(January 24, 2016 at 10:19 am)athrock Wrote: Careful...that sounds like an argument for the existence of objective moral values. 

Yet, your original argument denies objective morals. God changed his morals, hence changed his mind over time? Has god evolved? Or are you trying to say we should still own slaves, as long as we abide those rules like release after 7 years.

(January 24, 2016 at 12:00 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(January 24, 2016 at 10:24 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: [edit] God had to work with what He had and progress from there.

What? This is god. Why would a limitless power limit its self? Work with what he had is human, not creator.

Edit: Oops, point made earlier. Please continue.

Because He chose to give us free will rather than force us to think and act a certain way. I'm sure He could have if He wanted to, but He chose not to.

That doesn't mean what he did was actually "good" though, just because he did it. Especially when you consider what options he gave us.

Everything he invented, he is solely responsible for. Just saying we chose to do it is scapegoating.

You're setting up your planet with your creatures on it. Do you:

(a) Make rape and slavery possible

(b) Make rape and slavery impossible

It's perfectly possible to have "free will" but with only positive options, which cause us to be happy and not suffer.

OK, enough speculating. Let's see what actually happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDgCnoCMf9k

So let me get this straight, there is an all powerful god who gives an objective morality that we don't know about, gives commands that contradicts it, gives us free will to subjectively make our own moral decisions, then sits and waits to punish us for not getting it right?

All because he was bored/lonely. Hasn't he heard of Xbox?

Also, if there is objective morality, no one knows what it is. No two theists can agree. So what practical use is it? We have no way of verifying anything to see if it's objectively moral or immoral, because we don't know what the standard is. With Christians ignoring most of their own book, there's not much left, and that can hardly cover every possible scenario, can it? Eventually you're going to have to interpret and decide for yourself.

(January 24, 2016 at 1:59 pm)robvalue Wrote: All because he was bored/lonely. Hasn't he heard of Xbox?

Maybe we are in a cosmic Xbox game that god created and he is just pissed off because the title "Halo" was taken.

Now that actually makes sense. Sign me up for that religion.

If I was going to let someone's free will be interfered with, I'd rather it be the attempted rapist than the rape victim. The free will argument doesn't really stand very well.

The free will argument and objective morality don't seem to jive to me. If I am not free to decide right and wrong for a moral dilemma that I encounter, do I really have free will? I realize that I can choose what action to take but I can't choose whether I think it's right or wrong? Someone tell me where I'm going wrong.

(January 24, 2016 at 2:21 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: The free will argument and objective morality don't seem to jive to me. If I am not free to decide right and wrong for a moral dilemma that I encounter, do I really have free will? I realize that I can choose what action to take but I can't choose whether I think it's right or wrong? Someone tell me where I'm going wrong.

I don't see what the conflict is, personally. Free will doesn't mean you get to decide what is and isn't actually real. It means you get to decide on your actions.