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

I never said I didn't agree with you, I only demanded you justify it.

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.

Explain to me exactly how you would know that the designer ought not to be malicious if he chose to design you to see maliciousness as a great making quality.

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.

Not so my friend I am defining human well-being based on the designer's purpose. That's what is objectively good for humans.

Mr anony:

Not so my friend I am defining human well-being based on the designer's purpose. That's what is objectively good for humans.

So your god sending his alleged chosing men to kill of others, ravage their women, loot their lands is objectively good as long as it is part of his plans, eh?. . .Well done. . .Let me hear you call any muslim terrorist a savage. . .

Mr anony:
I never said I didn't agree with you, I only demanded you justify it.

If we both agree, then why bother with that? If you agree that your handle starts with an "M" and I agree that it does start with an "M" why waste time explaining the angles between the lines forming the letter? We already agree on what the letter is.

Mr anony:
Explain to me exactly how you would know that the designer ought not to be malicious if he chose to design you to see maliciousness as a great making quality.

If it were malicious, then what it does impacts negatively on human well-being.

Mr anony:
Not so my friend I am defining human well-being based on the designer's purpose. That's what is objectively good for humans.

That means you know something about this designer's purpose. Are you ever going to tell us what its purpose is?

mazaje1:

So your god sending his alleged chosing men to kill of others, ravage their women, loot their lands is objectively good as long as it is part of his plans, eh?. . .Well done. . .Let me hear you call any muslim terrorist a savage. . .

My oh my. If he ever answers the questions in the OP, I'll be very surprised.

thehomer:

If we both agree, then why bother with that? If you agree that your handle starts with an "M" and I agree that it does start with an "M" why waste time explaining the angles between the lines forming the letter? We already agree on what the letter is.

Not when you left human well-being completely vague undefined. I can't read your mind bro

If it were malicious, then what it does impacts negatively on human well-being.

My apologies, I should have been clearer. I'll rephrase.
Explain to me exactly how you would know that the designer ought not to act in a certain way if he chose to design you to see that way as the right way to act

That means you know something about this designer's purpose. Are you ever going to tell us what its purpose is?

You have not yet accepted that the designer's purpose is what determines how his creation ought to be

mazaje1:

So your god sending his alleged chosing men to kill of others, ravage their women, loot their lands is objectively good as long as it is part of his plans, eh?. . .Well done. . .Let me hear you call any muslim terrorist a savage. . .

Happy jumping sir.

Mr anony:
Not when you left human well-being completely vague undefined. I can't read your mind bro

Yet you and I have agreed on it.

Mr anony:
My apologies, I should have been clearer. I'll rephrase.
Explain to me exactly how you would know that the designer ought not to act in a certain way if he chose to design you to see that way as the right way to act

Why don't you try clarifying with examples of the designer's intention and the effect of its design.

Mr anony:
You have not yet accepted that the designer's purpose is what determines how his creation ought to be

No I haven't and I can't until I know what it is. Since you know what it is, why don't you tell me?

thehomer:
Yet you and I have agreed on it.

Lol, he does it again. Thehomer's Moment Of Dishonesty season 2.
What I agreed to is that objective good is dependent on objective well-being. I did not agree to any specific definition of well-being. You didn't provide one.

Why don't you try clarifying with examples of the designer's intention and the effect of its design.

here's an example to explain what i mean.
Assuming the designer made human beings and programmed them to believe that forcing people to have sex with them against your will is not morally wrong, they simply will not see rape as detrimental to human well-being.
In fact rape victims (if we can even call them that) in this possible world will only judge rape at worst in the same way one will regard a person talking to him against his will.
They will not feel violated at all neither will they think the rapist evil. At most they'll think of him as merely an annoying chap.
Also if someone came around and started arresting rapists, the people will think him sick and desperately evil for denying them their right to rape

No I haven't and I can't until I know what it is. Since you know what it is, why don't you tell me?

Lol, seriously? I hope you know that you have just said is that you can't accept that a person intended to do something until you know exactly what the particular intent is.

So when you read a book, you cannot accept that the writer intended to write it the way he wrote it. The writer must first give you his purpose for writing in detail before you can accept that he had any intent at all?

Do you listen to yourself sometimes?

