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

[Strathos]

What behaviors by the Nazis and the Japanese were not evil?

Well, Hitler took good care of his dog, I hear...

 

[Ken-1122]

What behaviors by the Nazis and the Japanese were not evil? Yes, there is always some evil going on the earth. What are the many evil acts committed by the US during WWII?

My point is; we didn't fight them because they were evil, we fought them because they wanted to take over our country and we weren’t going to just let that happen.

So if you locked your wife in the basement and fed
So if you locked your wife in the basement and fed her dog food and raped her every night, you think she would still think you loved her?

Just because you love someone doesn't mean your actions towards that person will convince them that you love them. Again; loving someone does not mean you will treat them fairly

Yes, it does, read Jeremiah 22:13 among others.

Jeremiah 22:13 is not about owning another person (slavery) its about not paying someone who did work for you. Again; the bible doesn’t say slavery is wrong either

I didn't say that all Americans have always followed our ideals, but they are Christian principles and we have been striving to follow them ever since.

Those principles have been around long before Christianity. By definition they cannot be Christian principles. Just because people who just so happen to be Christian adhere to certain principles doesn’t make them Christian principles

No, the church leadership at the time had started placing the teachings of Aristotle above the Bible, Aristotle taught that the earth is the center of the universe, the Bible does not teach this.

Aristotle didn’t excommunicate Galileo, those of the Church did. It doesn’t matter what the Bible teaches, when powerful people representing Christianity begin sticking their noses in science, science suffered. Today that doesn’t happen; and we are better off because of it.

" And no we are not better off, leaving God out of science because without Him we dont have a rational basis for science as I demonstrated earlier in this thread.

You need to speak for yourself on that one. You may not have a rational basis for science without God, but we do.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Evolution is much more theoretical because it cannot be empirically observed in real time.

ken: Actually much of evolution can be observed in real time, especially with germs, bacteria, and insects.

Ok please provide an empirically observed example of bacteria evolving into a multicellular organism.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
And the BB theory can be falsified such as if it is discovered that space and time existed before the BB, that would disprove it as being the beginning of everything.

ken: The Big Bang was never seen as the beginning of everything; the Singularity was before the Big Bang.

Yes it is, I provided an article from Natural History Magazine earlier stating that the majority of cosmologists believe that it was the beginning of everything. The singularity is just the point at which the big bang occurred.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
And would show that the universe may be eternal.

ken: No; it just shows there was something before the Big Bang

Not if it was shown that the universe did not have an end in a heat death.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
But the theory of evolution can not be falsified making it unscientific.

ken: What do you mean by that? Can the theory of Gravity be falsified?

The theory about what gravity IS can be, but not the law of gravity because it is a scientific fact and has been observed empirically in action over and over.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Umm I am referring to most people living today. Carlin was a comedian from the 60's thru 80's. Very few people under age 40 knows who he is. I guarantee many more college educated people under 40 have heard of Dawkins especially people with science degrees. I have a hunch you must be over 40.

ken: I just used Carlin as an example; there are countless celebrities who are Atheist who are far more known than this Dawkins guy, a simple google search proves my point.

Name one.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I never said that. But Dawkins and many other atheists have said that.

ken: Oh so because he says it, that makes it so?

I have debated with many that agree with him. And he has many fans and followers. But I am not saying that someone cannot believe in both God and evolution.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
But scientifically and philosophically they cannot be used interchangeably, they are two very different things, in fact they are polar opposites. Nothing is nothing, space is something. Nothing is not something.

ken: So what ingredients are necessary in order for there to be “space”?

An intelligent creator and a big bang.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Please provide a citation that Dawkins has said this or retract.

Why There Almost Certainly Is No God | HuffPost

 

[Ken-1122]

Ok please provide an empirically observed example of bacteria evolving into a multicellular organism.

Ever wonder why the flu vaccine is different every year? Because the germs evolve. If it weren’t for evolution the same flu vaccine would work year after year.
Any farmer will tell you how eventually insecticide will become useless in the battle of pests. This is because the pests evolve in a way rendering the pesticide useless so another type has to be used.
Below are more examples a simple google search will bring up.
https://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

Yes it is, I provided an article from Natural History Magazine earlier stating that the majority of cosmologists believe that it was the beginning of everything. The singularity is just the point at which the big bang occurred.

