Mr anony:
It is common knowledge between the two of us that I base morality on a creator. The reason you opened this thread was to contest that very assumption. Why then should I assume it when it is precisely what we are contesting.

It is also common knowledge that I base morality on the idea of the well-being of conscious creatures yet I stated my own view. I just want you to state your own views so you don't accuse me of putting words into your mouth.

Mr anony:
By what objective standard?

By the idea that certain certain actions are objectively beneficial to e.g human well-being than others.

Mr anony:
I can disregard a response that hasn't made any sense. if you can say "God is objectively bad because I think He is bad." I can as well say "thehomer is bad because I think he is bad". All we've done is give voice to our opinions without giving any valid reasons.

But that isn't what I've said, I've said your God is not objectively good because his actions aren't at the very least beneficial to the well-being of humans at the very least. You on the other hand are asking me to maybe formulate your view for you.

Mr anony:
Urhm no you haven't met yours. Remind me what is "good" again?

That which is generally beneficial to the well-being of conscious creatures. Now can you tell me what you think "good" is?

Mr anony:
You may as well have said it is related to how people like their tea in the morning. As long as you haven't defined an objective well-being, you have essentially said nothing.

Wrong. How people like their tea in the morning can be contribute to their well-being. We don't need an absolutely perfect definition in order to have this discussion.

While you have actually said nothing.

Mr anony:
As soon as you establish an objective good, I will be happy to weigh 1Sam 15:3 against it.

Discussions don't work that way. You have to actually present your own position and be ready to defend it rather than merely sitting back and folding your own hands.

Now to help you out and move this conversation forward, does your idea of goodness have anything at all to do with the well-being of humans?

thehomer:

It is also common knowledge that I base morality on the idea of the well-being of conscious creatures yet I stated my own view. I just want you to state your own views so you don't accuse me of putting words into your mouth.



By the idea that certain certain actions are objectively beneficial to e.g human well-being than others.



But that isn't what I've said, I've said your God is not objectively good because his actions aren't at the very least beneficial to the well-being of humans at the very least. You on the other hand are asking me to maybe formulate your view for you.



That which is generally beneficial to the well-being of conscious creatures. Now can you tell me what you think "good" is?



Wrong. How people like their tea in the morning can be contribute to their well-being. We don't need an absolutely perfect definition in order to have this discussion.

While you have actually said nothing.



Discussions don't work that way. You have to actually present your own position and be ready to defend it rather than merely sitting back and folding your own hands.

Now to help you out and move this conversation forward, does your idea of goodness have anything at all to do with the well-being of humans?

I would have answered point by by point but it is unnecessary because all I would have kept on repeating is "what is human well-being? is it objective?"
Until you can settle that, I really can't help you

shdemidemi:


A two year old baby has not reached the age of accountability but that does not make the child God's elect. The child is a sinner as far as God is concerned but a child's soul will not suffer perilous time like the man who consciously refuse the gospel

So your infant deserves to be killed by Boko Haram because your child is not Allah's elect?
Why dont you serve up your children to be murdered, you moro.n.

I can see thehomer answering questions thrown at him and anony dancing around his tail as usual. . .

mazaje1: I can see thehomer answering questions thrown at him and anony dancing around his tail as usual. . .

I can see you blissfully failing to notice that thehomer is yet to define what he means by objective good.

plaetton:

So your infant deserves to be killed by Boko Haram because your child is not Allah's elect?
Why dont you serve up your children to be murdered, you moro.n.

You tend to look @ things from a myopic view.I look @ things from God's view. Forget emotions and face the reality of the faithfulness of Christ. If you look @ things from God's view It saves you from high blood presure and the rest.

So in your gods view, genocide, boko haram and other islamo-terrorism can be justified under the right interpretation of scripture?

People like you represent a clear danger to human life, freedom and dignity.

Mr anony:
I can see you blissfully failing to notice that thehomer is yet to define what he means by objective good.

I think he has, he said "That which is generally beneficial to the well-being of conscious creatures".

mazaje1:

I think he has, he said "That which is generally beneficial to the well-being of conscious creatures".

Lol, really?

shdemidemi: There is no point defending God for anything. If you as an unbeliever want to know anything about condemnation, there you have it. The same way He killed every first born of Egypt--
Exodus 12:12

King James Version (KJV)

12 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord.

In that similar way every unbeliever that refuses God now would be condemned but admonition is that it won't be your flesh or your body alone, Your soul shall be condemned.

