There are so many different assumptions here that are wrong I don't know where to start.
Let's go with
1. God is a necessary being.
I thought God was the first cause. Did you change your definition? And, for that matter, what does it mean to be a 'necessary being'? Are you going to go into modal logic next?
2. You have not shown that morals are actually part of the 'nature' of God, whether defined as a first cause or as a necessary being. Morals are rules proscriptive rules for behavior. They aren't even the *type* of thing that can be in the 'nature' of something. Mass, charge, intelligence, sure. But a rule for behavior? no.
BTW the forum deleted all posts before this one. So if left anything un-responded to before I left on Friday you will have to give me the post number.
1. Why don't you have an avatar?
2. If there were so many errors in what I posted why didn't you correct them? You asked one question, and made an assumption about something else.
3. Yes God's being a necessary being probably most belongs in the field of modal logic, but what field it comes from doesn't matter. I just happen to see a heated discussion about whether to induct between 1 and 91 chunks of matter into the club of solar planet hood. Now the question on everyone mind is who gives a sh....? Sure didn't change anything about the solar system.
4. A necessary being is one which isn't contingent upon anything else existing. There is nothing about that, that conflicts with being an uncaused first cause. They fit like a hand in a glove.
5. Are you claiming that a being which gave over 700 formal laws is not a moral agent? If you read the book your denying you would find that moral values and duties are simply what is or is not consistence with God's nature. I would dig up the formal argument but I am not sure what your objecting to. To have good and evil, you must have a moral law, to have a moral law giver, to have a moral law giver you must have a moral agent.
You make that same claim again. I still say it is false. Objective morals *are* possible without the existence of a deity. All that is required is that humans thrive under some rules and not under others.
To be objective means to transcend the preference and opinions of the adherents of a standard. Your moral goal must be free from human preference and opinion. What non-human source decided that human flourishing was the objective of morality, and what non-human decides how to achieve that goal? Since there isn't one, then what your describing is speciesm not morality.
But, again, the act of murder is wrong. How is that an aspect of the 'nature' of God? Is it that God is repelled by such actions? OK, why does that make the action wrong? For that matter, why should I care that God is repelled by some action? Isn't it much more relevant that the humans I live with every day are?
The effect immorality has on God is unrelated to what makes a behavior right or wrong. You basically just ask a whole series of unrelated questions. However I will attempt a response anyway.
1. God created human life with purpose, meaning, and sanctity. If we deprive another of either of those things without sufficient cause God justly condemns our actions.
2. The bible says that God is grieved by our sin, but to grieve God is a little different than to grieve a human.
3. For one thing because you are interfering with his purpose for your life (which would in your best interest
King James Bible I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly). If you continue to rebel and reject the price he himself paid to make up for the damage sins cost as the echo through the ages he will at best annihilate your soul after you die. He will not force you to believe. He gave you life, if you use it up in rebellion, he will take back that life. He does not want automatons. Love can only exist if freewill exists, if freewill exists, the ability to misuse it must exist.
4. The last question I couldn't figure out.
OK, so we imagine stories about deities. Isn't one of the characteristics of the deity you follow that it is incomprehensible to humans? That the ways of God are unknowable to us mere humans?
Yes and no. I can have as much revelation as God is willing to provide. I however can't fit an infinite being entirely into a finite mind. I know a subset of what makes up God and what he does. That subset is consistent and justifies trust concerning the rest.
Well, that is why we vote, now isn't it? Have you ever read Rawls on Justice? A just society is one where everyone would agree it is fair even if they don't know ahead of time where they will be in that society.
I saw a movie about the revolution. When asked if he supported going to war with King George, Mel Gibson responded with why should we trade 1 tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants 1 mile away. The reasons we vote are too many to list, mainly we did not like the way the British monarchy ruined the Church of England. Voting didn't help much, we are so far in debt, all the money in existence couldn't pay it off.
1. Why in the entire lifespan of the human race, have we never achieved this lofty goal.
2. What you're describing is also some kind of hybrid tautology.
3. It does not matter if everyone agreed on a set of laws, they would still be just as subjective, and unrelated to any objective moral duties and values that may exist.
Prove to me that any action you can think of that would actually be good or evil without reference to something transcendent. Just one thing, of any kind, you can even use a hypothetical if you want.
