The Gods and Goodness

[@snorribjorn5074]

If you have not one, but TWO drinking horns just laying around your house for convenient use in illustrating the Euthyphro Dilemma... you MIGHT be a polytheist. ;-)

[@OceanKeltoi]

Having two drinking horns makes me twice as Heathen.

[@snorribjorn5074]

Yes indeed it does@@OceanKeltoi! Indeed it does!

[@D3DN1T3]

I just want to be half the Heathen Ocean is.

[@xenoblad]

Proper piety is very simple actually. 1. Kill the heretic 2. Abhor the mutant 3. Purge the xenos 4. Hate the daemon Ave imperator, in excelsior Terra

[@IAmValenwind]

pft. The Lord of Flies will eat your eyes when last your breath gives out... and if you cry before you die, he’ll kill you with the gout... ya damn imperial. ;)

[@idigamstudios7463]

Still a bit too complex for me, I prefer: Om then nom, then Nom some more.

[@taramcdonough6391]

Hearing you say “oh my god! Horns everywhere!” Makes me feel better when I say “oh my god” 😂 I’ve tried to switch to saying “by the gods!”

[@foxmccloud8960]

Same, it's funny how challenging it can be to change one's vocabulary eh?

[@SHDUStudios]

We believe in multiple gods, so either is perfectly fine. I switch between them.

[@archangel_prince]

The phrase I grew up hearing was "One God in three persons". That doesn't make it any less confusing, but you can use this phrase to simplify it in future discussions. On another note, the Euthyphro dilemma was a big part of why I left Christianity (aside from being unable to resolve those pesky inconsistencies). Really glad to see someone cover this dilemma!

[@aristosbywater9605]

I can imagine Ocean going to his computer to film a new video, wading through a pile of horns that liter the floor and walls. This is why he just had horns on hand for the video.

[@OceanKeltoi]

accurate

[@krispalermo8133]

@@OceanKeltoi So, .. you do not have .. a .. drinking horn. You just buy them prefilled in six packs, .. cool.

[@scarling9367]

@@krispalermo8133 How do you buy drink? :)

[@idigamstudios7463]

@@scarling9367 by the barrel, it's the only way to get through the last few years.

[@taproot0619]

The last time I asked a Christian this question, their answer boiled down to, "if it's an issue for you, just stop thinking about it." Which, is not exactly a satisfying answer...

[@Philbert-s2c]

I've never found much satisfying about Christianity.

[@IAmValenwind]

i shit you not, i have been told "the reason you deconverted was because you think too much/read the bible too much/ask too many questions. you're supposed to take things on faith, not read the bible". needless to say, that didn't exactly make me a prodigal daughter and have any desire to return any time soon.

[@idigamstudios7463]

@@IAmValenwind Depressing because I find the roots of Christianity and the scholars and theologians who DO ask and try to find answers for this deeply interesting and that conversation *should* enrich a theology.

[@AlexisMitchell87]

As a Christian I don't understand why it's controversial to admit what God considers "good" is indeed arbitrary. That's how standards work in any other circumstance. The authority/authorities determine the boundaries, set the expectations, and typically outline potential consequences for one's compliance or noncompliance. Why wouldn't God have the authority to make those determinations? We make them.

[@taproot0619]

@@AlexisMitchell87 I know! So many Christians want to say that morality is objective for some reason. And they try to say that morality being objective is proof of god somehow? But a lot of issues in Christianity goes away if you accept that morality is relative.

[@ayabrinly1831]

"It's high time we just make the point that Socrates was just the first troll" Well........ that explains some Platonists online

[@andreab380]

You seem to know many things about Platonists online. Tell me, what is it that makes them Platonists: are they Platonists because they troll, or do they troll because they are Platonists? :D

[@Burrick]

Wasn't Diogenes the Cynic the first troll? Wait, he was after Socrates. Does that make Socrates troll Yoda, eldest of trolls?

[@IAmValenwind]

yeah, i was gonna say diogenes, but i think you're right, socrates came first.

[@allgodsnomasters2822]

yoda wasnt the first jedi even remotely there were thousands of years of jedi before them

[@anthonyhayes1267]

Diogenes was a shitposter

[@tokkia1384]

There was actually a really cool video I recently watched from Big Joel, about Adam and Eve and it was a really interesting, refreshing perspective on the story. He actually argues that God cannot be good - because he does not know suffering. It is through being banished from the garden and suffering that Adam and Eve can become good, because morality stems from our knowledge of pain that makes us (generally) loath to cause it to others like us.

[@oldstuff9037]

This episode is getting hornier than the Volsi at dinnertime.

[@JariDawnchild]

A rather hard topic to discuss.

[@warrendriscoll350]

Ah, so God is either a dictator or reporter. Christian apologists seem to always take the position that God is a dictator, because they argue that without God, there'd be no morality.

[@karldehaut]

Sorry for delay. I gave up biology to become a philosopher. Yes Socrates was a polytheist, yes a good philosopher is a troll. Better to ask a good question than to give an excellent answer to a bad one. I love what you do. A thickhead atheist. Ps : I cannot answer for Christians, I have never been one.

