• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rivga

Active Member
Jan 31, 2018
204
105
47
Lonfon
✟29,166.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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.

There is actually no credible evidence, in a scientific sense, of creation. The creation hypothesis, it is not a scientific theory as it would need to meet a huge burden of proof to be an actual scientific theory.

The Creation hypothesis has not advance at all, the so called creation scientist spend all there time trying to poke holes in evolution. But this shows you that they have actually given up on trying to prove the creation hypothesis.

In science you do not prove your hypothesis by trying to poke holes in the current theory, you take the evidence and prove that your hypothesis best explains the evidence. Even if the prevail and it is found that the current theory of evolution is false - then now what we are left with is several hypothesis and no theory of evolution - they still would not have met the burden of proof to elevate creationism to a scientific theory.

For every 1 creation scientist (and as explained not entirely sure they are scientists) there are 1000s of biologists that are support the current theory of evolution (this includes large amount of Christian, Jewish and Muslim biologists).

Of all the current Scientific theories we have the Theory of evolution by natural selection is either the best (or 2nd) strongest theory. It is the one most tested, supported by numerous fields of science and still advancing.

My Christian biology teacher said it: In the scientific world Evolution is 95% certain, creationism is 0.01% and unknown makes the rest.

You may never learn enough about it to actually come to an informed decision, maybe you are unwilling or you are simply incapable, but lets be clear in scientific circles the theory of evolution is about as close to a fact as it is possible to get in science - given that it is actually impossible to become a fact in the science realm.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Well we have multiple quotes from Hitler, nothing in those quotes supports Pantheist.

Read Mein Kampf, Hitler deifies nature so often that most translators almost always capitalize the word "Nature". He calls Nature and natural selection "the cruel queen of wisdom." He also says Eternal Nature inexorably avenges the infringement of her commands." He believed that nature was eternal, Christians dont believe this. Multiple times Hitler uses the terms creator and Nature interchangeably. Also, both authors of award winning biographies of Hitler, Ian Kershaw and Alan Bullock, believe he was probably a pantheist.

riv: Even before Hitler was the leader of Germany he was subjected to massive amounts of lies and slanders, with Germany being a religious country what better way to slander him. So you must take some of his so called Quotes with a pinch of salt.
- Those made in his book or in the full view of people are much more reliable.

Many of the quotes I have provided have people who admired him so they plainly were not slanders. Also, See above all the evidence in Mein Kampf.

riv: Heathen - we know he did not strictly follow the Catholic churches current view - he believes Christ is a warrior, not some meek peacemaker. So even if this quote is true he could describe himself as a heathen and still not be a Pantheist.

But how about solid evidence.

See above about two award winning authors.

riv: Nazi list of Banned books, no doubting that given the historical documentation that exists:

When Books Burn: Lists of Banned Books, 1933-1939

We should focus on 2 categories here:
1) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk.

and

2) Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism.

Worst Pantheist book ban list EVER!
No. 1 This was done to get the Christian vote. Hitler was not dumb.
No. 2 Referred to primitive Darwinism, pantheistic Darwinism was considered much more advanced by Hitler not primitive. See quotes above.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Ed1wolf said:
abortion was legal in the 1920s in Germany, .

riv: Germany birth until 1926 abortion was illegal in all instances - both Woman and Doctor will go to jail.
In 1926 German courts state if and only if you can give sufficient evidence that the birth posses a serious danger to the mother (read death here) then abortion will be allowed.

Board definition of legal!
Actually I made a slight mistake, it became legal in 1933 when the Nazis came to power and was especially encouraged for non-Aryans.

riv: Compare this to the US - abortion where abortion was illegal and still very common, we have one statistic in the Late 20s 15k women died of abortion per year. That's just those that died.
So the US seems to be in a similar state of liberalism as Germany - probably more so on this front.

Actually that is not true. Research confirms that the actual number of abortion deaths in the twenty-five years prior to 1973 averaged 250 a year, with a high of 388 in 1948. [4]
In I966, before the first state legalized abortion, 120 mothers died from abortion. [5]
Dr. Christopher Tietze, a prominent statistician associated with Planned Parenthood, maintained that these are accurate figures, with a margin of error no greater than 10 percent. [7]
And in the 20's it was probably at most only twice as many as 1948. Yes, at present the US is heading toward the liberalism of Germany but hopefully not toward Nazi Germany.

Ed1wolf said:
Germany was the first western nation with a Gay rights movement that also started in early 20th century

riv: Homosexuality up until late 1960s has always been illegal in German, Berlin was noted for being tolerant during the 1920s. But this is Berlin, and does not translate outside of Berlin (or for that matter to most of Berlin just the more educated areas).
4 Best places to be Homosexual in 1920s Berlin, New York, London and Chicago. Given 2 of those places are in the US - how was German more liberal than the US?

