God is a morally perfect being

INTRODUCTION Prior to refuting your argument, I should like to establish assumptions, definitions and premises for which will serve as fundamental bases for my argument: What must be taken into consideration upon defining Morality? - For one to be Moral, one must adhere to the recognition of Good and Bad - The distinction of Good and Bad - An Intuitive thought process that we ought to do Good and not ought to do Bad DEFINTION: Therefore, Morality shall be defined as being: The Intuition that we ought to do that which is good, and ought not to do that which is bad. I shall predicate much of my argument around this specific definition of Morality, as it encompasses both the fundamentals of distinguishing between Good and Bad, and the justification for why we ought and ought not to take part in an ethically motivated action, while further embroiling Ethics and ontology (Two areas of philosophy that shall prove fundamental within this debate) CLAIM #1: The only way by which God can be a Morally perfect being is under the axioms of his own framework. For no moral compass can be Objective unless subject to, and the focus of the displayed definition of Morality itself. This is why your first argument regarding the existence of God and how Objective Moral's demonstrate for his existent proves ineffective in the context of this debate. The Second premise of the three premised argument: "Objective Moral Values and duties do exist" is a blatant assumption, supported by no real form of empirical evidence, much less a compelling hypothesis. If I were to ask for what constitutes as evidence for the existence of Moral Realism and Objective Morality, I might find myself within the confines of an answer that states: "The existence of God evidences the existence of Moral Realism and Objective Morals", for which will beget an infinite repetition of A demonstrates B, for B demonstrates A. This is the consequence of attempting to prove irrationality through the use of an Assumption. The existence of God does not suffice as a rational attempt at proving the existence of Objective Morality, much less does the existence of Objective Morality suffice as a rational attempt at proving the existence of God. Thus, leading to the claim for which I made earlier: "The only way by which God can be a Morally perfect being is under the axioms of his own framework. For no moral compass can be Objective unless subject to, and the focus of the displayed definition of Morality itself." Any form of Morality can be Objective per se if made the subject of the definition of Morality for which I displayed earlier. I shall use both Theological Morality and Sam Harris' Morality of Well being as an example of this (Both claimed to being objective forms of Morality). The Intuition that we ought to do that which is good, and ought not to do that which is bad, primarily focuses on the conflicting relationship between Good/Bad and Ought/Ought not, thus including both an Ethical and Ontological perspective of Morality. CLAIM #2: On the basis of "Good" and "Bad", we are subjective beings who in essence are unable to comprehend an existing objective definition for "Good" and "Bad", as these two terms are impossible for us to define through a rational and objective manner, thus, concluding that Moral Realism is not true. Sam Harris makes the claim that the fundamental basis of Morality itself is well being, Moral theologists make the claim that the distinction of Good and Bad (Along with what we ought and ought not to do) is entirely predicated on what God deems Good and Bad. Unfortunately this does not constitute as a sufficient form of evidence to conclude that Moral Realism is true, for you have merely constructed an unique objective moral philosophy, entirely dependent on what you have chosen to orient the definition of Morality around: God. This is also prevalent within Sam Harris' Objective Morality through Well Being without a God claim. What we ought to do, is that which is Good, and that which is Good, is that which will beget "Well Being", thus serving as sufficient evidence for the existence of Moral Objectivism, for we can measure what action brings about 'Well Being' just as we can measure what action ethically coincides with 'God's will'. Unfortunately, this is not the case since the inclusion of Well Being jeopardizes the essential basis of Morality itself. Good and Bad cannot be properly defined without the need for a subjective assessment of differing moral philosophies, and thus demonstrates that Morality in of its entirety, is subjective; Even with the existence of an "omnipotent being". This is due to the fact that: Morality and values depend on the existence of conscious minds and specifically on the fact that such minds can experience various forms of well beings and suffering in the universe. There is no way by which we can objectively prove what ethical actions are "good" or "bad" for these two terms are too broad for the understanding of an individual, much less can we objectively demonstrate that we "ought" or "ought not" do something that is ethically grounded in an action. Ontologically speaking, there is no more a reason for why we ought to do things, as there is no way for us to prove objectively whether Good is Good for the individual, or rather the utilitarian collective. "We do not only act as if moral realism is true, we also converse as if certain moral principles are true. If non-realism is true then we have to accept genital mutilation or the values of the KKK as equal to that of those who oppose such things. In other words, these are non-debatable moral principles." - primeministerJoshua812 I fail to see any suggestion that anybody who is a relativist, or an objectivist for that matter lives life in accordance to objectivist morality. To prefer an ethical action to another one, commonly grounded on theological or faith based rationing does not suffice as evidence to suggest that we live in a world where the entirety of the population follows an objectively moral compass. To say that I prefer the sovereignty of the individual for he makes his own path to the honor killings and genital mutilation of Arabic countries does not suffice as a logically sound argument for objectivist morality, for there are still millions who follow barbaric practices, despite them supposedly being "objective" (Keep note of this sentence) The preference for a certain ethical action to another is entirely dependent on varying ways of knowing, ranging from sense, logic, reason, ration, intuition, faith and more. Evolutionary biologists have found a common trait amongst differing species of monkeys, this common trait has resulted in the discovery that monkey's too expect 'fairness', and in part follow the idea of "do unto others what you want others to do unto you". This is not a homosapien-orietned idea, but is also prevalent in various animal species. This is one of many examples that demonstrates "fairness" without the need for a theological dictator. I choose to prefer sovereignty to such barbaric actions because I fall to using logic and compassion, as opposed to blind faith to generate my ethical compass. However, I will be the first to admit that it is still a relativist and subjective claim to make, upon considering the broad definitions of "Good" and "Bad", however, I don't have to consider such actions as "equal" as you've stated. To make the argument that sovereignty is objectively better to honor killings is a statement that must be predicated on a specific moral philosophy. Of course it is "Good" or "objectively better" in the context of what God Intended, or rather in Sam Harris' case, in the context of "Well Being", but in the context of Morality itself, there is no piece of evidence to suggest that it is Objectively Bad, or that We ought not do it. Now for the sentence that I told you to remember: "To say that I prefer the sovereignty of the individual for he makes his own path to the honor killings and genital mutilation of Arabic countries does not suffice as a logically sound argument for objectivist morality, for there are still millions who follow barbaric practices, despite them supposedly being "objective" I have made the claim that it cannot be objectively moral to do a certain action, for there are still millions who practice it. I suspect that you would respond to this (Granted how you've structure your essay) with a "Moral Realism is true, therefore Morality is Objective, just like Science, Language, Mathematics. Taking this into account, just because people do not practice it, does not mean it is not true, just that they are perhaps misguided in their ideologies and religions." This begets a problem however. What makes you certain that the theological being for which you have predicated much of your morality under, is the being that is objectively correct? What makes the other Monotheistic or Polytheistic figures incorrect? Well, I assume you would thereby rely on your own subjective judgement to assess which religion best represents an objective morality. There is then no objective answer to suggest that the other religions are false with their ethical barbarism, but that of a Monotheistic Omniscience, Omnipotent and Omnipresent God is. To Conclude, Although God is a morally perfect being, he is only that within the confines of the Axioms you have set out to create. In the confines of your own moral philosophy, that which is Good, is that which God deems as Good, thereby proving to being Objectively and Morally perfect. Just as somebody who is perfectly Altruistic is a Morally Perfect Being (If we are to deem "Good" as "Altruistic" and "Bad" as "Selfish". I'll end with this question: Is God able to create a rock so heavy that he couldn't lift it? How can he be omnipotent if unable to create, or carry such a rock? I shall wait for your rebuttal.