[@jaelmoray]

Glad you pointed this out! I generally end up debating less with Christians lately and more with Atheists, however, most of the time when I debate with Christians, this is where they end up, just kicking the can. I'd be alright if they settled for a dilemma and were okay with being unable to fully explain it and remain honest people in recognizing that God CAN do bad things, or at least bad as determined by human morality. But I'd much rather them admit that and go from there than walk things back as soon as someone points out things like the various genocides in the Bible. This is one of the reasons I prefer polytheistic beliefs. Though we certainly have our own issues, one things that is easier to deal with are the horrors that can be produced by the Gods, For one, I do not have the same aspect of being compelled to believe in order to not go to some dark and scary place like in Christianity. None of the Gods I follow can force us to honor them, and they have their own agency as entities as well. I can look to the shades of grey in each and better understand my Gods than those of Christianity, because in that varied grey, I can see the reflection of humanity. This is something we fail to see from the Abrahamic God at all. They say we were made in his image, yet we cannot understand him, nor his decision making when so many of those decisions are expected to be taken as morally good, because he is supposed to be goodness, even when it involves killing thousands. I can, on the flip side, see both the good deeds and bad performed by Loki, and neither makes him inherently evil. He is just a shade of grey for all intents and purposes. The difference is that he is never touted to be a being of only goodness, where we must then accept that the bad he does is somehow, actually good.

[@greg.kasarik]

Something to talk to god/gods about when he/she/it/they finally show themselves. As for me, good and evil exist relative to each other and I am the one who determines if an action is good, or evil, based on my own code of ethics and morality. If a god/gods think otherwise, they are welcome to come and chat with me about it, but thus far, they have been remarkably absent.

[@zelenisok]

About Pelagius and about when deep moral intuitions conflict with some parts of the Bible, some (eastern) Church fathers due to that advocated allegorizing various things in the Bible. For example: "Unless those physical wars carry the metaphorical figure of spiritual wars, I do not think the books of Jewish history would ever have been handed down by the apostles to the disciples of Christ, who came to teach peace, so that they could be read in churches." (Origen, Homilies on Joshua) Or "How would a concept worthy of God be preserved in the description of what happened if one looked at it as history? The Egyptian acts unjustly, and in his place is punished his newborn child, who in his infancy cannot discern what is good and what is not. His life has no experience of evil… If such a one now pays the penalty of his father’s wickedness, where is justice? Where is piety? Where is holiness? Where is Ezekiel, who cries: The man who has sinned is the man who must die and a son is not to suffer for the sins of his father? How can the history so contradict reason? Therefore, as we look for the true spiritual meaning, searching to see these events allegorically, we should be prepared to believe that the God has taught through the things said." (Gregory of Nyssa, Life of Moses)

[@lagle8]

the one three gods part killed me XD

[@OceanKeltoi]

Do Christians have one god or three? Yes.

[@aristosbywater9605]

@@OceanKeltoi don't forget the hundreds of thousands of angels or Catholic saints, each with their own powers and jurisdiction that people pray to.

[@thoughtaddict2739]

@@aristosbywater9605 Wait I know the saints part, but praying to Angel's? Really?! Never thought that was a thing till now...

[@aristosbywater9605]

@@thoughtaddict2739 my mother does. A lot of California Christians think it's cool to pray to angels and sometimes include crystals and whatnot. New Age Christianity fusing polytheism with Christianity.

[@D3DN1T3]

The Disciples were the deputy Gods of the Abrahamic Pantheon. They just get no recognition. Christians = closeted polytheists

[@dazzleships9]

Keep up the good work on discussing the vagaries of modern polytheism in this world of undertaught Abrahamists

[@PandemoniumVice]

I remember my World Religions professor using a definition of "religion" so vague and ambiguous that a desire to get up off the couch to get a bag of chips fell under it. Virtually any action taken with a goal in mind was a "religion".

[@JariDawnchild]

So when I get up with the intention of going to the bathroom...yeah, gives new meaning to the expression "holy shit".

[@orsonzedd]

Socrates was the first troll? That sounds right

[@hope-cat4894]

Those questions have been circling in my head for months now. I've just making peace with the fact that I'm just worshipping a different version of God than the one of by-the-good-book Christianity. I have no clue who it is or what religion it would connect with; I call him the Christian God because I'm just used to doing that and it feels right to do even though I know people will heavily disagree on it. And I'm not gonna overthink it because I'll just give myself a headache. 😒 I'm not a proselytizer anyways, so I don't have to make a case on it to convince others. That's Christian apologists' jobs. 🙇🏽‍♀️

[@KarlKristofferJohnsson]

I can relate to this. I still consider myself a Christian because I think it still works well enough for me, but I'm kind of doing my own thing with it. I also consider myself an Omnist. I think all religions probably have some truth to them. As for this dilemma, I'm leaning towards the first horn. God commands it because it is good. Goodness wasn't arbitrarily defined by God, but God is perfect and omniscient and would therefore have perfect knowledge of good and evil. I am also with Pelagius on this. We were created in the image of God, so we should trust our own moral judgements.

[@Ray_Mac]

Kickass intro!

[@derwolf7810]

5:14 "So one has to choose one of two positions: Either 'god is the one that defines goodness' or 'goodness is defined by something that is other than god'. Now this is a true dichotomy, there is no third option here." You are talking about the Christian god, the entity that is assumed to have existed solely and to have created everything else. Depending on how you use the words 'define' and 'defined' (actively versus passively versus both), your dichotomy either is not jointly exhaustive, or violates mutual exclusivity - in both cases you end up with a false dichotomy; sketched (*): If goodness existed before the Christian god created anything, then goodness is part of god, else goodness was created by god; so, if goodness was created then god clearly defined it (actively) and if god didn't explicitely (actively) defined it by creating it, it is still defined (passively) by beeing part of god. I'm a layman, so maybe it's my flawed (Roman Catholic) logic, in which case i would like to know where my flaw is. (*) I only sketeched the reasoning, because god might have created time and/or logic - which would make any explanation much more difficult up to impossible. I don't want to write a wall of text, therefore i fully ignore those complications.

