Divine Command Theory Defeated?

[Fatihah]

So Allah is not all powerful then?

Response: Depending on your meaning of "all powerful".

 

[McBell]

Response: Depending on your meaning of "all powerful".

fair enough.

 

[Copernicus]

Response: First off, there is no contradiction, but rather a misreading on your part. I clearly stated that God has the ability. It's written in black and white. When someone says "have" or "has", it means posession. Thus I am saying that Allah(swt) posseses an ability to create evil, yet Allah's(swt) mercy and compassion prevents Him from using his ability. That's not a contradiction. A contradiction would be if I said that he does posses an ability then said that he doesn't. I rather said that Allah posses an ability in which He can not perform. If a person has the ability to drive and yet they posses no car, does that mean that they no longer posses the ability to drive? No. They still posses the ability, but without a car, they can not perform their ability. The same is for Allah, who has the ability to create evil, but his mercy and compassion prevents Him from performing his ability. Again, there is no contradiction.

If you are psychologically incapable of driving a car, then you lack the ability to drive it, whether or not you possess the car and the knowledge of how to drive it.

Look, my friend, you need to understand what a contradiction is. It is the simultaneous affirmation and denial of a proposition. On the one hand, you say that Allah is able to do something. On the other, you say that is psychologically incapable of doing it. In your contradictory words, "Allah possesses an ability that he cannot perform". Either he is able to do it, or he is not. You are simply trying to have it both ways--denying an ability that you claim he has. What you are doing here is trying to weasel out of the implication of the DCT, because it commits you to admitting that God-driven morality can easily undermine human morality in principle.

The real issue here is that some devout Muslims and Christians believe that God is capable of ordering them to commit atrocities and that he does order them to do so. You claim that it is against his merciful nature to order such things, but, if you truly believe that whatever God wants is good, then torture and murder can be considered good if God orders such acts. Mercy becomes meaningless in the face of the DCT, because you can simply declare that whatever God declares merciful is ipso facto merciful.

Secondly, if your point is hypothetical, this is the first time you've said so, which is why it was never tooken to be hypothetical.

From the OP, it has been obvious that we were discussing a hypothetical question. Moreover, because I am an atheist, everything I discuss about God's nature is a hypothetical discussion.

 

[Falvlun]

My moral compass tells me that anyone torturing for torture's sake -- even if God does it -- is not "good" whatsoever. Even if DCT were true, I could never subjectively agree that torture for torture's sake is "good."

I run into a conundrum then: if DCT is true, and my "moral compass" comes from God, then God has supplied me with at least one sense/rational function that isn't aimed at generating true beliefs. Assuming DCT is true, my "moral compass" is faulty since I mistakenly believe that God torturing for torture's sake would be "evil."

Isn't there a third option here?

What if God created our moral compasses to reflect his own moral compass? If this were the case, then he wouldn't torture just for the fun of it, because he himself thinks that it is wrong. Since he's the big boss, whatever he thought was wrong, would in fact, become wrong. There would never be a scenario in which he would torture just for the fun of it.

 

[Mr Cheese]

In Gnosticism God is beyond good and evil

Good and evil are products of the Demi Urge, who can be seen to be like the ego personified
everythign that is 'bad' about a personality

greed, lust, avarice, selfishness, narcassicistic tendancies, sociopath

etc....

Gnosticism argues many people today and in the past...and many religions

actually follow this

 

[Falvlun]

In Gnosticism God is beyond good and evil

Good and evil are products of the Demi Urge, who can be seen to be like the ego personified
everythign that is 'bad' about a personality

greed, lust, avarice, selfishness, narcassicistic tendancies, sociopath

etc....

Gnosticism argues many people today and in the past...and many religions

actually follow this

Our egos personified contain only bad things? I'm pretty sure I don't agree with this.

