The problem of Objective Morality. and why even biblical speaking it is subjective

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
It doesn't have to be 100% of the time to be a significant part of the time. And it definitely DOES depend on death,

ken: New life depends on death as well!

True, that is why it necessary for evolution to occur.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
remember how I demonstrated that without death, evolution would never occur.

ken: Without death, new life could not occur.

Yes, that is correct if evolution is true.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
So if you believe in evolution and you wanted humans to come into existence then you have to say that death is a good thing.

ken: Going by that logic, if you enjoy living, you have to say death is a good thing. Do you agree?

Yes, if evolution were true. But of course, the evidence is against evolution. So no, I dont agree. At least for humans. Humans were never meant to die so death is a bad thing for humans. Animals were however. So death is good and necessary for animals to live.

 

[Ed1wolf]

*Ever wonder why every year a new flu vaccine is required, that the flu vaccine that worked last year will not work this year? If the flu virus didn’t evolve, the same vaccine would work every year.
*Ever have a doctor stick that stick down your throat to do a throat culture? He is checking to see what extent the infection has grown and evolved in order to know how to treat it.
*Farmers are constantly having to change pesticides because the pests will evolve in a way that renders it useless.

No, none of those are cases where something evolved into something else, ie a new genus. Those are just examples of a particular organism adapting to changes in the environment to preserve the organism not to change it into something else. Try again.

ken: If it wasn't for evolution these problems wouldn't exist. Modern medicine, and even modern agriculture is based on the Theory of Evolution; if Evolution weren't a reality, these things wouldn't work.

No, there is nothing in medicine or agriculture that is based on evolutionary theory. In fact in many cases, belief in evolution has caused mistakes. Such as so-called junk DNA. It was believed that junk DNA was evolutionary dead ends and so had no longer any function, but recently most of it has been found to have important functions which would be expected if life was created by an intelligent designer and not the result of random mutations.

ken: If you could prove it, you would be world famous and extremely rich

Neither theory, creation nor evolution can be proven since they are both events in the distant past and can never be empirically observed. And even creation could be proven, creationists would always be discriminated against because people including scientists naturally do not want the Christian God to exist as I explained earlier in this thread.

 

[Gene2memE]

Provide ONE example.

Here's a simple, but brilliant, experiment providing a visual demonstration of evolution. In this case, the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.

I don't just disagree with evolution, I have provided several evidences that it is unlikely to have ever occurred.

There's pretty much no doubt that evolution occurs, as it is directly observable. In literally hundreds of examples. Its just selection of inherited of genetic variation between generations leading to higher reproductive success in a given environment.

What I suspect is that you disagree with the notion that evolution is the best explanation for the observable diversity of life, and also the best explanation for the observable history of life as indicated through the fossil and genetic records. That is, the Theory of Evolution which provides a framework to explain the observed fact of evolution.

Here's the rub though, even if the Theory of Evolution were shown to be incorrect overnight, what would replace it would be another naturalistic explanation. There isn't any room for Special Creation, or ID, or any variation of these, as science as a methodology is necessarily limited to consider only natural explanations. Otherwise basic parts of the methodology (like testability and reproduciblity) would have to be discarded.

 

[Ken-1122]

True, that is why it necessary for evolution to occur.


Yes, that is correct if evolution is true.


Yes, if evolution were true. But of course, the evidence is against evolution. So no, I dont agree. At least for humans. Humans were never meant to die so death is a bad thing for humans. Animals were however. So death is good and necessary for animals to live.

How do you conclude that evolution requires death? Evolution is about life; not death! There has never been a case of living organisms living forever, so I assume you have nothing to base this off; just an assumption. So how did you derive at this assumption?

 

[Ken-1122]

No, none of those are cases where something evolved into something else, ie a new genus. Those are just examples of a particular organism adapting to changes in the environment to preserve the organism not to change it into something else. Try again.

Do you know the difference between evolution and adaption? In each of the cases I mentioned, there was a change in the genetic structure.
Difference Between Adaptation and Evolution | Difference Between

No, there is nothing in medicine or agriculture that is based on evolutionary theory. In fact in many cases, belief in evolution has caused mistakes. Such as so-called junk DNA. It was believed that junk DNA was evolutionary dead ends and so had no longer any function, but recently most of it has been found to have important functions which would be expected if life was created by an intelligent designer and not the result of random mutations.

An example of evolution in medicine
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/evolution-in-medicine/

Examples of evolution in agriculture
Evolution in agriculture: the application of evolutionary approaches to the management of biotic interactions in agro-ecosystems

Neither theory, creation nor evolution can be proven since they are both events in the distant past and can never be empirically observed. And even creation could be proven, creationists would always be discriminated against because people including scientists naturally do not want the Christian God to exist as I explained earlier in this thread.

