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

[Ed1wolf]

A female Orca whale that recently gave birth has been carrying it's dead newborn on her back for days with the entire family of Orca around her making stressful and grieving sounds in what can only be described as a funeral procession.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article215571205.html
Dolphins have been known to do this as well
https://www.adventuresportsnetwork....-discussion-about-whether-the-mammals-grieve/
If you are so certain that you have a soul, what makes you so certain that these animals do not?

We dont really know for certain what these animals were doing. The articles seem to be anthropomorphizing their behavior. I doubt they knew that their young were dead at first, they were just engaging in their mothering instinct. They were just doing what they thought would help revive the young. Of course, later they may have realized and smelled that their young were dead. But there is no real evidence that they were "grieving". Even if they are grieving, that does not mean that they are moral beings or have a moral conscience. If those young animals had been killed by another orca or dolphin, the killer would not be ostracized or punished, thereby showing no evidence of a moral sense. Depends on your definition of soul. Because they are intelligent creatures they do have some soulish characteristics. They have some aspects of personhood, but do not have full personhood, like humans created in the image of a personal Creator.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
He IS subject to His own objective moral character. He cannot go against His own moral character.

ken: Yeah; neither can I.

Yes, this is true of most personal beings.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
That is why He cannot choose to be evil. He can only be good.

ken: No, according to the Bible, there were many things he did that I believe was wrong.

Yes, but since you dont really know what is right and wrong, that is just your subjective opinion. Someone that knows God, knows what is actually right and wrong on many issues that God has revealed to us.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
H No, as our creator He can dictate how we work, just like when Alexander Graham Bell invented the phone, if someone back then was handed his phone they would not have any idea what it is and how it should be used unless Mr. Bell told them. So it is with God's moral rules for us. Only he knows what we were created to do and be and He has told us that in His moral law.

ken: First of all according to the bible the only people God created was Adam and Eve; the rest of us was created by our parents via childbirth

Those are the only ones He created directly, but everyone is created by the process He designed to produce us. Without that process we would not exist.

ken: Second: When someone creates a human being, they do not have moral authority over them once they become adult; only as a child. So even if God did create everybody, he still would not have moral authority over us, any more than our parents have moral authority over their adult children.

No, He did create us and our parents, by the process He created and designed, as I said above, we would not exist without that process. It would be like if Alexander G. Bell created a process for phones to create themselves, he would still be considered the creator of phones. No one would know how to work those phones without learning from Bell or his manual.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Nonsense.

Two organisms vie for a particular resource, let’s say a particular food type. One mutates to no longer need that particular resource, but now needs a different resource that the first does not need. The two organisms live in harmony without the need for the death of either. They both survive because they’re both as fit as they need to be.

If you’re going to accuse someone of not understanding biology, you should probably understand it yourself...

But what about the ones in the population that DON'T mutate? What do you think happens to them?

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes, but since you dont really know what is right and wrong, that is just your subjective opinion. Someone that knows God, knows what is actually right and wrong on many issues that God has revealed to us.

I do know right from wrong. I know what the Bible said God did to Job was wrong, his treatment of Adam and Eve was wrong, his treatment of the Egyptians via Moses was wrong, his treatment of defeated armies after war (Moses, Saul, Joshua) was wrong. Those who read the Bible and trust it determines right vs wrong for them are not moral, they are obedient. Morality requires the ability to understand right from wrong and act accordingly; that’s what I do.

No, He did create us and our parents, by the process He created and designed, as I said above, we would not exist without that process. It would be like if Alexander G. Bell created a process for phones to create themselves, he would still be considered the creator of phones. No one would know how to work those phones without learning from Bell or his manual.

Even if he did put the process in place, that still doesn’t give him moral authority over us; we rule ourselves.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, as I stated above, if the fittest does not survive long term, then evolution can not occur. So when a mutant is born and is allowed to reproduce, if it doesn't displace (cause to die out) the organism that it was competing with for the ecological niche, then evolution stops.

ken: Organisms don't need to compete for anything in order for evolution to take place. And in your scenario, nothing dies remember? So if this evolved organism lives forever and continues to reproduce, you will have both organisms living together because in your scenario nothing dies.

