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

[Strathos]

They teach that God is not necessary because of the fact of evolution.

Spoken like someone who has never set foot inside a public school.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Some of the details have been generally agreed upon, such as dont torture babies, dont murder, dont lie, dont steal, dont abuse your significant other, and etc.

ken: Some things people agree on, some things people don’t. It’s all subjective.

No, almost everyone agrees on the above.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Only after they have consciously rejected Him.

ken: Nobody rejects God, we reject those who claim to speak for God.

Yes, they do reject the Christian God.
Because deep down they know He exists and try to repress that knowledge by trying to find evidence against His existence which causes them to repress and reject that knowledge even more.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, many drugs start destroying your brain immediately so they have no real value as soon as you use them. Also, monopoly money has fictional value. There are many things with fictional value.

ken: If a sick man desires poison that will eventually kill him, that poison still has value to HIM.

Exactly, some people believe fictional value is real.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
He treated them far better than they deserve. They deserved to die the second they sinned, but He let them live many years and have many children and grandchildren.

ken: Job didn’t sin, remember? God just allowed him to be tortured.

Technically being righteous is not the same as being sinless. But you are right that God was not punishing him, He was testing him.

ken: And as far as Adam and Eve, would you kill your children the first time they sinned? Perhaps God should be a little more like you, instead of the monster people claim him to be.

He didn't kill them immediately. But they had to die eventually spiritually and physically due to the universal law of justice. All sinners must die eventually even God cannot stop that except for providing a substitute which is what Jesus is, it is similar to the laws of logic. Even God is bound by some laws like the laws of logic and the law of justice.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Yes, they do reject the Christian God.
Because deep down they know He exists

That assertion is predicated on information only one of us has access to - me. I know my own thoughts. You do not know my thoughts.

Therefor, I am in a position to know, with 100% certainty, that your assertion is false.

And if you are deriving that assertion from the Bible, which I suspect you are (Romans 1), then I am in a position to know that the Bible is false. Or at the very least, your interpretation of it is.

You should consider the implications of things before you say them.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, almost everyone agrees on the above.

Popularity is NOT an indicator of truth.

Yes, they do reject the Christian God.
Because deep down they know He exists and try to repress that knowledge by trying to find evidence against His existence which causes them to repress and reject that knowledge even more.

You do not know what goes on in somebody else's head

Technically being righteous is not the same as being sinless. But you are right that God was not punishing him, He was testing him.

If your God were all knowing, he would not need to test. Perhaps you shouldn’t claim him as Omniscient.

He didn't kill them immediately. But they had to die eventually spiritually and physically due to the universal law of justice. All sinners must die eventually even God cannot stop that except for providing a substitute which is what Jesus is, it is similar to the laws of logic. Even God is bound by some laws like the laws of logic and the law of justice.

If your God is incapable of forgiveness under such conditions, you shouldn’t call him Omni-benevolent.
If your God is not Omniscient, nor is he Omni-benevolent, why call him God?

 

[Ken-1122]

No adaptations can be far more permanent than that and can be passed on to next generations. Check out "Darwin's" Finches. Their beaks enlarged when a drought came and all the evolutionists said evolution had occurred, but then 10 years later their beaks went back to their original size and they all stayed the same species. This is adaptation, not evolution. Adaptation can make significant changes but it has never produced a new organism or genus.

Again; when there is a change in the gene pool, by definition it is evolution. If you disagree; you are wrong because you don’t make up the rules when it comes to deciding when evolution takes place vs when it is simply adaption. The examples I provided, there was a change in the gene pool

Difference Between Adaptation and Evolution | Difference Between | Adaptation vs Evolution

That may be your opinion but as I proved with my article from Natural History magazine, most cosmologists believe that it was the beginning of everything.

Is there an established scientific theory supporting this belief? I ask because I know your reputation of claiming to have provide proof when you have not, when responding to me and other people.

There is already a great deal of evidence and information that can dispel evolution, some of it has even been discovered by evolutionists themselves, but your scenario has not happened. Why do you think that is?

