Share your evidence for Christianity

CrowCross

Well-known member
Could the Euthyphro Dilemma be evidence for Christianity?

The following is something I Posted on YouTube to an Atheist who raised the Euthyphro Dilemma as a reason that God is not the source of Morality...

"If I were an Atheist, I would say that Morality came from the 'First Person'; and Christians would have to agree with that, since God is the first person. The debate has to then back up to an Apology for the existence of God. As a Christian, I WOULD spend some time arguing for Morality coming from/beginning with the First Person; and getting the Atheist to side with this notion because they can see the benefit in using the notion to their advantage in a Debate. Then I'd work toward showing the Atheist why God is the first person; and if I did a good job, the Atheist would be boxed in. ~ I would show that the Euthyphro Objection is solved in two ways; by the 'personhood' of God in Jesus Christ, and by using the notion Jesus Christ is our Mediator between God and Man. Since Plato teaches that if Christ gave a Command, it's based on the reason for the Command instead of on God. This objection fails because God is the reason that the Second Man Jesus Christ gave us the Command!"

Biblically speaking there is the Law of God and the Law of Christ. When Jesus gives us the Royal Law/the Law of Christ, the reason is not in and of him but is in the reason; God his Father. The Euthyphro Dilemma rests on the Objectivity of the Reason instead of the God/gods who accept the reason; so those who rely on Subjective Morality have to admit on Objective Morality when they depend on the Euthyphro Dilemma; because the dilemma is based on an Objective Reason instead of an Objective God. If the Reason is not Objectively Good, then there is no Euthyphro Dilemma in the first place. Whether the Reason is Objective due to knowledge and Practice of the Moral/Ethic, or it is Objective because the Reason is Good in and of itself; it has to be Objective enough for God/gods to like it. ~ Sorry for the Rabbit Trail concerning Objective Morality. The reason the Euthyphro Dilemma is evidence for Christianity is because of the Doctrine of the Trinity and because of the Doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, IE Jesus Christ is God and he is Man; Unmixed and Indivisible. Morality comes from the First Person or begins with the First Person. Jesus is the Second Adam/Person. Jesus is Human and his Moral/Ethic came from a Reason outside of himself; IE God, so his Reason is Objective and from God...
"The following is something I Posted on YouTube to an Atheist who raised the Euthyphro Dilemma as a reason that God is not the source of Morality..."

It appears they want something to be above God. As Christians believers of scripture we know that to be impossible.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
"our observations backed by logic alone are often wrong. Observation backed by logic alone will also lead you to conclude that the Earth is flat." Logic says that if the earth is flat ..Polaris..would not move towards the horizon the further south you go.
I agree that these are examples of using empirical evidence to prove if the Earth is flat or not. Adding the empirical evidence of how stars behave to our original observation of a flat field is exactly how this works. We keep adding evidence as we discover it and modify our understanding.

However, the empiricism of 'is the Earth flat' is only solved with empirical evidence - like the observation of Polaris.

I think we agree here :)
So what is the evidence?
Some people have witnessed miracles. Healings and such. This might not prove there is a God...but, it says much.
People have witnessed miracles by Allah, Brahma, Zeus, and thousands of gods. Sadly eyewitness testimony is not reliable and is not empirical evidence. If someone claims they saw Lord Ganesha raise the dead it is not proof that Lord Ganesha lives, right?
Prophecy is yet another example. Isaiah 53 contains much accurate prophecy. If you understand M,M, L and J you can easily see how isiah 53 (and other prophecy) foretold the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ. Prophecy also tells of the return of Christ and the events that surround it...but for now well have to wait and see.
Unfortunately these are prophecies written in The Bible and then confirmed in The Bible. They are circular and are not empirical evidence of anything. We cannot prove that the prophecies were said as they are written or that the fulfillment happened as it was written. Our only evidence of any of that is the Codex Sinaiticus Bible. And that is not enough to prove the prophecies happened at all.
Extremely complex organelle in our cells...and I do mean extremely complex...point to a intelligent designer.
They do not. Just because something is complex does not mean it had a designer. You need to prove there was a designer with empirical evidence.
But, does that point to who the designer is? No. But we can know they are not a product of random chance mutations.
We do not know that life is not a product of random mutations. Quite the opposite. Right now it seems like complexity is a result of natural random mutations over very long periods of time. The empirical evidence is overwhelming and serves as the foundation of modern biology and medicine.

