nature through His commands, special revelation etc. When I said that something is immoral because it contradicts God’s standard of morality it is similar to saying that something is illogical because it contradicts God’s standard of logic. You are correct that God’s moral standard is an essential part of God’s nature; it is contrary to God’s standard because if God exists by definition of ultimate moral standard than it must be. Now I’m using child rape as an example; it could be said that if God exists according to the definition given some actions conform to His standard, and some do not. The actions that do not are immoral. These actions contradict Gods nature because God exists. The process by which we come to the conclusion that child rape does not conform to God’s standards is a completely different topic.

Also, the alternate argument you present at the end of your post

" P1 God is the ultimate standard by virtue of His existence. P2 God is then the standard of morality. P3. If God is the standard of morality then He is necessarily morally perfect. C. Since God is morally perfect He can serve as the foundation for objective moral values."

Starts with the premise of god being the ultimate standard, and ends with the conclusion of him being the standard for morality, surely you see the fallacy in that? If that is the way in which this argument must proceed, I see little point in carrying on, even WLC could prove things like that, if we let him get away with it.

The conclusion isn't that God is the standard of morality; rather it is that Objective moral values can be rooted in God. Being the standard of morality in and of itself does not make morality objective. For morality to be objective it must be mind independent. This is why it is informative to call God necessarily good. God is not who He is because he chose, achieved, or randomly became the way He is. He is the way He is by necessity, which is why right and wrong can be mind independent. There is no possible world where God could exist and not hold the same standard of morality. The argument starts with a definition of God as the ultimate standard. It ends with the claim that morality can be objective and rooted in God. After looking it over for a day I really don’t think that it begs the question. If you are still convinced that it does please let me know.

Maybe it would help if I give a broader overview of my problem with this. For morals to be objective, I want there to be an answer to the question "Why is child rape wrong?", an example of an answer I would accept is "Child rape causes suffering, and all unnecessary suffering is wrong" This would be fine for me, assuming we both agreed about suffering being wrong, if you tried to sue this answer to prove that unnecessary suffering is wrong, I would be displeased.. As it stands, your answer goes "Child rape is wrong, because it goes against god, and god determines what is wrong", this is not fine with me, as we are in fact, arguing over the final part of that answer.

I’m really glad you brought this up because I think that the Dilemma has immense implications. First of all I feel as though I have been clear in claiming that “God determines what is wrong” is NOT a plausible answer, Morality is then mind dependant and subjective. You would be rightly displeased. If morality is mind dependant than it is subjective, this must be clear. Since your claim that “unnecessary suffering is wrong” is mind dependant it is not objective. If a crazy claimed that unnecessary suffering was right there would be no mind independent standard to deem one position valid and the other invalid.

Again, I hope I’m not annoying you and I apologize if I did, thanks for the insights.

[SSY]

You keep coming back god being the standard of greatness, but you keep missing my point.

If we had two possible conceptions of god, both of whom were all powerful, both of whom were all knowing, but one of them was pro, and the other opposed to child rape, how would we tell which one is greater? Since we do do not know which one is the "real" god, we cannot appeal to the nature of the "real" god to inform us, we must make a decision ourselves, on what basis do you propose we make this decision? When I asked why it is contrary to his nature, and replied that it violates his perfect moral standard, I was honestly, slightly annoyed. Just before, you claimed his moral standard was a consequence of his nature. S, which is it? Why is it contrary to his nature? Or why is it contrary to his perfect moral standard?

I apologize if I’m annoying you, that is not my intent. My goal is to get to the bottom of this.

I tried to address this situation in my last post. To summarize I said that it is logically absurd that a being could exist and not be subject to God's standard of goodness. In the same way that it would be logically absurd to believe that a being could exist outside God's standard of logic. If there were two beings that existed and one of them was God the other would by necessity be subject to the real God's standards. I feel this to be a sound argument; however, this was just one example you gave. If you see a hole in it let me know. we are not talking about two beings existing, we are talking about two ideas of god, written down on a piece of paper, and then use trying to decide which one is greater.

