How is euthyphro's dilemma "a threat to theism"?

[Old_man_shouts_at_cl]

@Fabian

Life was different back then.

and the first theist excuse used whenever their argument is contradicted by facts.

Morality was indeed different “back then” even just 20 years ago. All that demonstrates is that morality is evolutionary along with societal mores.
And yes what we find repugnant now, like pedophilia, slavery, public executions, etc etc. was “back then” a normal and often recommended part of society of which organised religion was very much a part.

Your argument is baseless. Some christians may have campaigned for some progressive ideals but the history of organised christianity is plain. Opposition to anything but the status quo. Only broadly supporting reform when it is obvious that it is inevitable, and that by continuing opposition to the reform, that religion will lose yet more followers.

The Texas Taliban are evidence as is the actual Taliban. Closer to home, the Finnish State Church, now considered largely irrelevant by most Finns I have encountered. Merely another cultural Icon like the Poiku, on display but ultimately ceremonial only.

[Get_off_my_lawn]

@Old_man_shouts_at_cl

Morality was indeed different “back then” even just 20 years ago. All that demonstrates is that morality is evolutionary along with societal mores.
And yes what we find repugnant now, like pedophilia, slavery, public executions, etc etc. was “back then” a normal and often recommended part of society of which organised religion was very much a part.

Exactly. And an all-knowing, all-powerful god that can se both past and future should also know and understand that, and it therefore boggles the mind that the rules set down in the bible are what they are. But in any case, the very fact that there are no rules against holding slaves, that women are prescribed as inferior to – and owned by – men, that rape is a crime of damaged property against the owner of the woman, and so on, reveals that the “morality” of this god is such that all these things are condoned and considered normal and desirable.

For example: holding slaves is condemned today, and we hear no(*) christians protest and rebel against this fact, and want to reinstate slavery. Thus they accept that society today is different from bronze age society, and that certain rules are not to be enforced. But then they still hold cherry-picked rules of the bible and the old testament as a model for how society is to be and to be governed. Inconsistent as hell, but to be expected. Not one christian person I have talked to have been able to explain to me how they pick which rules are to be followed and which ones are to be rejected. It’s as if…as if they look at society today, and pick the changes that happen right now, and argue against them, and stay silent about all the others, like the slavery thing.

There is another thing no christian have been able to address when I have raised the issue. Since this all-knowing, all-powerful god that knows the future would fully know that slavery was to be rejected, women would get to vote, and women would go to work and be independent of men and no longer be the property of men, WHY would this god make the rules about slavery etc., instead of just prohibiting it, and thus make a better society for all? It’s as if…those rules were made by humans to reflect bronze age society as it was back then…

(*) well, in general. Perhaps there are some, but they must be few and far between.

[Fabian]

@Nyarlathotep

@Fabian

Do you see a logical error? If so, please elaborate.
I’ll try to simplify one more time:

Assumption A: X is bound by Y
Assumption B: Horn 2 means that X cannot be bound by Y
Conclusion: Horn 2 is not true.

To emphasis the dubious logic contained:

1. g is H.
2. g is not H.
3. therefore: #2 is false so g is H.

The problem is, #1 and #2 being in contradiction does NOT logically mean #2 is false. Your conclusion is not logically valid. I don’t know what else to say. Wherever you got this “logic” from; you should reconsidered everything you got from that source.

You have dropped an important thing, when reformulating my simplification. Maybe your symbols are better then mine so I’ll use those:

1. g is H.
2. A says that g is not H.
3. therefore: A is wrong.

I do find this rather logically conclusive, but if you don’t then I guess also this thread has come to an end.

[Nyarlathotep]

@Fabian

1. g is H.
2. A says that g is not H.
3. therefore: A is wrong.

I do find this rather logically conclusive

It is wrong. When two postulates contradict (as you pointed out, 1 and 2 contradict), it means ONE of the following is true:

• the first postulate is false
• the second postulate is false
• the first AND second postulates are false

However, you concluded the 2nd postulate is false. This is already dubious but it gets worse:

The order of the two postulates doesn’t matter. You could have written them in the other order, and if you remained consistent and chose the 2nd as false it would change your conclusion. The dubious conclusion of your argument depends on the order of postulates; in a situation where the order of postulates shouldn’t matter.