Or were you saying that the Demi Urge is God's evil ego personified? :help:

 

[MSizer]

Response: God has the ability to create evil, yet God is incapable of performing the ability. An example would be you and the idea of killing your mother. You have the ability to do so, yet your compassion won't allow you to.

That doesn't make sense. If I'm a slave to my compassion, then I'm heteronemous to my emotions. That would mean I don't have the capacity to kill my mother. (which by the way is why I reject the religious notions of blame for our actions - some of us aren't wired up in the head the way others are, so some of us are born with tendencies to act in certain ways whether we like it or not)

Therefore, either moral principles can't be subordinate to God's essence, or he is not all powerful (able to do whatever he wants).

The big problem IMO with the theistic view that morality is contingent somehow on god is that it stems from thinking of morality as a set of laws, when in fact they're simply priniciples based on reciprocity.

Besides, the big problem with claiming that morality is somehow dependent on God is that there is no way to know what god wants. Yes Fatihah, I know you'll say "the Qur'an" but billy-joe ray from arkensas will say "the bible" and balginder from india will say "the bagavad gita". So until you guys sort it out and agree on one book, the idea that morality is contingent on god's essense or will is impossible to substantiate.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Our egos personified contain only bad things? I'm pretty sure I don't agree with this.

Or were you saying that the Demi Urge is God's evil ego personified? :help:

I am saying the Demi urge is the ego personified...

remember I said the demi urge is good AND evil...

that God is beyond either..and both

the demi urge can be thought of as the characteristics I mentioned, although those are often personified by the lesser "commanders" or "rulers" known as Archons...who could be argued are what many call "the Gods"

Essentially the Demi urge is the personification of illusion
duality...of good and evil... of all those aforementioned qualities that help keep us in our prisons....

safe and warm and comfortable within what Buddhists call suffering.
A nice cell is still a cell.....

Thus the DCtheory would certainly be a thing of the Demi Urge in that it would allow for the justification of rape, murder, torture etc. because God commanded it...
as we can read of in such books as the bible, amongst others

Philip says it well:

The slave seeks only to be free, but he does not hope to acquire the estate of his master. But the son is not only a son but lays claim to the inheritance of the father. Those who are heirs to the dead are themselves dead, and they inherit the dead. Those who are heirs to what is living are alive, and they are heirs to both what is living and the dead. The dead are heirs to nothing. For how can he who is dead inherit? If he who is dead inherits what is living he will not die, but he who is dead will live even more.

 

[Fatihah]

If you are psychologically incapable of driving a car, then you lack the ability to drive it, whether or not you possess the car and the knowledge of how to drive it.

Look, my friend, you need to understand what a contradiction is. It is the simultaneous affirmation and denial of a proposition. On the one hand, you say that Allah is able to do something. On the other, you say that is psychologically incapable of doing it. In your contradictory words, "Allah possesses an ability that he cannot perform". Either he is able to do it, or he is not. You are simply trying to have it both ways--denying an ability that you claim he has. What you are doing here is trying to weasel out of the implication of the DCT, because it commits you to admitting that God-driven morality can easily undermine human morality in principle.

The real issue here is that some devout Muslims and Christians believe that God is capable of ordering them to commit atrocities and that he does order them to do so. You claim that it is against his merciful nature to order such things, but, if you truly believe that whatever God wants is good, then torture and murder can be considered good if God orders such acts. Mercy becomes meaningless in the face of the DCT, because you can simply declare that whatever God declares merciful is ipso facto merciful.



From the OP, it has been obvious that we were discussing a hypothetical question. Moreover, because I am an atheist, everything I discuss about God's nature is a hypothetical discussion.

Response: Again, your inability to comprehend is no fault of mine. You quote me saying "Allah possesses an ability that he cannot perform", highlight the words "cannot" yet ask the question whether Allah can perfom the ability? The word in which YOU highlighted is answering the question. The statement clearly means that He can not perform the ability. Again, there is no contradiction, just an inability to comprehend on your part. It is you who needs to learn what a contradiction is.