[@farhan00]

The "way out" is that the categories of Essence/Body/Quidity vs Quality/Accident/Property dichotomy Platonic model is incomplete. There are some Essences that are a subset of another essence, thus an attribute can be entirely subsumed in another. For example, the relationship between a square and a rectangle. You would not say a square has rectangleness as a property. Rather, a square is a subset of rectangles, it's entirely subsumed. In this case, all squares (the subset) are also rectangles (superset). It's possible that the superset is 50% of the superset. Its possible that the superset is 75% of the superset. It's also possible that the subset is 100% of the superset, such that every member of the superset is part of the subset. If they say "But then its a distinction without a difference" - I would just say "So?" That is not an objection to the principle, only how it plays out in practice. With this background -> If that is the case, I could argue that God's essence is the superset and the moral standard is the subset. That way I can appeal to God's morality as a subset (attribute) of his essence, such that it can be identified and yet is not separable from his essence. Now, if they argue "But then there is a type of plurality within God", there are two responses: A. What is wrong with that except that it disagrees with Platonic doctrine? If we say that God is infinite, we could argue that God is his own explanation, as there is nothing to limit himself from himself, which addresses all Platonic objections of this response B. If we say that God's morality is subsumed entirely into his nature, then in principle his morality is different from his essence even if it is entirely part of his essence.

[@farhan00]

Also, and MUCH more significantly, this is a problem with Platonism itself, not anything else. Under Platonic thought, literally nothing has meaning because any definition is either defined by itself (invalid) or defined by something else (either in the form of a web - structuralism - or has an objective meaning) or is just a social construct. Either way, this is a flaw with the philosophy itself, it's broken and outdated.

[@warrendriscoll350]

The entire essences theory of properties flew out the window when people dropped Plato's theory of forms. It's incomplete only in that the essences category is empty. If we restore the category of essences by saying that an essential characteristic is one that a thing has by definition, then your argument translates to: The things which are God are the things which are the standards of morality and also have a further God Nature, to be defined later.

[@warrendriscoll350]

@@farhan00 You might be right, but your sentence is talking about the real world in the first half, "literally nothing has meaning" and language in the second half. "definitions". Further, self referencing definitions are not always invalid. They're usually useless. All definitions are socially constructed. Feel free to provide a counterexample.

[@farhan00]

@@warrendriscoll350"It's incomplete only in that the essences category is empty." I am comfortable with this, which is why this dilemma does not bother me. In short, if you cannot *any* essence in the first place, the theory has no use value. Ocean's statement that either Goodness references God or does not reference God is a true dichotomy, but within "References God", there are subdivisions that make this not problematic. Al-Ghazali speaks about this in his "Incoherence of Philosophy" which was specifically setup to attack Neo-Platonism. I didn't realize people had abandoned it though? If you're talking about post-structuralism, I do not think we are at the point in history when it becomes challenged and replaced with a new theory. The closest that I can think of is that any term refers to something people are independently perceiving in, as Descartes put it, a single thought (ie, not compound).

[@warrendriscoll350]

@@farhan00 The theory of forms is among the least popular parts of platonism, so yeah, I'd say it's abandoned. Al-Ghazali could use more coverage on youtube.

[@RowanBriar]

I was raised with, and my Christian friends all seem to believe, that goodness is arbitrary. That's why our nature sometimes goes against god's will. I mean, that in a way still kicks the can to why did god create evil in the first place... but most Christians treat the devil as a credible threat - and therefore another deity. God's will is good, but the devil tempts us away, and god is either unwilling or unable to stop it. So god is either not all powerful, or god allows evil. And I've only ever been able to justify that as god wants us to choose him, so we have to have some other choice. That's the whole point of free will - he wants followers who won't question or doubt, and life is just a way to filter the rest of us out. Makes Christianity kinda... evil in an eldritch kind of way.

[@christophersnedeker]

Depends on the version of Christianity, I agree calvinistic Christians tend to act that way but more philosophy oriented denominations like catholics and orthodox tend to paint God not as one good being among others but as goodness itself almost like platos form of the good.

[@christophersnedeker]

As to the problem of evil I think the stoic philosopher Epictetus put it best "What would have become of Hercules do you think if there had been no lion, hydra, stag or boar - and no savage criminals to rid the world of? What would he have done in the absence of such challenges? Obviously he would have just rolled over in bed and gone back to sleep. So by snoring his life away in luxury and comfort he never would have developed into the mighty Hercules. And even if he had, what good would it have done him? What would have been the use of those arms, that physique, and that noble soul, without crises or conditions to stir into him action?" God knows he can use evil to bring about a greater good.

[@r-pupz7032]

Ocean casually pulling out multiple horns is peak Heathen :D

[@DavidWest-rs5kn]

Can't answer the omnipotent goodness dilemma because I do the same as you and don't tie down my deities to goodness or omnipotence. But in regard the three deities or one. This comes up with certain other deities too ( The Morrigan from Irish Celtic for instance ) and my way of thinking is they're three aspects of the energy which is that deity ( so sometimes one, sometimes three, sometimes both ). I don't know how others think of it but it works for me

[@treytail]

True. He was the first troll. Triggered the worshippers at the time.

[@kameyoriko8644]

Now I fully understand why Wired magazine called Destiny(Former twitch partner and politics streamer) a troll. He uses the same exact tactics as Socrates when in a discussion of all types.

