Do gods also have empathy?
Do you know any we can ask?
Also, the definition of empathy and reason is completely independent of H. sapiens.
How can the thought processes of humans be independent of humans? You are violating the law of non-contradiction.
My definitions are not anthropocentric, contrary to your claims.
You just literally put forward an anthropocentric fallacy and yet you say this.
They are focused on moral agents, no matter what species they are.
How do you know morality is even real?
It wouldn't revolve around any creature. It would revolve around omni-benevolent agents.
Which, you cannot do using a definition that includes empathy, which you can only ascertain from the human experience.
We are asking why God allows evil to exist in the world. The Bible does apply.
In a theology dispute, yes, but we didn't get that far. First, you have to show that the existence of sentient-specific evil is something that would contradict the concept of omni-benevolence; however, you cannot do this without defining omni-benevolence to include a concern for senetient-specific moral evil. So, you are essentially guilty of the same logical fallacy Anselm has in his Ontological Argument. You presume the definition includes what you are trying to prove, making your argument a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If you like, I can go prove the existence of FSMs the same way.
I find it interesting that a christian doesn't want the Bible brought into a discussion about God.
I have written extensively on the existence of evil and the Scriptures on my blog. However, they are not relevant to this discussion because you presume there is a problem with this evil, so we would first have to come to some firm conclusion about whether the evil is problematic.
I argued that it is immoral because it is immoral.
Wow, you sound like a Red State Republican like that. "Gay marriage is wrong cuz its wrong, God bless 'Murica!" Problem is, that's not a real argument.
If you can't figure out why it is immoral, then you need to see a therapist.
I think you might benefit from actually taking some more course in philosophy, you would realize that you might actually understand that your definition of morality is by necessity anthropocentric and it is coloring your whole understanding of the dispute.
If you have to excuse the needless killing of children in order for God to be moral, then you really have no argument.
Actually, if you have to resort to, "'Bortions wrong, you like 'bortion then yer just a no good babeh killer" sort of argument, only
then there is not an argument. I mean, seriously now, your argument is, "If you don't ascribe to my definition of morality, you're immoral!" That's horrid logic!
Through empathy and reason.
These things are essentially defined by the human experience and not understood outside of them, let's be honest.
I already disproved that. Morality applies to all moral agents, independent of their species.
How did you disprove that when you cannot substantiate that morality is even real (and not something that is invented in our minds) and that your way of defining morality is ultimately derived from value judgments made by...people...
My view is centered around empathy...
...truth, justice, love, and the American way--can't argue with that, or I would hate empathy, truth, justice, and 'Murica, we should love this land.
...which is the ability to sense pain in other moral agents.
Does existence revolve around the "moral agents" that you know of?
It is the least egocentric view possible.
If it's all about
your view of morality, and
your view of the orientation of the universe, it couldn't be more egocentric.
The problem is that you don't want to because you know where logic and reason leads.
Not really, I just think that your assertions are really baseless.
Sorry, but I am not arguing against your strawman.
Not a straw man, you just committed the same sins in your reply.
