God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?

[lightgigantic]

Nonsense doesn't rot teeth, troop.

clean teeth doesn't prevent one speaking rot either ...

The shifting of the goal posts out of reach is suggestive of the want to protect the belief in spite of evidence that contradicts it.

err that's my point ... standard definitions of god (ie "the evidence") define him as the summum bonum etc
:shrug:

By insisting that like ants, we cannot fathom the mind of God.

err ... once again ... I didn't say god was unfathomable. I did say however that it is unfathomable how one would go about persecuting dogs (or ants for that matter) for incest

We are not limited like ants.

yes we are
I even explained precisely how : only because humans share the same limited capacity of ants that render them far from perfection : namely is sure to commit mistakes, is invariably illusioned, has the tendency to cheat others and is limited by imperfect senses ... with the added bonus of all this bundle of error decked out with a temporary body dictated by ephemeral desires for things that will shortly cease to exist with colossal uniformed, misguided notions of possession and ownership.

 

[Neverfly]

err that's my point ... standard definitions of god (ie "the evidence")

What evidence? Is there any rational evidence that a God exists and that describes him? You're not referring to the Chronicles of Narnia, are you? That is a work of fiction, you see...

define him as the summum bonum etc

Yes, which inflicts mass genocide, floods, famine, plagues, orders the slaughter of women and children...

Ultimate Good. Indeed, I shall buy him a beer, forthwith.

err ... once again ... I didn't say god was unfathomable. I did say however that it is unfathomable how one would go about persecuting dogs (or ants for that matter) for incest

Give it time- people are working on it. For now, they just content themselves to kill them.

only because humans share the same limited capacity of ants that render them far from perfection : namely is sure to commit mistakes, is invariably illusioned, has the tendency to cheat others and is limited by imperfect senses ... with the added bonus of all this bundle of error decked out with a temporary body dictated by ephemeral desires for things that will shortly cease to exist with colossal uniformed, misguided notions of possession and ownership.

And your molars rot. You, too, will cease to exist. I think that scares you a bit.
I agree, we have limitations. I do not agree they are profound enough to limit our ability to study Psychology.
We are not like ants. We are not Drones.

 

[Neverfly]

We are to worship God for he is Jealous and wrathful...
Really? So, we are instructed by God himself, in the Bibbly, that the reason to worship him is not due to an Ultimate Good, but because he's Limited by Jealousy.
Fascinating.

 

[lightgigantic]

What evidence? Is there any rational evidence that a God exists and that describes him? You're not referring to the Chronicles of Narnia, are you? That is a work of fiction, you see...

we are talking about standard definitions for god ... which I guess excludes the chronicles of narnia (although, strangely enough, it was composed by the author as an indirect narrative to explain problems of theodicy according to christianity)

If you are having trouble with the topic of god's existence you probably need a more apt thread to address your woes

Yes, which inflicts mass genocide, floods, famine, plagues, orders the slaughter of women and children...

annihilation is simply one third of the prescribed duties. The other two are creation and maintenance, which, (again) strangely enough, explain precisely why god enjoys are completely different ontological category to humans (or ants or dogs or whatever). IOW one of the very reasons it is immoral for us to kill is that we didn't engineer a living entities arrival in this world, nor their maintenance and nor their next destination after they leave this body.

Give it time- people are working on it. For now, they just content themselves to kill them.

People kill dogs for performing incest in your neighbourhood?

And your molars rot. You, too, will cease to exist. I think that scares you a bit.

Not sure what this has to do with the statement explaining precisely why humans and ants are in teh same category and why its clearly an act of intellectual bankruptcy to try and place god in the same category

I agree, we have limitations. I do not agree they are profound enough to limit our ability to study Psychology.
We are not like ants. We are not Drones.

Unless you think psychologists are somehow outside being sure to commit mistakes, invariably illusioned, having the tendency to cheat others and being limited by imperfect senses ... with the added bonus of all this bundle of error decked out with a temporary body dictated by ephemeral desires for things that will shortly cease to exist with colossal uniformed, misguided notions of possession and ownership ... I don't see how introducing psychology introduces a fresh slant on the subject of ants and humans being limited in precisely the same manner.

 

[wynn]

Not sure how babies are mightier than adults when it comes to breast fondling
or dogs are mightier than humans when it comes to incest

IOW if you think its a might = right argument you haven't understood the argument

You said:

the status/capacity/potency/authority of an individual determines (by logic too I might add) whether an act is immoral or not.

That is a might-makes-right argument.

