Our whole discussion has been based on the assumption that there are laws of logic and rationality that apply and that this is a rational discussion about world views. How can that assumption be irrelevant? If the laws of logic can be changed in the sense of being improved then we could just agree that contradictory systems are equally rational and call that an improvement. I think you would agree with me that agreeing to violate the law of identity and the law of noncontradiction would be absurd.
In no way have you demonstrated how all of this would be improved by a theistic creator, especially considering that there's no evidence for one.
If the creator has real world reasons for imposing morality, what is gained above and beyond those real world reasons by a creator? All of the evidence (100% of it) points to the creator being a projection of ourselves, and manmade.
Epistemologically, how could you possibly know such a thing? You would have to have experienced everything that has transpired since the beginning of the universe (assuming that it had a beginning) to be in a position to know that there is no evidence for a theistic creator. You would have to have universal knowledge. You would have to be omniscient. You would have to be God.
I'm pretty sure you do not have universal experience. You admitted as much when you said that you don't know whether the laws of logic are changeable or not.
That is why most people have an aversion to the morality of the Old Testament, because our morality has improved and changed since then. We've changed, and the morality of the "creator" has changed as a result.
The Scriptures themselves are full of examples of peoples' aversion to God's morality, from the Fall of man in his attempt at self-deification and autonomy onward. I would simply note that your claim that morality has 'improved' assumes a standard by which morality itself is measured, but to what are you comparing the universe when you assume that there is some standard that goes beyond it, or that there is some aspect of it that is not as it ought to be?
Cordially,
They could change tomorrow or 100,000 years from now. It doesn't stop us from having a discussion in the here and now.
Epistemologically, how could you possibly know such a thing? You would have to have experienced everything that has transpired since the beginning of the universe (assuming that it had a beginning) to be in a position to know that there is no evidence for a theistic creator.
Haha. No, no no.
It's is a reasonable induction to make considering that there is, as of now, no evidence for a theistic creator. I don't have to have experienced every single moment in time to make the basic observation that there is no evidence for miracles, the supernatural, or a supernatural theistic God, just as I can make the same observation about Santa Claus, polytheistic Gods, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and the Great Juju in the Sky. If you have evidence, then present it. But it is not my job to prove a negative based on a simple assertion.
I would simply note that your claim that morality has 'improved' assumes a standard by which morality itself is measured, but to what are you comparing the universe when you assume that there is some standard that goes beyond it, or that there is some aspect of it that is not as it ought to be?
I wouldn't say that the standard of morality has improved, only our understanding of it. There is some sort of standard that I think we are required to seek, but it is more complicated than saying that it's written down somewhere or decided by some central unalterable authority.
You've probably experienced it yourself when you came to the conclusion that slavery is wrong. You certainly didn't get that from the Bible, and Jesus never condemned it, yet somehow you know it is immoral. Explaining WHY you think slavery is wrong is more complicated than the childlike defense of "Because Daddy says so". That's why I said that figuring out morality isn't easy; it takes work. But anything worth doing always does.