Premise: Objective morals do not exist

Originally posted by @fmf
You know exactly why I think it is wrong to torture babies for fun - and cannot conceive of any circumstances when it would be the right thing to do - because we have talked about it before. Why are you asking me about it again?

If you cannot conceive of any circumstances when it would be the right thing to do, why can't you unequivocally say that it is always wrong?

Originally posted by @fmf
The issue is that you think it is "objective" at the same time as you won't provide any "objective facts" and instead plead that you simply cannot explain it. Meanwhile, I have no difficulty at all explaining why I believe it is wrong to torture babies for fun.

Obviously the explanation that it is always wrong is logically consistent with the assumption that objective morals exist.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If you cannot conceive of any circumstances when it would be the right thing to do, why can't you unequivocally say that it is always wrong?

Because, I suppose, your god figure might become my god figure too, one day, and tell me [and you] to do it, and then I would presumably do it for the same reason you would do it, and neither of us would have any moral objection to doing it - indeed, it would be "objectively" the right thing to do, according to your ideology, anyway. Until that happens, I cannot conceive of any circumstances when it would be the right thing to do, but I cannot use the word "always" because your god figure reportedly works in mysterious ways.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Obviously the explanation that it is always wrong is logically consistent with the assumption that objective morals exist.

Well, you know my stance on this. It hasn't changed. I refer you to when we discussed it before.

Originally posted by @fmf
Because, I suppose, your god figure might become my god figure too, one day, and tell me [and you] to do it, and then I would presumably do it for the same reason you would do it, and neither of us would have any moral objection to doing it - indeed, it would be "objectively" the right thing to do, according to your ideology, anyway. Until that happens, I canno ...[text shortened]... but I cannot use the word "always" because your god figure reportedly works in mysterious ways.

What reason based upon your understanding of the Bible (as a multi decade Christian) would God have to tell anyone to torture a baby for fun? You are surely just taking the piss here.

Originally posted by @fmf
Well, you know my stance on this. It hasn't changed. I refer you to when we discussed it before.

I know exactly why you won't admit that objective morals standards do exist.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
What reason based upon your understanding of the Bible (as a multi decade Christian) would God have to tell anyone to torture a baby for fun? You are surely just taking the piss here.

I am going on your justification of genocide where followers of your god figure did it and where they then wrote down and said that god had told them to do it. The premise is that if I become a follower of your god, I will take on the same beliefs as you and come out with same sort of supposedly "objective" arguments as you do based on the superstitious notions that we would both then have.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I know exactly why you won't admit that objective morals standards do exist.

Let's hope what you say you "know" is in fact based on all those posts of mine you appear to have assiduously ignored or pretended not to have understood.

Originally posted by @fmf
I am going on your justification of genocide where followers of your god figure did it and where they then wrote down and said that god had told them to do it. The premise is that if I become a follower of your god, I will take on the same beliefs as you and come out with same sort of supposedly "objective" arguments as you do based on the superstitious notions that we would both then have.

So because God told the Hebrews to defend themselves against vicious enemies that were out to destroy them he could tell you to torture a baby for fun? Nothing wrong with your logic there. 🙄

Originally posted by @fmf
Let's hope what you say you "know" is in fact based on all those posts of mine you appear to have assiduously ignored or pretended not to have understood.

No it is based upon all the posts of yours that I have read and understood.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
What reason based upon your understanding of the Bible (as a multi decade Christian) would God have to tell anyone to torture a baby for fun?

No, I'll base it on your ideology as you have propagated it here. Maybe the babies remind our god figure of the Canaanites and he tells us to simply redefine the word "fun" - in the case of torturing them, all of them, men women, children and babies - as "enjoying administering justice" [a bit like redefining "genocide" as being 'not genocide', and declare it to be "morally sound", because our god figure ordained it so [this would be referred to as a "brute fact"] and it would be "good" because he created the babies and he created us, so whatever he said is good, would be good, because He is Good. etc. etc. The whole thing would be "objective", if you are to be believed.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So because God told the Hebrews to defend themselves against vicious enemies that were out to destroy them he could tell you to torture a baby for fun?

It would be because your god figure [and mine] so willed it. It would, therefore, be "good", by definition, going on stuff you have said. If your god figure (and my god figure) told us to torture a baby for fun, the rightness of it would be undeniable ~ and a brute fact.

Originally posted by @fmf
No, I'll base it on your ideology as you have propagated it here. Maybe the babies remind our god figure of the Canaanites and he tells us to simply redefine the word "fun" - in the case of torturing them, all of them, men women, children and babies - as "enjoying administering justice" [a bit like redefining "genocide" as being 'not genocide', and declare it t ...[text shortened]... , because He is Good. etc. etc. The whole thing would be "objective", if you are to be believed.

What we know about the nature of God is that which is revealed in the Bible. If you think that there is evidence in the scriptures that it is within the nature of God to tell someone to torture a baby for fun you are either deluded or you are taking the piss. I presume it is the latter.

Originally posted by @fmf
It would be because your god figure [and mine] so willed it. It would, therefore, be "good", by definition, going on stuff you have said. If your god figure (and my god figure) told us to torture a baby for fun, the rightness of it would be undeniable ~ and a brute fact.

How would you know that God has told you something if it is not recorded in scripture? Or are you trying to imply that God reveals His will outside of scripture?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
[1] How would you know that God has told you something if it is not recorded in scripture? [2] Or are you trying to imply that God reveals His will outside of scripture?

[1] I don't know at this point in time. Perhaps new revelations will be recorded in new scriptures. [2] I am assuming your god figure (and my god figure) can do whatever he wants, and whatever it is, it will be good.