The process by which we determine which God is the real God is as I have mentioned before a topic of moral epistemology. Let my try to point out why. In this case we have two beings which are equally powerful an equally knowledgeable (already logical flaws, I will ignore these for now) Now we know that one of these beings is God according to the definition of “ultimate standard” the other being is a poser. The poser would have to be subject to the real Gods standards of morality to even be a logical possibility. Let us then say that the real God is anti rape and the poser is pro rape, the process by which we determine which one is the real God from the poser is essentially the same as the process we come to know what is really good and what isn't. That’s basically what moral epistemology is, the study of how we come to know what is, and what isn’t good. The fact that one is morally perfect is all we need to deal with. It seems as if you are attacking a faulty concept of God. I could be wrong though, let me know if I am. I am not asking how it would be possible for us to know something, i am asking what the difference actually is, whether or not it is known to any person is irrelevant. Why could god's set of morals never include one that allows child rape? What is it about child rape , and his morals, that makes them incompatible? In my example, I said it causes suffering, and that suffering is contrary to my morals, I am not claiming those morals to be objective, good, perfect, or anything else, but I am showing why something is condemned under them, I want you to show how child rape could be condemned under gods morals.

Regarding moral epistemology some might argue that we know what is moral innately and this innate knowledge of right and wrong can be used to discover God’s moral nature, some might argue that we can know discover and know God’s moral nature through His commands, special revelation etc. When I said that something is immoral because it contradicts God’s standard of morality it is similar to saying that something is illogical because it contradicts God’s standard of logic. You are correct that God’s moral standard is an essential part of God’s nature; it is contrary to God’s standard because if God exists by definition of ultimate moral standard than it must be. Now I’m using child rape as an example; it could be said that if God exists according to the definition given some actions conform to His standard, and some do not. The actions that do not are immoral. These actions contradict Gods nature because God exists. The process by which we come to the conclusion that child rape does not conform to God’s standards is a completely different topic.
You still will not answer my question, all I want to know, is, why is child rape contrary to god's nature, why does it violate his perfect moral standard? Why can a perfect set of morals not include child rape being OK?

Also, the alternate argument you present at the end of your post

" P1 God is the ultimate standard by virtue of His existence. P2 God is then the standard of morality. P3. If God is the standard of morality then He is necessarily morally perfect. C. Since God is morally perfect He can serve as the foundation for objective moral values."

Starts with the premise of god being the ultimate standard, and ends with the conclusion of him being the standard for morality, surely you see the fallacy in that? If that is the way in which this argument must proceed, I see little point in carrying on, even WLC could prove things like that, if we let him get away with it.

The conclusion isn't that God is the standard of morality; rather it is that Objective moral values can be rooted in God. Being the standard of morality in and of itself does not make morality objective. For morality to be objective it must be mind independent. This is why it is informative to call God necessarily good. God is not who He is because he chose, achieved, or randomly became the way He is. He is the way He is by necessity, which is why right and wrong can be mind independent. There is no possible world where God could exist and not hold the same standard of morality. The argument starts with a definition of God as the ultimate standard. It ends with the claim that morality can be objective and rooted in God. After looking it over for a day I really don’t think that it begs the question. If you are still convinced that it does please let me know.This relies on his morals being perfect, if they are not perfect, we can not claim them to be objective, yet, as we went through before, tediously, to you, perfect means "like god", when we replace the definition of perfect in the dictionary, with this one, the argument ceases to make sense. You may not, may NOT, have two definitions of the same word, and use it with both definitions simultaneously. Perhaps from now on, you should restrict yourself to only using your perfect, that is, whenever you would write down perfect, or greatest, you instead, write down "like god", if the definition is good, and your arguments of a valid logical form, they should still make sense.

Maybe it would help if I give a broader overview of my problem with this. For morals to be objective, I want there to be an answer to the question "Why is child rape wrong?", an example of an answer I would accept is "Child rape causes suffering, and all unnecessary suffering is wrong" This would be fine for me, assuming we both agreed about suffering being wrong, if you tried to sue this answer to prove that unnecessary suffering is wrong, I would be displeased.. As it stands, your answer goes "Child rape is wrong, because it goes against god, and god determines what is wrong", this is not fine with me, as we are in fact, arguing over the final part of that answer.