Its quite simply

At one side of the spectrum is intense yet temporary attraction to the material energy and at the other is immutable attraction to god (immutable given that its constitutional of the living entity ... so much so that it an illusioned state it finds expression in the material energy). Both are mutually exclusive. In terms of where this life leads its like the story of there being two dogs inside us and trying to guess which one will win (the answer is the one we feed)

That is too esoteric for me.

Hence the above is a good departure point for ruminating on states of existence beyond this world

Ruminating, yes, but not much more.

Hence spiritual life doesn't require that one reinvent the wheel like some mad artist simply for the sake of putting one's name to it

That's a strawman.
Nobody argued that one needed or wanted to figure it all out on one's own.

The question is, rather, whom to trust.

It appears that all theistic doctrines have a circular, self-referential verification system: "If you want to know whether what doctrine X says it true, see if X abides by the standards presented in doctrine X."

What you present here in your thread Qualities of the correct epistemology for perceiving God is simply a truism, a self-verifying system, it is circular.

For a person born and raised in a society where they already believe the basic premises of this system, working with the system typically won't be problematic.
For someone, who is not born and raised in such a society, but to whom this system feels natural somehow, working with the system won't be problematic either.
For neurotic types who will grasp at any straw, working with the system at least on principle won't be problematic.

But for someone who is not born and raised into the system, or who doesn't have a natural affinity for it, or who is not neurotic either, working with the system will be problematic. Such a person will need to have a good reason to take it up. Such a reason can be trust in the proponents of this system. If that trust is not there, the person is left to rationalizations - which is what forums like these abound in.

 

[Neverfly]

we are talking about standard definitions for god ...

Whose standard? What evidence supports this "Standard?" How was this standard Determined?

If you are having trouble with the topic of god's existence you probably need a more apt thread to address your woes

I think I'm doing fine.

annihilation is simply one third of the prescribed duties. The other two are creation and maintenance, which, (again) strangely enough, explain precisely why god enjoys are completely different ontological category to humans (or ants or dogs or whatever). IOW one of the very reasons it is immoral for us to kill is that we didn't engineer a living entities arrival in this world, nor their maintenance and nor their next destination after they leave this body.

THis argument doesn't really help, see because ummm...
"God" didn't create the Earth nor the beasts. He cannot kill anything, either.

Ok, hold on. Back up a moment. I know that you read in some fiction that God did these things. And thousands of years ago in the age of ignorance, I suppose inventing tall tales was a pastime. It helped one cope.

But today, we have a method to study and model the Universe and the World. Unlike pleasing works of fiction, it provides testable, independently verifiable answers that are reliable and allow for greater understanding and expansion of understanding.
Evolution demonstrates, with extremely varied and independently verified evidence such things as emergence, genetic heritage and speciation.
We are now aware of a lack of diving being, intelligent design and Creation.

This being the case, God cannot claim lives he did not partake in making anymore than you say you can.

People kill dogs for performing incest in your neighbourhood?

No, usually for biting. Obviously a crime worthy of death. Judgment is judgment.

Not sure what this has to do with the statement explaining precisely why humans and ants are in teh same category and why its clearly an act of intellectual bankruptcy to try and place god in the same category

God cannot be placed in any catagory except for "Myth." You cannot categorize that which does not exist.
Instead of talking of the limitations of ants, Let's talk about what Humans have as ABILITIES- shall we?
The ability to study, to learn about the world (evolution) and ourselves (genetics, evolution, psychology.) The psychology of self awareness and the desire to believe in something greater, whether it be an advanced race of aliens, a God, karma, LoA- Some higher power to guide us through a world we are ABLE to perceive and be Aware Of. The evolutionary traits such as Pareidolia, which enabled survival but also enables seeing what is not there.

 

[wynn]

Not sure how babies are mightier than adults when it comes to breast fondling
or dogs are mightier than humans when it comes to incest

IOW if you think its a might = right argument you haven't understood the argument

You said:

the status/capacity/potency/authority of an individual determines (by logic too I might add) whether an act is immoral or not.

That is a might-makes-right argument.

Its quite simply

At one side of the spectrum is intense yet temporary attraction to the material energy and at the other is immutable attraction to god (immutable given that its constitutional of the living entity ... so much so that it an illusioned state it finds expression in the material energy). Both are mutually exclusive. In terms of where this life leads its like the story of there being two dogs inside us and trying to guess which one will win (the answer is the one we feed)

That is too esoteric for me.

