Is morality objective or subjective?

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 753
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@PressF4Respect
Abattoir or slaughterhouse. 
And are you aware of how they treat the animals they slaughter?

Are you saying the slaughter is not quick?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
“Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.  
This doesn't sound like "objective morality" to me.

The actual law of god says, "if you violate the marriage covenant, both violators are to be killed".

All you're doing is proving that your hypothetical god constantly changes its mind.
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@TheRealNihilist
The is-ought fallacy is a naturalistic fallacy. It grounds morality in what is (nature) to derive its oughts.
<br><br>
You have no basis for such an accusation. Explain to me how the is and ought distinction is a naturalist fallacy.
"The term naturalistic fallacy is sometimes used to describe the deduction of an ought from an is (the is–ought problem)."

"A naturalistic fallacy is typically built upon the fact that someone uses a factual statement as evidence for a value statement."



God's character/nature is good

Demonstrate it.
What would you accept since you deny Him?

There is always another 'what if.' All I can say is that there is sufficient reason to believe. It is not blind faith. It is not an irrational faith. 
You don't understand how things work. People just don't change their mind because they hear what you say. People change their mind when you have provided something worth them considering the opposite then changing. You outwardly call people lost causes or in your words people who don't want their mind changed.
It is not for me to decide who is a lost cause and who is not. I can only observe your replies and whether you are open to understanding the biblical position from a Preterist standpoint or not. I believe there is sufficient evidence of biblical prophetic fulfillment in history. 

You don't understand me nor can you and the failure resides on you.
I understand you to a degree from a biblical perspective. That is,

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

What I do understand is that I was in the same position that you are in, yet God had mercy on me. 

You show just how little ground that your Religion has when all you do is posture about how bad the other side is.
I point out the deficiencies of a position that denies God as you point out all your criticisms of "religion." For me "religion" is a man-made worship system. I see Christianity as a worship of and relationship with God, not mere religious rituals and oughts. 

That is not an argument when there is so many different sides.
Again, I understand the basic laws of logic and that contradictory claims cannot all be true. If any, only one can. Truth is narrow. 

It would only be fair if we were just talking about 2 different worldviews but there is a ton out there but you don't seem to understand so here we are at your attempt using your feelings to say how bad 1 out of several worldviews are.
Basically, we are. We are talking about God creating as opposed to random chance happenstance as the explanation of why we are here. 

It is when we get into God creating that we zero in on God and who God is. 

Belief is antithetical to reason. You using as the opposite shows how irrational you are. I don't believe something to be reasonable. I use reason to determine what is true. 
Some belief is. That would be blind faith, a belief that is taken without question, or it would be an irrational faith, a belief that is not justified by fact. The Christian faith is neither of those two, yet some people make it so. The Christian faith is a reasonable faith, a belief that has as its basis evidence or facts. 

Your reason only extends so far. You refuse to look at the foundation your reason is built upon. Either that is a necessary personal Being or blind indifferent random chance happenstance. You start either with God or chance happenstance and you build from one of those two presuppositional starting points. You fail to see how you continually build or steal from my worldview framework in your reasoning and making sense of things. 

You borrow from the Christian worldview in making sense of things. You don't remain in your own worldview, you look outside it.
Reason is not a Christian thing unless you are begging the question yet again.
No, you are painting and pigeon-holing Christianity in an unfavourable light because of your bias against it. You might not be aware of it but I am.

Some great thinkers are and were Christian. 

You don't even know how to use it so I would expect nothing less from a person who doesn't even know how words are used. 
Again, instead of demonstrating how I fail to use reason you attack me rather than my arguments. Thus, your arguments are not reasonable in many cases.

Thus, you live inconsistently to your starting point of core belief. 
What is my core belief?


If you deny a personal Being as responsible for creating the universe you would have a naturalistic and materialistic worldview by default. Since you continually deny God and fight for a naturalistic explanation alone your worldview points to chance happenstance as the explanation for our existence. 

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
If you deny a personal Being as responsible for creating the universe you would have a naturalistic and materialistic worldview by default.
Not necessarily.  One could be a DEIST and or an IDEALIST.

