Best Evidence of God -- Inerrancy of the Bible

[The Cadet]

This is that God is the Author of life and can therefore decide when it can be ended.

So if your god tells you it is morally right for you to rape and murder a 2-year-old and orders you to do so, you would consider it morally right and proceed to do it?

 

[Armoured]

See my above justification for murder. Yes, it is objectively morally wrong, because a society that allows the raping of little girls for fun is objectively worse than one that does not, regardless of what anyone else might think.

Subjectively worse.

 

[Joshua260]

See my above justification for murder. Yes, it is objectively morally wrong, because a society that allows the raping of little girls for fun is objectively worse than one that does not, regardless of what anyone else might think.

Thank you for making a truth claim. I'd like to examine it please.

"a society that allows the raping of little girls for fun is objectively worse than one that does not"

But that sounds like your subjective opinion. The rapist has a totally different opinion...he thinks a society that allows rape is better. So what makes your view correct? Are you deferring to a standard that is independent of humans?

Let me simplify the situation...
what if the only people left in the world are you, the rapist, and the little girl (who let's say is deaf and dumb for argument's sake). If naturalism is true, then what makes your view correct and the view of the rapist incorrect? If he killed you, then the only people left would be the rapist and the little girl. So much for your view.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You two are similar in more ways than one.

He certainly ignores my responses to his posts the way anonymous does lol. It's a bit ironic that it is something so very noticeable. When such a new poster seems so eager for a discussion with an atheist, and yet whenever I reply to his posts or ask him a question....it's as if he can't see what I've written at all.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

He certainly ignores my responses to his posts the way anonymous does lol. It's a bit ironic that it is something so very noticeable. When such a new poster seems so eager for a discussion with an atheist, and yet whenever I reply to his posts or ask him a question....it's as if he can't see what I've written at all.

He's got a script he needs to stick to. He can't veer from that script or else he is doomed. The same thing happens to Craig also.

 

[Joshua260]

What do you mean by "objectively wrong"? Just a couple pages ago, you said that there's a difference between objective and absolute morals. You said objective morals can change based upon circumstances...while absolute morals cannot.

You misrepresent me. I did not say that morals change. I'll explain further...
As you know, words can mean different things in different contexts.
1. When I say that killing is an "objective wrong", I mean that whether it is wrong or not depends on the circumstances. If I said that killing is an "absolute wrong", that would mean that I am saying that killing is wrong in every situation, no matter the circumstances. I do not believe that killing is an "absolute" wrong. Killing is wrong when it is murder, and sex is wrong when it's rape.

2. When I say that "objective" moral values and duties exist, I am saying that there is a standard for moral values and duties which is independent of what any human thinks.

So when you say that it's "objectively wrong" to rape little girls...do you mean it's possible there's circumstances where it's morally right to rape little girls?

No. In this case, I am using the phrase "objectively wrong" to mean that raping little girls for fun is wrong according to a standard which exist independent of humans. See #2 above.

So what do you think? Is raping little girls for fun wrong according to a standard independent of humans, or is a rapist' opinion about it just as valid as yours?

 

[Ana the Ist]

You misrepresent me. I did not say that morals change. I'll explain further...
As you know, words can mean different things in different contexts.
1. When I say that killing is an "objective wrong", I mean that whether it is wrong or not depends on the circumstances. If I said that killing is an "absolute wrong", that would mean that I am saying that killing is wrong in every situation, no matter the circumstances. I do not believe that killing is an "absolute" wrong. Killing is wrong when it is murder, and sex is wrong when it's rape.

2. When I say that "objective" moral values and duties exist, I am saying that there is a standard for moral values and duties which is independent of what any human thinks.


No. In this case, I am using the phrase "objectively wrong" to mean that raping little girls for fun is wrong according to a standard which exist independent of humans. See #2 above.

So what do you think? Is raping little girls for fun wrong according to a standard independent of humans, or is a rapist' opinion about it just as valid as yours?

Well...you sort of cleared things up. The problem I see now is, if objective morals change based upon circumstances...how do you know they're objective? I understand that you think there's some moral standard that's independent of human thought, but if objective morals change based on circumstances...wouldn't it appear to be quite the opposite? That no standard exists at all? You can't possibly know what the moral standard is for every circumstance...so how do you know there is one? That seems like a rather large assumption based upon nothing. Secondly, how do you know there is a standard at all? It can't possibly be written down anywhere (it would require a book infinitely long).

