How do you know God is good?

[Moral Orel]

You describe a non-free will situation but call it free will...you are having me on aren't you? GOD can't do logical inconsistencies. 2+2≠7. Water is wet and the results of a free will decision must be chosen, not created or it is not free will.

This is why we established that it is not a logical inconsistency for God to have free will and it be a 100% guarantee that He will always choose the Good. You keep bouncing back and forth between it being logical for one and illogical for another.

 

[Bradskii]

I think your willingness to gaslight folk who do believe this as unreasonable or worse is par for the atheist course who has run out of reasons for his morality except personal preference. If you have that right, why do I not?

Whats next? Believers are deluded, psychotic, should be restrained...I've heard all of these.

Hey, Ted...you have every right to hold to whatever beliefs you choose. I'm just confirming that which you believe. You've even nominated specific scripture as a back up to your comments and I've simply quoted it so we can all see what it says.

If anything has been misconstrued then you are entirely free to correct it. Otherwise, what you have said stands.

 

[TedT]

This is why we established that it is not a logical inconsistency for God to have free will and it be a 100% guarantee that He will always choose the Good.

...and you ignore my protestations that the guarantee is not found in our creation (or GOD's because HE was not created) but in our commitment to our decision to be morally good in accord with YHWH's nature as morally good.

You seem to think that there is some magical force keeping GOD and the holy angels from ever choosing sin and call that force a guarantee but it is not a force except as a personal decision to never sin or at least for some to never sin again because they have experienced the world that such a deviation into sin causes, the suffering and degradation of spirit...no one will ever choose to sin because they don't want to. Period. That is your guarantee!

In the same way I can guarantee in a worldly way, ie not perfectly, that you will not hold your hand in the flames until it is burned off nor will you even try because you have experienced small pain and can predict the outcome. Those in the heavenly experience have experienced the pain of evil much worse than burning flesh, and will avoid it at all costs.

As well, the meaning of the heavenly marriage is the complete and full fellowship of a true communion, the true unity of marriage in which every person in the marriage is in perfect emotional loving fellowship and telepathic communication with each of the others...nothing could drive anyone out from this experience.

And in case you want to argue the analogy instead of the reality, yes, there are situations where we might choose to burn on earth but in heaven with no more need for any suffering as all evil has been cleansed, if such a situation was possible, it is apparent that GOD will keep all such situations from ever developing. No more tears is a definition AND a promise...

 

[Moral Orel]

...and you ignore my protestations that the guarantee is not found in our creation (or GOD's because HE was not created) but in our commitment to our decision to be morally good in accord with YHWH's nature as morally good.

You seem to think that there is some magical force keeping GOD and the holy angels from ever choosing sin and call that force a guarantee but it is not a force except as a personal decision to never sin or at least for some to never sin again because they have experienced the world that such a deviation into sin causes, the suffering and degradation of spirit...no one will ever choose to sin because they don't want to. Period. That is your guarantee!

No, I'm not talking about anyone being forced. That's you assuming force is the only way to ensure no sin. So I keep pointing back at God and saying, "He's not forced. He has free will. He is guaranteed not to sin". But then you keep claiming that force is the only way to ensure beings don't sin. Which is it? Is God forced not to sin, or can we guarantee no sin without using force? You have to pick one.

 

[Neogaia777]

When people are first given freedom, they use that freedom for anarchy, etc, but in and with and given enough time, they eventually become wise, and learn not to sin anymore or any longer, and that freedom is no longer used to sin, or for creating chaos or anarchy or disharmony any longer, etc, but for the things opposite of those things, given enough time anyway, etc...

Which will take us back to a place, eventually, that was very much like the time when we were first given freedom, but instead, this time around, will choose not to sin, etc...

Now we are clearly not there yet, but hopefully we will be one day, etc...

God Bless!

 

[TedT]

But then you keep claiming that force is the only way to ensure beings don't sin.

This is getting ridiculous...I'm ending my involvement.

 

[Moral Orel]

This is getting ridiculous...I'm ending my involvement.

Okay.

 

[Amoranemix]

[39] The one thing Christians can't provide : evidence.

