Formal and Informal Logic

It seems to me that if morality is subjective then there is no such thing as cruel. If not then there is no such thing as good either - in which case God cannot be defined as good.It seems that God can be defined as good only if good objectively exists. The question is whether 'cruelty' is inconsistant with good. If for instance, God applys, by act of commission or omission, punishment to someone for their sin, is this cruel? Or is it justice?Which are we more likely to see it as? Well that depends completely on our worldview w.r.t. God

Say we took God a absolutely good and gave his moral judgement a score of 100%. It is possible that all our admittedly subjective moral judgments refer to this 100% but only score 70 or 20 or 13. The argument from cruelty would fail - not because cruelty doesn't actually objectively exist (we have enought objectivity in our subjectivity to suppose it does) - but because we are not in a full enough position to say a particular action is cruel

A 2300 year old non-sequiturEdited by iano, : me and maths!

You would have to argue why the conclusion follows from the premise.I can think of another reasons why God is not willing to prevent evil - that has nothing to do with malevolence. Take free will. If God prevents me acting in an evil fashion when I want to then he would be constraining my free will to do so. His reason for not constraining my free will is not based in malevolence but in a desire to permit my free will expression - even if the consequences are that I do evil.Would you prefer yourself to be constrained so that you can do absolutely nothing wrong at all? (Remembering first that it would be Gods definition of evil that would apply - not your own
). The restraint would stretch into areas of your life: thought and deed to a degree unimaginable.Ramoss reads an evc post where someone says the Jews in Nazi Germany had it coming and is about to get angr.... ZAP!! Thought wiped out...Ramoss sees a pretty girl and is about to engage in some idle lus... ZAP!! thought wiped out...Ramoss is about to criticize someones for being selfis...ZAP!! Thought wiped out...I look forward to the day when this will be so. But would you?

According to your less than objective morality, how can you tell?Omni talked elsewhere of 'the slaughter of innocents' He presumed innocent. Do you too?

Where does it say same?Take Hilter (where would we be without him) I am aware of his evil but have not the knowledge of evil in the same way that he has. I cannot concieve in the way he concieved - I am unable to conceive that way - even though I know of that evil.Bit the same way with God. Evil doesn't eminate from him, he cannot concieve of evil. We can.

No you certainly wouldn't. You are an automaton remember. Determined. You don't want anything.

Your right of course. I should have said according to your own subjective (read: arbitrary and capricious) standards for measuring abitrariness and capriciousness.Whilst I don't claim total objectivity I can claim his holy spirit guiding and a certain lack of blindness that the non-Christian cannot claim (I am presuming of you that you are not a Christian in the sense that I am arguing from).

I think we arrived at the conlusion that no free will meant you are a machine and would arrive at pre-determined conclusions. If you called them logical that would in no way inform us as to whether the conclusion was logical or not. You would say what you had to say as a machine. And thats all.You never escaped from the circle of pointing to yourself as a freely concluding machine who couldn't freely conclude anything.IIRC

So when you say 'logical conclusion' we have no reason at all to believe you.

Exactly. You couldn't even believe you had free will or no free will. End of fruitful discussion.Bye