I believe that morals are opinions.. not facts. I'm not sure what you meant by "valid" in that last question...I suppose any opinion changes validity based upon circumstances. It's certainly valid that it's an opinion (after all, I just said morals are opinions), but if you're asking if I consider it with the same regard as I do all my morals....then no, I don't. Does that answer your question?

 

[The Cadet]

Subjectively worse.

Not really, no. Again, once we set our goals, the question of what does a better or worse job accomplishing those goals is no longer a subjective question. A society that allows murder is inherently more unstable, more prone to violence, and less likely to persist in the long term (after all, all we need is a murder rate that is anywhere near the birth rate and the society can no longer sustain itself). Is the question of "what is a better society" subjective? Yes, but once again, we ask the question "what is our goal?" What is the goal of society? Ultimately it runs out towards a form of utilitarianism. It is ultimately subjective, in that if people do not care how well a society functions, if people do not care how good their own lives are, and if people don't care whether they live or die, then there is no basis for morality for them. But how can we do better than this?

But that sounds like your subjective opinion.

See, that's just the thing - a society that forbids rape does function strictly better than one that doesn't on virtually any metric.

what if the only people left in the world are you, the rapist, and the little girl (who let's say is deaf and dumb for argument's sake). If naturalism is true, then what makes your view correct and the view of the rapist incorrect? If he killed you, then the only people left would be the rapist and the little girl. So much for your view.

At which point we're no longer talking about society, and any measure of morality based on a social, societal species flies out the window. Obviously. This is an edge case where the moral system stops working. But every moral system has such edge cases. I see you still haven't responded to my question about God ordering you to rape and murder a two-year-old. I think any idiot could tell that that's immoral, regardless of whether or not a God says to do it.

 

[Armoured]

It is ultimately subjective,

QED

 

[quatona]

Thank you for making a truth claim. I'd like to examine it please.

But that sounds like your subjective opinion.

Yeah, that´s the very problem. You are hitting the nail on the head: Human opinions sound suspiciously like human opinions. I haven´t found a way around that problem.

The rapist has a totally different opinion...he thinks a society that allows rape is better.

Care to introduce me to a child rapist who has presented such a theory? Because I don´t think there is. It´s more likely that he is a sociopath (who doesn´t care what makes a good society). Or a thoughtless hedonist.
If he had such a theory, that would at least be a starting point to discuss it with him, and make an attempt at showing him that he hasn´t thought things through.
As opposed to merely declaring one´s position "objective".

So what makes your view correct?

Are you, in a sudden change of your line of reasoning, really asking for good human reasons why something is good or bad (instead of arguing for some authoritative source of objective morality)?
I am asking because this would certainly make for a more interesting and productive discussion.

Are you deferring to a standard that is independent of humans?

It´s more like I do not really see why a non-human standard would be a good basis for human affairs and contemplating on preferrable ways of human interaction. It seems to me that for such consideration it is extremely important that the standards are circled around human criteria.

Let me simplify the situation...
what if the only people left in the world are you, the rapist, and the little girl (who let's say is deaf and dumb for argument's sake). If naturalism is true,

Hang on - how did "naturalism" get here, out of a sudden? Isn´t that from the other script?

then what makes your view correct and the view of the rapist incorrect?

I don´t find that question particularly interesting. Even if one of us were "correct" (whatever that might mean in the field of values - you have yet to explain that), it still wouldn´t solve the problem that he and I disagree.
If it turned out to be me who is "objectively wrong", I still wouldn´t change my opinion.

If he killed you, then the only people left would be the rapist and the little girl. So much for your view.

You make it sound like if I were "objectively right" he couldn´t kill me.
Au contraire, your statement and scenario appears to apply no matter what meta moral ideas I hold.

 

[timewerx]

So, a lot of people struggle with the belief that God exists, and/or which Religion worships Him the proper way, and/or which doctrine(s) are the best way of worshipping Him.

Huge debates, flame storms on the internet, even wars have been fought over this very subject, as it is a very passionate one.

