The problem with defining things like 'religion' and 'god' is that there is such a huge variety that you _can't_ have a perfect definition that leaves out nothing and does not include any exceptions-to-the-rule instances. You just can't; too many religions are completely at odds with each other right down to the core. Unfortunately, we really are in "I'll know it when I see it" territory on those.
Like Diogenes and the plucked chicken dilemna, the second you think you a have solid stance you just get your intellectual balls exposed by the right breeze. I think he would've agreed with Bruce Lee on the whole "be like water" thing.
Indeed. A Hindu once told me he'd read the Bible and "found no religion in it". Christians are forever telling me other religions are not religions or other gods are not gods, or that their own religion is not "religion" but "a relationship". That rabbit hole becomes a bottomless pit.
Yeah that really bothered me. Like, come on dude, if you have any tape nearby, then you have the perfect place for them. Great video otherwise, but I’m afraid this made it unwatchable.
William Lane Craig offers the can kicking defense as if it breaks the horns entirely. I've never seen him respond to the natural follow up question, " Is God's nature good because it is good or because it is God's nature?"
WLC dances around the question hoping he can confuse people that don't agree with him so he can pretend he has addressed the question And obviously the people that already agree with him don't care And that's basically all WLC dose with almost all questions
Ugh damn.... now I know why people hate philosophy so much, because the deeper you get into it the more tangled and jumbled it gets.... But I still love it even when it's frustrating because I love thinking about tangled and jumbled things and especially pointing out flaws in people's logic, including my own.
I used to love it. Then I realized how hard it actually is. After talking to my sister or even my dad sometimes for just an hour at a time I realized how easy it is for people to think they are smart through philosophy. I used to think it was the easiest form of intellectual thought. But I realize now that it takes quite the intelligent mind and willingness to listen and be wrong to succeed in philosophy, just as any science even if it isn't quite a science, it might as well be, it's so complicated even those with an education argue. I wish my family would stop talking. I'm trying to plan my wedding, and since someone told us they wouldn't officiate me and my partner because we aren't Christian, my sister and dad went on a philosophy binge about God, when I just wanted to plan my wedding and find someone else, didn't want to talk about God, especially since they're input on it's existence is bollocks. Basically learned my sister still thinks her abusive ex boyfriend, who won't leave our house, is a genius who understands the Bible and God and is worth listening to, despite his philosophy input being the equivalent of a child getting into philosophy for the first time, or a drug addict so high he can see Mars. It doesn't make what he says or him smart, I wouldn't even say he is particularly educated on the Bible or it's history. Philosophy makes you feel so cool and smart, only for you to, if you are smart, for you to end up feeling like you know nothing at all and can't poke holes and others logic because they'll either take it to heart and get hurt or try to make you the stupid one for even asking questions or calling out their bs.
I love how the actual current popular capital-B Bibles of Christendom all feature at least one instance of Christ actually expressing a desire for a different outcome than the outcome YHWH desires. It's one of the weakest moments in one of their most strongly promoted narratives. Even if you concede that the Trinity is basically the same deity-person with three personalities that can converse to achieve harmony, you still have to explain why one of those personalities was begging the others to call off the "save humanity" mission.
I think you are over interpreting the moment. The one personality, as you are putting it, does not call on the primary personality to 'call of the mission'. Rather, he says this is really going to hurt - far more than I want to be hurt. If there is any other way to do it, please let's do it that way - but if this is the only way, I'll go through with it. I would say the Garden of Gethsemane is one of the great literary tropes in the New Testament. Complete fiction, of course, as by the very account given in the story, the supposed witnesses to the event are sleeping. But very poignant, and ripe with theological implications - most especially to the effect that Jesus death was the only possible course of salvation, that Jesus knew that, and that he voluntarily chose it. (The later is particularly important in the narrative, given that thereafter, Jesus fate is entirely in the hands of other, hostile forces - according to the account given.)
@@tom_curtis Why would it hurt an eternal being? Jesus is God, thus he is eternal and even if you subscribe to Jesus being a mental projection of God, what you now have is the equivalent of God logging out of a game for three in game days until that time is up, then logging back in to get the achievement. The only thing sacrificed was time, and what is three days to an eternal being?
