Why?

antiskeptic

Stephentlig wrote: »

really? scripture seems to say differently "27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works." ( Matthew:16:27 )

"21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. ( Matthew:7:21)"

we are saved by faith, but not faith only, nowhere in scripture does it say we are saved by faith only, but to the contrary the only place the words ''faith only'' appear in scripture are in James:2:24 "Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?"

As you've probably worked out by now, when I use the word "Christianity" I don't include Roman Catholicism within that fold - anymore than I do Jehovahs Witness or Mormonism or other similarily skewed Christ-referencing religions.

This is not to say a Roman Catholic cannot be saved. If they are, it will be in spite of and not because of Roman Catholicisms (alleged) route to salvation.

Now is probably not the time to get into isolated out of context verse-quoting to support my position, I'm merely stating what that position is for the purposes of addressing the OP.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

How are you defining objectively?

Do you mean "objectively" evil in God's opinion, or do you believe that evil as a standard of incorrect behaviour exists as a fact independently of anything including God?

Or to put it another way, who says being sinful is evil? You? God? The universe? The multiverse/reality/what ever God exists in

If it is God then it isn't particularly objective, is it?

Or think of it this way. If God determined/decided that some thing was evil as opposed to good and that became the objective standard then before this decision it wasn't the objective standard. But then it can't be the objective standard if at some point it isn't and then it is.

If it was the objective standard then it just was that way, for eternity, just like God just exists.

But then God wouldn't have decided it was this way, he would have just observed what the objective standard was.

An appropriate way to define evil here would be to state that it is, let's say; "actions, thoughts, desires that run contrary to the will of God". There is no 'beforehand' or 'deciding that' involved. God's will always had the view it has on what runs with and against it. And seeing as evil always relates to God's will, the objectivity of evil centres around God - not something apart from God. It might help if you view God's dim view of eg: pride, as something that stems from his nature. He is, by makeup and not decision, antagonistic to pride. In the same way that I am, by nature, antagonistic to rotten smells, not decision.




(Naturally by this definition, God can do no evil - it not being possible for him to operate contra his own will )

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

An appropriate way to define evil here would be to state that it is, let's say; "actions, thoughts, desires that run contrary to the will of God".

You slightly missed the point.

You say evil is things that run contrary to the will of God.

Is that the objective definition of evil? If so where did it come from. where is that defined? Is that a property of the universe/multiverse/reality?

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

You slightly missed the point.

You say evil is things that run contrary to the will of God.

Is that the objective definition of evil? If so where did it come from. where is that defined? Is that a property of the universe/multiverse/reality?

It came from God and seeing as God (for the purposes of discussion) is the ultimate source of everything, that's about as objective a definition as you can get.

You're free to define evil in other ways for the moment, but the argument is that a time will come where everyone will agree with Gods definition.

antiskeptic

Canis Lupus wrote: »

What the???? What version of christianity are you following cos last time I heard you had commandments etc you have to follow before being let into your retirement home in the sky.

The non-Roman Catholic version

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

It came from God and seeing as God (for the purposes of discussion) is the ultimate source of everything, that's about as objective a definition as you can get.

But if it came from God then it is not objective, it is subject, dependent on God opinion.

To be objective it must be a property of reality, not decided by anything or anyone, just the way it is. If it comes from something else then it isn't objective, it is decided by something and thus is dependent on that subjectively.

You can say that God's opinion is perfect, but that doesn't make it objective.

This is why I never understand why theists go on about atheists not having objective morality, as if that is some who different to theist morality?

You don't have objective morality, you have authority, which is not the same thing. You accept, based on his properties, the authority of God to dictate moral opinion.

Someone could just as easy say they do that with the UN Charter of Human Rights, or another person (your parents for example).

The UN Charter of Human right is a subjective view of morality, but then so is God. You just end up arguing about authority and why you should pick one authority over another authority.

It is hard to see any case where true objective morality exists, theist or atheist.

Anyway, we are drifting slightly off topic.

kryogen

antiskeptic wrote: »

The non-Roman Catholic version

what is your gripe with Roman Catholicism?

and also, can you give me some detail on what your version on the route to salvation is?

Amtmann

kelly1 wrote: »

[Satan] doesn't want us to have what he can never have.

What if Satan asked God for forgiveness? Could this theoretically happen, and would God grant it?

kryogen

Furet wrote: »

What if Satan asked God for forgiveness? Could this theoretically happen, and would God grant it?

