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

[Ken-1122]

The Ten Commandments, "You shall not bear false witness." Just before Christ was arrested he told his disciples to buy a sword. This was for self defense in case the Romans tried to arrest them and execute them. It was only His time to be arrested and executed, it was not their time yet. They needed to remain alive to initiate the beginning of His Church.

Armed disciples stood a fighting chance against the Romans, a home owner would not stand a fighting chance against the Gestapo. Fighting the Gestapo would only result in the murder of the homeowner and the jews hiding in the home.

 

[Ken-1122]

He didn't create us with a natural desire to reject Him. We freely chose to reject Him.

Born in sin and shaped in iniquity equals born with a natural desire to reject his word.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Logic can be subjective; logic to one person is often illogical to another. But whatever the case, when they make that leap they are not acting on science.

Uhh no logic is not subjective, someone can disagree on the premises and therefore come to a different conclusion, but no, logic is objective. You do know that without logic science is impossible don't you?

 

[Ken-1122]

Uhh no logic is not subjective, someone can disagree on the premises and therefore come to a different conclusion, but no, logic is objective. You do know that without logic science is impossible don't you?

What makes logic objective?

 

[Rivga]

Uhh no logic is not subjective, someone can disagree on the premises and therefore come to a different conclusion, but no, logic is objective. You do know that without logic science is impossible don't you?

Logic defined as "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity" is not subjective, the very point of logic as a formal tool is the fact it is not subjective.

But there are a few problems with logic the biggest being Definitions - I have seen debates that spend the entire time arguing over the definitions of a thing. If two people start a logical line of enquiry but have a slightly different definition of the focus of the logical enquiry - they are likely to come to different conclusions.
It does not help that words often have 2 or more meanings in the most languages - Faith being one that has 2 clear meanings.
1. Faith - based on evidence and observations
2. Faith - (blind) based on no evidence
"It is reasonable to have faith (definition 1) that the sun wise raise tomorrow, therefore it is reasonable to have faith (definition 2) that God exists."

The second biggest issue is that a lot of people are really bad at using it, and don't know the rules and fallacies that exist in logic.

 

[Ed1wolf]

D
Ed1wolf said: ↑
Darwin, Huxley, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Christopher Hitchens, Carl Sagan, and many more less famous atheists.

strat: Do you have direct quotes of these people stating that?

Read any of their books especially where they criticize the need for God. Darwin stated that his theory is purely materialistic. No need for God. In the case of Dawkins watch any of his debates with Christian scientists.

 

[Rivga]

Read any of their books especially where they criticize the need for God. Darwin stated that his theory is purely materialistic. No need for God. In the case of Dawkins watch any of his debates with Christian scientists.

Stating that there is no need for God is not the same as saying God does not exists as a fact.

Theists claim that only a God could have produced all of these species, "it takes a more complex thing to make complex things."
Evolution by Natural Selection is a mechanism that disproves the above statement, it is a system that allows simple life to become complex life without the need for any interference by a complex thing (entity/machine/etc).

That statement that Dawkins, Darwin and all scientist make is that Evolution by Natural Selection means that God is not necessary. This is not the same as stating God does not exist, and science does not need to disprove God it is not its job, it has no burden of proof.

The issue is once you take away the "God is necessary" position there is little else to hang you hat on regarding the God hypothesis. Additionally we have found 1 system where simple things can become complicated without the need of a complicated thing, how many more exist in the universe.

Note: Not sure Darwin himself would have stated this largely due to the respect he had for his Wife, who was a devote Catholic. Darwin simply stated the facts as he found them, and wrote about what he had done in the way of proving his Hypothesis (it became a theory later).
Darwin after having his idea sat on it for an age and tried disproving it and developing it, his book has sections in it stating methods in which his hypothesis would be proven wrong, on order that other scientists could continuing his work.
He was largely disinterested in the debate the church was having over his work and seen the whole thing as a distraction, although I always feel from reading his own words that he know his father would have been proud of him furthering the sceptics position. His father being a sceptic before Darwin was even born.

 

[dmmesdale]

Stating that there is no need for God is not the same as saying God does not exists as a fact.

Right opinions do not falsify God. At least not scientifically. Nor do atheistic stipulations in science applications. Demarcating God as unscientific and then refusing to consider is not the same as falsifying God which is science method. That being if there are two possibles for given phenomena (origin of life here, for example) and the one is demarcated then it is not really falsified. Scientifically false does not equate to objectively true.

Honor (not love and not even like) your mother and father does not mean much if written by a bunch of ancient men but if by the finger of God then it takes on a whole new meaning. An objective command which transcends cultures and time. Applies to all persons everywhere.

 

[Rivga]

Right opinions do not falsify God.

Whilst it does not falsify God, it does present theists with a huge issue. It completely destroys the "God is necessary" argument and that in turn was once the strongest position that Theists had.

