[colah]

> Even basic logic would tell you "God Exists" does not lead to "Therefore, God does not exist." in the same argument.

Incorrect. A common form argument is: suppose a leads to not a, therefore a can't be true or suppose a leads to contradiction, therefore a can't be true. Arguments of this form have been made on this topic based on morality (counter arguments exist: cf. Descartes).

But I'm not trying to do so, anyway.

My argument was solely that the God of the Bible is immoral. As the quote goes: "even if a God as described in the Bible does exist, he is not fit for worship due to his low moral standards." There are misotheists who believe Jehova is evil.

> Morality is relative to the information one knows. You, not being an omniscient deity, do not have all the information available to make a perfect judgement.

I would disagree. I believe that moral absolutes exist and that certain things are intrinsically wrong. I don't need to be omniscient to know that infanticide is wrong. Jehova commits Crimes Against Humanity and Acts of Genocide at several points in the OT.

[kirse]

I would disagree. I believe that moral absolutes exist and that certain things are intrinsically wrong.

If you really believe that moral absolutes exist, then you must conclude that there exists some infinite being capable of being the foundation for that moral absolutism. Here's why...

Absolute morals (a perfect morality) can only be established by infinite knowledge... A perfect morality is knowing all information at once, weighing all that information, and then making the perfect decision.

We as humans are morally relative because we don't know all available information and knowledge. It's why a tribe on some island genuinely believes infanticide is acceptable (they genuinely believe the child is possessed), while you do not (you would know the child has a neurological disorder).

As I demonstrated by a simple human example, more information and knowledge = better moral decisions. Thus, an all knowing being, God, is the foundation for an absolute (and perfect) set of morals.

[colah]

Let me preface my answer with asking you a question. You see, you seem to have very similar beliefs to those I did a few years ago. My beliefs started changing once I asked myself the question: suppose Satan was all powerful and God/Christ was weak; Satan will reward those who will murder, rape, and torture but sentence those who try to act morally to eternal torture (Hell)... Would you still act morally or would you embrace debauchery? Which would be `right?'

If you are willing to act the way Satan wishes for you to, then the reason you act the way you do now is just selfishness. If you are not, you must be prepared to question the morality of God and to reject immoral actions. I came to the conclusion that the person I was required I reject `Satan' and you can see where things went from there.

>If you really believe that moral absolutes exist, then you must conclude that there exists some infinite being capable of being the foundation for that moral absolutism. Here's why...

It is my opinion that your comment does not proceed to demonstrate this. I will return to this later.

> A perfect morality is knowing all information at once, weighing all that information, and then making the perfect decision.

So an omniscient murder is a good person?

> We as humans are morally relative because we don't know all available information and knowledge. It's why a tribe on some island genuinely believes infanticide is acceptable (they genuinely believe the child is possessed), while you do not (you would know the child has a neurological disorder).

What the tribe does is wrong. The fact that they are doing it out of ignorance makes it understandable but it doesn't make it right.

It's possible that I, like the tribe, am wrong.

But lets reflect on what you've argued. At the beginning you stated:

>If you really believe that moral absolutes exist, then you must conclude that there exists some infinite being capable of being the foundation for that moral absolutism.

You haven't demonstrated this. The only thing you've really made an argument for is that only an omniscient being can know with certainty what is right or wrong. I don't agree, but am willing to grant it temporarily. You still haven't shown that morality can't exist without an omniscient being, or that an omniscient being is necessarily moral.

As Humans we must do the best we can.

Are you willing to argue, then, that infanticide is acceptable? Think about what (supposedly) happened for a minute: God killed thousands, perhaps million, of children. Some wouldn't have been able to speak. Most wouldn't be of an age where they could in anyway be held responsible for their civilisations crimes (slavery) by any sane morality (Yes, I know God likes to go and punish ``even until the third generation.'' I happen to disagree.).

If you are willing to accept this, are you willing to accept Herod's slaughter of the innocents? They're are many similarities between God's actions and Herod's.

Regardless, the question is whether you are willing to justify God's actions. Please answer: is the mass slaughter of children to punish their parents justifiable to you?

[kirse]

The reason I act the way I do now is out of love and obedience, not selfishness. Besides, that hypothetical scenario is not reality, and we have enough to debate given the present reality.

What the tribe does is wrong. The fact that they are doing it out of ignorance makes it understandable but it doesn't make it right.

Ok right, but you still won't acknowledge the fact that from a moral perspective, their conscience is entirely clear. Put on their glasses for a moment. Why? As you just stated, their own ignorance aka a lack of knowledge is the reason why. I need to re-emphasize that their moral conscience is clear. It's all relative to humans, who are clearly reliant on more knowledge to make better moral decisions.

Nevertheless, I agree (and concede to you) that moral absolutes don't prove the existence of God. However, thousands of simple human examples show that more information and more knowledge should allow us to make better moral decisions. By should, I mean more knowledge doesn't necessarily stop us from cutting up and suctioning children in the third trimester from their mother's womb (for example).

Regardless, the loaded question you asked me would be properly re-factored as a moral dilemma, one that both of us could never answer without bickering for years:

Is the mass slaughter of a single generation of children to punish their parents justifiable... in light of... The 400 years of brutal slavery and genocide inflicted on an entire race of God's chosen people?

Two moral crimes, good sir, now who's to be the judge? Certainly not I, I know not enough.

[colah]

> 400 years of brutal slavery and genocide inflicted on an entire race of God's chosen people?

You make it sound like the `God's chosen people' part is relevant to the moral discussion. If the Egyptians had been the slaves and Israelites the slave holders, would that change things?

What about if it was the Americans and their black slaves, a couple hundred year ago?

Would infanticide be justified then?

I don't even see how the Egyptians moral crimes are relevant. The party that is primarily punished is the only innocent one: children.

That's before we even consider whether the death sentence is ever justifiable.

> Two moral crimes, good sir, now who's to be the judge?

As the old adage goes, two wrongs, good sir, don't make a right.