Where's God?

[doubtingmerle]

I also mentioned the worldwide hydraulically caused fossil graveyards such as the one at Gibraltar. And there are others.

What you failed to mention is that fossils buried by water have been occurring for hundreds of millions of years. There is no distinct hydraulically caused fossil graveyard 2 million years ago.

Scientists are not sure what caused the perturbations to the earths axis that produced each ice age, but one of them could very well have been caused by the large amount of water on the earth 2mya.

I showed you the data on this, and you simply ignored it.

Again, there was no distinct ice age 2 million years ago. There have been distinct ice ages that have occurred in a regular pattern the last 1 to 2 million years due to the wobble of the earths axis. These occur in a fixed pattern due to the dynamics of the planetary movements.

Genesis does not say exactly when Noah lived other than maybe around 1000 years from the first humans and the fossil evidence points to the first humans having lived around 2 mya.

Homo sapiens have only been around for 300,000 years. There were no homo sapiens 2 million years ago.

You are referring to Homo erectus, who have distinctly different bones from Homo sapiens. The skulls clearly have a different shape. The earliest Homo erectus have brain capacities significantly below the range of homo sapiens. The earliest homo erectus also appear to be more like the earlier homo habilis, which are even more apelike.

Not if it was relatively tranquil. Ecosystems are very resilient, look how fast the ecosystems around Mt. St. Helens recovered from the volcanic eruption.

You tell me that you are a biologist. You must know that a global flood would totally destroy plant life on earth. Some plants would not survive, even as seeds. It would take many thousands of years or even millions of years for the earth to recover from being inundated with salt water for a year. Meanwhile the animals from the ark would try to survive on a destroyed earth with no source of food.

It didn't happen.

I gave you a link with the problems of a global flood. Have you looked at it?

There are no significant errors that change any Biblical teaching. Hebrew scholars know that the ancient scribes sometimes had trouble copying numbers, so there may be copying errors here.

The scribes had trouble copying anything. The available manuscripts are filled with variations, making it impossible to know for sure what the original said.

Mark 16:8-20 is widely regarded to have been inserted long after the original book was written. It says that if Christians drink deadly poison it will not hurt them. If I was about to drink deadly poison, I would think it was important to know if it would hurt me. So yes, this is an important teaching that changes depending on whether we include these verses.

Even in the desert the conditions have to be exactly right for poop to survive 3500 years. There is some evidence. Read this:Does the Negev’s Ancient Rock-Art Help Turn the Bible Exodus Story into Fact? | Ancient Origins (ancient-origins.net)

Finding references to people who believed in Yahu (which is close to Yahweh) is far from verifying Exodus. The evidence indicates that the early Jews were Canaanites who were already living in the mountains of canaan. Their settlements are virtually identical to other Canaanite settlements, other than the lack of pig bones. They worshipped the same God, El. They came to dominate the more prosperous coastal areas and eventually incorporated the name Yahweh for God.

This is a long cry from the story that Egypt was devastated by plagues including the death of every firstborn; that 2 million Jews escaped to the desert and lived there 40 years; and that they came into Canaan from outside in an enormous invasion. That simply did not happen.

 

[Ophiolite]

When you look at the coronavirus with Trump at the helm, the only thing that makes sense is that Donald Trump does not care in the slightest about any of the American people.

I thoought it advisable to correct you here. There is one American he cares about deeply and lovingly and above all others. You know who I mean.

 

[Ed1wolf]

The part that is nonsensical is saying there are three but there are not three. That is nonsensical.

I dont remember the Athanasius creed saying that.

dm; Again, how does your view that God is three persons which are of one divine substance differ from the view that God is three gods which are of one divine substance?

I dont know exactly, we dont fully understand the Trinity. But not fully understanding it does not mean that it is a contradiction. But the Bible teaches that there is only one God and three persons not three gods. Generally in most polytheistic religions each different god is very different to the point of being different in substance and essence. So your version sounds more like something you just made up.

dm: The problem is that you and Athanasius teach something that, to me, is identical to believing in three gods which are of one substance, but you refuse to admit it. If your view is different from the three gods of one substance view, please tell us how your view differs.