As stated before it is not sciences objective to destroy God, it has just happened that way. Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Sciences looks at the world around us, observes comes up with hypothesis of what is happening and then tests (and tests and tests and re-tests) those hypothesis.

It just so happens that most of scientific advancements are not compatible with the holy books, or popular interpretations of the books.

I don't have faith in Scientists or science itself - I trust the scientific method, itself completely untrusting of scientists and humans.

For instance if someone publishes some findings from an experiment, if it is deemed worthy enough someone else goes off to repeat the experiments to confirm that the first results are repeated. Even a great world renowned scientist like Dawkins will have his findings and tests double checked by someone, and probably if important enough check multiple times.

With new medication to remove human influencing the results, even by accident, they test drugs on people with a placebo, but not even the person conducting the tests is aware of which drug is the placebo, it is a locked away to be discovered after all test results are in.

Peer review is not just reading someone else's findings and saying "All common sense here, lets sign off Bobs work"

As science advances more and more fail safes are put into the system(s) ensure that what they are concluding is solid.

 

[dmmesdale]

Whilst it does not falsify God,

Neither does wishful thinking.

 

[Strathos]

Read any of their books especially where they criticize the need for God. Darwin stated that his theory is purely materialistic. No need for God. In the case of Dawkins watch any of his debates with Christian scientists.

I recall him saying that he is an agnostic atheist - that is, he cannot prove that there is no God but he doesn't believe there is.

 

[Strathos]

Demarcating God as unscientific and then refusing to consider is not the same as falsifying God which is science method.

The Bible itself says that God is unscientific. Matthew 4:7.

Testing things is the requirement for scientific investigation. But God should not be tested. This is why God is not subject to science. That's why I subscribe to the idea of non-overlapping magisteria.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, they can think they have an objective moral standard, but only Christians and people that try to live according to the Christian God's moral standards actually have an objective moral standard.

ken: Actually Christians and people that try to live according to the Christian God’s moral standards only think they have an objective moral standard as well! But they are actually only living according to the Christian God’s subjective moral standard.

No, it can be demonstrated using logic that only Christian morality is objective, because it is based on God's objectively existing moral character.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
And also Evolution ends as I stated earlier. So to go back to my main point death and suffering are a natural part of evolution and without them Evolution cannot occur. So why are you against them?

ken: You provided an impossible unrealistic scenario that could stop Evolution; you didn’t show evolution depends on death or pain. You could have just as easily claimed evolution depends on happiness and life because without new life being born, evolution stops as well! Your argument fails.

Yes, I did prove that evolution depends on death and pain. And yes evolution does depend on new life being born too. It does not depend on happiness, because most living things dont experience happiness, only humans do. So evolution can continue without happiness, it obviously doesn't depend on happiness.

 

[Rivga]

The Bible itself says that God is unscientific. Matthew 4:7.

Testing things is the requirement for scientific investigation. But God should not be tested. This is why God is not subject to science.

If you wanted to convince people of something superstitious over the long term what would you state about "Scientific proof" - not just religion but psychic Phenomena. If you knew that it would not stand up to science or logic what would you state.

1) It is beyond science
2) Science has not caught up, yet
3) All scientist are liars

I mean (2) & (3) works for a while but not forever, but (1) that is the golden ticket. "Of course you cannot proof X it is beyond science" and "it is true IF you believe".


So if someone states that they can preform so Psychic phenomena and he has a following of people, but states that it is beyond science and therefore cannot be tested (not only that but should not be tested). Should you accept this?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
As far as Hitler you obviously did not read my earlier posts where I proved that Hitler hated Christianity in private. He claimed to not hate it in his propaganda like Mein Kampf. But even as a child, his best friend said that he quit going to mass against his mothers wishes. He also said as an adult that "I myself am a heathen to the core." Hitler also said the "heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity."

ken: So you take the word of someone claiming to be Hitlers confidant over what Hitler actually said in his books, his speeches, and what he did in public? Wow! Talking about grasping at straws.

Huh? I just provided a direct quote of Hitler in the statement above. He said he "was a heathen to the core." And a childhood friend is a good source. I bet if I talked to your childhood friends I could find out a lot about you and your personality. But I can provide direct quotes from his speeches too where he shows evidence of not being a Christian. Though he did not criticize Christianity directly too often in public, if he had he never would have been elected in a nation that considered itself a Christian nation, how stupid do you think he was? In April 1942 he compared Christianity unfavorably with Islam and Japanese religion and said that the religion of the Japanese protected them from the "poison of Christianity." This is a quote from Hitler himself and there are many, many more.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Actually you are correct, they believed that natures laws (their morality esp. Hitler's) were objective and one of the most important was that only the strong should survive. What I meant was even though they believed that their morality was objective and backed by science, it was in fact subjective, because they subjectively chose their own race to be the superior race favored by nature and their god, but there was no objectively rational reason to choose their own race as the one nature favored.

ken: That’s what YOU say; but according to them there was an objectively rational reason to choose the Aryan race as superior to all others; they even had faulty science to confirm their beliefs. The point is, they believed morality was objective, and backed up by science.

