What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Again, IWP nails it. Here's a theistic premise arguing from power to moral objectivity.

If an omniscient and omnipotent god exists and will reward or condemn us for obeying or disobeying its commands, then there are moral facts, and morality is objective.

I'd find it hard to come up with a more morally degenerate claim.

[iambiguous]

Cobblers: "A load of old cobblers" and variants such as "what a load of cobblers" or just "cobblers!" is British slang for "what nonsense" that is derived from the Cockney rhyming slang for "balls" of "cobbler's awls". Wikipedia

Again, my conceptions are rooted in the arguments I made above in my signature links.

And if in fact an omniscient and omnipotent God does exist and can in fact "for all practical purposes" send my soul to Heaven or Hell on Judgment Day, sure, given free will, I can choose to disobey Him and end up damned.

And some might do that. "Nobody -- not even God -- can tell me what to do or not do!"

Well, I'm not one of them. Demonstrate the existence of the Christian God to me and I'm born again.

It's easy enough to think, "fuck God and His judgment day!" when you are not, say, all that close to the abyss yourself. But once oblivion is just around the corner...?

Notice that your response in no way justifies view this deity as determining moral facts. I'm sure we can all have sympathy for wanting to avoid eternal damnation. But that's a practical decision. You justify your view that there would be objective moral facts by saying you would want to avoid the abyss.

Huh?

God and religion exist "for all practical purposes" in order to provide mere mortals with moral Commandments. Moral Commandments on this side of the grave that, if one embodies them, their souls "for all practical purposes" become immortal and are at one with salvation for all the rest of eternity.

What is Peter saying, that, given the Second Coming, if Jesus Christ Himself just touched down and confirmed beyond all doubt that the Christian God really is the only One True Path to immortality and salvation, he would still scoff and refuse to obey Him?

Would you? Would you confront Him, challenge Him, turn your back on Him?

And your reaction to him, where you assume he would say no to God, is that he might not be so brave when the actual choice came up. Again, not moral. You think considerations of self-protection would make him go along with this deity. Which is precisely what he is saying. It's a power issue and not a moral issue.

Back to Dylan...

God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe said, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God said, "No, "
Abe said, "What?"
God said, "You can do what you want Abe, but the next time you see me comin', you better run"
Abe said, "Where do you want this killin' done?"
God said, "Out on Highway 61"

After all, in regard to morality, how does Peter stack up against an all-knowing entity?

You didn't rebut his point, you confirmed it.

Maybe. But you have certainly not convinced me of that.

Also you seem to be preventing yourself as fixed, despite telling us that your values have changed radically over time in a number of shifts. Perhaps tomorrow, when put in this scenario, you'd react differently. The news that there has been a Christian deity all along could well affect you in ways you cannot predict, especially given the amount of doubt about drawing both moral and factual conclusions you seem to have. How could you possibly know how you the biggest piece of information you could possibly get would affect you?

Again, what am I missing here? It's one thing to flounder in regard to objective morality given all of the many, many, many alleged one true paths there are to choose from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies

But to actually have it confirmed that there really is but one true path to immortality and salvation...? An omniscient and omnipotent entity that has the capacity to judge you...to save you or to damn you?

How does the human condition get more "fixed" than that?

Or you can, somehow, know, and you've exaggerated the uncertainty you've long presented as entailed by dasein.

Note to IC:

You explain it to him. In the interim, demonstrate to me that in fact the Christian God does exist and we'll both go after henry quirk to save his soul.

[iambiguous]

Again, IWP nails it. Here's a theistic premise arguing from power to moral objectivity.

If an omniscient and omnipotent god exists and will reward or condemn us for obeying or disobeying its commands, then there are moral facts, and morality is objective.

I'd find it hard to come up with a more morally degenerate claim.

Fine. You can explain all of that to the Devil as you writhe in agony for all the rest of eternity.

Unless, of course, I'm misunderstanding your point here.

[Iwannaplato]

Huh?

God and religion exist "for all practical purposes" in order to provide mere mortals with moral Commandments. Moral Commandments on this side of the grave that, if one embodies them, their souls "for all practical purposes" become immortal and are at one with salvation for all the rest of eternity.

