Premise: Objective morals do not exist

Originally posted by @dj2becker
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.

Your god figure (and perhaps at some point my god figure too) can do whatever he wants to do, according to you, including assume any nature he wishes to, because he is not bound by the morality of humans or, indeed, any earthly concerns or objections, because what he does is good, because he is good.

Originally posted by @fmf
[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.

The only thing we really know about God and His will is that which is recorded in scripture. Nothing can be added or taken away from it. So if you do claim that God told you to torture a baby for fun you can easily be dismissed as being deluded or insane.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The only thing we really know about God and His will is that which is recorded in scripture. Nothing can be added or taken away from it. So if you do claim that God told you to torture a baby for fun you can easily be dismissed as being deluded or insane.

Your god figure can do whatever he wants to do. Furthermore, as you have explained, whatever he does, it is, by definition, good. Even if he does something which you, a mere created being, thinks is deluded or insane or evil, it would be, according to the "objective" analysis you have offered of your god figure, inherently good and beyond human reproach.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I would say it is a brute fact. If you disagree, feel free to demonstrate why it is not always wrong to torture a baby for fun.

I haven't claimed one way or the other whether it's a brute fact. Where's the burden of proof?

PS Isn't proving something is or isn't a brute fact sort of admitting it isn't?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The only thing we really know about God and His will is that which is recorded in scripture. Nothing can be added or taken away from it.

If your god figure can create life or take life away as he sees fit, as you have explained, then he can surely create scripture or take it away as he sees fit too. Your god figure, surely, is not in any way limited or constrained by mundane and mortal stuff like what you happen to say is "the only thing [you] know about" him?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
I already did. I said it was intelligence, compassion and empathy that makes for objective standards. You want to force objectivity to ONLY be the territory of a god but humans can do it just as well if not better.

Mind you sonhouse, "objective" standards are non-existent. "Objectivity" is grounded strictly on our consensus regarding our collective subjectivity alone. There is no other objectivity than this.
Our so called "objective standards" are not "objective" because they envelop a specific essence or substance of "objectivity" that exists on its own being in them, in total separation from our mental activity; they are "objective" because WE decided that their state or quality is validated as true herenow even outside a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings and imaginings.

Cross-check it: Can you think of a serious version of moral success theory for which the moral facts depend in no way on OUR mental activity?
😵

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I would say it is a brute fact. If you disagree, feel free to demonstrate why it is not always wrong to torture a baby for fun.

Because it is a crime😵

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I would say it is a brute fact. If you disagree, feel free to demonstrate why it is not always wrong to torture a baby for fun.

It is not a brute fact. Torturing a baby is a crime, under any circumstances😵

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Those that believe there are no objective moral standards, because according to them no action is ever always wrong.

This is false.
He asked you: How many people of intelligence and compassion would agree torturing babies for fun is morally acceptable?

Your answer is wrong, because a person with high IQ/ EQ a sense of compassion would never decide to torture a baby under any circumstances;
😵

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I mean "a thing that is undeniably the case."

Demonstrate how and by what means "a thing that is undeniably a case" is indeed a case strictly non-depended on OUR mental activity alone, which came to conclude that the "thing" "is" "undeniably" "a case"😵

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

"Obviously" for you.
It is always wrong simply because it is a crime, not because "objective morals exist"😵

Originally posted by @fmf
If your god figure can create life or take life away as he sees fit, as you have explained, then he can surely create scripture or take it away as he sees fit too. Your god figure, surely, is not in any way limited or constrained by mundane and mortal stuff like what you happen to say is "the only thing [you] know about" him?

You obviously don't know what the Bible says about the issue, or you are simply ignoring it.

Originally posted by @black-beetle
"Obviously" for you.
It is always wrong simply because it is a crime, not because "objective morals exist"😵

That implies that right and wrong could change with changing laws. If it was no longer against the law to torture babies would that suddenly make it right? Would you do it if it wasn't against the law?

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Mind you sonhouse, "objective" standards are non-existent. "Objectivity" is grounded strictly on our consensus regarding our collective subjectivity alone. There is no other objectivity than this.
Our so called "objective standards" are not "objective" because they envelop a specific essence or substance of "objectivity" that exists on its own being i ...[text shortened]... n of moral success theory for which the moral facts depend in no way on OUR mental activity?
😵

There is no other objectivity than this.

Obviously not if God doesn't exist. What if He does exist?

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Because it is a crime😵

If it wasn't a crime you would be ok with it?