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

[Ken-1122]

We know from history that people like the Jewish high priests appointed by the Romans Annas and Caiaphas as well as Pontius Pilate and Herod Antipas all mention Jesus as claiming to be the Son of and that's why he was crucified. Pilot states he can find no wrong in Jesus to crucify him. The basic story of Jesus is not contradicted and most scholars say that Jesus was a real figure.

The Romans kept detailed records of their executions; records that exist even today. There is no record of Jesus being executed via Crucifixion by the Romans. If such records did exist, this would dispel Islam because according to Islam; Jesus was never crucified; he was taken directly to Heaven by Allah (sorta like Elijah was taken by God in the Christian religion)

As mentioned the basic story of Jesus is well supported.

Well supported? What you believe about Jesus all depends on who you choose to believe. If you choose to believe those who wrote the books that eventually became the Bible; yeah according to those writers, Jesus claimed to be the Son of God; but if you look at what some of the Gnostic Gospels or even the Holy Koran; according to some of these authors Jesus never even made such claims! Its all a matter of who you want to believe; I believe none of them, you can believe whoever you want.

What I mean by forced is that as you have acknowledged it is up to the other person to accept or reject your POV. This shows that the logic and reason you use to arrive at your own POV can only apply to you.

No; it can be applied to anyone. And half of my POV originated from someone else, and I adopted as my own after learning of them

An objective moral base is independent of any individuals moral base. It is more about proving that there is a set of objective morals independent of humans views and therefore needs some independent support such as being scientifically verified or it can be logically shown that all people live like they believe in a set of objective morals. In that way, a moral would be like something solid that people cannot deny like the computer we are writing this post on. It is not reliant on peoples views and the computer exists despite peoples views saying it does not.

And thats where we disagree. I don’t believe morality exist outside of human thought.

Objective morality is similar to absolute truth. There cannot be more than one absolute truth as this is contradictory. To establish objective morality as the truth certain things need to be established. It is a bit like scientifically verifying something. So two people cannot be right as far as objective moral truths are concerned. I have posted some support for this such as with Sam Harris's method of establishing objective morality through logic and science.

This doesn’t change the fact that Theists who believe morality is objective do not all share the same moral base. I do agree however that this shows the contradictions of objective morality.

The video is only part of a longer video so you would need to do some investigating to fully understand Mr Harris's position. He goes into detail to support his position and you do not have to mention objective morality to support there being certain morals that stand no matter what in helping humans flourish which can be scientifically supported.

To claim certain morals help society flourish is different than claiming a single moral base; which is what objective morality dictates.

 

[Ken-1122]

Truth? How do you know the truth? If moral truth regarding my actions is determined by something other than my own thoughts, then morality might be relative, or objective, or something else, but it ain't purely individual and subjective.

Not determined by something else, influenced by something else; and that would be the opinion of others.

If you are going to argue that moral truths are a matter of a given person's opinion, then you have to accept that my authority on my own opinion is greater than your authority on my opinion.

What we call morality are just thoughts; in this case my thoughts vs your thoughts. I will concede your authority on your thoughts is greater than my authority on your thoughts. But that doesn’t stop you from listening to me unless you have a closed mind, and it doesn't stop me from judging your thoughts as wrong.

Well, sort of. If there is an objective standard, you would be objectively wrong regardless of my own judgment or whether you disagree.

But there is no single objective moral standard; thus my point stands.

If you argue that moral truths are determined subjectively, then his belief that he's right means that he is right. The two sentences become synonymous.

No; it means he is right according to his opinion. Do you see the difference?

But it does mean that for your opinion of moral truths to really have more weight or authority in judging my actions than my own opinion of moral truths, you have to appeal to something external to just our opinions of what is true.

But such an authority will only exist if both of us agree on the same moral authority as being above us. Often that does not happen; and when it does we will usually disagree on the details of said moral authority.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Lets say morality did "come from God".

How would that make it objective?