I dont claim to be able to explain how it differs but His word teaches the Trinity is only one God.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ah, so your authority, Athanasius, was wrong when he wrote:

He therefore that will be saved must think thus of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess, that...​

Yes, we should only follow Gods word not every human interpretation. Some interpretations are wrong but His word is infallible. The bible itself says to test every teaching and teacher by using His word.​

dm: That was all a bunch of flapdoodle? You don't need to believe all of that? Good to know.

So what do you need to believe? If a person believes that there are three gods that share one divine substance, is that sufficient? If a person believes that there are 3 Gods that get along quite well, is that sufficient? If a person believes that God is one "person" that manifests himself in different ways at different times (like Superman and Clark Kent) is that sufficient?

No, you need to believe there are three persons and only one God or divine essence.

dm: Does one need to have the name of the Son of God right? What if one mistakenly believes that the Son was named Mithras or Horus? Is he doomed for getting the name wrong?

Of course you are doomed if you dont know someone's name you dont really know them. You have to know Christ to be saved. How do you think your wife would act if you called her the wrong name?

dm; Does he need to believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem? Does he need to believe that the means of death was crucifixion? What if he believes the Son was named Pedro, that he lived in Mexico, and was shot in a drug war? Can one be saved by accepting Pedro as his personal savior?

No, you have to believe what He tells you otherwise you are calling Him a liar. How do you think your wife would like you calling her a liar?

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: But if there is no God then it has no objective meaning to anyone and the perpetrators would have gotten away with it because there is no such thing as justice.
Why does there need to be objective meaning in order to have justice?

Because if the standard for justice does not exist objectively it doesnt exist, this is true of everything. Things that only exist subjectively dont actually exist, you just subjectively feel that they should exist.

dm: I choose to live, and to live life well. Most of the people I meet choose that too. In order to live well, we need each other. Humans are remarkably ill equipped to live a good life if they are stranded on their own. But in a community, the sky it the limit as to what we can do. So we need others to cooperate with us.

I have two choices on how to get others to cooperate with me. One way is to cooperate with them, developing rules of fairness that benefit everyone. Another way is to somehow force them to help me while I hurt them or do nothing to help them. I choose the way of cooperation.

What if people choose to have a good life, but choose to have it without cooperation, without fairness? We have developed a solution to that. It is called the rule of law. It is called justice. Using laws, courts, and a system of justice that holds people accountable, we can limit the unfairness.

None of that requires "objective meaning" or "God" or "three persons composed of one divine essence."

No, because how do you know what living a good life is? You just have a subjective feeling about what the good life is. And someone else has a feeling about what the good life is, how do you determine what the good life is? There has to be an objective standard of what the good life is. And if God exists, then there is an objective standard. Also, without God you have no way of knowing objectively what fairness is and what justice is and why we should limit injustice and unfairness.

ed: Of course, since God exists it has infinite objective meaning to all of humanity and the King of the universe and those who were involved will be infinitely punished so that justice is served.

dm: What is the purpose of infinite punishment for finite wrong?

I demonstrated earlier why sin is not really a finite wrong.

dm: I believe in limited punishment. If a person steals, there should be punishment sufficient that he knows he did not get away with it, and that others can see that thievery is not the best way to get what they want. That kind of punishment has a purpose.

But eternal torment in fire with no possibility of an end? What can be the purpose of that?

While there is overlap there is a difference between sin and crime.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed: You dont have understand the Trinity as well as Athanasius to be saved, you just have to believe in it.

TG: Why? Of what use is grace then?

How do you get grace if you dont know Who to get it from? You have to know who you are talking to get grace.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Evolution doesn't require the atheistic or theistic element, it is simply an observation about the diversity of species that doesn't require additional superfluous things like a creator "guiding" it or other agency weaseled in without demonstrably evidence versus facile inference by vague patterns.

There are two types of evolution theistic and atheistic, and only theistic evolution has a rational basis.

mu; And our intelligence is more than merely the capacity to utilize technology, it's the ability to have the concept of morality. Just because you conclude that means we were created by some transcendent entity that shares some traits with us (the imago Dei) does not mean that conclusion is rational or based in anything more than the anthropic principle mistakenly applied to us having a trait that, far as we know, only homo sapiens possesses.

