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.
Actually ,Thats a matter of faith and not objectively true..... even if it actually true.
Wow, you can show me God?....it is truth,
objectively true.....
True; but I was sorta talkin' about statements.Everything changes.
Stars a are born.
People grow old and die.
Fall become winter.
All these things are objective, and always in flux.
Fall will stop being winter someday.True; but I was sorta talkin' about statements.
The claim that stars are born is still true; has not changed.
The claim people grow old and die is still true; has not changed
The claim that fall becomes winter is still true; has not changed.
True. But if morality were objective, it wouldn't be in a constant state of change.Fall will stop being winter someday.
Stars will no longer be born.
Dont be fooled by timescales.
Just as sure as everyone you see is now alive, they will all be dead later.
Everything changes.
Objective reality is constantly changing.
I dont really say "morality is objective". In fact I dont even know exactly what that would mean.True. But if morality were objective, it wouldn't be in a constant state of change.
Objective is that which is based on fact. Beliefs, opinions, extenuating circumstances are not taken into consideration when determining that which is objective.I dont really say "morality is objective". In fact I dont even know exactly what that would mean.
What are the enduring parts of morality? Can you give some examples?Instead I claim that the enduring parts of morality are based on the objective facts about human well being.
Well the definition you chose happens to work well with my assertion that the enduring parts of morality are based on the objective facts about human well being.Objective is that which is based on fact.......
What are the enduring parts of morality? Can you give some examples?
Ed1wolf said: ↑
If evolution produced humans from australopithecines and especially if we are the descendent of a one celled organism, that is a huge amount of change in morphology. Do you even know what morphology means? It means body structure. You dont think there is much body structure difference between humans and one celled organisms?
ken: Consider the possibility that a change of body structure AND a change in gene pool are BOTH under the umbrella of Evolution. Again; morphology is not required in order for Evolution to take place.
Yes, but I am talking about the origin of biodiversity. See above about macroevolution.Ed1wolf said: ↑
I am not redefining anything, see above. Without morphological change, you would appear to be a creationist. Creationists are the ones that dont believe in major morphological change. Are you a creationist?
ken: I see Evolution and Creation as addressing two separate issues. Creation is about how everything began from nothing; evolution is about now that which already exists evolves into something different.
Didn't you read that Wikipedia article where it stated that that is what the singularity basically is?Ed1wolf said: ↑
That is not what this post was about, you were denying that the BB is the beginning of space time and matter, but most cosmologists believe it WAS. The singularity is just another name for the beginning.
ken: No; the singularity is not another name for beginning, it’s only as far as they can go back. They leave open the possibility that something could have been before the singularity.
Huh? Logical reasoning is a MAJOR part of any scientific theory. You do know that without logical reasoning science is impossible, right?Ed1wolf said: ↑
A simple step in logic CAN tell us what caused it but they are afraid of being labeled fundies so they wont take that step.
ken: What you call “a simple step in logic” is another way of saying you have nothing to back it up.
No, they would just say that there has not been enough time for it to occur.Ed1wolf said: ↑
As I explained earlier since it is unfalsifiable it cannot be proven wrong. But there has been discovered a great deal of evidence against it and a great deal of evidence for old earth creation.
ken: If a change in gene pool over successive generations never happened, this would prove Evolution false; thus evolution IS falsifiable.
I am referring to the general public's understanding of evolution, IOW Macro-evolution. Microevolution is not in dispute. It has not been proven that macroevolution is "a natural result over long periods of time". Natural selection is actually a way to MAINTAIN the existing organism and its population, not change it into something radically different. We know that almost every mutation results in significant losses of genetic information thereby placing limits on how much morphological change can take place. Also, there is not enough time for the beneficial mutations to make major changes in morphology. Mathematicians at Cornell recently determined how hard it is to get a binding site in DNA. They determined that it would take 60,000 years for a mutation to arise, and 6 million years for it to become general in the population to go from an apelike ancestor to humans. And that is just one mutation, if you need two coordinated mutations it would take 216 million years. So that makes it basically impossible to go from australopithecine to human since you need a lot more coordinated mutations than that.Nope. Again, the scientific definition of evolution does not 'require' any such thing. Radical divergences (not individuals changing linearly from one into the other) are one of the natural results of evolution over very long periods of time, but that is exactly the same mechanism that produces change within the level of species over short time periods. Both are, definitionally, evolution.
And that is how all such processes work. Think of language. At the small scale, you see small differences with little divergence (Mexican and European Spanish, British and American English, etc). At the large scale, you see big differences with lots of divergence (Romantic languages, Sinic languages, etc).
Same goes for music genres. And art movements. And cultural practices. And so forth. Everyone understands gradualism with regard to anything that changes over time, except, apparently, biology. Only when it comes to biology does the ability to understand it magically disappear.