Is there anything published for scrutiny via the peer review process about this? Is this established scientific theory? I think not. There are probably cosmologists who believe in God also; but this isn’t part of scientific research. Individual cosmologists believing this or that does’t mean it is accepted scientific theory.

The theory about what gravity IS can be, but not the law of gravity because it is a scientific fact and has been observed empirically in action over and over.

There is no scientific theory of what gravity IS, gravity is a scientific theory, and both gravity and evolution can be falsified. If (for example) there were fossils found in places inconsistent with evolutionary predictions; this would prove the theory false. But this hasn’t been found so the theory has not been proven false, even though it is falsifiable.

Name one.

Bill Gates, Morgan Freeman, Kathy Griffin.

I have debated with many that agree with him. And he has many fans and followers. But I am not saying that someone cannot believe in both God and evolution.

So what are you saying?

An intelligent creator and a big bang.

And how does this creator and big bang create space?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Why There Almost Certainly Is No God | HuffPost

You quoted Ken in your post #1328 as saying

to believe in Evolution does not mean you can’t believe in God.

To which you responded:

I never said that. But Dawkins and many other atheists have said that.

This means to me that you think that Dawkins said that evolution means that you cannot believe in God.

Your citation does not say that.

Wanna try again?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
While we cant achieve it, we are designed to recognize moral perfection. That is why we are always striving for a better world.

ken: If perfection were objective, and we were designed to recognize this objective perfection, we would agree on perfection when we see it. This isn't the case thus your argument fails

Actually we do generally agree what would make the world a better place. And we do all recognize perfection in God, but we dont want to so we repress it and try to rationalize it away. We fear perfection because we know that we would be destroyed by it because of the many serious flaws we have.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Only made up fictional value. But God has created real objective value of certain things such as human beings.
ken: There is no such thing as fictional value; it either has value or it doesnt. Again; your argument fails.

Yes, there is fictional value. Addicted drug users believe that their drugs have real value and will do anything to get more drugs when they run out but many people find out over time that drugs eventually destroy their lives and they learn that actually they have no value.

 

[Ken-1122]

Actually we do generally agree what would make the world a better place.

The details of what will make this world a better place has never been agreed upon,

And we do all recognize perfection in God,

No; many see God as far from perfect

Yes, there is fictional value. Addicted drug users believe that their drugs have real value and will do anything to get more drugs when they run out but many people find out over time that drugs eventually destroy their lives and they learn that actually they have no value.

Just because something will eventually lead to destruction, doesn’t mean it has no immediate value to someone right now. To the drug addict, his drug of choice has immediate value right now even though it will eventually lead to his demise.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I take a value created/by real humans (and especially by me) over a value allgedely "made up" by a God whose existence hasn´t even been established, any day.

Humans cant create objective value for other humans. I have provided strong evidence for the Christian God earlier in this thread.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Actually we do generally agree what would make the world a better place.

ken: The details of what will make this world a better place has never been agreed upon,

Not the exact details, but the general ideas have been, most people want less murder, less theft, less hate, more freedom, and more love among other things.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
And we do all recognize perfection in God,

ken: No; many see God as far from perfect

No, they are repressing the truth that deep down they know is true. Because they dont want such a God to exist. Our sinful nature causes us to be repulsed at a perfect God.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, there is fictional value. Addicted drug users believe that their drugs have real value and will do anything to get more drugs when they run out but many people find out over time that drugs eventually destroy their lives and they learn that actually they have no value.

ken: Just because something will eventually lead to destruction, doesn’t mean it has no immediate value to someone right now. To the drug addict, his drug of choice has immediate value right now even though it will eventually lead to his demise.

Even when he thinks it is immediately helping him it is actually destroying his brain cells and etc. True objective value is permanent. Subjective value may exist temporarily but ultimately it is fictional.

 

[quatona]

Humans cant create objective value for other humans.

This doesn´t address my post.

I have provided strong evidence for the Christian God earlier in this thread.

