Ok, here is my take on your argument:

8. An uncomposed being (such as an uncomposed part) is purely simple, since it lacks any parts. — Bob Ross

What do you mean by purely simple? Why an uncomposed thing must be purely simple?

9. Two beings can only exist separately if they are distinguishable in their parts. — Bob Ross

Correct if two beings are composed. We can distinguish uncompsed beings by their attributes though.

10. Two purely simple beings do not have any different parts (since they have none). — Bob Ross

I don't see how this follows. Two uncomposed beings just do not have parts.

11. Therefore, only one purely simple being can exist. — Bob Ross

I don't see how this follows either. Two uncomposed beings can have different attributes so there can be more than one.

12. The purely simple being would have to be purely actual—devoid of any passive potency—because passive potency requires a being to have parts which can be affected by an other. — Bob Ross

What do you mean by purely actual? Why cannot an uncomposed thing have potency?

14. Therefore, there can only be one purely actual being which is also purely simple. (11 & 12 & 13) — Bob Ross

This does not follow to me as I don't understand the previous premises and conclusion.

19. Therefore, the forms of the composed beings must exist in the purely simple and actual being. — Bob Ross

What do you mean by this?

20. Intelligence is having the ability to apprehend the form of things (and not its copies!) — Bob Ross

Yes, if the form of things can be manifested as thoughts.

21. The purely simple and actual being apprehends the forms of things. (19) — Bob Ross

That does not follow to me as I don't understand what do you mean by (19).

24. Therefore, the purely simple and actual being is omniscient. — Bob Ross

Yes, if all possible forms of composed beings exist. Otherwise, the purely simple and actual being lacks omniscience.

27. To be good is to lack any privation of what the thing is. — Bob Ross

To me, good is just a feature of our experiences and has nothing to do with privation.

28. The purely simple and actual being cannot have any privations, since it is fully actual. — Bob Ross

That does not follow since I disagree with the definition of good.

35. Therefore, the purely simple and actual being is omnipotent. — Bob Ross

The omnipotent is the ability to actualize all possible forms. It is not sure whether all possible forms exist and whether they are only caused by a purely simple being.

Me neither. However, it seems perfectly plausible to make inference that he could only have resurrected and ascended to Heaven, because he became God after the resurrection. — Corvus

I don't think so when there is no verse from the Bible to justify this.

What would stop one from say, comparing viewing the text of your reply (whether the viewer is fluent in the language of the text or not) as a similar "experience". — Outlander

I say that we have the same experience when the features of our experiences are the same. We have the same experience of rose if the redness is similar to us, likewise the shape and other features of our experience.

Perhaps that's your point? — Outlander

My point is that our experiences of what is good or evil are different. Good and evil are features of our experiences. I say something is good when it is pleasurable to a person otherwise it is evil. As I noted we are different when it comes to good and evil. For example, murder is evil to the majority of people. However, some people have pleasure from killing therefore killing to them is good. I hope that makes sense to you. If not please let me know so I can elaborate further.

Then the only thing we can reason is that we can all do whatever we want to each other and no one has a reasonable way of saying what can and cannot be permitted. — Philosophim

We cannot do whatever we want because of social constraints. Social constraints are however based on what the majority agree on and this agreement is due to having the same conscience, belief, interest, and the like.

You also cannot justify forbidding any action either. MoK, this is when armchair philosophy fails. You know darn well that if someone stole from you, you would want society to agree with you that it was wrong, despite what others feel. You know that even if a majority thought it was good to murder an entire group of people in a concentration camp, that would still make it wrong. I can't take a person seriously who does not consider these realities. — Philosophim

No, we can forbid many actions because of social agreement. This agreement is possible since the majority of people have a common conscience, belief, interest, etc.

No, because it would have to be a fact that they exist. If good and evil are not facts, they don't exist. Even if you claimed, "Good is what I like", then you are asserting that as a fact. If its not a fact, then its only an opinion, and therefore nothing anyone has to agree with. — Philosophim

What looks good to me may look evil to others, which is the source of social conflicts. Have you ever asked yourself what is the source of social conflicts?

Alright, we're getting somewhere now. How do we know what we should or shouldn't do? — Philosophim

The only source that we have to see what is permissible and what is not is conscience, belief, interest, and the like. But people have different consciences, beliefs, and interests and that is the cause of all struggles that we witness now and existed in the past.

So you think that right and wrong have some factual basis to them, because they exist independently of social constraints or opinions. Those would be moral facts MoK. — Philosophim

Yes, I think morality can be objective if there are moral facts.