I feel that a philosophical and scientific angle is a pretty good one to approach the Bible with, and such angle goes like this:

If there is a Creator out there who created the entire universe, and all therein (including the Earth), then said Creator would know His creation well enough to write a Book about it, and said Book would be a faithful representation of what He created.

Nothing in this Book should be untrue. If it were, then that would lead to either the Creator being a liar, or the Creator attempting to deceive His creations, or the author of the Book being someone other than the Creator.

Therefore, an easy thing to do, is to test the major religions' scriptures to see which ones hold up to Truth, and which ones do not.

Here's a few quick examples:

Christian Science Movement: Their "divine" writings say that man is not matter, and is not made of brain, bones, and other elements and that man is incapable of sin, sickness and death. Well, we obviously know this to be false.

Islam: Islam's materials (the Qu'ran and that other book of theirs) claim that the world is flat, and that Allah holds up the sky and heavens so that it doesn't fall down upon the flat earth. Well, the Creator of the Earth and the Universe certainly didn't write that.

Buddhism: Their materials say that Earthquakes are caused by wind pushing the waters of the seas, and the waters of the seas pushing the landmasses. We obviously know this isn't true.

Taoism: Their materials say that there are 13 members through which death can occur. We know from medical science that there are far more than 13 ways or places of the body that can be damaged that can kill you.

Mormons: 2 Nephi 2 says "Adam fell that men might be and they are that they might have joy" and it also says "if man hadn't fallen, then they wouldn't have joy" (pp). Also, they say in Alma 7:10 that Jesus was born in Jerusalem. (There's enough historical documentation that most concede that He was a real person and that He was actually born in Bethlehem and grew up in Nazareth).

Hinduism: They say the Sun is the source of all energy in the universe. This is obviously false.

So, we can disprove all of these by using simple facts that we have come to know (and history for the case of Mormons). We know that if there were a Creator, that He certainly didn't write (or inspire man to write) any of the above.

What about the Christian Bible, though?

It has suffered a multitude of attacks against it over the years, many many attacks, and not one person has ever proved anything it says to be untrue.

Right away, someone is going to bring up Creation. There's a problem with that -- since Creation was not observed by anyone (other than God Himself), and since it cannot be reproduced by man, therefore it is not observable by True Science.

Then, next thing people will bring up, is Evolution. Again, Evolution is a theory and has not been accepted as Scientific Law, therefore it is not True Science, as nobody has witnessed macro evolution before.

Barring those two things, has anyone proven the Christian Bible wrong? No, they haven't.

Further aiding the Bible's (and Christianity's) cause, are things in the Bible that were talked about long before Man ever came to prove them, such as Conservation of Mass and Energy (the Bible mentions that there is 'nothing new under the sun' and other similar statements that says that nothing new is ever created), The Cycle of Water (the Bible talks about the water cycle, far before it was ever proven), Air Currents, and a couple other things I'm forgetting.

There's also pretty strong evidence for a lot of the history elements of the Bible; the huge granary (and surrounding complex) where Joseph stored the grain for the 7-year famine was found, evidence was found of three types of chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea (there was only one short period of time in Egypt where those three types of chariot wheels would have been used simultaneously), I've seen pictures of ruins near the mountains that are thought to be Mt. Sinai, and the general geography of the area supports Scriptures.

So, if we have a Book that cannot be proven false (among all of the other religions' books that can be proven false quite easily), a book that speaks of concepts that weren't proven by man until thousands of years later, a book which speaks of histories whose evidence can be found to this day, you have a pretty compelling case for this stuff being true.

This Book that cannot be proven false says that God exists, and that God authored all of this by guiding human hands, and God provided history, instructions, and reasons for those instructions, I really don't see any better evidence that says otherwise.

Now, the question comes up... "You didn't mention Judaism!"

Judaism, or the Jewish faith, as many know involve the Torah. The Torah consists of several books of the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, plus some stuff that was added by humans later.

Obviously, the Original Torah and the Christian Bible are in perfect agreement, until Jesus comes about. The Jews who did not convert to Christianity rejected Christ and His teachings, so Who is Right?

