(July 12, 2017 at 2:27 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 12, 2017 at 1:12 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: 1. That's completely wrong.  If God exists, then by definition, his nature is the only objective source of morals. <- this argument is this argument -> 'might makes right' argument. 

You've not demonstrated that objective morality must exist if a god exists. 

2. A point of clarification (I was not clear in previous posts). God is bound by his nature. We are bound by God's commands. They are not the same thing.

Then your god is not infinite if it is bounded by anything. And we aren't bound by god's commands since we are able to make our own decisions and choices.

3. None of your choices are correct. God could not create a set of moral objective standards.

There are things that exist that your god does not control and/or did not create? Then your god is not all-powerful nor all-knowing. If it could not create a set of objective moral standards then it is also not all-powerful or all-knowing. Your god is losing power very quickly from the way you keep describing it.

Why do you think that nearly everyone believes there is a such thing as objective moral truths yet can't really articulate where they come from?

Because people are generally stupid. Believing in objective morality but being unable to show that objective morals exist, suggests to me that they don't exist despite the desperate attempt people make to special plead them into existence (which is especially interesting if in their special pleading they end up defining their god into obscurity, as you've done). [4]

Infinite is clearly modifying nature in that sentence. His nature had no beginning. 


By definition, something that is infinite most certainly could be constrained. Infinite is a measure of duration, not ability.

If your god is infinite in any way, then it is not bounded or constrained. You don't know what infinite means and you're making your argument look like even more BS than it is as a result. [5]

1. I've demonstrated the if objective morality does exist, it must exist in the nature of God or fall on one of the two horns of euthyphro's dilemma.

2. 'Infinite' does not have anything to do with ability.  

in·fi·nite
ˈinfənət
adjective
limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.

God cannot violate his nature (for one thing, since his nature is perfect, violating it would be an imperfection). He also cannot do anything that is logically impossible. You are right, we have been given free will so we are not 'bound'. However that is the standard we will be measured against--our boundary for morality. 

3. You are missing the very important part that has been front an center in all my recent posts. It is God's always existing, unchanging, superlative nature that is the source of morality--not his actions. Please note the difference--it is important.

4. So...most people are just stupid. You must be fun at parties.

5. Infinite is an adjective. In this context, it modifies an attribute of God. There are many many many things about God that are not infinite. His patience for one.

1. I've demonstrated the if objective morality does exist, it must exist in the nature of God or fall on one of the two horns of euthyphro's dilemma.

You've demonstrated you believe it but not that it is necessarily required of a god.

2. 'Infinite' does not have anything to do with ability. 

Either god's abilities are unlimited (it is all-powerful and/or all-knowing) or they aren't. It can't be both. That is a paradox 

3. You are missing the very important part that has been front an center in all my recent posts. It is God's always existing, unchanging, superlative nature that is the source of morality--not his actions. Please note the difference--it is important.

You've also claimed that these objective morals exist independent of your god and that your god didn't create them. yet more contradiction.

4. So...most people are just stupid. You must be fun at parties.

I didn't say most people are stupid as a blanket generalization. Don't straw man me in such a blatantly dishonest way. Some people are stupid and many people are stupid about at least something over the course of their life. But yes, I do think most people who believe in objective morality in the way you describe are being stupid about it. I don't know of a nicer way to say that, so there you go. 

5. Infinite is an adjective. In this context, it modifies an attribute of God. There are many many many things about God that are not infinite. His patience for one.

Either your god is infinite, or it isn't. You keep describing it as being infinite in some sense, but then define limitations on its infiniteness. Your god concept seems extremely ill-defined. It sounds more like you grasping at straws to keep your god concept on a pedestal. Insecurity is a real bitch...

(July 12, 2017 at 2:27 pm)SteveII Wrote: 1. I've demonstrated the if objective morality does exist, it must exist in the nature of God or fall on one of the two horns of euthyphro's dilemma.

LOL?  When did -that- happen?  Still here, still wondering what's wrong with harm....and you're still here, avoiding any mention of the thing that each of your moral value judgements is very clearly based upon.  Avoiding even, that god makes -precisely- this case in his subjective appraisal of what harm befalls us and for what.  

How much patience do you think your god has for that, and you?  Perhaps we should turn to romans or peter for the answer?  It seems as though you'd rather we take the Apostle Steve's word for things, no matter how badly he bungles the whole bit.

(July 12, 2017 at 2:51 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(July 12, 2017 at 2:27 pm)SteveII Wrote: 1. I've demonstrated the if objective morality does exist, it must exist in the nature of God or fall on one of the two horns of euthyphro's dilemma.

LOL?  When did -that- happen?  Still here, still wondering what's wrong with harm....and you're still here, avoiding any mention of the thing that each of your moral value judgements is very clearly based upon.  Avoiding even, that god makes -precisely- this case in his subjective appraisal of what harm befalls us and for what.  