I was responding to what you wrote. You wrote that the consequences - going to hell, etc. - made your choice obvious. You made no case that if there was an all powerful being and the being wants us to do things, they must be objectively moral. You went directly to consequences in a practical sense.

What is Peter saying, that, given the Second Coming, if Jesus Christ Himself just touched down and confirmed beyond all doubt that the Christian God really is the only One True Path to immortality and salvation, he would still scoff and refuse to obey Him?

He may have said that. I'm not sure. But he is also pointing out that you did not present an argument that going along with God was moral, but rather you presented it as practical. Further you made no argument that just because an all powerful being says DO X, that makes it moral.

I was pretty clear about that too.

Would you? Would you confront Him, challenge Him, turn your back on Him?

That's doesn't matter. I didn't say your choice was wrong. I said it had nothing to do with morals. But some deity tells me to kill my wife he can go fuck himself.

And your reaction to him, where you assume he would say no to God, is that he might not be so brave when the actual choice came up. Again, not moral. You think considerations of self-protection would make him go along with this deity. Which is precisely what he is saying. It's a power issue and not a moral issue.

Back to Dylan...

God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe said, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God said, "No, "
Abe said, "What?"
God said, "You can do what you want Abe, but the next time you see me comin', you better run"
Abe said, "Where do you want this killin' done?"
God said, "Out on Highway 61"

After all, in regard to morality, how does Peter stack up against an all-knowing entity?

We don't know. I wouldn't kill my son for God. Do you have children? If yes, then I assume you would kill them if God asked you as he did Abraham. If not, then how would you know what you would do?
But all that's not at all the point.

You started talking about Hell. You talked about consequences.

Now you've shifted your focus in this post without admitting anything.

In your previous post you clearly talked about practical consequences. You weren't gonna risk hell miss out on Heaven.

YOu didn't say anything about how that deity must necessarily be moral. Now you've mentioned all-knowing. OK. You're actually starting to
make
a
different argument
and
one
that might, be an argument that such a deity must necessarily be moral.

But,
you
didn't before.

I won't hold my breathe waiting for you to acknowledge that I correctly responded to your previous post.

You didn't rebut his point, you confirmed it.

Maybe. But you have certainly not convinced me of that.

Show me where in that post you argued that such a deity must be moral. Show me anything in there that demonstrated that you were making a moral choice to go along with God.

I however can point out where you were thinking of THE CONSEQUENCES.

I know you think everyone else bears the onus cause....hm, can't think of a good reason.

But any normal person would have said: no, you interpreted my post incorrectly. Here's why and argue based on quotes from that post. But you don't do that.

Other normal people would have said something at least minimally conceding something: 'OK, I can see what you are responding to, Iwannaplato, I did focus on the consequences of doing or not doing what such a deity demands. I can see why you responded that way.' I could have been more clear. Or, 'frankly my sense of self-preservation made me think of the consequences first. You noticed that. But I also think that such a deity must be moral. Here's my argument now....' But no, none of those options did you take.

All you do is try to get me to argue the point more. Of course you're not convinced, because in practice in a dialogue with someone who disagrees with you, no one has ever been correct about what you said or did in a post. It must be wonderful for you.

Also you seem to be preventing yourself as fixed, despite telling us that your values have changed radically over time in a number of shifts. Perhaps tomorrow, when put in this scenario, you'd react differently. The news that there has been a Christian deity all along could well affect you in ways you cannot predict, especially given the amount of doubt about drawing both moral and factual conclusions you seem to have. How could you possibly know how you the biggest piece of information you could possibly get would affect you?

Again, what am I missing here? It's one thing to flounder in regard to objective morality given all of the many, many, many alleged one true paths there are to choose from:

I'm saying you are sure what you would do if you found out there was a Christian deity. But how could you, of all people, know how you would react, given how many thousands of times you've said that you have changed core beliefs. And finding out there was, after all, a Christian deity, would be one of the most powerful experiences of your life. But, no that would only change you the way you can predict. You don't seem so daseiny when it's convenient for you not to think that way. You know exactly how you would react to such a lifechanging event. Other people seem to think they know also. Of that you are skeptical.