It is based on His objectively existing character.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Anyone who can answer that will be the first person to ever do so.

It is based on His objectively existing character.

 

[Ed1wolf]

So.... is it clear that morality is subjective now?

Sixteen pages of (decent/good) arguing over the alleged objectivity of morality suggest the existence a reality of [extreme] subjectivity within morality - perhaps without people realizing it.

No, morality is objective because it is based on God's objectively existing character.

 

[durangodawood]

It is based on His objectively existing character.

Please show me this objectively existing character!

 

[Ygrene Imref]

No, morality is objective because it is based on God's objectively existing character.

God does not follow morality because He does not die. That is why so many people have trouble reconciling His ways and directives - because we die, and what we perceive to be good and necessary for our fleeting lives may actually be tragic if we had the hyperopia of entities that did not die.

Only mortals follow morality, or rather should follow morality, because morality is a system meant for optimal survival for entities that die. Morality depends on individuals, not the entirety of the race. What I think is necessary to stay alive may not be what you need.

There is no archon, angel, principality, power or god that follows morality. Indeed, morality is degenerate to entities that do not die. Humans cannot perceive how their seemingly minute activity has incredible consequences 40,000 years down the line - because we have no perception of life beyond a millennium.

 

[stevevw]

The Romans kept detailed records of their executions; records that exist even today. There is no record of Jesus being executed via Crucifixion by the Romans. If such records did exist, this would dispel Islam because according to Islam; Jesus was never crucified; he was taken directly to Heaven by Allah (sorta like Elijah was taken by God in the Christian religion)

Actually there is little Roman records left from that period. Even quite famous Romans like Pontius Pilot and others have no records. In fact the bible was one book that mentions some of these figures first for which later evidence was found like with Pilot of a stone plaque that was found mentioning him. But luckily we have other writings that mention Jesus which support him as a real person who was Crucified by the Romans. Most scholars support Jesus being a real person.

Well supported? What you believe about Jesus all depends on who you choose to believe. If you choose to believe those who wrote the books that eventually became the Bible; yeah according to those writers, Jesus claimed to be the Son of God; but if you look at what some of the Gnostic Gospels or even the Holy Koran; according to some of these authors Jesus never even made such claims! Its all a matter of who you want to believe; I believe none of them, you can believe whoever you want.

The Bible is one of the most detailed books that captures the events of the 1st century. It has often mentioned small little known detail of that period which has been later verified. The authors wrote about the events fairly soon after they happened. Many archelogists use the Bible as a guide for their digs because it is so accurate. It has identified people, artifacts and places no other document has come close to which have been verified later when discovered.

Other historical figures do not have a fraction of what is written about Jesus and have what has been written was done centuries later yet people are willing to accept these writings as being true. The Koran was written 600 years after Jesus so it is the least reliable. Most scholars support the books of the bible being written soon after Jesus. The only explanation I can see for people rejecting the bible books and what they say is bias because they meet the criteria well above most other historical writings. Anyway I do not want to get into another topic about the authenticity of Jesus.

No; it can be applied to anyone. And half of my POV originated from someone else, and I adopted as my own after learning of them

You are only proving my point that subjective morality is just an individual view and can change from week to week so therefore cannot say anything about whether your view is truly correct apart from you thinking it is correct. You may think or believe your view can be applied to anyone but what if the other person says he disagrees.

If your view was applied to everyone then would not that be objective. If you POV originated from someone else or can change to someone else's POV then does not that just show that subjective morality does not have any consistent basis for showing what is ultimately true. If you believe something was true one week and then was convinced by someone else to change your mind then this could mean anything can be presented as being good so long as people can make a convincing case. Besides how do you know what you decided was good is really and truly good. Is it good because the other person convinced you. How do you know the other person was correct.

And that's where we disagree. I don’t believe morality exist outside of human thought.

There is a difference between believing and showing that something may apply universally. If it can be shown that certain morals are supported universally then that would be verifiable support and therefore not based on belief.

