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

[Ken-1122]

I never claimed that everything in the bible is backed up by science, just like any scientific theory not everything in every theory has been confirmed by science.

Actually all scientific theories ARE backed up by science; every single one of them.

But the evidence I provided points in the direction of a possible worldwide flood as an explanation and that it is possible,

Science does not claim a world wide flood. If you disagree, point to a scientific theory that includes one.

especially considering all the evidence that the Christian God exists.

There is no scientific evidence that the Christian God exists. If you disagree, point to a scientific theory that includes the God of Christianity.

 

[Ken-1122]

No we can't prove it, but you can't prove you exist to me with certainty, especially if there is no God.

But I can provide scientific proof that I exist!

Ummm.. you obviously dont know what gravitational locking is. The planet IS still spinning. It is spinning at the same rotational rate as the planet it is tidally locked with:

But Planet Earth is not spinning at the same rotational rate as the Sun; Earth spins 365 times for each rotation around the Sun.

No, your mind is what uses the brain to interact with the physical world, so if the brain is damaged it affects how the mind interacts with the world. Similar to missing keys on a keyboard. If you were missing several keys on your keyboard and typed a response back, I would not understand what you typed and would think you are brain damaged. To the external world yes, it would appear that al those changes occurred but in reality your mind is still basically the same unless these changes cause you to abandon your previous moral beliefs in your mind.

The mind is what we call the brain during its thinking function. According to science, the mind and brain are one and cannot be separated.

http://www.differencebetween.net/science/health/difference-between-mind-and-brain/[/QUOTE]

 

[iEye]

For since we, a numerous band of men as we are, have learned from His teaching and His laws that evil ought not to be requited with evil, that it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it, that we should rather shed our own blood than stain our hands and our conscience with that of another, an ungrateful world is now for a long period enjoying a benefit from Christ, inasmuch as by His means the rage of savage ferocity has been softened, and has begun to withhold hostile hands from the blood of a fellow-creature.

— Arnobius, Adversus Gentes I:VI[15]

 

[Ed1wolf]

I'm sure you can bring yourself to believe that, provided you accept 'magic' as an explanatory mechanism. Scientists don't, thankfully, which is why virtually none of them in relevant fields agree with what you're saying here. If they did, there would be no reason to continue studying, because they would already imagine themselves to have found the answer.

I would hardly call using laws of logic and the BB theory magic. Actually there are many cosmologists and astronomers that ARE theists and deists, more than any other scientific field.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Does it matter what religious beliefs Hitler claimed to have? He was a nutcase any way you slice it.

It does, given that atheists keep wrongly trying to claim he was a Christian. We need to spread the truth about him. Yes, in laymans terms he was a nutcase, but actually most historians say he was not mentally ill. We should not try to ignore the fact that some people are just evil, and not mentally ill, ie nutcases.

 

[Ken-1122]

It does, given that atheists keep wrongly trying to claim he was a Christian. We need to spread the truth about him. Yes, in laymans terms he was a nutcase, but actually most historians say he was not mentally ill. We should not try to ignore the fact that some people are just evil, and not mentally ill, ie nutcases.

You are the one who started it by claiming his hatred was due to him being an atheist, I provided proof that showed he was Catholic only to refute your absurd claim.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, there is Joseph Goebbels who said "The Fuhrer is deeply religious but entirely anti-Christian. He sees Christianity as a symptom of decay." He also said that Hitler wanted to wage war against Christianity. Hitler said in a speech that he was an eternal questioner of religion and a rationalist and a materialist. Walter Schellenberg an influential SS officer said Hitler did not believe in a personal God. Does any of this sound like a Christian? And these are hardly nameless rumors from nobodies.

ken: Really? How do you know? Did these people write books saying these things about Hitler? Did they somehow go on record with these claims? Or are these just more nameless rumors from nobodies about somebody?

Uhhh...YES. Ever hear of reading history books and the writings of historians that do research on historical people? We have historical records of these people saying these things. I can provide all of the references if you are actually interested and not just blowing smoke.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, these were not rumors, reread above. Also, both award winning historians who wrote bios of him, Ian Kershaw and Allan Bullock both said he was a pantheist, not a Christian.

ken: Ahh so now you are beginning to turncoat? Before you said he was an Atheist and this is what lead to the Holocaust. Now you trying to make the case that he was Pantheist; but not Christian? Keep turning that coat Bro eventually you’ll get it right, after all; you are heading in the right direction!

