My views on objective morality

[LadyForCamus]

Okay, forgive me for being stupid, probably annoyingly so.  I'm going to post a definition here; I am NOT being snarky.  I just want to you to help me figure out what I am not getting about this:

"Special pleading - is a logical fallacy asking for an exception to a rule to be applied to a specific case, without proper justification of why that case deserves an exemption. Usually this is because in order for their argument to work, they need to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency."  (From RationalWiki)

So, the exception to the rule being: watching a rape and not intervening is always morally wrong, except for when God does it.

Are you saying that by god's very nature, his "unknown reasons" are always a proper justification for exemption?  In other words, are you saying this logical fallacy can never be applied to issues involving God, or just in this case of objective morality?  

Thanks for your patience, not trying to be difficult.  I'm just trying to understand where in my line thinking I'm going off the rails here.

No worries. My skin isn't particularly thick, but it's almost impossible to annoy me while being polite and sincere.

The question is whether an exception for God is properly justified. In the case of arguments that posit God as a solution to infinite regression, the fallacy of special pleading is being committed. It is asserted that everything must have a cause, that this would mean an infinite regression of cause and effect, that an infinite regression is impossible so there must be a First Cause, and the First Cause is God. That an infinite regression is impossible is assumed, and God not needing a cause is asserted only to provide a solution to the assumption without establishing that even if a First Cause is necessary, that it must be a conscious being. Special pleading isn't the only flaw in the argument.

For the problem of evil (and let me state outright that the theodic version of God is rife with its own problems), we are bringing in an entity that is, or very nearly is, omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. If you accept the definition for the sake of argument, it necessarily follows that there must be an overriding reason to allow evil, or such a being wouldn't allow it. You can argue, I'm pretty sure successfully, that our state of affairs is inconsistent with a being that literally can do anything, literally knows everything, and would never allow any evil it could prevent. And believers usually dial one or more of their version of God's attributes down to account for this. But it's not special pleading to claim that a being so far beyond mortal limitations that sets all the rules can't be judged by mortal standards.

Does the God of theodicy exist? No. It's a big awkward pile of Omni-attributes that are not only in contradiction to the observed world but to each other (particularly if you claim God has free will, which is a nearly universal claim among theists) that is clearly the end result of generations of a 'my God is better than your God' contest. But if it did exist, would everything it does be good and right by definition? Yes. Would any perceived injustice or malice on its part be due to our not having all the information that it has? Also yes.

Of course my certainty doesn't mean I'm necessarily right. It's just what I think.

But...isn't that saying, "it's not a logical fallacy because it's logical within the framework of the internally illogical definition of God that is being used"? Lol. [emoji13]. My head hurts...