I’m really glad you brought this up because I think that the Dilemma has immense implications. First of all I feel as though I have been clear in claiming that “God determines what is wrong” is NOT a plausible answer, Morality is then mind dependant and subjective. You would be rightly displeased. If morality is mind dependant than it is subjective, this must be clear. Since your claim that “unnecessary suffering is wrong” is mind dependant it is not objective. If a crazy claimed that unnecessary suffering was right there would be no mind independent standard to deem one position valid and the other invalid.

Again, I hope I’m not annoying you and I apologize if I did, thanks for the insights.

[Phillysoul11]

Before I start, I apologize for the delayed response - I'll do my best to make sure I respond in a timely manner. I apologize that it took me as long as it did to find time to respond to this.

I am not asking how it would be possible for us to know something, i am asking what the difference actually is, whether or not it is known to any person is irrelevant. Why could god's set of morals never include one that allows child rape? What is it about child rape , and his morals, that makes them incompatible? In my example, I said it causes suffering, and that suffering is contrary to my morals, I am not claiming those morals to be objective, good, perfect, or anything else, but I am showing why something is condemned under them, I want you to show how child rape could be condemned under gods morals.

God’s set of morals could not include certain things (rape, etc) because God exists. I know that sounds a little strange so let me elaborate. If we define God as the ultimate standard, and we assume that He exists, then beings external to God can either conform to His standard or not. Since every being outside of God must be subject to God’s standards then whatever God’s standard of morality is must be the standard of morality. Since God is who He is by necessity His moral standard is not arbitrary. It is mind independent because God is not who He is by choice, achievement etc. but by necessity. You claim that child rape is wrong because it causes suffering; I am claiming it is wrong because it violates the standard which humanity is subject to (because of God’s existence). It is socially and emotionally wrong on many other different levels. The theist can condemn rape because the theist can refer to an objective standard of morality to which all are subject to.

You still will not answer my question, all I want to know, is, why is child rape contrary to god's nature, why does it violate his perfect moral standard? Why can a perfect set of morals not include child rape being OK?

Anything contrary to God’s standard, whether it be child rape, kicking kittens etc. Is contrary by necessity. Evil/Wrong is that which is contrary to God, in the same way â€"A is contrary to A. Figuring out that child rape is part of â€"A is a different topic. I think you understand what it means when it is said that God’s characteristics are essential to Him, what it seems to me that you are asking is “why is God’s essential character the way it is” Why isn’t his standard of morality such that child rape is acceptable”. Whatever God’s standard of morality is must be perfect (like God). If God’s standard of morality was one where child rape was acceptable then child rape would be acceptable; however, this does not mean that Child rape in some possible world is acceptable because God is who He is by necessity and if God does not deem child rape to be acceptable than it could never be acceptable. The question that we are left to figure out is “Which actions conform to God’s nature and which actions don’t” and this as you understand is a question regarding moral epistemology. In short, whatever God is, evil is the contrary. God is who He is not by chance but by necessity. When I claim that rape is morally wrong I am making a claim about my knowledge of the nature of God.

This relies on his morals being perfect, if they are not perfect, we can not claim them to be objective, yet, as we went through before, tediously, to you, perfect means "like god", when we replace the definition of perfect in the dictionary, with this one, the argument ceases to make sense. You may not, may NOT, have two definitions of the same word, and use it with both definitions simultaneously. Perhaps from now on, you should restrict yourself to only using your perfect, that is, whenever you would write down perfect, or greatest, you instead, write down "like god", if the definition is good, and your arguments of a valid logical form, they should still make sense.

If God is the ultimate standard, by definition he must be morally flawless (perfect) because he is the standard of morality. It’s essentially saying, “God if existing must be God”. This should be obvious and I think you understand this. If God is the standard of morality by virtue of His existence (mind independent) He can serve as a foundation for objective moral truths. Since perfect as it relates to God’s standard is merely a word that describes God’s character I am saying that God as the ultimate standard of morality has a standard of morals that are consistent with His nature. It seems as though you think that for morality to be objective God’s standard of morality must be perfect according to an external standard. I don’t see why this is the case.