Mr anony:
Lol, he does it again. Thehomer's Moment Of Dishonesty season 2.
What I agreed to is that objective good is dependent on objective well-being. I did not agree to any specific definition of well-being. You didn't provide one.

Oh? You wanted a definition of well-being? You should have just asked for that. The definition is available in dictionaries. Last I recall, you were asking for a definition of "objective well-being".

Here's a conception of well-being I have in mind.

Wiktionary:
well-being
a state of health, happiness and/or prosperity

Do you agree with this or not? If not, what then is your conception of well-being?

Mr anony:
here's an example to explain what i mean.
Assuming the designer made human beings and programmed them to believe that forcing people to have sex with them against your will is not morally wrong, they simply will not see rape as detrimental to human well-being.
In fact rape victims (if we can even call them that) in this possible world will only judge rape at worst in the same way one will regard a person talking to him against his will.
They will not feel violated at all neither will they think the rapist evil. At most they'll think of him as merely an annoying chap.
Also if someone came around and started arresting rapists, the people will think him sick and desperately evil for denying them their right to rape

What is the designer's intention?

Mr anony:
Lol, seriously? I hope you know that you have just said is that you can't accept that a person intended to do something until you know exactly what the particular intent is.

Do you listen to yourself sometimes?

Oh I know what I said. Please tell me what is wrong with what I said.

Look at it this way. If you intended to draw a car but what you drew looks more like a duck than a car, without asking you, how can I tell that you intended to draw a car?

Next time, try to read what you've written before trying to throw a jibe at me.

thehomer:
Oh? You wanted a definition of well-being? You should have just asked for that. The definition is available in dictionaries. Last I recall, you were asking for a definition of "objective well-being".

Here's a conception of well-being I have in mind.

These do not tell us anything about an objective well-being

Do you agree with this or not? If not, what then is your conception of well-being?

My well-being is that which is in accordance with the will of my Designer

What is the designer's intention?

But you have not accepted that the designer has an intent? Also I have just shown you that what is objectively good for the creation is subject to the creator.

Oh I know what I said. Please tell me what is wrong with what I said.

Look at it this way. If you intended to draw a car but what you drew looks more like a duck than a car, without asking you, how can I tell that you intended to draw a car?

Notice you've already granted that I have an intent. Also notice that in order to legitimately question my drawing, you cannot be my drawing, you must exist outside it and outside me (i.e. the creation cannot legitimately question what the creator is doing because the very rules it will use are subject to the creator.)

Next time, try to read what you've written before trying to throw a jibe at me.

That jibe was well deserved

Mr anony:
These do not tell us anything about an objective well-being

Why on earth do you keep doing this? Do you accept the idea of well-being I presented there before you move on to whether or not it is objective? I just gave you a direct answer to your request for the meaning of well-being yet you turn around and do this?

Mr anony:
My well-being is that which is in accordance with the will of my Designer

Does this mean you don't agree with what I said? I'm sorry but the phrase in bold is meaningless and cannot be assessed unless we have an idea of what the will of your designer is. i.e what your designer intends.

Mr anony:
But you have not accepted that the designer has an intent? Also I have just shown you that what is objectively good for the creation is subject to the creator.

No, I said I don't know what this designer's intent is so can you tell me what it is? Well if the notion of good is similar to the notion of well-being you presented earlier, then you've not done that because as I said, that phrase in bold is meaningless.

Mr anony:
Notice you've already granted that I have an intent. Also notice that in order to legitimately question my drawing, you cannot be my drawing, you must exist outside it and outside me (i.e. the creation cannot legitimately question what the creator is doing because the very rules it will use are subject to the creator.)

I never said this creator you had in mind didn't have an intent, I asked what that intent was.

You've somehow fundamentally misunderstood this example too. The point of that example was to show you that without knowing the intent, the outcome cannot be assessed. That is all.

Mr anony:
That jibe was well deserved

Yet you've fallen flat on your face once more.

thehomer:
Why on earth do you keep doing this? Do you accept the idea of well-being I presented there before you move on to whether or not it is objective? I just gave you a direct answer to your request for the meaning of well-being yet you turn around and do this?