Do you even read my posts? I never said he was an atheist, I said that his view of morality was very similar to atheists, that was my point. He did not believe in an objective standard of morality just like many atheists, isn't that what this thread was originally about?

ken: Look even if Hitler WAS Atheist, the Nazi were not. Remember Hitler didn’t kill anybody. The religious Nazi party members did all the killing. The hatred, the evil, was already there! The ground was fertile for genocide, all Hitler had to do was provide a system and they were all too willing to spring into action! So your claim that Atheism is what lead to the Holocaust fails.

Tap out bro; you've lost this one!

Yes, and almost none of the Nazis were orthodox Christians, they were mostly theological liberals, neo-pagans, and a few atheists thrown in for good measure who rejected the infallible authority of the bible as Doris Bergen demonstrated in her book that I referenced earlier, "The Twisted Cross". How can I lose? While I referenced well respected historians and their books, all you have come up with are a bunch of Nazi propaganda photos of Hitler meeting Catholic officials and wandering in and out of churches. That proves nothing other than that Hitler and the Nazis were good politicians. It tells us nothing about their actual religious beliefs.

 

[iEye]

If there is no truth is that the truth? If everything is a lie is that a lie?

 

[redleghunter]

The main argument for those of the Abrahamic religion is that God is Omnipotent and Omniscience so he decides Morality.

More than that. YHWH is the uncreated Creator. As such He established all physical laws in the universe. As such in relations to His creation mankind He is the Law Giver. Thus through His Divine and uncreated attributes His Law is objective as their is none Higher.

which you would think would mean its Objective based on that argument but even then that's, not a good point.

Indeed what comes from YHWH is objective. We do not live in a subjective universe as it relates to physical laws .

simply because it can be taken apart simply by saying "well if Lucifer was even more powerful would you follow his creed?" most Christians would say no. but then they admit that morality cant is objective as if it comes from a higher power. then it changes depending on who holds power.

A false premise as the YHWH revealed in TaNaKh and B'rit Chadashah is eternal and immutable. I say false premise because you present a "God" of your own making and not the One who has revealed Himself.

 

[redleghunter]

Morality becomes objective as soon as two or more moral beings are known to objectively exist. So yes, God's morality is subjective, but becomes objective as soon as he tells someone else(His creation) about what is true and right.

Perhaps based on our observation.

Take into consideration the following:

Genesis 22:16

And

Hebrews 6:13

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I would hardly call using laws of logic and the BB theory magic.

No, magic only enters the picture when you start needlessly plugging cosmic wizards, aka 'gods', into the equation. They have no explanatory power, and Big Bang cosmology necessitates no such thing.

Also, 'causality' is a general governing principle in most schools of philosophy, but I've never seen it defined as a formal law of logic, outside Objectivism. Big Ayn Rand fan, are you?

Actually there are many cosmologists and astronomers that ARE theists and deists,

Most of whom, thankfully, don't let that inform their research, even if it does inspire them. No one knows what happened pre-Planck time, and some scientists are inclined to imagine a 'god' character there, without letting it stop them from continuing to work on the answer.

Unless they work for a creationist propaganda mill.

more than any other scientific field.

Uh, no. Try less than any other scientific field. From the Pew Research Center:

Scientists and Belief

Also, even if that were true, scientists in general are much less likely to believe in a personal, intervening god than the general public. So that's rather like bragging about being the fastest sloth at the zoo.

 

[Ken-1122]

Do you even read my posts? I never said he was an atheist,

You said:
that is just one of the serious philosophical problems with the Nazis, and other atheistic and humanistic based societies.
Those were your exact words. The fact that Hitler had pictures of himself praying to the Christian God is proof that Germany at that time was not an atheistic based society

I said that his view of morality was very similar to atheists, that was my point. He did not believe in an objective standard of morality just like many atheists,

First of all; Atheism is not defined as not believing morality is objective. There are atheists who accept objective morality in case you didn't know.
The Case for Objective Morality

isn't that what this thread was originally about?

Perhaps your ignorance of what it means to be atheist is where our disagreement lies.

 

[iEye]

You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today—and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it.

Galt’s Speech,
For the New Intellectual, 127

 

[Ken-1122]

You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today—and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it.

Galt’s Speech,
For the New Intellectual, 127

Everything you mentioned has nothing to do with morality, but reality; a big difference. Care to try again? Explain why morality (not reality) is needed on a desert island.