This doesn’t change the fact that Theists who believe morality is objective do not all share the same moral base. I do agree however that this shows the contradictions of objective morality.

That does not also deny that one of the sets of morals can be objectively correct. Disagreement does not mean there is a truth to be found.

To claim certain morals help society flourish is different than claiming a single moral base; which is what objective morality dictates.

Objective morality just supports the idea that there are certain morals that are beyond human views and therefore can stand regardless of time, context and culture. What people like Sam Harris are doing is putting some tangible applications to morals so they can be measured better. Such as stealing will cause a society to become chaotic, disordered, lack trust, and probably lead to other problems. So not stealing is a good way to help communities have harmony and build trust, cultivate other good things which leads to human flourishing.

Therefore communities cannot afford to allow stealing to be promoted for the sake of survival and human flourishing. This can be applied to all as the society that chooses to not follow this moral standard will be left behind and destroy itself. There are certain moral positions that all societies need to adhere to regardless of personal views which will promote survival and human flourishing.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

And yet we hear so often about how there is scientific support for beneficial mutations as opposed to negative and deleterous ones.

“Beneficial” does not equate to “morally good”

People like Sam Harris are supporting the idea that there are certain moral positions that promote human flourishing and can be supported through scientific reasoning.

People like Sam Harris don’t understand what “objective” means in this case. If I disagree that the objective basis of morality is human flourishing, then how do you show that I’m wrong?

So if someone says it is OK to take your car for a joy ride because it is their moral view that material posessions should be shared you would regard this statement as being similar to someone saying they think chocolate is good.

The statement “stealing is good” is equivalent to the statement “chocolate is good”. Neither is objective.

 

[Ken-1122]

Actually there is little Roman records left from that period. Even quite famous Romans like Pontius Pilot and others have no records. In fact the bible was one book that mentions some of these figures first for which later evidence was found like with Pilot of a stone plaque that was found mentioning him. But luckily we have other writings that mention Jesus which support him as a real person who was Crucified by the Romans. Most scholars support Jesus being a real person.

The Bible is one of the most detailed books that captures the events of the 1st century. It has often mentioned small little known detail of that period which has been later verified. The authors wrote about the events fairly soon after they happened. Many archelogists use the Bible as a guide for their digs because it is so accurate. It has identified people, artifacts and places no other document has come close to which have been verified later when discovered.

Other historical figures do not have a fraction of what is written about Jesus and have what has been written was done centuries later yet people are willing to accept these writings as being true. The Koran was written 600 years after Jesus so it is the least reliable. Most scholars support the books of the bible being written soon after Jesus. The only explanation I can see for people rejecting the bible books and what they say is bias because they meet the criteria well above most other historical writings. Anyway I do not want to get into another topic about the authenticity of Jesus.

Just because slavery did exist in the United States, and the Mississippi river does exist; doesn’t mean “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn” were based on actual events.

You are only proving my point that subjective morality is just an individual view and can change from week to week so therefore cannot say anything about whether your view is truly correct apart from you thinking it is correct. You may think or believe your view can be applied to anyone but what if the other person says he disagrees.

Under Objective morality, you may think or believe your view is correct because your moral base says it is correct, but how do you know your moral base is correct? You may also think or believe your view can be applied to anyone but what if the other person says he disagrees?

If your view was applied to everyone then would not that be objective. If you POV originated from someone else or can change to someone else's POV then does not that just show that subjective morality does not have any consistent basis for showing what is ultimately true. If you believe something was true one week and then was convinced by someone else to change your mind then this could mean anything can be presented as being good so long as people can make a convincing case. Besides how do you know what you decided was good is really and truly good. Is it good because the other person convinced you. How do you know the other person was correct.

I BELIEVE the other person was correct. Its all a part of learning and evolving; as I learn and evolve, my beliefs often change as a result; that's how things work in the real world. If rather than learning and evolving you depend on a moral base to provide you all the answers, how do you know your moral base is correct?