We have evidence for mutations. We do not have evidence for a designer or god.
We also know the current timeline is somewhat messed up. Biomaterial found in fossils dated to 65+ MY's have been discovered..as technology advances...Scientist are currently scratching their heads as to how it could possible be preserved. Their paradigm is shifting. Each year it becomes more and more evident there was a world wide food. Many scientist deny it because the bible calles for one. Kind of a strange reason to reject the science that clearly supports a world wide flood.
I have seen no evidence for a global flood. There is evidence that there was regional flooding in the area where The Bible was written but none for a global flood that killed every living thing.

We should be able to find it. There were several civilizations at the time of the flood and we have tons of empirical evidence from those civilizations - tablets, writing, pottery, etc. We should see an end to all of these civilizations due to a flood at the exact same time: the Xia Dynasty in China, the Egyptian Avaris Dynasty, The Nubian Civilization, the Aegean Civilization, The Pre-Inca Chavin Civilization, or the Olmec Civilization in modern Mexico.

There is no such evidence. In fact the evidence we have shows these civilizations exited through the time of the flood with no impact.

But I am open to be proven wrong if you have empirical evidence of civilization ending floods in South America, China, and the rest of the world.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
1. Grounding empiricism with empirical evidence is circular. My post #11 shows the way around that.
This is semantics. Proving what is real through empirical evidence is not circular. It only seems confusing when you use the term 'empiricism'. If you say it in plain English it seems very obvious that proving what is real with evidence is clearly valid.
2. Wittgenstein's comment is not one about logic, I think. It's more about the need to explore all options and not just take what appears to be obvious. The idea that the sun goes around the earth because that's exactly what it looks like is not a conclusion based on logic (I'm not saying it's illogical) as much as it is based on just the raw sense perception. It just looks exactly like the sun goes around the earth. Same for the earth being flat.
Ah - then I misunderstood. I agree with all of that. We should always look to new hypothesis and options for how things migh work or be real. And we prove which of the options is real is with empirical evidence.
Wanting to know some specific conclusion is a bad starting place. But that's a poor way to frame the issue, because of the circularity, as I said above.
I agree. We must go where the empirical evidence leads.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
"The following is something I Posted on YouTube to an Atheist who raised the Euthyphro Dilemma as a reason that God is not the source of Morality..."

It appears they want something to be above God. As Christians believers of scripture we know that to be impossible.
Wow, I didn't look at it that way. There has to be a 'Most High'; right? The world usually accepts that Jesus was a Good Teacher. His Teaching on Morality didn't come so much from his Humanity as it came from a Reason outside of Himself; IE God. Doesn't this solve the Euthyphro Dilemma?
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
Fair enough; I wanted to ask permission first before it could possibly take over your Thread. Perhaps Gus will be someone I can focus on; I'll have to admit I won't answer everyone because it would be too much to handle...
Well now you've peaked my interest and I need to read what Euthyphro Dilemma is. If we can agree that it will not make me believe in God I think we can still have an interesting chat about it. I like thought experiments.

I'll try not to be my usual, 'if its not empirical then blah blah blah!'

;)
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Well now you've peaked my interest and I need to read what Euthyphro Dilemma is. If we can agree that it will not make me believe in God I think we can still have an interesting chat about it. I like thought experiments.

I'll try not to be my usual, 'if its not empirical then blah blah blah!'

;)
You can get an Introduction to it from Wikipedia of course...
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
This is semantics. Proving what is real through empirical evidence is not circular. It only seems confusing when you use the term 'empiricism'. If you say it in plain English it seems very obvious that proving what is real with evidence is clearly valid.
Regardless, using proper words is essential in order to be precise, and precision is really important, given how difficult the issues are to work through even when basic fundamentals are agreed on. But I'm happy to not beat you over the head with this any more. You can have the last word in this sub-issue.
Ah - then I misunderstood. I agree with all of that. We should always look to new hypothesis and options for how things migh work or be real. And we prove which of the options is real is with empirical evidence.

I agree. We must go where the empirical evidence leads.
Check.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
I agree that these are examples of using empirical evidence to prove if the Earth is flat or not. Adding the empirical evidence of how stars behave to our original observation of a flat field is exactly how this works. We keep adding evidence as we discover it and modify our understanding.

