The 'Epydemic' problem of Divine Command Theory

This is a response to a video from Epydemic2020 entitled "Euthyphro's New Dilemma" ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SoyuRJncKg )

In the video, Epydemic counters what he labels as a "new version of the Euthyphro Dilemma" presented by SisyphusRedeemed ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY_zGA8pQLI )

On a side note, if you aren't subscribed to SisyphusRedeemed, I suggest that you check out his channel ( http://www.youtube.com/user/SisyphusRedeemed ). He has made some excellent videos, including a series on the history and philosophy of science.

Now, this isn't the first time that Epydemic has discussed the Euthyphro dilemma in an attempt to show that it is a false dilemma. He argued this same thing in his video "Euthyphro Dilemma."

I responded to his video with one entitled, "Euthyprhro, God, and Genocide," ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzu-tryxPxk ) in which I argued that God's command to exterminate the Canaanites clearly demonstrate that morality could not flow from the nature of God.

Here, I will address the argument from a different angle, Divine Command Theory or DCT.

DCT tries to overcome the problems of moral objectivity exposed by objections such as the Euthyprhro Dilemma. DCT attempts to do this by making our moral obligations solely determined by the commands that God issues.

There are different versions of DCT that have been offered, each attempting to overcome some objection raised.

In this video, I will only address the version of DCT that is being proposed by Epydemic. His version appeals to God's essential goodness.

I will examine this version of DCT in light of the following question: "What if God commanded the ritual torture and sacrifice of children?"



Sources include:
"What if God commanded something terrible? A worry for divine-command meta-ethics", Wes Morriston, Cambridge University Press 2009

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Epydemic2020
• SisyphusRedeemed
• Divine
• Command
• Theory
• Morality
• God
• Atheism
• Wes
• Morriston
• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Christianity
• Euthyphro
• Dilemma

[MyContext]

@MyContext Does the ULINK fit what is? I would dare say that it does. Can you disprove it? Well, I would dare say no or least not until you have the REAL answer or enough to show that this isn't the case...

This is the problem with ALL god claims (that I have heard, although, I think the ULINK is a better claim). They are claims with no substance. I would rather a bit of honesty as oppose to claims of it is or I know...

The reality is ... there is a lot we don't know.

[MyContext]

@MyContext ULINK – An infinite immaterial span of space from which universes emerge - ours is just one of them. There can be no existence without the ULINK for without it there is no existence. The ULINK has always existed and is eternal and ever changing. The “rules” of “matter” are NOT consistent across universes and are not consistent within some universes. The ULINK has no mind – it is existence. <- Pure Conjecture fitting what appears to be the case...

[MyContext]

@relarerfhjk Do you think there is one universe or is there a possibility that there are multiple or maybe even infinite universes? The problem with any claim of probability - one must know whether the claimed product is in fact as impossible as is claimed. I'll create something for refutation:

[derek24hudson]

@relarerfhjk I have 'turned to. WLC on many occasions, and swiftly turned away...nothing new, original or relevant there. You did not answer the question I asked...I doubt that you will. What is 'good'? (No circles please). Why does 'god' have a particular set of qualities? Why is 'mercy' (your example) 'good'? How do you know that 'god' is 'good'? 'He' told you? If 'god' has not chosen to be 'good' (your view) then is he worthy of praise? Does 'he' have the power to be 'not good'? Answers!

[MyContext]

@relarerfhjk Actually, this is my point... We don't know...

1) Whether it could have been any other way...

2) Whether another way could have allowed for life

3) Whether is is just chance that it is as it is...

We understand the precision of what is required for life as we know it. Anything else beyond is an unsupported claim, since, we do not know. If you claim a designer, let's examine this designer to confirm your claim. If we have no designer, we are left with an unknown...

[relarerfhjk]

@MyContext It couldnt just "happen to be the case" because, as physicist Michael Turner wrote "The precision needed for just one of the constants is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bullseye one millimeter in diameter on the other side."

It has nothing to do with "narcisisism" its a fact that a life-permitting Universe is far more improbable than a life-prohibiting one, because of the incalculable precision in values necessary to for life-permitting conditions

[MyContext]

@relarerfhjk I acknowledge I don't know. You are asserting a claim for which you have no evidence. You are attempting to claim god based on our current ignorance. If there is a god, it is a deistic god. We have no basis for anything else. I would expect a theistic god to present itself, if such a thing existed.

/watch?v=hSS-88ShJfo : Morality 2

/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg : History of God

/watch?v=WKhQs2-g8EY : Putting Religious Experience in its place

[relarerfhjk]

@MyContext its not "conjecture" its called deductive logic; fine-tuning is either due to chance or necessity or design; it isnt due to necessity and isnt plausibly due to chance so the most plausible explanation is design

[MyContext]

@relarerfhjk We know what is the case.... Why don't know why it is the case...until we know why, anything else must be considered conjecture if there is no support for that claim... No insertions due to our current ignorance... People believed that people who probably suffered from seizures were possessed... Given what was believed it was probably reasonable... We can do better than that...

[relarerfhjk]

@MyContext "just happenstance" I'm afraid you dont know what your talking about

For example, as agnotic physicist Steven Weinberg admitted "The existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places."

Its inexplicable unless you accept design. Thats why the great physicist Sir Paul Davies wrote The belief there is something behind it all is one I share with, I suspect, a majority of physicists"