Mageth

Are you speaking on God's behalf here?

It should be clear that I was speaking on my own behalf. But somebody needs to speak on God's behalf; he doesn't exist, after all. If he does exist, I've sure never heard him speak on his own behalf. (And I note that you're more than willing to "speak on God's behalf here").

Isn't it possibe that God can make his existence known to you even if you choose to deny it?

No. I lack belief in God due to lack of evidence that supports the existence of that God. I don't deny that a god of which I [/i]have[/i] evidence exists. If there was solid evidence that god exists, then I'd believe he existed.

God is the one who "decides" what is/isn't possible, not you.

I thought your god supposedly gave us free will and a brain capable of thinking about these things so that we could come to conclusions for ourselves. Oh well, another misconception bites the dust.

The fact that you want to pretend that no god exists is really irrelevant to whether he exists.

Once again, I don't "pretend" that no god exists. Your saying I do is irrelevant. And I can just as easily say that you're pretending that God exists is irrelevant to whether he actually exists.

His existence is actual and real regardless what you say.

Then where's the evidence? Show me some.

I lack belief due to the complete lack of evidence for god's existence, remember? The only evidence you've so far provided is saying that he exists. Again, the sword cuts both ways; what you say is irrelevant in regards to his existence.

Keith

God doesn't (and can't) order anyone to do something that is morally wrong. What God can and does do, is place certain special legal/moral demands on particular people, or groups of people. The fact that God treats certain groups differently is God's right, and none of this makes God's moral standard less than perfectly objective. You are attempting to judge God by human standards, which will only confuse yourself. Keep in mind that:

1. You have absolutely no right to judge God.
2. You cannot discern or understand moral rightness/wrongness apart from God.
3. God has every right to judge you--and he definitely will.

Pyrrho

If that is true, then you have absolutely no right to say that God is good, because that is judging God. It is a favorable judgment, but it is no less a judgment than judging God to be evil.

Mageth

Originally posted by Keith
God doesn't (and can't) order anyone to do something that is morally wrong.

Then from whence came the commandment? Either God ordered the Israelites to do something morally wrong, the order didn't come from God, or you were wrong when you said it was morally wrong to kill your child for cursing you. Make up your mind already.

What God can and does do, is place certain special legal/moral demands on particular people, or groups of people. The fact that God treats certain groups differently is God's right, and none of this makes God's moral standard less than perfectly objective.

So is killing your child for cursing you objectively wrong or not?

What you're describing here is not "objective" in any sense of the word. If "God treats certain groups differently is God's right" is indeed a fact, and if there's no external moral guide that God is constrained by, then the moral laws handed down by God are arbitrary and subjective. Period.

And you have yet to produce this "perfectly objective" moral standard that your God supposedly has. Without it, all your arguments are pretty empty.

You are attempting to judge God by human standards, which will only confuse yourself.

What's confusing is the claim that god has an objective moral standard, yet allegedly subjectively applies different morals to different groups of people. What's confusing is trying to match your claim of god's "perfectly objective moral standard" and what they may be (though you haven't defined them yet) with what the bible says, particularly the OT, and with your claim that God's moral standards may be different for different people.

Keep in mind that:

1. You have absolutely no right to judge God.

Nor you Allah or Vishnu.

BTW, you judged God earlier, when you said killing your child for cursing you is immoral. That directly contradicts one of God's alleged OT commandments - whether it was a special rule for a particular people is irrelevant.

2. You cannot discern or understand moral rightness/wrongness apart from God.

Nor you apart from Allah or Vishnu.

BTW, that (like pretty much everything else you've said) is a totally unsupported assertion. I do a good job of discerning and understanding moral rightness/wrongness without the old guy - my parents raised me right. I'd put my morals up against those of most Christians I know.

It's the bible that muddies the waters for people as far as moral discernement - kill the rebellious child, menstruating women are unclean, eating shellfish is WRONG, kill homosexuals, slavery is OK as long as you treat your slaves right and don't beat them too much, take over a city by killing all its inhabitants (or on occasion taking the young women as slaves and forced brides), and so on.

If the OT laws are based on god's "perfectly objective moral standard", then the world is much better off without the bloodthirsty bastard. (yes, I can call him that - he didn't have a father, after all).

3. God has every right to judge you--and he definitely will.

And Allah will judge you. I don't think Vishnu gives a s**t.

And that's your opinion, BTW. Saying it's so doesn't make it so.

Keith

False! Why is murder morally wrong? Is it just wrong according to you, or is murder morally wrong regardless of any person's own subjective feelings about it?

Keith

His inner, SUBJECTIVE whim or choice? Did I say that? Why does God need some external moral restraint? God is only "limited" by his nature. God can only be what he is by his nature.

Keith

Yes, I see a difference, and I will point out that it was BECAUSE of religious/philosophical differences of opinion that the terrorists committed themselves to attacking us. You are treading on dangerous ground. Does a "social norm" equal moral rightness? This is what I thought you implied here.

What if most of the world believed in a god, and also believed that heretics and infidels should be burned? Which culture's "social norms" are most morally correct, Saudi Arabia's or America's? How do you know?

Mageth

What's false? That I have no problem with subjectivity, and that it causes no problem to my worldview? Baloney.

Murder's wrong according to our society's moral standards and laws. Murder's morally wrong according to me, based upon basic survival needs - if I don't want to be murdered, it's best that I don't murder others, that I encourage others to not murder and teach my kids that murder is wrong, and that I participate in a society that considers murder wrong and punishes murderers. If a person doesn't think murder's morally wrong and actually goes about killing people, chances are society's gonna catch up with them and punish them. Your chance (and indeed, all of our chances) of survival are enhanced by society's considering murder wrong.

That should be plain to see. Don't need god for that - simple survival is enough. Humans can agree that murder is wrong without resorting to god.

Heck, even chimpanzees, crocodilians, sharks, and lions don't go about murdering others of their own species wantonly - it's best for their group (or species) not to do that.

Mageth

No, I said it, obviously. But your definition of god implied it.

And you just reinforced my point. If god is limited only by his nature, and does not rely on an external moral restraint, then by definition god is amoral. Any moral dictates handed down to us by god are subjective and arbitrary.

Ronin

But...but, what if ~