Since you continually deny God and fight for a naturalistic explanation alone your worldview points to chance happenstance as the explanation for our existence. 
Not necessarily.  DEISM does not rule-out an "intelligent" "designer" and or (a non-random) NOUMENON.
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
“Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.  
This doesn't sound like "objective morality" to me.
As Jesus said, the intent of marriage was a lifetime commitment. It reflects on our eternal life union as Christians to God for the church or body of believers is the Bride of Christ. "What God has joined together let no man separate." Our covenant with God is in Christ Jesus.

So, there are spiritual truths and teachings in the symbolism and typology of earthly marriage. Marriage conveys a greater truth, a spiritual truth. That is the lesson. We, as Christians constantly see truths in earthly things presented in the OT that are a typology of a greater reality. There are numerous truths we understand in the physical nation of Israel, the land, Jerusalem, the people, the leaders, the feasts, the worship and the items of worship that present a greater truth. They all point towards Jesus Christ.  

The actual law of god says, "if you violate the marriage covenant, both violators are to be killed".
The purpose of the law was to show how holy God was and how seriously the covenant they entered into was to be taken.

All you're doing is proving that your hypothetical god constantly changes its mind.
God did not change His mind, human's changed their minds. God does permit us to do our thing, for a season. Eventually, we are all accountable.
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
If you deny a personal Being as responsible for creating the universe you would have a naturalistic and materialistic worldview by default.
Not necessarily.  One could be a DEIST and or an IDEALIST.
A deist still reverts to God/a god or a being as the default cause just does not necessarily support the biblical revelation of God. Thus, Being/beings is/are still the creator(s).

My point, if you discount a creator then you are left with chance happenstance - no rhyme nor reason behind the universe, it just is. Thus, ultimately there are two main options. You could argue for a couple of other options but I don't think they pan out. For instance, you could argue that the universe is an illusion. Experientially, that does not work. 


Since you continually deny God and fight for a naturalistic explanation alone your worldview points to chance happenstance as the explanation for our existence. 
Not necessarily.  DEISM does not rule-out an "intelligent" "designer" and or (a non-random) NOUMENON.
Deism begs the question of what this intelligent designer is like. If so, what is this being like? 

Are you fighting for deism as an option? Are you saying this god/gods is an ultimate being/beings?

Acts 17:22-28 (NASB)
22 So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. 23 For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; 26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ 
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@PGA2.0
Are you saying the slaughter is not quick?
The treatment of the animal, from the moment they are born to their slaughter, is inhumane. Some would argue that it is immoral.
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
@golfer

Deism begs the question of what this intelligent designer is like. If so, what is this being like? 
Every god is whatever the believer wants it to be, no two believers believe in exactly the same god. You golfer are the only person on the planet who believes in your god, everybody else believes in a slightly different god.


PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@PressF4Respect
Are you saying the slaughter is not quick?
The treatment of the animal, from the moment they are born to their slaughter, is inhumane. Some would argue that it is immoral.

Very true. You bring up some good points. We have to eat. We should treat animals in a humane way, not a cruel way, yet we as humans have dominion over animals. Not only this but do you think we could feed the whole of humanity solely on vegetation? My justification for eating meat is that God has given us permission to eat animals instead of just vegetation? This gets into a wholly different topic, God's existence. So I have reasons for why I believe it is okay to eat meat. 

As for immoral, do you think animals think in terms of morality or is that completely a human function?

PS. Are you a vegetarian?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
My point, if you discount a creator then you are left with chance happenstance - no rhyme nor reason behind the universe, it just is.
Not necessarily.

If you understand your EPISTEMOLOGICAL LIMITS, then you would simply say, "that claim is beyond our epistemological limits".

Oh, yeah, and MOOT.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@disgusted
Deism begs the question of what this intelligent designer is like. If so, what is this being like? 
This is exactly the same as trying to guess what god's favorite color is.

No, DEISM "begs" no such question.  DEISM doesn't even rule-out Promethean style gods. [LINK]
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PressF4Respect
The treatment of the animal, from the moment they are born to their slaughter, is inhumane. Some would argue that it is immoral.
Veal?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Look, if you want to call a blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus a CITIZEN, then everyone must register with the state every single time they copulate.
Again the question is what is being killed? Is it a human being? What do you say???
By definition, the STATE can only protect CITIZENS.