No, you haven´t.

 

[Ken-1122]

Not the exact details, but the general ideas have been, most people want less murder, less theft, less hate, more freedom, and more love among other things.

Obviously people want good, they just can’t agree on what is good vs what is bad.

No, they are repressing the truth that deep down they know is true. Because they dont want such a God to exist. Our sinful nature causes us to be repulsed at a perfect God.

When you look at the actions of God, (like his treatment of Job, Adam and Eve, and many others) it’s obviously God is far from perfect.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

No, you haven´t.

He never has...

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Most people want to live according to what is real/objective, so if they learn or are taught that something that they are living by is made up/subjective, they generally reject it. That is why subjective morality is a slippery slope toward moral anarchy.

ken: No; people want to live their lives according to what is right. Whether it is subjective or objective doesn’t even come into the picture. The only time the objective/subjective issue is discussed is on discussion boards like this one where some people try to insert morals of a higher authority into the conversation and call it objective. In the real world, nobody decides if “x” is objectively wrong or subjectively wrong before deciding whether they should do it or not.

Yes, most people want to live their lives according to what is right, but not just what some people think is right, what is REALLY right (at least what they think is really right). They want to live according to what is right for all people, ie objectively right. While most people dont think in the philosophical terms of objective and subjective, they do think in terms of what is real and what is not, and that is the same thing.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, read Deuteronomy 21:10-14. The man is not allowed to have sex with a captive woman until after a month test of compatibility, then if they are not compatible she is freed. No rape there.

ken: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 gives evil men permission to kidnap women, take them to his house, but instructs the kidnapper to wait a full month before raping her. If he decides he doesn’t want her anymore, he can get rid of her, but if he still wants her, he can force her to be his wife.
This is rape, this is evil, and this is wrong! Only a monster would call this good.

No, these were POWs in a legitimate war against an evil nation. But even so, nowhere does the passage say that they were raped. She can demonstrate to him by her own free will during this month long period that she is not compatible with him and be set free.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes, most people want to live their lives according to what is right, but not just what some people think is right, what is REALLY right (at least what they think is really right). They want to live according to what is right for all people, ie objectively right. While most people dont think in the philosophical terms of objective and subjective, they do think in terms of what is real and what is not, and that is the same thing.

People do want to live according to what is objectively right, problem is; nobody can agree on what is objectively right. The reason nobody agrees is because there is no such a things as objective right or wrong, it is all subjective. Nobody wants to admit or even believe it is all subjective, but the fact that nobody can prove an act is objectively right or wrong is an indication that morality is not subjective.

No, these were POWs in a legitimate war against an evil nation. But even so, nowhere does the passage say that they were raped. She can demonstrate to him by her own free will during this month long period that she is not compatible with him and be set free.

Nowhere does it say she is free to leave even if he wants her to stay. If he wants, he can force her to live with him, he can force her to marry him, and he can force her to have sex with him. This is RAPE!!! This is one of the reasons I got away from that religion; because I decided doing what’s right is more important than defending the home team.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I just proved it! The term "ordinances" means laws and the Hebrew translated "Heaven and earth" means Universe.
ken: Okay; on post #1271 you said God had to make the Universe hostile to human life in order for it to be a natural law Universe that could support human life. The problem is, this (as you call it) Natural law Universe does not support human life. So let me ask you again; if God intended us to colonize other planets, (which is what you are claiming) why did he make the Universe a natural law Universe that is hostile to human life

Obviously the universe DOES support human life, we exist dont we? I didn't say He necessarily wanted us to colonize other planets, I only said that that may be necessary if we had never discovered birth control. But as I already explained, He gave us intelligent minds to overcome obstacles and the apparent difficulties to colonize other planets would cause our minds to be challenged to overcome them.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, it is by implication.

ken: Does the bible also imply they eventually would have left the Garden had they never sinned?

Yes, so they could study all the animals that they had named and classified.

 

[Ken-1122]

Obviously the universe DOES support human life, we exist dont we?

