Because the level of “sufficient information” you need to proceed means
you are either need help or are not trying to have a good faith
productive conversation.
Your false dichotomies won't work either. This is not about a "good faith" productive conversation. This is about your capacity to substantiate that which you state. I'm not asking for sources; I'm asking for reason.
The point I was making was about the logical impossibility of God having
the qualities often prescribed to him and still being anything other
than amoral given the reality we can clearly observe.
And what reality is that? You make too many assumptions.
There are serious ways to deal with that if you disagree; you can for
example claim that God does not have all of those qualities, or you can
show how those qualities logically square to the world we observe. You
responded by asking me to explain what “bad” is and why I would apply
that to my example of child sex trafficking rings.
Your argument is as follows:
P1. God is omniscient and omnipotent.
P2. Bad things like child rape, and malicious murders occur.
P3. God is either responsible for the occurrence of child rape and malicious murders (i.e. being the cause of all events), or indirectly responsible through inaction.
C. Therefore God is amoral.
I've demanded you first and foremost define "amorality." I then requested that you to delineate the moral framework on which you base characterizations such as "good" and "bad." After that, I demanded that you explain the reason this moral framework was the only one worth considering. Furthermore, I requested that you demonstrate how the application of bad "voids" or "nullifies" said moral framework. And finally, I demanded that you demonstrate how God's action or inaction is consistent with your application of descriptions such as "good" and "bad." I ask these things because making such descriptions explicit ARE CRITICAL TO YOUR ARGUMENT.
What morality is and how we apply it is certainly a philosophical
conversation worth having and one where there is much disagreement. But
to go down that path in this conversation along with the litany of other
things you asked for shows that you aren’t serious,
To the contrary, it shows that I'M VERY SERIOUS. You maintain that if God existed, God would be amoral. So of course the subject of morality will warrant focus.
this is more like an attempt to just wear me down by making me explain
every simple concept to you while you pretend not to understand.
Your paranoia is just a projection. I could give a fudge about what's on your itemized list of "Bad Things," whether it be child rape (another diversionary tactic) or choking bunnies. You affirmed a proposition; the affirmation of this proposition creates an onus; I demanded clarification, i.e. make explicit the use of certain descriptives such as "amoral" and "bad." You refuse, and instead derail and divert the conversation away from your onus, i.e. my mental stability/character (I wonder why that is?) while attempting to create a referendum on my capacity to maintain a "good faith" conversation. Your antics will not work with me.
Not worth my time.
The only one who has wasted their time is I. Either substantiate your affirmation, or have a nice day.