Well, here's a snippet that one might consider: Christ correctly predicted the fall of Jerusalem and its Temple in 70AD (~40 years later) just before He gave the Olivet Discourse, He said that "Not one stone would remain upon another" which is exactly what happened when the Romans destroyed the Temple.

EDIT: He also correctly predicted that the Gospel would be spread all over the world, and it would be heard everywhere, which is pretty amazing considered it all started from One man and twelve of His disciples in the middle of a nation that hated the message and considered it blasphemous.

Sources for the above about other religions are taken from this video:

I also highly recommend watching Pt2 where he talks about the Bible teaching us things we wouldn't prove with Science until much later.

You can always try to find objective meaning to every saying in the Bible.

But what about teachings in there that contradict each other?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Maybe God failed at some point, and maybe He didn't, but your perception of His failure(s) depends on your limited, human subscription to some preconceived assumption as to what qualifies as moral success.

No. It's right there in the bible.
He had to reset the world because it was totally messed up.

I wouldn't exactly call the Flood Story a 'reset'; rather, it was more of a 'paring down.'

I call it a reset. I can't call it anything else.

In looking at the philosophical motifs embedded in the Garden of Eden Story, I wouldn't say that humanity was clearly doomed by default. It made a bad choice ...

No, it was definatly doomed by default.

In the mythology, Adam and Eve, at their creation, didn't know right from wrong. They had to eat from the magical tree to gain that knowledge. "magical", because that's the only word I can use to describe a tree that brings forward fruit that imparts knowledge upon consumed.

In any case, precisely because they didn't know right from wrong, they could not have realised that it was "wrong" to disobbey the commandment not to eat from the tree.

One can even question why the tree was even put there in the first place.....
On top of the tree... there's even a snake there which is apparantly the very embodiment of evil itself, which then talks the "blank slates" Adam and Eve into eating from the fruit.

The whole setup pretty much smells like a major trap. What did this god expect to happen???

And even after Adam and Eve ate from the tree, without realising they were doing something wrong, God did not HAVE to doom them and all of their decendents with it. That was god's choice. He could have just forgiven them. But he didn't.

God created hell.
God created the rules by which souls are judged and send to hell.
God created humans in such a way that it would be impossible to live upto the rules that he himself created as well.

Yes. It is actually very, very correct to state that humans were doomed by default in this story. Humans never stood a chance.

Again: created "sick" and commanded to be well.

Whether or not the Garden of Eden story is literal or metaphorical (and I tend toward the latter), the philosophical premises in the story seem to imply that humanity started with (and by implication still has) a very valuable cognitive asset, that is, being made in the Image of God. So, in my hermeneutical estimation, the Eden story is asserting that mankind has blown its chance(s) for peace with God early on ... and keeps blowing those chances, more often than not, even though it doesn't have to. Of course, God knew this would happened and upped the ante by participating in our fallen world, offering the opportunity for reconciliation with Him, and an escape from the ultimate consequences of our sinful resistence.

Note the bold. He knew this would happen. Off course he knew. He created us that way (according to the story). Doomed by default.

No, not in a super specific way for all humanity, but to some extent, you're question indicates to me that you are missing the point of my previous post. Granted, I can't really fault you for that since you probably haven't read Oliver Barclay's essay entitled,"The Nature of Christian Morality," which expresses a theoretical moral framework he calls "Creation Ethics" and is somewhat different than the "Divine Command Ethics" theory that many of us usually hear. If you'd like to read Barclay's rather brief essay, you can find it here:

No, I'm not particularly interested in what someone who's not part of this conversation has to say. You are, however, free to summarize his points in here in your own words. In fact, I invite you to do so, if you think it is relevant to the discussion.

Meanwhile, I'll just ask this: what is so christian about it, if it doesn't come from the bible?

It isn't the morality that is objective so much as it is God's person, God's knowledge, and God's Holiness. It is from His person that the objective moral frame emerges upon humanity and confines our human existence in the balance of His judgment and mercy.

And where can one find these "objective morals", if not in the bible?

 

[Ratjaws]

You said:

What is true of members of a set is not necessarily true of the set itself. Our understanding of how things "come to be" within the universe need not apply beyond the universe, if being "beyond the universe" is even possible.