How so? That's just an assertion, not a reasoned explanation. My point that if there are no moral facts there are no rights stands. But saying that because there is conflict over something, that something cannot be a fact is absurd. If my wife and I fight over who gets the last cookie, is there no cookie? :D — Philosophim

Of course, there is a last cookie. You however have your own interests and that is the source of conflict.

I don't understand what this means, can you go more in depth? — Philosophim

Let's say that you are looking at a rose. You experience the rose. This experience, however, has different features like the redness of the rose, shape, and the like.

Then good and evil are just synonyms for feelings. At that point why even have the words? You haven't differentiated them from feelings, you've simply labeled them as feelings. — Philosophim

They are features of our feelings but they are not synonyms to feelings.

So we both agree that good is what we should do, while evil is what we should not do. If that's the case, then we have the same definition of good and evil. — Philosophim

No, good or evil could be right or wrong depending on the situation. Punishing a kid is evil yet we do it because we think it is right in a specific situation.

Lets analyze the word, "should" next. There is another word, 'want'. Want is an emotional desire to commit an action. Should is a question of whether following that desire results in an optimal outcome. — Philosophim

Desire is one factor that plays an important role in building a situation. The optimal outcome for who? An evil person who wants to commit a crime or a good person who wants to prohibit it?

Good is what should be. — Philosophim

No, good is just a feature of our experience.

And what should be is a right action. — Philosophim

No, the right action is what we should do and that should be based on moral facts that there is none.

Evil is what shouldn't be. — Philosophim

No, we do evil actions in some situations, like punishing them.

And what shouldn't be is a wrong action. — Philosophim

I am sorry for saying another no but here you go: :) No, a wrong action is what we shouldn't do.

Good is not what we want, good is an action that leads to a right outcome. Evil isn't what we dislike, evil is an action that leads to a wrong outcome. — Philosophim

I disagree. Don't you punish your children when they do something wrong? Punishing children is evil since it is not pleasant to them and the parents, yet we do it because it leads to the right outcome.

Silly analogy aside, reason relies on facts. If you say that morality is determined partially by reason, then you by consequence are saying it relies on facts. — Philosophim

No, I am saying that morality is not based on any moral facts since there is not any moral fact.

If morality truly has no facts, then no amount of reason can justify any good or evil action. — Philosophim

Correct. We cannot justify any action if there is not any moral fact.

At that point, good and evil don't exist. — Philosophim

Good and evil exist even if there is not any moral fact.

If this is a fact, then reasonably every action is permitted, and no action is restricted. The concentration camps were not evil, kicking a baby and laughing at its cries of internal bleeding and pain are fine to celebrate. — Philosophim

These actions look evil to the majority of people and people who think otherwise try to avoid them because of social constraints yet these actions are not right or wrong perse.

Be careful to really understand that an armchair conclusion is not the same as a real world decision. Would you actually behave in real life as if good and evil were simply opinions, or would you think it was a fact that a person of sound mind is evil and should be stopped who laughed at killing innocents, raping women, and blowing up property for fun? Because there is not a single person in the world across all cultures who wouldn't call that man evil. — Philosophim

The evil person who commits these actions does not think they are wrong.

Then what is right and wrong? Generally what is right is synonymous with a good action, while wrong is synonymous with a wrong action. — Philosophim

The right action, good or evil, is what we should do and the wrong action, good or evil, is what we should not do. We punish our children when they do something wrong. Punishment is evil since it is not pleasant to parents and kids yet it is right. I have to say that our conclusion that the punishment in certain situations is right is not based on moral facts but on our conscience, belief, and the like.

Did you know that rights are moral assertions? A right is a statement that no one else has moral justification in taking something away from you. Freedom of speech for example is a considered good, or what should be, because the exchange of ideas in a free and comfortable area allows a situation to be thought through on all sides, encourages creativity, helps solve solutions most effectively, and lets societies grow. All of this is a moral assertion that such things are good. There are lots of individuals who don't like the freedom of speech. They say, "I don't like when someone insults me or my favorite politician. That's wrong because I don't like it, and should be thrown in jail." If your assertion is there is no moral fact, then there are no rights. — Philosophim

The very existence of conflicts between people for their rights is an indication that there is no moral fact.

Everything else is a repeat. Think about this for a while and don't respond immediately if you don't mind. All good philosophy is about considering with seriousness anything that could counter our initial beliefs. Try to prove that I'm right, then if you see contradictions if I am right, point them out. — Philosophim

I have been thinking about morality for a very very long time and I think I am correct in saying that there is no moral fact therefore morality is subjective.

