Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[The Grand Nudger]

I wasn't going to answer because the way you discuss things with me is obnoxious. However, it seems like other are at least curious as to my answers.

The answers you give are obnoxious.....but at least we have another explanation of why, along with each answer you gave, that you don;t feel like actually answering any question put forward to you.  Not only are you incapable, you feel personally offended when people point this out.

1. My point is I don't think the term is appropriate to an omniscient being. Changing one's mind implies new information being added (whether factual, emotional, further reflection, etc.). That is simply does not apply under the definition of omniscient. 

Add it to the growing pile of tings your "ominpotent" god can't do, I guess, alongside moral agency.  I'm not sure why you think omniscience precludes a change of mind anyway.  

I know exactly what my kids are going to do if I give them cake before dinner..in that respect - I have full knowledge.  I still, sometimes, change my mind and give them cake.  

2. No, that is not what I said. I said God could have chosen otherwise. Not the same thing. It is possible that God could never have created the universe...yet he did.

Why do you think you're correcting me here?  Apparently we agree, that god could change his mind, except when he can't..which is whenever it's convenient to your non-answers - as we see above.  What's the problem?  God -could have- held the drowning hand, never sent that bear to kill those kids.., or executed the firstborn, or commanded those heebs to slaughter the natives, or built the ghostly filing cabinet of hell...yet he did.

3. Having a nature consisting of "perfect moral qualities" would prohibit God from doing evil. Since God's actions will illustrate these moral attributes, the actions would be in fact moral. That certainly does not fit the definition of amoral. 

Then it's "perfect moral qualities" that constrain gods action.  The good is not, thusly, defined by gods nature, gods nature -as- good is defined by those, whatever they are.  What are they, in your opinion, and upon what are they based?  

4. It's good because it's God's plan--stemming from his perfect moral qualities. 

-an arbitrary invocation of morality with the phrase "perfect moral qualities" attached for no apparent reason, all narrative evidence to the contrary..that explains nothing about it's goodness or why whatever those qualities might be -are- the "perfect moral qualities".  

5. Physical death itself is neither good nor bad morally speaking. 

Really, because it seems as though gods plan either includes or doesn;t include death.  Generally speaking..when a human beings plan includes the death of another person...we call that murder.  If death is not a moral matter...why is it the wage of "sin"? Why is rebirth in heaven the reward for faith through grace? Is this all just arbitrary, or is it amoral? I think we both know that theres a system of moral value judgements attached...but you'll be damned if you're going to let so much as a peep slip about that, after so much obvious bullshitting to the contrary.

6. a. It's better than the alternatives (annihilation or hell) 

What's bad about annihilation and hell?  What makes salvation better than either of those?  

   b. A relationship with God is better than no relationship with God (and all that comes with that).

Why?

You keep using these words, these value judgements...but it's clear that you're going out of your way not to mention what you and I both know is the basis for each judgement.  Are you incapable of open conversation, about gods...and morality?  Hows this going to look on your heavenly CV, good or bad...-and why in either case?