Does this mean you don't agree with what I said? I'm sorry but the phrase in bold is meaningless and cannot be assessed unless we have an idea of what the will of your designer is. i.e what your designer intends.

...and unless we accept that there can only be a right way or wrong way when there is a purposeful design, there is no need to jump to asking what the purpose is. You cannot ask what the purpose is without first accepting that the purpose defines the creation.

No, I said I don't know what this designer's intent is so can you tell me what it is? Well if the notion of good is similar to the notion of well-being you presented earlier, then you've not done that because as I said, that phrase in bold is meaningless.



I never said this creator you had in mind didn't have an intent, I asked what that intent was.

Refer to my answer above

You've somehow fundamentally misunderstood this example too. The point of that example was to show you that without knowing the intent, the outcome cannot be assessed. That is all.

In that case your analogy fails because the person asking the question is not the creation

Yet you've fallen flat on your face once more.

Lol, and he throws his retaliatory jibe. fairplay to you ser

Mr anony:
...and unless we accept that there can only be a right way or wrong way when there is a purposeful design, there is no need to jump to asking what the purpose is. You cannot ask what the purpose is without first accepting that the purpose defines the creation.

How do I know that the design is purposeful if I do not know the purpose? You're asking for a blank to accept whatever it is that you wan to peddle because for all I know, the purpose could actually be malicious towards humans.

Secondly, is "that which is in accordance with the will of your Designer" contrary to what I presented as well-being?

Mr anony:
Refer to my answer above

Your answer above still doesn't help.

Mr anony:
In that case your analogy fails because the person asking the question is not the creation

It is not an analogy. It is to show you that unless the purpose is known by some other party, then whatever it is that has been made cannot be assessed to determine whether or not it actually fits that purpose. Here, you're the other party who claims knowledge of the purpose, I don't so I'm asking you what the purpose is.

Mr anony:
Lol, and he throws his retaliatory jibe. fairplay to you ser

Meh.

God is good in all His doings towards His creatures. it is only when we donnot open our internal and spiritual eyes and minds that we may say God is not good. He is always Good to His creatures through His blessings, protections, and what have you.

odumson: God is good in all His doings towards His creatures. it is only when we donnot open our internal and spiritual eyes and minds that we may say God is not good. He is always Good to His creatures through His blessings, protections, and what have you.

Please read the very first post on this thread and explain to me how he was good to the people and animals in that passage from the Bible.

I never knew thehomer is tricky and a bit funny.

Reyginus: I never knew thehomer is tricky and a bit funny.

About the "tricky" part, you couldn't have possibly known thehomer before now although the tricks are quite discernible to an attentive person. It's the naive and inexperienced that are taken in by them or surprised.

The "funny" part I didn't know at all. I only found him funny when he wasn't quite meaning to be.

Reyginus: I never knew thehomer is tricky and a bit funny.

Well, now you know.

Do you have anything else to say about the topic?

Ihedinobi:

About the "tricky" part, you couldn't have possibly known thehomer before now although the tricks are quite discernible to an attentive person. It's the naive and inexperienced that are taken in by them or surprised.

The "funny" part I didn't know at all. I only found him funny when he wasn't quite meaning to be.

Mmhmm. Is that why you're yet to contribute to this discussion?

^^ Actually it's why I haven't even seen the OP. Just came here piggybacking on Rey's post which showed up on my followed people's tab.

thehomer:
How do I know that the design is purposeful if I do not know the purpose? You're asking for a blank to accept whatever it is that you wan to peddle because for all I know, the purpose could actually be malicious towards humans.

How can you have a concept of malicious without granting that the creation has a purpose which is being thwarted?

Secondly, is "that which is in accordance with the will of your Designer" contrary to what I presented as well-being?

As I said, happiness, health and prosperity mean different things to different people. It is only by granting a designer that you can talk about what ought to be seen as true happiness, prosperity and health

Your answer above still doesn't help.

too bad for you

It is not an analogy. It is to show you that unless the purpose is known by some other party, then whatever it is that has been made cannot be assessed to determine whether or not it actually fits that purpose. Here, you're the other party who claims knowledge of the purpose, I don't so I'm asking you what the purpose is.

