God and Morality: Separate Issues

[Captain Scarlet]

Insults to my character have zero bearing on the merits of my argument.

Indeed just as questioning my ability to understand a rough sketch before you present one, has zero bearing. Nor the patronising tone of your responses.

At any rate, divine immanence is simply the creative and sustaining presence of a sovereign God actively unfolding his purpose for creation.

You are asserting the universe was created. Yet there appears to be no evidence for that assertion.

Therefore, morality being grounded in the very nature and will of God, his active immanence in creation, and human beings created as imago Dei are how goodness is "transmitted into the universe."

Which material part of the human body is created in the 'image of god'. If immaterial what is it and what evidence do you have for it? Is this quality only present in humans, or were other animals also created in the image of god?

Simply none of the four ways you listed correspond to meta-ethics as held by biblical Christianity, since all four treat goodness like an ontological property; whatever arguments you have heard a thousand times before, this does not seem to be one of them.

Indeed not, it normally goes unanswered. I have never had such a clear explanation of the christian view. I can at least thank you for that. Again the patronising tone adds nothing to this argument.

Only if you are correct, and you are not. (And since this is a separate issue from the one being discussed in this thread, I will not be pursuing it here. The issue being discussed here is complex enough as it is without tossing additional issues into it. Feel free to start a different thread on it.)

I was providing scriptural evidence that is at odds with the reasoning that leads you to conclude that your god is incapable of lying. Whilst you may want to box this off to argue the to$$ in a scriptural debate. Prima facie I have a case, you have not refuted it.

No, the existence of morality is not axiomatic in my case—which ought to be self-evident in the proposition "morality is grounded in the very nature and will of God"; i.e., morality (B) is accounted for by the existence of the triune God of Scripture (A). Think about it: if B is justified by A, then B is not axiomatic.

So what leads you to conclude that [objective] morality exists? Premise 2 of your argument rather hangs on this? How did you get to the xtian god, you reasoning is not:

1 if morality does not exist, god does not exist
2 morality exists
3 the ?christian? god exists

This does not follow and I struggle to see the culmulative case that leads you to that conclusion.

It is possible for thread titles to inaccurately express the subject of the thread, which provides good reason for paying more attention to the opening post than the title to apprehend what the thread is about. And the opening post of this thread made it rather clear that the subject is the arguments for meta-ethics that Christians continue making and why they fail. So I am not "narrowing" this debate; I am sticking to what the debate has always been about, primarily by exposing that all three options in the original post are not what Christians argue after all (but rather some unknown Catholic vidiot on YouTube) and showing what meta-ethics as held by biblical Christianity actually is (which either replaces the third option or constitutes a fourth option).

It may have been the reason for starting the debate, but the opening post never limited it to that. A lot (but not all) posts are discussions which can apply to an argument for any god being a source of morality and not just the xtian god. I therefore feel justified in asking you why the argument for the existence of the xtian god is more powerful than for any other god, or one we can freely invent.