I believe dishonest people who have no problem with lying have convinced you that their lies are the truth.

Yes, he does make money from his talks and books. His claim that evolution has disproven God is widely used by atheists throughout the world to combat theists, so that is why I brought it up.

Why do you assume his words mean anything to me?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, I provided several moral principles that almost all societies agree on.

ken: You mean like stealing, killing and rape? I can provide scenarios where most societies would disagree on the examples you gave.

I am all ears.

ken: And didn’t you try to justify rape in an earlier post?

No, read verse 14, it says do not treat her brutally, that of course includes rape. No rape in that verse.

ken: Besides, popularity is not an indicator of truth

True, but if most humans agree on something it most likely means it is part of their nature. So these morals are part of our human nature.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
And if the Christian God exists and I have shown that He probably does, then objective right does exist.

ken: If morality is objective and the Christian God does exist, the Christian God would be subject to the same objective moral laws as you and I. When it comes to that which is objective, an exception cannot be made for God.

He does live by the morals we do because we are created in His image. We are commanded to live by His objective moral law based on His objective moral character.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, the text says that if he doesn't find any delight in her, he must let her go. All she has to do is make sure he doesn't like her, like burning his food or etc.

ken: Ahh trying to justify rape again huh? And who is going to stop him from beating her for burning his food?

No, it says in verse 14 that he is not to treat her brutally, plainly rape is brutal so that is forbidden. He could be reported by either family members or servants to the elders and they would take him before the judge.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Also, he must treat her well because of Leviticus 19:18.

ken: Who is going to force this rapist to treat her well?

See above about how his family members or servants or some other witnesses would report him to the elders and they would take him to the judge.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
A wife is the closest neighbor you have. In addition, you have to remember in ancient times if a woman did not have a husband it was almost a death sentence. They did not have police forces back then, so if a woman lived alone she practically had no security. So there is a much stronger desire to have a husband in ancient times than today.

ken: Then give her the option to have a husband of her choosing! And shame on you for trying to justify rape again.

Rape is not allowed see verse 14.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
How do you know what is right? You have already admitted that nothing is actually right or wrong.

ken: If that is what you believe, you haven’t been listening to anything I’ve said.

You admitted that morality is subjective which means that it is not real or actually right or wrong it is all just subjective preference based on feelings.

 

[Ken-1122]

True, but if most humans agree on something it most likely means it is part of their nature. So these morals are part of our human nature.

And that nature is in a constant state of change.

I He does live by the morals we do because we are created in His image. We are commanded to live by His objective moral law based on His objective moral character.

Morality is not defined as living according to your Gods moral character.

I No, it says in verse 14 that he is not to treat her brutally, plainly rape is brutal so that is forbidden. He could be reported by either family members or servants to the elders and they would take him before the judge.

In his house, the kidnapper decides what is brutal treatment, or what is rape; and his servants or children are not going to go against him in defense of his victim. The fact that he was allowed and encouraged to kidnap is wrong and how dare you try to defend it. If the Muslims were doing this today I’ll bet you would be the first to point your finger, but because it is done by YOUR team, you look the other way or worse yet; try to defend it. Shame on you!

You admitted that morality is subjective which means that it is not real or actually right or wrong it is all just subjective preference based on feelings.

Are feelings real? If so, then morality based on feelings are just as real.

 

[Strathos]

Morality is not defined as living according to your Gods moral character.

That depends on who's defining it, doesn't it?

 

[Ken-1122]

That depends on who's defining it, doesn't it?

If morality were objective (which is what he is claiming) everybody would define it the same way.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

In his house, the kidnapper decides what is brutal treatment, or what is rape; and his servants or children are not going to go against him in defense of his victim. The fact that he was allowed and encouraged to kidnap is wrong and how dare you try to defend it. If the Muslims were doing this today I’ll bet you would be the first to point your finger, but because it is done by YOUR team, you look the other way or worse yet; try to defend it. Shame on you!