[@mrzsbroomcloset2772]

One of the tiktokers that I follow recently put up a video explaining how she didn't understand how God could be good if he authorized the killing of innocent children. It was trolled by the pious Christians on tiktok and was taken down. This line of thinking is also what made me want to leave the faith. How can God be good and still call for the eternal damnation of a three year old due to original sin. The argument of the elect goes down the same path. People who have never heard of god or Jesus would simply just burn in hell. This doesn't sit well with me at all. Billy Graham even put it out there that there was another way to heaven through showing the love of Christ in their lives, (basically being a good person) and those would make it to heaven. The possibility that there is another way into heaven other than belief in Christ throws down the entire Christian faith and sweeps the cornerstone right out from under them. Gods, creating the world with a good intention but not necessarily being perfectly good themselves is a much more logical mindset to have. Damning your creation to the an eternal punishment is cruel and honestly is against the Geneva convention in regards to torture of enemy captives.

[@LilithEveRain]

Whoa....I've never heard this argument. It's certainly a good argument. I'll never be able to use it, because I'm pretty much a you do you person, as long as your actions don't hurt anyone and as long as you let other people do them. I'd be lying to say I didn't have to rewind a few times in order to follow the argument, but I got it. But I do think it's important to see a different point of view, and that learning something new is never wasted, even if you learn it for learnings sake.

[@HollyOak]

My morals do not align with the christian god. I would never ask a father to murder his son as an act of loyalty.

[@christophersnedeker]

If the bible is to be believed the other cultures in the region actually did sacrifice their children to their gods so God needed the same level of commitment.

[@nathanjasper512]

I say if the Youth want a Fro, let em have it.

[@littleswol1]

Good shit brah 🤘🏼

[@endymion30]

God arguing with Christians on the subjective nature of good and evil is a massive pain in the ass Especially when you’re talking philosophically and they are talking politically Basically they think god is the objective standard for good Ben Shapiro stated recently that “evil is the absence of god” which made me go “ that’s subjective “

[@briaincampbellmacart6024]

It seems to me that Palagius was truly a Heathen trying to make his mindset fit Christianity.

[@TheHolySpackle]

This is why I didn’t buy into original sin and still don’t . Ancestral sin IE there is an illness in the world makes more moral sense.

[@dreamweaver1080]

God Yaldabaoth is a damn. drama queen. He allowed evil to exist when he could've easily snuffed it out at the very onset. After all, isn't he that created the Archons? Angels and deamons alike.

[@Uriel238]

From a naturalist position, what we regard in our hearts as good (and what we see as evil) are the basic notions that have been etched into us over eons of natural selection. Our catalog of universal mores are the ones that are tried and true in keeping bands of humans alive and reproducing. It's also a work in progress, and so entirely fallible and incomplete. We don't acknowledge them all. We can agree to reciprocity, to loyalty to our familiars. A curious one is the prisoner's dilemma (known in law enforcement as the prisoner's paradox) in which fellow heisters (kids in detention, disgruntled customers in lawsuits, etc) are offered a better deal if only they would betray their fellow detainees (snitch, turn states evidence, take the settlement, etc.). In these cases, the separated captives will still be inclined to hold fast and stay true to their fellow burglar, even at risk of being betrayed. But a wolf will flank a bear to distract it from his pack-mate, at risk to himself, since it increases the chances they both with survive. Teamwork is a powerful force multiplier, and we've figured this out long, long before we were upright. Maybe before we left the oceans. No beast seems to _want_ to eat a kitten, but will do so only when starving. Many of our struggles as a social species is circumventing those instincts to progress: We want our band to stay small, likely because plagues that wipe one band out will have a harder time persisting to infect another band, and yet our struggle with COVID-19 demonstrated how dangerous it is to have globally connected societies. Instead we rely on centralized disease control (which is coming through in the end, though despite the US public services being gutted and mismanaged). That instinct to keep our societies small and separated may be the engine that kills us as industry distracts outrage towards our outgroups.

[@romanjacobs8040]

"A belief in a power" seems a good definition of religion to me.

[@alexlarsen6413]

Oh this brings back great memories! Had an amazing philosophy teacher in high school, wrote my final paper on it, went on to study philosophy. I think polytheism isn't quite as free from this dilemma as you portrayed it. At least if you're serious about it and want your polytheism to make some sense of the world. And if you don't, what are your gods for anyway? Socrates was quite right about it, I think. The whole point is virtue and how do you determine what is virtuous. That's not a meaningless question utterly divorced from gods, so I don't think polytheism can just hand wave this. Christianity does have a much more serious problem though, I agree about that. Worst of all, as it is with everything imo, is classical theism, Thomism for instance. A Thomist's "solution" would be: God IS goodness itself...as if that makes it any clearer. They do this with everything: god is love, god isn't merciful, he's mercy itself, god is justice....God is everything. Because he must be simple, can't have parts...but is 3 in 1...etc. This I think comes from Thomas Aquinas mixing everything with Christianity; Aristotle and neoplatonism most of all. I'd say: way to define God out of existence!

[@OrganisedChaosHere]

Your comment on Christianity seems fair, so there isn't really anything for me to comment on that. Your polytheism comment though I would have to disagree with as a serious polytheist. I don't think its hand waving at all to say the dilemma isn't an issue. It was originally raised between polytheists as an exercise in saying there are things we might not be able to express definitionally about the Gods. Hence the impiety charge. Is goodness grounded in deity? Fine. I'll still do my best to do what I think is best for the community around me. Is goodness not grounded in deity? Also fine. Same result. You don't even have to argue that all Gods are always going to be honest, have your best interests at heart, or even that they're all inherently "good". I personally don't. I would agree that determining what is virtuous is important. But that's not the point of the dilemma. Its dismissed by Ocean here not on the grounds that the virtue question isn't important but on the grounds that the actual dilemma bit doesn't apply.