@@chickenmclosingit6126, there is nothing incoherent about an eternal being suffering. According to a very common belief among Christians, all humans are eternal in that they will survive for ever after death in heaven, or hell. (Purgatory is, for those who believe in it, just a way station were after a finite time, however, long, those consigned there go to heaven for eternity.) But also, according to that belief, those consigned to hell will suffer eternally. And, even if there was no suffering involved after death for Jesus, or in the actual cessation of human life, still crucifixion is sufficiently painful a way to die that any rational being would seek to avoid it, if possible. With regards to your "logging out" analogy, if I were a Christian I would agree with you that both Docetism and Sabellianism are indeed incoherent; but that neither are they Christian. As a non-Christian I will merely remark that if you want to refute Christians, you need to refute their actual beliefs, not your strawmen of their beliefs. In Christian belief, Jesus and the Father are distinct persons. Jesus is not the Father logged in to a simulation for a game of lets play incarnation.
@@WhiteScorpio2 it makes a lot of sense in the Universe established by the narrative (in which YHWH is neither omnibenevolent nor omnipotent but is bound to certain rules and has certain needs). In this narrative the price for breaking the rules of YHWH is death. BUT the price can be paid with the death of an animal in many cases. In other words: we are talking about a blood god, that demands sacrifices, either animal or human. Now there was a dilemma, that these sacrifices ran out of popularity, so it was time for a final sacrifice, a demigod, or even god, that sheds his blood, and thus pays the blood price forever. And in this universe gods often had multiple incarnations, manifestations, that are even able to fight each other. This is just a part of polytheism. That does not mean it is true, it just means that it follows the rules of the established universe in the story
Is it an reasonable thought that this kicking the can forward between the two horns, might be analogous to the saying that it is the journey that is the goal, not the destination? //Tis' drunk thinking. So without ample yarn, do not step to far into the labyrinth.
The Euthyphro Dilemma has a very simple solution... Socrates is being charged with impiety, so those charging him have decided already what pious must be.
@@resourcedragon Not exactly; rather than address the nature of piety I have opted to address the nature of the court... my solution only works as a result of the framing device Socrates used and if he presented the dilemma without that framing device I would have to pick a position.
@@Nirakolov All you've done is kicked the can to the Court instead of with the gods. Is what the Court commands good because it determines what Piety is? Or is it Piety that commands the Court?
@@chickenmclosingit6126 On the contrary, the nature of piety is wholly irrelevant - the court must provide evidence to have a claim, so the nature of their evidence will determine which horn they back. It's not about what horn is right or if either horn is right at all... it's about figuring out what horn the court backs and then backing it too out of pragmatic survival.
Let me state, first and foremost, that I do not, REPEAT, DO NOT, believe in supernatural agency or the supernatural. I studied physics in college and went on to Ph.D. work in that field. That being said, when I discuss "kicking-the-can" with regard to abiogenesis and panspermia, I get a lot of blank stares. Does panspermia "kick the can" with regard to abiogenesis, in general, as the life-starting materials are removed from planetary chemistry, altogether, with life, in frozen or embedded rock and ice, floating randomly through the void, or, in particular, earth-bound abiogenesis, meaning does it address the extant chemical processes as a combination of cometary or asteroidal/meteoric chemistry mixed with the chemistry on that was available on earth when the comets and asteroids/meteors (or, possibly, other celestial bodies with similar chemical makeup) arrived here? If abiogenesis is a process removed from this planet, entirely, can we even answer the processes involved, at all?
If anyone is positing panspermia as a solution for abiogenesis, it qualifies as can-kicking. As far as I know, the only people connecting the two are Creationists, in their strawman-building, though I could of course be wrong.
Yes it is can kicking. But also, on the other side of the can kicking is more abiogenesis. The only thing that's changed are the number of possible locations where abiogenesis could have started.