All God is asking is for you to believe and you shall be saved, if you don't you shall see him as the Spirit of death. You have all the volition to make a choice.

Unfortunately, you didn't talk about how Good God was, rather you spent/wasted valuable time discussing about the necessity of worshipping God. The necessity of worshipping God doesn't equate to God's Goodness.

You should stick to the topic more often.

Mr anony:
I would have answered point by by point but it is unnecessary because all I would have kept on repeating is "what is human well-being? is it objective?"
Until you can settle that, I really can't help you

And you finally reveal that you actually weren't ready to defend you own view because so far, you've not been able to present one to answer the very first set of questions in the OP. I expected you to answer them using whatever notion of good you want to use but you're unable to present your own "objective good" while claiming that I haven't presented anything.

I'm still here whenever you're ready to hold up your own ideas to the light of reason.

Mr anony:
I can see you blissfully failing to notice that thehomer is yet to define what he means by objective good.

Even if I cannot define what I mean by objective good, it doesn't stop you from defining what you mean by objective good does it?

thehomer:

And you finally reveal that you actually weren't ready to defend you own view because so far, you've not been able to present one to answer the very first set of questions in the OP. I expected you to answer them using whatever notion of good you want to use but you're unable to present your own "objective good" while claiming that I haven't presented anything.

I'm still here whenever you're ready to hold up your own ideas to the light of reason.

Yawn. when you are ready to discuss goodness, start by defining it

thehomer:

Even if I cannot define what I mean by objective good, it doesn't stop you from defining what you mean by objective good does it?

If you cannot define what you mean by objective good your whole op breaks down.

You cannot begin to question God's goodness if you lack a standard with which to question it. That's like trying to measure a straight line without first taking two points of reference

Mr anony: If you cannot define what you mean by objective good your whole op breaks down.

You cannot begin to question God's goodness if you lack a standard with which to question it. That's like trying to measure a straight line without first taking two points of reference

Just so you know, my points of reference are on the effects of Gods actions on humans at the very least. In fact, that much was made clear in my OP here.

Edit: What is your own point of reference?

plaetton: So in your gods view, genocide, boko haram and other islamo-terrorism can be justified under the right interpretation of scripture?

People like you represent a clear danger to human life, freedom and dignity.

You take this matter too personal...life is only but for a while anyway, the hope and faith I have in Christ makes me rejoice at any point in time. Genocide or no genocide every one's life is but for a short period. The WILL of God in this temporal world must be accepted my friend.

Kay 17:

Unfortunately, you didn't talk about how Good God was, rather you spent/wasted valuable time discussing about the necessity of worshipping God. The necessity of worshipping God doesn't equate to God's Goodness.

You should stick to the topic more often.

Of course He is good... Your wisdom and my wisdom is limited to our 5 senses. A man will say seeing is believing, God does not operate under that. You don't know where you were coming from before you were born and you don't know what is on the other side when you die thus, you are limited to this earth and the knowledge within. If you probably see God spiritually and not through your profane and limited thoughts you would realise how good and merciful he is.

shdemidemi:

You take this matter too personal...life is only but for a while anyway, the hope and faith I have in Christ makes me rejoice at any point in time. Genocide or no genocide every one's life is but for a short period. The WILL of God in this temporal world must be accepted my friend.

Temporal world?
I assume that you have been to the other types?
If you have not, don't you think that you might just be a victim of mortgage fraud?
You are willing to mortgage your life in this your so-called temporal world, including sacrificing your infants and children to genocidal maniacs and their blood thirsty god, so that you might enjoy eternal bliss in another imaginary world which you know nothing about?

A sucker is born everyday.
I have a nice piece of real estate in everlasting land, do you wanna buy?

plaetton:

Temporal world?
I assume that you have been to the other types?
If you have not, don't you think that you might just be a victim of mortgage fraud?
You are willing to mortgage your life in this your so-called temporal world, including sacrificing your infants and children to genocidal maniacs and their blood thirsty god, so that you might enjoy eternal bliss in another imaginary world which you know nothing about?

A sucker is born everyday.
I have a nice piece of real estate in everlasting land, do you wanna buy?

We are definitely talking from different perspectives. I never said I support book haram attacking anyone, all I am saying is whatever happens to me is the will of God.

Beretta92: this god is infact the devil.

Oh that is a sneaking suspicion.

thehomer:

Just so you know, my points of reference are on the effects of Gods actions on humans at the very least. In fact, that much was made clear in my OP here.

Edit: What is your own point of reference?