There is a difference between believing and showing that something may apply universally. If it can be shown that certain morals are supported universally then that would be verifiable support and therefore not based on belief.

I don’t disagree that many moral issue are supported by all sane people, I just disagree with this idea that all moral issues are determined by a single non-human entity

Objective morality just supports the idea that there are certain morals that are beyond human views and therefore can stand regardless of time, context and culture. What people like Sam Harris are doing is putting some tangible applications to morals so they can be measured better. Such as stealing will cause a society to become chaotic, disordered, lack trust, and probably lead to other problems. So not stealing is a good way to help communities have harmony and build trust, cultivate other good things which leads to human flourishing.

Therefore communities cannot afford to allow stealing to be promoted for the sake of survival and human flourishing. This can be applied to all as the society that chooses to not follow this moral standard will be left behind and destroy itself. There are certain moral positions that all societies need to adhere to regardless of personal views which will promote survival and human flourishing.

I didn’t disagree with anything Sam Harris said. What I disagreed with was trying to twist his words into a claim of support of Objective Morality; the claim that morality is beyond human views.

 

[stevevw]

“Beneficial” does not equate to “morally good”

What people like Sam Harris are doing is equating some benefits from good moral actions so that they can be measured. That certain moral acts always lead to good or bad results for all and this can be deduced. I would say good morals lead to good outcomes and bad moral actions will have negative consequences so this can be measured.

It is a bit like how evolution tries to equate why humans act morally for example because it helps the group get along and this gives more chance of survival. As opposed to stealing and causing trouble which will lead to conflict and more problems for the group and the misbehaving individuals will be cast out. There are certain moral positions that can be assessed this way for all people otherwise they will have too many problems and may not survive.

Mr Harris's proposal is a bit more complex to fully understand as it is about moral acts that contribute to the wellbeing of conscious creatures and therefore it can take more explanation to determine what is and isn't good for human flourishing in some situations. But an outcome for what is morally good can be determined logically and it is the same for all humans.

People like Sam Harris don’t understand what “objective” means in this case. If I disagree that the objective basis of morality is human flourishing, then how do you show that I’m wrong?

Do you understand what people like Sam Harris are proposing. The whole point is he is trying to give some scientific reasoning and logic to what he is saying with evidence and it is not just his opinion. So if you disagree you would have to come up with some support for what you are saying that will dispute his position rather than just give your opinion.

The statement “stealing is good” is equivalent to the statement “chocolate is good”. Neither is objective.

Thats what people say when they claim that morals are subjective. But some say that humans may say this but they act differently and everyone seems to be the same. So by that statement are you saying that if another person whose view is stealing is ok steals something from you it is OK because it is only an opinion.

 

[stevevw]

Just because slavery did exist in the United States, and the Mississippi River does exist; doesn’t mean “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn” were based on actual events.

Poor example. If Tom Sawyer was a real person and stated that his events really happened, had a number of people around at the time who also said they really happened, then he named places, artifacts and people for that time for which some had never been heard of before from mainstream history but were later found in archeological digs and verified showing that Tom was right and must have been there to know.

Then had other writings from historical figures also mention Tom and Huck, and their story was so significant that it influenced millions and changed the course of history then all this adds credence that the events really happened. None of this happens in the story of Tom and Huck. Besides like I said most scholars agree Jesus was a real figure and claimed to be the son of God and was crucified by Pontius Pilot.

Under Objective morality, you may think or believe your view is correct because your moral base says it is correct, but how do you know your moral base is correct? You may also think or believe your view can be applied to anyone but what if the other person says he disagrees?

I thought I have already answered this, i.e, If the morals come from God then it will come down to trust in God and his word. If it is something that someone like Sam Harris proposes then he is giving you some reasoned and logical support for why there are objective morals rather than just his opinion. I believe this can be similar to Gods morals in that they lead to better outcomes. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.

Anyone can disagree with an objective set of morals as they may do now if Gods laws were true.