Then the question needs to be phrased better because what you are essentially asking is whether there was a first moment of time, or as Sean Carroll puts it, the moment at which the concept of time becomes intelligible. As I mentioned earlier, such a beginning doesn't necessarily point to theism.

This is not adequately justified. You are arbitrarily assigning properties to this cause based on features of the universe. You have no more reason to single out intelligence than you do celestial objects, such as stars and nebulae.

How is a mind capable of just "willing" things to be?

For this analogy to work, you'd have to be describing ex materia creation. Is that how you think this intelligence "willed" the universe into being?

That doesn't answer my question, but it does recapitulate the flaw in your reasoning. If every individual thing requires a cause, it doesn't necessarily follow that the universe, which is the set of all those things, requires one also.

Arch,
Excellent questions! Ok, I see where you are applying the fallacy of comp but I'm not sure why it would apply to our subject? I guess I need to point out I have a principle, metaphysical in nature, that I'm applying here:

"The effect must be in the cause." I can add to this by saying: "No effect can be greater than it's cause."

I will also add that principles are foundational to thought on any subject and metaphysical principles undergird those of scientific principles, since metaphysics is more rudamentary to the nature of a being than empirical or corporeal (physical) principles. For instance, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle which is mathematical, even though applied to matter, (limits the precision of knowing both position and velocity of a particle at the same time), is superceded by the metaphysical principle that a being cannot be in two places at the same time. So in studying quantum physics theoriticians have improperly deduced that a particle must be present in multiple places at once in order to account for the effect manifest by a particular experiment. Taking into account such heirarchy of principle they should rather suspect that their hypothesis is wrong and adjust it (which some have done, also improperly, by assuming consciousness to a particle; that one particle can "know"where another is and adjust itself to that particle's velocity or position). The point beng here in relation to our subject is you refer to members and sets which are mathematical properties that only apply to being as quantified. I am refering to a much more fundamental metaphysical principle, in reverse, that we should be able to trace back from effect to cause in order to determine something about material being(s). This principle of cause and effect is more fundamental than any mathematical principle which, as I've just stated, applies not to matter in particular, but to what can be quantified. In other words the idea of members and sets cannot be taken into account until the more fundamental principle is so each individual being that makes up our universe has a cause that can be traced back to another and another, back to some point where our question occupies. The idea of cause and effect applies to every individual being and cannot be construed otherwise despite trying to apply a mathematical principle to them. If each individual character in relation to cause and effect is the same in principle then "the whole set" is no different. How we see the universe of cause and effects is consistent and therefore to speak of an individual being is to speak of the whole. We are left with the question does this chain go on ad-infinituim (the corrollary has matter always existed applies here too) or does it end with a first cause? If it ends with a First Cause, that is if this chain begins with a cause found in one being, that being must have within tiself all of these effects, plus whatever other effects my come later in time, and include time since time is not a real entity but is dependent on the presence of existent beings. So this First Cause must contain all that we find in every individual being from atoms, to sand and rock and stars, to algee and plants, to amoeba and insects and animals, to rational beings such as humans and angels. Energy and matter must be accounted for in this First Cause, as must the principles of material science, and all the metaphysical principles that undergird this science, and so on and so forth.

 

[Ratjaws]

I am late to this thread, obviously, but I have to ask: why is this in the philosophy section?

This question is in the philo forum because it is inherently a philosophical question. Sure it can be asked from the scientific level but this in no way negates either the more fundamental philosophical or theological levels. In fact from the level of empirical science God's existence can only be indirectly arrived at. Likewise for the philosophical because we can look at God only through the created order. On the other hand because divine revelation comes directly from God the theological apprehension of God's existence is direct and because it comes from God who cannot deceive or lie, it is more certain knowledge than the other means of knowledge.

 

[Joshua260]

Well...you sort of cleared things up. The problem I see now is, if objective morals change based upon circumstances

Again...I did not say that morals change. You're still misrepresenting me and I would appreciate it if you would stop doing that. Saying that the bible teaches objective moral values instead of absolute moral values means that in some cases killing is a moral wrong and sometimes killing is *not* moral wrong. Remember my example?
Killing is wrong when it is murder, and sex is wrong when it's rape.

