(July 12, 2017 at 6:26 pm)Inkfeather132 Wrote:

(July 12, 2017 at 5:07 pm)SteveII Wrote: 1. Yes.
2. That does not logically follow. God has rights, authority, responsibility, knowledge, and perfect moral clarity that we do not have.

Alright then, now we have that god will not tell us to do something immoral, correct?
My next question then is, will he ever change his morality? For instance, will he command people to do something (thereby making it moral) and then later command them to do the opposite (thereby making the opposite moral and the original immoral)?

And I thought of another one, if god does something and gives his reason for doing it, can I do the same thing if I have the same reason he did?

Note all the assertions in Steves argument if only he could answer in a way that does not collapse back into the dilemma .

What rights? What grants him those rights? why should anyone care about his rights ?

Same goes for authority

Having a responsibility does make it moral

Having knowledge does not make the one moral  

perfect moral clarity begs the question and even having clarity does not make one moral

And none of this matters because it's arbitrarily assigned

(July 12, 2017 at 6:26 pm)Inkfeather132 Wrote:

(July 12, 2017 at 5:07 pm)SteveII Wrote: 1. Yes.
2. That does not logically follow. God has rights, authority, responsibility, knowledge, and perfect moral clarity that we do not have.

Alright then, now we have that god will not tell us to do something immoral, correct?
My next question then is, will he ever change his morality? For instance, will he command people to do something (thereby making it moral) and then later command them to do the opposite (thereby making the opposite moral and the original immoral)?

And I thought of another one, if god does something and gives his reason for doing it, can I do the same thing if I have the same reason he did?

God could not tell us to do something immoral. Since his nature can't change, every command will be moral at the time of the command or for the intended duration of the command. 

You do not have the same rights, authority, responsibility, knowledge, and perfect moral clarity that God does, so...No.

---

(July 12, 2017 at 7:35 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

(July 12, 2017 at 6:26 pm)Inkfeather132 Wrote: Alright then, now we have that god will not tell us to do something immoral, correct?
My next question then is, will he ever change his morality? For instance, will he command people to do something (thereby making it moral) and then later command them to do the opposite (thereby making the opposite moral and the original immoral)?

And I thought of another one, if god does something and gives his reason for doing it, can I do the same thing if I have the same reason he did?

Note all the assertions in Steves argument if only he could answer in a way that does not collapse back into the dilemma .

What rights? What grants him those rights? why should anyone care about his rights ?

Same goes for authority

Having a responsibility does make it moral

Having knowledge does not make the one moral  

perfect moral clarity begs the question and even having clarity does not make one moral

And none of this matters because it's arbitrarily assigned

You didn't read back far enough. I posted this earlier:

The first horn "is something good because the gods will it" or
The second horn "do the gods will it because it is good?” but now 
The third option (that has no unwanted conclusion): it is not God's will that defines the good but his unchanging nature that governs his will and his commands to us. 

With a third option, there is no dilemma. 

Are God's eternal unchanging moral properties arbitrary? Could they have been any other way? Perhaps, perhaps not--I don't think that is clear. I don't think it matters however, because you need God's nature to be arbitrary not in the sense that if could have been different, but that it still can be different.

(July 12, 2017 at 7:39 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 12, 2017 at 6:26 pm)Inkfeather132 Wrote: Alright then, now we have that god will not tell us to do something immoral, correct?
My next question then is, will he ever change his morality? For instance, will he command people to do something (thereby making it moral) and then later command them to do the opposite (thereby making the opposite moral and the original immoral)?

And I thought of another one, if god does something and gives his reason for doing it, can I do the same thing if I have the same reason he did?

God could not tell us to do something immoral. Since his nature can't change, every command will be moral at the time of the command or for the intended duration of the command. 

You do not have the same rights, authority, responsibility, knowledge, and perfect moral clarity that God does, so...No.

---

For the duration? No, it has to be moral forever after the command otherwise there is a change. Once god commands something, it IS moral. Unless he can change his morality?

So there is a double standard going on. God can do it because he is god, and I can't do it because I'm not god.

Objective morality means that something being right or wrong is a natural fact. Rights, authority, responsibility, knowledge, perfect moral clarity and especially feelings have no bearing on objectivity so leave them out of this. If something is objectively right, then it is right no matter who does it. Same for wrong. So if god always does what is objectively right, then I can do whatever he does knowing that it is objectively right. So the question is: Does god always do what is objectively right?

---

(July 12, 2017 at 7:35 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

(July 12, 2017 at 6:26 pm)Inkfeather132 Wrote: Alright then, now we have that god will not tell us to do something immoral, correct?
My next question then is, will he ever change his morality? For instance, will he command people to do something (thereby making it moral) and then later command them to do the opposite (thereby making the opposite moral and the original immoral)?

And I thought of another one, if god does something and gives his reason for doing it, can I do the same thing if I have the same reason he did?

Note all the assertions in Steves argument if only he could answer in a way that does not collapse back into the dilemma .

What rights? What grants him those rights? why should anyone care about his rights ?

Same goes for authority

Having a responsibility does make it moral

Having knowledge does not make the one moral  

perfect moral clarity begs the question and even having clarity does not make one moral

And none of this matters because it's arbitrarily assigned

It's kind of the same question as "Who made god then?". You're absolutely right, it is all arbitrary. The whole argument seems to be that God is moral because God says he is moral. Which is the definition of subjective morality.

Creation cannot itself grant rights and authority to the creator some other justification is required

Wow.