Thats interesting actually

in theory of course, if Satan were to repent and ask Gods forgiveness then God must forgive him I would have thought

I guess the opinion of most is that Satan would never repent as he is the for want of a better expression "bad guy" in this piece?

antiskeptic

Furet wrote: »

What if Satan asked God for forgiveness? Could this theoretically happen, and would God grant it?

In order for a person to ask for forgiveness they must first be convinced that they're in need of it. That conviction - which involves the bringing of a person to the place of truly realising their own objective rotteness - is a work carried out on a person by God. And it's a work of God that can be avoided and finally rejected by a person - the consequences of which mean they won't arrive at conviction and won't thus, ask for forgiveness. They've stretched the redemptive work of God to breaking point ... and beyond

Satan sails in that boat. He's one (and the first of many) who have passed through the boundary of God's redemptive activity into the realm of damnation.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

But if it came from God then it is not objective, it is subject, dependent on God opinion.

It isn't argued that God has an opinion on the matter of evil. Anymore than one could argue that it is my bodies opinion regarding vile smells which causes it to react in the way it reacts to vile smells.

To be objective it must be a property of reality, not decided by anything or anyone, just the way it is. If it comes from something else then it isn't objective, it is decided by something and thus is dependent on that subjectively.

You're attempting to apply the argument, as it applies to a person, to God - as if he was just another person. In the same breath however, you mention objectivity being a "property of reality" and "just the way it is" - when I've been saying that very same thing regarding God's view of evil. It is his nature to react to certain things in certain ways and he cannot but react in that way and cannot be other than he his. Not even God can stop being God.

(It's interesting that you say that objectivity involves things just being the way they are when, for the purposes of discussion, you'd be agreeing that the way things are are the way they are because God made them that way. Thus: nothing is "just is the way it is" - except God)

You don't have objective morality, you have authority, which is not the same thing. You accept, based on his properties, the authority of God to dictate moral opinion.

Can you see now where the source of all objectivity lies? That God has authority too merely means he can deal with beings made accountable by him to his moral authority.

Concentrate on God's nature, not his opinion. Whilst opinions can change, God's nature cannot.

mardybumbum

antiskeptic wrote: »

Ask an atheist.

The atheist accepts there is no transcendent purpose in life: he's going to enjoy the here and now for what the here and now offers - even though he knows everything he achieves will be defeated by death - whether his own death or the death of others who are influenced by his life (a commonly posited atheist 'purpose'). Such a one might be in a better position to answer than those who consider themselves to have an eternal purpose.

Sorry to drag the thread off topic.
But the above quote is a real insight.
Does it worry you that what you achieve in this life may not be recognised by future generations?
What exactly is your eternal purpose?

antiskeptic

kryogen wrote: »

what is your gripe with Roman Catholicism?

The Scriptures warn of wolves in sheeps clothing. That is to say, the very best lies are those lies which are woven up in elements of the truth.

Roman Catholicism posits the Roman Church as a necessary mediator between God and man (when there is but one mediator between God and man, the God/man Jesus Christ). The fact that this lie is wrapped up in truths regarding the role of Christ in salvation doesn't lessen the lie.

The Roman church (along with other religions such as Islam and Judaism) also suggests that the way to a mans salvation centres upon that mans work: his behaviour, his obeying commandments, his God-pleasing activity, his following certain religious duties, etc. His being saved is conditional on his performance in other words.

This enormous lie not only misdirects people away from God's way of salvation, it also steals the joy a person can have knowing now that they are saved - rather than having to await, shivering with doubt and trepidation, the final Judgment of God.

Finally, Roman Catholicism just smells bad. All that hocus pocus religiousity; novenas, decades of the rosary, mary-worship, holy days, lent, rapid-fire Our Fathers, confession boxes, pomp and ceremony - not to say hand-wringing false piety turns me right off. I do like the smell of the incense tho'

and also, can you give me some detail on what your version on the route to salvation is?

The route to salvation is through Christ. He is the only acceptable-to-God manner by which the sin, your sin, which separates you from God can be dealt with by God. God has provided this way for you - because there is no provision you can make for yourself which will do.

That manner by which you take hold of this provision will vary very much depending on the individual case. Vary in detail I mean. The essence is the same in all cases: it is necessary that you be brought to conviction about your need for salvation. That "bringing to conviction" is a work of God that is ongoing in all people. It is a work that won't necessarily succeed in all cases - because we all have a will that is God-enabled to and God-entitled to .. reject his attempt to convince us of our need.

