The Socratic Method is a hoax

[arthwollipot]

Jesus Christ, it's not enough that people who do a thing you disapprove of are simply mistaken, they must be actively evil as well. I give up.

Not only that, it's evil to want you to learn something.

 

[arthwollipot]

As long as you give up on trying to 'win' debates by asking leading questions without exposing your own argument to examination, because it's an evil way to debate, all's well that ends well.

What's the difference between winning a debate and teaching someone something?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Perhaps some people are so adversarial by nature they cannot grasp any interaction of any two parties not being adversarial in nature?

 

[arthwollipot]

Perhaps some people are so adversarial by nature they cannot grasp any interaction of any two parties not being adversarial in nature?

It almost seems like that, yeah.

 

[Manopolus]

I got in a discussion with a preacher recently after I pointed out the evil in the Christian god. IE: The global flood, slavery, racism, sexism. He said I didn't understand. And that I couldn't judge God.

I replied that I could and do. And so did he. He s said no he didn't. So I asked him if God was good. He said of course. Then you judged him. Didn't you?

Yeah... the preacher's typical answer is found in the book of Job. Basically an appeal to absolute authority... despite the fact that they'll also admit that it was written by a human. They'll then tell you that said human was inspired by God, exposing just how deep the unverified claims go. As far as we know, there could indeed be a God, but He thinks The Bible was the worst thing ever written.

Universal irony achieved.

I wouldn't mind the concept of God or gods so much if people would simply let whatever gods may exist speak for themselves instead of projecting their own thoughts onto the divine and then pretending that doing so means that they can borrow divine authority. Belief does not grant anyone the authority to declare themselves God's mouthpiece.

And I see no reason not to apply that concept as vigorously to ancient texts as we would to some crazy homeless person gesticulating wildly in Central Park. So yeah... Euthyphro was just the beginning of a much longer thought process that started around 40 years ago.

 

[Thermal]

Perhaps some people are so adversarial by nature they cannot grasp any interaction of any two parties not being adversarial in nature?

You gotta problem wit dat?

 

[acbytesla]

Yeah... the preacher's typical answer is found in the book of Job. Basically an appeal to absolute authority... despite the fact that they'll also admit that it was written by a human. They'll then tell you that said human was inspired by God, exposing just how deep the unverified claims go. As far as we know, there could indeed be a God, but He thinks The Bible was the worst thing ever written.


Universal irony acheived.

I wouldn't mind the concept of God or gods so much if people would simply let whatever gods may exist speak for themselves instead of projecting their own thoughts onto the divine and then pretending that doing so means that they can borrow divine authority. Belief does not grant anyone the authority to declare themselves God's mouthpiece.

And I see no reason not to apply that concept as vigorously to ancient texts as we would to some crazy homeless person gesticulating wildly in Central Park.

My question is how can you say that "God is good," if you didn't make a judgment that he is good?

There is only one way you could come to that conclusion fairly. You judged him on his deeds.

If you simply accepted it a priori, your statement that God is good is given without thought and has little value.
The Bible says lean not unto your own understanding.

Christians are afraid that people will start thinking for themselves.
Atheists are afraid they won't.

 

[arthwollipot]

"God is good" is a presupposition. God is axiomatically and definitionally Good, not judged good on his deeds. In fact, since God is definitionally Good, any and all of his deeds are also Good, necessarily. Including sending bears to maul children who mock a bald man. Even if you can't see why it was Good, it doesn't mean that it wasn't.

 

[acbytesla]

"God is good" is a presupposition. God is axiomatically and definitionally Good, not judged good on his deeds. In fact, since God is definitionally Good, any and all of his deeds are also Good, necessarily. Including sending bears to maul children who mock a bald man. Even if you can't see why it was Good, it doesn't mean that it wasn't.

I'm sure that would be their argument.

But since good and bad are evaluations, their statements about what is good without evaluation is worthless to me.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm sure that would be their argument.

But since good and bad are evaluations, their statements about what is good without evaluation is worthless to me.

No, under the presuppositionalist position, Good and Bad are not evaluations. Good is a property of God.

 

[Manopolus]

No, under the presuppositionalist position, Good and Bad are not evaluations. Good is a property of God.

...which is basically the exact same position as God deciding between good and bad arbitrarily while pretending not to be. Same thing, different word choice. Or if something else was meant, it could be the opposite, too... God has no choice other than to "act good" becaue the Good is greater than God and the deity apparently has no free will to choose otherwise. It's just a dodge.

 

[arthwollipot]

...which is basically the exact same position as God deciding between good and bad arbitrarily while pretending not to be. Same thing, different word choice. Or if something else was meant, it could be the opposite, too... God has no choice other than to be good because the good is greater than God.

No, it's not the same at all. If God decides between good and bad, then good and bad are arbitrary - it's a choice that God makes. If Good is a property of God, there is no agency in it. God just has to exist in order for Good to exist. God defines Good, he does not decide what is good.

Notice how I'm capitalising Good as the property of God and not capitalising good when it's arbitrary. I don't know if that helps the discussion at all, but I'll keep doing it as I believe that there's a distinction between them.

 

[Manopolus]

No, it's not the same at all. If God decides between good and bad, then good and bad are arbitrary - it's a choice that God makes. If Good is a property of God, there is no agency in it. God just has to exist in order for Good to exist. God defines Good, he does not decide what is good.

Notice how I'm capitalising Good as the property of God and not capitalising good when it's arbitrary. I don't know if that helps the discussion at all, but I'll keep doing it as I believe that there's a distinction between them.

Yeah... I guess it could be taken either way... thus avoiding the question entirely. It's not really the third option that it pretends to be. It could coexist with either side of the dichotomy, but can't be both or really a separate thing that somehow transcends the question, either. It still pretty much has to be one or the other.

Either the definition of "good" comes from absolute authority (thus arbitrary), or God himself is also subject to judgment (thus, the Good is greater than God or the gods in the Greek case). There is no logical in between. The propsed third option does nothing to satisfy the question. It's just a framing trick.