(July 12, 2017 at 1:12 pm)TheBeardedDude Wrote:(July 10, 2017 at 8:44 pm)SteveII Wrote: 1. That's completely wrong. If God exists, then by definition, his nature is the only objective source of morals. All questions then have an explanatory ultimate. Without it, all you have is subjective morality. No one made any 'might makes right' argument.
2. A point of clarification (I was not clear in previous posts). God is bound by his nature. We are bound by God's commands. They are not the same thing.
3. None of your choices are correct. God could not create a set of moral objective standards. They would not be objective. The first horn of the Euthyphro dilemma. Lastly, moral values have not evolved--then they would have been subjective and again, you would be stuck with the first horn of the dilemma. If you are going to lay out the options for the opposing view, you should understand it.
Why do you think that nearly everyone believes there is a such thing as objective moral truths yet can't really articulate where they come from?
Infinite is clearly modifying nature in that sentence. His nature had no beginning.
By definition, something that is infinite most certainly could be constrained. Infinite is a measure of duration, not ability.
Isn't well being just a scientific measurement? That is decidedly a non-moral measurement and use of the word good and not a matter of moral value. Seems to be you are just redefining the word good in non-moral terms. With the redefinition, you cannot ask the question "is the pursuit of human well-being good?" because you would really be saying "is the pursuit of human well-being the pursuit of human well-being?".
Secondly, such a foundation of morality does nothing for the what ought to be question, What, if any, are our obligations? Science can tell us how we are but it does not tell us what it wrong with how we are. It cannot tell us that we have a moral obligation to take actions that are conducive to the pursuit of human well-being.
1. That's completely wrong. If God exists, then by definition, his nature is the only objective source of morals. <- this argument is this argument -> 'might makes right' argument.
You've not demonstrated that objective morality must exist if a god exists.
2. A point of clarification (I was not clear in previous posts). God is bound by his nature. We are bound by God's commands. They are not the same thing.
Then your god is not infinite if it is bounded by anything. And we aren't bound by god's commands since we are able to make our own decisions and choices.
3. None of your choices are correct. God could not create a set of moral objective standards.
There are things that exist that your god does not control and/or did not create? Then your god is not all-powerful nor all-knowing. If it could not create a set of objective moral standards then it is also not all-powerful or all-knowing. Your god is losing power very quickly from the way you keep describing it.
Why do you think that nearly everyone believes there is a such thing as objective moral truths yet can't really articulate where they come from?
Because people are generally stupid. Believing in objective morality but being unable to show that objective morals exist, suggests to me that they don't exist despite the desperate attempt people make to special plead them into existence (which is especially interesting if in their special pleading they end up defining their god into obscurity, as you've done). [4]
Infinite is clearly modifying nature in that sentence. His nature had no beginning.
By definition, something that is infinite most certainly could be constrained. Infinite is a measure of duration, not ability.
If your god is infinite in any way, then it is not bounded or constrained. You don't know what infinite means and you're making your argument look like even more BS than it is as a result. [5]
1. I've demonstrated the if objective morality does exist, it must exist in the nature of God or fall on one of the two horns of euthyphro's dilemma.
2. 'Infinite' does not have anything to do with ability.
in·fi·nite
ˈinfənət
adjective
limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.
God cannot violate his nature (for one thing, since his nature is perfect, violating it would be an imperfection). He also cannot do anything that is logically impossible. You are right, we have been given free will so we are not 'bound'. However that is the standard we will be measured against--our boundary for morality.
3. You are missing the very important part that has been front an center in all my recent posts. It is God's always existing, unchanging, superlative nature that is the source of morality--not his actions. Please note the difference--it is important.
4. So...most people are just stupid. You must be fun at parties.
5. Infinite is an adjective. In this context, it modifies an attribute of God. There are many many many things about God that are not infinite. His patience for one.
