god has no moral compass

Having done a quick perusal of your initial arguments, I believe that your contention is slightly flawed. For one, The Christian god seems to be an Aristotelian "unmoved mover." That is, something that initiated all that exists, or at least, physically exists in our reality. I will explain why this is an important detail to consider in this debate. First thing, let me show you the reasons I believe God to be an "unmoved mover" by using scriptures found in the Bible. There are a few passages/verses in the Bible that support this idea: Isaiah 66:2, "For My hand made all these things, Thus all these things came into being," declares the LORD "But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word. Nehemiah 9:6 "You alone are the LORD You have made the heavens, The heaven of heavens with all their host, The earth and all that is on it, The seas and all that is in them You give life to all of them And the heavenly host bows down before You. Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. 1 Colossians 1:15-17 states, The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. Now, for the sake of succinctness, let us pass over the nature/identity of the character of Christ for the moment and just look at the general message that the passage in Colossians is attempting to convey. God, through an individual, created everything that is possible for humans to observe and even the things that human's can't observe. Nothing exists that is not the work of God. Now, of course, you could argue that certain abstract notions could exist apart from God--think mathematics, and lofty concepts such as love, and morality--but bringing that into the game allows me to make the argument that these "abstract notions" are, in fact, not independent, but, inherent aspects of God. I mean, I would think even materialist believe in the "existence" of numbers in an abstract way; or will concede that logic is a notion that seems to "universally "work" in making inferences about reality. Again, I am not saying that the fact that 1+1=2 and that "The Principle of Identity[1] somehow "proves" that math and logic are transcendent objects or characteristics of God--or that God is even a factor in this; but if logic's application seem to work universally in our lives, and mathematics has been able to reach far and wide in its ability to accurately describe and model the physical properties of the world, then it certainly lends some "credence" to the idea that there may be not only transcendent objects (i.e. stuff that exist apart from the tangible and physical), that can interact in certain ways with the physical world, but also an origin to those transcendent object. If you were able to somehow "prove" that transcendent objects exist, then it may not be too hard to then ask the question, what or who was the cause of these abstract transcendent objects--if they even require a cause. If there are transcendent objects, then we would need to ask the question, are these objects un-caused or do they also have a cause? If they are indeed caused, then we would need to figure out the origin of that cause. And if that origin also had a cause, then we"d need to uncover the cause behind that cause too. Eventually, this would lead to an infinite regression. We would have a long chain of causes that keep going back infinitely. Aristotle believed that eventually there needed to be a "spark-plug" that caused everything to be. Here is a quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica about Aristotle's beliefs. "...He then argues that there cannot be an infinite series of moved movers. If it is true that when A is in motion there must be some B that moves A, then if B is itself in motion there must be some C moving B, and so on. This series cannot go on forever, and so it must come to a halt in some X that is a cause of motion but does not move itself" "" ""an unmoved mover[2) Saint Thomas Aquinas, an influential Italian friar, tried to utilize some of Aristotle's premise, to answer exactly what the "Unmoved Mover" was. The result has been used as an apologetic argument, but it shows some reasons why past Christian thinkers viewed God as this "Unmoved Mover" This is Aquinas' " Argument from Motion" 1.Our senses prove that some things are in motion. 2. move when potential motion becomes actual motion. 3.Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion. 4.Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in 5.one respect and potential in another). 6.Therefore nothing can move itself. 7.Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else. 8.The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum. 9.Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.[3] Why do I bring this all up? Well, you seem to maintain that God somehow does not possess a moral compass. My friend, what standard are you even pointing to when you cast this judgement? For this debate to even work it is required for you to assume first that we share the same preferences when it comes to morality. I may believe that God's actions are moral because they align with my idea of what is right or wrong. While you may say that God is immoral because His actions contradict what you believe to be morally right. So, I must presume that you believe that morality is something that is absolute and transcendent. Now if this is what you believe, your argument will run into some potholes going down this pathway. I will explain why. If morality is an aspect of God, then it figures that one can form the basis of morality from His very existence since morality is in His nature. Therefore, any sort of morality that human beings derive unsourced from God would only be what humans think "ought to be," rather than what actually "ought to be." Which leads to the conclusion that any action that God commits is inherently righteous since the ultimate standard of morality would be synonymous with God. It is impossible to call what is by nature, good, bad and still be making a truth statement. Humans would be unable to say that God is bad, due to the fact that God would be axiomatically good. Even if you believed that morality was separate from God, it is difficult to deduce that God is immoral. Take this verse in Genesis: Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; The only way that we could violate God"s commands and still be morally right, would be if God was not in unison with what is moral; but you would first need to prove that the standard of morality is not contained within the nature of God; This would involve determining what morality actually is. Now, humans can theorize about morality--and have done so for ages, but human methods can only go so far before they reach their limit. Morality, fundamentally does not deal with the question, "what is" but with "what ought to be." Evaluating this issue, definitely, requires an "authority" to point to what is right and what is wrong. If morality is separated from God, that places God as the only intermediary (if you believe the Bible to be the word of God), between us and the true nature of morality. This ultimately makes God the only true "authority" since He is the only one who can ascertain the nature of morality. To show God as being immoral, you"d have to either prove that God is not the ultimate authority on Morality, or that He is a liar--both of which are difficult. Now, I do want to address some of the verses/passages that you gathered from the Bible. I will address one of your points for right now and then I will finish the rest, as well as give my rebuttal to your arguments in my next post. (1) God Created everything (Prov 26:10, Col 1:16) including evil. Isa 45:7, Amos 3:6, Lam 3:38" I understand that it is very difficult for us to grasp this concept. God can allow evil to occur because He knows the rich goodness that will result because of it. While God may be the cause of evil, the Bible is explicit that He is not the doer of the evil( Num. 23:19, Ps. 92:15, Jas 1:13) You mentioned this i your 5th point. Suffering can bring about great good. The verse that is used most often in support of this notion is Romans 8:28, "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose." If evil was not ordained by God, then God would not be sovereign over His creation(not biblical supported). Disasters can never happen unless God specifically allows them to happen. The reason it is hard to see God working in this way and still see Him as good is because humans lack an example which we can comprehend God's point of view. Humans are not fitting examples. Humans do not posses the foresight that God has. The reason that God is the only one who can allow evil to happen and not be incriminated, is because His intent is good and the result will end up being good. Humans are unable to make such guarantees when they commit or allow horrendous acts because they can not know the full, far-reaching implication of their own actions on others as God can for His. Thank you for starting this debate. My best wishes to you, and I"m eager to see your rebuttal! Sources Sources [1] https://www.britannica.com... [2]https://www.britannica.com... [3]http://web.mnstate.edu...