The links I provided above provides examples of evolution empirically observed, present day.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Are you saying the only way God could create people capable of true love, is to create them with the natural desire to sin and do wrong?

No, I said that the only way we can have true love for God if it comes from our own free choice. So God gave us that.

ken: Why does evil have to be eventually destroyed? If God is omni powerful, and capable, he shouldn’t have to go through some grand plan to destroy evil, he should be able to immediately think it out of existence! Are you sure getting rid of evil is his ultimate plan? Doesn’t look like it.

The biblical understanding of omnipotence does not mean God can do absolutely anything. For example, He cannot make a square circle, and He cannot do evil. And since He has created us with free will in a universe that primarily operates by natural law He cannot just immediately destroy evil, it has to be destroyed by love for Him and that requires people choosing Him and obeying Him and growing spiritually. Eventually this will destroy evil forever. This is what the bible teaches.

ken: In the scenario I provided, of course we have the freewill to live or die, but the freewill isn’t coming from the person holding a gun to my head; it comes from my ability to choose. My point is; if God provides punishment for those who disobey him, they have freewill, but the freewill doesn’t come from God, it comes from within.

Ultimately it does come from God because God put that free will within you because you are created in His image and He also has free will.

ken: The destruction of evil forever? Last time I looked, there is still a lot of evil out there! Evil has not been destroyed my friend.

Not yet but it will be, God has promised us that. It takes one change of heart at a time.

 

[RDKirk]

I didn't say shooting the Gestapo would be the best choice, though if there was only one officer and they had a good getaway plan, it might work. My point was that it was another option instead of lying.

There was never only a solitary officer. That's why he's an "officer." Officers are only sent with men for them to command. If there is an officer, then there are at least twenty soldiers, otherwise there would be a sergeant.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, I said that the only way we can have true love for God if it comes from our own free choice. So God gave us that.

Then you haven’t addressed my question. My question is; how come he didn’t create us with the desire to embrace him, along with the freewill to reject him?

The biblical understanding of omnipotence does not mean God can do absolutely anything. For example, He cannot make a square circle, and He cannot do evil. And since He has created us with free will in a universe that primarily operates by natural law He cannot just immediately destroy evil, it has to be destroyed by love for Him and that requires people choosing Him and obeying Him and growing spiritually. Eventually this will destroy evil forever. This is what the bible teaches.

If he doesn’t have the ability to overcome evil, he’s not omnipotent and shouldn’t be described as such

Ultimately it does come from God because God put that free will within you because you are created in His image and He also has free will.

If he provides punishment for disobedience, he isn’t providing free will, he’s providing force.

 

[Ed1wolf]

But just because someone is using logic doesn't mean they are using laws. People use logic all the time, and are still wrong.

Logic IS laws. But in order to come to the right conclusion then your premises have to be true. This is where some people disagree, they dont agree on the premises. If two people dont agree on the premises then they will not be convinced by the logical reasoning. But if the premises ARE true then the conclusion most likely WILL be true. But nothing can be proven with absolute certainty even if the premises are true. But again if the premises are true then the conclusion most likely is right.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
See my post about the hammer and the house.

ken: Your post about the hammer and house doesn’t apply because unlike logic, a hammer and house are physical; not just a series of thoughts.

Yes it does apply. Both are tools, one is physical and one is non-physical.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
It depends on what point A and point B are.

ken: Point A and B are locations.

There is the most logical way to go to point A and point B. It may or may not be a straight line. In order to determine which is the most logical you need to know all the premises. Such as terrain, mode of transportation, and etc.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Read Aristotle's book about logic.

ken: How about if you read the book and use the information to answer my question.

I forgot the original question, was it what are the laws of logic?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, see my example of the dinosaurs,

ken: Your example of dinosaurs is not logic; it’s an example of a conclusion you’ve reached using logic.

No, I was showing that logic existed prior to humans. Even dinosaurs cannot violate the law of non-contradiction.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
the laws of logic exist independently of human thought. They are how reality works.

ken: Is there logic on the Moon? No. Logic only exists where there are people because logic only exist in the context of human thought.

Fraid so, logic is on the moon. For example, Can the Moon and the earth exist in the same location at the same time and in the same relationship? No, of course not, that would violate the law of non-contradiction. Logic exists throughout the universe, otherwise we could never have done astrophysics. It is all based on mathematics which is a form of logic.

 

[Ken-1122]

Logic IS laws. But in order to come to the right conclusion then your premises have to be true. This is where some people disagree, they dont agree on the premises. If two people dont agree on the premises then they will not be convinced by the logical reasoning. But if the premises ARE true then the conclusion most likely WILL be true. But nothing can be proven with absolute certainty even if the premises are true. But again if the premises are true then the conclusion most likely is right.

List the laws of logic.