Only within the atmosphere of Earth. Outside of that the Universe does not support human life

I didn't say He necessarily wanted us to colonize other planets, I only said that that may be necessary if we had never discovered birth control. But as I already explained, He gave us intelligent minds to overcome obstacles and the apparent difficulties to colonize other planets would cause our minds to be challenged to overcome them.

Okay; so they weren't "awake" enough to notice they had no clothes on, but they were supposed to some how become so insightful as to learn to colonize other planets? Sorry, but that doesn't make sense.

Yes, so they could study all the animals that they had named and classified.

Which scriptures say that?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
As I said, helping fight evil is just as good as fighting it directly.

ken: No it was not. It wasn’t till the US entered the war sending troops to fight right along with the British (along with sending them weapons) did they start to win. When Britain was fighting alone, they were losing; proving sending troops along with weapons was far more effective than just sending weapons.

It was better than doing nothing. If someone was raping your wife and I gave you a gun to either threaten the rapist or kill him. Wouldn't that be better than if I just stood there and did nothing?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Besides the teaching that all humans are created in the image of God and therefore should be treated as His representative by treating them with freedom and respect. There is also the teaching of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

ken: When the Christians were taking black people from Africa to be used as slaves, they weren’t teaching that. Again; which scripture says all humans are deserving of freedom and respect?

I never said that Christians have always lived up to Christ's moral teachings, at least they have that objective moral goal to strive for unlike atheists who have no objective moral goals to strive for. And striving for those goals have produced great good for blacks. The end of slavery and civil rights equal to whites. I already told you what scriptures teach that. Besides the fact that since all humans are created in the image of the King and Creator of the universe by definition makes them deserving of freedom and respect, there is also the Golden rules as I stated above and that we are even commanded to love our enemies. So we are commanded to even treat our enemies as deserving freedom and respect.

 

[Ken-1122]

It was better than doing nothing. If someone was raping your wife and I gave you a gun to either threaten the rapist or kill him. Wouldn't that be better than if I just stood there and did nothing?

Oh so you are changing it now. Before you said helping by supplying was equal to fighting directly. Now after being proven wrong, you are changing it to "helping is better than nothing at all."

I never said that Christians have always lived up to Christ's moral teachings, at least they have that objective moral goal to strive for unlike atheists who have no objective moral goals to strive for.

So what's your point? Yeah Christians have a book that they constantly ignore because it tells them to do good when they choose to do wrong. Atheists have no such book thus nothing to ignore. At the end of the day, your behavior is no better than mine.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Not if they can be proven wrong, and they have been. Nowhere in the bible does it teach the ends justifies the means.

ken: They were never proven wrong to their satisfaction. And slavery was never about the ends justifies the means.

Some people did change their minds over time but no not the majority, but most of their 21st century descendants now know it is wrong. You were the one that said that some believed that blacks should be enslaved in order to save them for heaven. The ones that believed that were trying to justify the means by the ends.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Actually it is listed in the Federal Code of Laws (look it up), but it is definitely the philosophical foundation of our laws and provides the origin of our rights. Without it, the Bill of Rights in the Constitution have no justification.

ken: Just because it’s listed in the Federal Code of Laws doesn’t mean it is a law! The Declaration of Independence was a declaration to a King in a foreign land; not to the people in the yet to be formed United States!

Yes, but it proves the government believes that it is related to the law, IOW it is the philosophical justification for our laws. It explains where the rights enumerated in the Constitution come from. It was a Declaration to the king of the philosophical basis of our founding.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Read any good history of science, those men and others like them INVENTED modern science in the 16th and 17th centuries. That is when it became a systematic ongoing and self correcting study of nature, IOW MODERN SCIENCE.

ken: Yeah; but when scientific research contradicted religious agenda, (as Galileo found out when he had the audacity to claim the Earth circled the Sun) scientific research was forced to concede, because religious agenda was far more important than the truth in those days. Today with religion on the back burner, the truth is more important than religious agenda; and we are much better off for it.

As I explained earlier the Bible does not teach that the sun circles the earth, that was Aristotelian Roman Catholic cosmology not orthodox Christian cosmology. So far no empirical scientific facts have ever contradicted actual Biblical teaching, just a few scientific THEORIES have.