There is solid philosophy on secular morality, sure. That doesn't change its flawed nature as we've established. Your refusal to address that simple point is revealing.

You seem to deny that John and I accept the human ethical sense. Yet it is what Christianity acknowledges and calls the God spot. That instinct which enables us to reason God.

So you admit your ignorance on the reasoning for God. You make an accusation from ignorance then.

Begin to think about how a god might be logically possible. Any thought you couldn't dismiss you have you keep as plausible. If you can discount any at any time, then you can discount them.

As I've said/related many times, and is commonly available, is that a creator who is the first cause is pure actuality. It cannot be impure: be preceded by anything, or it wouldn't be first cause. It couldn't resist actuality or creation wouldn't begin. What creates we call good, and what resists creation we call bad. It has to be all good or it would defeat itself and not exist. So we can safely assume that it is all good.

The human judge always makes judgement with limited knowledge. He can never know if he is right. That's how judgements are overturned. So a human judge is just to the best of his limited ability.
So a judges attempt at morality is always unknown. He tries to be moral to the best of his abilities. But he could be completely wrong. His judgements could be immoral.
Remember we're not blaming the poor judge for his flaws. We're making a judgement on the action. The same as you're judging God.

Yet God cannot be wrong in his judgements, which is the angle the bible takes, as that would be illogical. Contradictory to the basic understanding of God as we can simply deduce using logic. The bible is consistent on this. It has to be.

If you accept Jesus you don't have your slate wiped clean with men. Only God. To God you are acknowledging your bad stuff and claiming his sacrifice for you to wipe it out. Good actions are meaningless if you don't mean it. That's why they aren't a free pass to heaven. You need to address the problem, not just act like you do.

Frodo, your post is so disconnected with our exchange I'm not sure where to begin exactly or how to even make sense of it.

For example, "we" haven't "established" any flawed nature of secular morality. You can't "reason" any god, much less your own (even as a deist, I confess that my concepts of God are instinctive and not rational). We've been all over why honest mistakes are not matters of morality, a point I can't seem to communicate successfully to you. The Bible DOES say that Yahweh got some things wrong (specifically, in Genesis where he "repents" of creating humans just before the flood and then kind of repents after the flood where he promises never to do it again).

Hopefully, John V will do a better job when he picks up the banner again.

(June 17, 2013 at 10:23 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Frodo, your post is so disconnected with our exchange I'm not sure where to begin exactly or how to even make sense of it.

For example, "we" haven't "established" any flawed nature of secular morality. You can't "reason" any god, much less your own (even as a deist, I confess that my concepts of God are instinctive and not rational). We've been all over why honest mistakes are not matters of morality, a point I can't seem to communicate successfully to you. The Bible DOES say that Yahweh got some things wrong (specifically, in Genesis where he "repents" of creating humans just before the flood and then kind of repents after the flood where he promises never to do it again).

Hopefully, John V will do a better job when he picks up the banner again.

Say what? You're a deist would you mind telling me why you believe in God? I always thought you atheist je suis très intéressé

(June 17, 2013 at 12:14 pm)John V Wrote: You're not following my argument.

I haven't contested that god's omniscience precludes free will. That argument can be made in a number of ways, and is how this discussion usually goes. But I haven't done that. I'm granting you that omniscience precludes free will for this discussion.

My question is, who/what has a right not to suffer?

Does a character in a book have a right not to suffer? Sounds ridiculous, right? However, you appear to be using omniscience to reduce us to nothing more than characters in a very complex story.

Take the blood of one of those characters and wipe it on my face. Until you do that your talking point is absurd.

(June 17, 2013 at 12:14 pm)John V Wrote: My question is, who/what has a right not to suffer?

The history of our species indicates that suffering at the hands of nature and each other has been part and parcel to our continued survival; therefore, I would find it difficult to argue for a right not to suffer. That said, history also shows that our species continues to provide means to alleviate the suffering so there can be no claim that we must suffer. Insert Epicurean paradox here.

(June 17, 2013 at 1:28 pm)Rahul Wrote: Take the blood of one of those characters and wipe it on my face. Until you do that your talking point is absurd.

Who/what has a right not to suffer, and why? Until you answer this, your argument is a fail.

(June 17, 2013 at 1:50 pm)John V Wrote: Who/what has a right not to suffer, and why? Until you answer this, your argument is a fail.

Something that is alive has a right not to suffer. The entire human civilization has made rules in their respective nations relating to both us and non human animals around this concept.

Why would you think an imaginary character in a book is applicable to this conversation? Is it because you believe in a fictional god thing? It's just a natural mental leap for you? This is so retarded that I'm having difficulty realizing I'm really debating this with another human.

(June 17, 2013 at 2:06 pm)Rahul Wrote: Something that is alive has a right not to suffer. The entire human civilization has made rules in their respective nations relating to both us and non human animals around this concept.

Why would you think an imaginary character in a book is applicable to this conversation? Is it because you believe in a fictional god thing? It's just a natural mental leap for you? This is so retarded that I'm having difficulty realizing I'm really debating this with another human.

If our every thought and action was written by God, then we are not autonomous beings and have no rights.

(June 17, 2013 at 10:23 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Frodo, your post is so disconnected with our exchange I'm not sure where to begin exactly or how to even make sense of it.

For example, "we" haven't "established" any flawed nature of secular morality. You can't "reason" any god, much less your own (even as a deist, I confess that my concepts of God are instinctive and not rational). We've been all over why honest mistakes are not matters of morality, a point I can't seem to communicate successfully to you. The Bible DOES say that Yahweh got some things wrong (specifically, in Genesis where he "repents" of creating humans just before the flood and then kind of repents after the flood where he promises never to do it again).

I'm addressing your points directly but you don't get it. Yet again with the ad Homs.

You haven't attempted to challenge the flaws pointed out in secular morality. These points are irrefutable. You cannot of course.

You don't speak to me with your imaginary beliefs. My beliefs are entirely logically based. Must I really keep saying to you that there cannot be proof either way. This is what constitutes Christian belief through faith.

The bible DOESN'T say that God got things wrong. Your warped interpretation does. Please be accurate in your language.

Suffice to say, you have provided zero in the way if criticism of the Christian position on Divine morality. Indeed Christians don't recognise anything you've said to bear any relation to Christianity. This seems consistent with all I've read you say on the subject.

I know you don't want to confront it. But challenges to your suggestions are successful if you don't manage to refute anything.