If that was not an analogy, then I don't know what you were trying to say there. As I have said many times over. The moment you start saying that people ought to behave a certain way or that a certain manner of behaviour is objectively better than another, in that very moment, you have assumed that people exist for a purpose and hence they must have a designer.
What is the purpose of the designer? we may not know it in it's entirety but whenever we say that a person is acting in an objectively wrong manner, we are indeed saying that the person's actions are not part of the designer's purpose.

Mr anony:
How can you have a concept of malicious without granting that the creation has a purpose which is being thwarted?

Come on. I asked you another direct question and you try to cause another diversion. I have a concept of malicious because I have a concept of the sorts of actions that would promote well-being. Now please answer my direct question.

Mr anony:
As I said, happiness, health and prosperity mean different things to different people. It is only by granting a designer that you can talk about what ought to be seen as true happiness, prosperity and health

Another direct question that you're trying to obfuscate. You alone know what you mean by the will of your designer. You and I know what I mean by well-being. Why don't you tell me if what you mean by the will of your designer corresponds to what I mean by well-being?

Mr anony:
too bad for you

It shows the failures of your attempts at obfuscation.

Mr anony:
If that was not an analogy, then I don't know what you were trying to say there. As I have said many times over. The moment you start saying that people ought to behave a certain way or that a certain manner of behaviour is objectively better than another, in that very moment, you have assumed that people exist for a purpose and hence they must have a designer.

Seriously? You didn't understand something that was so clear and obvious? Do you know the purpose for which people exist?

Mr anony:
What is the purpose of the designer? we may not know it in it's entirety but whenever we say that a person is acting in an objectively wrong manner, we are indeed saying that the person's actions are not part of the designer's purpose.

If you do not know the designer's purpose, then it is actually you who has no say in what is actually right or wrong objectively or subjectively. You have just successfully recused yourself from the discussion of morality.

If you feel able, you can go ahead and attempt the questions in the OP with whatever degree of knowledge you have of this designer's purpose.

thehomer:
Come on. I asked you another direct question and you try to cause another diversion. I have a concept of malicious because I have a concept of the sorts of actions that would promote well-being. Now please answer my direct question.

The bolded is a non-answer. All you've said is "I know what is bad because I know what is good" You have told us absolutely nothing about what exactly it is that you know.

Another direct question that you're trying to obfuscate. You alone know what you mean by the will of your designer. You and I know what I mean by well-being. Why don't you tell me if what you mean by the will of your designer corresponds to what I mean by well-being?

You have not provided anything that vaguely looks like an objective well being

It shows the failures of your attempts at obfuscation.

no it shows your failures at comprehension

Seriously? You didn't understand something that was so clear and obvious?

Not to me. Remind me again what exactly was "clear and obvious".

Do you know the purpose for which people exist?

Can you differentiate between what ought to be done and what ought not to be done? If you can, then you have some knowledge of how people ought to exist (a.k.a. purpose of people's existence)

If you do not know the designer's purpose, then it is actually you who has no say in what is actually right or wrong objectively or subjectively. You have just successfully recused yourself from the discussion of morality.

Similarly, if you do not know what is objectively right or wrong, you have no grounds to discuss morality

If you feel able, you can go ahead and attempt the questions in the OP with whatever degree of knowledge you have of this designer's purpose.

You haven't shown that you have any understanding of the question you set out to ask.

Mr anony: The bolded is a non-answer. All you've said is "I know what is bad because I know what is good" You have told us absolutely nothing about what exactly it is that you know.

What? This is just ridiculous. Please just look up the definition in a dictionary.

Mr anony:
You have not provided anything that vaguely looks like an objective well being

You have actually provided nothing at all.

Mr anony:
no it shows your failures at comprehension

Since you're so comprehending, why have you avoided answering any direct questions?

Mr anony:
Not to me. Remind me again what exactly was "clear and obvious".

thehomer:
Look at it this way. If you intended to draw a car but what you drew looks more like a duck than a car, without asking you, how can I tell that you intended to draw a car?

What word or phrase was so confusing to you?

Mr anony:
Can you differentiate between what ought to be done and what ought not to be done? If you can, then you have some knowledge of how people ought to exist (a.k.a. purpose of people's existence)

You do realize that you're asking me to tell you what the purpose of your creator is. Why don't you do it as I've asked repeatedly? If I say what it is, you'll disagree and start dancing around again. Just come out and say what you think it is.

