Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm still waiting for you to address this question:Right, I believe that you all are demonstrating that objective morality exists.
What if you found yourself living in another time and Yahweh commanded you to do so? Note that I am not asking you whether you would defend yourself against attacks. I am asking whether you would kill men, women, and children solely at Yahweh's behest, and without question.
Prior to his command that they be slaughtered, respecting their freedom apparently entailed allowing their violence to go on for 500 years. After those 500 years, he no longer allowed their violence to continue.
No, you are. That's the point. You are taking the results of a thought experiment that human beings find challenging, due to their imperfect knowledge and suboptimal resources, and applying it to a being that ostensibly faces no such obstacles.
It was a "shield" justifying his inaction for 500 years!Right. He ordered them to be destroyed. Not because He stopped respecting their freedom, but because they were judged to be worthy of destruction. Just because men are free, it does not mean God cannot judge them for their wickedness. Their freedom is not some shield that will protect them from God's wrath against sin.
Stay on topic.God did not have to create this world. We have already covered this.
You are free to believe what you will. However, if you want to form a valid argument (particularly in support of "objectivity"), affirmations of your beliefs aren´t sufficient.Right, I believe that you all are demonstrating that objective morality exists.
Until he decides that they are no longer obstacles after some arbitrary period (e.g., 500 years).I think God does face obstacles. I think one such obstacle is human freedom. They are not insurmountable obstacles, but they are obstacles.
What´s that supposed to be. A syllogism based on your premises?
Where do the premises end. Where do the conclusions start?
In any case, 4 doens´t follow from anything.
Until he decides that they are no longer obstacles after some arbitrary period (e.g., 500 years).
Wow. We're back to the arrogance of the Elioenai26 days.<------------ This is called a "proposition".
What about the preferences of supernatural entities?1. That proposition is made true because it corresponds to an objective feature of reality independent of human opinion and preference.
I´m sure you mean well, but FYI: I have told OD already several pages ago repeatedly that I am not going to discuss morality with her since we don´t have sufficient common ground for that.Tell quatona why that is. He seems to need help with these things.
That's nice. I'm still waiting to hear your argument though.No I disagree.
It was a "shield" justifying his inaction for 500 years!
I´m sure you mean well, but FYI: I have told OD already several pages ago repeatedly that I am not going to discuss morality with her since we don´t have sufficient common ground for that.
So there´s nothing that Mark would have to explain to me about his decision.
Move along.That's nice. I'm still waiting to hear your argument though.
You're not being consistent, Jeremy. According to you, he was justified in withholding his judgment out of respect for their freedom to be cruel. Yet you also argue that he was justified in executing his wrath against them because he could not allow their cruelty to go on unchecked.Please stop. One day you're up in arms and indignant about God judging the Amalekites and the next you're raising a fuss about Him taking too long to judge them.
You have just revealed your hand. You're done here. Move on.
You forgot 5: "This is expression of an individually held value."Let's walk through this slow, one line at a time.
Raping children is wrong. <------------ This is called a "proposition".
Below are four different possibilities regarding the above proposition:
1. That proposition is made true because it corresponds to an objective feature of reality independent of human opinion and preference.
OR
2. That proposition is made true because it corresponds to a subjective opinion or preference of human beings.
OR
3. That proposition is neither true nor false.
OR
4. That proposition is meaningless.
You forgot 5: "This is expression of an individually held value."
and 6: "This is a statement describing a universally (or very broadly held) human value."
Of course I am, but I'm not confusing "good quality" with "good morality". You said that creating us was an act of grace. Is "grace" not a nice thing to do, therefore a good thing to do? Are you not happy that you were created? Is it not better to you that you were created than you were not created? Craig's basis for his argument is based on our limited capability to work with the number infinity. That doesn't mean that it isn't actually possible to work with such a number.You are equating doing good with creating
It isn't enough to just say "there is not evil in Him". There is no evil whatsoever in my toaster. Does that make my toaster just as "good" as God? Of course not. Things can be morally neutral. Or they can even be just a tiny bit good. I would say that if someone is capable of choosing to not do something good, then they are not 100% good.To say that God is good is to say that there is no evil in Him. It is to say the same thing using different words to say it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?