There is a way to make the third horn of the dilemma work, sort of. Specifically, if you embrace Platonism, and claim that God is the form of the good, then the relationship between God's nature and goodness is not arbitrary. For those unfamiliar, in Plato's philosophy, any attribute, such as motion, or being human, or being good, only exists in contingent entities because they 'participate' in the form of that attribute, were the form is some eternally existing metaphysical entity. For a Christian, this needs to be partly refined by asserting that some attributes - especially evil, do not have forms themselves. Rather, they are a lack of participation in some positive form. Evil, in essence, is an absence of goodness. Without this modification, Platonism commits its adherents to an eternal form of evil in addition to the form of good, and resolves down to a form of dualism (or worse). Personally, I am a Nominalist, and believe any form of Platonism is so much metaphysical claptrap. As the man said, "Do not multiply entities beyond necessity", and Platonism multiplies entities ad infinitum for zero explanatory gain, for the essential relationship of 'participation' between contingent beings and forms is completely undefined (and hence not explanatory). However, if you are prepared to accept the metaphysical train wreck that is Platonism, then it does enable you to escape the Euthyphro dilemma.
So... now we have to define Good and Evil... All you've done is kicked the can, as Ocean described. If Evil is the Absence of Goodness, then why would God want to order a thing that we would consider Evil? Can God order his own absence from the world? Again, you've gotten to the first question... Is something Good because God Commanded it? Or does God command it because it is Good. And Platonism is a whole ass mess to begin with.
My first reaction to the video "Is it the debunked video?A guest? Who's talking?" XD My second reaction: "Guess you should change your animated avatar now" :p
Huh? The description in my subscription feed said this was a Suris video. I waited all through this video to find that Suris didn't appear in it? Is this a credit from Monty Python and the Holy Grail?
I think the problem is solved by positing that God is a necessary being. If God exists as a necessary being, then you can have morality grounded in God, but yet have it be impossible to be otherwise that it is. The reason is because necessary truths could not be otherwise. Circles must always be round, 2+2 must always equal 4, and God will always deem that torturing babies for fun is immoral.
Then you've got a baseless assertion and the problem of the character of said god being (if you're basing it on the bible) anything but consistent so you're wrong on two fronts there.
@@AlexS-pv4rn The proposition, "If x is true, y would follow," does not commit me to accept that x is true. Nor was x grounded in any way in the Bible. You strawman me on both counts.
@@AlexS-pv4rn UA-cam comments are hardly the place to engage in serious philosophic debate, but let me unpack my comment a bit more. The Euthephro argument is that you can't have both an ultimate God and objective morality. If morality is objective, then God is subject to something higher than God and thus not actually God. But if morality is grounded in God, then it is arbitrary and not objective. It's a reductio ad absurdum. To refute a reductio ad absurdum argument, one must show that such a condition exists where the proposition would not result in a contradiction. Such condition does not need to be actually true. All that is required is to show that if the proposition had a certain property P, that it would not result in a contradiction. I posited that if the God in the Euthephro argument had the property of necessary being, it would not result in a contradiction. Thus your response that P is a "baseless assertion" has no relevance to the argument. P does not need to attain in reality in order to serve it's purpose in the argument. Moreover, the Bible was never a term in my argument. The fact that you introduced it suggests that you are more interested in defending against a certain type of position than in following my actual argument itself. A good faith argument should not add propositions to my argument that I have not made.
The problem with defining things like 'religion' and 'god' is that there is such a huge variety that you _can't_ have a perfect definition that leaves out nothing and does not include any exceptions-to-the-rule instances. You just can't; too many religions are completely at odds with each other right down to the core.
Unfortunately, we really are in "I'll know it when I see it" territory on those.
Like Diogenes and the plucked chicken dilemna, the second you think you a have solid stance you just get your intellectual balls exposed by the right breeze. I think he would've agreed with Bruce Lee on the whole "be like water" thing.
Indeed. A Hindu once told me he'd read the Bible and "found no religion in it". Christians are forever telling me other religions are not religions or other gods are not gods, or that their own religion is not "religion" but "a relationship". That rabbit hole becomes a bottomless pit.
Suris looks different today.
BALD
But there's a surprising degree of similarity between his voice and that of Ocean. Are they from the same part of the world &/or are they related?
Funny how you expect a person in real life to somehow look something like their avatar.
@@christinel6616 It's a different person, dude.
@@christinel6616 This is a guest video, we know what Suris looks like.