As for your analogy of copulation, only when the result is the conception of a new human life should the moral aspects apply.  
Look, I'm perfectly willing to consider a blastocyst a CITIZEN, but if that blastocyst DIES then we must send someone to PRISON.

I'm not willing to let a single blastocyst die, EVAR, and neither are you.  So make sure to submit your copulation reports on time.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
The actual law of god says, "if you violate the marriage covenant, both violators are to be killed".
The purpose of the law was to show how holy God was and how seriously the covenant they entered into was to be taken.
So are you suggesting that your hypothetical god's law is not really supposed to be treated as a regular law, it's more like a metaphor?

All you're doing is proving that your hypothetical god constantly changes its mind.
God did not change His mind, human's changed their minds.
Who made the humans change their minds?

God does permit us to do our thing, for a season. Eventually, we are all accountable.
I see.  So when god said "adulterers will be executed" they meant, you know, not "immediately"...
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
My point, if you discount a creator then you are left with chance happenstance - no rhyme nor reason behind the universe, it just is.
Not necessarily.

If you understand your EPISTEMOLOGICAL LIMITS, then you would simply say, "that claim is beyond our epistemological limits".

Oh, yeah, and MOOT.
You operate by one system of thought (worldview) or the other if you have reasoned origins out. You either operate by a naturalistic system of thought or a supernaturalistic system of thought as your grounding principle or core belief that other beliefs revolve around and are built upon. You could believe God/gods wound up the universe and left it to its own means. Nevertheless, that takes the argument back to another step. That step is still, whether the universe is created or it is here because of chance happenstance.  


Deism begs the question of what this intelligent designer is like. If so, what is this being like? 
This is exactly the same as trying to guess what god's favorite color is.

No, DEISM "begs" no such question.  DEISM doesn't even rule-out Promethean style gods. [LINK]

Yes, it does beg what this supernatural being/begins is like for the reason that if you have the wrong God/gods your theology falls apart since it does not represent this God/gods as that/those being(s) really is like. It raises the question of what this being/beings is/are like? Since all religions have different contrary ideas of God/gods only one, if any, can be true to what God/gods is/are. The problem with gods versus God is are these gods unified in belief and essence? If some are not there is not only contradiction there but some are not as powerful as others. Thus can their existence also be traced to the greater, more powerful being?

Also, if God/gods has/have not revealed Himself/themselves to humanity there could be no surety of how this universe came to be. So, to know or have a reasonable belief there would have to be evidence and revelation that points to a particular Being or beings. 

Nevertheless, whether deism, theism, or chance happenstance the universe is still here either by natural means or supernatural means. Either there is the intention behind the universe or the universe is devoid of intent and purpose. Thus, you are still left with two options or the belief that everything is an illusion. Do you want to go down the road of illusion?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
You either operate by a naturalistic system of thought or a supernaturalistic system of thought as your grounding principle or core belief that other beliefs revolve around and are built upon.
When you say "supernaturalistic" are you suggesting you believe in some kind of Substance-Dualism?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Nevertheless, that takes the argument back to another step. That step is still, whether the universe is created or it is here because of chance happenstance.  
It makes no difference if everything was "created" "intentionally" or not.

An "intentional" cosmos is indistinguishable from an "unintentional" cosmos.

There are zero implications either way.

This renders the distinction MOOT.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Since all religions have different contrary ideas of God/gods only one, if any, can be true to what God/gods is/are.
If any.

Furthermore,

Since all religions have logically incoherent descriptions of gods, those descriptions are impossible and therefore must be inaccurate.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Nevertheless, whether deism, theism, or chance happenstance the universe is still here either by natural means or supernatural means. Either there is the intention behind the universe or the universe is devoid of intent and purpose.
It makes absolutely no difference if the cosmos was created "intentionally" or "unintentionally".

An "intentional" cosmos is indistinguishable from an "unintentional" cosmos.

Thus, you are still left with two options or the belief that everything is an illusion. Do you want to go down the road of illusion?
In order to define "illusion" you would have to also define "real" in order to have some standard of contrast.
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Look, if you want to call a blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus a CITIZEN, then everyone must register with the state every single time they copulate.
Again the question is what is being killed? Is it a human being? What do you say???
By definition, the STATE can only protect CITIZENS.
No, it can protect every human being. If someone enters the USA who is not a citizen does that person/human being still deserve to be protected like every citizen or can the citizens do whatever they want with that person/human being?