If he does manage to bring you to conviction then he will open the door to salvation for you and will lead you in himself. The work is all his - and whilst there is something you can do to prevent him carrying out that work, there is nothing you can do to contribute to it.

And the route to salvation?

If, one day, you find yourself despairing, self-loathing, helpless, desperate, stricken, hopeless, panic-stricken ... and are absolutely convinced there is nothing you can do to extract yourself from your desparate situation .. then turn to an unbelieved in God and cry for his help. If you do, it will be that you have no other option but to. If you do, it will be because he managed to corner you in this place. If you do, it will be your final act of submission to his Sovereign reign over your life.

Then true life, the way life was God-intended to be for you, will begin. And it will never end.

That the process involves a lot of pain can't be helped. The death of your old, sinful self is a death indeed and death is a painful business. As is the subsequent birth - birth being a painful business too.

antiskeptic

mardybumbum wrote: »

Does it worry you that what you achieve in this life may not be recognised by future generations?

Not at all. The point was that the athiest can hold to a transcendently purposeless life (other than his here and now + fading memories of his existance) and so he's a better one to consult on the matter of satan's reasoning than one who considers lifes purpose as transcending a finite period.

What exactly is your eternal purpose?

To know God and enjoy him (and him me) forever. Quite what the mechanics of that will be I don't know ("no eye has seen nor mind has conceived, the wonderful things that God has prepared in advance for those who love him") but I'm reckoning that love, ie: the expression of it, will be a central feature.

Stephentlig

Roman Catholicism posits the Roman Church as a necessary mediator between God and man (when there is but one mediator between God and man, the God/man Jesus Christ). The fact that this lie is wrapped up in truths regarding the role of Christ in salvation doesn't lessen the lie

When our protestant brothers make such sweeping claims, we must always take them to task.

Jesus Christ is the one mediator between God and man. But that does not preclude Jesus from applying His role as mediator anyway He sees fit. In fact, right before Paul says that "Jesus is the one mediator" (1 Tim 2:5), Paul appeals for mediation from others besides Christ, by urging that "supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men" (1 Tim 2:1). How can Paul appeal to mediation from others if Jesus is our only mediator? Because, as St. Paul answers, "this is good, and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim 2:3-4). Therefore, although Jesus is our one mediator, He has charged us to be intercessors, or subordinate mediators with Him. We are able to do this by virtue of our baptismal priesthood.

This is why Paul can say "I complete in my body what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ for the sake of His Body, the Church (Col 1:24). Was anything lacking in Christ's sufferings? Of course not. Paul is teaching us that God invites us to participate in the work of Jesus Christ, whether it be through intercession, suffering, works of charity and so forth. God is not threatened by the great glory and responsibility He gives His children. Indeed, the God that is worshiped in the Catholic Church is a loving Father who is intimately involved with His children and who invites their participation, just as earthly fathers do for their children.

The Roman church (along with other religions such as Islam and Judaism) also suggests that the way to a mans salvation centres upon that mans work: his behaviour, his obeying commandments, his God-pleasing activity, his following certain religious duties, etc. His being saved is conditional on his performance in other words.

Of course, but the works are good works done in a system of grace, not works done in the rigid system of the mosaic law of the Jews.

"Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation." ( Phil:2:12)

you are not justified by faith alone, you must ''work out your salvation''

This enormous lie not only misdirects people away from God's way of salvation, it also steals the joy a person can have knowing now that they are saved - rather than having to await, shivering with doubt and trepidation, the final Judgment of God.

Roman Catholics know they are saved, and thats a great joy in itself, but we can lose that salvation according to our sins. your position is totally not scriptural.

Finally, Roman Catholicism just smells bad. All that hocus pocus religiousity; novenas, decades of the rosary, mary-worship, holy days, lent, rapid-fire Our Fathers, confession boxes, pomp and ceremony - not to say hand-wringing false piety turns me right off. I do like the smell of the incense tho'

sounds like your gripe with roman Catholics goes deeper than just theology, I shall pray for you.

And the route to salvation?

If, one day, you find yourself despairing, self-loathing, helpless, desperate, stricken, hopeless, panic-stricken ... and are absolutely convinced there is nothing you can do to extract yourself from your desparate situation .. then turn to an unbelieved in God and cry for his help. If you do, it will be that you have no other option but to. If you do, it will be because he managed to corner you in this place. If you do, it will be your final act of submission to his Sovereign reign over your life.

Then true life, the way life was God-intended to be for you, will begin. And it will never end.

