Since nobody can ever know what God's moral character is, that is not true. The world's Christians repeatedly argue about what God thinks is and isn't moral; nobody can ever be sure. Which makes Christians' moral opinions as subjective as anybody else's.
No, among Christians that accept the infallible authority of Gods Word, there is agreement on the essential moral teachings of God and his word.
No, it's not. Selfishness is about motivation, not behaviour.
But since we cant read minds and know motivation, we determine selfishness by behavior. You know it when you see it.
Again, you cannot show that they lean toward the bad and have to be reminded of the good. You've also not made the case that whatever selfishness children show is 'sin'.
I notice you didnt or were unable to answer my question. Why? Because you know it proves my point? God has told us it is sin plus our moral conscious does as well ie, most people agree that acting selfish is wrong.
So the bible contradicts itself? I'm not surprised.
No, taking things out of context can make any book contradictory.
No, love is precisely an emotion. All flavours of it.
So if someone in your family needs help and its a day you dont feel like it, you dont help them?
I have; it's nonsense, since nobody can ever know what you claim to be the creators' moral laws.
Yes, you can, the essential moral laws of God are obvious in His Word. All you have to know is how to read things in context like any other book.
Umm...no. That's proven by the fact that people feel guilt over any number of things, including those that nobody feels are sinful. Guilt is just another emotion, irrational or not.
No, most everything in the second tablet of the Ten Commandments people feel guilty about if they commit the act. Such as most people feel guilty if they murder, lie, commit adultery, or steal. This is evidence that our moral conscience is a reflection of the moral law of God.
No, you haven't remotely shown that in any posts.
Provide one post where I have not.
No, your particular interpretation of a thousands-of-years-old book by unknown authors claims that.
No, millions of people for 2000 years have agreed with my interpretation, and many of the authors are known and there is evidence that the book has a divine origin.
Again you are just begging the question. You are assuming that the universe was caused (because it is an effect, and by definition effects have causes) and since it was caused, it had a cause - God. You have not shown it was an effect; you have not shown any way in which it would be different if it was an uncaused event, nor that it was not an uncauseed event.
No, scientists have to study the effect and the event to determine which is which. Good scientists cannot just assume something has a cause, it has to show characteristics that demonstrate whether it is an effect or an event. And the universe has all the characteristics of an effect. Just because you claim you cannot tell the difference does not mean others cannot.
Sorry, but "most cosmologists believe it did" does not equate to "we know it did". The fact is that we do not know whether or not the universe had a beginning; we don't even know if it had a beginning in its present form.
I never claimed that we know for certain it had a beginning, just that so far all the evidence points that way and the evidence grows every year that it did have a beginning.
Why are they characteristics of something that is contingent? Show that a non-contingent something would not have those characteristics.
A non contingent thing would not have a beginning and would not change.
Again, you are just claiming that your god's diversity is somehow different to any other god's diversity and that that diversity somehow proves that he created the universe. You've not demostrated either of those.
It is different, and you have failed to prove otherwise. I have demonstrated it.