[@alexlarsen6413]

@@OrganisedChaosHere Hmm...but any theist could then say the exact same thing you're saying. Whether goodness, or virtue is grounded in deity or not, I'll still do my best to do what I think is best for the community around me. In my view that only works if you divorce this question from gods altogether and although that's possible I guess, I don't think it's particularly reasonable. If you're a theist. Any kind of theist. Yes, it's more reasonable for a polytheist than it would be for a classical theist, but it's not entirely unproblematic.

[@OrganisedChaosHere]

@@alexlarsen6413 I'm fine then with any theist saying that so long as they don't fall into the dilemma itself by grounding morality in deity. The reason this is an issue for Christians is that they do claim morality is grounded in their God. Could they say it isn't and I'd be fine with that? Sure, but all of a sudden there's no reason that their God is all good and that causes them problems. I think the concept of morality itself is divorced from the Gods, except that they can be subject to it as well. Because of this I fail to see why it would be unreasonable for any theist, is that something you could elaborate on?

[@alexlarsen6413]

@@OrganisedChaosHere Yes. This would of course depend on your ethical theory as well as on the type of polytheist you are, but I'm assuming if you've decided that morality is divorced from gods, you have at least grappled with the dilemma and have a reason to think so, right? To begin with I would just ask several questions basically. What is that reason? What do you ground morality in? How exactly are gods subject to that same morality, or to put it differently; why does the same morality apply to gods?

[@OrganisedChaosHere]

@@alexlarsen6413 I thought about it as both a Christian (I was a heretic in my later Christian days, that was fun) and an atheist before my polytheism, but I've looked back into it as a polytheist and concluded that I'm still justified in how I look at morality. So that little ramble is to say I've sorta grappled with it? I think that the best way to explain my view on morality here would be to say I think morals are subjectively objective? The standard by which we judge actions is relative to certain goals, and those goals have objectively better or worse ways to achieve them. If you're familiar with Matt Dillahunty's views on the topic, his and my views are similar enough to say that's more or less how I'd look at it. Because of this I think that human morality is separate to the Gods, except where any Gods take interest in humanity. But they are still not where it is grounded. I think the best way to explain where I'd ground morality would be to say that any given social structure made up of sentient or conscious entities, for example society generally or I guess even individual cultures. One person's goals are a preference, collective goals are a moral framework. Its not a perfect explanation but then those can be hard to come by, as Ocean explained in this video. I think perhaps we're meaning 2 different things by morality then. Because by consequence of how I view morality, Gods could have separate moral ideas to humans and still have morals if they interacted with other conscious entities such as each other. Those that choose to then take an interest in humans would be more aligned in their interactions with us with human morality, or would be seen by us as malicious. We can have morality and the Gods could also have morality but that doesn't necessitate them having the same morality as us.

[@mxmothmanart]

to be honest, I kinda already miss seeing Real Ocean in your videos...

[@ragingwitch8875]

Do you have suggested readings on this topic and/or Pelagius?

[@OceanKeltoi]

For this, reading the dialogue is probably the most useful thing. And honestly the Wikipedia article on the dilemma itself is worth the read. For Pelagius, there are some books by Robert F Evans that are worth reading, but they can get expensive.

[@ragingwitch8875]

Thank you so much 🙏

[@orsonzedd]

I recommend the Tragedy of Darth Pelagius the Wise

[@mclovin1033]

Where can I read more of palladius's teachings?

[@mwva13]

"hit the bell with both horns" love it

[@thoughtform21]

Goodness is what allows each individual thing to be what it is, appropriately.

[@thoughtform21]

Then again, this is the Platonic position.

[@thomaswillard6267]

Of course Socrates was the first troll, he called himself a gadfly

[@cosmicstrings4986]

Do you ever check out "Religion for Breakfast"'s vids?

[@OceanKeltoi]

I have watched a couple of their videos. The few that I've watched on pagan subjects I found wanting.

[@cosmicstrings4986]

@@OceanKeltoi I'd be interested in hearing more about what it was you found wanting. Andrew Henry seems like a pretty approachable person. It would be cool to see a calibration/ discussion between the two of you.

[@noahtackett6264]

There is no arbiter of what is good and evil, right and wrong. There has always been an objective good and evil, long before anything came into being, and those who stay on one side or another, and those who walk the line in between, straying one way or another depending on the situation. That is one of the problems I have with the Christian god, pretending to be the arbiter of what is right and wrong and the one who dictates which is which. The other gods don't really pretend to be such and actually admit they have limitations

[@CoachDoug714]

Is it possible that the Third Horn would be Context? "It depends."

[@1Ring42]

But do we KNOW he was the first troll?

[@OceanKeltoi]

We need to conduct empirical experiments.

