This shows that limiting what a mind is to mortal agents is arbitrary, why, does the mind just not refer to god in this case?
Because the dictionary is not written by evangelists. You may personally take "mind" in the dictionary to include God's mind, but then you give the word meaning its authors did not intend. Worse, you are then claiming that morality does not stem from ANY mind! That is irrational on its face.
A mind in philosophy is more often thought of as an agent and that was the perspective I posited this.
OK, but still, since God is not a man, His rules would be objective to men in that those rules would not have been from any man or be able to be influenced by any man. This is a similar theory to outside investigators or independent councils.
Why does it stop at man? Again this seems arbitrary, the mind applies to god as well, and there are multiple ways to prove that.
You are misunderstanding. I did not say God is not a mind, I said the dictionary definition of "objective" does not include God when it says "mind". So though God may also be a mind, it isn't a MAN's mind, and this qualifies as objective TO men.
But I don't think any sort of morality can be objective, so...
Then you must tell us what you think "objective" means.
Authoritative isn't required, just that the law be true morally as well as factually.
You talk of philosophy and you don't know what "authority" means in moral philosophy? Law must have moral legitimacy. This is why you aren't obligated to obey some bloke who thinks you should. Or why a police officer can shoot a criminal when you legally cannot. Authority is what lends the law legitimacy.
If you were to confine what is moral to only what a god demands, then I would not be interested in morality.
I can't help what you're interested in. But I do not confine what is moral to what God demands. I say two things, first, that morality is nonsense without an objective, immutable, authoritative standard by which to measure morality by, and second, the only morality that is objective is that sourced in God, all others are subjective and therefore not morally binding on anyone but that person himself.
In other words, you cannot get to a sound argument without each premise being true.
Theoretical arguments are helpful when we don't know whether the premises are true or not true. So we focus on the logical process, for example, Premise 1. "there is other intelligent life in the universe". Premise 2. "That life may not operate under the known laws of physics." Conclusion: "We may not be able to perceive it as life." This argument is sound.
Also, the soundness of an argument is not based on the truth of its premises, but on whether the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Sound arguments are not necessarily true arguments, though true arguments must necessarily be sound. We are trying to test the soundness of a theoretical argument because right now, we cannot determine its truthfulness. The logical process is important right now because unless we can get a sound argument, we will never arrive at a true argument.
A theoretical argument can be used just like a number equation where we put in x's and y's instead of numbers to test the soundness of the equation. Number equations are pure logical operations. So in a theoretical word argument, we insert premise concepts to test the soundness of the logic though we don't yet know if those premises are true. Theoretical scientists do this all the time. It is a valid logical exercise.
Again, I agree, and have known this. However, if we were say, arguing about the ramifications of following god's supposed moral code, or if someone were trying to argue that it is the best to follow or something along the lines, the basis for it would have to be questioned. So no, simply stating, "god doesn't exist" or "objective moral values don't exist" isn't a proper rebuttal. Now mentioned either to show that this line of reasoning takes some assumptions to get to? Fair play, as long as your arguments are not based on these statements.
No, you haven't proven why: A) These rules should be applied to objective morality
These rules are objective TO MAN in that they are not sourced in man and cannot be affected by man. That is the definition of "objective" when used in morality.
Third, the bible claim that god is all-good, so everything they do is good, which would be subjective as it literally, "Everything I have ever done is good,"
Not so. People tend to think that when the bible says God is all good, it means they themselves will think all God's actions are all good for them. Not so. When God allows a storm of disciplines a community, we may see it as "not good", but the goodness of God's behavior is not determined by how much man likes or profits from, that behavior.
God is not following goodness, His is the standard by which goodness is measured! A loose analogy is that of a ruler measuring stick. The ruler is not determined by the distance, it is the distance that is determined by the ruler. God is the measuring stick that we use to determine/measure goodness.