Mr anony:
Similarly, if you do not know what is objectively right or wrong, you have no grounds to discuss morality

You haven't even shown that you know what is right or wrong before introducing objectivity.

Mr anony:
You haven't shown that you have any understanding of the question you set out to ask.

Really? Since you understand the questions, just go ahead and answer them using your own idea of right and wrong. It shouldn't be so difficult for you.

thehomer:
What? This is just ridiculous. Please just look up the definition in a dictionary.

Yawn...how does this even relate to what I'm talking about

You have actually provided nothing at all.

Yawn.

Since you're so comprehending, why have you avoided answering any direct questions?

The fact that you rejected my answer does not mean I didn't answer your question

What word or phrase was so confusing to you?

What exactly are you trying to explain with your analogy? What does it relate to? We are discussing the relationship between a creator and his creation. In your analogy;
1. Who is the creator?
2. Who is the creation?
3. Is the person asking the question a creator or a creation?

You do realize that you're asking me to tell you what the purpose of your creator is. Why don't you do it as I've asked repeatedly? If I say what it is, you'll disagree and start dancing around again. Just come out and say what you think it is.

You are the one who is dancing around. You are the one who thinks people ought to act a certain way yet you also think there is no purpose why they ought to act that certain way. If you cannot see the glaring contradiction in your stance, then I really can't help you.

You haven't even shown that you know what is right or wrong before introducing objectivity.

Really? Since you understand the questions, just go ahead and answer them using your own idea of right and wrong. It shouldn't be so difficult for you.

You must really like your circles.

Mr anony:
Yawn...how does this even relate to what I'm talking about

You were asking for something weren't you?

Mr anony:
Yawn.

Keep yawning.

Mr anony:
The fact that you rejected my answer does not mean I didn't answer your question

You didn't answer my question. Here it is again in case you've forgotten.

thehomer:
Secondly, is "that which is in accordance with the will of your Designer" contrary to what I presented as well-being?e

What exactly are you trying to explain with your analogy? What does it relate to? We are discussing the relationship between a creator and his creation. In your analogy;
1. Who is the creator?
2. Who is the creation?
3. Is the person asking the question a creator or a creation?
[/quote]

At that point, we were trying to determine whether or not one can discover purpose without being informed.

Mr anony:
You are the one who is dancing around. You are the one who thinks people ought to act a certain way yet you also think there is no purpose why they ought to act that certain way. If you cannot see the glaring contradiction in your stance, then I really can't help you.

Wow. You've started mind reading again. This is just amazing.

Mr anony:
You must really like your circles.

Let's see where we are.

So far, I've asked you direct questions but you just wriggle like a fish that has been caught on a hook. I wonder just how far you can go without saying anything while the atrocities of your God are so glaring.

This is why I said you were just a bad apologist. Avoiding direct questions is just one of the signs.

thehomer:
You were asking for something weren't you?

I wasn't asking a question. I was pointing out the absurdity of your statement

You didn't answer my question. Here it is again in case you've forgotten.

As I said for the umpteenth time, your definition of well-being is vague. A serial rapist can regard as necessary to his/her prosperity, health and happiness the exact same things that a non-rapist would call evil. The only way you can legitimately say that one is wrong and the other right is if there is indeed a way humans ought to act. If it is true that there is a way humans ought to act, then it is true that there is an objective purpose to human life i.e. life ought to be lived according to a particular design. If this is true, then it means there is a designer. To ask what the purpose is is to ask if people ought to live a certain way. To deny a purpose is to deny that people are bound by any moral obligation.

At that point, we were trying to determine whether or not one can discover purpose without being informed.

I thought you were about to explain your analogy, this doesn't do the job you know.

Wow. You've started mind reading again. This is just amazing.

Interesting, tell me exactly how I have misrepresented you.

Let's see where we are.

So far, I've asked you direct questions but you just wriggle like a fish that has been caught on a hook. I wonder just how far you can go without saying anything while the atrocities of your God are so glaring.

This is why I said you were just a bad apologist. Avoiding direct questions is just one of the signs.