I BELIEVE the other person was correct. Its all a part of learning and evolving; as I learn and evolve, my beliefs often change as a result; that's how things work in the real world. If rather than learning and evolving you depend on a moral base to provide you all the answers, how do you know your moral base is correct?

Jesus had no sin so his morals are perfectly good for us. God is all knowing so he knows what the outcome is for morals and therefore his morals have good outcomes. t then comes down to faith in God to trust him on that, I guess a bit like you say you believe the other person is right so you change your view to theirs except humans are fallible and God is infallible so with God you have a better chance of having the right morals.

The problem with taking your morals from other people is sometimes they can convince you of something that they think is good and it turns out being bad because they either just do not know or they may be biased, influenced by something like money or a good talking saleman or even corrupted to promote a certain moral position for personal gain. This can be seen with the many moral positions such as say pot legalization where there is a campaign with backing from powerful and wealthy people to legalize pot mainly because of the profits.

We constantly hear about how some company, or government is saying something is good for us only to find out it is bad, ie gambling is OK, lifestyle scams make you a better person, dieting (perfect body), violent games don,t cause any problems, sex in movies and on the net is ok because it is artistic expression, wars are justified etc. What measure can you use to determine that what other humans say is really good apart from their opinion or word?

I don’t disagree that many moral issues are supported by all sane people, I just disagree with this idea that all moral issues are determined by a single non-human entity

That's fair enough. Others feel the same but I think it is hard to explain that there are morals that we all agree are objectively good without some lawgiver. Where do they come from, if they are objectively good that everyone intuitively knows they are good then they must have come from somewhere if they didn't come from humans?

I didn’t disagree with anything Sam Harris said. What I disagreed with was trying to twist his words into a claim of support of Objective Morality; the claim that morality is beyond human views.

Actually, I said that Sam Harris talks about proving objective morality through logic and reason that does not involve God. But either way, you cannot include just human views as this would be subjective morality. Sam Harris is saying that there is some sort of natural law out there that we can intuitively know if we reason through situations to find that there are certain moral positions there are best and some that are not so good.

 

[Ken-1122]

Poor example. If Tom Sawyer was a real person and stated that his events really happened, had a number of people around at the time who also said they really happened, then he named places, artifacts and people for that time for which some had never been heard of before from mainstream history but were later found in archeological digs and verified showing that Tom was right and must have been there to know.

Then had other writings from historical figures also mention Tom and Huck, and their story was so significant that it influenced millions and changed the course of history then all this adds credence that the events really happened. None of this happens in the story of Tom and Huck. Besides like I said most scholars agree Jesus was a real figure and claimed to be the son of God and was crucified by Pontius Pilot.

I never refuted Jesus as being a real person, but I doubt scholars agree Jesus was Crucified because there are many Muslim scholars as well and in Islam they are very specific about Jesus being taken by Allah into Heaven when the Jewish leaders began conspiring against him. If there were evidence of him actually being crucified, that would expose Islam as fraud; that would be akin to having proof of Jesus never rising from the dead, which would expose Christianity as fraud.

But my point was not about if he were an actual person or not, but about the claims of him regularly doing things outside the laws of nature. There are many fictional novels and books written today that include actual events, and involve actual people of today; yet they are still books and novels of fiction.

I thought I have already answered this, i.e, If the morals come from God then it will come down to trust in God and his word. If it is something that someone like Sam Harris proposes then he is giving you some reasoned and logical support for why there are objective morals rather than just his opinion. I believe this can be similar to Gods morals in that they lead to better outcomes. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.
Anyone can disagree with an objective set of morals as they may do now if Gods laws were true.

First of all, you need to quit bringing up Sam Harris, because nothing he said had anything to do with Objective Morality, even thought the title on the Video suggested otherwise.

I agree, with God it comes down to having trust in him and his word, but the same applies to me! The difference between you and I is that you have trust in God and his word; I don’t. I have trust in myself and my word; you don’t. Kinda balances out.

