Maybe he was not aware of the possibility that he and God were one? Is there any saying in the Bible that he knew that he and God are one? — Corvus

Yes, there is a verse in the Bible. John 14:11: Believe me, when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me...

Even if we presume God is omniscient and know all the moral facts, but does he care ir intervene on every human affairs and events happenings in the world? — Corvus

That is not the point of my discussion in this thread. I am arguing that humans can also know moral facts if there are any known by God. Anyhow I think God if we accept Him as a moral agent would care to intervene in human affairs.

Plato says as much in his dialogue Euthyphro. — 180 Proof

Thanks for sharing the link. I will read it when I have time.

On the next sentence. He made the rules. — Vera Mont

He makes rules either based on His nature or based on moral facts. God is accepted to be a moral agent at least within believers.

Why the hell not? He's GOD! — Vera Mont

Is God a moral agent?

He can do anything he wants, make any rules he wants, lose his temper like he did in the Big Book of God Fables, delegate entire tribes to be subservient to other tribes, punish people onto the nth generation for a transgression by an ancestor committedbefore she knew good and evil.... any damn thing he wants. — Vera Mont

I read those stories but I am not a believer of them. I think all believers think that God is a moral agent though. I started this thread in the hope of discussing things with believers too. So far no believer has joined the discussion.

That's up to the individual. Religious teaching is fallible - and sometimes dead wrong. Secular law is fallible and sometimes dead wrong. Social mores are fallible and sometimes dead wrong. You make choices, and sometimes they're dead wrong. — Vera Mont

Correct.

Is that a fact, or a feeling? If its a fact, then we have a moral fact. — Philosophim

That is just a definition.

And that still doesn't counter the base definition I put that good is "What should be". — Philosophim

Good and evil are features of our experiences and they are both necessary.

Based on feelings, or the situation? — Philosophim

Feelings together with reasons, teaching, etc. are factors that define a situation.

If I'm a serial killer and I feel its right to murder people for fun, am I doing good? — Philosophim

A serial killer enjoys killing. So that is one factor, feeling, that plays a role in his/her decision-making. Killing to serial a killer is good and to others is evil.

If you understood the argument correctly, the question was, "Should there be existence?" It is a yes or no question. If one is invalid, the other is valid. If the answer is 'No', then it is good for there not to be existence. But the only way for there to be good, is if good exists. Good must then also cease to be. But if what is good is 'non-existence', and it is good to destroy good, then good is not really what should be, and it contradicts itself. Therefore by proof by contradiction, the answer to "Should there be existence?" is yes. So at its base, any objectively real morality will conclude that existence is good.

If you want to address the arguments specifically, its better that we take the discussion there so I can quote and direct easier. No need, just if you want to continue. — Philosophim

Ok, I will try to discuss my points on your thread later.

God/Jesus cannot be both changeless and changeable simultaneously. Even if we accept that He cannot change His nature and become changeable only (Malachi 3:6 I am the Lord, I change not...).

:up:

There is also the power of societal laws, rules, mores, standards and customs to both limit and prescribe our actions. Indeed, that's all morality is: what a community deems desirable, acceptable, reprehensible and punishable behaviour among its members. No good and evil; no moral 'facts', except as groups of people agree upon. — Vera Mont

Correct.

If God's existence and 'believed' nature are given, he not only knows what's right — Vera Mont

He knows wrong and right based on what? His nature?

he decides what's right — Vera Mont

Of course, He cannot decide about what is wrong or right. God either acts based on His nature or based on moral principles so His act cannot be arbitrary.

That doesn't mean he'll communicate his conclusion in any given instance. (But he will judge you on your uninformed decision.) So, what use to you is his omniscience? — Vera Mont

An Omniscient God knows all facts including moral facts if there are any.

No human can know all the facts about any situation. We always operate on incomplete information, filled out with assumptions, previous experience and intuition. — Vera Mont

We can agree on many facts. Here my focus is on moral facts that there is none. And no, we do not always operate on incomplete information... We only sometimes operate on incomplete information... when there is no fact to help us.

Of course it doesn't. But believers are usually supplied with a holy book full of examples of rewarded and punished human actions, as well as a cleric to offer guidance. Non-believers have only their own conscience to answer. — Vera Mont

But there are lots of conflicts in the teaching of different religions. So either there is no God or we should not follow any religion.

I disagree with many of your statements some of these disagreements are because of the different definitions I use. First, good and evil are features of our experiences. Our actions can also be good or evil depending on how they make us feel. When it comes to morality both good and evil actions are permissible depending on the situation. A good action may be wrong or right in different situations. The same applies to an evil action. Given the definition of good and evil existence is neither good nor evil. What matters when it comes to morality is to find out whether we should do good or evil, one is right and another is wrong. We normally either follow our conscience or teaching when we want to decide what to do in a situation. However, as I mentioned in OP there is no moral fact so we are left by either our conscience or teaching.

I think we intellectually and linguistically evolved well enough to find out a moral fact if there is any. In the end, a moral fact is nothing but a combination of words. The fact that no one throughout history could not offer a moral fact means that there is none.