How much patience do you think your god has for that, and you?  Perhaps we should turn to romans or peter for the answer?  It seems as though you'd rather we take the Apostle Steve's word for things, no matter how badly he bungles the whole bit.

And clearly god's patience isn't infinite if it created a hell to send those it has grown impatient with. So many contradictions from this god

He's supposed to "patiently" end the world any day now.  Seems to me that armageddon has a -slightly- shorter timetable than "infinity".  

Steve here is so focused on being "right" that he's willing to shit on his own fairy tales.  I think it just chafes his nuts to have been bound up so effectively by his own comments. What was it again, that cometh before the fall?

(July 12, 2017 at 3:02 pm)Khemikal Wrote: He's supposed to "patiently" end the world any day now.  Seems to me that armageddon has a -slightly- shorter timetable than "infinity".  

Steve here is so focused on being "right" that he's willing to shit on his own fairy tales.  I think it just chafes his nuts to have been bound up so effectively by his own comments.   What was it again, that cometh before the fall?

What was it again, that cometh before the fall?

The summer? No...that's not it. It's on the tip of my tongue...

(July 12, 2017 at 12:52 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 12, 2017 at 12:10 pm)mordant Wrote: Then why is this suddenly not a problem in heaven? Why, in heaven, will you not be "happy puppets following a predefined path"?
Not at all. People could still choose to do good, where there'd be no intervention needed.

You don't seem to believe that your god is truly all powerful, all knowing, and all good. Because if he's all those things he could have done, or could do, any of the following:

1) Construct humans that are capable of following his ruleset
2) Construct a ruleset that humans are capable of following
3) Have at least a puny human standard of rule enforcement that focuses on rehabilitation and reconciliation and restoration to a productive member of the kingdom of god, rather than on punishment, up to and including infinite punishment for finite transgressions.
4) Insure that, as is supposedly his desire, none should perish, but all should come to repentance. In other words, universal reconciliation.

All of this and more is possible for a tri-omni god, without breaking the slightest sweat. All of this and more can be done while still satisfying the requirements of his righteousness, since god can make any arbitrary set of laws and definitions he wants. Indeed, it could all be done without violating your sacred and indispensable free will that somehow no longer matters to you in heaven.

Of course, the notion that god will be sullied by contact with this thing-in-itself called "sin" is a separate debate, I'm just allowing it here for the sake of argument.

On what basis do you say we lose free will in heaven?

Omnipotence does not mean can do anything. It means can do anything logically possible to do. 

1. You would have to show that a world is actually possible (not just logically possible) where everyone has free will yet never chooses wrong. It is no longer a matter of logically possible, because you have now made it contingent upon a variable that God, by definition, does not control.
2. The "ruleset" is not arbitrary or could have been some other way. It is based in the nature of God (which has always been the same). Part of that nature is also holiness and justice kicks in when confronted with a moral failure. These attributes must be satisfied in order for the relationship to be repaired.
3. Failure to repair that relationship mean separation from God. The whole plan of redemption is all about rehabilitation and reconciliation. 
4. God provided a FREE method of repair, but cannot force us to take it (free will and all).

This has gotten a bit long and complicated, so I'd like to ask for some clarification. SteveII, are you saying that god is an objective moral standard? If so, do you mean that everything he does is good and everything he doesn't do is not good? Or is it everything he says to do is good and everything he says not to do is bad. Basically, how do we know what is good and what is bad in your opinion? I'd like to join in the discussion but I'm getting a little lost in the long posts lol!

(July 12, 2017 at 2:47 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote:

(July 12, 2017 at 2:27 pm)SteveII Wrote: 1. I've demonstrated the if objective morality does exist, it must exist in the nature of God or fall on one of the two horns of euthyphro's dilemma.

2. 'Infinite' does not have anything to do with ability.  

in·fi·nite
ˈinfənət
adjective
limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.

God cannot violate his nature (for one thing, since his nature is perfect, violating it would be an imperfection). He also cannot do anything that is logically impossible. You are right, we have been given free will so we are not 'bound'. However that is the standard we will be measured against--our boundary for morality. 

3. You are missing the very important part that has been front an center in all my recent posts. It is God's always existing, unchanging, superlative nature that is the source of morality--not his actions. Please note the difference--it is important.

4. So...most people are just stupid. You must be fun at parties.

5. Infinite is an adjective. In this context, it modifies an attribute of God. There are many many many things about God that are not infinite. His patience for one.

1. I've demonstrated the if objective morality does exist, it must exist in the nature of God or fall on one of the two horns of euthyphro's dilemma.

You've demonstrated you believe it but not that it is necessarily required of a god.

2. 'Infinite' does not have anything to do with ability. 