Jesus had no sin so his morals are perfectly good for us. God is all knowing so he knows what the outcome is for morals and therefore his morals have good outcomes. t then comes down to faith in God to trust him on that, I guess a bit like you say you believe the other person is right so you change your view to theirs except humans are fallible and God is infallible so with God you have a better chance of having the right morals.

Bro! I have read the Bible, and I will put my morals up against that God’s morals any day!

The problem with taking your morals from other people is sometimes they can convince you of something that they think is good and it turns out being bad because they either just do not know or they may be biased, influenced by something like money or a good talking saleman or even corrupted to promote a certain moral position for personal gain. This can be seen with the many moral positions such as say pot legalization where there is a campaign with backing from powerful and wealthy people to legalize pot mainly because of the profits.

We constantly hear about how some company, or government is saying something is good for us only to find out it is bad, ie gambling is OK, lifestyle scams make you a better person, dieting (perfect body), violent games don,t cause any problems, sex in movies and on the net is ok because it is artistic expression, wars are justified etc.

The problem with taking your morals from the God of the bible is that even when he is proven wrong, his fan club will insist that he is right!

What measure can you use to determine that what other humans say is really good apart from their opinion or word?

My ability to know the difference between right and wrong. (I thought I answered that already)

That's fair enough. Others feel the same but I think it is hard to explain that there are morals that we all agree are objectively good without some lawgiver. Where do they come from, if they are objectively good that everyone intuitively knows they are good then they must have come from somewhere if they didn't come from humans?

No; there are some issues where everybody will subjectively agree on. No law giver needed.

Actually, I said that Sam Harris talks about proving objective morality through logic and reason that does not involve God. But either way, you cannot include just human views as this would be subjective morality. Sam Harris is saying that there is some sort of natural law out there that we can intuitively know if we reason through situations to find that there are certain moral positions there are best and some that are not so good.

Sam Harris makes the point that there are right and wrong answers when it comes to cultural successes, then he makes the claim that morality is related to that. He makes the point that not all moral principles should be considered equal; he even seems say it would be good if we could all agree on what are good and bad moral principles; but nowhere does he claim that we do. And nowhere does he claim some moral law giver outside of mankind that knows what is best for us.

Again; you need to quit bringing up Sam Harris in this conversation because he is not supporting your arguments of Objective morality.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Scientist don’t even know

Some of them do, though not with certainty and I am not claiming certainty. Most don't want there to be the Christian God even though the evidence points toward Him existing, because they don't want to be held accountable for how they live their life or spend their time.
↑

ken: Christians are some of the richest and most powerful people on Earth. Any scientist who could provide evidence of the Christian God backed up by science would be world famous and would have more money than they would know what to do with. Greed would not allow any scientist to pass up on such fame and fortune

Most devout orthodox Christians ARE NOT rich and powerful. Most of the establishment and upper class in Western nations are made up of secular humanists and liberal unorthodox Christians who don't want the orthodox Christian God to exist because they don't want to be held accountable for how they have lived their lives and spend their time. They want God to be like a kindly Santa Claus or Grandfather that will just wink and laugh at their sins. In addition, many scientists do not want to violate the philosophy of Naturalism which acknowledging God would do. They think that science is not possible if you accept even the possibility of the supernatural.
↑

ken: Really? What scientific theory confirms this?

The two main Creation science theories and theistic evolution theory.
↑

ken: Try telling that to the many Christians who believe in a God that has not been empirically observed, but are skeptical of the Theory of Evolution that has been.

Macroevolution has never been empirically observed.

 

[Ed1wolf]

No, it's not.

Fraid so. It provides a rational basis for the existence of personal beings, ie humans, while atheistic evolution does not.

belk: You have no idea how evolution works do you?

Yes, I do. As populations start to become isolated, different races/subspecies form, and then over time they become a separate species.

belk: Ipsie dixit

Upsie daisy to you too.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I know the definition of morality; and the Christian God is not mentioned in this definition. If you don’t believe me, look it up.

