God is Incapable of Dictating Morality

The purpose of my allowing a God that is Omnipotent was to allow you to understand the contradiction that my argument presents to the understanding of God's Omnipotence. If I were to be pedantic about it I would have presented you with a simple paradox - but this would not be productive as far as the debate is concerned as the point I am arguing is God's ability (or lack thereof) to justifiably dictate morality. So, for the purpose of preventing this issue from further clouding the debate - A linguistic claim that God is Omnipotent (theistic understanding) does not grant the ability for God to dictate morality to humans, this is the crux of the argument of the first round. A theistic claim supporting God's Omnipotence must either show fault with the reasoning I have given in the first round, or present an equally valid and sound sequence of rationalisation that shows that God can. Essentially what I am saying is that a claim that God is Omnipotent does not make God Omnipotent, there are plenty of paradoxes to show how Omnipotence is self-contradictory, but I am aiming to challenge the theistic understanding of Omnipotence from the view point of God's ability to dictate morality - which I think I have effectively shown God is uncapable of doing. God being Omnipotent is definitely not a 'sound' assertion. I have presented a challenge that proves this, can you either present an argument that shows I have not done this (taking into account what I have just written), or present an argument that shows that God can indeed dictate morality external to human interpretation (and therefore objective)? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- When I say "outside of human interpretation or morality" I am referring to objective morality. In other words 'act X is wrong irrespective of human interpretations of what right and wrong is'. "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. " I think your missing the point - I have shown a sequence of resoned logic that shows that God cannot do X, you have claimed that God can do X, but have shown no justification, no backup, no reasoned argument other than a semantic claim to definition. A linguistic claim that God is omnipotent does not grant God omnipotence. The argument I present in the first round shows the fallaciousness of God's claimed omnipotence relative to God dictating morality. You are trying to assert that omnipotence is by definition capable of allowing God to break the boundaries of logic, you must now show this is the case using reasoned rationalised thinking, or recant it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "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. " If you follow the indented quote above you'll find that it is a form of logical proof, it has premises that are justifiable, it follows a valid logical model, it has sound reasoning and sound conclusions. I have therefore proved it, I'm not sure why you couldn't see it as reasoned logic but hey. .. it's your job to disprove it. "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. " God would have to justify why it is immoral in human terms and similarly God stating that something is immoral requires human beings to put meaning into God as a something that dictates morality, either way, God is subject to human interpretation, which is part of my original assertion. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "It is absurd because as the creator of the universe and everything in it, that includes morality. " Do you realise you are opening a proverbial 'can of worms' with this statement (theodicy). I don't want to get embrioled in that, it would detract too much form the current debate, so. .. With this statement you are asserting that morality exists external to humans and is therefore objective in nature. I have asked you to prove this and you have not done so, please do so without the usual semantic-linguistic claim. If you are to prove this you must show morality is not subject to human interpretation. "Without him morality wouldn't exist, he created it and therefore dictates it. " Irrelevant, I am not claiming that either God or morality do not exist, what I am claiming is that: "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. " Besides, you are implying that being the creator automatically makes you the dictator of it - this contradicts human free will. If you are to assert that humans have no free wil, then God is directly responsible for all actions humans do, this makes any definition of morality pointless and means that ANY human act is as act of God and inherently moral, however, as there is a 'code' as you call it, there must be free will. "All human are alike, and therefore cannot tell each other what is good and what isn't good to do. " I could write a 'War & Peace' sized book on the fallaciousness of this claim. As such I'm going to let the voters decide on the validity of your statement as it is not the purpose of this debate to comment on the human condition. I ask only that the voters consider the consequences of my opponents assertion. "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. " Not all of us do look to a higher power, there are those of us who believe that human beings are capable of being good without having to rely on a metaphysical entity as a crutch to support us to be 'good'. What about people who existed before God's dictates of morality (as you would have it)? or are you going to assert that polytheists are worshiping the different aspects of God in their own way? Either way it makes absolutely no difference at all to my argument, you havent proven God can dictate morality outside of human interpretation.