[@Philbert-s2c]

A. All trolls are annoying B. Socrates is annoying C. Therefore all trolls are Socrates?

[@Seamusyt1396]

I wouldn't call Socrates a troll per say as he was a realist lol but never looked it at it this way

[@laurajarrell6187]

Ocean Keltoi, I've often said bald men are attractive and joked that they spent their hormones growing other things. But after listening to this,(and I'm thankful it has a reason and I agree) I've decided it's possible your brain just got too damn big. In a 100 years or so, you're going to look like the aliens on an original episode of Startrek, called 'The Cage', I believe. They had godlike intelligence and power, and their look implied gigantic brains.👍💞✌😷🎃

[@OceanKeltoi]

I'm =hoping= that this is a compliment

[@laurajarrell6187]

@@OceanKeltoi Of course it is! You're brilliant. This video just really brought it out. I always laugh when atheists try to claim Socrates. I'm an atheist. But even Hitchens, who loved the classics, especially Socrates, never tried to say he was an atheist. But he had such good ideas, at least they were attributed to him. It's like when people think doctors swear to the 'Hippocratic Oath' , not realizing it would include about 12 deities, and swearing never to cut into a living body. The real oath young doctors take only took the parts. That of serving your patients, equally, to the best of your ability and do no 'unneccessary ' harm. The unneccessary had to be added to allow many things in modern medicine. Sorry, didn't mean to go on a tangent! I just meant you may be a bit more evolved, like the aliens in that Startrek episode. It's just my age showing, lol. 👍💞✌😷🎃

[@1Ring42]

Any discussion with Socrates is a defacto argument.

[@Philbert-s2c]

One that you're NEVER going to win...

[@intermix2580]

@@Philbert-s2c why is there something rather than nothing ?

[@chaoticgood12]

Light being a particle and a wave and acting distinctly as each is more confusing than the idea of the trinity to me, I don’t know why that in particular is an issue. It’s like people with DID-they can be one person (or one being) but be made up of many alters, who are all _them_ but not _each other_. If one thing being two or more things which are both that thing but not each other is a phenomenon we see in 1) nature and 2) humanity, why can’t a deity display the same trait? As a physics major, I guarantee quantum physics is more ‘paradoxical’, and yet it’s observable and measurable by human scientists.

[@christophersnedeker]

I think there is a third option, God is goodness.

[@WordsOfARaven]

This is just the first horn

[@christophersnedeker]

@@WordsOfARaven Yeah but goodness is not arbitrary then. It's rooted in God's nature.

[@WordsOfARaven]

@@christophersnedeker then what is gods nature

[@WordsOfARaven]

It's just the second horn now

[@christophersnedeker]

@@WordsOfARaven goodness

[@krzyszwojciech]

I think the only way to wiggle out of this -- probably -- is to pose that the goodness of God the way that it is, is not arbitrary, but somehow necessary. And since I believe that the only necessary things are those that are inescapable in some way (like logical coherency must obtain), it would imply the following: all models of God except the one that describes the God that actually exists (choose your favorite...) lead to some kind of contradiction at one point or another. Thus the goodness so defined is what it is by necessity. The problem here is of course that qualities like different types of goodness or evil do not seem to lead to any inconsistencies necessarily. I have no problem imagining an evil God and couldn't find a contradiction if I tried. So to adopt such position would be place a speculation upon speculation, faith upon faith, that there's some justification of that necessity which is however beyond our grasp. So it wouldn't (and shouldn't) be a satisfactory answer for anyone. I'm not a theist, btw.

[@warrendriscoll350]

A non-contradictory nature is only the first requirement of necessity. Something that can exist. Not everything that can exist does exist. However, we can tighten this by including another property of necessity. Something that is necessary can't not exist. Thus, anything that changes is not necessary. For it became something different.

[@krzyszwojciech]

@@warrendriscoll350 I didn't end at consistency though, did I? My other point was: all other options must lead to contradictory implications, even if we can't see yet where (they could be complex), thus elevating the last logically coherent model to the status of necessity - because it couldn't be otherwise. Necessity demands an explanation. To simply restate that it's necessary, because it's necessary - would be no explanation at all. Not sure I agree with your statement on change. The necessary thing could necessarily have a dynamic element that would change its states in accordance with some other necessary rules.

[@warrendriscoll350]

@@krzyszwojciech Ah, I missed that in your original statement. In that case, you're probably out of luck, because there's almost always a bunch of competing theories that are all noncontradictory. There is no hypothesised object in all of academia that is both necessary and has changing parts. So perhaps you should provide an example.

[@krzyszwojciech]

​@@warrendriscoll350 I know there are many competing theories that are non-contradictory as far as we can see. The 'as far as we can see' being the operative phrase. Our models never model the whole of reality - they only model observable reality, or even fragments of that. In that way they may be insufficient propositions to seek contradictions in, just good approximations of limited number of phenomena. Where inconsistencies could arise is in full models containing those proposition and their possibly complex implications. "There is no hypothesised object in all of academia that is both necessary and has changing parts. So perhaps you should provide an example." Even if that's the case, it doesn't make it a correct way to go about things, necessarily. So that's not really an argument. Instead show me that there can't be a changing necessary part. I don't think we can actually know either way at this point. Epistemic limits, limits of reason. But as an example, William Lane Craig believes that God created time and first moment and then entered time. But that makes God subservient to created things. Still, if God is necessary, and our knowledge about 'now' changes, then God must know what Now I now experience. That changes, therefore something in God must change. I'd rephrase what WLC said though, if God is to be in fact primal to everything else: God was always timelike/partly dynamic, even though he was the beginning, the first moment (instead of creating the first moment). If eternal causal past is impossible and non-change is impossible [assumption], then God, if one exists, must be the beginning that changes, due to impossibility of it being otherwise -- as creating a changing beginning is arguably incoherent.