Not only is it rational to believe that only persons can produce the personal but such production has been empirically observed for all of human history while impersonal producing the personal has never been empirically observed.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, you need to believe there are three persons and only one God or divine essence.​

What if I only know about two persons? Am I doomed to eternal torture because I only knew about 2 of the persons?

If a person needs to believe these two assertions (There are three persons. There is one divine essence.) please show me where the Bible says you need to believe these two things to go to heaven. Are you going to tell me God didn't have enough bandwidth to tell us this?

Of course you are doomed if you dont know someone's name you dont really know them. You have to know Christ to be saved. How do you think your wife would act if you called her the wrong name?

What if you pronounce it wrong? Suppose you pronounce his name "Hay-sus". Are you eternal toast? Suppose you pronounce it Haythus or Haythrus or Maythrus or Mythrus or Mithrus. Where is the dividing line? How close do you need to be to be saved?

No, you have to believe what He tells you otherwise you are calling Him a liar. How do you think your wife would like you calling her a liar?

How do I know what he told us? We discussed that Mark 16:8-20 is commonly thought to be added later. Do I need to believe Mark 16:8-20 or don't I? And for that matter, the whole book of Matthew is basically an edit of the book of Mark. Do I need to believe the things in Matthew, or just Mark? And if I need to believe the things in Matthew, do I also need to believe the things in Luke that contradict Matthew? How can I believe contradictory things?

And do I need to believe that grasshoppers have four legs? (Leviticus 11:21-22)

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I thought it advisable to correct you here. There is one American he cares about deeply and lovingly and above all others. You know who I mean.

That correction was a necessary one. Thank you.
And yes, I do.
Although I might quibble about the word "lovingly." Not sure it fits. Might go with "passionately" or even "desperately".

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, because how do you know what living a good life is? You just have a subjective feeling about what the good life is. And someone else has a feeling about what the good life is, how do you determine what the good life is?

I choose to live what I call a good life. If you are going to go back to saying that you, and only you, have the correct definitions for English words, then I will use a different word. I choose to live a xxzzia life. By xxzzia life I mean a fulfilling, satisfying life that does good for others and makes me feel good. That is the life I choose.

There has to be an objective standard of what the good life is. And if God exists, then there is an objective standard.

Let's do a thought experiment. Let us say there is a completely different universe created by a different creator. That universe has many happy beings like us that are living what they consider to be a fulfilling life. Along comes one who claims to be their creator and states that he gets to decide what is a good life for everybody. He demands that they do whatever he tells them to do, regardless of what they personally think. Must they abandon their lives as they know them, and do what this voice tells them is objectively good? Why or why not?

Also, without God you have no way of knowing objectively what fairness is and what justice is and why we should limit injustice and unfairness.

I think I have emphasized that fairness is subjective. Different people have different ideas of fairness. Is it fair to give women more maternity leave then men? Is it fair to give descendants of slaves money to compensate for missed opportunity? How much? Is it fair to force businesses to sell cakes to somebody they disagree with?

When faced with such questions, my solution has been to talk it out and try to find a solution that is best for all. Generally democratically elected legislatures are the best way to do this for large countries.

Although it is not always easy to determine what is fair, sometimes it is obvious. The Holocaust obviously was not fair to the Jews. Can we stipulate that this is true? Can we both agree that, in spite of our differences, that the Holocaust was not fair to the Jews?

I demonstrated earlier why sin is not really a finite wrong.


While there is overlap there is a difference between sin and crime.

I see that none of these statements address the point you were replying to, so I will just repeat it again:

I believe in limited punishment. If a person steals, there should be punishment sufficient that he knows he did not get away with it, and that others can see that thievery is not the best way to get what they want. That kind of punishment has a purpose.

But eternal torment in fire with no possibility of an end? What can be the purpose of that?
​

Would you please address that question?

 

[doubtingmerle]

There are two types of evolution theistic and atheistic, and only theistic evolution has a rational basis.