Yes, of course. They learn that in Sunday school and just keep repeating it, because it sounds right, feels right and gives them some reassurance that, if only they try hard enough to deserve his favour, God will make everything all right. Most of the Christians I've met - sincere, half-hearted or cynical - haven't read very much of their holy book. Or else, they wave off the nasty bits of their religion's underpinnings with 'interpretation': "It doesn't mean what it says; it's metaphorical or allegorical or lost in translation...." — Vera Mont

Very correct.

It is the moral code still the base of the most moral right or wrong. You need to read the 10 commandments, and reflect on the many moral rights and wrong now. They are all related, and originated from the code. — Corvus

I already mentioned that the Bible is not a reliable source for morality. You mentioned Ten Commandments and I mentioned Numbers 31:17-18.

I have not heard of Moral Facts before, hence I am not sure what it is, and why its non existence is the reason for moral subjectivity. Maybe it doesn't exist, because it has never existed in the first place? — Corvus

I have already defined moral facts in OP. How can we say that an act is right or wrong if we cannot derive the rightness or wrongness of it from a set of facts?

And as Kant said, we know what moral good and bad are by simply reflecting on the human actions by our practical reasoning which is universal and objective. — Corvus

I don't think that Kant is right in this instance.

Is it not what the Bible says? That is one of the miracles what gives the ground for Christianity as a religion. — Corvus

The Bible says that He resurrected and ascended to Heaven. I am not aware of any verse that says He became God.

It is not a conclusion. It is an inference.
It is perfectly reasonable inference, if you read any Hegel and knew about Dialectical Logic.

From daily life, it can be also reasoned. Things don't stay as they are. All things change with time and events in the world. — Corvus

How do you know that He became God after the resurrection?

The point is not whether it exists or not. The point is it is nothing to do with Moral good and bad. — Corvus

Moral facts are required if we want to derive whether an act is right or wrong.

Read some Kant. He says we all know what moral good and bad is from our practical reasoning which is universally objective. You don't need moral facts which seems a dubious word. — Corvus

How could morality be objective when there is no fact/right premise that we can use to conclude whether an act is right or wrong?

That is my inference. — Corvus

Don't you see any contradiction in your conclusion?

You haven't answered what moral facts are. You just said moral facts are required. If you don't know what moral facts are, how can you say it is required? — Corvus

Do you want me to give you an example of moral fact? How can I give you one when there is none?

Many folks believe he is God. He doesn't seem to have had been God when he was alive. He was just an ordinary bloke. — Corvus

So He was not God when He was human?

But when he dies on the cross, and resurrected he became God. Ordinary folks don't resurrect after death. Only God can resurrect. — Corvus

Now you are saying that He resurrected and He was God.

For example in the Bible, there are 10 commandments.
In other religions, I am sure they have their own moral codes. — Corvus

Yes, somewhere in the Bible, ten Commandments, God says that you should not kill. In other places He says kill everybody but virgin girls who you should keep for yourself, Numbers 31:17-18. So, we have a problem with what we should do in a situation, kill or not kill!

The ancient folks derived the moral good and bad from the religious moral codes such as 10 commandments. But Kant said, that we have the practical reason we derive the moral good and bad from all actions of humans, which are universal and objective. — Corvus

I don't think that moral right and wrong are objective and universal.

Moral facts sounds not appropriate and has nothing to do with moral good or bad. — Corvus

Moral facts are required if morality is objective.

But was he not made into God when he resurrected after death? — Corvus

What do you mean by making into God?

But we have common moral codes. That is what morality is about. — Corvus

What do you mean by moral codes?

What do you mean by moral facts? — Corvus

I already defined moral facts in OP. By moral facts, I mean a set of facts that we can derive whether an act is right or wrong.

Jesus was not a God. No one in human body is God. — Corvus

Cool. So we are on the same page.

We can only infer from the saying. It sounds like he himself didn't know. If he knew for sure, he wouldn't have asked. He would have made a statement. — Corvus

How couldn't Jesus know that? He is God therefore omniscient.

Conscience is your psychological state of feeling guilt when doing morally wrong things.  It is not an agreement. — Corvus

Yes, we do not have a common conscience on many things. We also have a common conscience on many other things.

Morality is a subject discussing what is morally right or wrong acts, principles, and the basis for the judgements of morally right and good actions of humans. You don't need facts. — Corvus

How could you judge that an act is right or wrong if you don't have any moral facts?