 

[iEye]

Everything you mentioned has nothing to do with morality, but reality; a big difference. Care to try again? Explain why morality (not reality) is needed on a desert island.

Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.—Galatians 6:7

 

[Ken-1122]

Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.—Galatians 6:7

Your argument failed again. Good luck my friend.

 

[iEye]

Your argument failed again. Good luck my friend.

PD: The Universe. You’ve got to be impressed by the Universe when you see order in the Universe. This wasn’t an accident, Miss Rand.

AR: Oh, now you’ve got to give me a few minutes. {Audience applause} What do you think would happen in a disorderly Universe?

PD: In a disorderly Universe?

AR: What’s the concept of order? What does it have to do with things which exist? If they clash with each other, if there were contradictions, they wouldn’t exist. There is no such thing as a disorderly Universe. Our whole concept of order comes from observing reality. And, the reality has to be orderly because it’s the standard of what exists.

PD: Right. So…

AR: So, the contradictions cannot exist.

PD: Okay. So, we have an orderly Universe because it’s impossible to have a disorderly Universe.

AR: That’s right.

PD: I got that. I understood that.

AR: Fine.

PD: Do you understand what a breakthrough that is that I understood that?

AR: [Unintelligible]

PD: Having understood that, I still don’t understand why you can’t just leave the door open. Why do you have to be so unforgiving, and so final, and so don’t talk to me about it, you can’t prove it, if anybody who goes around believing it is wasting time?

{Audience member makes a statement somewhat inaudible} God can’t be proven[?]!

PD: Okay. Out there, we’ll give you a chance in a moment.

AR: He’s quite right.

PD: Yeah, he thinks God can’t be proven.

AR: That’s right, and shouldn’t be.

 

[Ed1wolf]

T
Ed1wolf said: ↑
It is true that the West is starting to drift away from Christian morality especially sexual morality but many Western moral principles are still based on Christian teaching. For example, many of the rights in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights come from Christian moral principles.

ken: The reason Christian moral teaching is different today than it was years ago, is because Christian moral teaching is based on secular moral teaching; which evolves over time. Thus most western moral principles are based on secular teaching.

No, Christian moral teaching has been the same for 2000 years. Interpretations of and obedience to them have changed over the years. But Christ's moral teachings NEVER have changed and never will change.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, we know toys come from ordinary humans,
ken: Just as we know toys don’t come from Santa Clause, we know the Big Bang didn’t come from your idea of God.

How do you know? Just saying that you know doesn't mean that you actually know this. Prove it.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, Christian moral teaching has been the same for 2000 years. Interpretations of and obedience to them have changed over the years. But Christ's moral teachings NEVER have changed and never will change.

Was Jesus a Christian? No! I never said anything about Jesus’s moral teachings changing, I said what Christians teach as moral has changed over the years. Christianity is made up of billions of people, and what these people believe is moral today is different than what those people believed yesterday. This is due to secular teachings.

How do you know? Just saying that you know doesn't mean that you actually know this. Prove it.

Yeah; I’ll prove it the second you prove Santa and those elves don’t make toys.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I never claimed that everything in the bible is backed up by science, just like any scientific theory not everything in every theory has been confirmed by science
ken: Actually all scientific theories ARE backed up by science; every single one of them.

Yes, but not EVERY ASPECT of every theory in science is backed up by science. For example, for years there was no empirical scientific evidence of dark matter but yet it was part of the BB theory. Only recently has it been empirically confirmed.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
But the evidence I provided points in the direction of a possible worldwide flood as an explanation and that it is possible,

ken: Science does not claim a world wide flood. If you disagree, point to a scientific theory that includes one.

I never said that Science (whatever that means) I assume you mean mainstream or Establishment science claims that there was a worldwide flood. The worldwide flood was a one time event deep history, science is not equipped to determine a one time deep history event. I am just claiming there are some things that have been discovered by science that point in the direction of a possible worldwide flood.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
especially considering all the evidence that the Christian God exists.

ken: There is no scientific evidence that the Christian God exists. If you disagree, point to a scientific theory that includes the God of Christianity.

As I have stated earlier, the BB theory strongly points to the existence of the Christian God. Even non-Christian scientists have admitted that it does point to the existence of God, Paul Davies, Stanley Jaki, Arno Penzias, the younger Stephen Hawking, and others. But most mainstream scientists are not going to admit that it points to God because they could lose their job and be blackballed as a fundie.