Either god's abilities are unlimited (it is all-powerful and/or all-knowing) or they aren't. It can't be both. That is a paradox 

3. You are missing the very important part that has been front an center in all my recent posts. It is God's always existing, unchanging, superlative nature that is the source of morality--not his actions. Please note the difference--it is important.

You've also claimed that these objective morals exist independent of your god and that your god didn't create them. yet more contradiction.

4. So...most people are just stupid. You must be fun at parties.

I didn't say most people are stupid as a blanket generalization. Don't straw man me in such a blatantly dishonest way. Some people are stupid and many people are stupid about at least something over the course of their life. But yes, I do think most people who believe in objective morality in the way you describe are being stupid about it. I don't know of a nicer way to say that, so there you go. 

5. Infinite is an adjective. In this context, it modifies an attribute of God. There are many many many things about God that are not infinite. His patience for one.

Either your god is infinite, or it isn't. You keep describing it as being infinite in some sense, but then define limitations on its infiniteness. Your god concept seems extremely ill-defined. It sounds more like you grasping at straws to keep your god concept on a pedestal. Insecurity is a real bitch...

1. I don't know what your point is.

2. God's abilities are not unlimited. Never claimed they were. It seems you are. 

3. I never ever made that claim. Read my posts.

4. Got it. 

5. The only time I used the word infinite was clearly in the context of always existing . If you want to say omnipotent or omniscient, use those words. It is you who are trying to cobble together a definition based on a misunderstanding of the word infinite.

You're asking Steve to tell you what he's saying, Ink?  Every additional post he makes suggests, strongly, that the last person who understands what Steve is saying, is Steve.

(July 12, 2017 at 4:11 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 12, 2017 at 2:47 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote: 1. I've demonstrated the if objective morality does exist, it must exist in the nature of God or fall on one of the two horns of euthyphro's dilemma.

You've demonstrated you believe it but not that it is necessarily required of a god.

2. 'Infinite' does not have anything to do with ability. 

Either god's abilities are unlimited (it is all-powerful and/or all-knowing) or they aren't. It can't be both. That is a paradox 

3. You are missing the very important part that has been front an center in all my recent posts. It is God's always existing, unchanging, superlative nature that is the source of morality--not his actions. Please note the difference--it is important.

You've also claimed that these objective morals exist independent of your god and that your god didn't create them. yet more contradiction.

4. So...most people are just stupid. You must be fun at parties.

I didn't say most people are stupid as a blanket generalization. Don't straw man me in such a blatantly dishonest way. Some people are stupid and many people are stupid about at least something over the course of their life. But yes, I do think most people who believe in objective morality in the way you describe are being stupid about it. I don't know of a nicer way to say that, so there you go. 

5. Infinite is an adjective. In this context, it modifies an attribute of God. There are many many many things about God that are not infinite. His patience for one.

Either your god is infinite, or it isn't. You keep describing it as being infinite in some sense, but then define limitations on its infiniteness. Your god concept seems extremely ill-defined. It sounds more like you grasping at straws to keep your god concept on a pedestal. Insecurity is a real bitch...

1. I don't know what your point is.

2. God's abilities are not unlimited. Never claimed they were. It seems you are. 

3. I never ever made that claim. Read my posts.

4. Got it. 

5. The only time I used the word infinite was clearly in the context of always existing . If you want to say omnipotent or omniscient, use those words. It is you who are trying to cobble together a definition based on a misunderstanding of the word infinite.

1. I don't know what your point is.

Thought it was pretty clear. You've not demonstrated that the existence of a god requires morals to be objective.

2. God's abilities are not unlimited. Never claimed they were. 

So your god is not all-powerful or all-knowing? Those are claims made of your god, whether or not you specifically said them here or not is irrelevant.

It seems you are. 

Insults all you have?

3. I never ever made that claim. Read my posts.

I did and cited what you said and when. You should read your own posts it seems. In separate sentences and points, you've contradicted yourself. I suspect it is because you don't know how to properly use terms like "infinite." In fact...

5. The only time I used the word infinite was clearly in the context of always existing . If you want to say omnipotent or omniscient, use those words. It is you who are trying to cobble together a definition based on a misunderstanding of the word infinite.

This cements the fact that you don't know what the word "infinite" means. If you mean to say your god has always existed, the word you're looking for is "eternal."

---

(July 12, 2017 at 4:13 pm)Khemikal Wrote: You're asking Steve to tell you what he's saying, Ink?  Every additional post he makes suggests, strongly, that the last person who understands what Steve is saying, is Steve.

I highly doubt Steve understands what Steve is saying considering all of the contradictions.

(July 12, 2017 at 4:13 pm)Khemikal Wrote: You're asking Steve to tell you what he's saying, Ink?  Every additional post he makes suggests, strongly, that the last person who understands what Steve is saying, is Steve.

Hey it was worth a shot right?   He seems to be ignoring me though, so I guess I've been spared even more confusion.