The saying in the quote is not a statement. It is in the form of question. He is asking questions. There is no truth or falsity in the question at all. He is asking someone to give him the answers for his question. It would be only true or false, if he said, " My God, You forsaken me." — Corvus

I don't think so. I think that question refers to a state of being abandoned by God.

Many things in life is contrary, but people believe them. — Corvus

I could not believe something contrary. I believe in all sorts of different things that I am not certain about but none of them are the contrary.

Being contrary doesn't mean that you cannot believe it. — Corvus

Of course, I won't believe something contrary.

Is Jesus God? — Arcane Sandwich

Jesus as human cannot be God because He is subject to change.

So is everything about our experience. How does good differ from happiness, sadness, like, dislike, etc? — Philosophim

We say happiness and pleasure are good because we like them. Other feelings which we dislike I call evil.

Semantically I think we're on the same page here. :) — Philosophim

Cool. :)

We'll have to come to an agreement on the definition of good first. Obviously if we have different definitions, we'll have different conclusions. So lets start there and then we can go back to your other points. What is your definition of good, right, and wrong? — Philosophim

I defined what is good in my first comment in this post. We should do what is right and should not do what is wrong. So good and evil are features of our experience whereas right and wrong are features of our acts.

How does it divorce itself from an underlying assumption that if something is good, it 'should be'? — Philosophim

What do you mean by good and why it should be?

My point is that you were stating a moral fact, but declared there was none. — Philosophim

I have never said that there is a moral fact.

So is pain good or evil? — Philosophim

Pain is a subjective experience so it could be good for a masochist and evil for normal people.

If people who don't feel pain live less, is that good or evil? — Philosophim

Neither. As I mentioned good and evil are features of our experiences and have nothing to do with right and wrong. People who don't feel pain live less. This has nothing to do with morality.

What if a person is depressed or sad at a loss and doesn't want to live? Is taking their own life good because they want to? — Philosophim

Are you asking whether taking their own life is "right"? In my view, that is not based on any moral fact; any person has all right to his/her life.

Then this would be a moral fact. If a moral decision is included through reason, then it is a deduced fact. — Philosophim

The fact that a thief knows that he may be arrested is not a moral fact.

All of this boils down to a feelings and reason, and reason would be a fact of what is good and what is not. You're being abstract, so lets drill in and make it defined. Why is the serial killer evil, even though he wants to kill and believes he is good? — Philosophim

A serial killer is evil to us since the act of killing is not pleasant to us. Killing to a serial killer is good since he gets pleasure from it.

I thought you said whatever I like is good. If more people like something than not, does that make it good? — Philosophim

Good and evil as I mentioned are features of our experience so they are subjective and not objective. So we are different in calling what is good or evil.

If more people liked murdering babies, would that be good then? — Philosophim

If they do it for pleasure then it is good otherwise is evil.

Or if a majority of the population approved of sending Jews into a concentration camp to be gassed? If the majority liked enslaving another race of people? — Philosophim

People do things for different reasons or feelings. They might feel that an act is evil but right for some reason.

I missed this then. How is it wrong if there are no moral facts? — Philosophim

People think things are wrong or right based on their consciences, beliefs, and the like.

Most gods have been constrained by some ethical consideration. But not Big Omni, supposed creator of the whole shebang. He makes the Law; he's not required to operate within that law. He said as much to Job when confronted with his arbitrary persecution of that faithful servant. — Vera Mont

Oh, I was not aware of that passage. I used other verses to challenge Christians' views.

How do you know what believers think when you don't share their belief? Where do you suppose they get their mental image of their god, if not from the holy books and clerical teaching? — Vera Mont

I discussed this topic with believers elsewhere to death. As far as I can tell from my discussions with Christians, God's nature is good and He wants us to be good like Him.

Good - what should be — Philosophim

I disagree. Good is just a feature of our experience.

Existence - what is — Philosophim

Correct.

Morality - a method of evaluating what is good — Philosophim

Morality is a method of finding what is right and wrong.

1. All moral questions boil down to one fundamental question that must be answered first, "Should there be existence?" — Philosophim

I don't think so. Morality is about given that intelligent creatures exist whether there are moral facts that we can derive what is wrong or right.

2. It is unknown whether there is an objective morality — Philosophim

It is known that moral facts do not exist therefore morality is subjective.

Conclusion: If there is objective morality, "No" as the answer to "Should there be existence" leads to a contradiction. Therefore the only answer which does not lead to a contradiction is, "Yes". — Philosophim

No, you cannot derive moral facts from existence. The only relation that exists between morality and existence is that given that intelligent creatures exist then how are they going to decide in a situation?

