Euthyphro's Dilemma

Well - what I meant is that there isn't anything unique about god's commands - if he just says what is good, then there should absolutely be debate about whether what god commands is good - after all - even granting that a god exists and that that god is all-knowing, that certainly doesn't make them all-interpreting. 

Why must there be. God commands goodness. If God commands it, one need not debate about it. Go ask him. "...prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it." Seems he's pretty willing to respond to the serious desire to know the truth of things, merely by preparing a place to receive the answer.  That is not a question placed in doubt, No. Ask with nothing wavering and without fear.

I don't recall it issuing any commands in my lifetime.

When did it last issue a command?

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours ox or his wife.....No, not the ox's wife.

A few new pertinent commands wouldn't go amiss.

Where is it?......Hiding behind the clouds as ever, having a laugh.

Well no - that's not what you said, you said that god says things because their good-  in that case we shouldn't need god to tell us what is good, if there is good that god is getting from, we can just use that same good and skip out the middle man - because how do we know that god (assuming he exists for a moment) interprets "good" correctly? Again, being all-knowing does not mean you can interpret things perfectly.. 

No, apparently not. It's even before your lifetime. Surprised you missed it; it's just two chapters following the covet bit: “Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death." Exodus 22: 19. However, even in your lifetime, just one month ago, on this matter of personal purity, "In matters of covenantal purity, the sacred is too often being made common and the holy is too often being made profane. To any who are tempted to walk or talk or behave in these ways—“as the world giveth,” so to speak—don’t expect it to lead to peaceful experience; I promise you in the name of the Lord that it won’t."  This was Jeffrey R. Holland, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles; a prophet in our time. Perhaps it is time to stop cleaning the clouds, with money, and start listening to what is coming to us, in the name of the Lord, that will clean the clocks of our filthy minds and hearts, and let the clouds take care of themselves. They have for billions of years, and have not stopped.

I assume the end of the universe, and the rebirth of the next....A GOD principle.

And the evolution of matter and us and GOD, was perhaps commanded by inevitability.

If you are not omniscient, and I dare say that is a strong probability [and me, too], how, exactly, are you knowledgeable on perfect interpretation? Sorry, the failure of that comment is evident within it. As you do not believe in omniscience, it should be evident that it follows that you fail to understand how it works.

Um... you can not believe in something and get how it works - furthermore again - knowing all of the data in a subject does not mean you are aware of the CORRECT INTERPRETATION, you should know that, that is literally your things in debates. 

@Theweakeredge.

Mr Faux was hoisted by his own petard there.

It is, but there is a distinction of knowledge you do not accept, but the  non-acceptance is a limitation you acknowledge and to which you adhere: the ability to acquire knowledge by faith. I have described how that works enough times that I will not repeat again. I consider faith to be an available physical sense to which we can be educated to use and understand how and why it works. That you both choose to ignore it is, again, a self-imposed limitation. Until; you convince yourselves that it works, all the argument I can present will not convince you. Part of that is on your hard-headedness to ignore the trial of faith. Sorry, I can do no more for you. If that's a petard, it's your match.

As I see it.

The acquisition of knowledge is the internal process of sensory input and data storage.......The basis of acceptance, faith and belief is internal processing, rather than external influence.....We variously believe, accept and have faith, relative to how we are formatively conditioned to prioritise data...."We can be educated"....Though that is not to say that we are not capable of reassessing and modifying our established database....Nonetheless completely erasing and reprogramming (re-educating) is unlikely.

So you have an established and prioritised dataset within your databank and refer to it as faith and belief.....And though I may possess the same basic data, I was not educated to prioritise it as you do.

Alternative programming...No more, no less....GOD principle accepted.....But nothing so specific as the Christian Godhead.

Actually no, the apologetic I referenced essentially argues that option 1 and option 2 are the same. But I already describes why that’s nonsense.

Fair enough. I'm not necessarily looking for compatriots of my exact mind. That we can find areas of agreement, I'm happy. Differences of opinion should only represent challenges to our comfort zone, which cannot be a bad thing. This Yank is grateful for that Brit. Different sons of different mothers, but who said that was anti-social?

I do not see how it is possible to disprove the existence of God given that human logic may not apply to a God. An all-powerful being may operate on a higher realm of logic than we can possibly comprehend. 

Yep.

True........One cannot disprove something that cannot firstly be proven.......Logic.

"May" being the operative word.

Though one would suggest that logic is always logical, at any level.

Right. But if that is a possibility then the claim that you cannot disprove the existence of God is still true.

I'm not sure of that. If God has always existed, he would, by necessity of him being all powerful, be able to break the rules of logic. 

Is it logical that we should be able to walk on water? By current logic, no. However, is it possible that ability could be achieved by adherence to natural law we do not currently understand? Thus, logic is dependent on law.

And what exactly is your definition of good?

Begging the question and a god of the gaps - there is no evidence of such a thing, in fact, there is no evidence that such a "higher level of logic" even exists. 

A net increase to well-being

Read my initial post again.

As I said...One cannot disprove something that cannot be proven.

And anything that might be possible, will therefore comply with logic.

Possibilities are logical, but may or may not be achievable....This is also logical.

And similarly anything that might defy currently known law, will comply with a newly discovered law.....Even if that is a GODS law of inconsistency.

Isn't that definition synonymous with pragmatism?

It's still a significant thing to point out. 

No

If you think that "a net increase to well-being" is pragmatism, you don't know what pragmatism is. 

Intent matters because that also contributes to the level of well-being - overall - intent does have a place in morals - but its more for classification than what you ought to do. 

How do you see intent contributing to overall "well-being" (whatever that means)?