If theistic evolution has a rational basis, why do you not accept theistic evolution?

If I remember correctly, your stated view is that there were millions of different creation events involving a suspension of natural laws to pop new species into existence out of nothing. The first zebra, for instance would have popped into existence many thousands of years after the first eohippus. It popped suddenly out of nothing, in complete violation of the laws of thermodynamics. If this is not your view, please clarify what your view is, and why you think it is rational.

What is irrational about atheistic evolution?

Not only is it rational to believe that only persons can produce the personal but such production has been empirically observed for all of human history while impersonal producing the personal has never been empirically observed.

People don't really produce people. Their bodies produce egg and sperm cells that have partial copies of their DNA with variations. The egg and sperm combine, yielding a fertilized egg with a new set of DNA. That new DNA guides the cell to divide and eventually form into a new, cognitively aware person.

Since the DNA is constantly changing with each generation, why can it not be that our DNA is a result of that process of constantly changing DNA that started from an animal that clearly was not homo sapiens?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I dont claim to be able to explain how it differs

You write this in response to:

The problem is that you and Athanasius teach something that, to me, is identical to believing in three gods which are of one substance, but you refuse to admit it. If your view is different from the three gods of one substance view, please tell us how your view differs.​

Over and over you tell me you disagree with the view that there are three gods that share one essence. When I ask you how your view differs from the view that you disagree with, you cannot tell me.

That is my point. Your view appears to be identical to the view that you disagree with. Even you cannot come up with a single way in which the two views differ.

If it looks like a duck, if it sounds like a duck, if it acts like a duck, then it just might be a duck.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Reread that study from JAMA I posted earlier in this thread and you will see it was conducted in the Netherlands which is one of he most gay tolerant societies in the world. And yet they still had much higher rates of mental and physical illnesses than heterosexuals.

Again, what you need to show is that a person with innate homosexual desires would be better off if he does not find a way to fulfill those desires. You have not done that. I would think that remaining in the closet and not being true to yourself would be harmful to one's mental health.

 

[doubtingmerle]

All of them were thrown out on technicalities none of them actually looked into the evidence.
The Navarro Report: The Immaculate Deception - The Thinking Conservative


All of Trumps criticisms were based on things Fauci actually said. I think he should have criticized him behind the scenes rather than in public but nothing in your article proves his criticisms were not justified.


Not true. As I said even Fauci said he saved thousands of lives.


Only because Obama and Biden had not planned for possible future pandemics. But he worked amazingly quick to get the states everything they needed, even Gov. Cuomo admitted this.


One news source reported that. But even if it is two percent, that is extremely low and not worth destroying millions of peoples livelihoods and mental health.


Since Trump did everything the experts said, those numbers would have occurred no matter who the president was except if Biden had been president thousands or millions more would have died because he did not want to ban travel from China. Then Trump got the vaccine developed in record time faster than any vaccine in history.


I saw the number on one news source but I dont remember the exact number but they were definitely significant.


There are definite cases I have seen on the news and heard from personal cases of family members where doctors put COVID on death certificates where the cause of death obviously was not COVID. They are not doing it for personal gain though, it is altruistic, by reporting more deaths by COVID their facilities get more government COVID money. Though that does not justify lying on death certificates.

As @InterestedAtheist put it, this is sheer delusion. I prefer to live in the real world.

 

[muichimotsu]

There are two types of evolution theistic and atheistic, and only theistic evolution has a rational basis.

Prove it, a bald assertion is just that, especially when you also create a needless division that isn't justified beyond people asserting a creator they cannot substantiate by scientific means and thus the whole idea is thoroughly unscientific and exploiting actual science to advance religious fundamentalism

Not only is it rational to believe that only persons can produce the personal but such production has been empirically observed for all of human history while impersonal producing the personal has never been empirically observed

You're confusing intelligence with intelligibility, we can find intelligibility in an anthill or a beehive, but we don't assume ants and bees have human intelligence, do we? The intelligibility of the universe or us is not the same as intelligence in itself, but you seem to just conflate intelligence with the "personal", which is oversimplifying the discussion greatly.