I don’t know how you reached this conclusion, but it was not with logic.

[Fabian]

@Nyarlathotep

@Fabian

1. g is H.
2. A says that g is not H.
3. therefore: A is wrong.

I do find this rather logically conclusive

However, you concluded the 2nd postulate is false.

I don’t know where you get that, because I clear do not.
I don’t conclude that postulate 2 or assumption 2 is wrong, but that A is wrong.
That is the determining difference.

Both 1 and 2 are assumptions, i.e. they are assumed to be true. It is indeed not logical to call one of them false as conclusion. That would be a contradiction.

I clearly say that the first two sentences are assumptions (i.e. taken to be true).
We assume that g really is H and assume that A really does say that g is not H.
That’s why we conclude logically, that A is wrong.
I never say that the second (or any) assumption is wrong - because then it would not be an assumption.
Also, I never concluded that the two assumptions contradict (because they don’t).

EDIT: I was unneccessarily dismissive in my first reply. Please accept my apology.

I guess you are confused by the meta-facts about this schema, namely that personally I indeed do not agree with either assumption and therefore contradict the conclusion. For the conclusion only holds (necessarily) if both assumptions are true. So yes, I do think the assumptions are at best unproven, but in the simplified version above, the logic is correct.

[Nyarlathotep]

@Fabian

I don’t know where you get that, because I clear do not.
I don’t conclude that postulate 2 or assumption 2 is wrong, but that A is wrong.
That is the determining difference.

Adding a layer to the onion, don’t address the fundamental problem with your conclusion.

It’s easy to make these kinds of mistakes, when you think you already know the answer. You really should restructure that whole part, because I don’t think it is fundamental to what you are saying; but it is totally fucked.

[SodaAnt]

@David_Killens

The end result was that after over forty decades of searching and inquiry, I had to accept that I was an atheist.

Wow! You must be related to Methuselah.

[Fabian]

@Nyarlathotep

@Fabian

I don’t know where you get that, because I clear do not.
I don’t conclude that postulate 2 or assumption 2 is wrong, but that A is wrong.
That is the determining difference.

Adding a layer to the onion, don’t address the fundamental problem with your conclusion.

It’s easy to make these kinds of mistakes, when you think you already know the answer. You really should restructure that whole part, because I don’t think it is fundamental to what you are saying; but it is totally fucked.

I am not “adding”" anything unneccessarily or to complicate things. This logical schema is a representation and simplification of something more concrete. If I would leave the “onion skin” away, then I would represent something else.
Maybe it has become too abstract, so I’ll give you an example:

1. The sky is blue.
2. Jack says that the sky is green.
3. Therefore (because both 1 and 2 are taken to be true) Jack is wrong.

Not only is that very logical and fits the schema of a logical deduction, it also needs every part of it.
You have “simplified” this to: 1. The sky is blue, 2. The sky is red. Therefore 2. is wrong and the sky is blue. And you are right that that is not a logical conclusion. But leaving Jack out of it results in the whole schema not representing the actual facts I want to talk about.

Now ironically we started with a concrete example and used the formulation of assumptions and conclusions to make it easier to understand. But maybe that was wrong and we should return to the originial sentences:

1. Morality is bound by Reason
2. Horn 2 says that Morality is not bound by Reason
3. Therefore Horn 2 is wrong.

I truly find this very straight-forward and I did not “add” any complication for any nefarious reason.
Can you now follow the next step in which I personally (after I formulated the above argument on behalf of somebody who thinks Euthyphro’s Dilemma were a threat to theism) disagree with it, because I see neither assumption 1 nor 2 established as truths.

[Nyarlathotep]

@Fabian

1. Morality is bound by Reason
2. Horn 2 says that Morality is not bound by Reason
3. Therefore Horn 2 is wrong.

I truly find this very straight-forward

then i can’t help you

OK : I’d give one more try:

Can you please explain and be EXPLICIT about the contradiction you used to come to this conclusion?