I am not talking about my scenario anymore, I am talking about the actual theory of evolution. No species can live forever in this universe. The universe is heading toward a heat death where nothing can live. Organisms that dont compete can not become more fit and therefore cannot survive in reality not some made up scenario.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
So the death of the competing organism MUST occur or evolution comes to a halt. Now do you understand?

ken: No because in your scenario whether they compete or not, nothing dies remember?

I am not talking about the scenario anymore, I am talking about the real world if evolution was true.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
This is Evolutionary Biology 101. Survival of the Fittest. Without death that phrase means nothing.

ken: In your scenario, survival of the fittest means nothing because everything lives; nothing dies.
Evolution biology 101 doesn’t apply to this conversation because in the real world things do die; in this scenario we are discussing nothing dies.

See above.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
If it doesn't go from amoeba to man, then we never come into existence.

ken: Evolution took place long before mankind came about.

Yes, but if you dont have all the steps and organisms in between amoeba and man then you never will have humans come into existence.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, your analogy is wrong. It is more like a parent telling a child rules for life. Dogs are not moral agents, you are correct. But a child and a human are. God actually does often tell us why in His written word AND in his creation. We dont always learn why immediately sometimes it takes maturity to see it. For example, we learn from His creation that violating God's law against sexual immorality very often leads to STDs or a destroyed marriage. That way we can see why He doesn't want us to engage in such things. I could similar examples for many other things.


cv: Patently false.

What is false?

cv: Commanded genocide,

No, genocide is the destruction of a group of people just because of WHO they are like the Nazis wiping out the jews just because they were jews. God commanded the Hebrews to destroy the nations in the promised land because of the evil things that they had DONE. These were horrible nations that engaged in child sacrifice, treating women like animals, engaging in slavery, including sex slavery and blatant rejection of their Creator among many other things such as attacking their Creators representatives on earth the Hebrews.

cv: instructed misogyny (discrimination/inequality),

No, actually just opposite, biblical Christianity is the only worldview that gives a rational basis for treating women as equals, read Genesis 1:27. All humans male and female are created in the image of God/the Creator. This is also the basis for condemning racism. This is where the founding fathers got their principle "all men are created equal". Otherwise humans are not equal if materialism were true.

cv: commanded or expressed disdain (or expressed contempt) for homosexuality,
have nothing to do with later 'maturity'. Such dictates also has nothing to do with 'learning.'

That is because science or Nature, Gods other book that I referenced above, has shown that engaging in homosexual behavior is bad for you physically and mentally see https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/481699. So God commanded us to not engage in it.

cv: One could 'cherry pick' rationalized 'good' attributes from the Holy Qur'an as well, (and they do)

Yes, there are some good teachings in the Koran most of which were borrowed from the Bible. But there are some very bad teachings in the Koran. Such as it is ok to beat your wife, the bible says you are to treat your wife as you would your own body. Also, the Koran says that you should kill infidels if they dont convert. The bible says just walk away if they reject your message and also to even do good to your enemies and bless those who persecute you. Mohammad says kill those who are your enemies. So overall there are huge differences between the Koran and the bible.

cv: Furthermore, God does not mention anything about contracting disease/STD's from promiscuity. The rule was most likely written from the perspective that jealousy is a natural human emotion. If it actually did speak of specific related disease, then I would have something to actually think about; as this would have been very forward thinking....

Actually He does hint at it in Romans 1. But generally this is something we learn from His creation, Nature. That is why I said it is learned later when we learned more about His creation from science. Nature is His other Book besides and supplemental to the Bible.

cv: But the most likely reality, is that no one writing such verses wanted to think of their loved one cheating with another.

But why did people think cheating is wrong? Could it be because it was implanted in their moral conscience when they were created in the image of a being that teaches it is wrong?