This whole thing is a compositional fallacy: the fact that the cells comprising us don't have individual intelligence doesn't mean they cannot combine and make an emergent property of intelligence and consciousness that we experience, just like the individual parts of a chemical process that creates combustion are not combustion itself, but they can combine to enact such a thing.

You're making a strawman of what science says about intelligence in the first place and extrapolating from there about your imagined creator you have not and likely cannot substantiate in any way beyond rationalizations and fallacious inferences.

Oh and your biggest error is the idea that the personal has been the only thing attributed to a person, because we can find plenty of examples of the impersonal aspects of nature attributed to persons (gods), including your own God who supposedly is sovereign over all things, which includes unintelligent inanimate things like rocks and chemicals. So you've really just created a massive contradiction in the idea that your creator somehow is only responsible for the personal when by your own admission, they HAVE to be responsible for the impersonal as well.

The idea of the impersonal generating the personal is basic emergent and supervenient properties of biological processes, which are distinct from mechanical properties we'd see elsewhere, though even that can create complexity, like snowflakes or sand dunes, but you want intentionality, seemingly, so you try to suggest without any evidence to support your claim that we don't have any reason to think that the impersonal can make the personal, with a gross misunderstanding of scientific empiricism as well, because evolution is concluded not merely because we can see speciation with insects and the like in the lab, but observations that have consistent measurements that go back eons.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

As @InterestedAtheist put it, this is sheer delusion. I prefer to live in the real world.

Thank you, Merle. You're doing a great job on this thread, and it's a pleasure to read your posts!

 

[Ed1wolf]

I believe I can provide sufficient evidence that my moral system is both absolute and objective. And I dont think you can provide evidence that yours is objective. It depends on what your definition of better is. Without an absolute and objective morality there is no such thing as better.

mu: If all you want is absolutes, then you're just appealing to authority as the qualifier for something being true or even good, which is essentially subjectivism under a different name, ironically enough.

When we don't agree on what objective means, you're going to assume that your position is right by talking past nontheists instead of having an actual rational discussion versus preaching

Actually I think we can agree on what objective means. What do you think it means?

mu: The definition of better is going to have an element of variance, it doesn't mean we cannot have a basic metric to assess it that isn't going to rely on mere consensus, popularity or authority, but seeking to be as unbiased as possible in the assessment of actions as having a quality of good or bad (not people, we are agents that enact actions, they are not identical with us in our capacity to change patterns of behavior to be better or worse).

On what objective basis can you condemn Stalin's definition of better?

mu: Human flourishing is not a subjective relative metric, it is to our benefit to desire people to do well in a way beyond mere survival, so it isn't even rooted in your strawman that atheism somehow must rely on social Darwinism and the appeal to nature fallacy for morality when that's not remotely the position of probably 99.9% of nontheists

Actually it is subjective in the sense there is no objective basis for wanting humans to flourish over other species because according to atheistic evolution no species is any more valuable or special than any other species. But yes, atheists from societies based on Christian principles or raised by Christian parents of course are going to have morals similar to Christian morality and their understanding of human flourishing would be similar. But over time as Christian morality is eroded away by atheism or secularism, the society generally degrades into tyranny. And human flourishing comes to an end even the atheistic understanding of that term.

 

[muichimotsu]

Actually I think we can agree on what objective means. What do you think it means?

It has several meanings and that's kind of how language works, which you appear to have a more prescriptive notion rather than the far more honest descriptivist idea that language is not set in stone, it necessarily shifts, especially by context

The 1st definition listed is more epistemological and cannot be perfect, given our fallible nature in not being able to eliminate our biases entirely.

While the 2nd grouping of definitions tends to be metaphysical, ontological or some relation thereof, speaking about the nature of things rather than how we assess them as being justified in conclusions we make (moral, metaphysical, etc, all tying back to epistemology, which technically would be on the foundation of logic)

1a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

2a : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind objective reality
b : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective
d : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy

So...what definition are you using and are you just throwing out the others to stick with just one instead of being *Gasp* flexible?

On what objective basis can you condemn Stalin's definition of better?