That the process involves a lot of pain can't be helped. The death of your old, sinful self is a death indeed and death is a painful business. As is the subsequent birth - birth being a painful business too

again no scripture quote to support your theory that we are saved by faith alone. read your Bible antiskeptic, there is no ''faith alone'' in there.

Pax Christi
Stephen<3

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

It isn't argued that God has an opinion on the matter of evil. Anymore than one could argue that it is my bodies opinion regarding vile smells which causes it to react in the way it reacts to vile smells.

It isn't? But you just said it came from God as God is the source of everything.

Are you saying God made it that way unconsciously? If so based on what?

Human bodies react to vile smells because evolution has developed a defense mechanism to protect us against harmful substances, mostly things we shouldn't eat because they are rotten or toxic.

Are you saying that evil harms God, and thus he has a evolved to identify it subconsciously

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're attempting to apply the argument, as it applies to a person, to God - as if he was just another person. In the same breath however, you mention objectivity being a "property of reality" and "just the way it is" - when I've been saying that very same thing regarding God's view of evil. It is his nature to react to certain things in certain ways and he cannot but react in that way and cannot be other than he his. Not even God can stop being God.

Well two things here.

If it is just the way things are, then it does not come from God, any more than God comes from God (an illogical statement).

God is not the source of himself and thus would not be the source of morality, morality would be just the way things are in the same way that God existing is just the way things are.

That leaves us with God being bound to his own nature, and also raises the question of why is God's nature (and thus morality) one way and not the other? Chance? Randomness?

The other point is that even though we may have determined that God's nature is just the way it is, we are still left with the question (among others) of why it is considered evil to go against God's nature.

You originally suggested that it is that way because God decided so, but now you seem to be retreating from that position.

Why is it not to be considered good to go against God's nature and evil to follow God? Who decides that either way?

antiskeptic wrote: »

(It's interesting that you say that objectivity involves things just being the way they are when, for the purposes of discussion, you'd be agreeing that the way things are are the way they are because God made them that way. Thus: nothing is "just is the way it is" - except God)

Well yes, that is in fact my point. Therefore morality, decided by God, is not objective.

For morality to be objective it most exist in the same realm as facts. God exists is a fact (lets assume), and that is an objective state of reality. It is just the way things are. No rhyme or reason. Nothing decided there would be a God for a reason.

Likewise morality, if it is objective, exists at this level. It is just the way things are. God didn't decide this, he simply reflects it.

If on the other hand morality comes from God then it is not just the way things are it is decided by God and is thus subjective.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Concentrate on God's nature, not his opinion. Whilst opinions can change, God's nature cannot.

But God does not decide his nature. Why is God's nature one way and not the other?

So who did? Or what did? Chance?

It is some what unsatisfying to say that we should not sin simply because of random chance.

Though I would agree with you that this is truly objective morality.

mardybumbum

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not at all. The point was that the athiest can hold to a transcendently purposeless life (other than his here and now + fading memories of his existance) and so he's a better one to consult on the matter of satan's reasoning than one who considers lifes purpose as transcending a finite period.

I may be missing out on your point again, but do you believe that life has no purpose without a God?
I must admit, I have never had these fears myself. If I did, perhaps I might search for an eternal purpose.
Why not try and cure cancer, solve the hodge conjecture, abolish world hunger, bring peace to our planet, combine quantum mechanics and general relativity. :pac:
The above examples are slightly OTT but you get the idea.
I find there is a purpose to attempting these things; making life better for future generations.
I feel the whole "no purpose without God" ideology to be slightly depressing tbh.

To know God and enjoy him (and him me) forever. Quite what the mechanics of that will be I don't know ("no eye has seen nor mind has conceived, the wonderful things that God has prepared in advance for those who love him") but I'm reckoning that love, ie: the expression of it, will be a central feature.

Sounds wonderful. I wish it were true myself.
However, I have a feeling I'd be going to a different place to you.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

It isn't? But you just said it came from God as God is the source of everything. Are you saying God made it that way unconsciously? If so based on what?

I'm saying that God doesn't decide something is against his will. If it is, it is because it's contra his nature.

Human bodies react to vile smells because evolution has developed a defense mechanism to protect us against harmful substances, mostly things we shouldn't eat because they are rotten or toxic.

Evolution hasn't done anything of the sort. Evolution produces what it produces according to the governing principles of evolution. It is as it is and what is contra-evolution's march is rendered extinct. There is no deciding on the matter.