Then you go to say that if God calls torture good, then it is good, according to your words, "torture and murder can be considered good if God orders such acts". And under what authority or proof do you have of this, especially being an atheist? This is a very absurd statement. How does an atheist know what God does or considers?

 

[Fatihah]

That doesn't make sense. If I'm a slave to my compassion, then I'm heteronemous to my emotions. That would mean I don't have the capacity to kill my mother. (which by the way is why I reject the religious notions of blame for our actions - some of us aren't wired up in the head the way others are, so some of us are born with tendencies to act in certain ways whether we like it or not)

Therefore, either moral principles can't be subordinate to God's essence, or he is not all powerful (able to do whatever he wants).

The big problem IMO with the theistic view that morality is contingent somehow on god is that it stems from thinking of morality as a set of laws, when in fact they're simply priniciples based on reciprocity.

Besides, the big problem with claiming that morality is somehow dependent on God is that there is no way to know what god wants. Yes Fatihah, I know you'll say "the Qur'an" but billy-joe ray from arkensas will say "the bible" and balginder from india will say "the bagavad gita". So until you guys sort it out and agree on one book, the idea that morality is contingent on god's essense or will is impossible to substantiate.

Response: I never stated that morality is contigent on god's essence or will, thus your whole point is irrelevant. And how does saying that some possesses an ability they can not perfom not making sense. Saying to the contrary is what makes no sense.

 

[Copernicus]

Response: Again, your inability to comprehend is no fault of mine...

But your inability to make a comprehensible point is your fault.

You quote me saying "Allah possesses an ability that he cannot perform", highlight the words "cannot" yet ask the question whether Allah can perfom the ability?...

I do not ask that question. You have asserted that he is incapable of performing it. Hence, he really has no such ability. Since you earlier asserted that he did, you have contradicted yourself.

Then you go to say that if God calls torture good then it is good, according to your words, "torture and murder can be considered good if God orders such acts"...

Correct.

...And under what authority or proof do you have of this, especially being an atheist? This is a very absurd statement. How does an atheist know what God does or considers?

Under the authority of Divine Command Theory, which is the topic of this entire thread. Did you forget that?

DCT claims that the source of morality is God alone. God defines what is good, not human beings. Do you or do you not agree with this statement?

 

[LittleNipper]

GOD is LOVE. HE doesn't judge out of malice. HIS judgments are just. And what HE allows to be destroyed is done to protect others that HE is seeking to protect and nurture... GOD looks at a broad picture of eternity, and HE sees everyone's heart.

 

[Fatihah]

But your inability to make a comprehensible point is your fault.

I do not ask that question. You have asserted that he is incapable of performing it. Hence, he really has no such ability. Since you earlier asserted that he did, you have contradicted yourself.



Correct.

Under the authority of Divine Command Theory, which is the topic of this entire thread. Did you forget that?

DCT claims that the source of morality is God alone. God defines what is good, not human beings. Do you or do you not agree with this statement?

Response: O.K. It seems that once again, I'm dealing with a person who wants to reduce there argument to a play on words. Fine. I'll play too. So tell us, what is the definition of a contradiction?

 

[Copernicus]

Response: O.K. It seems that once again, I'm dealing with a person who wants to reduce there argument to a play on words. Fine. I'll play too. So tell us, what is the definition of a contradiction?

A contradiction is the simultaneous assertion and denial of a proposition. In the case under discussion, I would paraphrase your contradictory position this way:

1) God's nature allows him to define torture as good.
2) God's nature does not allow him to define torture as good.

What all of this comes down to in the end is the question of where morality comes from. If it does not come from God, then we humans define it independently of him, and we can judge his actions as either good or bad. (When we call God "good"--Allah Akbar--we are making precisely that kind of judgment.) If morality comes from God alone, then torture is bad only because God says it is bad. God can, in fact, declare torture to be good. Mass murder, as committed by the 9/11 hijackers, can therefore be excused as a good act on the grounds that God has willed it to happen.