Hence the above is a good departure point for ruminating on states of existence beyond this world

Ruminating, yes, but not much more.

Hence spiritual life doesn't require that one reinvent the wheel like some mad artist simply for the sake of putting one's name to it

That's a strawman.
Nobody argued that one needed or wanted to figure it all out on one's own.

The question is, rather, whom to trust.

It appears that all theistic doctrines have a circular, self-referential verification system: "If you want to know whether what doctrine X says it true, see if X abides by the standards presented in doctrine X."

What you present here in your thread Qualities of the correct epistemology for perceiving God is simply a truism, a self-verifying system, it is circular.

For a person born and raised in a society where they already believe the basic premises of this system, working with the system typically won't be problematic.
For someone, who is not born and raised in such a society, but to whom this system feels natural somehow, working with the system won't be problematic either.
For neurotic types who will grasp at any straw, working with the system at least on principle won't be problematic.

But for someone who is not born and raised into the system, or who doesn't have a natural affinity for it, or who is not neurotic either, working with the system will be problematic. Such a person will need to have a good reason to take it up. Such a reason can be trust in the proponents of this system. If that trust is not there, the person is left to rationalizations - which is what forums like these abound in.

 

[wynn]

Nonsense doesn't rot teeth, troop.

Nonsense does rot brains.

It's not possible that any God has since God simply does not exist.

Oh.
Then you saying -

By insisting that like ants, we cannot fathom the mind of God.

is what - moot? Along with your whole line of reasoning on the topic of "God"?

On my terms, yes. But the contextualize? No- I did contextualize it by rational standards. Perhaps you missed it when you read that post...

"Rational" according to whom?

That could simply be your projection.

So when someone claims to know God, you are one totally happy, relaxed camper?

 

[wynn]

Repost due to forum issues:

Not sure how babies are mightier than adults when it comes to breast fondling
or dogs are mightier than humans when it comes to incest

IOW if you think its a might = right argument you haven't understood the argument

You said:

the status/capacity/potency/authority of an individual determines (by logic too I might add) whether an act is immoral or not.

That is a might-makes-right argument.

Its quite simply

At one side of the spectrum is intense yet temporary attraction to the material energy and at the other is immutable attraction to god (immutable given that its constitutional of the living entity ... so much so that it an illusioned state it finds expression in the material energy). Both are mutually exclusive. In terms of where this life leads its like the story of there being two dogs inside us and trying to guess which one will win (the answer is the one we feed)

That is too esoteric for me.

Hence the above is a good departure point for ruminating on states of existence beyond this world

Ruminating, yes, but not much more.

Hence spiritual life doesn't require that one reinvent the wheel like some mad artist simply for the sake of putting one's name to it

That's a strawman.
Nobody argued that one needed or wanted to figure it all out on one's own.

The question is, rather, whom to trust.

It appears that all theistic doctrines have a circular, self-referential verification system: "If you want to know whether what doctrine X says it true, see if X abides by the standards presented in doctrine X."

What you present here in your thread Qualities of the correct epistemology for perceiving God is simply a truism, a self-verifying system, it is circular.

For a person born and raised in a society where they already believe the basic premises of this system, working with the system typically won't be problematic.
For someone, who is not born and raised in such a society, but to whom this system feels natural somehow, working with the system won't be problematic either.
For neurotic types who will grasp at any straw, working with the system at least on principle won't be problematic.

But for someone who is not born and raised into the system, or who doesn't have a natural affinity for it, or who is not neurotic either, working with the system will be problematic. Such a person will need to have a good reason to take it up. Such a reason can be trust in the proponents of this system. If that trust is not there, the person is left to rationalizations - which is what forums like these abound in.

 

[wynn]

Repost due to forum issues, this time without the link:

Not sure how babies are mightier than adults when it comes to breast fondling
or dogs are mightier than humans when it comes to incest

IOW if you think its a might = right argument you haven't understood the argument

You said:

the status/capacity/potency/authority of an individual determines (by logic too I might add) whether an act is immoral or not.

That is a might-makes-right argument.

Its quite simply

At one side of the spectrum is intense yet temporary attraction to the material energy and at the other is immutable attraction to god (immutable given that its constitutional of the living entity ... so much so that it an illusioned state it finds expression in the material energy). Both are mutually exclusive. In terms of where this life leads its like the story of there being two dogs inside us and trying to guess which one will win (the answer is the one we feed)

That is too esoteric for me.

Hence the above is a good departure point for ruminating on states of existence beyond this world

Ruminating, yes, but not much more.