Not if you redefine 'evidence' like skeptics did 'design'.

Even then Christians can't provide evidence.

The lack of evidence presented in this thread supports the idea that God's goodness is not evidence based.

Yo must mean that the AWARENESS OF GOD'S GOODNESS IS NOT EVIDENCE BASED...[40] especially to sinners who cannot understand spiritual things because of our assessment by sinfulness and their love for sin...as most readily exlained int Rom 1.

[40] Indeed, I meant the claim or belief of God's goodness, or God's alleged goodness is not evidence based. It is definition based.
If Christians are right, then everyone is a sinner, but I suspect few people love sin. I don't.

Aha. So, according to you, free will makes the ability to choose evil inevitable, but not to the actual extent. Hence, free will cannot explain why there is so much ability to choose evil. Hence, the claim that a good god would not give is some many evil choices, remains unchallenged.

This non-sequitur is meaningless...the ability to make a free will choice is driven by what the person wants which is an open option with no coercion of any kind in the least to choose good or bad...so there is nothing inevitable about the choice to force evil, ie, it is only possible, not inevitable. A leap over the garden fence doesn't make that place a gate...

I have not presented a non-sequitir argument.
You have missed the point. I wasn't talking about the inevitability of evil, but about the inevitability of the choice of evil being avaible. My conclusion stands.

[30] What evidence can you present to support that claim ?

To be honest, I expected you would be able to present more evidence.

You committed a straw man fallacy, for no one is suggesting we waste time on that. Presumably you are assuming that an evil god must be an invention, while a good one must be real. However, no justification for such distinction has been provided.

I said it was a waste of our time...[41]
The justification for the difference between a benevolent GOD and an evil god has been well documented elsewhere and rejected, but...
rejecting a doctrine of faith does not prove the object of that faith cannot be real. The life of Christ is enough for many people to understand that GOD is good but hey, we know any and every doctrine can be disqualified endlessly...blah blah blah so to speak. We know how non-believers think - we were, for the most part, all non-believers at one time or another, why keep harping on things outside of your experience that we have experienced that gave us the impetus we need to believe?

[41] That is not what you said and if you had, it would have been a bald assertion, for you failed to support it.
Accepting a doctrine of faith does not prove the object of that faith can be real.
I suspect the typical non-believer prior to becoming a believer thinks much differently than the actual non-believer who debates religion on a forum.
I assume that the 'outside of my experience' you are referring to is 'evidence for God's benevolence'. Does it matter what my motives are for pointing out the lack of such evidence ?

TedT 156 to Moral Orel :
To be a true free will, it is an absolute necessity that every and any option pertinent to the choice must be available to be chosen...[31]
IF love is to be real, the ability to reject love must be available.
IF a real marriage is available, rejection of the marriage proposal must be available.[32]
IF holy righteousness is available to be chosen then totally corrupt eternal evil must be available to be chosen by the rejection of righteousness.[33]
This is why GOD allowed evil to be created by the free will of HIS creation - it was an absolute necessity for the others to be able to respond freely to HIS loving proposal of marriage.[34]
Amoranemix 165 :
[31] Are you going for the no true Sottsman fallacy ? Is it not true free will unless it meets the criteria that suit your beliefs ?
Why should people have true free will ?[*]
TedT 174 :
[31] The no true Scotsman idea does not deny that there is truth to some facts by definition...water IS wet! A free will must be FREE from constraint and coercion or it can't be free.
This only matters to Christians who know we need a free will but who also know we are born sinful, that is, enslaved to sin which implies we have no free will will so they invent all kinds of doublethink to solve their cognitive dissonance about the need for reconciliation.

[*] In the Christian system a free will is an absolute necessity for GOD to fulfill HIS purpose for our creation, the heavenly marriage with those of HIS creation who wanted to join HIM in that marriage...as I've said a number of times already.