I don't see why you are having difficulty understanding this. Is having sex sometimes wrong? Is it always wrong? Doesn't whether or not having sex is wrong depend on the particular circumstances? Can't you tell the difference between having consensual sex with your lawfully wedded wife versus having sex with a 3-year old?

You can't possibly know what the moral standard is for every circumstance...so how do you know there is one?

This thinking leads to a confusion between moral epistemology and moral ontology. I agree that sensing what is objectively wrong is not always clear. For instance, is smoking objectively right or wrong? But on other issues like raping little girls for fun, it seems to be quite clear that it's wrong no matter what any human thinks.

so how do you know there is [an objective standard]?

Well, I would say for two reasons. The first reason I've already explained. Just as how I know that the outside world exists, in the same way I sense that OMV&Ds exist. It's called a properly basic belief. In spite of what empiricist say, there are some foundational beliefs that we have to accept in order to make sense of our world. Which leads me to my second reason. When I compare the atheists world view to the Christian world view, the Christian world view is the only one that seems to make sense of certain characteristics of our world, like the existence of universal logic, the uniformity of nature, and the existence of an objective morality. Don't get me wrong...it's not a god of the gaps argument...saying that science hasn't figured it out yet, so "God did it". Rather, the existence of these characteristics don't make sense in a purely naturalistic world. That, and for other reasons why I believe Christianity to be true, convince me that the bible speaks truth...and that "thou shalt not murder" is wrong, no matter what any human thinks. So, both a properly basic belief, and the bible tell me that OMV&Ds exist.

I believe that morals are opinions.. not facts. I'm not sure what you meant by "valid" in that last question...I suppose any opinion changes validity based upon circumstances. It's certainly valid that it's an opinion (after all, I just said morals are opinions), but if you're asking if I consider it with the same regard as I do all my morals....then no, I don't. Does that answer your question?

Nope. You're talking about subjective morality...simply giving me your personal opinion about whether one should or should not rape a little girl. But I'm asking whether or not raping little girls for fun is wrong no matter what any human thinks. I don't think this is like trying to discern whether smoking is right or wrong...it seems pretty easy for me to discern that raping little girls for fun is wrong no matter what any human thinks. Is that not clear for you?

 

[Ratjaws]

No, it was definatly doomed by default.

In the mythology, Adam and Eve, at their creation, didn't know right from wrong. They had to eat from the magical tree to gain that knowledge. "magical", because that's the only word I can use to describe a tree that brings forward fruit that imparts knowledge upon consumed.

In any case, precisely because they didn't know right from wrong, they could not have realised that it was "wrong" to disobbey the commandment not to eat from the tree.

One can even question why the tree was even put there in the first place.....
On top of the tree... there's even a snake there which is apparantly the very embodiment of evil itself, which then talks the "blank slates" Adam and Eve into eating from the fruit.

The whole setup pretty much smells like a major trap. What did this god expect to happen???

And even after Adam and Eve ate from the tree, without realising they were doing something wrong, God did not HAVE to doom them and all of their decendents with it. That was god's choice. He could have just forgiven them. But he didn't.

God created hell.
God created the rules by which souls are judged and send to hell.
God created humans in such a way that it would be impossible to live upto the rules that he himself created as well.

Yes. It is actually very, very correct to state that humans were doomed by default in this story. Humans never stood a chance.

Again: created "sick" and commanded to be well.



Note the bold. He knew this would happen. Off course he knew. He created us that way (according to the story). Doomed by default.


And where can one find these "objective morals", if not in the bible?

Dogma,
I appears you have a bad caricature of the creation story. On the contrary, Adam and Eve were created with a mind capable of knowing good. In fact the Church teaches our will, which is free, is free for the good alone. Sadly our society is so mixed up that people don't know to make a distinction between good and evil when talking about human freedom. More often than not they infer they should be free to choose between good and evil but we were not created this way. We were meant to choose between goods. Our nature has an attraction to the good in being and as we recognize the good in a being with our intellect; we are normally moved toward the being (toward it's goodness), and this is what our will is. In other words will, freedom and love are all synonymous in that they can be interchanged without changing the context of what is said. Love is another way of saying we move toward the good found in each being. In-other-words we have an intellectual appetite for the good found in being.