Hence spiritual life doesn't require that one reinvent the wheel like some mad artist simply for the sake of putting one's name to it

That's a strawman.
Nobody argued that one needed or wanted to figure it all out on one's own.

The question is, rather, whom to trust.

It appears that all theistic doctrines have a circular, self-referential verification system: "If you want to know whether what doctrine X says it true, see if X abides by the standards presented in doctrine X."

What you present here in your thread Qualities of the correct epistemology for perceiving God is simply a truism, a self-verifying system, it is circular.

For a person born and raised in a society where they already believe the basic premises of this system, working with the system typically won't be problematic.
For someone, who is not born and raised in such a society, but to whom this system feels natural somehow, working with the system won't be problematic either.
For neurotic types who will grasp at any straw, working with the system at least on principle won't be problematic.

But for someone who is not born and raised into the system, or who doesn't have a natural affinity for it, or who is not neurotic either, working with the system will be problematic. Such a person will need to have a good reason to take it up. Such a reason can be trust in the proponents of this system. If that trust is not there, the person is left to rationalizations - which is what forums like these abound in.

 

[wynn]

What evidence? Is there any rational evidence that a God exists and that describes him?

Dude, get your act straight!
Sometimes you claim that God does not exist so there can be no evidence of God, other times you talk as if you knew God, yet other times you ask questions about evidence of God.

We are not like ants. We are not Drones.

Oh well. Wait till your next constipation or diarrhea, for example.

If you are having trouble with the topic of god's existence you probably need a more apt thread to address your woes

I think I'm doing fine.

Fine: Freaked Out, Insecure, Neurotic and Emotional.

 

[lightgigantic]

Whose standard? What evidence supports this "Standard?" How was this standard Determined?

If you can understand precisely what the FSM is parodying and also understand why they didn't model it on a subject closer to ,say , the chronicles of narnia (even though it is a subject that has intended theological implications ... albeit mostly unknown to many posters on sciforums) you can already answer these questions

I think I'm doing fine.

fine job at not addressing issues of the OP

IOW if you have serious argumentative problems with god's existence, you can't really breach issues of morality that may be pertinent/irrelevant to him (unless of course you are prepared to entertain a concept purely for the sake of argument)
Please close the door on your way out.

THis argument doesn't really help, see because ummm...
"God" didn't create the Earth nor the beasts. He cannot kill anything, either.

Noted how you are back tracking away from arguments about morality and god and trying to change the subject

Ok, hold on. Back up a moment. I know that you read in some fiction that God did these things. And thousands of years ago in the age of ignorance, I suppose inventing tall tales was a pastime. It helped one cope.

But today, we have a method to study and model the Universe and the World. Unlike pleasing works of fiction, it provides testable, independently verifiable answers that are reliable and allow for greater understanding and expansion of understanding.

on the contrary cosmogony tends to not be such a highly regarded science .. namely because it doesn't provide us with anything that is testable with independently verifiable answers etc ... but that aside ... I guess you now have no hang ups about god being responsible for floods and famines etc so I guess I have been successful in at least forcing you to retreat to the rampart of standard cliches of stock standard atheism

Evolution demonstrates, with extremely varied and independently verified evidence such things as emergence, genetic heritage and speciation.
We are now aware of a lack of diving being, intelligent design and Creation.

This being the case, God cannot claim lives he did not partake in making anymore than you say you can.

last I checked abiogenesis was still a concept ... unless you are again confusing science with science fiction like you did with cosmogony.

No, usually for biting. Obviously a crime worthy of death. Judgment is judgment.

Thats fine but actually I was talking about something else ... namely how it is unfathomable how one would persecute a dog for incest (just like it is unfathomable how one could apply mundane morality to god) ... but I guess you already knew this and had nothing much to say on the subject (which explains why you are trying to change the subject with every paragraph)

God cannot be placed in any catagory except for "Myth." You cannot categorize that which does not exist.

And myths can't have morals so its game over for you as far as this thread is concerned

Instead of talking of the limitations of ants, Let's talk about what Humans have as ABILITIES- shall we?
The ability to study, to learn about the world (evolution) and ourselves (genetics, evolution, psychology.) The psychology of self awareness and the desire to believe in something greater, whether it be an advanced race of aliens, a God, karma, LoA- Some higher power to guide us through a world we are ABLE to perceive and be Aware Of. The evolutionary traits such as Pareidolia, which enabled survival but also enables seeing what is not there.