Note to IC:
You explain it to him. In the interim, demonstrate to me that in fact the Christian God does exist and we'll both go after henry quirk to save his soul.

Oh, you could send him a pm. He might not read long posts between us, however much he must be obsessed with you.

[iambiguous]

Huh?

God and religion exist "for all practical purposes" in order to provide mere mortals with moral Commandments. Moral Commandments on this side of the grave that, if one embodies them, their souls "for all practical purposes" become immortal and are at one with salvation for all the rest of eternity.

I was responding to what you wrote. You wrote that the consequences - going to hell, etc. - made your choice obvious. You made no case that if there was an all powerful being and the being wants us to do things, they must be objectively moral. You went directly to consequences in a practical sense.

So, what are you suggesting, that an all-knowing and all powerful Creator of the human condition itself would be foolish to suggest that He is the font for objective morality?

What is Peter saying, that, given the Second Coming, if Jesus Christ Himself just touched down and confirmed beyond all doubt that the Christian God really is the only One True Path to immortality and salvation, he would still scoff and refuse to obey Him?

He may have said that. I'm not sure. But he is also pointing out that you did not present an argument that going along with God was moral, but rather you presented it as practical. Further you made no argument that just because an all powerful being says DO X, that makes it moral.

I was pretty clear about that too.

Clearly, we are discussing something here that is entirely hypothetical. Only an actual demonstrable proof that one or another omniscient and omnipotent God does in fact exist will allow us to [perhaps] pin down this critical relationship.

If you and Peter don't believe the existence of a God, the God is synonymous with objective morality, fine, you can take that up with Him.

Whereas, for me, if this God does exist and there is a Judgment Day and He does have the capacity to send me up or down, again, I'm born again.

Would you? Would you confront Him, challenge Him, turn your back on Him?

That's doesn't matter. I didn't say your choice was wrong. I said it had nothing to do with morals. But some deity tells me to kill my wife he can go fuck himself.

Come on, I suspect you react as you do because "here and now" you don't believe this God does exist. It's easy enough to tell God to go fuck Himself from that frame of mind. But eyeball to eyeball with Jesus Christ Himself at the Second Coming?

And your reaction to him, where you assume he would say no to God, is that he might not be so brave when the actual choice came up. Again, not moral. You think considerations of self-protection would make him go along with this deity. Which is precisely what he is saying. It's a power issue and not a moral issue.

Back to Dylan...

God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe said, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God said, "No, "
Abe said, "What?"
God said, "You can do what you want Abe, but the next time you see me comin', you better run"
Abe said, "Where do you want this killin' done?"
God said, "Out on Highway 61"

After all, in regard to morality, how does Peter stack up against an all-knowing entity?

We don't know. I wouldn't kill my son for God.

Again, that's easy enough to say when there is no God hovering above you with the power to send you to Hell for all of eternity.

Besides, as most religionists here will point out, God works in mysterious ways. You may not grasp how killing your wife or your son factors into His Divine Plan, but that's the point: He does and you don't.

But that's not really the point.

You started talking about Hell.

Now you've shifted your focus a little without admitting anything.

Yes, Hell. Hell because if God does exist and you refuse to obey His moral Commandments, He has the capacity to send you there. Only "here and now" what does that mean to you? It's all just unfolding here in worlds of words. But if there was a Hell? If you were made aware of this? How blustering would you be then?

You didn't rebut his point, you confirmed it.

Maybe. But you have certainly not convinced me of that.

Show me where in that post you argued that such a deity must be moral. Show me anything in there that demonstrated that you were making a moral choice to go along with God.

Over and again, I can't "show" anyone anything about God. All I can do is to note how those who do believe in one or another God deem Him to be the one true path to moral Commandments on this side of the grave and to immortality and salvation on the other side of it.

Note to others:

Here we go again. He commences an exchange with me in which the focus is more or less substantive. But he then gets more and more worked up about me and reconfigures into Stooge mode:

I know you think everyone else bears the onus cause you're so fucking special.

But any normal person would have said: no, you interpreted my post incorrectly. Here's why and argue based on quotes from that post. But you don't do that.

Other normal people would have said something at least minimally conceding something: 'OK, I can see what you are responding to, IwannaPlato, I did focus on the consequences of doing or not doing what such a deity demand

But because you lack any sense of either honor or self-awareness or both, all you do is try to get me to argue the point more.