[Get_off_my_lawn]

@Fabian

Maybe it has become too abstract, so I’ll give you an example:

1. The sky is blue.
2. Jack says that the sky is green.
3. Therefore (because both 1 and 2 are taken to be true) Jack is wrong.

Nope. This is not a valid deduction, and it’s easy to show. Let’s swap blue and green:

1. The sky is green.
2. Jack says that the sky is blue.
3. Therefore (because both 1 and 2 are taken to be true) Jack is wrong.

So, following your (faulty) deduction, the sky is “logically” determined to be green. This happens because you assume a priori that 1 is “truer” than 2. The correct deduction is that either 1 or 2 is wrong (or both are wrong) because they contradict each other, but you’ll have to bring in empirical observation or some extra statements in the list to determine which is which.

Edit: In the same way we can show that your next deduction is nonsense:

@Fabian

1. Morality is bound by Reason
2. Horn 2 says that Morality is not bound by Reason
3. Therefore Horn 2 is wrong.

Let’s invert this:

1. Morality is not bound by Reason.
2. Homer Simpson says that Morality is bound by Reason.
3. Therefore Homer Simpson is wrong.

It’s exactly the same as above, but with the opposite conclusion, namely that Morality is not bound by Reason.

Edit 2: It just occurred to me that this can be used (abused) to disprove God:

1. God does not exist.
2. The Pope says that God exists.
3. Therefore (because both 1 and 2 are taken to be true) The Pope is wrong.

See? God “disproven”. How’s that for a powerful deduction, eh?

[Fabian]

[quote="Get_off_my_lawn, post:90, topic:2211]

Nope. This is not a valid deduction, and it’s easy to show. Let’s swap blue and green:

1. The sky is green.
2. Jack says that the sky is blue.
3. Therefore (because both 1 and 2 are taken to be true) Jack is wrong.

So, following your (faulty) deduction, the sky is “logically” determined to be green. This happens because you assume a priori that 1 is “truer” than 2.
[/quote]

OK, now you are confusing “deduction” and premis (“a priori”).
Let’s check quickly on wikipedia:

A deductive argument is one whose premises are intended to guarantee the truth of its conclusion. In other words, a deductive argument seeks to reach its conclusion by logical necessity. For instance, the following argument is deductive.

Deductive argument:
Victoria is tall.
Victoria has brown hair.
Therefore, Victoria is tall and has brown hair.

So a deductive argument is valid (or “logical”) if the conclusion really follows from the premises. Of course, if the premises are wrong, then the conclusion might also be wrong, but that does not make the argument invalid.

The difference is one of Validity and Soundness:

A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.

A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound.

What I’ve been saying all this time is that I can see only one valid argument that Euthyphro’s Dilemma is a threat to theism. I have given that valid argument and said, that I do not think that it is sound, because I do not find the premises established.

Now Nyarlathotep kept saying that the argument is illogical and got a bit confused in whether there is a contradiction or not.
But apparently we all agree: The argument is not sound because the premises are not good. So Euthyphro’s Dilemma really is no threat to theism, because even that argument (though logically valid) is not sound.

I don’t think there is more need to discuss this here.
You can think a bit more about the validity of the argument if you want.

[quote="Get_off_my_lawn, post:90, topic:2211]

The correct deduction is that either 1 or 2 is wrong (or both are wrong) because they contradict each other, but you’ll have to bring in empirical observation or some extra statements in the list to determine which is which.

[/quote]

No, the two assertions do not contradict, as I have shown with the Jack example.
It is very well possible that the sky has a different color from what Jack says and that Jack is wrong in his claim. There is no logical contradiction.

[quote="Get_off_my_lawn, post:90, topic:2211]

1. God does not exist.
2. The Pope says that God exists.
3. Therefore (because both 1 and 2 are taken to be true) The Pope is wrong.

See? God “disproven”. How’s that for a powerful deduction, eh?
[/quote]

No, you don’t disprove God, you assume Him not to exist in assumption 1. You are not even trying to disprove God, you are trying to prove that the Pope is wrong.
You see, it’s the conclusion which is what you are trying to prove. The argument is not trying to prove a premise.