I was right you are beguiled by technology. All this nonsense doesn't help an iota in placing humans in a distinct category from ants for the sake of offering a radical judgment of god. I guess you already understand this and have abandoned ship on the hopeless argument you were trying to offer earlier.

 

[Neverfly]

Nonsense does rot brains.

I'll grant that one

Oh.
Then you saying -(my quote pn topic:God)


is what - moot? Along with your whole line of reasoning on the topic of "God"?

Not at all. Differentiate between opinion of the myth and one's claims to "Know God."
One cannot know God if no God exists.
One can formulate opinions on diverse fictitious characters, but cannot state facts. They are opinions and not facts. Nothing I say in regards to the persona of God is fact nor ever can be.

"Rational" according to whom?

Devoted years of study in Psychologyand mental health. This includes distressed states of mind, irrationality and destructive prejudice of facts.

So when someone claims to know God, you are one totally happy, relaxed camper?

More relaxed than you assume I am.
I'm not a totally happy camper- I'm disturbed by the irrationality and the harm that I believe such irrationality can bring on individuals (Refusing cancer treatments and devastating a family, refusing to aid police in apprehending the rapist of a 13 year old child or on society such as retarding advancement and progress, holy wars and atrocious witch hunts.
While a small and mild belief in the irrational usually does not lead to such harm, a heavy and irrational belief can and does lead to examples such as given above. It is a futile hope such things can be prevented. Morality is arbitrary- invented by the majority of the society. Even so, I am not entirely lacking in SOME beliefs...

It appears that all theistic doctrines have a circular, self-referential verification system: "If you want to know whether what doctrine X says it true, see if X abides by the standards presented in doctrine X."

Hit the nail on the head.

What you present here in your thread Qualities of the correct epistemology for perceiving God is simply a truism, a self-verifying system, it is circular.

The hammer doth knocketh.

If that trust is not there, the person is left to rationalizations - which is what forums like these abound in.

I have some deck work that needs to be done...

 

[wynn]

And myths can't have morals so its game over for you as far as this thread is concerned

Interestingly, Neverfly seems to be a sci-fi aficionado.



James T. Kirk: [to Spock] The test itself is a cheat, isn't it? I mean, you programmed it to be unwinnable.
Spock: Your argument precludes the possibility of a no-win scenario.
James T. Kirk: I don't believe in no-win scenarios.
Spock: Then not only did you violate the rules, you also failed to understand the principal lesson.
James T. Kirk: Please enlighten me.
Spock: You of all people should know, Cadet Kirk, a captain cannot cheat death.
James T. Kirk: [reminiscing] I of all people...
Spock: Your father, Lieutenant George Kirk, assumed command of his vessel before being killed in action, did he not?
James T. Kirk: I don't think you like the fact that I beat your test.
Spock: Furthermore, you have failed to divine the purpose of the test.
James T. Kirk: Enlighten me again.
Spock: The purpose is to experience fear, fear in the face of certain death, to accept that fear, and maintain control of oneself and one's crew. This is the quality expected in every Starfleet captain.

 

[lightgigantic]

Repost due to forum issues, this time without the link:




You said:



That is a might-makes-right argument.

then explain how babies and dogs are mightier, since they are also examples that come under the same jurisdiction of the statement.
:shrug:

That is too esoteric for me.

You, like everyone else, is already cultivating attachment. You simply have to look at what it is.

Ruminating, yes, but not much more.

That's a strawman.
Nobody argued that one needed or wanted to figure it all out on one's own.

Then you can also understand where the true authority of such statements lie

The question is, rather, whom to trust.

actually the question is "who are you trusting already" (hence the dog you feed is the dog who wins the fight)

It appears that all theistic doctrines have a circular, self-referential verification system: "If you want to know whether what doctrine X says it true, see if X abides by the standards presented in doctrine X."

What you present here in your thread Qualities of the correct epistemology for perceiving God is simply a truism, a self-verifying system, it is circular.

For a person born and raised in a society where they already believe the basic premises of this system, working with the system typically won't be problematic.
For someone, who is not born and raised in such a society, but to whom this system feels natural somehow, working with the system won't be problematic either.
For neurotic types who will grasp at any straw, working with the system at least on principle won't be problematic.


But for someone who is not born and raised into the system, or who doesn't have a natural affinity for it, or who is not neurotic either, working with the system will be problematic. Such a person will need to have a good reason to take it up. Such a reason can be trust in the proponents of this system. If that trust is not there, the person is left to rationalizations - which is what forums like these abound in.

logic tends to be a servant of pre-existing attachment

This is why well over 99% of discussions on sciforums amount to nothing

 

[Neverfly]

Fine: Freaked Out, Insecure, Neurotic and Emotional.