Nevertheless they can objectively be proven to be wrong using the objective laws of logic.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Not according to the Christian God, the Christian God teaches that all humans are created in His image and all are equally loved even His enemies.

ken: It all depends on where you look; remember God considered the Jews his chosen people, and there were instances when their enemies (Midianites, Amalekites, and others) were not loved but slaughtered

The jews were chosen not because they were superior to any other people though once they were chosen their behavior began to improve and many became believers and started living morally superior lives. But the other tribes were killed/executed for their crimes and sins and rebellion against God.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, it can be demonstrated using logic that only Christian morality is objective, because it is based on God's objectively existing moral character.

If we go by that standard, all morality is objective because it is based on someone’s objectively existing moral character.

Yes, I did prove that evolution depends on death and pain.

You didn’t prove evolution depends on pain

And yes evolution does depend on new life being born too. It does not depend on happiness

It doesn’t depend on pain either

because most living things dont experience happiness, only humans do.

If you are under the impression that only humans experience happiness, get yourself a puppy; he will prove you wrong everyday .

So evolution can continue without happiness, it obviously doesn't depend on happiness.

Evolution doesn’t depend on pain either

 

[Ken-1122]

opps!

 

[Ken-1122]

Huh? I just provided a direct quote of Hitler in the statement above. He said he "was a heathen to the core."

How do you know that was a direct quote from Hitler? Did you get it from a book with his signature on it? Or did you get it from some guy who claimed to know Hitler. (2nd hand information)If the latter, how do you know he was telling the truth?

And a childhood friend is a good source.

How do you know it was a childhood friend? People do lie ya know!

I bet if I talked to your childhood friends I could find out a lot about you and your personality.

And I bet if I became world famous, there would be a lot of liars claiming to be my childhood friends who never knew me, but with false information about me for anyone gullible enough to listen.

But I can provide direct quotes from his speeches too where he shows evidence of not being a Christian.

No doubt that genocide thing he was known for wasn’t exactly being a good christian; but I’m talking about what he believed.

Nevertheless they can objectively be proven to be wrong using the objective laws of logic.

Using objective laws of logic? Okay! Let’s see you prove them wrong using objective laws of logic.

The jews were chosen not because they were superior to any other people though once they were chosen their behavior began to improve and many became believers and started living morally superior lives. But the other tribes were killed/executed for their crimes and sins and rebellion against God.

Okay; so everyone is equal, but God just chooses to treat some better than the others huh? That’s your interpretation, some might interpret such treatment as an indication that God loves them more.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Lets put aside that evolution by natural selection has met its burden of proof, to the highest levels in science - this essentially means that it is not really in doubt by anyone who is considered a credible expert, despite the large amount of funding pumped into proving it wrong it simply strengthens it.

There are credible experts on both sides, though creation is the minority position, but there are many theories in the history of science where years later the minority position was proven to be correct. A lot more money has been pumped into trying to prove macroevolution, and they still have a long way to go.

riv: Do you believe that a wolf is the common ancestor to all dogs?

Not the modern wolf but some type of ancient canine.

riv: So you believe that lions and tigers come from a common ancestor?

Yes, some type of early feline.

riv: Given the above could this creature be linked to the below:
View attachment 228518

You will have to provide better photos than that. Establishing relationships between organisms is complex. Skeletons of two totally unrelated organisms can be very similar. For example, the swordfish and the sail fish look VERY similar morphologically but are totally unrelated.

 

[Rivga]

There are credible experts on both sides, though creation is the minority position, but there are many theories in the history of science where years later the minority position was proven to be correct. A lot more money has been pumped into trying to prove macroevolution, and they still have a long way to go.


Not the modern wolf but some type of ancient canine.


Yes, some type of early feline.


You will have to provide better photos than that. Establishing relationships between organisms is complex. Skeletons of two totally unrelated organisms can be very similar. For example, the swordfish and the sail fish look VERY similar morphologically but are totally unrelated.

Lions and Tigers are a different species (in a lot of definitions of species) - the results of interbreeding lead to a dead end.

I am not asking if you can categorically establish a link to the two creatures, that would be completely unfair of me to ask that of you. I am asking in the realms of your understanding of evolution are you able to get from one creature to the next. Given the fact that all dogs come from an ancient canine - and not we have a Pug who is related to a St Bernard, we know this for a fact because we did that.

Instead of going through a long chain, I'll skip straight to the real question: Which step in this picture do you think could not have happened.

Do you have an issue with any of these steps?
1) Mesonychid to Ambulocetus
2) Ambulocetus to Rodhocetus
3) Rodhocetus to Killer whale

By issue I mean do you believe that one is just not possible.

Given that we know the Dog evolution this happened as a matter of fact and this happened in a very very short amount of time 70k years.