While technically illegal in Germany, the "grandfather" of the gay rights movement, Karl Heinrich Ulrichs had already provided the philosophical and "scientific" foundations for treating it as a psychological condition deserving sympathy rather than a moral weakness in the 1860's. This led to the formation of the Berlin Institute of Sexology in the early 20th century which started the rationalization of the behavior. It was later closed down by Nazis and its record burned primarily due to many of them containing documentation of the homosexual perversions of Nazi leaders. There were many homosexuals in the Nazi party, even while persecuting the general population of homosexuals.

riv: And lets just say the Nazi party was not a fan of the community, so the people that lead the country towards the Nazi path hated homosexuality.
Yes you are right about most of them but see above.

riv: If you are trying to argue that due to a few people having more progressive values then the right-wing nutters reacted and there was a back lash, I can see that.

But I get the feeling your trying to tell us that it was those liberals that turned to the Nazi party. So those guys sitting in a bar in Berlin having a drink with his gay friends then goes off to Vote Hitler and the Nazi party - if that is you view then your credibility is shot.

No, my point is that after Germany abandoned its biblical Christian roots in the early 20th century people "did what was right in their own eyes". IOW they made up their own moralities. The Nazi morality allowed you to murder your enemies including gays and jews and the liberals allowed you to have sex with whomever you wanted and kill unwanted unborn children. Of course the political liberals hated the Nazis and vice versa.

riv: Ed1wolf - every time we look into something you are saying we find a grain of truth followed by a load of utter rubbish. Your letting your world view lead the evidence rather than the evidence lead your world view.

Where? I have provided documentation for almost everything I have posted.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
So why did he create us with a natural desire to reject him, when he could have created us with a natural desire to embrace him?
He didn't. Our ancestors were created with a non-corrupted free will, but they rebelled against God and by doing so corrupted themselves and their desires causing their nature to be corrupted. Then we inherited those sinful desires and it became part of our nature.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
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.
No, the laws of logic are objective. It is not a leap, if it is consistent logical reasoning and it is. A large part of science is logical reasoning and in fact without it science would not exist.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I believe its God who saved the disciples so they could preach the Gospel. The apostles didn't actually carry arms, they had God as their protector.
Nevertheless Jesus told them to buy swords during the time of His arrest, read Luke 22:36-38. It was time for Him to die, but He did not want them to be arrested and die yet. And we know Peter had a sword because he cut the man's ear off. We dont really know if later they stopped carrying arms, though I doubt it. The First Century was a very violent time. But of course, God was their protector irrespective of their possible arms. If God decides it is your time to die, it doesn't matter if you have the most advanced weapon on earth, you are going to die. And if God decides it is not your time to die, but your enemy wants you dead and has a superweapon, you are not going to die. God will protect you no matter what until you have accomplished what He wants you to accomplish. But there is nothing wrong with counting the cost and protecting yourself, using weapons for self defense and defense of your family is not a sin.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Ed1wolf said:
In what way?

ken: His empathy is only for the Aryan race; mine is for all people. His logic and reason is aimed at what is best for the Aryan race, mine is for all people.

But actually he was using subjective reason since his choice of doing what is best for Aryans was based on his sentimental feelings for Aryans, just as yours is based on sentimental feelings for all humans and not based on objective reasoning. Since there is no objective reason for helping the species homo sapiens if there is no God.


Ed1wolf said:
Do you think the USA and Britain did the right thing to fight him and destroy Nazi Germany? If so, why? Doesn't he have a right to live out his conclusions?

ken: Hitler gave himself the right to attack USA, and Britain, and attempting to live out his conclusions, and the USA and Britain gave ourselves the right to defend ourselves by destroying Nazi Germany
So you are saying that Hitler did nothing wrong and the USA did nothing right?


Ed1wolf said:
But I can demonstrate it logically, they cannot.

ken: Actually he pretty much used the same faulty logic you used; the only difference is your moral base is Yahweh, and his moral base was the improvement of mankind. Other than the different moral bases, it appears you both got your information from the same book.

No, there is a big difference. His moral base is his subjective feelings for mankind. Mine is based on the objective standard of God's moral character.


Ed1wolf said:
Ok, then those are just your feelings not based on anything real. Someone should not be condemned just based on subjective feelings.

ken: Legally, people are condemned by breaking the law; not moral issues.

Almost all laws are based on morals.

Ed1wolf said:
No, since I am not an evolutionist I dont believe that it operates on humans or animals at least not in a macroevolutionary way. I do believe it has operated on humans in microevolutionary ways such as height and skin color.

ken: Can you provide a scientist who claims modern man acts according to natural selection?

The most famous is probably E.O. Wilson.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
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.
I didn't say shooting the Gestapo would be the best choice, though if there was only one officer and they had a good getaway plan, it might work. My point was that it was another option instead of lying.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
What makes logic objective?
The laws of logic exist outside the human mind. For example, two dinosaurs could not exist on the exact same spot, at the exact same time, IOW the law of non-contradiction was true 65 mya when no humans existed.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
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.
Hey we agree on something!
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,792
✟233,210.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
He didn't. Our ancestors were created with a non-corrupted free will, but they rebelled against God and by doing so corrupted themselves and their desires causing their nature to be corrupted. Then we inherited those sinful desires and it became part of our nature.
If our ancestors were created with a natural desire to embrace him, they would have embraced him; not rejected him. Also, once they did reject him and sin, why did their children have to inherit this sin? If the parents had a broken arm, the children aren't going to inherit broken arms at birth, they will be born whole! So why weren't the children born whole without sin at birth?