God is the ultimate standard of morality by necessity, this entails that his nature is necessarily flawless, since God’s nature is mind independent morality can be objective and because God is perfect (like God) His commands must be perfect (consistent with God)

[Typist]

An assumption to all sides of this discussion seems to be that human logic is capable of analyzing a premise the size of God.

If an entity exists that can create billions of galaxies,  (Billions.  Galaxies.)  what is the chance that you and I would be able to understand or define such an entity?

Wouldn't that be kind of like asking an amoeba it's opinion on evolution or tax reform?

Are we worshiping human logic with blind faith if we assume without questioning that human logic is a useful tool for this task?

[Phillysoul11]

An assumption to all sides of this discussion seems to be that human logic is capable of analyzing a premise the size of God.

If an entity exists that can create billions of galaxies,  (Billions.  Galaxies.)  what is the chance that you and I would be able to understand or define such an entity?

Wouldn't that be kind of like asking an amoeba it's opinion on evolution or tax reform?

Are we worshiping human logic with blind faith if we assume without questioning that human logic is a useful tool for this task?

Trying to understand who God is through the mind has it's limitations to be sure; however, just because it has limitations does not mean it's useless. For example, I think it's informative to say that God's character is essential to His existence, we learn something about who God must be (if he exists). We can learn about God's existence or lack thereof through logical analysis, no it's not perfect but it's something to work with. We conclude different things about God (what He could and could not be) through logic etc. If god is somehow logically impossible then belief in Him seems much more implausible, If not downright insane. Humans are going to use the tools they have to try and understand the universe, logic is one of our "tools".

thanks for the comment.

[Typist]

Trying to understand who God is through the mind has it's limitations to be sure; however, just because it has limitations does not mean it's useless.

Yes, I agree.    Using the mind to explore the God premise can be quite entertaining for we philosopher types.   Life is short, fun is good, this is a value that is worthwhile.  I think the proof of this value is that we keep doing it, over and over for thousands of years, even though we never really get anywhere.   So we agree, not useless.

Humans are going to use the tools they have to try and understand the universe, logic is one of our "tools".

Yes, agreed again.   It's who we are.  

It doesn't automatically follow however that the tool we use to ask these questions is even vaguely qualified to deliver an accurate answer to this particular question.  

Picture this.   You've had a few beers.  You're standing over a big ant pile, casually deciding whether to kick the whole thing over, just to see a million ants run out.

Deep within the ant pile, they're having a big discussion.  A big debate!   For years they've been discussing whether there is an intelligence higher than ants, and some of them call this concept "The Big Ant".   They've given this "Big Ant" all the amazing powers any ant would really like to have.

Are they right?  Is there an intelligence higher than ants?  

Yes!  You!  

And they have not the slightest clue you are only a few feet away, thinking about kicking over their ant pile.  They simply don't have the equipment to understand you at all.  They want to, they just can't, no matter how hard they try.

When you finally kick over the ant pile, they'll blame it on the Big Ant, and keep arguing among themselves for another million years.

In my ant pile kicking opinion...

[i_am_i]

An assumption to all sides of this discussion seems to be that human logic is capable of analyzing a premise the size of God.

If an entity exists that can create billions of galaxies,  (Billions.  Galaxies.)  what is the chance that you and I would be able to understand or define such an entity?

Wouldn't that be kind of like asking an amoeba it's opinion on evolution or tax reform?

Are we worshiping human logic with blind faith if we assume without questioning that human logic is a useful tool for this task?

Human logic is more than sufficient to deduce that god is a human invention.

[Typist]

Human logic is more than sufficient to deduce that god is a human invention.

Then let's put that logic to good use.

It could be 100% true that everything every human being has ever said about the premise God is entirely silly and wrong, and there still be something in reality that could fairly be called a god.

Even if we assume that it's possible to prove that all religious people are all wrong, that wouldn't prove anything except that religious people are wrong.

Logic.  We don't know what we don't know.

Logic is a human invention.

[elliebean]

Human logic is more than sufficient to deduce that god is a human invention.

Logic is a human invention.

