You asked for a standard of morality; I gave you one.
I didn't mean to tell you to read the whole article. I only provided a link so you'd have the source.
There were dozens of definitions of morality in that paper. None of which are sufficient to bind or judge God.
What makes you say that?
Why did you choose only one?
Well, we're talking about normative morality. If we're talking about descriptive morality, then we're done: descriptive morality is determined by human societies, and this human society considers killing kids to be wrong.
I picked one quote that defines normative morality in a succinct way.
Especially since it does not work on several levels.
1. You MUST prove that causing the least harm is actually a moral truth.
What do you mean by "moral truth"?
2. You Must prove God's actions caused more harm that his inaction would have.
One thing at a time. Before we explore whether God's actions are morally good, can you first acknowledge that morality applies to God?
3. You MUST establish a true hierarchy for different types of harm. I would rather be physically harmed if it produced spiritual or eternal good.
Again, this speaks to whether or not an act is moral. First, let's establish that morality does apply to God.
4. You MUST provide an accurate account of all relevant issues for each act of God you wish to condemn.
That I'm not going to be able to give you, but we don't need it for this discussion.
Obviously, I don't think I'd be able to provide an accurate account of any action by a God I don't believe exists. We're talking in hypotheticals: "if God did X, would it be evil?" ... it's like how we can talk about Darth Vader is good or bad without believing that Star Wars literally happened.
I can do this all day but there is no point because emotion and preference are what is driving these claims not logic. Logic dictates "as many honest atheists admit" that without God there is no known moral truths. That no standard exists that is sufficient to judge God. Maybe your a brain in a vat being fed garbage all day that is not true. You must show you actually KNOW something sufficient to do what your preference is writing checks for. It does not exist but wear yourself out trying if you wish. It is theoretically impossible.
I think you're arguing about a side issue here. This argument doesn't address whether God is evil; it addresses whether we should care that God is evil.
If you successfully established that morality is just a preference (you haven't, but if you did), then you wouldn't have established that God isn't immoral; you'd have only established that maybe we don't need to care about the fact that God is immoral.
Depends. A million children may be killed so save a billion. It may be that the parents of children in the flood were so evil they would have completely corrupted every child they had and sent them to Hell and God saved them all from that.
All else being equal, is the killing of children an example of lessening or increasing harm?
You have every bit of your work ahead of you. Assumptions on top of assumptions do not become facts by repetition. You have not even shown your definition is true yet nor why you shoes that one out of all the ones in your own paper nor even if true and the right one to pick that it is binding on God.
I think you're confused - making pronouncements and not backing them up is your tactic, not mine.
Your moral standards at the very best possible state are opinions and if anything is true of human history is that our opinions are not reliable and especially in this case as we do not even follow those opinion's and those opinions seem to swing from one end of the spectrum to the other. Who's standard's are to be used. Hitler's or Mother Theresa's.
This is a straw man. Morality deals with human well-being. We can have legitimate disagreements about what constitutes "well-being", and there are even people who hold unreasonable or internally inconsistent beliefs about well-being... but this doesn't mean that anything and everything is equally good.
As an analogy, we can talk about "nutrition", and within reason, people have different ideas about what makes up a nutritious diet... but even though we can disagree on whether an Atkins diet or a vegan diet is healthier and more nutritious, and even though we have foolish people like the
Breatharians (who claim the only nutrition they need is sunlight), this doesn't mean that saying "arsenic is nutritious" is just as valid as saying "broccoli is nutritious".
Nope I am appealing to right makes right. Absolute zero is cold by it's nature. It's being cold is right. Murder is wrong because the fabric of God's nature determines the fabric of reality to be consistent with that. Why are you so much more active in God is bad threads than anything else? I only gave you 4 things you must do to be right out of hundreds. Good luck.
Appealing to "God's nature" is just a circular argument: "God is what he is because he is what he is."
If your only moral foundation is God, then you can't make judgements about the goodness of God as a moral foundation, because this requires a standard that's external to God.
