Finally, I apologize for not responding to our earlier debate, The posts just got very long and I just didn't have the time to write such a long post. But if its all the same, there are one or two things I would like to either clarify, or ask you to clarify, if that's alright with you.
It is mostly the same stuff as now. You need to prove God's moral virtue without relying on assuming it in the first place, and give better reasoning for your supposed evidence for his existence. There are two separate points here:
1) Does God exist?
and
2) Is God, as described in the Bible, morally virtuous?
Not really. Let me kind of expand on that. Lets say that, for whatever reason, you are unsure if theft is good or bad. Until that conclusion is reached, you shouldn't steal, because once the decision is made, it is irreversible.
But you have pretty clearly said that homosexuality is a sin and thus evil. Are you going back on that?
EDIT: And that is a bit too clear-cut of a division. You need to judge the probability of whether it is right or wrong and act on the best knowledge you have. Why should "unsure" imply that we should by default avoid it as if it was evil?
That specific example, was more of an argument for existence, not morality. People would like to say god doesn't even exist just so they can get out of things. You could deny that Kim Jong-un even existed, but that wouldn't stop him would it? That was the point I was trying to make there.
Obviously that is what your strict wording was, but you were using it in an argument over whether God is morally good, so it is going to be taken as an argument in favor of that position.
If you admit that power does not imply moral virtue, that's fine, but the obvious next question is whether this has anything to do with the matter at hand. You are only saying, "If there is evidence that God exists, we should believe that he exists." But nobody is questioning that proposition; they are questioning whether that evidence exists.
How does this help you prove God's moral virtue in any way? Or God's existence for that matter?
Combination of those and several others.
I could list them specifically, if you want, but I won't waste my breath if you wont read it anyways.
Well, let's talk about these two at a general level.
1) Vague prophecies.
If I were to say "The earth shall shake" and not specify any specific time, space, or other quantities, it would only be a matter of time until it took place. Why? Because earthquakes are known to happen, so they will probably take place eventually.
If I were to say "The earth shall shake more than usually" and not specify any specific time, space, or other quantities, it would only be a matter of time until it took place. Why? Because the frequency and strength of earthquakes vary depending on a variety of factors, so it is very likely that there will be periods with more and stronger earthquakes.
It's like taking a coin and saying, "I will get heads at an unspecified time." Unless you get tails every single time, it is bound to happen. The more you try to flip the coin, the more likely it is. Simple statistics. Do you want me to spell out the exact math on this?
Now, if you were able to perfectly list the outcome of the first 100,000 coin flips, it would be impressive.
2) "It can't be chance" argument.
Why can't it be chance? If we had been unlucky and the laws of physics in our universe or conditions on Earth did not support humans evolving, we wouldn't be here today. There would be no one wondering about why we are here or making up religions. Do you see intelligent beings on Venus or Mars following their own religious dogma? No. Why? Because conditions were such that no intelligent life appeared.
You can't be wondering about the reason of your existence if you don't exist.
Therefore, if we know that a person exists, there is a 100 % chance that conditions had been suitable for his existence.
Say you have a lottery. It is unlikely for any one person to win it, but it is very likely that someone does. And when that person does win, we know with a 100 % certainty that he won. Sure, someone else
could have won, but they didn't. This is no proof of the lottery being rigged; it could have just been chance. Again, simple statistics.
The entire point of allowing humans to rule was to show that humans ruling themselves will eventually lead to the downfall of the human race. So once the race does destroy itself, it will be a fact that the only was life can go on in this planet is with a non-human ruler. So if a person disagrees with that, then there will be the fact that human rulership busted up the earth in the past. Let me provide a legal example from one of my books. Once a specific type of court case is fought, then when other similar cases pop up, they use the original case as a prerequisite, to make the judgement much more swift. It would be the same way, those people who disagree would be proven wrong before they even started.
So you are just assuming that everyone will agree with God. Well, could you answer what he is going to do if not?
But regardless, your reasoning is horribly flawed because you can't judge individuals based on what other people have done. Stop treating mankind as a unitary group. Morality doesn't work that way.
Furthermore, you need a separate argument for why God's rule would be better. If a ruler screws up, it by itself in no way implies that another ruler won't. It is all the more suspect in this case because God has set up the initial conditions and interfered on many occasions, contributing to the original downfall.
You seem to have an idea of what worship is in you mind already,, do you mind if I ask what that is?
Accepting him as a moral authority or even as an absolute moral authority, like you seem to do. In other words, dogmatically believing that something is right or wrong simply because he says so.
Secondly, we seemed to have focused mostly on the fact that god would be the ruler of this "Kingdom". But he would not be the only ruler. The Bible actually states that god will give the right to rule to his son Jesus, and that he will rule with a group of humans from earth. So actually, calling the kingdom a dictatorship, would be inaccurate.
It doesn't matter for my arguments whether it is a dictatorship or an oligarchy where the ruling class is doing the oppression. The key point is that it is a tyranny where individual liberties are suppressed. Just look at North Korea; it is not as though Kim Jong-un carries out all government functions by himself, but that doesn't make it a morally admirable state.