PS
Please excuse my lack and late responses I have been having serious problems accessing this site lately. I will respond as I can whenever the site allows me access.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,792
✟233,210.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No, the laws of logic are objective. It is not a leap, if it is consistent logical reasoning and it is. A large part of science is logical reasoning and in fact without it science would not exist.
Logic is not a law, it is a tool; and the use of this tool is based on what the individual using it believes to be true and fair. This makes it subjective.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,792
✟233,210.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The laws of logic exist outside the human mind. For example, two dinosaurs could not exist on the exact same spot, at the exact same time, IOW the law of non-contradiction was true 65 mya when no humans existed.


If I were looking for the most logical way to get from point A to point B, logic might say a straight line. But if a straight line includes crossing a lake, the logical answer would depend on if I were a good swimmer or not. These extenuating circumstances that must be considered make logic subjective.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,792
✟233,210.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I didn't say shooting the Gestapo would be the best choice, though if there was only one officer and they had a good getaway plan, it might work. My point was that it was another option instead of lying.
true there is always another option; I just think there isn't a better option. This is where we disagree
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,792
✟233,210.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
But actually he was using subjective reason since his choice of doing what is best for Aryans was based on his sentimental feelings for Aryans, just as yours is based on sentimental feelings for all humans and not based on objective reasoning. Since there is no objective reason for helping the species homo sapiens if there is no God.
I agree! They are both subjective reasoning, even though the conclusions are different.

So you are saying that Hitler did nothing wrong and the USA did nothing right?
When I said Hitler gave himself the right to attack, I meant right as in authority.

No, there is a big difference. His moral base is his subjective feelings for mankind. Mine is based on the objective standard of God's moral character.
How do you know your moral base isn’t based on the subjective feelings of God?

Almost all laws are based on morals..
True! And though similar, there is still a difference between morality and the law, and laws are enforced, morality is not.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
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).

No, that is not what theists claim. We claim that somethings require an intelligent being. Such as DNA the blueprint for life is a complex linguistic code that transmits information unrelated to the mode of transmission similar to language. Only intelligent personal beings can create a complex linguistic code.

riv: 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.

I dont disagree with that, but if God is not necessary then that makes God appear to be irrelevant but as the evidence I cited above He plainly IS necessary for the existence of life itself and its blueprint. Statistical studies have shown that the conditions of the earth at the origin of life were incompatible for abiogenesis.

riv: 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.

Actually God as a spiritual being is not complicated, He is just intelligent which is necessary for the creation of life. As I demonstrated above.

riv: 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.
Yes and he criticized the teaching of hell. So while he may not have been a confessed atheist, he was plainly anti the Christian God. But see above why even his theory would not be possible without God.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
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.
That sounds correct, but his theory was plainly practically speaking atheistic.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
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.
Actually the bible is the only sacred book that tells its readers to objectively test before they believe. Read I Thessalonians 5:21. Romans 12:2. Thomas Torrance has pretty much proven that Christianity and especially Reformed Christianity invented modern science.
 
Upvote 0

Strathos

No one important
Dec 11, 2012
12,663
6,532
God's Earth
✟270,796.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
That sounds correct, but his theory was plainly practically speaking atheistic.

Which theory would that be?

Actually the bible is the only sacred book that tells its readers to objectively test before they believe. Read I Thessalonians 5:21. Romans 12:2. Thomas Torrance has pretty much proven that Christianity and especially Reformed Christianity invented modern science.

That doesn't apply to the existence and influence of God, though. For example it's bad practice to do what some atheists have suggested and run scientific studies on the effects of prayer and then conclude that it doesn't work.
 
Upvote 0

dmmesdale

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 6, 2017
755
189
Fargo
✟74,412.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Conservatives
No. 1 This was done to get the Christian vote. Hitler was not dumb.
No. 2 Referred to primitive Darwinism, pantheistic Darwinism was considered much more advanced by Hitler not primitive. See quotes above.
That is mostly myth the Nazi's burned Darwin. There may have been some low-level Nazi somewhere doing some things. The Nazi's as a whole embraced Darwin. Darwin was taught in the universities. They were all Darwinists and they were rationally applying Darwin to their circumstances. They were a highly educated culture and they supported the Nazi's. All one has to do is look at the education credentials of those at Nuremberg trials.
d2ba121d7abf6489481139a08f42b9aa--ernst-haeckel-evolution.jpg
#6 is Negroes. One step above the apes and five steps away from the highest human. That is what they were taught in the universities at the time. Drawing by Darwinist Haeckel.
It can be traced right back to Darwin in Descent. Civilized and savages denoting inequality and categories.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.