However, the empiricism of 'is the Earth flat' is only solved with empirical evidence - like the observation of Polaris.

I think we agree here :)
Even if God Himself stood right in front of you and you saw and touched Him with your own eyes and hand....
People have witnessed miracles by Allah, Brahma, Zeus, and thousands of gods. Sadly eyewitness testimony is not reliable and is not empirical evidence. If someone claims they saw Lord Ganesha raise the dead it is not proof that Lord Ganesha lives, right?

Miracles point to a supernatural. The question is, what does the supernatural point to?
Unfortunately these are prophecies written in The Bible and then confirmed in The Bible. They are circular and are not empirical evidence of anything. We cannot prove that the prophecies were said as they are written or that the fulfillment happened as it was written. Our only evidence of any of that is the Codex Sinaiticus Bible. And that is not enough to prove the prophecies happened at all.

I pretty much think we can. Isaiah 53 was written hundreds of years before the fulfillment. 740-680 BC. History has recorded how it was fulfilled in Christ Jesus.

This would be like you claiming Washington crossed the Delaware....when you really don't have any proof. The paintings and stories were simply made up to fit a narrative.
They do not. Just because something is complex does not mean it had a designer. You need to prove there was a designer with empirical evidence.

I believe you've lost that argument. As you have zero proof that complexity doesn't need a designer. The instructions for organelle are coded for in DNA. One can argue all codes need a code writer. But, it gets even bigger than that....the code needs to be copied and ran through other organelle...that were coded for...and those "machines" need to know what to do with the information....they need to take several parts from several "assembly lines" and put them together. Strings of precisely folded proteins... proteins made up of combinations of amino acids...protein strings interacting with each other to carry out a purpose...and below you're seriously goint to argue it's a product of random chance?
We do not know that life is not a product of random mutations. Quite the opposite. Right now it seems like complexity is a result of natural random mutations over very long periods of time. The empirical evidence is overwhelming and serves as the foundation of modern biology and medicine.

You can tell yourself that...but you have no empirical evidence. Assume away if you like.
We have evidence for mutations. We do not have evidence for a designer or god.

Yes, we have evidence for mutations. No one will disagree with you there. What you don't have evidence for is that genetic information can increase to the point that something such as the dolphins echo-location system can evolve from a chaotic process using random chance. You just can't do it.
I have seen no evidence for a global flood. There is evidence that there was regional flooding in the area where The Bible was written but none for a global flood that killed every living thing.

Of course you can't see any evidence for a world wide flood...You're not allowed to see it. That much is obvious.
We should be able to find it. There were several civilizations at the time of the flood and we have tons of empirical evidence from those civilizations - tablets, writing, pottery, etc. We should see an end to all of these civilizations due to a flood at the exact same time: the Xia Dynasty in China, the Egyptian Avaris Dynasty, The Nubian Civilization, the Aegean Civilization, The Pre-Inca Chavin Civilization, or the Olmec Civilization in modern Mexico.

All post flood.
There is no such evidence. In fact the evidence we have shows these civilizations exited through the time of the flood with no impact.

But I am open to be proven wrong if you have empirical evidence of civilization ending floods in South America, China, and the rest of the world.
Once again...post flood.
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
Wow, I didn't look at it that way. There has to be a 'Most High'; right? The world usually accepts that Jesus was a Good Teacher. His Teaching on Morality didn't come so much from his Humanity as it came from a Reason outside of Himself; IE God. Doesn't this solve the Euthyphro Dilemma?
Euthyphro Dilemma...can be solved with the understanding God is good. Tht's Gods nature. It's who He is...Gods morality can be nothing but good.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
Euthyphro Dilemma...can be solved with the understanding God is good. Tht's Gods nature. It's who He is...Gods morality can be nothing but good.
The Euthyphro Dilemma can also be solved by knowing that 'God is Truth'. The Euthyphro Dilemma seems to ask 'Which came first; God or the Truth?'. When God is the Truth which he accepts, isn't that an answer to the Dilemma? A Hypostasis so to speak. Isn't it interesting that the Biblical Authors seruptitiously dealt with, or even Simply dealt with the Euthyphro Dilemma?
 
