What makes you an infallible authority on the subject?
When did I claim infallibility?
Is it honest behaviour to use an argument to support your case that you don't believe is true?
Well, though I believe such a view is better than it being bacterialcentric, if your morality is anthropocentric, how do you know that is an accurate gauge to judge God morally?
Because the consequences to people are objective. It doesn't matter if a god exists, or if a god doesn't exist.
Furthermore, if morality means anything, then god must be held to the same moral code that we are.
The difference between god and us, is that god is defined as being an example of perfect morality while we are not. Therefore, god should be held to a higher standard (one of absolute perfection).
If we have an example of your god doing something, or ordering something that's clearly not moral, then your god can not exist. If we have an example of your god permitting something immoral to occur that he could prevent, then he can not exist.
A creator god defined as amoral could exist, but not a morally perfect one. The world as we see it contradicts that possibility.
This is not an answer to the point I was making. I believe, if my memory serves me right, I was responding to your assertion most people are essentially morally good. Clearly, that is wrong, as all people, if every secret thing was known about them, would be considered morally bad.
I completely disagree, I think most people would still be considered good people even if you knew all their secrets. I believe I'm a good person, and I know all my secrets.
I don't know of anyone that is perfect, but again, that's irrelevant.
What's your justification for claiming that all people are morally bad?
Now being morally bad does not make one intellectually incapable of understanding what perfect morality is. But, being human does. We're just not smart enough, we don't know where it all leads.
If we're not smart enough, then how can you claim we're all morally bad? This is a double edged sword... If we aren't smart enough to claim we're good, you can't be smart enough to claim we're bad as well. That's because under the premise of your argument we don't have a good enough understanding of the concepts.
Nonetheless, being that all people are morally repugnant, I would say that there is no suffering that we do not deserve as a just consequence for our actions, thoughts, and etc.
And teachings like that are why I view your religion as morally repugnant. It completely dehumanizes everyone and everything, and teaches you to hate yourself.
I can't think of a more disgusting thing to teach people. That act of dehumanizing people is directly responsible for the vast majority of religious atrocities in this world.
Being that you probably would not be comfortable talking about the worst things you have ever done or thought about, I can't really talk about this subject on a personal level with you.
Actually, I don't really have much to hide. I'm fine talking about anything.
I would just say that though fear of retaliation or consequences does not always weigh into the decision process at least consciously, subconciously it has to be quite profound being that we all think of some pretty screwed up stuff and never act upon it.
Thinking about something and being willing to act upon something are two very different things. Having the thought of killing someone simply pop into your head does not mean you are immoral. The desire to act on that thought, and then putting an effort into seeing it through is what makes you immoral.
The finite cannot understand infinite perfection. We can understand the notion, but not the entirety of the concept.
I don't see how you can justify that, infinite perfection is a simple concept.
Any deviation from perfection means something is not perfect. That's all there is to it. It is very easy to identify a thing that is not infinitely perfect, if it's ever made a mistake or misstep, it is not perfect. Any being that is claimed to be morally perfect, but then turns around and orders a genocide is not a morally perfect being.
The irony is, it's impossible to identify something that is infinitely perfect, as we have no way of knowing if it'll get something wrong in the future. It may have never made an immoral decision up to now, but we don't know if it'll turn around and order a genocide tomorrow.
First, I am a misologist so I honestly do not think I can actually demonstrate to you the absolute truth about anything.
What an odd position to take.... why would you do that?
However, when it pertains to the Christian faith, I don't think there is anything anyone can say or do to convince anyone.
Then how were you convinced?
Jesus Himself said that there are those that do not believe because they cannot "hear" what He says. No man can be a Christian apart from a miracle from God that gives them the ability to "hear" real truth.
So your salvation is dependent upon god miracling you into heaven essentially?
So what about those people he decides to not bestow his miracle of hearing to? Do they wind up in hell?
If you came from mud, your consciousness is an illusion created by an ultimately arbitrary process of neurons firing off that is completely devoid of meaning.
Actually, no.... it's not an illusion, nor arbitrary. Consciousness exists as is whether a god exists or not.
You need to seriously realize if your focal point of morality is anthropocentric, this in of itself is arbitrary which is why I reject the argument from evil.
I said that morality is anthropocentric, however its grounding is based on objective consequences of actions. Those are not arbitrary at all.