The difference, of course, is that no one pretends that logic isn't a human invention. Nor is it in any way diminished for being so.

[Typist]

The difference, of course, is that no one pretends that logic isn't a human invention.

Well, some theists think Somebody Else invented it.     Sorry, just nitpicking and goofing around...

Nor is it in any way diminished for being so.

Not goofing now.  

Logic is entirely diminished by being a human invention.   That is, it is the workings of one species on one tiny planet in one small moment of time, in a reality of unimaginably enormous proportions.  

A notion that a force as small as human logic can be trusted to be a reliable guide to evaluating a proposal of something that created EVERYTHING is as much a comic book invention as any God.

People who take logic worship to that level are making the same mistake that was made when earlier people's assumed that the entire universe revolved around the earth, because you could just look up, and see it for yourself.

Sorry guys, neither we nor our logic are the center of the universe.

Logic is good for lots of things, is not equal to, logic is good for everything.

[i_am_i]

The difference, of course, is that no one pretends that logic isn't a human invention.

Well, some theists think Somebody Else invented it.     Sorry, just nitpicking and goofing around...

Nor is it in any way diminished for being so.

Not goofing now.  

Logic is entirely diminished by being a human invention.   That is, it is the workings of one species on one tiny planet in one small moment of time, in a reality of unimaginably enormous proportions.  

A notion that a force as small as human logic can be trusted to be a reliable guide to evaluating a proposal of something that created EVERYTHING is as much a comic book invention as any God.

People who take logic worship to that level are making the same mistake that was made when earlier people's assumed that the entire universe revolved around the earth, because you could just look up, and see it for yourself.

Sorry guys, neither we nor our logic are the center of the universe.

Logic is good for lots of things, is not equal to, logic is good for everything.

I'm sorry, trypist, but you speak as a person who has not really had any life experience, has never had to make any serious decisions and has never had to stand up for any principle. Everything you say is theoretical. I just don't see very much thought behind your words.

You quite come across as a college student who's majoring in philosophy.

I'm sure it's all a lot of fun for you but you need to remember that there are people here who have arrived at their conclusions by actually living in the real world.

I'm not asking for your resume. I'm just saying that the glibness of your tone makes it hard to take you seriously.

[Typist]

Ok i_am_i, no problem.   There's no law requiring anybody to take me seriously, and seriously speaking, I hope I don't too often.

Can I ask your age?

Or are we only going to talk about my life experience?

[i_am_i]

Ok i_am_i, no problem.   There's no law requiring anybody to take me seriously, and seriously speaking, I hope I don't too often.

Can I ask your age?

Or are we only going to talk about my life experience?

Call me J.

Yeah, sure. I'm fifty-six years old. Married, no childen. I've been a professional musician all my life. I play the drums. I'm also a jazz composer. I dropped out of high-school to begin pursuing my career so I'm basically self-educated. I've played all over the world and I've read everything I could get my hands on, including cook books. I'm a damned good cook.

[SSY]

Right, finished here. You refuse to argue in a logical way, your entire argument is based on you saying "It is is, because it is, because it has to be", as far as I am concerned, you have proven nothing, except your complete failure at using rigorous logic. This thread has been a massive waste of my time, I only wish I had worked out sooner that you are either unwilling or unable to answer questions, or properly defend your proposition, then I could have rescued several hours of my life. Next time you want to go on a three page wind up, I will not be willing to smash my face against the thick skull you present here. If you ever wish to debate with someone again, I suggest you actually listen to their responses, rather than coming up with ten different ways of repeating your argument, despite the massive circularity of the argument. Thanks a lot for wasting my time.

Also, Typist, logic is a system for determining the soundness of conclusions drawn from true premises. If you follow the rules of logic, and have true premises, then your conclusion will be correct. It is nothing more than this, but what it is, is incredible, it is the fundamental way for divining truth in the universe. Your belittling of it as a human invention, does it a great disservice, it is much more than that.

[Phillysoul11]

Yes, I agree.    Using the mind to explore the God premise can be quite entertaining for we philosopher types.   Life is short, fun is good, this is a value that is worthwhile.  I think the proof of this value is that we keep doing it, over and over for thousands of years, even though we never really get anywhere.   So we agree, not useless.