[@warrendriscoll350]

@@krzyszwojciech Unless you can somehow provide an example that gets around the problem that a changing part exists in one point in time and doesn't exist in another point in time, having been replaced, then I already did prove that it's impossible, in my first comment. But if you think you've found a counterexample, we can finally engage in some proper dissection. William Lane Craig's god is no exception. If God entered time and then changed, this proves that the god originally didn't need to exist, as it no longer exists. You can actually make a similar argument about space. If a thing does not exist everywhere, then it does not need to exist. To clarify this position, a thing that needs to exist is one that necessarily exists in all possible worlds, where all possible worlds are the set of logically consistent worlds. If god is perfectly precognisant, then our changing our thoughts does not actually imply that god must change his. So he can actually escape this problem if he knows all. Eternal caused past is not inconsistent, and change is not inconsistent, so both your premises fit in the set of all possible worlds.

[@multismashify]

7:48 "Is God's nature good because God made it so? Or did something else make God's nature good?" Ad plays: "Prepare to feel gooooooooodddddd in 2022 at Planet Fitness!"

[@agentdecibel8284]

I think it is a matter of personal property. Property means having the sole exclusive use of a resource. He created us, He can do as we please. Is Stan Lee a monster for killing half of all life in the Infinity Gauntlet? I realize they are not real, but I think you can understand what I am saying.

[@andrewmichaelschaefferXIV]

Traditionalist Latin Mass Catholic here (But other things too) Let me introduce a concept that many Polytheists understand but Christians don't want to accept. 🥁 drumroll please 🥁 GOOD IS RELATIVE Most human interaction is economic and materialistic and it can therefore be stated that everyday morality places us in a zero-sum game. If a predator captures it's prey we say it is good for the predator and bad for the prey, but if the prey escapes the predator we say it is good for the prey and bad for the predator. Grace and virtue do exist but most humans will only have brief, marginal experiences with them., if any at all. I'm not judging such people morally. A person of exceptional grace and virtue might place me in such a camp that only briefly and marginally experiences grace and virtue. So, the "problem of evil" doesn't have to exist if "omnibenevolence" doesn't exist. I don't like "Omni-qualities" for "God" I think Most-Good, Most-Knowing, Most-Powerful and Most-Present are better; not All-this or All-that. Moral and theological credit should go out to Polytheists and their experience of God(s). I believe my God to be Revealed and Experienced. I believe the the other pantheons to be experienced. This doesn't make them less real, nor does is make them intrinsically infernal or condemnable.

[@dracospawncs]

So, I'm a polytheistic Christian (just to give a little context). But I was taught a more or less Pelagic view of morality, albeit with an omission as to whether the Bible or "God's Voice" is the final authority on morality. But ultimately I had to come to the conclusion that the first horn must be true. Goodness can't come from God because there are good people who are not Christian. C.S. Lewis even stated that there cannot be "Christian Values TM", only moral values innate to the human condition. I'm paraphrasing but "The Golden Rule is universal", right?

[@MostlyPonies1]

The second horn is the accepted view at least in orthodox churches. The sacrifice of Isaac is a key example of God's exception to his own rules. Even though an angel stopped Abraham before he could kill Isaac, the entire act of child sacrifice was acceptable to God. The morals he commands humans to follow it seems only apply to humans, and everything God does is an act of good no matter what it is - not my words.

[@Greenfrog777]

As a polytheist, I actually don't think the third horn is that problematic. If you believe that the Gods are the ground of the cosmos, the most fundamental units, you are of the belief that the Gods, by their nature, give rise to every facet of the cosmos (morality, mathematics, natural law, aesthetics, etc), whatever they are. If you believe that Goodness consists of some kind of unity or harmony with the cosmos (for example, good health requires the harmony of your different body parts with your food, water, air, each other, etc.) then to say that something is "Good" means that it exists in harmony with the fundamental Gods nature may be arbitrary in the sense that we could plausibly have had a different set of Gods with which to harmonize, it's no more arbitrary than saying that good swimming form involves a certain harmony between our fluid dynamics, our bodily makeup, and motions of that body, even though "good" swimming form could be radically different if the fluid dynamics of water on earth were more akin to liquid mercury or humans had evolved as sextopeds. While those factors are technically "arbitrary," in the sense that things could be different, they're not arbitrary in the sense that they're grounded in historical, material facts. If the Gods simply are the set of divine beings that happen to exist, that is arbitrary in one sense, but it seems odd to make a big deal about that in the realm of ethics but not other fields like health, mathematics, or athletics.

[@SarenthDricten]

However, when you get down to brass tacks, the Gods exist in and of Themselves and in relationships with/to each other, all ultimately bound in Fate/Urðr/Wyrd/etc. Generally speaking the Gods rise out of some primordial thing, eg the great nothing/ocean in Kemeticism, the Ginunngagap in Norse/Icelandic Heathenry. That is, the Gods are bound up in creation in some powerful and intimate ways while not being separated from it.

[@falcondark5338]

Second horn. God's goodness is only arbitrary if you are his peer. Since the whole universe is downstream from God, his definition of goodness is necessarily good.

[@OceanKeltoi]

That just makes it arbitrary. You're saying it's not arbitrary because its arbitrary.

[@falcondark5338]

@@OceanKeltoi well, only outside of this universe (and not necessarily even there). The value of pi might be arbitrary outside of this universe, but this universe is structured such that pi cannot be any other value. Possibly in a similar way God's vision of goodness is built into the structure of the universe.

[@tfan2222]

@@falcondark5338 Except that “pi” has been written as several different numbers actually. A good example is that “3.14” is NOT π, but functionally they’re ALMOST identical in every case.