Nonsense. You have not yet defined what you mean by objective good yet you want to make the magical leap to accusing God of "atrocities".

Lol, and calling me a bad apologist won't let you off the hook. I still haven't seen the standard by which you want to judge God's goodness. I'm always ready to discuss with you when you actually have something to discuss about.

Mr anony:
I wasn't asking a question. I was pointing out the absurdity of your statement

Obviously you once again failed to do that.

Mr anony:
As I said for the umpteenth time, your definition of well-being is vague. A serial rapist can regard as necessary to his/her prosperity, health and happiness the exact same things that a non-rapist would call evil. The only way you can legitimately say that one is wrong and the other right is if there is indeed a way humans ought to act. If it is true that there is a way humans ought to act, then it is true that there is an objective purpose to human life i.e. life ought to be lived according to a particular design. If this is true, then it means there is a designer. To ask what the purpose is is to ask if people ought to live a certain way. To deny a purpose is to deny that people are bound by any moral obligation.

You know, the question still remains unanswered despite your hand-waving. You can answer that question with a yes or a no. And realize that so far, you've not said what the purpose of this mysterious designer of yours is.

Mr anony:
I thought you were about to explain your analogy, this doesn't do the job you know.

It wasn't an analogy, it was a hypothetical situation to let you know that without you informing me of the purpose of your designer, then nothing can be assessed on your part.

Mr anony:
Interesting, tell me exactly how I have misrepresented you.

I didn't introduce any ideas of a purpose, you did and so far, you've tried to avoid saying what this purpose is despite the fact that I've asked you over and over again. Just declare what the purpose of this mysterious designer is.

Mr anony:
Nonsense. You have not yet defined what you mean by objective good yet you want to make the magical leap to accusing God of "atrocities".

You have not yet defined what you mean by anything at all. You've not given any idea of what you mean by good not to talk about "objective good". Oh I can accuse your God of atrocities alright based on what he has already commanded. In fact, I did that in the OP but you've just been trying to dance around answering the question despite the fact that I said you're welcome to do that using your own idea of good. Ignore my own idea or assume mine is actually evil, just use yours to answer the direct questions.

Lol, and calling me a bad apologist won't let you off the hook. I still haven't seen the standard by which you want to judge God's goodness. I'm always ready to discuss with you when you actually have something to discuss about.[/quote]

I already answered this. This is another one of the reasons why I said you're a bad apologist. Do you remember when I said this:

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?

Do you remember what your answer to this question was? Let me tell you. It was nothing. You simply danced away from it.

Surely you can tell me what you think good is before even talking about this "objective good" is. Even if I cannot.

thehomer:
Obviously you once again failed to do that.

yawn

You know, the question still remains unanswered despite your hand-waving. You can answer that question with a yes or a no. And realize that so far, you've not said what the purpose of this mysterious designer of yours is.

I have answered your question. You are always free to reject my answer.

It wasn't an analogy, it was a hypothetical situation to let you know that without you informing me of the purpose of your designer, then nothing can be assessed on your part.

Without you acknowledging a designer, nothing can be assessed on your part

I didn't introduce any ideas of a purpose, you did and so far, you've tried to avoid saying what this purpose is despite the fact that I've asked you over and over again. Just declare what the purpose of this mysterious designer is.

I have made it clear to you. if you say that a person objectively ought to act in a certain way then you have granted a purpose.

Oh I can accuse your God of atrocities alright based on what he has already commanded. In fact, I did that in the OP but you've just been trying to dance around answering the question despite the fact that I said you're welcome to do that using your own idea of good. Ignore my own idea or assume mine is actually evil, just use yours to answer the direct questions.

In what universe is a designer subject to the laws that he created for his design?

I already answered this. This is another one of the reasons why I said you're a bad apologist. Do you remember when I said this:


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.

By what standard do you judge these effects?

Edit: What is your own point of reference?

Irrelevant, We must first agree on what constitutes an objective standard for morality

Do you remember what your answer to this question was? Let me tell you. It was nothing. You simply danced away from it.

You mean like you danced away from these questions?

What exactly are you trying to explain with your analogy? What does it relate to? We are discussing the relationship between a creator and his creation. In your analogy;
1. Who is the creator?
2. Who is the creation?
3. Is the person asking the question a creator or a creation?