 

[Ken-1122]

I am not talking about my scenario anymore, I am talking about the actual theory of evolution. No species can live forever in this universe. The universe is heading toward a heat death where nothing can live. Organisms that dont compete can not become more fit and therefore cannot survive in reality not some made up scenario.


I am not talking about the scenario anymore, I am talking about the real world if evolution was true.

If you aren't talking about the scenario anymore, what point are you trying to make?

 

[Ed1wolf]

I was just asking, since it is controversial. But I did look it up, and the latest (from 2015) does more-so suggest:

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

Actually there are already problems with this theory from 2015. It claims that it eliminates the need for dark energy and dark matter, but recent research in the last 3 years has produced more evidence that dark energy and matter actually do exist. So this is more evidence that confirms the standard BB theory that the universe is not eternal but finite.

cv: But my point is this....

1. If the universe IS eternal, then the concept of a creator negates itself - and the topic is concluded/settled.

Not necessarily, the universe and the creator could be the same thing. But you are right it would pretty much eliminate the Christian God.

cv: 2. If the universe had a beginning, you still must account for the following:
a: Prove a singular god (vs) more than one god.

Since there is only one major effect, then using Occams Razor there is only one ultimate Cause. In addition, the design of living things all using one basic blueprint (DNA) and all based on similar body plans points to one designer. Multiple designers generally produces multiple blueprints and not using patterns derived from one basic design.

cv: b: Prove such a god is 'perfect'

c: Prove such a singular god is actually just

We can only know these things from His communication to us, the Bible.

cv: d: Prove the universe did not just change form from a prior state of existence, even if it is not eternal.

The evidence overwhelmingly supports the standard BB theory which goes against there being a prior state of existence. When you run the Big Bang backwards, you come to a point with no dimensions, ie nothing.

cv: e: Prove this claimed singular god is still around
f: Prove this god is actually interactive with humans

Tens of thousands of People every year are continuously having their lives changed and claiming it was the result of having a personal relationship and experiences with this God. But I never claimed that I could PROVE this God exists with certainty, only that most of the evidence points to His existence.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes, but if you dont have all the steps and organisms in between amoeba and man then you never will have humans come into existence.

Not knowing all the steps between amoeba and man does not disprove evolution

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Actually that was the old theory prior to BB theory. It was called the Steady State Theory and was popular up until the 1960s. But it was gradually rejected when all the overwhelming evidence for the BB theory started coming in and now has pretty much proven that the universe had a definite beginning and will end in a heat death. Look it up.

ken: Why on Earth would you trust anything science has to say? If those silly scientists don't know what they are talking about when they dismiss your God creation theories, why would you assume they would know what they are talking about when they dismiss the Steady State Theory?

As a scientist myself, I trust most of my colleagues. Some of them just interpret the biological data wrong regarding the origin and diversity of life. There are many scientists that believe in creation. Though we are definitely in the minority. In the case of the origin of the universe, they have interpreted most of the data correct. The origin of the universe is based on actual empirical real time observations (due to the time it takes for light to reach the earth we can see into the past in real time), the theory of evolution is based on interpreting ancient fossils and extrapolating into the past which is a very risky proposition and is not empirically based data.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Well of course the law of causality applied to the BB theory demonstrates that the Creator or Cause of the universe is "outside" or transcendent to the universe, just as the Christian God is.

ken: The law of casualty says for every movement, there is a mover. This law does not make an exception for God, so that means if God moves, there has to be something prior to God that caused him to move. If you are going to make an exception for God, claiming this law doesn’t apply to him; then an exception can be made for anything, which means the law is invalid.

No, the law of causality is "every effect requires a cause." God is not an effect, so therefore does not need a cause. The universe has all the characteristics of an effect and therefore needs a cause.

 

[Ken-1122]

We dont really know for certain what these animals were doing. The articles seem to be anthropomorphizing their behavior. I doubt they knew that their young were dead at first, they were just engaging in their mothering instinct. They were just doing what they thought would help revive the young."

Actually they do know what these Orcas were doing. These were resident Orcas in the area and were being observed by Biologists. They were even given names. The Biologists that were studying them said they were grieving. Just because they can’t speak English or grieve in a way that you can understand doesn’t mean they don’t grieve.