[@christophersnedeker]

​@@falcondark5338I think it's not arbitrary because God isn't just a good being among other beings God is goodness itself. Possibly even Plato's form of the good

[@falcondark5338]

@Christopher Snedeker that's all true- inside this universe. It might be that outside this universe, God is a being among other beings, but we don't have access to that reality. My point is that, in order to call out the creator of a universe for being arbitrary, you must have a point of reference outside of that universe.

[@fakeoutlife9920]

Ocean I really wanna know What is the Nature of reality to you and to all other polytheist. Like even in Abrahamic religion Judaism & christianity have Monism but there is difference. So I like to know How polytheists view Reality?

[@OceanKeltoi]

There are polytheists that are monists and some are dualists. I’d personally fall under a kind of monism I think. I used to be a dualist though so its an evolving process.

[@eciatto3675]

I'll take the horn with the mead in it, hail to the allfather, skol. Hahaha, jk. I'm not even religious. However, I would likely choose Paganism over Christianity.

[@luckyson7594]

We’re not made in the image of God....Adam was and after that he fell and offspring were made in the image of Adam. Our dilemma is we are children questioning why we’re being told not to touch the fire. Pretty elementary stuff when we get out of our own way, IMO. Perhaps one day we will be able to know all the answers to everything that piques our curiosity but until then we might want to listen to the Father so we don’t get burned.

[@idenstret]

It's like Christians saying, "It's alright to treat everyone like crap and my only reasoning is that they don't believe what I believe."

[@1950sTardigrade]

the trinity is Three Persons with One Soul

[@DarkSaber-1111]

God exists Beyond Good and Evil for with every breath he takes he speaks both truth and lies, and With Every Act he makes he brings forth equal parts Good and Evil.

[@alexyim8690]

Christians are Hilarious, we LOVE talking about God with them! Here's an example: Us: God iS! everything that iS! & everything that iS! not & All things in~between Them: Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes Us: So it stands to reason that the Devil iS! also God Them: Ohhh, No No No No NO Us: But if God iS! ALL then how can something Not be God!? Them: Err, Ummm, Hjelp get me Away from this crazy person

[@enochanglin3546]

Possible solution from a non-Christian: God is not all good. Idk if that actually fixes it but I dont see Him as omni-benevolent so it kinda makes it weird. 🤷 I've always seen God as similarly nuanced in the good/evil duality as humans are. Sometimes He makes bad decisions, and I guess that would make me a supporter of God not having sovreignity over goodness. I also think morality is a human construct for our preservation as a social species, rather than an ultimate truth, which also kinda solves the problem and puts morality in the hands of humans, where we should find ourselves with actual accountability rather than blaming a god or gods or demons or what have you on what we do. Idk if thats the same problem or not tho

[@dirtyjordkin]

Ive watched this video three times studying this argument and just now noticed the rubber duck on the book shelf 🤣

[@OceanKeltoi]

He’s been with me for years. I explain arguments to the duck sometimes when I need to get things straight.

[@kimwelch4652]

In all this discussion of godly morality something feels off. I think it is the viewing of gods as on the same moral ground as humans or seeing humans on the same moral ground as gods. If you were created by a god then doesn't that same god have the right to destroy you? Worse, if I exterminate an ant nest in my yard would you consider me an evil murder or a reasonable caretaker of my lawn? If Zeus struck you with a bolt or Amaterasu burned you with her rays, do you take them to court or call them evil? Morality for mortals is not morality for gods. Which is why we don't consider hurricanes as criminals. It is best to clear the path for the gods rather than let the gods grind your entrails into the dirt. Hubris proceeds a smiting.

[@kevincrady2831]

Weird how Christians want to claim that Yahweh is the source and/or grounding of morality when the Bible portrays him as being thoroughly opposed to the idea. Humans gaining access to morality ("knowledge of good and evil") is what Christians call "Original Sin." Yahweh does not want moral people, he wants *obedient* people, people who will obey his orders without regard to whether they are good or evil, because they can't tell the difference. The actual Biblical teaching on morality is that it is a field of inquiry humans can learn about (metaphorically portrayed as a fruit), but to do so humans must first break free of authoritarianism and Yahweh's reign of terror (or that of any other authoritarian figure that would put itself in Yahweh's place).

[@KittyBatSasha]

Socrates the world's first sealion

[@Seamusyt1396]

If the story of Noah is to be believed wouldn't we all share the same mitochondrial DNA

[@christophersnedeker]

We do.

[@Ascended508]

2nd horn

[@shirtlessviking9225]

or goodness isn't real?

[@Beckmann1945]

When you're done defining religion and art, try maths. ;) But great channel, just subscribed now.

[@hatchethead3355]

I had to do a double-take because I just saw Ocean Keltoi pull two Ox horns out of his crotch. The fuck?

[@gryphonprovenzano3156]

Ocean buddy I know you don’t mean to but can you move your microphone so it’s not right infront of the camera it’s quite honestly really distracting.

[@OceanKeltoi]

I tried and i couldn't get it in a place where it picked up sound but also wasn't directly in my face so I just embraced the mic being in the frame. I might find another place for it though.

[@alexbaer455]

I hadn't actually noticed it until I saw this comment

[@gryphonprovenzano3156]

@@OceanKeltoi ok fine il just live with it if that the case at least you accept it. it may be possible to get a shirt mic but idk how expensive they are

[@juniper1135]

Neither is horn is good because God's aren't necessarily good or evil

[@kilbrenstrayer6308]

666th like XD

[@OceanKeltoi]

Here's your free devil spawn.

[@kilbrenstrayer6308]

@@OceanKeltoi danke

[@r-pupz7032]

Ocean casually pulling out multiple horns is peak Heathen :D