: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.

There is no way to be certain that Earth is round if you are very skeptical!

Our judgements and expressions are also based on the customs, traditions and linguistic phenomenon. We call red roses red, and it is the universally accepted truth, whether one agrees or not. — Corvus

Couldn't we agree that red rose is not red but it just looks red?

Beauty can be both subjective and objective, it can be in both the debatable class and the undisputed class. If we define beauty as the good perceived by our senses, beauty as sensible goodness, then beauty is a feature of our perception and our experience. Subjectively, when we say that the rose is beautiful, we are saying that the rose looks good or that it smells good. Objectively, beauty in it's perfect form is in the undisputed class. What is debatable is our measure of beauty. — GregW

Beauty and ugliness are objective as I argued in OP. Like and dislike are subjective though.

Well, that is my point. Without that set of properties in the roses, red roses will not look red at all. Therefore it is not our brains, which construct the redness, but it is the roses which excite our brains to see the redness. — Corvus

I think we are on the same page if you agree that a red rose is not red. By this, I mean that redness is not a property of a rose.

There must be something which makes red roses look red in the roses. Would you not agree? — Corvus

Yes, a red rose has a set of properties that make it look red. A red rose absorbs all the color from the light and reflects red light. Red light however does not have any color. It is just the light with a specific frequency. The red light is absorbed by the retina of your eyes and a specific pulse is created by the retina. This puls moves from your retina to your visual cortex by the nerve system. It is in the visual cortex that the color of red is created. One can create a hallucination of a specific color by stimulating the visual cortex of a person using an electromagnetic field.

Yes, but my point is that beauty may be the product of both. It's not an either/or. — Tom Storm

I think we have two things here, 1) Beauty and ugliness, and 2) Like and dislike. To me, beauty and ugliness are intrinsic features of an object whereas like and dislike are extrinsic features. A painting may be beautiful but you dislike it because of extrinsic factors like culture or presentation. You may like an ugly painting due to extrinsic factors as well.