 

[Fatihah]

A contradiction is the simultaneous assertion and denial of a proposition.

Response: O.K. Now show me any dictionary definition which defines the word contradiction the same way, if you are truthful.

 

[McBell]

Response: O.K. Now show me any dictionary definition which defines the word contradiction the same way, if you are truthful.

Why?
What is YOUR definition of the word contradiction?

 

[Fatihah]

Why?
What is YOUR definition of the word contradiction?

Response: Why ask why?

 

[Heneni]

One of the horns of Euthyphro's Dilemma often championed by theists is Divine Command Theory (DCT), which is described in brief as the notion that God is the sole arbiter of morality. A proponent of DCT would reply to the question, "Does God do good because it's good, or is it good because God does it?" with "It's good because God does it." In other words, there is no transcendental morality [to God]; only God's command to determine "good" from "evil."

God does whatever he pleases and is pleased with whatever he does. God does not have a moral code. Moral codes are lists of stuff that is right and wrong, good and bad, what to do what not to do. Its similar to a law...God does not need a law...laws are made because there are LAWLESS folk around. God is not lawless. He cannot be. So god has no rule book for himself. And therefore has no moral code that he follows. If he followed a moral code, hed be following a law, and a law is made for lawless people.

This immediately implies that if God were to strike someone dead on the street then this act is "good," since God does it -- assuming DCT is true. Normally theists could draw from classical theodicies and say that God striking someone dead in the street could serve some ultimate good purpose even if we can't see it, so let me clarify a little further.

If god strikes someone dead on the street he removes their body, the instrument of sin, that which is building up for themselves trouble and wrath and therefore does them a favour. Without a body...the instrument to sin, your judgement stops piling up. And god does and cannot kill because all spirits are alive to him.

If God were to torture someone for the sake of torture -- purely to cause pain and suffering, with no ultimate purpose other than the person suffering and experiencing pain -- this would register as "good" if DCT is true. If I stopped my argument here, then I would be falling prey to the fallacy of arguing from adverse consequences, so bear with me while I get to my point.

The bible does not say that GOD tortures anybody. The lake of fire is a place where men are shut up wiht their evil desires with no way of executing them. They will have no power to execute it since all power will be returned to god. If you are stuck in a place with evil desires and no way to do them the result is weeping and grinding of teeth with frustration. The lake of fire is god being loving. Its a way to remove evil from among the wheat and its also loving to stop those in the lake to continue to do evil. Its loving to stop evil from executing itself through you. That is good.

Morality is only usefull as long as its working itself out of a job.
Man are designed to live out of desire not a list of do's and dont' right and wrong. But since mankind's heart is wholly set on DESIRING evil, a moral code is needed for THEM to help them curb their evil intentions. And that is for their own good...cause that means you pile up less judgement against yourself.

this is sin /evil...desiring anything above god. ANYTHING.

 

[Copernicus]

Response: Why ask why?

He asked "why" because my definition was perfectly reasonable. Do you expect a dictionary definition to contradict me? However, since you asked, here is a definition from the Wikipedia page on Contradiction:

In classical logic, a contradiction consists of a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. It occurs when the propositions, taken together, yield two conclusions which form the logical, usually opposite inversions of each other. Illustrating a general tendency in applied logic, Aristotle’s law of noncontradiction states that “One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.”

My definition was a bit more succinct.

 

[Fatihah]

He asked "why" because my definition was perfectly reasonable. Do you expect a dictionary definition to contradict me? However, since you asked, here is a definition from the Wikipedia page on Contradiction:


My definition was a bit more succinct.

Response: In other words, your definition is completely fictional and can't be found in any dictionary. Thus not only have you spent the time in critiquing me as if I didn't no what a contradiction is when in fact you clearly don't, but you lack the humility in admitting so, reducing your argument even further by still standing by it, defending it. Thanks for the clarification.