There is the most logical way to go to point A and point B. It may or may not be a straight line. In order to determine which is the most logical you need to know all the premises. Such as terrain, mode of transportation, and etc.

In other words, extenuating circumstances must be taken into consideration before determining the most logical way to go from point A to B. You are making my point.

No, I was showing that logic existed prior to humans. Even dinosaurs cannot violate the law of non-contradiction.

Did the dinosaurs discover this law of non-contradiction?

Fraid so, logic is on the moon. For example, Can the Moon and the earth exist in the same location at the same time and in the same relationship? No, of course not, that would violate the law of non-contradiction. Logic exists throughout the universe, otherwise we could never have done astrophysics. It is all based on mathematics which is a form of logic.

So where on the Moon does logic exist? Please be specific about the location.

 

[Ed1wolf]

And what does that have to do with biological evolution?

Everything. Darwin believed he had discovered a mechanism that could produce living things in all their diversity without needing God.

 

[Strathos]

Everything. Darwin believed he had discovered a mechanism that could produce living things in all their diversity without needing God.

No he didn't. He was just observing what he found in nature, God didn't factor into it. Darwin didn't lose his faith until quite a while after he published his work, and he lost it due to the death of his daughter more than anything else.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Because if they are subjective then it is like choosing chocolate ice cream over vanilla. It is just subjective preference. Chocolate may be better to you but you cannot condemn someone for liking vanilla.

ken: How do you conclude that because it is subjective, it becomes meaningless?

Because if it is subjective you can believe in two different opposite behaviors are morally wrong and the difference is just based on feelings thereby making it meaningless. For example, if the difference between killing an unborn baby and not killing one is just a preference based on feelings then it doesn't objectively matter which one you choose to do, ie it is meaningless.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
That would be like saying that liking chocolate ice cream is wrong and then condemning the person and making laws against people liking chocolate ice cream.

ken: That response is like saying because genocide is an action, and eating ice cream is an action; that eating ice cream is the same as genocide. See how absurd that sounds? C'mon you know better than that!

It sounds absurd because deep down you know that morality is not subjective. You fail to understand that if it really is subjective then there is no difference between committing genocide and eating ice cream because they are both based on feelings and preference not on anything objective.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
That is not what I wrote, did you even read what I typed? It doesn't matter if they are subjective to God, they are not subjective relative to humans so God's feelings and moral character are objective relative to humans and therefore His moral law is objective relative to humans.

ken: Just because God’s feelings are different than humans doesn’t mean God’s feelings gets the objective label, where human feelings do not. The definition of Objective does not make an exception for God. That which is objective or subjective is applies the same to humans as it is to God.

No, it appears you do not understand what objective and subjective mean. If something just exists inside your head then it is subjective and you can believe whatever you want about it and change your mind about it anytime you want and even wish it out of existence. But if it exists outside your head/mind irrespective of what you believe about it then it exists objectively. And so it is with God, He exists outside your head and mind so Him and everything about Him exists objectively irrespective of what you believe and think about Him. Even if you try to wish Him out of existence, you cannot.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Actually they are, though sometimes God is gracious and doesn't always punish the person. Such as engaging in promiscuous sex often results in STDs. Committing adultery often leads to the destruction of your marriage, lying on your tax forms can send you to jail, and etc.

ken: Are you suggesting God occasionally gives people STD's and send them to Jail?

He can, using His ministers of justice, the government. If you are promiscuous and then cheat on your taxes or rob a bank then yes you could end up with an STD AND end up in jail, thereby experiencing punishment for both sins.

 

[cvanwey]

Because if it is subjective you can believe in two different opposite behaviors are morally wrong and the difference is just based on feelings thereby making it meaningless. For example, if the difference between killing an unborn baby and not killing one is just a preference based on feelings then it doesn't objectively matter which one you choose to do, ie it is meaningless.


It sounds absurd because deep down you know that morality is not subjective. You fail to understand that if it really is subjective then there is no difference between committing genocide and eating ice cream because they are both based on feelings and preference not on anything objective.



No, it appears you do not understand what objective and subjective mean. If something just exists inside your head then it is subjective and you can believe whatever you want about it and change your mind about it anytime you want and even wish it out of existence. But if it exists outside your head/mind irrespective of what you believe about it then it exists objectively. And so it is with God, He exists outside your head and mind so Him and everything about Him exists objectively irrespective of what you believe and think about Him. Even if you try to wish Him out of existence, you cannot.


He can, using His ministers of justice, the government. If you are promiscuous and then cheat on your taxes or rob a bank then yes you could end up with an STD AND end up in jail, thereby experiencing punishment for both sins.

I'm in agreement with almost everything you've said. Now answer (3) basic questions... A simple yes or no will suffice.

Is it objectively 'moral' or 'immoral' for women not to wear a hijab in public, among men?
Is it objectively 'moral' or 'immoral' for a person to own another human as property?
Is it objectively 'moral' or 'immoral' for women to lead teach in church?