Last edited:

CrowCross

Well-known member
The Euthyphro Dilemma can also be solved by knowing that 'God is Truth'. The Euthyphro Dilemma seems to ask 'Which came first; God or the Truth?'. When God is the Truth which he accepts, isn't that an answer to the Dilemma? A Hypostasis so to speak...
Which came first...God or Truth? They both always existed.
 

5wize

Well-known member
Euthyphro Dilemma...can be solved with the understanding God is good. Tht's Gods nature. It's who He is...Gods morality can be nothing but good.
Then you have argued that god has no sentient will with regards to morality or truth. There are a lot of implications to that about the nature of an omnipotent Christian god and his "judgement" which is an act of knowledge and will.
 
Last edited:

5wize

Well-known member
The Euthyphro Dilemma can also be solved by knowing that 'God is Truth'. The Euthyphro Dilemma seems to ask 'Which came first; God or the Truth?'. When God is the Truth which he accepts, isn't that an answer to the Dilemma? A Hypostasis so to speak. Isn't it interesting that the Biblical Authors seruptitiously dealt with, or even Simply dealt with the Euthyphro Dilemma?
That just undermines the Christian worldview by pointing out very minor language alchemy. You say "When God is the Truth which he accepts, isn't that an answer to the Dilemma"? All you are proposing there is pantheism because all you are doing at that point is claiming that the truth is called god. Drop the superfluous label god, it is unnecessary as you have already described the quintessential characteristic, "truth" and that requires no sentient mind to support it's existence. It needs no other label. Truth is all we experience. God becomes a mental fiction wrapped around the word "truth" for personal purposes.
 
Last edited:

ReverendRV

Well-known member
That just undermines the Christian worldview by pointing out very minor language alchemy. You say "When God is the Truth which he accepts, isn't that an answer to the Dilemma"? All you are proposing there is pantheism because all you are doing at that point is claiming that the truth is called god. Drop the superfluous label god, it is unnecessary as you have already described the quintessential characteristic, "truth" and that requires no sentient mind to support it's existence. It needs no other label. Truth is all we experience. God becomes a mental fiction wrapped around the word "truth" for personal purposes.
Not that I want to detour from what Lighthearted Atheist has okayed for me to discuss, but I thought I would at least explain why you are wrong. Christians do not Deify Truth nor Worship Truth; because Truth is not God. Truth is an Essential Attribute of God, but an Attribute of God is not itself Divine. You've wrongly classified Truth as Pantheism; that happened because of Begging the Question and making a Category Mistake. We wouldn't call my Eyeball Charlie just because ReverendRV is Charlie, though my Eyeball is a Member/Part of ReverendRV/me; you would call it Charlie's Eyeball. The Bible says God is Truth; and the Bible says God is Spirit. The Bible says we also consist of a soul/spirit, this doesn't make people God because we have spirits. Likewise it doesn't make Truth our God since God is Truth. God is Love; we're not God because we know Truth or because we Love somebody. ~ If someone worshipped ReverendRV, they wouldn't have to worship the Eyeball of ReverendRV if they thought it was silly to worship an Eyeball...

Since this Thread is going slow for some reason, and since your comment is still close to my claim about the Euthyphro Dilemma, I was glad to respond to you. The outcome of that discussion will result in whether I will or will not write a Gospel Tract the Euthyphro Dilemma as if I'm right. I'm interested in discussing my point; as long as it's okay with Lighthearted Atheist...
 
Last edited:

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
Even if God Himself stood right in front of you and you saw and touched Him with your own eyes and hand....
I would become a Christian on the spot.
Miracles point to a supernatural. The question is, what does the supernatural point to?
Both are claims of events that we cannot prove. 'Supernatural' is usually the term we use for things people claim to be true but we cannot prove it - like the existence of Heaven, psychics reading your fortune, ghosts, etc.
I pretty much think we can. Isaiah 53 was written hundreds of years before the fulfillment. 740-680 BC. History has recorded how it was fulfilled in Christ Jesus.
'History' has not recorded anything. The only empirical evidence we have of the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah is the Codex Sinaiticus Bible. And the authors of the Codex knew the prophecy - so we cannot know if it really happened or they wrote The Bible to fit the prophecy.