Surely you can tell me what you think good is before even talking about this "objective good" is. Even if I cannot.

There is no sense in telling you what I think. What matters is that which is good regardless of our opinions

Mr anony:
yawn

I'm sure you're tired.

Mr anony:
I have answered your question. You are always free to reject my answer.

Since you've answered it, can you remind me of whether or not it was a yes or no? Or can you direct me to where you answered with a yes or no?

Mr anony:
Without you acknowledging a designer, nothing can be assessed on your part

And here you once again show that you have no idea of what you're doing. Recall that you were the one claiming that a designer had told you of what its purpose was.

Mr anony:
I have made it clear to you. if you say that a person objectively ought to act in a certain way then you have granted a purpose.

No, you're the one talking about a purpose not me. Or can you show me where I was talking about some hidden purpose?

Mr anony:
In what universe is a designer subject to the laws that he created for his design?

What is the purpose of this designer? Is it to be irrational and arbitrary?

Mr anony:
By what standard do you judge these effects?

By what standard do you judge the purpose of your designer?

Mr anony:
Irrelevant, We must first agree on what constitutes an objective standard for morality

Then tell me what you think constitutes an objective standard for morality and I'll tell you whether or not I agree.

Mr anony:
You mean like you danced away from these questions?

What exactly are you trying to explain with your analogy? What does it relate to? We are discussing the relationship between a creator and his creation. In your analogy;
1. Who is the creator?
2. Who is the creation?
3. Is the person asking the question a creator or a creation?

They were irrelevant since what that example demonstrated was clear. You just tried once again to obfuscate. If you can tell me the relevance of those questions to determining whether or not you're supposed to reveal what the purpose of this hidden designer of yours is, then I'll consider responding but you have to say what the purpose is.

Mr anony:
There is no sense in telling you what I think. What matters is that which is good regardless of our opinions

Do you know what is good regardless of your opinion? Please answer with a yes or no and tell me why.

thehomer:
I'm sure you're tired.

Since you've answered it, can you remind me of whether or not it was a yes or no? Or can you direct me to where you answered with a yes or no?

What! you can't read anymore?

And here you once again show that you have no idea of what you're doing. Recall that you were the one claiming that a designer had told you of what its purpose was.

Where did I claim that? or are you lying again?

No, you're the one talking about a purpose not me. Or can you show me where I was talking about some hidden purpose?

Then you don't know what you are talking about. You cannot derive an ought without assuming a purpose

What is the purpose of this designer? Is it to be irrational and arbitrary?

Irrational and arbitrary in what sense?

By what standard do you judge the purpose of your designer?

The exact question I've been asking you all week.

Then tell me what you think constitutes an objective standard for morality and I'll tell you whether or not I agree.

Objective morality is morality that does not depend on individual subjective bias. For instance, the moral principle that states that a man ought to keep his word would be one of such objective moral principles.

They were irrelevant since what that example demonstrated was clear. You just tried once again to obfuscate. If you can tell me the relevance of those questions to determining whether or not you're supposed to reveal what the purpose of this hidden designer of yours is, then I'll consider responding but you have to say what the purpose is.

Interesting.
You tell a story I don't understand,
I tell you I don't understand,
you ask me to tell you what I don't understand,
I take my time to ask you pointed questions that will help me better understand you.
You declare my questions irrelevant.
Do you have any intention of being understood at all?

Do you know what is good regardless of your opinion? Please answer with a yes or no and tell me why.

I know that it is objectively good to be true to one's word. Would you accept this as an example of an objective moral truth?

thehomer:

Can the God who gave such a command be good in any sense of the word?

If a good God is giving such a command, then what would an evil command from the devil look like?

God's way is different from the ways of man. He knows the future. The reason why God could have given such a command was to ensure that the remnants of the people does not come back to haunt Israel. It is interesting to note that Saul did not completely obey the instruction which led to the Amalekites coming back in 1samuel 30:1-2 to carry the family members of David and his men captives.

The most difficult part in this instruction was the order to kill infants. The reason for this action is beyond my understanding. Who knows, may be when the children grow, they will want to take revenge. However, the LORD, Adonai, is perfectly good.