The basis of Kant's categorical imperative in regards to necessarily needing to treat humans not merely as means, but as ends in themselves. Stalinist Communism, along with other manifestations, is totalitarian and views people as something to be exploited for some end rather than actually valuing their dignity, which society agrees upon irregardless of religion or lack thereof if you're not a sociopath or psychopath who shouldn't be in society in the first place. The whole basis of morality should never be merely about power and authority, it should be regarding the evidence and arguments made for the conclusions in policy, action, etc.

Actually it is subjective in the sense there is no objective basis for wanting humans to flourish over other species because according to atheistic evolution no species is any more valuable or special than any other species. But yes, atheists from societies based on Christian principles or raised by Christian parents of course are going to have morals similar to Christian morality and their understanding of human flourishing would be similar. But over time as Christian morality is eroded away by atheism or secularism, the society generally degrades into tyranny. And human flourishing comes to an end even the atheistic understanding of that term.

And because you're talking about objective as absolute/perfect, seemingly, of course you're not going to find that, but I never even said that, so nice strawman, one of many

Now you're applying a naturalistic fallacy to someone who affirms evolution and also affirms morality, because morality does not follow from nature, including evolution as an explanatory model for the diversity of biological species and you'd be hard pressed to find atheists or anyone that argues this idea that is basically you strawmanning social Darwinism onto those who don't affirm your divine command theory.

Also, evolution doesn't make value claims about any species, because the survival of the species is not dependent on minds calibrating or determining anything, it's nature as it works and doesn't care about human sentiments. Us being animals and a species does not mean anything, because science is not making claims about meta ethics and the moral semantics/ontology/justification involved that is the area of philosophy, a product of millennia of human thought in cultures dating back easily 10K years, I'd hazard

And no, my morality is merely similar to Christianity, but that doesn't mean Christianity gets to take the credit, because I am not merely my environment in regards to my values and worldview. If anything, there's a reason I keep the Buddhist label in spite of likely not really agreeing with a Buddhist monk you'd inquire about various metaphysical issues, but my morality is not based on some divine command, but actual evidence and psychological consideration of others with a philosophical background that further justifies the model I utilize, which is a bit variable

Incorrect, human flourishing is not dependent as a concept on Christian morality, especially because it predates it (eudaimonia as a concept existing around 399BCE in Aristotle's works, from what I gather, the Greek for what is commonly rendered as human flourishing in moral discussions) and has not been argued by you, merely asserted yet again, to somehow only function and come about because of Christianity, entirely ignoring millennia of history for non Christian cultures that flourished with Christianity even being a thing they were aware of (Japan not hearing Christian messages until about the 16th century, for instance and they were perfectly fine, even if they did have issues, their morality is not divorced from the idea of human flourishing)

Secularism is not antithetical to Christianity by necessity, it's only opposed to the theocratic/fundamentalist/totalitarian tendencies that can, but don't always, result from that religiosity and worldview that informs behaviors and regard to general civil laws (antinomians come to mind, or dominionists)

 

[doubtingmerle]

Actually it is subjective in the sense there is no objective basis for wanting humans to flourish over other species because according to atheistic evolution no species is any more valuable or special than any other species.

We choose what we want to value. Almost all choose to exist. Human existence requires cooperation with others. Cooperation requires some sort of rules, what we call morality. So we all are interested in morality.

But yes, atheists from societies based on Christian principles or raised by Christian parents of course are going to have morals similar to Christian morality and their understanding of human flourishing would be similar.

Long before Christians came along, other cultures such as the Babylonians, Greeks, and Chinese had codes of morality. Morality is not something Christians invented. Babylonian law came before Jewish law, and served as the basis of much of the Jewish law. Likewise Greek and Persian law had an influence in Christian thought.

The fact that moral codes learn from previous codes does not prove that we need to run the clock backward to their codes. Time marches on.

But over time as Christian morality is eroded away by atheism or secularism, the society generally degrades into tyranny.

Actually, Christian code is not being eroded, it is being improved. The principles in the Humanist Manifesto far exceed the New Testament code which degrades women, allows slavery, and commands people to obey the Old Testament laws.