As he murders his own son, that son was perfect, no? Then that son had literally no guilt for what the definition would need for it to be killing justly. One could argue that god logically needed to use the loophole of his son in order to demand his own thirst for justice, isn't god also "merciful" which is literally the pausing of justice?
All correct except that God didn't murder His own Son. Read John 10:18
There's also the fact that they are supposedly omnipotent and can do anything.
That is not what omnipotence means. Not in the bible anyway. Omnipotence does not allow God to be illogical.
Oh... well then... that god should be able to satisfy their justice without demanding life no?
There are so many things logically wrong with this, I don't know where to start! "...without demanding life..." Is your just subjective idea of what is better. Of what you think God should have done. God did not need to do what you consider good/better in order for Him to be moral. And what if Justice itself requires a life for a life? What if that IS what Justice is? What if anything else is NOT justice? God cannot be illogical.
One could argue that jesus and god are the same entitiy and therefore that wasn't really killing someone else...
Jesus and "God" (by which I assume you mean God the Father) are not the same entity. The bible agrees.
...is suicide not also condemned in the bible?
Not explicitly. But Jesus did not kill Himself. Your understanding of the Christian story and doctrine is a little lacking.
My point is god clearly has a bias towards themselves in that book, which I suppose is fair if you're the creator of the universe, however it would also mean that moral system wildly contradictory.
Only if your understanding was correct. It isn't.
I'm legitimately confused, what argument?
The logical argument that if there was a God with these qualities, that those laws would be objective and authoritative. That argument is sound.
What qualities specifically?
1. It will not have come from the mind of men - Be objective
2. It will be immutable - Be unchanging
3. It will be authoritative - Be legitimate
Why are they attributable to god?
The argument is a theoretical argument. That is why we said, IF. Right now, we are checking the only the soundness of the argument remember, not its truth.
...how does these qualities lead to an objective god?
The definition of an objective standard. (Moral standard in this case)
A moral standard (moral measuring stick) must be...
1. Objective - It will not have come from the mind of men
2. Unchanging - It will be immutable
3. Legitimate - It will be authoritative
Taking an analogy of a measuring tool again, we could analogize an atomic clock. It is objective in that no man dreamed it up. It is not from the mind of men. It is unchanging, and as a natural law, it is authoritative.
Can you imagine a measuring tool that was decided by each man himself? Or could be changed by man on a whim?
Or a measuring tool that changed on its own? Giving you different and unpredictable readings as it changed?
Or a measuring tool that had no legitimacy as a measuring tool? Say someone's foot as a ruler?
Only God has these 3 qualities of a proper moral standard. Only God is objective TO MEN. Only God is immutable. Only God is authoritative. Though we don't yet know if these premises are true, our conclusion logically follows. The argument is sound.
...if that christian is trying to posit that this moral system is superior to another, then the actual basis comes into question.
Well, what is meant by "superior"? I would rather use the word "legitimate". Because legitimacy is not subjective. Legitimacy is not based on how someone feels. Superiority can be. A moral system/standard must be judged on the 3 qualities that define a proper moral measuring system. And only one moral system satisfies all 3.
See if we were to use that argument than a christian shouldn't care whether I'm assuming a single principle for my moral system, as them assuming a god would be equivalent (not quite as assuming a god is good deal bigger but whatevers),
...but if the christian is saying that other people should prefer it, or use it,
The Christian is not so much saying that others should prefer or use it, but that it is legitimate, whether one prefers it, or uses it, or not.
...then yes, you should absolutely question whether that god exists.
I agree. But only AFTER we have determined the logical soundness of the argument.
Now, again again, should your entire argument or even your main argument be based on that? No, clearly not.
My argument is sound. And I can show that it is also true. I want my argument to be based on truth.
My point here is that yes I agree you shouldn't just say, "God doesn't exist your argument go brrr" And I haven't done that here, now, might I have done that in P... I can seriously not remember his name, the topic where it was atheist morals vs theistic ones, yes I have, has it been my only argument? No.
I have no issues with that. Each argument should be different depending on the topic and the claims.