On Moral Authorities

[theologian]

Now, what is dangerous is not considering the whole truth. The whole truth considers that God is Goodness Himself. But, your point here is not considering the whole truth, for one can only say that if for God, rape is moral, then it will be moral for people. Hence, it is not that everything that dogmatic that is dangerous. What is dangerous is your reasoning which proclaimed a contradiction that God Whom is Infinitely Good shall be the source of evil.

The same can be said regarding the conclusions that lead to atheism. In science, one cannot found God. Hence there is no God, so as they reason. But, is it indeed the case, or this is a case of not considering the whole truth? It seems that it is the latter. For, the scope of science are all those which are verifiable and all that which are quantifiable. But, not all reality are verifiable and quantifiable. Take for example the hidden premise of reasoning "since in science, there is no God, therefore it is indeed that there is no God". The hidden premise of that is that everything that is real must have a scientific evidence. But, that hidden premise itself doesn't have a scientific evidence, for it is a philosophical claim! Therefore, the hidden premise is self-defeating ,and therefore the hidden premise is false, and so the reasoning that "there is no God, because in science, there is no God  and only those which have scientific evidence are real" is a false reasoning. That's how dangerous then to reason from an incomplete premise. Hence, the soundness of the Metaphysics of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, which reason from the perspective of being, for what is common to all are being. So, what is not only dogmatic, but also dangerous here is the scientism of the atheists.

How can rape be evil if God says it is good? That's not a contradiction. It's good, and not evil, because God says so. Unless there is some way of deciding what is good/evil external to God, then "good" and "evil" are just arbitrary labels he gives things. If there is in fact a way of determing it external to God, then his word is not required.

Atheism has nothing to do with science. Science does not say "There is no God". You're drawing up a system of strawmen.

Are you telling me you need God to tell you what is right and wrong? I consider what is best for human and animal wellbeing, and then use reason. I don't need God to think for me.

So which is it? Is something good because God says it is good, or is God just really good at spotting what is good? Can you choose one and stick to it?

But, does God say rape is good? To the contrary, God says love your neighbor.

Now, what's wrong basing morality from God Whom is the Perfect Being? Or, it is just that atheism are biased against Him? Any other reason aside from being biased? For, if morality is based from God's will, then it will just be arbitrary according to you, as if God is like human whose will may be arbitrary.

If you will not consider God in your morality, then your morality is subjective. If your morality is subjective, then you don't have the right to be protected based from your subjective opinion, as that is equal to imposing one's opinion to others. Hence, if you are used as a fish bait, you cannot appeal to your subjective morality to be saved from being used. That is just your opinion, if God will not be considered.