[31] Your analogy is poor, for water is wet by definition. Freedom is a better analogy to free will. That people are unable to leave earth does not imply they have no freedom. Likewise, limitation on people's ability to make or avoid choices does not preclude free will. Otherwise, no one would have free will.
Free will is not something one either has or doesn't. One can have some (type/kind of) free will, but in post 245 and further you seem to use an extreme definition. You seem to define free will from a deterministic perspective, so that no one has it, but that implies
you make God responsible for people's actions.
[*] OK, so it is again about what God wants. That others don't share his desire is not his problem.
God's goals also imply polygamy. Humans aren't allowed to worship imaginary deities, but he is allowed to mary many humans. As long as he likes it, it must be good GM.

[32] What relevance does that have ? How would absense of false gods make the millions of marriages yearly forced ?
[33] Why should that be ?
[34] Why would that be an absolute necessity ?

[32] I neither said that nor implied that... and it is so far out in left field I have no idea how to answer... wowser.
[no response]

[32] I mistakingly assumed that what you said was relevant and speculated what the relevance could be.
OK, so these false gods do not help marriages being free. In order to explain why God would allow them, we have to look elsewhere.
[33] I expected there would be a reason for your claim from post 156 to be true, but apparently not. Can you at least demonstrate it ?
[34] Can you at least demonstrate the absolute necessity of the others to be able to respond freely to God's loving proposal of marriage ?

[OldWiseGuy 164 to OP : “What more is needed?”]
The one thing Christians can't provide : evidence.

1st. The evidence of the Bible and the life of Christ has moved millions.[42]

2nd. The evidence of the witness of the Holy Spirit indwelling us - a fact of evidence a non-believer cannot fathom so must denigrate or gaslight but no believer can ignore as a weird voice in their head.[43]
3d. The reborn changed life of the believer such that they KNOW they are a new person and everyone who knows them well tells the same story about them.[44]
This is about evidence, not proof. Just as atheists have no proof there is no GOD, Christians have no proof that there is, but we put our FAITH, an unproven hope, in the evidence that it is true and we will inherit HIS promises.

First, that was about God being good (se, standard English) rather than evil.
Second, there is also evidence to the contrary, undermining or even negating positive evidence.
Third, the absense of evidence is supported in this tread, where Christians supported several claims with no evidence whatsoever.
[42] Those are claims, including claims that God is evil, not evidence.
[43] That evidence is not presented and not verifiable.
[44] That evidence has nothing to do with God's goodness (se).

If I see something green in the jungle, then I have evidence that Barack Obama is walking his dog wearing a green suit in the jungle. The problem is the evidence is far too broad to significantly support the claim. To believe the claim, you need to rely mostly on faith. That is the sort of evidence Christians can present for God.

[35] That is not the impression the Bible gives.
[36] If you are right, then you dispelled the myth of God being love.
[37] How did sinning cause them to lose free will ?
[38] I assume you mean ashamed of their sins and repent for their sins. What does evil have to do with this ? What if these sinners don't open their eyes to evil, but still repent for their sins ?

[no response]

You forgot to answer my questions.

Because if not for God there is no possibility of a benchmark of goodness.[45] We all know deep down that evil is absurdity so there must be a standard of goodness.[46] Since finite, imperfect, and mortal beings like you or I cannot hope to define that standard from our own experiences or decisions we need a Being that survives all our poor criticisms. Only an Almighty, Eternal, and All-knowing God could also by definition define goodness.[47]

[45] You are mistaken, for there are plenty of candidate benchmarks, like Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Bashar Al Assad and Kim Jong-Un. Even if there weren't, so what ?
[46] You are mistaken, for not everyone knows evil is absurdity.
[47] You are mistaken, for plenty of people can do that.

OK, you're saying that of necessity, there must exist an entity of perfect goodness that serves as the ultimate exemplar of moral rectitude. That entity is God. To me, that's more of a prudential rather than an evidential argument. Why couldn't God be dualistic? At some times, the apogee of benevolence. At others, the nadir of malevolence. Or maybe there are 2 Gods--one totally merciful and magnanimous, and one utterly pitiless and hateful. Both are in constant, never ending struggle with each other. Aside from having faith in traditional religious teachings, there's no way to determine God's moral nature.