No moral philosophy is perfect, but one thing about secular morality that I know for sure - holding to it has never once required me to become an apologist for slavery, rape, or genocide.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Nevertheless, the earth is part of the universe. If a giant mansion had a tiny amount of mold on a bathroom wall, would you say that that mansion was supporting mold?

ken: A more accurate analogy would be of an entire mansion painted with anti-mold paint, where mold is unable to grow. But a tiny area where the paint chipped, a sliver of mold was able to grow.

Nevertheless, you admitted my point that the universe DOES support human life. But actually the best analogy would be a giant mansion specifically designed to support that tiny bit of mold. This we know is true about the universe by the Anthropic Principle. If the universe was not as huge as it is, then human life would not exist.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
It says that Adam named the animals in Genesis 2:19-20. If he had more time and not rebelled, it is quite reasonable to believe that he and Eve would have gone on to learn more about them.

ken: Again; Genesis 2:19-20 does not say eventually Adam would have left the Garden on his own.

True, but it is a likely event given what we know about human curiousity.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
My point was that in both cases evil is being fought either directly or indirectly.

ken: Yes but only because they were attacking our friends, and they eventually attacked us.

Yes, but in other wars we have fought evil even when they were not attacking our friends, such as the Vietnam war and the Korean war.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Even though Christians sometimes ignore it, some of the greatest goods in history have been accomplished by Christians. As I demonstrated earlier, Christians following the Bible founded modern science, modern hospitals, orphanages, ended slavery in Western societies, founded modern universities, and among other things founding the USA.

ken: No, all of those things were done by Christian Europeans who but their bibles down and went to work. Your problem is whenever a Christian does something good, you claim they were following the bible. When they do something bad, you claim they were not following the bible. The fact is, you don’t know what their motivation was, you are just speculating again.

No, we know from many of their own writings that they were inspired by God and His word to do these things. Look it up, like MLKs "Letter from a Birmingham Jail".

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Also, studies have shown that regular church goers are more law abiding than non churchgoers.

ken: Gallup Pole says 75% of americans identify with Christianity, but only 33% attend church regularly. That means most Christians are not regular church goers.

That is because unfortunately most Christians are not serious about their faith and do not follow its teachings and therefore are likely not actual Christians.

 

[Strathos]

If morality were objective (which is what he is claiming) everybody would define it the same way.

And if it was objectively true that the earth was round, then there would be no flat earthers. Oh, wait...

 

[quatona]

Nevertheless, you admitted my point that the universe DOES support human life.

I guess a better wording would be "it doesn´t prevent human life".

 

[Ken-1122]

Nevertheless, you admitted my point that the universe DOES support human life. But actually the best analogy would be a giant mansion specifically designed to support that tiny bit of mold. This we know is true about the universe by the Anthropic Principle. If the universe was not as huge as it is, then human life would not exist.

Do you know the difference between Earth and the Universe? Planet earth is the only place that supports human life; anything outside of it does not. You were making the claim that they would have left planet Earth and explored the Universe that does NOT support human life. Again; if God intended for Adam and Ever to explore other planets, why didn't he make the rest of the Universe in a way that it would support human life?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Most people believe that love involves certain actions that most people recognize as coming from loving someone, you dont think it does?
ken: No. I don't believe love will cause specific actions for everybody; I believe everybody experiences love differently and they behave according to their personality.

So if Jeffrey Dahmer had said that he killed and ate his victims because he loved them he might have been telling the truth?

 

[Ken-1122]

So if Jeffrey Dahmer had said that he killed and ate his victims because he loved them he might have been telling the truth?

Yes.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I am referring to all that are known.

ken: Known by YOU. I doubt you know of all religions that have been known by mankind

No, I am referring to all religions known by religious scholars.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
If you can provide another religion that does, I am all ears.

ken: Zoroastrianism.

Do you have any evidence that Zoroastrianism actually teaches that all humans are spiritually equal?

ken:As I said before, just because someone behaves morally (or Immorally) doesn’t mean they got it from their religion; there are lots of reasons people behave the way they do.