Because you function like a fucking narcissist here. You don't ever have to demonstrate shit, but everyone else does.

Fortunately pattern is noticed by a wide range of people.

Now, I have my own suspicions regarding this transformation. I suspect a part of him recognizes the possibility that I might succeed in bringing him down into that "fractured and fragmented" moral abyss that "I" am in. One way or another he is still convinced that morality can be grasped...deontologically? That, in other words, the "serious philosophers" among us here can pin this down. If only "theoretically" up in the philosophical clouds?

Also you seem to be preventing yourself as fixed, despite telling us that your values have changed radically over time in a number of shifts. Perhaps tomorrow, when put in this scenario, you'd react differently. The news that there has been a Christian deity all along could well affect you in ways you cannot predict, especially given the amount of doubt about drawing both moral and factual conclusions you seem to have. How could you possibly know how you the biggest piece of information you could possibly get would affect you?

Again, what am I missing here? It's one thing to flounder in regard to objective morality given all of the many, many, many alleged one true paths there are to choose from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies

But to actually have it confirmed that there really is but one true path to immortality and salvation...? An omniscient and omnipotent entity that has the capacity to judge you...to save you or to damn you?

How does the human condition get more "fixed" than that?

I'm saying you are sure what you would do if you found out there was a Christian deity. But how could you, of all people, know how you would react, given how many thousands of times you've said that you have changed core beliefs.

Again [from my frame of mind] unbelievable.

What changes this time is that the actual God Himself does exist and He does have the capacity to send my soul packing for a more scorching clime.

And since He is all-knowing and I am nowhere near to being so, why wouldn't I believe that an omniscient entity is certainly far more likely than we mere mortals are in grasping what either is or is not moral?

And finding out there was, after all, a Christian deity, would be one of the most powerful experiences of your life. But, no that would only change you the way you can predict. You don't seem so daseiny when it's convenient for you not to think that way.

Right, me an infinitesimally and utterly insignificant mere mortal "speck" of existence yammering on and on about dasein, and God, the creator of the human condition itself, judging me.

I predict I'm born again.

Also, I predict that both you and Peter might well be too.

[Sculptor]

Clearly, we are discussing something here that is entirely hypothetical. Only an actual demonstrable proof that one or another omniscient and omnipotent God does in fact exist will allow us to [perhaps] pin down this critical relationship.

Not really.
You can treat the idea of God like a black box, basing the intpretation of the contents of that unknowable box but proposing the inputs and by seeing what the world is actually like see if the definition fits.
So the inputs would be suggestions like:

What if god is onipotent, omniscient, omnibelnevolent, the font and judge of morally objective rules.
Simply test these ideas against our knowledge of the world as it is and see if the definition fits.

You can do this formally if you like,. the conclusions would be modified if the evidence suggests other wise.
Such a matrix has been effectively emplyed by Epicurus* But we can all try our own.

SO let us say that our version of God has to include the guy who decides what are the moral rules. Now, we have to accept that different societies, and at different times in history different rules have applied. There is a set of conclusion about the power or intent of god that would have to be true given the state of affairs as it is.


* For referencem though I think you probably know this.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
― Epicurus

[Peter Holmes]

Again, IWP nails it. Here's a theistic premise arguing from power to moral objectivity.

If an omniscient and omnipotent god exists and will reward or condemn us for obeying or disobeying its commands, then there are moral facts, and morality is objective.

I'd find it hard to come up with a more morally degenerate claim.

Fine. You can explain all of that to the Devil as you writhe in agony for all the rest of eternity.

Unless, of course, I'm misunderstanding your point here.

You are, completely. And puzzlingly. Can you see what's wrong with the following valid argument?

P1 If agent A says X is morally wrong, then [it's a fact that/it's true that] X is morally wrong.
P2 Agent A says X is morally wrong.
C Therefore. [it's a fact that/it's true that] X is morally wrong.

Suppose agent A is the omni god who rewards obedience and punishes disobedience. And suppose X is homosexuality. Now, where's the objective morality in any part of this nasty story?