What happened after Christianity took over the Roman world? Society deteriorated into the tyranny of feudalism. Later it led to things like the Spanish Inquisition and the many religious wars in Europe. Christians had deep ties with Nazi Germany, per the link I listed here.

Humanists, by contrast, have supported a high code of ethics, and have resisted tyranny.

And human flourishing comes to an end even the atheistic understanding of that term.

I disagree. The enlightenment led to a great time of human flourishing.

 

[Ed1wolf]

They're not truly random, I think you're using the colloquial sense, while the use of random in science is not absolutely without any parameters or constraints, it's stochastic in nature

While natural selection is not random, the guiding force of natural selection IS random, e.g. changes in the environment.

mu: And the impersonal nature does not mean the there cannot be an emergent experiential process from the brain functioning that creates our understanding and conception about morality.

It is more rational for morality to have come from a preexisting moral standard rather than amoral processes.

mu: This is a basic compositional fallacy: the nature of the parts is not strictly or always the nature of the whole, such as the idea that the atoms and biological processes that comprise humans being impersonal and not conscious themselves means somehow that humans cannot be said to be conscious, which weasels in substance dualism and the soul by way of an argument from ignorance.

There is much more evidence for dualism than that. In fact, a purely materialistic mind is self refuting.

mu: The origin of decisions is not the same as the quality of the decisions, the process by which one makes conclusions about how to treat others. We all start from a subjective position, the use in this case a bit more esoteric, but not uncommon when we're speaking about the necessary limits of perception, requiring an individual perspective to even begin to assess anything, unlike some purely objective 3rd party view that is unbiased.

But if the origin of your brain chemicals is the same as the origin of Hitler's then how do you know that your view of caring about most humans is better than his view of just caring about people he called Aryans?

~~~~

mu: Objective in the sense of absolute and mind independent, as I already pointed out in a previous post, is antithetical to morality in both its ontology and semantics: we cannot have morality without a mind to assess the quality or idea in the first place.

The mind of the creator of His image bearers and the universe in which they live certainly would know what is best for us.

mu: What you want is a perfect standard, which is equally unrealistic in how inflexible it would be to context sensitive considerations, like me taking someone's life in a context where most people would find it justified (saving my friend from an attacker by using a nearby gun to shoot them and it ending with them dying, say by hitting a major artery or even their head somehow)

What I want is irrelevant, there is strong evidence that there is a perfect moral standard whether you or I want it or not, the objective character of the Creator of the Universe. The moral law of God would say that what you did was justified.

mu: versus a situation where I kill someone for no good reason or out of anger, among other contexts where it would be considered both immoral and illegal. A morality that assesses the situation is not relativism, because that would just be saying any decision is equally valid, or would be utilitarianism in a dangerous level if the only concern was pure reduction of suffering, or even consequentialism in an absolute sense, where the only concern is the outcome, not the process that led to it.

God's moral law is context sensitive both to the temporal context and the ultimate context.

mu: I'm not remotely an expert, but I'm also not going to make a claim that my assessments are perfect merely because I utilize skepticism to come to a general conclusion that doesn't involve the supernatural to explain any phenomena. We are all fallible people, the difference tends to be more how you regard that in terms of teleological thinking or if you reject that idea wholesale because it tries to impart externally determined purposes on us like we're mere means rather than ends, violating even a charitable interpretation of the humanity version of Kant's categorical imperative

No, see above. God and His law has our absolute best interests in mind.

~~~~

mu: We treat animals (that is, non human animals, we are as humans taxonomically animals, not morally, because that's a category error) differently only on the basis that they do not understand morality as a concept, which is why when an elephant gores people, we don't send them to jail or even hold a trial, we likely would euthanize them. We treat humans in general (barring those that are mentally unfit to comprehend such things) with the understanding that they can reason and can comprehend the idea of morality, such as mutual reciprocity, empathy, basic rights we generally agree upon as a foundation, etc.

In short, humans being animals is not the same as humans having the same moral capacity or value as animals insofar as being both moral agents and patients, unlike non human animals, which would be moral patients.

Where does this value come from? Why does just having a moral capacity make homo sapiens more valuable than other animals? Sounds like something humans made up just because of their own feelings for other humans.