Then ask yourself one more question. Is it 'moral' to merely follow commands from a book without question? Or maybe even better, are you actually considered a 'moral agent' at all, if/when you follow commands when you don't agree, or, do not question the command?

Thanks

 

[Ken-1122]

Because if it is subjective you can believe in two different opposite behaviors are morally wrong and the difference is just based on feelings thereby making it meaningless.

Do you see the contradiction in your statement? If something is based on feelings, by definition it is not meaningless; it is meaningful to the person whose feelings it is based on. The only possible way something could be meaningless is if it were based on something other than feelings. Something objective could be meaningless.

It sounds absurd because deep down you know that morality is not subjective. You fail to understand that if it really is subjective then there is no difference between committing genocide and eating ice cream because they are both based on feelings and preference not on anything objective.

It IS absurd to claim since both actions are subjective, they are morally equal.

No, it appears you do not understand what objective and subjective mean. If something just exists inside your head then it is subjective and you can believe whatever you want about it and change your mind about it anytime you want and even wish it out of existence.

Can you convince yourself that you could fly like a bird? Could you convince yourself that something bitter taste sweet? Reality doesn’t work that way. You can’t just choose to believe something out of convince; you have to be convinced.

But if it exists outside your head/mind irrespective of what you believe about it then it exists objectively. And so it is with God, He exists outside your head and mind so Him and everything about Him exists objectively irrespective of what you believe and think about Him. Even if you try to wish Him out of existence, you cannot.

We’re not talking about the existence of God; we’re talking about morality.

 

[Ed1wolf]

If our moral conscious is based on God’s objective moral character, Why is our moral conscious in a constant state of change?

Because of our sinful nature, we constantly ignore and rationalize our conscience away and it becomes distorted over time. Only Christ taking over our life can begin to restore it to its original state but never completely until the next world.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Provide ONE example.

g2: Here's a simple, but brilliant, experiment providing a visual demonstration of evolution. In this case, the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.

No, you are confusing microevolution with macroevolution, I do not deny that microevolution occurs, the problem is the historical extrapolation that relatively simple adaptations such as resistance to antibiotics can eventually result in huge morphological changes such as bacteria changing into amoeba type organisms, ie Macroevolution. Such things have never been empirically observed.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I don't just disagree with evolution, I have provided several evidences that it is unlikely to have ever occurred.

g2: There's pretty much no doubt that evolution occurs, as it is directly observable. In literally hundreds of examples. Its just selection of inherited of genetic variation between generations leading to higher reproductive success in a given environment.

What I suspect is that you disagree with the notion that evolution is the best explanation for the observable diversity of life, and also the best explanation for the observable history of life as indicated through the fossil and genetic records. That is, the Theory of Evolution which provides a framework to explain the observed fact of evolution.

No see above the difference between adaptations or microevolution and macroevolution. And the fossil record shows mostly organisms appearing suddenly with few or no precursors and then simply disappearing when the ecosystems change and being replaced again by fully formed organisms designed to handle the new ecosystem with no precursor forms.

g2: Here's the rub though, even if the Theory of Evolution were shown to be incorrect overnight, what would replace it would be another naturalistic explanation. There isn't any room for Special Creation, or ID, or any variation of these, as science as a methodology is necessarily limited to consider only natural explanations. Otherwise basic parts of the methodology (like testability and reproduciblity) would have to be discarded.

No, that is only recent irrational anti-theistic development. Throughout most of the history of science most scientists were either Christians or deists and came up with some of our greatest discoveries. Acknowledging a creator actually gives science a rational foundation because without Him you have no basis for believing in logic, an objective reality, and orderly laws governing an intelligible universe. Such things are absolutely necessary to even DO science. And none of those things can come about through impersonal processes because only intelligent personal beings can use logic and create laws and intelligibility so that other intelligent personal beings can make discoveries.

 

[Ken-1122]

Because of our sinful nature, we constantly ignore and rationalize our conscience away and it becomes distorted over time. Only Christ taking over our life can begin to restore it to its original state but never completely until the next world.

Then you can’t say our moral conscious is based in God’s objective moral character. The most you can say is that is used to be based in his moral character, but because we constantly ignore, and rationalize our conscious away, it no longer is, and only through Christ taking over our lives can it become based in his objective moral character once again

 

[Ed1wolf]

How do you conclude that evolution requires death? Evolution is about life; not death! There has never been a case of living organisms living forever, so I assume you have nothing to base this off; just an assumption. So how did you derive at this assumption?

I have already explained this in an earlier post and you basically agreed with me. According to the theory the new more highly evolved organisms out compete their predecessors and cause their death and extinction. If they didn't then the planet would become overpopulated and evolution would stop. Have you now changed your mind?