"I don't know where to put these horns"
Come on dude, they're horns. You put them on your head.
okay that's a valid criticism
Yeah that really bothered me. Like, come on dude, if you have any tape nearby, then you have the perfect place for them. Great video otherwise, but I’m afraid this made it unwatchable.
insert horn themed sexual innuendo joke here.
William Lane Craig offers the can kicking defense as if it breaks the horns entirely. I've never seen him respond to the natural follow up question, " Is God's nature good because it is good or because it is God's nature?"
WLC dances around the question hoping he can confuse people that don't agree with him so he can pretend he has addressed the question
And obviously the people that already agree with him don't care
And that's basically all WLC dose with almost all questions
"Socrates was just the first troll."
Me, having played way too much Assassin's Creed Odyssey lately: "Yes. Yes, he was. >.>"
Ugh damn.... now I know why people hate philosophy so much, because the deeper you get into it the more tangled and jumbled it gets....
But I still love it even when it's frustrating because I love thinking about tangled and jumbled things and especially pointing out flaws in people's logic, including my own.
I used to love it. Then I realized how hard it actually is. After talking to my sister or even my dad sometimes for just an hour at a time I realized how easy it is for people to think they are smart through philosophy. I used to think it was the easiest form of intellectual thought. But I realize now that it takes quite the intelligent mind and willingness to listen and be wrong to succeed in philosophy, just as any science even if it isn't quite a science, it might as well be, it's so complicated even those with an education argue. I wish my family would stop talking. I'm trying to plan my wedding, and since someone told us they wouldn't officiate me and my partner because we aren't Christian, my sister and dad went on a philosophy binge about God, when I just wanted to plan my wedding and find someone else, didn't want to talk about God, especially since they're input on it's existence is bollocks. Basically learned my sister still thinks her abusive ex boyfriend, who won't leave our house, is a genius who understands the Bible and God and is worth listening to, despite his philosophy input being the equivalent of a child getting into philosophy for the first time, or a drug addict so high he can see Mars. It doesn't make what he says or him smart, I wouldn't even say he is particularly educated on the Bible or it's history. Philosophy makes you feel so cool and smart, only for you to, if you are smart, for you to end up feeling like you know nothing at all and can't poke holes and others logic because they'll either take it to heart and get hurt or try to make you the stupid one for even asking questions or calling out their bs.
man Ocean is real good at this
I love how the actual current popular capital-B Bibles of Christendom all feature at least one instance of Christ actually expressing a desire for a different outcome than the outcome YHWH desires. It's one of the weakest moments in one of their most strongly promoted narratives. Even if you concede that the Trinity is basically the same deity-person with three personalities that can converse to achieve harmony, you still have to explain why one of those personalities was begging the others to call off the "save humanity" mission.
I think you are over interpreting the moment. The one personality, as you are putting it, does not call on the primary personality to 'call of the mission'. Rather, he says this is really going to hurt - far more than I want to be hurt. If there is any other way to do it, please let's do it that way - but if this is the only way, I'll go through with it. I would say the Garden of Gethsemane is one of the great literary tropes in the New Testament. Complete fiction, of course, as by the very account given in the story, the supposed witnesses to the event are sleeping. But very poignant, and ripe with theological implications - most especially to the effect that Jesus death was the only possible course of salvation, that Jesus knew that, and that he voluntarily chose it. (The later is particularly important in the narrative, given that thereafter, Jesus fate is entirely in the hands of other, hostile forces - according to the account given.)
@@tom_curtis Why would it hurt an eternal being?
Jesus is God, thus he is eternal and even if you subscribe to Jesus being a mental projection of God, what you now have is the equivalent of God logging out of a game for three in game days until that time is up, then logging back in to get the achievement.
The only thing sacrificed was time, and what is three days to an eternal being?
@@tom_curtis "Jesus death was the only possible course of salvation" Yeah, if only it made any sense whatsoever, it would have been a great moment.