My argument from necessity and also consideration of the finite, imperfect, and mortal commentary of dissenters is a logical refutation of our ability to speculate. The only options left are to believe or not to believe in what God Himself has revealed about His goodness. You base your two-god theory and speculation on the observation of good and evil in the world. My argument is that the presence of either cannot prove your theory either way and so it is a moot argument.[48] Because we do not know and cannot say from our own resources we can only choose to accept or reject a logically acceptable alternative. A God that is Almighty, Eternal, and All-knowing is the only possible foundation for any absolute sense of goodness.[49]

[48] Jayem wasn't trying to prove, but speculating. Hence, why would his argument be moot ?
[49] Why is that ?

Well Bradskii, you are quite correct - life on earth is full of coercions, especially our enslavement to sin but you should know that
1. while I do believe in the absolute necessity of our free will, I do not believe sinners have a free will.

In post 156 you said : “To be a true free will, it is an absolute necessity that every and any option pertinent to the choice must be available to be chosen...“
If we don't have free will anyway, that necessity is irrelevant and cannot serve as a good reason for allowing the availability of evil choices.

So you claim, but can you prove that ?

It's been proven to me and many others.[50] A prerequisite condition is to love God. Otherwise to witness a martyrdom or a miracle could work for an atheist[51]

[50] So you claim, but can you prove that ?
[51] What do you mean ?

God the Father has no rivals or enemies, but predestined all...

If HE is ALL LOVING and all benevolent as I think then HE cannot have, would never have, predestined the fall of anyone. The fall, each person's first venture into rebellious sin had to be by their free will decision to do so.

Each person's fall also had to be by God's free will decision and if God is omniscient, it also had to be by God's informed decision.

I'm far from convinced that this is an argument against free will.

Let's say that you spin a coin. There is nothing to contrain it to land on heads or tails. It's purely arbitrary. Now imagine that you had the temporary ability to see the future. And you look forward a few minutes and see that the coin landed on heads. Does your knowledge change the fact that it was an arbitrary event? Not at all.

It's nonsense to suggest that every coin toss you don't see in the future is arbitrary and every one that you do see is fixed in some way. It would be the same with God. Just because He knows how a coin toss (or a choice you make) will eventuate doesn't fix that result in advance.

What does arbitrariness have to do with free will ?
The outcome of an event is only predictable under determinism. God cannot know the outcome of a coin toss unless it is predetermined. Under B-theory of time that outcome exists, while the alternative does not.
Neogaia777 seems to argue for determinism.

Why are our best choices, our most righteous decisions, thoughts and passons counted as filthy rags? The sinfulness of a person permeates every part of his life, even the best parts, contaminating his best so it is filthy, not good.[50] How else could Paul write: Rom 7:14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do. But what I hate, I do.

[50] How is sin supposed to make the best parts of people's lives filthy ?

If any God absolutely knew/knows everything from the beginning to end, etc, but from the beginning, etc, then He knows all outcomes of all supposed choices, correct...?

I have come to discredit this presupposition...it leads directly to HIS creating those who would fall into demonhood and eternal damnation while knowing this would be their end. I cannot countenance this as the actions of a most loving, righteous and just creator...it just doesn't fit.

Indeed. Your beliefs are determined by your (dis)likes, not by evidence. God's omniscience would have inconvenient consequences, therefore he must not be. That is typical for Christians.
You are however correct : there is something wrong with God. That is atypical for Christians.

Well, remember that Jesus saves you from Hell! How can you love Jesus if you know that the alternative is torture in Hell for all eternity?

Hi BigV,
Some people would say that since He saves me from hell how can I not love Him? but I do know what you mean...

Some people would say that if God condemns them to Hell how can they not hate him? But I also understand what BigV means.

2. Consequences must be known but not proved:
The person must understand the full consequences of their choice or it is a guess, not a true choice. “What will happen if I choose left or right, the red pill or the blue pill?” must be answered in full detail.[52]

But "PROOF" of the nature of the consequence would compel or coerce the person to choose what was proven to be the best for them. If the answer “death / hell here,” “life / heaven there,” was proven, which would you choose? The weight of knowledge would destroy the effect of a true ‘free will’ choice.
If it were proven you would die if you went left, are you truly free to choose to go right? No, you are forced by your knowledge to go right.[53]
Therefore they must know, but without proof, the nature of the consequences of their choice. Only then will their choices be following their desires, their deepest hope in the nature of reality, defining the reality they most hope to enjoy.[54]

[52 That is a good realization. In their zeal to innocentiate God from everything reprehensible Christians often ignore that decisions of humans more than decisions of God are uninformed.
[53] So it is the knowledge that robs one of one's free will, not the proof. Hence, those who know they will go to Hell if they sin, are not free to sin.
[54] Why is that ?