Now, what is being killed? Is the unborn a human being?



As for your analogy of copulation, only when the result is the conception of a new human life should the moral aspects apply.  
Look, I'm perfectly willing to consider a blastocyst a CITIZEN, but if that blastocyst DIES then we must send someone to PRISON.

I'm not willing to let a single blastocyst die, EVAR, and neither are you.  So make sure to submit your copulation reports on time.

Sex without conception does not result in the different stages of human growth. It is only when conception takes place and a new, living human being exists that intentionally killing it matters. You can't kill something that does not exist. So, a person's sexual reports do not have to be submitted. That is a private matter and is no concern until conception takes place. Then another human being needs to be taken into consideration. 

So, what is being killed? You list difference stages of growth. Of what? Is it a human being?

It matters morally, if all human beings are intrinsically valuable and deserve to the treated equally. Do you believe that should be the case? If not, then there is no such thing as justice for not everyone is treated equally. Law ceases to justice if some are treated with more value than others because of who they are rather than because of what they are. The most basic human right is the right to life. 
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
The actual law of god says, "if you violate the marriage covenant, both violators are to be killed".
The purpose of the law was to show how holy God was and how seriously the covenant they entered into was to be taken.
So are you suggesting that your hypothetical god's law is not really supposed to be treated as a regular law, it's more like a metaphor?
No, what I am suggesting is that there are principles that apply to all human beings and there are situations and laws that God made with particular people (Israel) during a particular time in history (ANE) that reflected these principles but were specific to these people and to ANE customs to an extent. The 613 Mosaic laws tie into the principles of the Ten Commandments but they were also imposed to showcase how pure and holy God is. Since sin separates humanity from His presence God demonstrated this by these laws of cleanliness and purity. To enter God's presence required Israel to be without sin by paying for their sins with a sacrifice, purifying and cleansing themselves of sin. The animal sacrifices could never take away sin but only cover it until a point in time when God provided the ultimate sacrifice that would take sin away and restore humanity to a right relationship with God for all those who would believe in it. 

The covenant God made with Israel was symbolic of marriage. Symbolically, God became their husband and they became His wife. Thus God gave us an example of how He wants us to be within our marriages. It is a sacred covenant. Sin keeps us from being that way, thus God created a consequence for impurity in marriage with Israel. We, as Christians no longer live under that covenant. Jesus fulfilled it for us. He remained faithful to God on behalf of the believer. We Christians live under a better covenant. We no longer stone those who are unfaithful to the marriage covenant but we understand the significance of remaining committed to our marriage partners. We understand the wrong and how it hurts others and kills a relationship.   

Even in OT times Moses and the leaders did not always live up to the requirements of the law. Hence, the Day of Atonement. And since the offence is towards God He has a right to hold us/them accountable and yet since He is ultimately the offended party, He has a right to forgive us and offer us mercy. That mercy is given in Jesus Christ. He meets the righteous requirements of God and also pays the penalty for sin - separation from God. Every OT sacrifice and feast day is a typology of and points towards Him.

So, for a while, God ignored the offence that Israel committed against Him with their adultery and idolatry. He was gracious to them for a time until their sins were heaped up to the limit of God's patience. Then He brought judgment. Moses' letter of divorce only put a bandaid on the wrong, it did not remove it. It did not bring justice to the wrong. It did not meet the prescribed manner of the law.

Jesus met the righteous requirements of the Law of Moses.  

But, as Jesus put the law of Moses and the Ten Commandments down to two, love God and love your neighbour. Love covers a multitude of sins. We witness God's love for His people in that He was patient with them. 
 

All you're doing is proving that your hypothetical god constantly changes its mind.
God did not change His mind, human's changed their minds.
Who made the humans change their minds?
They do, we do. They/we have volition. They/we are not robots. 


God does permit us to do our thing, for a season. Eventually, we are all accountable.
I see.  So when god said "adulterers will be executed" they meant, you know, not "immediately"...
The people did not follow the law. Moses permitted a certificate of divorce even though they knew that in the beginning, God created them to be united until death in marriage. It was a symbol of a greater truth, our unity and union with God as believers. Jesus has followed the law on our behalf that our sins are not imputed to us but instead His righteousness. That is the great exchange that took place on the cross and imputed to those who believe along with a changed nature towards God, a love for Him instead of either ignorance or denial of Him. That is why Jesus said, "you must be born again," regenerated, changed and transformed in our disposition towards God by His Spirit. 

PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
You either operate by a naturalistic system of thought or a supernaturalistic system of thought as your grounding principle or core belief that other beliefs revolve around and are built upon.
When you say "supernaturalistic" are you suggesting you believe in some kind of Substance-Dualism?

God is Spirit. That is different from a physical body. It is intangible.

Christians believe we have a spirit, and soul, something that makes us who we are that is different from everyone else and that something is not physical, not tangible. Our minds are different from our brains.

You as a materialist or naturalist would more than likely believe the mind is the brain, that everything is physical. 
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Nevertheless, that takes the argument back to another step. That step is still, whether the universe is created or it is here because of chance happenstance.  
It makes no difference if everything was "created" "intentionally" or not.
It makes all the difference as to making sense of existence. 


An "intentional" cosmos is indistinguishable from an "unintentional" cosmos.
Outwardly, perhaps? Yet, we keep discovering law or principles that explain things about our existence yet are mind-dependent of just us. We find meaning out there which is inconsistent with chance happenstance. 


There are zero implications either way.
There are all kinds of consequences if our universe is created and God is its Maker. 


This renders the distinction MOOT.


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
There are zero implications either way.
There are all kinds of consequences if our universe is created and God is its Maker. 
Like what exactly?  And let's stick strictly to the "intentional" versus "unintentional" comparisons please.

Skipping directly to your personal favorite hypothetical god is out-of-scope.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
An "intentional" cosmos is indistinguishable from an "unintentional" cosmos.
Outwardly, perhaps? Yet, we keep discovering law or principles that explain things about our existence yet are mind-dependent of just us. We find meaning out there which is inconsistent with chance happenstance. 
Like what exactly? 
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
When you say "supernaturalistic" are you suggesting you believe in some kind of Substance-Dualism?
God is Spirit. That is different from a physical body. It is intangible.
So, that would be a "yes" to Substance-Dualism?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
So are you suggesting that your hypothetical god's law is not really supposed to be treated as a regular law, it's more like a metaphor?
No, what I am suggesting is that there are principles that apply to all human beings and there are situations and laws that God made with particular people (Israel) during a particular time in history (ANE) that reflected these principles but were specific to these people and to ANE customs to an extent.
So, exactly the opposite of, "universal moral principles".
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Who made the humans change their minds?
They do, we do. They/we have volition. They/we are not robots. 
How can your god be considered all-powerful if humans can violate god's will?

How can your god be considered all-knowing if humans can force them to change their plans?

Is your god incapable of perfectly predicting human behavior?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
I see.  So when god said "adulterers will be executed" they meant, you know, not "immediately"...
The people did not follow the law. Moses permitted a certificate of divorce even though they knew that in the beginning, God created them to be united until death in marriage.
Great.  Are you suggesting that because Moses violated god's law by allowing divorce that makes it ok for EVERYONE to violate god's law both now and forever?

Did god ever make an official retraction of that "kill adulterers" law?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Look, I'm perfectly willing to consider a blastocyst a CITIZEN, but if that blastocyst DIES then we must send someone to PRISON.

I'm not willing to let a single blastocyst die, EVAR, and neither are you.  So make sure to submit your copulation reports on time.
Sex without conception does not result in the different stages of human growth.
Every copulation is a potential gift from god.

Even birth-control is never 100% effective.

So there is a chance that a blastocyst has formed two days after your most recent copulation.

Of course homosexual copulation wouldn't need to be reported.

IFF a blastocyst has formed, and the mother goes out for a night on the town that results in that blastocyst's death, THAT IS MANSLAUGHTER.

That person is criminally negligent and should be thrown in Prison for the rest of their lives.

This is why we must make copulation reports mandatory.  So we can save the lives of every single teeny-weeny-teensy-shmeensy blastocyst.

That is a private matter and is no concern until conception takes place. Then another human being needs to be taken into consideration. 
I agree 100%.  Exactly 48 hours after copulation.  SAVE EVERY SINGLE ONE.  Please file your paperwork immediately.