@@chickenmclosingit6126, there is nothing incoherent about an eternal being suffering. According to a very common belief among Christians, all humans are eternal in that they will survive for ever after death in heaven, or hell. (Purgatory is, for those who believe in it, just a way station were after a finite time, however, long, those consigned there go to heaven for eternity.) But also, according to that belief, those consigned to hell will suffer eternally. And, even if there was no suffering involved after death for Jesus, or in the actual cessation of human life, still crucifixion is sufficiently painful a way to die that any rational being would seek to avoid it, if possible.
With regards to your "logging out" analogy, if I were a Christian I would agree with you that both Docetism and Sabellianism are indeed incoherent; but that neither are they Christian. As a non-Christian I will merely remark that if you want to refute Christians, you need to refute their actual beliefs, not your strawmen of their beliefs. In Christian belief, Jesus and the Father are distinct persons. Jesus is not the Father logged in to a simulation for a game of lets play incarnation.
@@WhiteScorpio2 it makes a lot of sense in the Universe established by the narrative (in which YHWH is neither omnibenevolent nor omnipotent but is bound to certain rules and has certain needs).
In this narrative the price for breaking the rules of YHWH is death. BUT the price can be paid with the death of an animal in many cases. In other words: we are talking about a blood god, that demands sacrifices, either animal or human.
Now there was a dilemma, that these sacrifices ran out of popularity, so it was time for a final sacrifice, a demigod, or even god, that sheds his blood, and thus pays the blood price forever.
And in this universe gods often had multiple incarnations, manifestations, that are even able to fight each other. This is just a part of polytheism.
That does not mean it is true, it just means that it follows the rules of the established universe in the story
This was the horniest video on this channel yet.
Very H... Oops, wrong channel.
The various ancient Gnostic religions solved this. Especially the ones that claim the god of the Old Testament is actually evil.
There is no way to merge any religious theology with the reality we see.
There was a notable lack of Suris on this Suris channel video.
Great presentation.
'Socrates himself was permanently pissed!'
Hey, Suris: When you mirror a video, put "MIRROR: " at the start of the title. Make it clear that's what you're doing.
Is it an reasonable thought that this kicking the can forward between the two horns, might be analogous to the
saying that it is the journey that is the goal, not the destination?
//Tis' drunk thinking. So without ample yarn, do not step to far into the labyrinth.
This is interesting
Your profile picture is interesting
PastyCayk thanks
blatant excuse to play with his horns.
guilty
Ive always wondered about this!! I see Christians struggle with this so much!
The Euthyphro Dilemma has a very simple solution... Socrates is being charged with impiety, so those charging him have decided already what pious must be.
Again, though, you've "kicked the can down the road".
@@resourcedragon Not exactly; rather than address the nature of piety I have opted to address the nature of the court... my solution only works as a result of the framing device Socrates used and if he presented the dilemma without that framing device I would have to pick a position.
@@Nirakolov All you've done is kicked the can to the Court instead of with the gods.
Is what the Court commands good because it determines what Piety is? Or is it Piety that commands the Court?
@@chickenmclosingit6126 On the contrary, the nature of piety is wholly irrelevant - the court must provide evidence to have a claim, so the nature of their evidence will determine which horn they back. It's not about what horn is right or if either horn is right at all... it's about figuring out what horn the court backs and then backing it too out of pragmatic survival.
Let me state, first and foremost, that I do not, REPEAT, DO NOT, believe in supernatural agency or the supernatural. I studied physics in college and went on to Ph.D. work in that field.
That being said, when I discuss "kicking-the-can" with regard to abiogenesis and panspermia, I get a lot of blank stares.
Does panspermia "kick the can" with regard to abiogenesis, in general, as the life-starting materials are removed from planetary chemistry, altogether, with life, in frozen or embedded rock and ice, floating randomly through the void, or, in particular, earth-bound abiogenesis, meaning does it address the extant chemical processes as a combination of cometary or asteroidal/meteoric chemistry mixed with the chemistry on that was available on earth when the comets and asteroids/meteors (or, possibly, other celestial bodies with similar chemical makeup) arrived here?
If abiogenesis is a process removed from this planet, entirely, can we even answer the processes involved, at all?
If anyone is positing panspermia as a solution for abiogenesis, it qualifies as can-kicking. As far as I know, the only people connecting the two are Creationists, in their strawman-building, though I could of course be wrong.