Sure it can be entertaining but logic is much more than entertainment. It can be informative. I'm not sure what you mean by "we never really get anywhere" If you are inferring that logic is uninformative and somehow immune to to development then I think you are wrong, an elementary example of how logic has influenced our perception of reality can be found in Descartes meditations "Cogito, ergo sum". This information which was obtained through reason and logic is useful. Not just entertaining. Logic is a a way to separate truth from fiction. How can that not be informative?

Yes, agreed again.   It's who we are.  

It doesn't automatically follow however that the tool we use to ask these questions is even vaguely qualified to deliver an accurate answer to this particular question.  

Picture this.   You've had a few beers.  You're standing over a big ant pile, casually deciding whether to kick the whole thing over, just to see a million ants run out.

Deep within the ant pile, they're having a big discussion.  A big debate!   For years they've been discussing whether there is an intelligence higher than ants, and some of them call this concept "The Big Ant".   They've given this "Big Ant" all the amazing powers any ant would really like to have.

Are they right?  Is there an intelligence higher than ants?  

Yes!  You!  

And they have not the slightest clue you are only a few feet away, thinking about kicking over their ant pile.  They simply don't have the equipment to understand you at all.  They want to, they just can't, no matter how hard they try.

When you finally kick over the ant pile, they'll blame it on the Big Ant, and keep arguing among themselves for another million years.

In my ant pile kicking opinion...

I'm not 100% sure where you are taking this analogy but I will address it as best I can (as off topic as it is).
Most theists who believe in God claim to have some sort of revelation from that God by which they know Him/Her/Them. These sources of revelation from this/these God(s) have differences/contradictions ect. which give rise to different religions. Humanity (according to the theist) must decide which of these sources of revelation are accurate and which are not. The theists goal is to discover which view or perception of God is in line with reality. The process by which the theist does this separation of truth and fiction can be accomplished many different ways. Logic is one of the ways the theist can weed out the rubbish from the truth. Logic can and does change our perception of who God is, it can help the theist determine what concepts of Him/Her/Them are BS and which are plausible. Sure it could be that a giant drunk bully god is about to kick the earth into oblivion, it could be that out perception of logic is distorted and that we are all crazies all blinded by a false reality; however, I don't have any reason to believe that there is or we are.

Right, finished here. You refuse to argue in a logical way, your entire argument is based on you saying "It is is, because it is, because it has to be", as far as I am concerned, you have proven nothing, except your complete failure at using rigorous logic. This thread has been a massive waste of my time, I only wish I had worked out sooner that you are either unwilling or unable to answer questions, or properly defend your proposition, then I could have rescued several hours of my life. Next time you want to go on a three page wind up, I will not be willing to smash my face against the thick skull you present here. If you ever wish to debate with someone again, I suggest you actually listen to their responses, rather than coming up with ten different ways of repeating your argument, despite the massive circularity of the argument. Thanks a lot for wasting my time.

First and foremost, than you for the hours you spent arguing your points. I appreciate the time, effort, and energy that went into them.
My goal was not to prove anything; my goal was to understand the argument. While I appreciate you taking the time to write your posts I feel as though it is rather ignorant to conclude that because I did not see the validity in your claims I must not have spent time reading them. For what it’s worth, I spent quite a few long nights reading, re-reading, writing, and then re-writing. I always tried to make sure that before I responded I had a more than adequate understanding of your argument(s). I feel as though I accomplished what I set out to accomplish. I’m sorry you don’t feel the same way. I benefited greatly from our discussions and for that, thank you.

That being said, I can’t let you escape with the last word, so for the sake of other lurkers who have been following this thread I will try to break down your thoughts. You seem to think that my argument is that “God is good because he is Good, because he has to be Good” regardless of its truth this is not my argument. My argument essentially is that the dilemma isn’t relevant because the theist’s view of God is that of a being who is essentially God (the ultimate standard). Because of this view of God, whose standard of morality is perfect and mind-independent, the theist has every right to hold to objective moral truths because the dilemma does not apply. It is not (philosophically speaking) a problem for the current monotheist.