Most dictionary definitions just state what morality is, not how it originated. I am referring to how it originated, it came from the objectively existing moral character of God and is therefore objective not subjective.

ken: Who is this "we" you are referring to? You and your Christian friends? Like I said; based on faith.

No, all of humanity.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Please show me this objectively existing character!

It is part of the being that caused the universe, which is an effect and needs a cause, to come into existence.

 

[Ed1wolf]

God does not follow morality because He does not die. That is why so many people have trouble reconciling His ways and directives - because we die, and what we perceive to be good and necessary for our fleeting lives may actually be tragic if we had the hyperopia of entities that did not die.
Only mortals follow morality, or rather should follow morality, because morality is a system meant for optimal survival for entities that die.

What if survival is NOT good and necessary and the most important thing? How do you know that it is? Joseph Stalin thought that his survival was the most important thing so he killed millions.

yi: Morality depends on individuals, not the entirety of the race. What I think is necessary to stay alive may not be what you need.

So you are saying that for you it would not be needed to kill 15 people and eat them but for Jeffrey Dahmer it was what he needed to stay alive?

yi: There is no archon, angel, principality, power or god that follows morality. Indeed, morality is degenerate to entities that do not die. Humans cannot perceive how their seemingly minute activity has incredible consequences 40,000 years down the line - because we have no perception of life beyond a millennium.

The true Creator God follows His morality perfectly and we are judged by that same morality as creations of His in His image whom He loves and wants to live forever with.

 

[Ken-1122]

Some of them do, though not with certainty and I am not claiming certainty. Most don't want there to be the Christian God even though the evidence points toward Him existing, because they don't want to be held accountable for how they live their life or spend their time.

↑
One of the problems I do have with the “conspiracy theories” such as the one you are claiming; is there are too many people involved, and in order to pull it off, those involved would have to be too perfect.

If we assume scientific evidence points to your God as the creator of the big bang, and this evidence is so apparent that even a non expert such as yourself can plainly see (as you claim) That would mean the thousands of Biologists, Paleontologists, and various other scientists WORLD WIDE, who swear up and down about this theory, and who knows a heck of a lot more on this subject than you and I combined would have to conspire to deceive the public on an issue they know is not true.

They would have to turn down fame, and fortune in order to keep this deception going. And for what? The greater good? To refute God? So Darwin doesn’t look bad?

I don’t think mankind is perfect enough to keep such a secret hidden for all of these years without not one person slipping up and taking the fame and fortune. I believe people are too greedy, too selfish, too fame driven to sit on top of such a story for such a long time; especially with so many people involved.

Such a conspiracy doesn’t sound realistic to me.
↑

Most devout orthodox Christians ARE NOT rich and powerful. Most of the establishment and upper class in Western nations are made up of secular humanists and liberal unorthodox Christians who don't want the orthodox Christian God to exist because they don't want to be held accountable for how they have lived their lives and spend their time. They want God to be like a kindly Santa Claus or Grandfather that will just wink and laugh at their sins. In addition, many scientists do not want to violate the philosophy of Naturalism which acknowledging God would do. They think that science is not possible if you accept even the possibility of the supernatural.

By definition; if what we call a "supernatural" event took place, it would no longer be considered supernatural; but natural.

The two main Creation science theories and theistic evolution theory.

↑
Have any of these “creation science theories” gotten published for “peer review”? If so, how did this turn out for them? Let me guess…. more conspiracy theories.

Macroevolution has never been empirically observed.

Many who don’t believe in evolution don’t distinguish between macro and micro evolution; yet they still believe in your God.

 

[Ken-1122]

Most dictionary definitions just state what morality is, not how it originated. I am referring to how it originated, it came from the objectively existing moral character of God and is therefore objective not subjective.

Do you have anything other than your word to back up your claim? Because your word isn't good enough.

No, all of humanity.

Only a small percentage of humanity consists of Christians. So your claim that all of humanity confirms the existence of the Christian God is false