Hence, creationists.
I am referring to the general public's understanding of evolution, IOW Macro-evolution. Microevolution is not in dispute. It has not been proven that macroevolution is "a natural result over long periods of time". Natural selection is actually a way to MAINTAIN the existing organism and its population, not change it into something radically different. We know that almost every mutation results in significant losses of genetic information thereby placing limits on how much morphological change can take place. Also, there is not enough time for the beneficial mutations to make major changes in morphology. Mathematicians at Cornell recently determined how hard it is to get a binding site in DNA. They determined that it would take 60,000 years for a mutation to arise, and 6 million years for it to become general in the population to go from an apelike ancestor to humans. And that is just one mutation, if you need two coordinated mutations it would take 216 million years. So that makes it basically impossible to go from australopithecine to human since you need a lot more coordinated mutations than that.
Don’t kill people outside of self defense.Well the definition you chose happens to work well with my assertion that the enduring parts of morality are based on the objective facts about human well being.
Among the enduring moral rules are: dont kill people outside of self defense, dont steal, dont hurt other peoples feelings on purpose.
National defense. Defense of others. Those are basically wrapped up in the concept of self-defense. If you disagree, then just make them 2 additional enduring morals of their own. I wasnt trying to give you the complete comprehensive list.Don’t kill people outside of self defense.
How about during war? The guy isn't attacking you personally, he’s just following orders along with the rest to take over your country; is it okay to kill him then?
How about if you are a cop, and the criminal is about to kill someone else? Is it okay to kill him if there is no other way of stopping him?
Don't hurt other peoples feelings on purpose
Suppose the person is doing something wrong and needs to be corrected, but you know the correction will hurt his feelings? Is it okay to hurt his feelings under those circumstances?
My point is, no matter what the enduring moral rule is, I can always come up with a circumstance where breaking this rule is acceptable. And as pointed out before, if extenuating circumstances, or personal beliefs are involved, it’s subjective not objective.
Here is the Wikipedia page; I see where it says it is the earliest known period, but I don't see where it says nothing existed prior to it.Didn't you read that Wikipedia article where it stated that that is what the singularity basically is?
No; scientific theories include “Abductive reasoning.Huh? Logical reasoning is a MAJOR part of any scientific theory. You do know that without logical reasoning science is impossible, right?
Or they would say this species is no longer evolving. Like with humans, they say it is assumed human evolution ended with the origin of modern manNo, they would just say that there has not been enough time for it to occur.
Subjective is not about arbitrary, or emerging from changing moods. It can be that, but it's usually much more than that.National defense. Defense of others. Those are basically wrapped up in the concept of self-defense. If you disagree, then just make them 2 additional enduring morals of their own. I wasnt trying to give you the complete comprehensive list.
Of course there are situations where 2 or more moral rules come into conflict. Negotiating conflicting morals often is subjective. But that doesnt mean that the basic morals themselves are just arbitrary or emerge from our changing moods. No, they come from long term observations of the facts about what makes for satisfying living.
Sometimes subjective is exactly about moods. I do agree that there can be more too it as well.Subjective is not about arbitrary, or emerging from changing moods. It can be that, but it's usually much more than that.
Ed1wolf said: ↑
I do believe that our nature can change but only if God starts changing it but even God cannot change it all at one time. But you are wrong about people in general, no human can change their nature.
ken: Give me an example of a human nature that we are incapable of changing.
It is true that people are not vilified for sitting next to someone of a different race, but that has only occurred due to social pressures based on Judeo-Christian principles that began to be accepted by the majority in America after Christians like MLK fought against it. God uses His people to sometimes change human nature, but without those changes going along with His principles they will not take root in a significant way.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Have you ever been to a school cafeteria? Even in so-called liberal colleges and high schools, the students generally will eat with people of their same race.
ken: I see people usually sitting with people from their neighborhood (which is often divided among race) but nobody is vilified for sitting next to someone of a different race.
In order to be the judge of the universe you have to have created the moral laws of the universe and since those laws are part of the universe, you would have to be the creator of the universe, but it can be shown that you are not, but the Christian God is. Also, you are another human whose moral standard just exists in your mind just like any other human and does not exist outside your mind, objectively.Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, the Christian God is the moral standard and judge of the universe, irrespective of whether you believe in Him or not.
ken: So because you say so; that makes it so? Well 2 can play that game; how’s this!
I am the moral standard and judge of the Universe, irrespective of whether you believe it or not.
Sooo….are you convinced yet? (crickets)
All of the major societies, I have read a great deal about ancient history.Ed1wolf said: ↑
You dont know this, your bias is just making you assume this. Ancient Israel was one of the most morally and politically advanced societies at the time.
ken: Are you familiar with all of the societies 2000 years ago? Admit it; your bias is making you assume this.
