Animal Slavery

[John V]

Indeed. From his point of view, he may be perfectly moral.

OK.

From our point of view, he is neither moral nor immoral. He's just a thing. A thing to be opposed. God is not good. His commands are not moral.

What's with the our? Speak for yourself.

When you say he's not good, are you saying he's neutral? I ask because if you mean he's evil, that seems to contradict your statement that he's neither moral nor immoral. Same with your statement that his commands are not moral - do you mean that they're amoral or immoral? If immoral, how do you conclude that a being which gives immoral commands is neither moral nor immoral?

You've admitted the argument can and is made in science. What you debate is how good an argument it is. It need not be a good argument to deflate the opposing notion that no argument can be made.

Technically true I suppose, and so this argument works against people making such an absolute claim, but it's very weak absent such a claim.