Lol, first I'll ask if an action's morality is based on it's intent or is it based on it's effect? Second I'll ask for an objective moral standard by which you evaluate the goodness of the action i.e. is the effect objectively good or evil, is the intent objectively good or evil?

As long as you keep shying away from defining an objective moral standard, we have nothing to work with.

Mr anony:
Lol, first I'll ask if an action's morality is based on it's intent or is it based on it's effect? Second I'll ask for an objective moral standard by which you evaluate the goodness of the action i.e. is the effect objectively good or evil, is the intent objectively good or evil?

As long as you keep shying away from defining an objective moral standard, we have nothing to work with.

What is your own point of reference? And how have you evaluated whether or not it is objectively good or evil? You've come a long way with all the leeway you've been given yet you're unable to answer the basic questions in the OP.

thehomer:

What is your own point of reference? And how have you evaluated whether or not it is objectively good or evil? You've come a long way with all the leeway you've been given yet you're unable to answer the basic questions in the OP.

When you ask me a clear question I will answer. So far your op remains unclarified. I won't let you off the hook, if you cannot say what "good" is, you lack the right to condemn anything much less God.

Mr anony:
When you ask me a clear question I will answer. So far your op remains unclarified. I won't let you off the hook, if you cannot say what "good" is, you lack the right to condemn anything much less God.

Using your own idea of what good is should enable to answer the question. So, simply use that to answer the question for yourself.

There are threads. And there are threads..

Too hot to handle? At least those who don't hide the crazy take it head on

wiegraf: There are threads. And there are threads..

Too hot to handle? At least those who don't hide the crazy take it head on

Hmm I wonder why there isn't more interest. Maybe it actually is too hot for Christians to handle.

thehomer:

Using your own idea of what good is should enable to answer the question. So, simply use that to answer the question for yourself.

..and what use will my idea of good be if we don't know what is objectively good.

Mr anony:
..and what use will my idea of good be if we don't know what is objectively good.

Your idea will show us what you think it means to be good. I think that has to be looked at before trying to assess this objectivity.

thehomer:
Your idea will show us what you think it means to be good. I think that has to be looked at before trying to assess this objectivity.

Fair enough let me help you so we can move this foward:-

My argument is simple:
Objective good is dependent on an objective human well-being (i.e. the way a human ought to be). We can only legitimately say that there is way humans are supposed to be if there is a designer who has purposely designed humans to be a certain way.

Do you accept this? If not, why do you disagree?

Mr anony:
Fair enough let me help you so we can move this foward:-

My argument is simple:
Objective good is dependent on an objective human well-being (i.e. the way a human ought to be). We can only legitimately say that there is way humans are supposed to be if there is a designer who has purposely designed humans to be a certain way.

Do you accept this? If not, why do you disagree?

Don't you realize what you've just said? This has to be huge irony. You're equating good with well-being when you say what is in bold.

Oh I agree with the first part in bold but not the part about this designer unless of course you can tell me something about this designer like whether or not it cares about human well-being at the very least.

So are you ready to answer the questions in the OP?

thehomer:

Don't you realize what you've just said? This has to be huge irony. You're equating good with well-being when you say what is in bold.

That's exactly the same thing you've been doing earlier

Oh I agree with the first part in bold but not the part about this designer unless of course you can tell me something about this designer like whether or not it cares about human well-being at the very least.

Lol, he doesn't have to or are you about to give me a reason why he must?
All I have said is that the way a human being ought to be cannot be objective unless there is a definite purpose which a designer has designed them to fulfill.

Do you agree? If not, give me a logical reason why you disagree

So are you ready to answer the questions in the OP?

We haven't established an objective good yet

Mr anony:
That's exactly the same thing you've been doing earlier

Oh I'm in agreement with that. It just means that you were railing against views you actually had.

Mr anony:
Lol, he doesn't have to or are you about to give me a reason why he must?
All I have said is that the way a human being ought to be cannot be objective unless there is a definite purpose which a designer has designed them to fulfill.

Do you agree? If not, give me a logical reason why you disagree

I do not agree because I don't accept the premise of a designer. That renders the rest of your statement moot.

Now even if I granted you the notion of a designer, if the designer were malicious, it would mean that he is not in a position to assess what affects this well-being positively. That is why you have to know something about the designer you're proposing.

Mr anony:
We haven't established an objective good yet

Once you accept the idea of goodness being related to positive well-being, then the "objective good" you're harping on about isn't necessary for assessment.