You just moved tbe goalposts. It was 'no free will if you are evil'. So I suggested someone making a free will decision to do a morally good act (if that person has committed evil). And now it's 'no free will until you are reborn in Christ'.

...but these are the same things for the negative pov to the positive pov: no free will in sinners but a free will in those sinners who are reborn, ie, in whom sin is not accounted to them anymore so it is dealt with by GOD's grace.

Given that, with your definition of free will, no one has it, it follows that no one is reborn.

 

[BigV]

2. Consequences must be known but not proved:
The person must understand the full consequences of their choice or it is a guess, not a true choice. “What will happen if I choose left or right, the red pill or the blue pill?” must be answered in full detail.

Well, the Bible starts off with a very vague warning. The first people are told that in the day they eat of the forbidden fruit, they will die. As far as we know, death is not explained to them. And the concept of Hell didn't really show up until after Moses was done writing his five books.

So, did Adam and Eve have a free choice, if they did not understand that eternal hell is awaiting, by default, all of their kids? Seems like that bit was left out. In fact, most Judaism believing Jews don't even believe in Hell. So, what choice are they making?

 

[BigV]

Ahh, it seems like anther round of how to tell the story wrongly or even who can tell the story with the most wrong interpretation, has started. Good luck to all contestants!

Nope, the story is all true, as believed by most mainline Christians. Sure, there are Universalists or people who believe that God will burn nonbelievers until they stop existing, but most Christians believe in the eternal Hell. And this Hell has been created by God himself.

The warnings about hell and the sufferings of a sinful life were just that, warnings, as, without any proof that HE had any power over such things we were not coerced by them. The proof of their uncoercive nature as warnings is found in the fact that many, Satan and all, ignored these warnings as the lies of a false god and repudiated HIM.

Right now, I'd be more afraid of the gun to my head than I would be if you said, "Believe in me or I'll send you to hell...sometime, somehow...maybe." In this world, just how real is the coercive power of the meaning of hell?

IF someone holds a gun to you head and is warning you that there is a bullet that will blow your head off, will you still have a free choice to obey the person with the gun? After all, at this point, you don't know whether the gun is loaded or whether it has good ammo (that's not going to cause a misfire). So, is it just a warning or is this a real threat?

The internet is full of stories about Christians who are afraid of going to Hell. They are doing everything possible to avoid it and yet, they still fear it.

 

[TedT]

Well, the Bible starts off with a very vague warning. The first people are told that in the day they eat of the forbidden fruit, they will die. As far as we know, death is not explained to them. And the concept of Hell didn't really show up until after Moses was done writing his five books.

So, did Adam and Eve have a free choice, if they did not understand that eternal hell is awaiting, by default, all of their kids? Seems like that bit was left out. In fact, most Judaism believing Jews don't even believe in Hell. So, what choice are they making?

I contend Adam and Eve were already sinners so they did not have a free will and I also contend the evidence is that they were sinful in the garden before they ate so that only leaves them to have sinned by a free will decision to sin BEFORE the creation of the physical universe or at least before their being sown (not created) into this world, Matt 13:36-39.

 

[TedT]

IF someone holds a gun to you head and is warning you that there is a bullet that will blow your head off, will you still have a free choice to obey the person with the gun?

The thing is that I tell you this did not happen yet you don't listen...you interpret what you read only so that you can stand on this bogus claim.

There was no visible, proven, gun.
There was no visible, proven, bullet,
OF ANY KIND, even by metaphor!!!!

And, according to the same source you use to suggest your pov, there could never have been such a thing unless you absolutely contradict the rest of your source...