Just like there is no deciding on the matter with God as to what's contra his will. It is as it is. The how and when God manages that issue isn't blind in the same sense evolution is blind - but it is worthwhile drawing a parallel with the nature-not-decision element. Evil is rotten. God's nature, like Evolution supplied natural reactions, will ensure it is expunged.

Are you saying that evil harms God, and thus he has a evolved to identify it subconsciously

No.

Well two things here.

If it is just the way things are, then it does not come from God, any more than God comes from God (an illogical statement).

? It comes from God alright. God is just the way he is. Which makes what comes from him be the way it is. Why is the universe ordered and rational? Because God is ordered and rational and created it that way.

God is not the source of himself and thus would not be the source of morality, morality would be just the way things are in the same way that God existing is just the way things are.

Non sequitur. God is not the source of himself because source speaks of precursor and God has no precursor. He exists as he is. Morality, an attribute of God exists because he exists. As far a source goes it's we who look to a precursor (other than our parents or their parents) for morality. And our search for the source of morality ends at God. That he has no source is neither here nor there.

That leaves us with God being bound to his own nature, and also raises the question of why is God's nature (and thus morality) one way and not the other? Chance? Randomness?

Who knows.

The other point is that even though we may have determined that God's nature is just the way it is, we are still left with the question (among others) of why it is considered evil to go against God's nature.

That's not a question that can be derived from our working definition of evil.

Evil is defined as simply that which is contra-Gods will. Just like 'up' is a word used to define movement away from the earths surface. We don't ask why is up, up.

You originally suggested that it is that way because God decided so, but now you seem to be retreating from that position.

I somehow doubt I used the word (or sense of the word) "decide". I could be wrong but would suppose using the term "says so"

Why is it not to be considered good to go against God's nature and evil to follow God? Who decides that either way?

Our definition of evil sorts this issue out entirely.

Well yes, that is in fact my point. Therefore morality, decided by God, is not objective.

For morality to be objective it most exist in the same realm as facts. God exists is a fact (lets assume), and that is an objective state of reality. It is just the way things are. No rhyme or reason. Nothing decided there would be a God for a reason.

Likewise morality, if it is objective, exists at this level. It is just the way things are. God didn't decide this, he simply reflects it.

And why must it be by reflecting something factual outside God. And not something factual within God. Given that we should be past the issue of something within being a decision by now?

But God does not decide his nature. Why is God's nature one way and not the other?

So who did? Or what did? Chance?

This would suggest a precursor to God. God assembled from something else (chance being something else existing before God). The suggestion is that he is the first thing. The source of everything.

The problem seems to be with the questions not being relevant to the situation to hand.

It is some what unsatisfying to say that we should not sin simply because of random chance.

Though I would agree with you that this is truly objective morality.

Can I suggest that what is most unsatisfying is the notion that you can't circumvent God. And that being subject to his natures demands - because there is no higher court of appeal for you (guesses at chance notwithstanding) raises your ire.

All objectivity requires is an immovably object and God is that object.

antiskeptic

mardybumbum wrote: »

I may be missing out on your point again, but do you believe that life has no purpose without a God?

It has whatever purpose you like - however you like it. I mean, without God who's the arbitrator of purpose. You might as well be it.

I must admit, I have never had these fears myself. If I did, perhaps I might search for an eternal purpose.

You could be expected to. However, if satisfied with the purpose you'be plumped for as sufficient then there's no reason to look elsewhere.

Why not try and cure cancer, solve the hodge conjecture, abolish world hunger, bring peace to our planet, combine quantum mechanics and general relativity. :pac:

The above examples are slightly OTT but you get the idea.

Sure. And there's nothing stopping you pursuing these things as a child of God.

I find there is a purpose to attempting these things; making life better for future generations. I feel the whole "no purpose without God" ideology to be slightly depressing tbh.

There is no doubt that you can busy yourself with goals to accomplish and that this gives purpose to life (accomplishing goals). It's just that it need not stop there. I find it depressing to see people rattle along the tracks to death waving supposedly noble purpose in the air, when in fact their purpose was intended to be much larger than that.

It makes such a damp squib out of even the most noble of godless lives. If only folk realised they were intended to be son's of the most high king. Such exhalted position (because we are talking about a vastly larger realm than this small planet of ours) renders insignificant, the highest position available here.

Note too that the intention for this world is that it be wrapped up and disposed of (or dismantled to elemental parts and remade). All it's history, all it's wisdom, all it's expenditure will be discarded as having served it's Creators purpose. How much purpose is there in godlessly bailing out the Titanic?