I find it really weird that you don’t understand that this is valid logic, because it very literally is your logic.
You do really assume that God does not exist (1). We can both agree that the Pope claims Him to exist (2). So if the assumptions are correct, then the conclusion is valid: The Pope would be wrong (3) - this is what you believe.
I can attack the argument by saying that I believe assumption 1 to be false, in which case also the conclusion would be false. If God does exist, then the Pope is not wrong.
But I cannot say that the argument is invalid or illogical.

Well, thanks for the ride. I find it now established that nobody here has an answer why the dilemma were a threat to theism. We are in agreement.
Peace

[Sheldon]

@Fabian

Well, thanks for the ride. I find it now established that nobody here has an answer why the dilemma were a threat to theism.

I can’t speak for anyone else but I never cared since I don’t believe in any deity anyway, so the validity of that argument is moot. Any chance you can demsonrate some objective evidence for any deity before you leave? I think I already know the answer.

[Nyarlathotep]

@Fabian

So if the assumptions are correct, then the conclusion is valid…

I don’t know what you got that from, but that doesn’t follow the logic I was taught in school.

[Get_off_my_lawn]

@Fabian

OK, now you are confusing “deduction” and premis (“a priori”).

Nope, you missed my point, which is that the premises are not enough to draw any conclusion, except that the statements are contradictory. You conclude that 2 (Jack says that the sky is green) is false because 1 says the sky is blue. It could very well be the opposite (that Jack is correct, and therefore that 1 is false). You can not solve this without additional information, in form of empirical data or other premises. Since you immediately jump to the conclusion that Jack is wrong without any further discussion, you assume that 1 must be judged as “more true” than 2. Thus in this deductive argument, you have decided a priori (sense 2) that 1 is true, which is not a deduction but pure assertion. Which is the error.

@Fabian

But apparently we all agree: The argument is not sound because the premises are not good. So Euthyphro’s Dilemma really is no threat to theism, because even that argument (though logically valid) is not sound.

I haven’t really followed the discussion about the supposed dilemma, so I have no idea what it is all about, I have no opinion about it, and I really don’t care. But I noticed your logical error above, which is what I commented on, independently of the OP.

@Fabian

No, the two assertions do not contradict, as I have shown with the Jack example.
It is very well possible that the sky has a different color from what Jack says and that Jack is wrong in his claim. There is no logical contradiction.

The two statements contradict, in that they have opposite conclusions. The sky can have a different colour than the first assertion, i.e. the assertion could simply be wrong. You don’t have enough information to figure out whether the first assertion or Jack’s opinion is wrong.

@Fabian

No, you don’t disprove God, you assume Him not to exist in assumption 1. You are not even trying to disprove God, you are trying to prove that the Pope is wrong.
You see, it’s the conclusion which is what you are trying to prove. The argument is not trying to prove a premise.

You do notice that if the conclusion is that the Pope is wrong (i.e. that he is wrong in God existing), this logically means that God does not exist? Otherwise, the Pope would be wrong AND what he was wrong about would be correct, which is a contradiction. Therefore, the conclusion in 3 is wrong. The correct conclusion is that there is not enough information to resolve the conflicting statements. Same with your original list of statements.

@Fabian

I find it really weird that you don’t understand that this is valid logic

I have shown above that it is NOT valid logic. Which was the entire point of my posting.

[Simon_Moon]

@Fabian

Well, thanks for the ride. I find it now established that nobody here has an answer why the dilemma were a threat to theism. We are in agreement.

As I stated way back at the early part of this thread, I have never known someone who uses the dilemma as a threat to theism.

It is only a threat, and a good one, to the argument that a god is all good.

For argument’s sake, let’s say it was demonstrated that a god actually exists. And let’s also say, that a large set of people believe this god is all good. Euthyphro’s dilemma pretty much shoots that down.

[Nyarlathotep]

@Fabian

Now Nyarlathotep…got a bit confused in whether there is a contradiction or not.

We’ve passed through the Dunning-Kruger phase; I guess it must be time for the “make shit up” phase.

[Sheldon]

The question the thread is predicated on seemed loaded to me.