Even if they are grieving, that does not mean that they are moral beings or have a moral conscience. If those young animals had been killed by another orca or dolphin, the killer would not be ostracized or punished, thereby showing no evidence of a moral sense.

How do you know this? Have you studied Orcas?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

There are many scientists that believe in creation. Though we are definitely in the minority.

Don't flatter yourself. You are a fringe, at best, especially in fields that are relevant to the subject.

As a point of illustration for those who might be reading along, there are more scientists just named Steve on this list than there are scientists of any name on this list. It also has many more scientists in relevant fields than any list of 'Darwin doubters', which include people in utterly irrelevant fields like surgery.

the theory of evolution is based on interpreting ancient fossils, and extrapolating into the past which is a very risky proposition and is not empirically based data.

Most of the evidence for evolution, especially in the last fifty years or so, comes from genetics. Not fossils. Though, the fossil evidence also confirms it.

No, the law of causality is "every effect requires a cause."

What 'law of causality' are you referring to? There is no such law in physics. Causality is a fundamental principle of physics, but it isn't a law like say, Boyle's Law or the Laws of Thermodynamics.

I suspect you're referring to causality in the classic philosophical sense. Specifically, the type of cause you're talking about in reference to creation is an efficient cause. You are proposing that a willful act of creation by Yahweh is the efficient cause of the universe, in the same sense that a sculptor and their ceramics skills are the efficient cause of a vase.

So tell me then - how can something non-physical (Yahweh) possibly be an efficient cause for something physical (the universe)? How does the non-physical causally integrate with the physical?

I see no reason to suspect that it can, or does.

 

[Ken-1122]

As a scientist myself, I trust most of my colleagues. Some of them just interpret the biological data wrong regarding the origin and diversity of life. There are many scientists that believe in creation. Though we are definitely in the minority. In the case of the origin of the universe, they have interpreted most of the data correct. The origin of the universe is based on actual empirical real time observations (due to the time it takes for light to reach the earth we can see into the past in real time), the theory of evolution is based on interpreting ancient fossils and extrapolating into the past which is a very risky proposition and is not empirically based data.

Science doesn't claim to know the origin of the singularity that expanded in what we know as the Universe, they just claim it existed; it's origin nobody knows.

No, the law of causality is "every effect requires a cause." God is not an effect, so therefore does not need a cause. The universe has all the characteristics of an effect and therefore needs a cause.

Just because you think it has the characteristics of an effect doesn't mean that it does. Unless you can point to a cause, you can't claim an effect.

 

[Strathos]

Science doesn't claim to know the origin of the singularity that expanded in what we know as the Universe, they just claim it existed; it's origin nobody knows.

There is Someone who knows though.

 

[Tinker Grey]

There is Someone who knows though.

I don't believe you. I believe you believe that, but ...

 

[Strathos]

I don't believe you. I believe you believe that, but ...

I know you don't.

 

[Ken-1122]

There is Someone who knows though.

I very skeptical the one who knows all the answers, but I trust the one who seeks all the answers.

 

[quatona]

There is Someone who knows though.

So?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I am not talking about my scenario anymore, I am talking about the actual theory of evolution. No species can live forever in this universe. The universe is heading toward a heat death where nothing can live. Organisms that dont compete can not become more fit and therefore cannot survive in reality not some made up scenario.


ken: I am not talking about the scenario anymore, I am talking about the real world if evolution was true.
If you aren't talking about the scenario anymore, what point are you trying to make?

My whole point all along is that since evolution requires death to continue to progress, then atheistic evolutionists should not think that death is a bad thing. But you and other atheists seem to think death is a bad thing.

 

[Strathos]

My whole point all along is that since evolution requires death to continue to progress, then atheistic evolutionists should not think that death is a bad thing. But you and other atheists seem to think death is a bad thing.

Isn't that like saying that anyone who believes in the accuracy of nuclear physics has to think that nuclear bombs are a good thing?