[Serious] What God's justification for eternal torment?

[runewell]

Regarding: So far his morality is "Might makes right".

Well, it's an easy and convenient argument to make, and one I agree with. I don't want to limit my replies to that narrow rebuttal, but it may become necessary. When I was asked about holding God to some sort of standard, I immediately recused myself from that idea - I don't hold God to any standard, and wouldn't want to worship one who could be.

So you admit your god is an immoral being lol 

The definition of immoral is: not conforming to accepted standards of morality.

In that case, it that case you could probably call God immoral - he does not conform to anyone's accepted standards.

---

This doesn't follow.  Rebelling against god is a bigger crime and thus deserving of a bigger punishment.  And it is certainly much worse than murder.

No it does . Rebelling against god is not a bigger crime or even a crime thus it does not deserve a bigger punishment . And murder is wat worst .

No it doesn't.  Rebelling against god is a bigger crime and thus deserving of a bigger punishment.  And it is certainly much worse than murder.

(we seem to be at an impasse)

[Angrboda]

So you admit your god is an immoral being lol 

The definition of immoral is: not conforming to accepted standards of morality.

That's one definition of immoral, but even that implicitly recognizes that such standards are intended to reflect objective moral truths.

[The Architect Of Fate]

The definition of immoral is: not conforming to accepted standards of morality.

Yup  which you god is 

In that case, it that case you could probably call God immoral - he does not conform to anyone's accepted standards.

Yup

---

No it doesn't.  Rebelling against god is a bigger crime and thus deserving of a bigger punishment.  And it is certainly much worse than murder.

(we seem to be at an impasse)

Nope their is nothing criminal about rebelling against your god let alone it warrantinging a bigger punishment to an actual crime and even then that's not deserving of death 

(no impasse you simply no basis to say this)

[no one]

What is the punishment for rebelling against Vishnu, or Jupiter, or Odin?

[runewell]

The definition of immoral is: not conforming to accepted standards of morality.

That's one definition of immoral, but even that implicitly recognizes that such standards are intended to reflect objective moral truths.

The definition explicitly fails to use the word truth and instead uses the words "accepted standards".

What is accepted changes over the time and very well may not be truth at any point.

---

The definition of immoral is: not conforming to accepted standards of morality.

Yup  which you god is 

In that case, it that case you could probably call God immoral - he does not conform to anyone's accepted standards.

Yup

---

No it doesn't.  Rebelling against god is a bigger crime and thus deserving of a bigger punishment.  And it is certainly much worse than murder.

(we seem to be at an impasse)

Nope their is nothing criminal about rebelling against your god let alone it warrantinging a bigger punishment to an actual crime and even then that's not deserving of death 

(no impasse you simply no basis to say this)

Rebelling against God is criminal and warrants a bigger punishment than murder (no impasse you simply no basis to say this) [\tea_party]

[The Architect Of Fate]

Rebelling against God is criminal and warrants a bigger punishment than murder (no impasse you simply no basis to say this) [\tea_party]

Nope Rebelling against God is not criminal and does not warrants a bigger punishment than murder 

(no impasse you simply no basis to say this)

[Angrboda]

That's one definition of immoral, but even that implicitly recognizes that such standards are intended to reflect objective moral truths.

The definition explicitly fails to use the word truth and instead uses the words "accepted standards".

What is accepted changes over the time and very well may not be truth at any point.

You're equivocating. If what is moral is defined by accepted standards, then the class of true moral propositions ("truth") is defined by those accepted standards. You're trying to appeal to a different definition of moral truth, an objective one, after having adopted this first definition. That's an error. Either what is morally true is what accords with accepted standards, or it is not; you can't have it both ways.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, there we go, there's no point in arguing the morality of a thing to a person who rejects morality in favor of might. At any rate, some people have moral objections to this or to that, and for a person who does accept the fundamental validity of moral concerns, and has a moral objection, that can be a serious issue. Issues that no amount of claiming that a god is strong can or will speak to. I don't think that you'll find much success or agreement this way.

Thing is, I don't think that you're being genuine. You keep talking about desert, about warrant, about criminality. Warrant is meaningless if might is the metric - the accepted standard. Criminality is meaningless if might is the metric - the accepted standard. A strong criminal doing unwarranted things, is both good™, and analog for god, under this standard - that you purport to accept. It doesn't matter whether rebellion grants warrant, because warrant is irrelevant to might. If rebellion didn't grant warrant and your god still wanted to kill people - as we've discussed, also good™.

These are the consequences of an arbitrary system further confused by invocations of might - but, as before, it's at least a clear position.... if you can contain yourself to it. I disagree with it. I think that moral statements purport to report facts, and insomuch as they get those facts true, the moral statements would be true. So, if the facts establish that god is immoral, and you seem to think that they do (even though we disagree about the nature of morality and even though we disagree about the existence of god, we find agreement here), then gods immorality would be a fact of it's existence - and as such it would be unacceptable...to my standards, for worship. It's existence, it's power...? Both irrelevant.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Well, there we go, there's no point in arguing the morality of a thing to a person who rejects orality in favor of might.  At any rate, some people have moral objections to this or to that, and for a person who does accept the fundamental validity of moral concerns, that can be a serious issue.

Which alone justifies a rejection of that person and their ideology and robs of any right to speak on morality . They can be put on the shelf .

---

Do i also point out the fact that something can be a accepted standard because it is the truth .

[runewell]

The definition explicitly fails to use the word truth and instead uses the words "accepted standards".

What is accepted changes over the time and very well may not be truth at any point.

You're equivocating.  If what is moral is defined by accepted standards, then the class of true moral propositions ("truth") is defined by those accepted standards.  You're trying to appeal to a different definition of moral truth, an objective one, after having adopted this first definition.  That's an error.  Either what is morally true is what accords with accepted standards, or it is not; you can't have it both ways.

Do you advocate the holocaust?  That was accepted standard in Germany for a while.  If you don't, then it does not follow that the truth is a subset of accepted standards.