Of course not in all cases. But generally people live according to their beliefs about reality, and if they sincerely and seriously believe that Christianity is true, they are inspired to obey God's moral teachings and live by them.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
As I explained earlier and you in fact agreed, most people base their lives on what they think is real and if they think that the Christian God is real, then they will generally try live according to His principles.

ken: No; there are a million different things in life people believe as real; some perhaps even contradicting the teachings of their religious beliefs. Obviously they can’t live according to all of them.

Of course, no one can live a perfect Christian life, that is not what I am claiming. See above.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Generally the church guided by the holy spirit gets back to the truth eventually, and that is what has been happening throughout Church history.

ken: No; the Church is often dragged kicking and screaming to the truth when forced by scientific facts.

Give an example of the church being dragged kicking and screaming when forced by scientific facts.

ken: Heck; lots of churches are still in denial over evolution!

That is because there is a great deal of evidence that does not support evolution as I have explained earlier.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
And if you dont have a rational and objective basis for doing science then there is a good chance you will be led astray, look what happened with Piltdown man and there are other cases that have happened since scientists have abandoned that foundation.

ken: There are rational basis for scientific discovery. Perhaps not to YOUR satisfaction, but there is to my satisfaction and the satisfaction of countless others; especially those involved in the study.

Not really, if there is no God then there is no explanation for why there is an objective reality to study and why the universe operates in an orderly and intelligible way, without which science would not be possible.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I said rational basis for science. Just having a feeling or desire does not provide a rational basis or foundation for science. It doesn't explain why there is an objective reality to study or why it behaves in an orderly and intelligible manner.

ken: Says who? YOU? I say having a feeling or desire DOES provide a rational basis for science. If you disagree, prove me wrong.

Says anyone that thinks deeply enough about it. A rational basis for science would explain why there is an objective reality for us to study and why that reality operates in an orderly and intelligible way so we can conduct science. Feelings don't do any of those things.

 

[Ken-1122]

Do you have any evidence that Zoroastrianism actually teaches that all humans are spiritually equal?

Just as you attempted to make an argument that your interpretation of Christianity says to treat all equally, (which I disagree with) such a case can be made for Zoroastrianism as well. But it doesn’t matter what the religion says, what matters is how the followers interpret what the religion says; and Christian people have a long history of treating others unequally.

Of course not in all cases. But generally people live according to their beliefs about reality, and if they sincerely and seriously believe that Christianity is true, they are inspired to obey God's moral teachings and live by them.

In Christianity, the details of God’s moral teachings are not agreed upon because they are subjectively interpreted.

Give an example of the church being dragged kicking and screaming when forced by scientific facts.

The Copernican Theory

That is because there is a great deal of evidence that does not support evolution as I have explained earlier.

The only thing you’ve explained is how you don’t know the difference between adaption and evolution

Not really, if there is no God then there is no explanation for why there is an objective reality to study and why the universe operates in an orderly and intelligible way, without which science would not be possible.

There is no God, and there is an explanation for why there is an objective reality to study. You shouldn't assume your inability to see this applies to everybody else.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Spoken like someone who has never set foot inside a public school.

Since I was referring to European schools, no I have not set foot in them but I know what they teach from my own research and others. As far as me personally, my whole American academic experience from first grade to graduate school was in public schools and they did the same thing only with more subtlety, no school I went to acknowledged God or even the possibility of creation thereby making God irrelevant and we students knew it. And they also taught naturalistic evolution as a fact.

 

[Strathos]

Since I was referring to European schools, no I have not set foot in them but I know what they teach from my own research and others. As far as me personally, my whole American academic experience from first grade to graduate school was in public schools and they did the same thing only with more subtlety, no school I went to acknowledged God or even the possibility of creation thereby making God irrelevant and we students knew it. And they also taught naturalistic evolution as a fact.

Did you expect them to mention God when discussing mathematics, chemistry, geology, nuclear physics, astronomy, economics, etc.? If not, then why would you expect Him to be mentioned when discussing biology?