40+ pages about the moral properties of the Tooth Fairy. What have I been missing out on?

(July 12, 2017 at 8:46 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Wow.

40+ pages about the moral properties of the Tooth Fairy.  What have I been missing out on?

Pretty much characteristics  pulled right out of theism ass .Then nailed up on the wall as a thing of honor

(July 12, 2017 at 7:28 pm)Astonished Wrote: *Applauds* Finally, someone realizes it's fruitless to argue with that dipfuck. When a person clearly does not understand their own intellectual failings, trying to educate them is hopeless.

It's not for -him-, Astonished.  Steve's been hopeless since his first post on the boards and has never faltered in his inability to grasp even the most basic subject he might choose to opine upon.  

It's for the lurkers..who may have read the same christer bookstore trash that Steve is trying, and failing, to crib from.

Well the stupid fucker clearly doesn't understand a damn thing about either side's position. He's resorted to the old 'Retreat and Repeat' tactic more times than fucking Wile E. Coyote. Only the Acme company that's fucking over Wile E. Coyote actually exists in his world, and well, we don't even need to point out what's going on with Steve's brain tumor hallucinations.

(July 12, 2017 at 8:34 pm)Inkfeather132 Wrote:

(July 12, 2017 at 7:39 pm)SteveII Wrote: God could not tell us to do something immoral. Since his nature can't change, every command will be moral at the time of the command or for the intended duration of the command. 

You do not have the same rights, authority, responsibility, knowledge, and perfect moral clarity that God does, so...No.

---

For the duration? No, it has to be moral forever after the command otherwise there is a change. Once god commands something, it IS moral. Unless he can change his morality?

So there is a double standard going on. God can do it because he is god, and I can't do it because I'm not god.

Objective morality means that something being right or wrong is a natural fact. Rights, authority, responsibility, knowledge, perfect moral clarity and especially feelings have no bearing on objectivity so leave them out of this. If something is objectively right, then it is right no matter who does it. Same for wrong. So if god always does what is objectively right, then I can do whatever he does knowing that it is objectively right. So the question is: Does god always do what is objectively right?

Certainly some commands are specific to a people, time, nation or objective. 

Double standard implies that you both have the same standing. You don't.

Objectivity requires that the standards not be influences by things that change (opinion, circumstance, etc.), The eternal nature of God is such a thing and so is clearly objective. Since our moral values and duties stem from the nature of God (via God's commands--because otherwise we would not be aware of them or how to apply them), they are objectively moral. 

Your leap from there being a set of objective values to you having the right to enforce them or deliver the consequences of breaking them is unwarranted. Our moral values and duties stem from the commands of God. An example is needed if you want to discuss this issue further--you must have one in mind.

(July 13, 2017 at 8:55 am)SteveII Wrote:

(July 12, 2017 at 8:34 pm)Inkfeather132 Wrote: For the duration? No, it has to be moral forever after the command otherwise there is a change. Once god commands something, it IS moral. Unless he can change his morality?

So there is a double standard going on. God can do it because he is god, and I can't do it because I'm not god.

Objective morality means that something being right or wrong is a natural fact. Rights, authority, responsibility, knowledge, perfect moral clarity and especially feelings have no bearing on objectivity so leave them out of this. If something is objectively right, then it is right no matter who does it. Same for wrong. So if god always does what is objectively right, then I can do whatever he does knowing that it is objectively right. So the question is: Does god always do what is objectively right?

Certainly some commands are specific to a people, time, nation or objective. 

In what way are such commands objective?  As in, why would it be "moral" for one band of raiders to go off a-viking in the Levant.....but not some other?  If they did it yesterday, or tomorrow? If they did it for sex slaves, or for soil?

Quote:Double standard implies that you both have the same standing. You don't.

An objective standard necessitates that there is no consideration of a subjects "standing".  That's the -entire- premise of an objective morality.  This comment, alone, represents a categorical failure to understand the subject matter.  Relative "standing" is the territory of subjective moralities, wherein something is variously right or wrong or both at once based not upon the object of discussion, the moral fact of a matter, but something about the subject in question - the purported moral agent.

Quote:Objectivity requires that the standards not be influences by things that change (opinion, circumstance, etc.), The eternal nature of God is such a thing and so is clearly objective. Since our moral values and duties stem from the nature of God (via God's commands--because otherwise we would not be aware of them or how to apply them), they are objectively moral. 

Just stop talking about objective standards of morality, you clearly have no idea what that term means, not fundamentally, and not in the specifics.  Again, -our- moral values and duties do not stem from the nature of -your- objectively evil god, whom..you insist, applies a double standard righteously due to his "standing" - a simpletons way of saying that gods might, makes god right.  It would be, frankly, impossible...to form an objective moral schema from any of the nonsense you've been peddling these many posts.

Quote:Your leap from there being a set of objective values to you having the right to enforce them or deliver the consequences of breaking them is unwarranted. Our moral values and duties stem from the commands of God. An example is needed if you want to discuss this issue further--you must have one in mind.

Are you here to discuss the articles of your faith in divine command, or objective morality?  Do you want to discuss any of the number of specific examples given..or just keep asking till judgement day as though the last 40 pages never were?

Sit down Steve, you're tired.  "God" moved on objective morality like a bitch....but couldn't get there....  

It's shit like this that leads people to conclude that there is no objective morality, because..to hear Some People™ describe it..it is not only -not- an objective morality, but based upon a work of petty fiction.  Useless, and less-than-wrong.