We are continuing this conversation in God/Lack of evidence for God.

At this point some of the threads are running together.

>No one can do this. I can show that this existence is logical, more reasonable than the alternatives, concordant with science, and consistent with experience. But I cannot objectively show that God is true. I can only infer the most reasonable conclusion. As I have firmly established, not everything that falls into the category of knowledge and reason is subject to the objectivity of the scientific method.
I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying. Take a look at my whole statement. I wasn't just saying you can't objectively show that your god exists. I was saying that the fact that you can't objectively show that your god exists means that you don't have objective morality because your morality is based on the idea that your god exists. Honestly, I thought that was clear from my original statement. I'm willing to admit the possibility maybe I just wasn't very clear.

> you can't objectively show that your god exists

No one can do this. I can show that this existence is logical, more reasonable than the alternatives, concordant with science, and consistent with experience. But I cannot objectively show that God is true. I can only infer the most reasonable conclusion. As I have firmly established, not everything that falls into the category of knowledge and reason is subject to the objectivity of the scientific method.

What I can do is weigh the evidences and draw conclusions, which is what I have done. You have, I would assume, done the same, and yet we have arrived at polar opposites in our conclusions. Time and eternity will tell which of us is correct. Until then we follow the evidence where it leads and continue to reason through the arguments and evidences.

> Just because virtually everyone agrees on something doesn't mean it's objective.

I completely agree.

You keep claiming that you have objective morality, but you can't objectively show that your god exists. You don't have objective morality because you can't objectively show that your god exists.

Just because virtually everyone agrees on something doesn't mean it's objective.

We know about God's nature because He revealed it to us in two ways: in nature and in Scripture. By observing what the world is like, by digesting what the Bible says, and by observing how God works in the world is how we know what God's nature is, and that's the basis of objective morality.

> Morals aren't objective. We made them up.

Except that there are morals we all accept as valid, such as "It's wrong to kill a baby for the fun of it." You won't find anyone anywhere, in any culture, in any part of history, that believed killing a baby for the fun of it is right. Thus morals are objective, and we need to discern the source of the standard that we all share.

If you define good as whatever god's nature is, then the statement god's nature is good has no meaning. God's nature isn't really very well defined. How do you know what god's nature is aside from what he does?

Morals aren't objective. We made them up. Many of them are necessary for a society to flourish. Some of them are seen in animals like gods (believe it or not, we've done experiments that seem to show that dogs have a concept of fairness). I see no reason to think that morals objectively exist. They are incredibly important, but that doesn't mean they are objective. That being said, take a look at what your religioin has done to your sense of morality. Neither of us have objectively morality. You can't objectively show that your god exists so you don't have objective morality. The difference is my sense of objective morality says that it has always been wrong to stone someone to death for committing adultery or saying "let us go serve other gods". Your sense of morality says that those things have been moral at certain times under certain conditions.

> If you define good as whatever god does, then the statement god is good means nothing.

I don't. That's not how I define good. We get our definition from the nature of God, not from his behavior. It's safe to say that his behavior is always good, but that's not how we define good.

> If you define moral as whatever god does/says, then the statement god is moral means nothing.

I don't. that's not how I define "moral." We get our standard from the nature of God, not from what he does/says. It's safe to say that what he says and does is always moral, but that's not how we define "moral."

> Executing someone for adultery is wrong.

From what moral standard does this derive, and how do you know it's a moral standard? You keep asking me for scientific evidence. Now it's your turn. Give me the scientific evidence that "executing someone for adultery is wrong." Or at least justify it by proving the objective moral standard behind your assertion.

If you define good as whatever god does, then the statement god is good means nothing. If you define moral as whatever god does/says, then the statement god is moral means nothing. If god is to be judged by some standard of morality outside of god, then god isn't really the author of morality and thus isn't god.

Funny how god constantly agrees with whoever is writing and reading him? Odd thing that.

Executing someone for adultery is wrong. Most people can see that clearly when they see some muslim in an islamic theocracy stone some woman to death for adultery. The idea that this is perfect justice is insane. Once again, I conclude that your god's concept of morality is far inferior to my own. Killing someone for adultery is immoral. Always has been.

Glad to talk. Christians believe that morality is based on the character of God. What God is is right; what God is not is wrong. Murder is wrong because God is life, He created life, He values life, and He invested life with value and significance. Societies can only function properly if there is respect for life. Therefore killing is wrong.

Lying is wrong because God is truth, and truth is the foundation of meaningful relationships. Society can't function properly if we can't trust each other. The judicial system won't work if we can't trust the testimonies of the witnesses. Businesses can't function if there is no trust. Families will fall apart where there is no truth. Therefore lying and giving false testimony is wrong.

Adultery is wrong because God is faithful, and faithfulness is the foundation of meaningful relationships. Society can't function properly if we're just animals screwing with whomever we want, or raping each other. People don't have the dignity they deserve that way—they're just sexual victims. Families can't function that way. Society will crumble if sexual abuse is uncontrolled and rampant. Maybe you disagree with me, but we can keep talking about it.

Therefore adultery is a capital offense, like murder. As I mentioned in a previous post, all of the cultures of the ancient Near East saw adultery as a capital crime. They perceived it as destructive to the very core of society and dignity. This is how, then, stoning someone for adultery is in keeping with God's character. God values human life and dignity, he values truth and faithfulness in relationships, because eventually we will cease to be human if crimes like this are allowed to persist. We will turn into animals, abusers, victimizers, and society will become nothing more than kill or be killed, perpetrators and victims, and monsters. Patrick Buchanan said, "A modern society that outlaws the death penalty does not send a message of reverence for life, but a message of moral confusion. When we outlaw the death penalty, we tell the murderer that, no matter what he may do to innocent people in our custody and care, women, children, old people, his most treasured possession—his life—is secure. We guarantee it in advance. Just as a nation that declares that nothing will make it go to war finds itself at the mercy of warlike regimes, so a society that will not put the worst of its criminals to death will find itself at the mercy of criminals who have no qualms about putting innocent people to death."

God's justice is in many cases relative to how the culture shaped itself, but that doesn't mean God's justice is built on man's opinions and values. It just implies that God accommodates real human situations in the application of various principles of justice. We do the same thing in our system of justice. Certain situations are allowed to persist, not because they are right, but because of how they function and where they lead us. For instance, let's supposed a cop goes undercover and joins a crime circle to catch the kingpin. He may function like that under the radar for years to set up the sting. What? Are we allowing known crime to continue for YEARS without shutting it down? You bet we are, because we are after a certain goal that can only be achieved with a certain accommodating strategy.

So, stoning someone for adultry is in keeping with god's character? I would agree, I just disagree on whether this is a character that could be the character of any deity. It seems to me that this is clearly the character of primitive man, not a deity.

"God’s justice in many cases in the OT is relative to how the culture itself is shaped and what its values are"\
Isn't this pretty damning? god's justice should be perfect and morally pure and just, right? I mean, if god's "justice" is just the values of primitive man, then clearly god is no better than primitive man and is clearly not god. If my sense of justice and morality are greater than that of the god of the old testament since he just affirms the morality of the primitive men that wrote the book, then this isn't much of a god. Shouldn't god's justice be perfect, not relative to the people who were writing him? Isn't your god perfect and just in all ways at all time? Isn't he greater than man, and especially primitive man that wrote the bible?