[iambiguous]

Clearly, we are discussing something here that is entirely hypothetical. Only an actual demonstrable proof that one or another omniscient and omnipotent God does in fact exist will allow us to [perhaps] pin down this critical relationship.

If you and Peter don't believe the existence of a God, the God is synonymous with objective morality, fine, you can take that up with Him.

Whereas, for me, if this God does exist and there is a Judgment Day and He does have the capacity to send me up or down, again, I'm born again.

Not really.
You can treat the idea of God like a black box, basing the intpretation of the contents of that unknowable box but proposing the inputs and by seeing what the world is actually like see if the definition fits.

No, the assumption being made here [by me] is that, in fact, a God, the God does exist. That one becomes aware of this. That He is omniscient and omnipotent. That He works in "mysterious ways" beyond the capacity of mere mortals to grasp. That He has the capacity to send "sinners" to Hell.

So the inputs would be suggestions like:

What if god is onipotent, omniscient, omnibelnevolent, the font and judge of morally objective rules.
Simply test these ideas against our knowledge of the world as it is and see if the definition fits.

Again, our knowledge "as infinitesimally and utterly insignificant mere mortal 'specks' of existence" compared to His own omniscient grasp of...everything?

As for all this...

You can do this formally if you like,. the conclusions would be modified if the evidence suggests other wise.
Such a matrix has been effectively emplyed by Epicurus* But we can all try our own.

SO let us say that our version of God has to include the guy who decides what are the moral rules. Now, we have to accept that different societies, and at different times in history different rules have applied. There is a set of conclusion about the power or intent of god that would have to be true given the state of affairs as it is.


* For referencem though I think you probably know this.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
― Epicurus

That's where we are now in a world where none of the true believers here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...are actually able to demonstrate the existence of their own God.

But what if one is demonstrated to exist?

What if it's the Christian God and the Second Coming is the real deal?

Others here might scoff at that and dare Jesus Christ to leave them behind. Well, I'm not one of them.

[FlashDangerpants]

Huh?

God and religion exist "for all practical purposes" in order to provide mere mortals with moral Commandments. Moral Commandments on this side of the grave that, if one embodies them, their souls "for all practical purposes" become immortal and are at one with salvation for all the rest of eternity.

I was responding to what you wrote. You wrote that the consequences - going to hell, etc. - made your choice obvious. You made no case that if there was an all powerful being and the being wants us to do things, they must be objectively moral. You went directly to consequences in a practical sense.

So, what are you suggesting, that an all-knowing and all powerful Creator of the human condition itself would be foolish to suggest that He is the font for objective morality?

You need to decide what your actual argument is. What you offered them was nothing but a might-makes-right proposition and you are getting toasted for that. But that sentence right there suggests you actually have some other argument in mind.

Perhaps you are thinking of the teleological arg that IC is bandying about, which takes as assumed that God the Creator had some design in mind for the universe and that therefore by some transitory property free-willed humans have some sort of correct direction to point in. I wouldn't bother with that either if I were you, it still has the issue of deriving values from other values instead of facts. Pete has already argued that being God's opinion on a matter doesn't make an opinioon into a fact, and he's quite correct. IC's argument is stupid, so there's no valid reason to borrow it.

If you want to hold a winning position, you would need to go with moral properties, which is the the thing that IC flubbed last week. IT's an easy enough argument to make. You just have to say that the God person who made the universe embued it with moral properties that are true (whether that occurs naturally or via supervenience makes no difference for this limited context so you are entitled to neither know nor care which is the case here) but did not grant his Creation the tools with which to detect such things directly.... yadda yadda yadda ... fill in the obvious gaps with the obvious stuff... and voila... therefore if this type of God exists and His relationship with the universe he created is such and such ... then He would know what moral the facts are but our only way of knowing them would be via divine messenger.

That's why in Ch1 of Mackie he just dismisses the question of God stuff in much the same way you do. If there is a God but we aren't really aware of his powers or motives, then nominally there is a way round all the arguments we can craft until those questions are resolved. You can definitely reach any conclusion you want by just imagininig the right sort of God and inviting that dream to choose the right sort of outcomes for your purposes. Anyone who doesn't get that needs to report to Willy B for his intro to underdetermination class.