The internet is full of stories about Christians who are afraid of going to Hell. They are doing everything possible to avoid it and yet, they still fear it.

Yeah, riiiight...someone said it on the internet so it's got to be truth! Ohhhh, yeahhhhhh. Everyone on the earth is a sinner and that means they have no righteous thoughts until they are reborn...but somehow i think you have heard all this already, sigh.

 

[Neogaia777]

Well, the Bible starts off with a very vague warning. The first people are told that in the day they eat of the forbidden fruit, they will die. As far as we know, death is not explained to them. And the concept of Hell didn't really show up until after Moses was done writing his five books.

So, did Adam and Eve have a free choice, if they did not understand that eternal hell is awaiting, by default, all of their kids? Seems like that bit was left out. In fact, most Judaism believing Jews don't even believe in Hell. So, what choice are they making?

Eternal life, in either place, did not come even become available until Jesus, etc...

But the saints in the OT who had died and went to Hades/Sheol, got a chance at it, when/while Jesus was dead/there for three days before He ascended, etc, and probably took some of them with Him when He did, etc...

The rest in Hades/Sheol were left there until the very final judgement when/where their ultimate fate will be ultimately decided ultimately, etc...

God Bless!

 

[dóxatotheó]

Other than having faith in the Bible, and religious tradition, is there any way to know that the biblical God is morally good? Based solely on observation, it’s far more logical to believe that God—if one even exists—is one of 3 possibilities:

1) Dualistic. Sometimes good, sometimes evil. Or possibly 2 gods—one good, and one evil, in constant struggle with each other.
2) Morally neutral and uninvolved.
3) Morally evil and deceptive.

Ones explanation of morality would be presupposed on a benevolent God would break if there morality was objectively or ethically accepted e can say they morals are subjective but try to make objective observations to a benevolent God then again a person who believes a benevolent God would state they believe there moral views are objective while yours are based on ethical relativism a complete inductive fallacy

 

[Tinker Grey]

Ones explanation of morality would be presupposed on a benevolent God would break if there morality was objectively or ethically accepted e can say they morals are subjective but try to make objective observations to a benevolent God then again a person who believes a benevolent God would state they believe there moral views are objective while yours are based on ethical relativism a complete inductive fallacy

Please try to write in complete sentences using punctuation. This is just one long run-on sentence.

 

[dóxatotheó]

Please try to write in complete sentences using punctuation. This is just one long run-on sentence.

Ones explanation of morality cant be presupposed on a benevolent God, if there morality was objectively or ethically accepted which is based upon our nature of knowing right from wrong such as murder than most likely we can state knowledge or this grounds on a benevolent God. We can also say our morals are subjective but they most likely try to make objective arguments to a benevolent God then again a person who believes a benevolent God would state they believe there moral views are objective while yours are based on ethical relativism a complete inductive fallacy. God isnt based on modern views he is based on being completely good like i said you can't confuse ethics with morals they are not the same

 

[Tinker Grey]

Ones explanation of morality cant be presupposed on a benevolent God, if there morality was objectively or ethically accepted which is based upon our nature of knowing right from wrong such as murder than most likely we can state knowledge or this grounds on a benevolent God. We can also say our morals are subjective but they most likely try to make objective arguments to a benevolent God then again a person who believes a benevolent God would state they believe there moral views are objective while yours are based on ethical relativism a complete inductive fallacy. God isnt based on modern views he is based on being completely good like i said you can't confuse ethics with morals they are not the same

One's explanation of morality can't be presupposed on [the basis of] a benevolent God.​

So who's "one" here. Are you not as a Christian presupposing morality on God? Are you complaining that non-believers can't. Do you understand why your writing is unclear.

Now start a new sentence

If there their morality was were objectively or ethically accepted, which is based upon our nature of knowing right from wrong, such as murder, than then most likely we can state knowledge or this (?) grounds on a benevolent God.​

Accepted? Who's doing the accepting? You have "which". Which should have an antecedent. What is it? Accepting? Their morality? "Then most likely we can state knowledge or this grounds on a benevolent God." Aside from being a grammatical mess, this statement most decidedly doesn't follow from that which precedes it.