If God is pure actuality, how come he has the potential to incarnate one of the three Persons and live a non-God life? — Gregory

Yes, that is my point.

It seems movement means potential is eternal, assuming a God Person can incarnate. — Gregory

But God cannot incarnate since that requires a change in His nature.

Whatever the nature of God/Jesus is it cannot change.

There are two things to consider: 1) God's nature does not change and 2) Jesus's incarnation requires a change. Therefore, we are having a problem. Jesus of course walked, got older, etc. but that requires accepting that He has human nature. That is however in conflict with the fact that God's/Jesus's nature cannot change.

Why yes? You brought the idea so the burden is on you to explain what you mean by it.

We have unconditional love, like the love of parents, and conditional love. By the way, welcome to the forum! :)

It is therefore an extra-ordinary process, not an ordinary process. — Arcane Sandwich

Saying that it is an extraordinary process does not resolve the problem!

Because Kenosis requires a change in God's nature.

I think those verses refer to God's/Jesus's nature which is contrary to Kenosis.

Don't you think that the parents believe that their child is disable yet they love him/her?

Malachi 3:6 I am the Lord, I change not..., 1 Samuel 15:29: God is unchanging, Isaiah 46:9-11: God is unchanging, and Ezekiel 24:14: God is unchanging.

But that is against the concept of the Trinity. There are several verses in the Bible mentioning that God does not change.

Sure, but when Jesus undergoes kenosis during crucifixion, he ceases to be identical to the Father. — Arcane Sandwich

Do you have any verse from the Bible that supports Kenosis?

Not if he underwent kenosis during crucifixion, as ↪Wayfarer pointed out earlier in this conversation. By becoming entirely human, Jesus lost all of his divine powers. As such, he asks himself why he did that: why did he undergo kenosis at the cross? He doesn't have God's answer, precisely because he underwent kenosis: God's answer is not available to someone in a state of complete kenosis, no matter if that person is (was) God. — Arcane Sandwich

But elsewhere He mentioned in John 14:11: Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me. He is saying that Father and Him are identical.

I wish you a fruitful endeavor!

Good luck to you too. :)

I am done with you!

There is nothing that you can do for you anymore if you don't want to read the articles published on the topic.

I am not talking about Google but scientific articles published that you can find using Googling. Do you believe in science?

If you spent a little time googling then you could find many scientific articles on the topic.

Don't parents of a disabled child love him/her?

This sounds like some scientific experiment report, but it sounds mysterious and has some problems to clarify. — Corvus

There are no problems here. You can google it yourself.

Is the redness created by stimulating a person's visual cortex with the electromagnetic field, the same redness of the rose? — Corvus

Yes. It could be lighter or darker though.

If the experimental creation of redness was possible to "a person", could the result be replicated with all other folks on earth? — Corvus

Yes.

The interpretation that makes the most sense to me, is that this is where Jesus was utterly and entirely human. He was one of us, or indeed, all of us, at that point. No faith, no hope, no consolation, utterly bereft and desolate. — Wayfarer

That is against John 14:10: Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?

This is why this agonised exclamation is described in terms of kenosis, self-emptying. Remember, 'he who saves his life will lose it, and he who looses his life for My sake will be saved.' — Wayfarer

Even if we accept that interpretation then we still have a problem with why He asked: "Why?". He should have known why He emptied Himself of Divine Power.

I find the story where Satan attempts to tempts Jesus stranger than the above. — Tom Storm

Yes, very true. That is a good one too.

If Jesus is God, then what's he going to do with material wealth? Surely even less effective than trying to temp Elon Musk with a dollar bill. I guess one might need to contrive an allegorical interpretation that transcends literalism for this one to work. — Tom Storm

People do that when some verse in scripture does not make sense!

Because he has abandoned himself, and he wants to know why. — Arcane Sandwich

What do you mean by He abandoned himself? He is God so He should know why He has to suffer and die on the Cross. Shouldn't He?

In the philosophical literature, this is known as the death of God. Hegel, among other philosophers, had already pointed out this issue, before Nietzsche and before Zizek discussed it. — Arcane Sandwich

Oh, I didn't know that philosophers had pointed out this issue in the past.

I already mentioned that one can create the hallucination of seeing red by stimulating a person's visual cortex with the electromagnetic field. Therefore, any visual experience is created in the visual cortex.

Do you believe in science? If yes, there are scientific reasons why Earth is round.

Hmm... to me it sounds like you have added the notion of 'like' here to find a way out of subjectivism. How can it be that some people find ostensibly 'ugly' things beautiful? Surely they can't be beautiful, so it must be about 'like' instead. — Tom Storm

Correct.

But what do you make of those who sincerely believe that a bulldog is beautiful, or that a photo of a WW1 scarred battle landscape is beautiful? — Tom Storm

Parents love their children whether they are beautiful or ugly. The same applies to those who adopt a pet.

Are you forced into saying that they are wrong about this? — Tom Storm

I think they mix love, affection, and the like with beauty.

Let me give you an example to see if we can agree with the definitions: A Bulldog is ugly but one can like it. The ugliness is intrinsic and the like is extrinsic. Let me know what you think and we will see where we can go from here.

This is already demonstrated to you.