[iambiguous]

Again, IWP nails it. Here's a theistic premise arguing from power to moral objectivity.

If an omniscient and omnipotent god exists and will reward or condemn us for obeying or disobeying its commands, then there are moral facts, and morality is objective.

I'd find it hard to come up with a more morally degenerate claim.

Fine. You can explain all of that to the Devil as you writhe in agony for all the rest of eternity.

Unless, of course, I'm misunderstanding your point here.

You are, completely. And puzzlingly. Can you see what's wrong with the following valid argument?

P1 If agent A says X is morally wrong, then [it's a fact that/it's true that] X is morally wrong.
P2 Agent A says X is morally wrong.
C Therefore. [it's a fact that/it's true that] X is morally wrong.

Suppose agent A is the omni god who rewards obedience and punishes disobedience. And suppose X is homosexuality. Now, where's the objective morality in any part of this nasty story?

Clearly, all of this depends on how one presumes an actual extant God would be relevant to the human condition. It's not a syllogism one is dealing with in regard to one's fate on the other side of the grave. It's not Agent A saying X, Y or Z. It's an actual God, an actual Judgment Day and an actual Heaven or Hell.

Though, sure, if this is all only "theoretical" and our concern is in pinning down God in "arguments", we can make this all about definitions and deductions instead.

[iambiguous]

I was responding to what you wrote. You wrote that the consequences - going to hell, etc. - made your choice obvious. You made no case that if there was an all powerful being and the being wants us to do things, they must be objectively moral. You went directly to consequences in a practical sense.

So, what are you suggesting, that an all-knowing and all powerful Creator of the human condition itself would be foolish to suggest that He is the font for objective morality?

You need to decide what your actual argument is. What you offered them was nothing but a might-makes-right proposition and you are getting toasted for that. But that sentence right there suggests you actually have some other argument in mind.

Perhaps you are thinking of the teleological arg that IC is bandying about, which takes as assumed that God the Creator had some design in mind for the universe and that therefore by some transitory property free-willed humans have some sort of correct direction to point in. I wouldn't bother with that either if I were you, it still has the issue of deriving values from other values instead of facts. Pete has already argued that being God's opinion on a matter doesn't make an opinioon into a fact, and he's quite correct. IC's argument is stupid, so there's no valid reason to borrow it.

If you want to hold a winning position, you would need to go with moral properties, which is the the thing that IC flubbed last week. IT's an easy enough argument to make. You just have to say that the God person who made the universe embued it with moral properties that are true (whether that occurs naturally or via supervenience makes no difference for this limited context so you are entitled to neither know nor care which is the case here) but did not grant his Creation the tools with which to detect such things directly.... yadda yadda yadda ... fill in the obvious gaps with the obvious stuff... and voila... therefore if this type of God exists and His relationship with the universe he created is such and such ... then He would know what moral the facts are but our only way of knowing them would be via divine messenger.

That's why in Ch1 of Mackie he just dismisses the question of God stuff in much the same way you do. If there is a God but we aren't really aware of his powers or motives, then nominally there is a way round all the arguments we can craft until those questions are resolved. You can definitely reach any conclusion you want by just imagininig the right sort of God and inviting that dream to choose the right sort of outcomes for your purposes. Anyone who doesn't get that needs to report to Willy B for his intro to underdetermination class.

Well, let's just say that, from my frame of mind, there is an enormous gap between posts of this sort regarding God and morality in an "ethical theory" philosophy forum, and indisputable evidence that, say, the Christian God does in fact exist. That He is omniscient and omnipotent, and that He does have the capacity to send "infidels" to Hell.

Some may call this a "might makes right" moral philosophy but others will insist instead that their own [ultimately] "loving just and merciful" God is a reflection of a "right makes might" moral philosophy.

As for myself, if an omniscient Christian God does in fact exist and embraces moral and political value judgments are odds with my own rooted existentially in dasein moral and political prejudices, then I will make the necessary adjustments in order to attain immortality and salvation.

I guess I'm just not as "brave" as others here would be in defying Him.

[FlashDangerpants]

Ok, I was wrong, Pete read you right first time and there isn't any extra depth to you.

