u/Any-Solid8810

If Freedom is not choosing between Good and Evil since God is the Perfection of Freedom yet cannot choose evil then what is Freedom?

(Disclaimer - I am a Theist, I believe in God)

So I was debating myself on the possibility of an Atheistic Objection Standard of Morality, Objective Standard without God

and I first landed on the concept of "Harm" which I (also playing against myself since well this is a debate against myself) defined as "Degradation of Being" and Goodness is defined as choosing the least harm

I posit some challenges against using "Harm" as a Replacement for God as a Moral Standard (You can add more to these or correct Me to better critique this position since I am also suspicious myself but I cannot pinpoint it out myself so help me)

1. Harm is Bound to a Physical Universe which in itself is a closed system thus applying Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, cannot be justified only assumed

2. Harm and "Degradation of Being" is too broad of a definition which is subjecting to change undermining of it being objective at all

3. (I think?) It assumes harm itself is intrinsically and inherently evil without justification (tying back to No.1)

4. Harm cannot be measured to define what is more harmful to discern moral choices

5. Love is Impossible since it would be defined as Least Harm to both sides but if Love is too fragile for Suffering then it is not Love at all

An objection against Divine Simplicity since if whatever action God does is identical to his essence which includes the act of creation and necessity itself then the act of creation is necessary

How to defend against that?

Do Eastern Catholics have the same Eucharistic Theology as the Latins with Transubstantiation or different?

Especially the Byzantine Catholic Churches who hold to Palamism and Essence-Energies Distinction - What is going on in the Eucharist? The Divine Essence is unparticipate so it can't be so is it The Divine Energies? But I asked r/Orthodoxchristianity and they replied that It is the Deified Flesh and Blood of Christ that changes in the Eucharist

But Transubstantiation is a necessary dogma of the Church to remain Catholic so how could this be reconciled?

Is it acceptable? I was on TikTok seeing these Catholic Apologists doing Modal Logic and I can't understand it, is anyone here adept in Modal Logic? Do you think It could be used to prove and defend God?

Text, the whole question is the title

Did St. Maximus the Confessor warp Latin Theology to make the Filioque more fitting in Eastern Theology?

So I saw a TikTok where the title is that "Questions Atheists struggle with without God" which shows the question "How is there Objective Reality without God?" and an Atheistic Comment said "Sympathy is the Golden Standard"

This is the exact comment

"I think, morality does not come from a mere book, it derived from a feeling of sympathy, it is like a golden rule ( do not do onto other what you do not want to do onto you) in this values we see that when people think that it is making people hurt it is consider as morally wrong."

Why is it wrong?