Now Adam and Eve knew good when they encountered it. They did not know evil because they had not come across it until God gave them that prohibition against the Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. And note here while this tree may have been a metaphor, Adam and Eve were real beings. I should also define evil as the absence of a necessary good in being. So up until the incident with the Tree in the Garden of Eden our first parents had only been present with being that was fully good, without any defect. God did command them to leave the Tree alone and it is only after they disobeyed God that they fell from the state of grace they were in (which made them fit for heaven). They sinned by not keeping God's word, His command to leave that tree alone. Whether it was a fruit tree or not we don't know and it is not necessary for us to realize the moral of this story. It was the Serpent who tricked Eve into thinking that if they partake of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil they would become gods. Adam should have protected Eve by steering her away from this disobedience to God but failed too.

What both Adam and Eve missed was that they were created in God's "image and likeness." So they trusted the Deceiver and turned against the ultimate Good. Their image became distorted, having lost the supernatural virtues of faith, hope and charity which they had possessed up to then. Their bodily integrity also became disordered in that they now had concupiscence. By this I mean they now had a strong desire that was imbalanced. Modern dictionaries tend to focus on sexual desires but this word implies all desire. In-other-words our tendency for good moves away from God, the ultimate Good, as Adam and Even did at the Fall. Nevertheless it is quite telling in our over sexualized culture that concupiscence leans toward sexual sin. Certainly sexual sin is one of the most offensive sins because it deals with human life and it fits that Satan would attack human sexuality because he hates God and therefore the "image of God." God loves especially the human race and is most offended by harm to persons. This fits with the whole scenario of the redemption of man by Christ.

I can get into this deeper but suffice to say that Adam and Eve fell of their own free will. What you are describing here DogmaHunter, has Calvinist overtones in that God purposely created human beings to fail. Calvin at least divided humanity saying some were predestined to good and others for evil. Nevertheless this is not what the Church has taught. God created everything good but due to the disobedience of free willed beings like angels and humans, the rest of creation fell and became tainted (groaning and travailing). There is lack of good in our world and it will remain until Christ comes back.

God did know from all eternity what each human person and angelic being would do, The greatest mystery of creation is that God creates free-willed beings that are free by God holding them in existence. God causes their freedom and knows what each being will choose, yet at the same time God in no way interfers with it. So this is why God gave Adam and Eve the test of that Tree. Adam and Eve did not have to choose Satan's word over God's but unfortunately for all of us they did. When they fell they were deprived of sanctifying grace that they would have transmitted to their progeny had they not lost it. All of us come into this world without the supernatural virtues I mentioned above, and lack the complete body/mind integrity Adam and Eve were created with.

Nevertheless, we can gain back this grace through baptism (it takes faith to recognize this), which by the way enlightens our mind and strengthens our will, thus off setting our bodily disorder. We also gain faith, hope and charity at baptism but can lose all this again if we sin in a serious way (as Adam and Eve did). God has not left us orphans to fend for ourselves any more He created Adam and Eve in a state where it would have been impossible to obey Him. It's just a matter of turning toward God that he makes available the means to get to heaven as well as run from disobeying God. We still fight some tendency toward evil after baptism but not as it was prior. We can lose and gain back sanctifying grace by mortal sin but the more we obtain sacramental grace the more we easier it is for us to resist evil (and move toward good as we always should).

 

[Joshua260]

See, that's just the thing - a society that forbids rape does function strictly better than one that doesn't on virtually any metric.

At which point we're no longer talking about society, and any measure of morality based on a social, societal species flies out the window.

You are speaking totally arbitrary on this issue. For you, whether something is right or wrong seems to depend on whether society flourishes, but that dependency can be easily falsified. After all, the Nazi society was flourishing quite well while wiping out the Jews. Not only that, the US South flourished greatly during the ante-bellum years. But I can't figure out why you justify the flourishing of humans over, say sharks. Suppose that a tsunami wipes off all the human life into the nearby waters. The human society would be wiped out...but the shark society would get a boost out of that natural disaster!! So why would the flourishing of human life be more right than the flourishing of shark life. You're just advocating speciesism.

 

[Joshua260]

... any idiot could tell that that's immoral regardless of whether or not a God says to do it.

