(July 4, 2013 at 3:20 pm)max-greece Wrote:(July 4, 2013 at 3:16 pm)Inigo Wrote: You didn't. I didn't. Just present it.
"If God's morality (enforcement if you prefer) can change with time then you lose all ability to judge another's morality. If it can change with time it can change with each and every individual all the time. The man that goes out and murders prostitutes can argue that is what his morality told him to do - and you can't prove he didn't get that from God."
(July 4, 2013 at 3:18 pm)Inigo Wrote: You seem incapable of properly reading what someone says. I asked you if you have REASON to do as she wants. That is not the ssame as asking you if you are MOTIVATED to do as she wants.
I have REASON to eat less fat. That does not mean I am MOTIVATED to do so.
Crikey. Now, answer the question re the thought experiment or bugger off.
Moving the goalposts I see. You have argued for an afterlife as a consequence of your morality:
" First, what I am arguing is that there would need to be an afterlife for moral instructions to exist. That's a conditional. "
Which is the point I was addressing.
Your thought experiment is of no relevance.
Having a reason to do something is not the same as being motivated to do it. You don't bother addressing my actual position. My position is NOT that a god is needed in order for us to be motivated to behave morally. You would like that to be my position. You seem congenitally incapable of accepting that it isn't. But it is not my position.
Now, as you are not interested in giving an answer to the thought experiment I have to conclude that you are not in the least interested in the viability of my actual position and thus not in the least interested in what morality may actually be.
Have a nice day.