Yes it is can kicking. But also, on the other side of the can kicking is more abiogenesis.
The only thing that's changed are the number of possible locations where abiogenesis could have started.
There is a way to make the third horn of the dilemma work, sort of. Specifically, if you embrace Platonism, and claim that God is the form of the good, then the relationship between God's nature and goodness is not arbitrary. For those unfamiliar, in Plato's philosophy, any attribute, such as motion, or being human, or being good, only exists in contingent entities because they 'participate' in the form of that attribute, were the form is some eternally existing metaphysical entity. For a Christian, this needs to be partly refined by asserting that some attributes - especially evil, do not have forms themselves. Rather, they are a lack of participation in some positive form. Evil, in essence, is an absence of goodness. Without this modification, Platonism commits its adherents to an eternal form of evil in addition to the form of good, and resolves down to a form of dualism (or worse).
Personally, I am a Nominalist, and believe any form of Platonism is so much metaphysical claptrap. As the man said, "Do not multiply entities beyond necessity", and Platonism multiplies entities ad infinitum for zero explanatory gain, for the essential relationship of 'participation' between contingent beings and forms is completely undefined (and hence not explanatory). However, if you are prepared to accept the metaphysical train wreck that is Platonism, then it does enable you to escape the Euthyphro dilemma.
So... now we have to define Good and Evil...
All you've done is kicked the can, as Ocean described. If Evil is the Absence of Goodness, then why would God want to order a thing that we would consider Evil? Can God order his own absence from the world?
Again, you've gotten to the first question... Is something Good because God Commanded it? Or does God command it because it is Good.
And Platonism is a whole ass mess to begin with.
Pelagius FTW
The heart is deceptive and deceitful above all things
Not really, if you eat too much fat its arteries will eventually clog; no deceit there.
It's the brain that plays tricks on us, not the heart.
My first reaction to the video "Is it the debunked video?A guest? Who's talking?" XD
My second reaction: "Guess you should change your animated avatar now" :p
There are no definitions, only usages.
Huh? The description in my subscription feed said this was a Suris video. I waited all through this video to find that Suris didn't appear in it? Is this a credit from Monty Python and the Holy Grail?
So that's how you spell it.
whence cometh goodness?
Dude, wrong channel.
Neat
Daniel warren aka confused matthew did not care about White washing
Are you a bot?
My guy it so close....but missing the point
2 minutes. Goddamn.
100th to like!
I think the problem is solved by positing that God is a necessary being. If God exists as a necessary being, then you can have morality grounded in God, but yet have it be impossible to be otherwise that it is. The reason is because necessary truths could not be otherwise. Circles must always be round, 2+2 must always equal 4, and God will always deem that torturing babies for fun is immoral.
Then you've got a baseless assertion and the problem of the character of said god being (if you're basing it on the bible) anything but consistent so you're wrong on two fronts there.
@@AlexS-pv4rn The proposition, "If x is true, y would follow," does not commit me to accept that x is true. Nor was x grounded in any way in the Bible. You strawman me on both counts.
@@AlexS-pv4rn UA-cam comments are hardly the place to engage in serious philosophic debate, but let me unpack my comment a bit more. The Euthephro argument is that you can't have both an ultimate God and objective morality. If morality is objective, then God is subject to something higher than God and thus not actually God. But if morality is grounded in God, then it is arbitrary and not objective. It's a reductio ad absurdum.
To refute a reductio ad absurdum argument, one must show that such a condition exists where the proposition would not result in a contradiction. Such condition does not need to be actually true. All that is required is to show that if the proposition had a certain property P, that it would not result in a contradiction. I posited that if the God in the Euthephro argument had the property of necessary being, it would not result in a contradiction.
Thus your response that P is a "baseless assertion" has no relevance to the argument. P does not need to attain in reality in order to serve it's purpose in the argument. Moreover, the Bible was never a term in my argument. The fact that you introduced it suggests that you are more interested in defending against a certain type of position than in following my actual argument itself. A good faith argument should not add propositions to my argument that I have not made.
euthyphro dilemma has nothing to do only with polytheism, it can also apply to monotheistic god
No one said it didn't.