Sounds wonderful. I wish it were true myself.
However, I have a feeling I'd be going to a different place to you.

Hopefully you'll be found wrong.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm saying that God doesn't decide something is against his will. If it is, it is because it's contra his nature.

But God does decide his will, surely?

Anyway, that wasn't quite my point. Who decides that someone against God's will is evil, as opposed to good?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Evolution hasn't done anything of the sort. Evolution produces what it produces according to the governing principles of evolution. It is as it is and what is contra-evolution's march is rendered extinct. There is no deciding on the matter.

Yes it has. We react to vile smells because those who didn't react to vile smells ate them and wound up dead. Natural selection and all that.

We don't react to vile smells just because. "Vile" is relative, a dog will happily eat it's own sick because it has the stomach to handle that where was we don't, the bacteria in our vomit is harmful (why we got sick in the first place), and thus have evolved a response that we find the smell of vomit disgusting in order so that we don't go near it.

It is a defense mechanism.

Not quite sure what this has to do with anything?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Evil is rotten. God's nature, like Evolution supplied natural reactions, will ensure it is expunged.

Rotten in what context?

You say you don't mean harmful? Do you understand why we find rotten things disgusting (see above). It is because they are harmful.

Perhaps you need to rethink your analogy.

antiskeptic wrote: »

It comes from God alright. God is just the way he is. Which makes what comes from him be the way it is. Why is the universe ordered and rational? Because God is ordered and rational and created it that way.

Yes, so you can say the universe comes from God because he created it.

If something is just the way it is then it doesn't come from God, God is bound by it as is everything else.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Non sequitur. God is not the source of himself because source speaks of precursor and God has no precursor. He exists as he is. Morality, an attribute of God exists because he exists.

You are flipping between two states almost at random.

If morality comes from God then God is a precursor to it and created it (since who else would have)

Thus it is subject to God

If morality is based on what ever determined how God would be (random chance say) then it is not a precursor to God and thus is just the way things are, and is objective.

Saying that morality comes from God because it is based on God's nature and thus he doesn't decide anything is illogical.

If that was the case then morality would come from what ever determined God's nature, which wasn't God as we have established.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Evil is defined as simply that which is contra-Gods will. Just like 'up' is a word used to define movement away from the earths surface. We don't ask why is up, up.

Define by whom as what is contra Gods will? And surely that definition is subjective as subjective as any other.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Our definition of evil sorts this issue out entirely.

I think you hit the nail on the head there.

antiskeptic wrote: »

And why must it be by reflecting something factual outside God. And not something factual within God.

Because God didn't decide it. It was determined by what ever determined God would be the way God is.

Call it "reality" for a want of a better word.

Given that God can't determine his own nature he also can't determine morality and thus he is not the source of it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

This would suggest a precursor to God. God assembled from something else (chance being something else existing before God). The suggestion is that he is the first thing. The source of everything.

That is illogical, given that when you count "everything" you are naturally going to include God since we are assuming he exists.

And since God is not the source of himself he cannot be the source of everything. He can be the source of everything else

And we seem to be defining morality based on how God is, his nature, then God cannot be the source of morality. Morality is defined by what ever way God was defined.

What determined God would be one way and not the other way is a theological issue, but what ever the answer is this is logically the source of morality.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The problem seems to be with the questions not being relevant to the situation to hand.

Well to be honest the problem seems to be theism and its pesky contradictive statements

Simple because you can write my objective morality comes from God, or God is the source of everything, doesn't mean such sentences actually makes sense.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Can I suggest that what is most unsatisfying is the notion that you can't circumvent God. And that being subject to his natures demands - because there is no higher court of appeal for you (guesses at chance notwithstanding) raises your ire.

You can but that to me would suggest you are getting defensive because issues with the theology are exposed, and you are falling back on the old theistic faviourate recrimination that I'm doing this because of my sinful nature and desire to rebel against God.

I hope I'm wrong, but perhaps instead getting into tit for tat assertions as to why each of us isn't accepting the others's position we should just stick to the logic at hand.

antiskeptic wrote: »

All objectivity requires is an immovably object and God is that object.

No objectivity requires a fact of reality. God cannot determine his own fact, his own nature, and thus cannot determine (and thus be the source of ) objective morality if we define this morality based on what is or isn't God's nature.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

We react to vile smells because those who didn't react to vile smells ate them and wound up dead. Natural selection and all that.

Parmesan cheese anyone?