• 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 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.


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.


See above about two award winning authors.

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


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.


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.


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.


So you are saying that Hitler did nothing wrong and the USA did nothing right?



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.


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
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
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
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

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.


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.


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
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
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?


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.
#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.