Not just somebody, Moses said it, who had demonstrated that He was chosen by God as their leader and God's prophet thru miraculous events, including hearing the voice of God Himself on Sinai.Ed1wolf said: ↑
She was taken from her home during the war, his fellow Hebrews would not fault him for taking a POW, that was allowed by God.
ken: Because somebody said God allowed it???
No, they knew she would have a much better life living as a Hebrew. They knew that women were treated much better than other nations in the area. Women were commanded to be treated as spiritual equals as I demonstrated earlier from Genesis 1. It would be similar to rescuing someone from living in the old Soviet Union or East Germany.ken: If his fellow Hebrews had an ounce of integrity, they would have defended the victim, cursed the kidnapper, and cursed anybody claiming God would allow this evil. Integrity is doing what’s right in regardless of what you are told.
Obedience is doing what you are told regardless of what’s right.
IMO they needed more integrity, and less obedience.
In case you didn't notice, that is not chapter 32. But we already dealt with this when we discussed Deut. 21:14, she cannot be treated brutally, which obviously includes rape. You need to learn to stop repeating the same refuted claims. The reason young women were chosen because they would be less committed to the degraded culture of their old nation and more likely to learn the more advanced ideas of the Hebrew culture.Ed1wolf said: ↑
Nothing in that verse or even the whole 32nd chapter says anything about rape, it doesn't even mention women.
ken: Numbers 31:18
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Numbers 31:18 but spare for yourselves every girl who has never had relations with a man.
What are you? A god? I guarantee with the right drugs you could be made to do many things and believe things that you would not normally believe.Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, it is well known that drugs, indigestion, and hormones can make people act very differently and even change their views on many things including morality during the period that they are exposed
to these things.
ken: That’s other people; I’m talking about me. Again; I know the difference between emotional pain and physical pain.
With diversity being taught and advertised, more and more people are looking for the company of those different than themselves. How many atheists do you see going to religious sites (rather than atheist sites) for discussion and visa versa? How many people of different races and cultures attempting to learn about other races and cultures, even traveling abroad to different lands just to learn about people who are different? Most of the people I associate with are this way. After all; how can you learn or grow if all you do is hang around people who are just like you?I already provided one, most people like to spend time with people like themselves in race, social status, intelligence, etc
I agree humans like being around each other.Also people are by nature social beings who prefer living in groups rather than alone. That cannot be changed by other humans.
That is changing. I know many people who don’t want children, and though many want relationships, they don’t necessarily want a spouse.Also, people by nature want a spouse and have children. These are unchangeable facts of human nature.
At first you called them “Unchangeable facts of human nature” now you say God can cause humans to change it. Yeah right. Is the fact that more and more people don’t want to have children, and less people are choosing to get married another human nature God is causing us to change?It is true that people are not vilified for sitting next to someone of a different race, but that has only occurred due to social pressures based on Judeo-Christian principles that began to be accepted by the majority in America after Christians like MLK fought against it. God uses His people to sometimes change human nature, but without those changes going along with His principles they will not take root in a significant way.
So…. let me see if I’ve got this straight. You spit out a bunch of empty absurd claims with nothing to back it up, then I counter with a bunch of empty absurd claims of my own with nothing to back it up, then you counter my counter by spiting out even MORE empty absurd claims with nothing to back it up. Wow! that went absolutely nowhere.In order to be the judge of the universe you have to have created the moral laws of the universe and since those laws are part of the universe, you would have to be the creator of the universe, but it can be shown that you are not, but the Christian God is. Also, you are another human whose moral standard just exists in your mind just like any other human and does not exist outside your mind, objectively.
Let me see if I’ve gotten this one straight. Moses wrote a book claiming he was chosen by God, and as his prophet he preformed miracles and heard Gods voice when he was alone on a mountain? Lemme guess; nothing other than the book he wrote to back any of this stuff up right? I could do that!Not just somebody, Moses said it, who had demonstrated that He was chosen by God as their leader and God's prophet thru miraculous events, including hearing the voice of God Himself on Sinai.
What Moses and his band of slaughters did was wrong; those women should have been allowed to live with their families. Shame on you for defending genocide.No, they knew she would have a much better life living as a Hebrew. They knew that women were treated much better than other nations in the area. Women were commanded to be treated as spiritual equals as I demonstrated earlier from Genesis 1. It would be similar to rescuing someone from living in the old Soviet Union or East Germany.
Alter my mind with drugs and I’m liable to believe all sorts of things; I wasn’t talking about that. As long as I am in my right mind, I know the difference between emotional and physical pain.What are you? A god? I guarantee with the right drugs you could be made to do many things and believe things that you would not normally believe.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?