Originally Posted by Carneades-SkepticGriggsy

We naturalists would expect evil due to natural conditions.Again,Aquinas' superfluity argument emerges: why introduce God as that second and superfluous hypothesis to explain what is already explained? Theists cannot explain evil but always rationalize why He fails to overcome it!
Remember,ti's not what putative God wants but what morality dictates! He has no rights over us!Might does not make right!
His putative omnisicence is a red herring, because we know enough that

Originally Posted by Carneades-SkepticGriggsy

I approve Kant's dictum to treat others as human beings,not as things. Thus, I rate higher than putative God who grants purposes to His " things"- human beings! What a travesty and blasphemy against humanity to urge people to get their divine purpose!
We make our own meanings and purposes, we get and give love and this one life suffices; We need no divine purpose and divine love and future state.
Morality binds even Gods! Morality denies the divine right of divine rights!

Originally Posted by Carneades-SkepticGriggsy

How do we reach the nihilsts to become moral advocates?
The Deity would have to discern morality before He could ever enforce it as it is independent of Him were He to exist. It serves no ends to maintain that why, His nature is good as Aquinas does, because that begs the question of that nature.
The Deity is thus not the primary cause in ethics and morality no more than in other fields. Were He the enforcer, He'd not need to make justice in Heaven but instead here in the first

Originally Posted by Carneades-SkepticGriggsy

I find that rape should be considered wrong in all societies:; no ethical or sociological relativism should intrude. We all can see the harm done. This is a consequentialist-utilitarian view but all should adhere to it. This is an absolute.
At a site, it was pointed out that a man stated that he innocently raped a woman. No, he raped her period! He thnks that with their heavy flirting and other matters and that she was drunk gave him permision to have sex with her. No, she wasn't able to consent.

Originally Posted by Carneades-SkepticGriggsy

Those prepared apologists would just answer with logical fallacies, making more sophistry, I dare say, as I comprehend their modus operandi.
The fine-tuning argument exhumes that they do misinterpret the evidence. They declaim about the parameters permitting life. Carneades' atelic argument belies that: they beg the question of directed outcomes! As Douglas Adams pictures their argument with his puddle argument, they look silly: a puddle notes that some intent had it come to be, ignoring