Not at the moment. For that, hunt down the "Neverfly goes Ballistic" thread. Or that doozy about the guy at WalMart...

As to the rest of your accusations- I believe my posts and wording speak for themselves, your offhand 'translation' doesn't impress me much.

Interestingly, Neverfly seems to be a sci-fi aficionado.

(trekkie stuffs goes here)

Maybe, and maybe my ego is as inflated that I act as though I believe there is no "No-win" scenerio. But make no mistake... I do believe in them and I frequently feel it when I fail to win.
I'm just headstrong and keep trying anyway.

Lightgigantic- that last post of your speaks more for itself than any dissemination I could attempt.
But you did make a valid point- I strayed from the O.P.

My apologies to Greatest I Am.

ETA: Some posts- responses- are in Moderation queue. Please allow those posts to make it to the thread. No sense in demanding more work on the Mods during this time is necessary- taking a break from the thread to allow some buffer time there.

 

[wynn]

then explain how babies and dogs are mightier, since they are also examples that come under the same jurisdiction of the statement.

I've no idea what you're talking about here.

You said:

the status/capacity/potency/authority of an individual determines (by logic too I might add) whether an act is immoral or not.

Dogs and babies generally have a lesser status/capacity/potency/authority than an adult human, so per your logic, in interactions with babies and dogs, it is the adult human who has the say over what is moral or not.
Simply put: might makes right.


I'm not sure what we are actually in disagreement about here. At least as far as definitions go, I already agreed that God, being in the highest, most authoritative position, is right, God is the one to set the terms.

Of course, what in particular those terms are, that is another matter.

actually the question is "who are you trusting already" (hence the dog you feed is the dog who wins the fight)

I certainly don't trust a man who, among other things, claims that "two things are to be beaten: the mrdanga and the wife."

 

[wynn]

Maybe, and maybe my ego is as inflated that I act as though I believe there is no "No-win" scenerio. But make no mistake... I do believe in them and I frequently feel it when I fail to win.
I'm just headstrong and keep trying anyway.

My point is that your dismissal of religion as mere myth is premature, given that as a sci-fi aficionado you yourself resort to myths (even if more modern ones, like Star Trek) for examples of proper moral reasoning, encouragement and strength of character.

 

[Neverfly]

My point is that your dismissal of religion as mere myth is premature, given that as a sci-fi aficionado you yourself resort to myths (even if more modern ones, like Star Trek) for examples of proper moral reasoning, encouragement and strength of character.

I can be entertained by fiction and inspired, even; I do not refer to the articles of Federation as fact, nor do I believe Captain Kirk really exists and subspace-message him asking for aid.

 

[lightgigantic]

I've no idea what you're talking about here.

You said:


Dogs and babies generally have a lesser status/capacity/potency/authority than an adult human, so per your logic, in interactions with babies and dogs, it is the adult human who has the say over what is moral or not.
Simply put: might makes right.


I'm not sure what we are actually in disagreement about here. At least as far as definitions go, I already agreed that God, being in the highest, most authoritative position, is right, God is the one to set the terms.

Of course, what in particular those terms are, that is another matter.

This is what you are not addressing

If you don't believe me, just try any of these exercises :

fondle your mothers breast (assuming that you are not a 9 month old baby)
shoot someone with an automatic rifle (assuming you are not a solider engaged in the theatre of war)
repeatedly engage in acts like incest, rape, theft and J walking (assuming you are not a dog or a donkey)
gain employment as a prison guard yet only get paid about 1/17th of the lowest wage bracket and not be allowed to go home for several years (assuming you aren't convicted of a crime and sent there, despite your employment credentials)

etc etc

So as far as the OP is concerned, trying to bring the moral issues of humanity to god is just like trying to bring the moral issues of civilians to soldiers, of adults to 9 month old babies, of dogs top humans, prisoners to prison guards etc.

IOW if you have a personality who dictates the (repeated) creation , maintenance and annihilation of not only universes but also the individuals within them, it doesn't stand to reason that such a persons morality should be dictated by moral standards for the said created, maintained and limited persons

Its got nothing to do with might dictating what is morally reprehensible

I certainly don't trust a man who, among other things, claims that "two things are to be beaten: the mrdanga and the wife."

not even if they said on the authority of "sravanam kirtanam wifebashunum"?