Logic can be a real b**** like that sometimes
But in setting up this syllogism you've committed some logical errors of your own. For instance:
First, you're assuming that gore3000's statements about God's laws are those of God Himself. You've said nothing about God here, only about gore3000's opinion about God.
Second, you're excluding a possibility: that God might choose not to change His laws.
Third, the syllogism makes some a priori assumptions about God's purposes, nature, and methods of action. If any of those assumptions are incorrect, the syllogism (while still logically consistent) is invalid.
Fourth, the syllogism requires that God's laws as revealed to us are equivalent to God's laws overall -- which isn't necessarily true.
I'm sure you get the idea....
Well, that's sort of my point. I've been attacking gore3000's assertion that God's law is immutable and unchangeable. If he's right, then it implies certain other things about God which seem to be rather unpopular around here. If he's wrong...then, he's wrong, and God's law is changeable and "mutable". IOW, even if it comes from gore3000, and not God directly, we can still make inferences about God, given either answer to the question of whether God's law is immutable. Either gore3000 is right or he's wrong, but either way, there are implications that follow from it.
I'm just the messenger here. Blame gore3000 for putting you in this position, not me ;)
Second, you're excluding a possibility: that God might choose not to change His laws.
Not at all - I don't discount the possibility that God can choose not to change His law. But that necessarily implies that he could also choose to change His law, if He so desired. Nowhere do I say that God must change his mind, only that He can.
Third, the syllogism makes some a priori assumptions about God's purposes, nature, and methods of action. If any of those assumptions are incorrect, the syllogism (while still logically consistent) is invalid.
Like what? Which unstated assumptions am I basing this on?
Fourth, the syllogism requires that God's laws as revealed to us are equivalent to God's laws overall -- which isn't necessarily true.
Not at all - it requires no such thing. It only seeks to demonstrate the possibility that God can change His own law if He so desires. Either He can or He can't - if He can't, it implies that He is not omnipotent, by the very definition of omnipotence. If He can, then Junior's suggestion that morals are apart from God somehow remains an open possibility.
I know why you guys are fighting so hard on this, but really, the simplest way to end all this is just to accept that God can change His own laws if He wants to...
But choice implies the ability to do so. Therefore God can change His laws; He simply chooses not to. If God cannot change His own laws, choice will never enter into the equation.