As others have pointed out it deals with one claimed characteristic for one deity people have imagined. It does refute that specific claim, as it was intended to. Beyond that I wasn’t inclined to give the author his “gotcha” moment.

As answering yes seemed subjective, if not wrong, and answering no seemed pretty facile.

I started with I don’t care, as I don’t believe in any deities anyway, and I’m still inclined towards that answer.

Worse still I’ve learned very little I didn’t already know. Nyarl has the patience of Job, and when people start making outlandish claims they’ve proved something paradigm shifting using logic, then just check the news, they’re usually lying, and often don’t understand logic.

[Fabian]

@Sheldon

I can’t speak for anyone else but I never cared since I don’t believe in any deity anyway, so the validity of that argument is moot. Any chance you can demsonrate some objective evidence for any deity before you leave? I think I already know the answer.

I still think that if you are not interested in the debate topic of this room, then you need not comment that you don’t care about the debate topic of the room.
And if you really want to learn about God, then don’t camp in a forum for atheists.
Go out and find people to ask.
When you learn to express yourself with more respect, I will gladly talk to you about that, but as we already said before, we have so wildly different views of reality that we cannot jump to the one simple question in the center:

[quote="Sheldon, post:52, topic:2211]
[quote="Fabian, post:47, topic:2211]
You should see that we have a fundamentally different understanding of reality, so I don’t think that we should start our relationship by throwing our best proofs at each other.
[/quote]
Well yes it’s a given, and while I am happy to discuss and debate, I reserve the right to maintain my own criteria for belief and disbelief, which is the same for all claims.
[/quote]

You already read that, and you did not disagree, yet you keep asking the same OT question.
I applaud you for being such a seeker, but you should really dare and go out of your comfort zone. Go to a forum of theists and treat them respectfully and a fruitful discussion might arise.

I tried that, and although I must say that I will not discuss other questions on this particular forum with this current audience, I will continue engaging people of different beliefs. After the let-down on this forum I had a long discussion with my atheist ex-neighbor. We both enjoyed that a lot. I’m usually hesitant to approach atheists, because many respond negatively about religion as a topic.

But if you really are looking for an answer to your question, you can start with this discussion video: The agnostic case against atheism (with Joe Schmid).
True: These guys even start with a different definition of agnosticism and atheism, but that is a good practice ground for you to strengthen your empathy: People have different opinions and expressions and there is still no need to ridicule them.

Once you have gained the ability to respectfully talk about that, I will gladly share with you the “evidence” in the world I see for God. I guess you know the two most obvious ones, only you ignore one and deny the other: a) the existence of the world (a good starting point is Rationality Rules: Why is there something rather than nothing? (All Roads Lead to Russell)) and b) the resurrection of Christ (starting point here maybe J. Warner Wallace - Cold Case for the Reliability of the New Testament).
Of course there is a public ongoing dialogue with rebuttal videos left and right, but neither a pure video-consumer nor even a pure video-rebutter who never engages another person will really come closer to the truth: So learn discourse with people of a different opinion and then ask your questions there.

[MrDawn]

@Fabian

I will gladly share with you the “evidence” in the world I see for God.

If it’s not demonstrative or objective evidence then you’ve failed. A deity or a race of deities wouldn’t need your help to prove their existence. So you’ve failed again right there. It’s simple really. We want evidence. And I think you should research what evidence is when it comes down to a court of law. Not the imaginary evidence that you claim that you have. No, I’d rather you Not waste time with a paragraph.

There’s plenty of your words here & there in the thread where you try and convince us with your pretty words that you BELIEVE and why you believe that a deity exists.

I’m very certain that you don’t know 100% that one does because I don’t think you’ve met one or have physical and objective evidence. The burden of proof is on you to back up your superstitious fantasies, Mr. Fabian. You may talk the talk. But now we need you to walk and the walk and provide objective and demonstrative evidence. Otherwise, we still don’t believe you.

[SodaAnt]

@Fabian

Once you have gained the ability to respectfully talk about that, I will gladly share with you the “evidence” in the world I see for God. I guess you know the two most obvious ones, only you ignore one and deny the other: a) the existence of the world

@Fabian

and b) the resurrection of Christ

Those are assertions, not evidence.