God is Incapable of Dictating Morality

I'm exhausted, why do i wait until past one in the morning. "It is not a question of existence, it's a question of omnipotence, I have given leash for any definition of God you like but my arguments show that the attributes attributed to God are not tenable, for this debate to continue you must either show a fault in my reasoning, or show" When you allowed A God that is Omnipotent you are saying that it is possible and that it is sound. If you did not think that this was the case then you could have said that it is not possible, in which case we could have argued that. But in the first round you allowed a God that is omnipotent, that allows me to assume that he is in fact omnipotent. "God can dictate whatever he/she likes, my argument is that whatever God does dictate as moral must be justified in human terms in order for whatever he/she says to be moral. You have done as I thought you would and try to rely on a linguistic definition of omnipotence that doesn't actually work as my argument shows - The resolution reads "God is incapable of dictating morality" You just said that he can dictate whatever he likes, which is true and affirms the resolution. Or your extensive resolution: "God is incapable of justifiably dictating what is moral and what has meaning, value, and purpose for humans, outside of appealing to a human interpretation of morality, meaning, value, and purpose." When you say "outside of human interpretation or morality..." what then are you referring to? There is nothing relevant to this debate besides God and Human, nowhere in the resolution does it say anything along the lines of "God is unable to force humans to believe what he says is moral" Even if that were the case, that is indeed possible. "try attacking my argument instead of trying to posit an argument of your own that relies on presupposed definitions." You didn't post an argument, you posted a response to what could have been my argument. Anyways, in a debate both parties are able and supposed to present our own arguments, especially based on definitions that we already agreed upon. "I haven't actually said this in the first round at all. Another straw-man fallacy, however as you raise the issue of God and the 'chains' of logic - The burden of proof falls to you to show how God is not subject to the 'chains' of logic as it is you (the theist) that has claimed that God is not subject to the laws of logic. Please do so or recant your assertion." The debate is based on what God can and cannot due, so you did say what God cannot do. By this definition of Omnipotence you are saying that he indeed has the ability to do everything and everything, logical boundaries ignored simply by the definition of impotent. "If this is the case, then it should first be noted that in order for this statement to be true, you must first valuate the statement "If God puts value into something, then that something has an absolute value" (e.g. "If God says that X is wrong, then I ought not do X") as being true in the first place. But this is independent of anything that God could ever justify, or, more precisely, be used to justify. This requires you, the human, to make the first "move," so to speak, in order to justify God's morality; you have to put meaning into God, otherwise everything that God says has no justification. Ergo, what God says has no ultimate justifiable meaning, because it requires a human to say, "I agree with this" in the first place. So it cannot be "absolute" in any sense of the word." This is what you must prove, you cannot just simply say it. "So if you state that, "God says X is wrong (or right) or Y has meaning, value, or purpose." this cannot, on its own, imply that "You out (or ought not) do X or that you are obliged to find meaning, value, or purpose in Y." To attempt to make this statement on it's own (that is to say, without your already valued "if-then" statement) is an outright logical fallacy." God can state that it is immoral, that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't do it it means it would be immoral if you did it though. "All you've said is that something I have said is absurd, you have shown no reasoning, no backup, no rationalisation, no logic, no definition, all you've said is that it's absurd... Justify this or recant it, saying it's absurd is not a valid form of argument." It is absurd because as the creator of the universe and everything in it, that includes morality. Without him morality wouldn't exist, he created it and therefore dictates it. All human are alike, and therefore cannot tell each other what is good and what isn't good to do. That is why we look to a higher power, or in this case the highest power who happens to be the one who created us, and the codes we should follow.