That's interesting. You agree now that raping little girls for fun *is* objectively wrong (it's wrong no matter what any human thinks), and I'm glad to hear it!!
Therefore, although I realize it was difficult for you to admit it, you concur with premise 2 of the moral argument:
"2. Objective moral values and duties *do* exist."

I appreciate your participation in this discussion.

 

[quatona]

This thinking leads to a confusion between moral epistemology and moral ontology. I agree that sensing what is objectively wrong is not always clear. For instance, is smoking objectively right or wrong? But on other issues like raping little girls for fun, it seems to be quite clear that it's wrong no matter what any human thinks.

Well, then it was the wrong question to ask, in the first place.
A person could answer "No, I don´t believe it to be objectively wrong - because under certain circumstances it might be right. I believe it to be sometimes right and sometimes wrong." or even "I believe it to be objectively right", and still be a moral objectivist.

But I admit that the emotional factor with this example is quite huge. Except that emotionalisms do not make a good case for truths "no matter what humans think". Rather, they put the cart before the horse.

Well, I would say for two reasons. The first reason I've already explained. Just as how I know that the outside world exists, in the same way I sense that OMV&Ds exist.

This comparison is ridiculous.

It's called a properly basic belief.

A quick Google search tells me that this is a term exclusively coined and used by theists - a predicate they have invented in lack of any universally accepted criterium that their beliefs meet. It´s basically an ipse dixit.

In spite of what empiricist say, there are some foundational beliefs that we have to accept in order to make sense of our world.

Sure, but I can make sense of this world without believing in OMV&Ds quite fine. Au contraire, the postulation of OMV&Ds raises a lot of unanswered questions that I wouldn´t have without this postulation.

Which leads me to my second reason. When I compare the atheists world view to the Christian world view,

Completely different issue.
You have to decide: Do you want to make an argument for God´s existence by showing that OMV&Ds exist, or do you want to make an argument for OMV&Ds by showing God´s existence? To do both at the same time doesn´t work.

I don't think this is like trying to discern whether smoking is right or wrong...it seems pretty easy for me to discern that raping little girls for fun is wrong no matter what any human thinks. Is that not clear for you?

Well, even if it were clear to me (which it totally isn´t), this would still fall under the category "what a human thinks". So I am not sure how your or my opinion on this helps bypassing our subjectivity.

 

[Ratjaws]

Here's a twist in the inquiry previously posed to you:

If you had lived in ancient times past, and lived in relations to the Jewish people--

1) ... do you think it would be moral to kill Nebuchadnezzar in order to stop the destruction of the Jewish people and the Holy Land, as well as the Exile (i.e. enslaved subjection) of the few remaining Jewish people to Babylon?

2) ...do you think it would be moral to kill Vespasian and Titus in order to stop the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, along with its Jewish inhabitants, not to mention the later Dispersion of the rest of the Jewish population across the Roman Empire?

Just asking. [And if anyone else would like to take a shot at answering these questions, feel free to do so.]

2PhiloVoid

Philo,
Such questions are easily answered once one acquires principles. In this case we need moral principles such as:

The means, end and intent of any action must be good or the act is not morally good.

Also:

We can use only the amount of force necessary to defend ourselves (or those we are responsible for) against an agressor, up to and including taking human life.

Also just war theory posits:

The most authoritative and up-to-date expression of just war doctrine is found in paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It says:

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
• there must be serious prospects of success;
• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

There is nothing wrong with an individual or nation defending itself against an agressor. In fact it is possible to sin by walking away from a situation where one can successfully intervene in a particular evil. In the case of taking Hitler's life to prevent the holocaust this presumes we know his taking power in Germany would lead to the evils that actually happened. Hindsight is 20/20. As time moved on in Nazi Germany there came a point where it would have been a moral necessity to intervene in the government. If this meant killing Hitler and/or other key figures who were actively involved in the holocaust then there was a point where this would have been morally permissible. Likewise for other situations like those you've mentioned here with Nebby, Vespasian and Titus. We can look back on each situation but it is hard for us to insert ourselves into it and make good judgments as to when and how an offense could have been mounted. Nevertheless, men like Schindler and or German officers who took part in Operation Valkyrie are examples of those who were in a position to try to stop Hitler even if it meant taking his life.