So Jesus can't walk from here to there, just like you and me, for example? He doesn't undergo change of location? — Arcane Sandwich

God cannot change therefore Jesus is not God.

A definition of a moral fact! :D — Philosophim

Are you looking for a definition of moral fact? I defined it in OP.

Is it a fact that they are necessary, or simply a feeling and thus only an opinion? — Philosophim

Think of pain that is evil. That is a sign of injury in your body. You look for a cure when you are in pain. Without pain, you could harm yourself more. People who don't feel pain have shorter life expectancy.

When you include things like reasons, you include facts. — Philosophim

Not moral facts since there is none. But other facts are involved in a decision like a thief wanting to rob but he is aware that he might be arrested and sent to prison.

Meaning you actually believe that morality is based more on feelings, but also reason. What reason guides us to moral conclusions? — Philosophim

I don't think that there is any moral fact.

One issue this brings up is you've equivocated two separate definitions into one. "What I like is what is good." Doesn't that really just translate to, "What I like is what I should do?" In what discussion of morality would that ever be accepted? Morality is a discussion about what a person should, and should not do and often concerns the consequences of that action, not merely feelings. For example, if a serial killer is unchecked, he could kill an entire small town. Is this good? If the majority of humanity woke up one day infected with a gas that made them want to kill everyone else and enjoy it, this would be good? — Philosophim

We have four things when it comes to morality, good, evil, right, and wrong. Good and evil are features of our experiences and we are different in telling what is good or evil in some situations like the example of the serial killer who feels good when he kills while others feel it to be evil. An act might be good but wrong and vice versa. An act might be good and right and vice versa. We mostly depend on our conscience, reason, etc. when we want to decide in a situation.

For example, if a serial killer is unchecked, he could kill an entire small town. Is this good? — Philosophim

The majority of people think that the serial killer's act is evil and wrong. He does not.

If the majority of humanity woke up one day infected with a gas that made them want to kill everyone else and enjoy it, this would be good? — Philosophim

The majority of people based on their conscience think that it is evil and wrong.

There is a temptation to attribute what we like with good, because then we get to justify what we like and avoid anything that tells us, "You might like it, but you shouldn't do that." But a real examination that can abandon this personal desire shows how disingenuous the claim, "Whatever I like is good" is. — Philosophim

I already differentiated between good and right in my previous comments. Something might feel good but it is wrong.

I already answered that. It is contrary that God/Jesus is changeable and changeless simultaneously. Even if we accept this, according to the Bible God does not change so Jesus could not lose His divine nature. Therefore Kenosisism is wrong.

There are definitely the objective morality for sure. For example, harming others is morally wrong. No one in any corner of the universe would agree that is morally right. — Corvus

I think you are talking about the conscience that the majority of people agree with it. The conscience is however not a fact.

Of course not. Believing itself has little do with morality. — Corvus

Some believers think otherwise.

Morality is about your actions, not beliefs. — Corvus

Morality is about whether an action is right or wrong. The point is that one needs a fact to realize this. There are however no facts when it comes to morality. Therefore, the morality is not objective.

:up:

I am not sure who all the Christians are. And are all the Christians same in their beliefs? — Corvus

There are different branches of Christianity.

Are all the Christians the genuine Christians? — Corvus

There are genuine Christians.

There might be folks who claim to be the Christians but turn out to be some business minded folks trying to make money off the followers. — Corvus

Maybe.

Are you a Christian yourself? — Corvus

I am not.

Do you believe it? — Corvus

Of course not. How could I believe something contrary?

I want to discuss two things: 1) Morality is not objective and 2) Believing in god does not resolve moral conflicts.

Going back to the OP, I wonder if the saying was a metaphor for depicting the absurdity in life on earth. — Corvus

I think all Christians believe that this verse is not a metaphor. They believe that Jesus died on the Cross and rose from death. This verse together with other verses is paradoxical though.

My point was the love of parents for their children is not affected by whether their children are ugly or disable. A disable child is disable and cannot look in the eyes of parents otherwise.

You are still maintaining God's involvement in morality after claiming it was not your main point. — Corvus

No, I am not saying that.

Here as well. I am sure there are many sayings by God, which speaks on morality in the Bible. I am not familiar with the Bible, but just inferring. — Corvus

Again, God's intervention is not the subject of this thread.

No, it does not sound so.

Cool. How did he know the Father was in him, and what does it mean by the Father was in him? — Corvus

Perhaps, He was experiencing the Father within Him. Most scholars think that this verse together with others is an indication that God is trion.