We can also say our morals are subjective but they most likely try to make objective arguments to a benevolent God. [T]hen again, a person who believes [in] a benevolent God would state they believe there their moral views are objective while your's are based on ethical relativism--a complete inductive fallacy.​

Who's "we"? Who's "they"? If I'm a non-believer why would I be making an argument to God? Dude, this is totally unclear. Who is doing what? Who's got the fallacy? Those saying their views are objective or those who's are based on ethical relativism?

God isn't based on modern views. [H]e is based on being completely good. [L]ike i I said, you can't confuse ethics with morals. [T]hey are not the same​

How can a being that's eternal be based on anything? Perhaps you should say one's conception of God is based on goodness.

 

[dóxatotheó]

One's explanation of morality can't be presupposed on [the basis of] a benevolent God.​

So who's "one" here. Are you not as a Christian presupposing morality on God? Are you complaining that non-believers can't. Do you understand why your writing is unclear.

Now start a new sentence

If there their morality was were objectively or ethically accepted, which is based upon our nature of knowing right from wrong, such as murder, than then most likely we can state knowledge or this (?) grounds on a benevolent God.​

Accepted? Who's doing the accepting? You have "which". Which should have an antecedent. What is it? Accepting? Their morality? "Then most likely we can state knowledge or this grounds on a benevolent God." Aside from being a grammatical mess, this statement most decidedly doesn't follow from that which precedes it.

We can also say our morals are subjective but they most likely try to make objective arguments to a benevolent God. [T]hen again, a person who believes [in] a benevolent God would state they believe there their moral views are objective while your's are based on ethical relativism--a complete inductive fallacy.​

Who's "we"? Who's "they"? If I'm a non-believer why would I be making an argument to God? Dude, this is totally unclear. Who is doing what? Who's got the fallacy? Those saying their views are objective or those who's are based on ethical relativism?

God isn't based on modern views. [H]e is based on being completely good. [L]ike i I said, you can't confuse ethics with morals. [T]hey are not the same​

How can a being that's eternal be based on anything? Perhaps you should say one's conception of God is based on goodness.

if God in our religion not perfectly good in one aspect which is the basement of something than he isnt omnibenevolent our religion goes hard on Gods goodness more than the rest of his attributes they make it clear the big dumb down view on our God is goodness secondly wat fallacy am i using im speaking in third person in the views of a nonbeliever. Just because your a nonbeliever doesnt mean you wont make an argument against God dont be foolish secondly relativity all views concerning ethics concerning God isn't gonna be grounded to us or our seekness for virtue. Me grounding on defining the morality of God isnt equated to us on our own grounds and if you dont understand what i mean this in the views of a theist not atheist. Keep the thread too its original precedent

 

[Tinker Grey]

if God in our religion not perfectly good in one aspect which is the basement of something than he isnt omnibenevolent our religion goes hard on Gods goodness more than the rest of his attributes they make it clear the big dumb down view on our God is goodness secondly wat fallacy am i using im speaking in third person in the views of a nonbeliever. Just because your a nonbeliever doesnt mean you wont make an argument against God dont be foolish secondly relativity all views concerning ethics concerning God isn't gonna be grounded to us or our seekness for virtue. Me grounding on defining the morality of God isnt equated to us on our own grounds and if you dont understand what i mean this in the views of a theist not atheist. Keep the thread too its original precedent

Word salad. We're done.

 

[Bradskii]

Let me give it a go, @Tinker Grey. My wife wants me to paint the bathroom windows so I need to look busy...

If the God of Christianity is not perfectly good in any one aspect, which would indicate that He isnt omnibenevolent...well, Christianity thinks more about God's goodness than the rest of his attributes. It's His most important characteristic.

Secondly, I'm not talking fallaciously. I am speaking in the third person as a nonbeliever would. Just because you're a nonbeliever doesn't mean that you can't argue gainst God. Don't be foolish!

Thirdly, all views concerning God's ethics aren't going to be based on our personal views or our search for virtue. Me defining the morality of God isn't dependent on my own personal views of morality. And to clarify, these are the views of a theist. Not an atheist.

Let's keep the thread on track...