Sadly, prophecy and fulfillment from 2,000 years ago are almost impossible to prove. Otherwise I have to accept that the god Horus rose from the dead since it is written in the Pyramid texts.
This would be like you claiming Washington crossed the Delaware....when you really don't have any proof. The paintings and stories were simply made up to fit a narrative.
I do need proof. The painting is one piece of empirical evidence. But we need more to make sure this is not just a myth about Washington. So we look for letters, military reports, or anything from the time of Washington to corroborate it.

I do not believe every painting is proof that the event happened.
I believe you've lost that argument. As you have zero proof that complexity doesn't need a designer.
Evolutionary Theory has mountains of proof that complexity arises without the need for a designer.
The instructions for organelle are coded for in DNA. One can argue all codes need a code writer.
You can argue that. Can you prove it?
But, it gets even bigger than that....the code needs to be copied and ran through other organelle...that were coded for...and those "machines" need to know what to do with the information....they need to take several parts from several "assembly lines" and put them together. Strings of precisely folded proteins... proteins made up of combinations of amino acids...protein strings interacting with each other to carry out a purpose...and below you're seriously goint to argue it's a product of random chance?
I agree that it is incredible. But the evidence that it comes from random mutations is just overwhelming.
Yes, we have evidence for mutations. No one will disagree with you there. What you don't have evidence for is that genetic information can increase to the point that something such as the dolphins echo-location system can evolve from a chaotic process using random chance. You just can't do it.
We absolutely have evidence that more complex organisms evolve from simpler organisms. That is one of the core ideas in Evolutionary Theory and it has been proven time and again.
Of course you can't see any evidence for a world wide flood...You're not allowed to see it. That much is obvious.
Okie dokie.
All post flood.
OK.
 

5wize

Well-known member
Not that I want to detour from what Lighthearted Atheist has okayed for me to discuss, but I thought I would at least explain why you are wrong. Christians do not Deify Truth nor Worship Truth; because Truth is not God. Truth is an Essential Attribute of God, but an Attribute of God is not itself Divine. You've wrongly classified Truth as Pantheism; that happened because of Begging the Question and making a Category Mistake. We wouldn't call my Eyeball Charlie just because ReverendRV is Charlie, though my Eyeball is a Member/Part of ReverendRV/me; you would call it Charlie's Eyeball. The Bible says God is Truth; and the Bible says God is Spirit. The Bible says we also consist of a soul/spirit, this doesn't make people God because we have spirits. Likewise it doesn't make Truth our God since God is Truth. God is Love; we're not God because we know Truth or because we Love somebody. ~ If someone worshipped ReverendRV, they wouldn't have to worship the Eyeball of ReverendRV if they thought it was silly to worship an Eyeball...

Since this Thread is going slow for some reason, and since your comment is still close to my claim about the Euthyphro Dilemma, I was glad to respond to you. The outcome of that discussion will result in whether I will or will not write a Gospel Tract the Euthyphro Dilemma as if I'm right. I'm interested in discussing my point; as long as it's okay with Lighthearted Atheist...
I think if you look up the definition the "begging the question" fallacy would be in your court. You are taking normal mundane experienced realities, like truth, love, and morality and deifying them via the coupling to god in a direct "God is" declration. That isn't so you can worship truth, love, or morality because that would be the point I'm making that those things are only experienced, not worshipped. But by congealing something mundane like truth with god, every time you mention the mundane, you imply a worship-worthy god. That is begging the question.

You wouldn't call me truth or love, yet they are in me, but you do declare it for some other personified conceptual effigy you call god. Once you attach as many mundane characteristics to your god like love, truth and morality and justice as being one in the same, all things we have defined to describe our mundane lives, you get closer and closer to pantheism and god is just what we experience, nothing supernatural about it.... then you pull back and say, God is all these things, but separate, and thus we start down the mind numbing apologetic route of how that can possibly be....., you say just because the bible declared it so, and I say it has all just ceased to make sense, bible or not ..... blah, blah, blah.....

I don't even know what the category error would be given that god is categorized over the ages so malleably.
 
Last edited:

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
Which came first...God or Truth? They both always existed.
You cannot prove God exists at all. Truth is a human concept that came along with humans. So I'd say the idea of 'truth' probably started a hundred thousand years ago or so. God may or may not have come first - we need to prove he exists first.

This is like me saying Ra the Sun God and reality have always existed. It's meaningless without some way to prove it is true.
 
Top