Quite why Dasein boy doesn't say of God's moral opinions that those are just the product of His Dasein, rooted in his own Godly blah blah I cannot say. It seems like your cookie cutter philosophical musings become inoperative for no particular reason at this point.

[iambiguous]

Ok, I was wrong, Pete read you right first time and there isn't any extra depth to you.

Quite why Dasein boy doesn't say of God's moral opinions that those are just the product of His Dasein, rooted in his own Godly blah blah I cannot say. It seems like your cookie cutter philosophical musings become inoperative for no particular reason at this point.

Please, the last thing I need here is another Stooge!

[Iwannaplato]

You need to decide what your actual argument is. What you offered them was nothing but a might-makes-right proposition and you are getting toasted for that. But that sentence right there suggests you actually have some other argument in mind.

Which I also pointed out to him.

I don't think that not yet articulated argument holds, and certainly not his appeal to incredulity aimed at PH for not necessarily going along with such a deity. But at least he could actually make that argument instead of arguing consequences (well, asserting consequences and assuming the matter concluded) and being outraged when this is pointed out.

The only hope is for him to say that at the same time he is convinced there is a Christian deity he is convinced that a deity of that type is morally correct by some magical argument we haven't heard yet. Some fallible human can't simply say: Well, I deduced his perfect moral status from the knowledge that this deity exists.

[Sculptor]

Clearly, we are discussing something here that is entirely hypothetical. Only an actual demonstrable proof that one or another omniscient and omnipotent God does in fact exist will allow us to [perhaps] pin down this critical relationship.

If you and Peter don't believe the existence of a God, the God is synonymous with objective morality, fine, you can take that up with Him.

Whereas, for me, if this God does exist and there is a Judgment Day and He does have the capacity to send me up or down, again, I'm born again.

Not really.
You can treat the idea of God like a black box, basing the intpretation of the contents of that unknowable box but proposing the inputs and by seeing what the world is actually like see if the definition fits.

No, the assumption being made here [by me] is that, in fact, a God, the God does exist. That one becomes aware of this. That He is omniscient and omnipotent. That He works in "mysterious ways" beyond the capacity of mere mortals to grasp. That He has the capacity to send "sinners" to Hell.

Yes, but that is all completely bollocks.
My point is that if you run with that assumption what does the evidence of life as we know it tell about how well that fits, from the book of Nature, as it were.
"Works in mysterious " ways is a joke - that just gives you wiggle room fro your ignorance.

Here is how the black box idea works.
If your god is omniscient then he has to have known from the begining of time who is a sinner and who is a saint, and in creation of those people he knows that by design. (i'm not going to fast for you here am I?)
When he sends me to Hell, he already knew he was going to do that before I was born,
We may securely infer from this that salvation is a myth, because god has already chosen his saved.
This is the conclusion of the theologian John Calvin.
Have you any logical objections to this?

So the inputs would be suggestions like:

What if god is onipotent, omniscient, omnibelnevolent, the font and judge of morally objective rules.
Simply test these ideas against our knowledge of the world as it is and see if the definition fits.

Again, our knowledge "as infinitesimally and utterly insignificant mere mortal 'specks' of existence" compared to His own omniscient grasp of...everything?

What is God for then?
If you are so insignificant then why are you wasting your time on thinking about an unknowable? Maybe you think that this pretense of ignorance, you will be saved?

As for all this...

You can do this formally if you like,. the conclusions would be modified if the evidence suggests other wise.
Such a matrix has been effectively emplyed by Epicurus* But we can all try our own.

SO let us say that our version of God has to include the guy who decides what are the moral rules. Now, we have to accept that different societies, and at different times in history different rules have applied. There is a set of conclusion about the power or intent of god that would have to be true given the state of affairs as it is.


* For referencem though I think you probably know this.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
― Epicurus

That's where we are now in a world where none of the true believers here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...are actually able to demonstrate the existence of their own God.

But what if one is demonstrated to exist?

Go on then. Give it a try!

What if it's the Christian God and the Second Coming is the real deal?

Playing Pascal's wager?? LOL. You must think god is really stupid.

Others here might scoff at that and dare Jesus Christ to leave them behind. Well, I'm not one of them.

WhoTF is Jesus?