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

[Ken-1122]

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.

Are you under the impression that this drawing is consistent with the Theory of Evolution?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, it can be demonstrated using logic that only Christian morality is objective, because it is based on God's objectively existing moral character.

ken: If we go by that standard, all morality is objective because it is based on someone’s objectively existing moral character.

No, if it is based on just another human's moral character then it exists only in human minds, and therefore is not objective but just the subjective code of another human. God's character exists outside of human minds and therefore is objective relative to humans.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, I did prove that evolution depends on death and pain.

ken: You didn’t prove evolution depends on pain

Usually death and pain go together, especially for higher animals like mammals and birds. So at least for mammals and birds evolution depends on pain and death. You dont think at least sometimes dying produces pain?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
And yes evolution does depend on new life being born too. It does not depend on happiness

ken: It doesn’t depend on pain either

Fraid so, see above.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
because most living things dont experience happiness, only humans do.

ken: If you are under the impression that only humans experience happiness, get yourself a puppy; he will prove you wrong everyday.

Many biologists believe that the wagging of the tail and jumping on its master are just instinctive standard greeting behavior among canines. How do you know it is happy?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
So evolution can continue without happiness, it obviously doesn't depend on happiness.

ken: Evolution doesn’t depend on pain either

No, see above about pain and death in mammals and birds.

 

[Rivga]

Many biologists believe that the wagging of the tail and jumping on its master are just instinctive standard greeting behavior among canines. How do you know it is happy?

I hope that the biologists that still believe that it is not happiness have retired, as they are certainly not upto date.

How do we know:
We can take a look at the chemicals and brain activity in human beings when they are happy, use large enough sample sizes to be sure.
We can then take a look an animal brains when, for instance when a dog is wagging his tail, are they similar or the same as humans when they are happy.
Dogs are mammals and DNA wise are exceptionally close to us, this gives a very high level of certainty that a dog feels happy and as a result wags his tail.

In your post you seem to be trying to give evolution a personality and a goal, if evolution is responsible for huge pain it cannot really be held accountable, in does not think, it is not self aware it is a process.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Huh? I just provided a direct quote of Hitler in the statement above. He said he "was a heathen to the core."
ken: How do you know that was a direct quote from Hitler? Did you get it from a book with his signature on it? Or did you get it from some guy who claimed to know Hitler. (2nd hand information)If the latter, how do you know he was telling the truth?

This came from one of his early speeches actually. And BTW you do know that most of history is second hand. So do you reject all history that is secondhand?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
And a childhood friend is a good source.

ken: How do you know it was a childhood friend? People do lie ya know!

His background was checked out and confirmed by historians.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I bet if I talked to your childhood friends I could find out a lot about you and your personality.

ken: And I bet if I became world famous, there would be a lot of liars claiming to be my childhood friends who never knew me, but with false information about me for anyone gullible enough to listen.

Maybe. But see above that he was confirmed to be by historians.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
But I can provide direct quotes from his speeches too where he shows evidence of not being a Christian.

ken: No doubt that genocide thing he was known for wasn’t exactly being a good christian; but I’m talking about what he believed.

That is what I am talking about. We can determine what he believed from many of his speeches and it was not Christianity.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Nevertheless they can objectively be proven to be wrong using the objective laws of logic.

ken: Using objective laws of logic? Okay! Let’s see you prove them wrong using objective laws of logic.

Ok, give me one of their arguments and I will.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
The jews were chosen not because they were superior to any other people though once they were chosen their behavior began to improve and many became believers and started living morally superior lives. But the other tribes were killed/executed for their crimes and sins and rebellion against God.

ken: Okay; so everyone is equal, but God just chooses to treat some better than the others huh? That’s your interpretation, some might interpret such treatment as an indication that God loves them more.

No, everyone is equal under the law until you break it. It is like a human judge when he sends a criminal to jail, usually there is no personal animosity or hatred, and in fact the judge may feel sorry for him but he has to enforce justice, so it is with God the Judge of the Universe. God actually loves all humans but He has to enforce justice because He is a just God.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, if it is based on just another human's moral character then it exists only in human minds, and therefore is not objective but just the subjective code of another human.

Subjective does not only apply to human thought, it applies to any being capable of thought; even God.

God's character exists outside of human minds and therefore is objective relative to humans.

My character exists outside of all human minds except of my own, and is objective relative to all other humans. IOW if you gonna try to make an exception for God, I can make the same exception for myself.

Usually death and pain go together, especially for higher animals like mammals and birds. So at least for mammals and birds evolution depends on pain and death. You dont think at least sometimes dying produces pain?

I’m saying death doesn’t cause pain 100% of the time; there are may instances of people dying without actually feeling pain.

Many biologists believe that the wagging of the tail and jumping on its master are just instinctive standard greeting behavior among canines. How do you know it is happy?

C’mon get real! Dogs don’t have to speak english in order to let you know when they are happy, scared, angry, or countless other feelings.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Lions and Tigers are a different species (in a lot of definitions of species) - the results of interbreeding lead to a dead end.

Actually female ligers are not sterile and can breed. While this does not mean that they are the same species, they probably had the same ancestral feline. And they plainly are from the same family.

riv: I am not asking if you can categorically establish a link to the two creatures, that would be completely unfair of me to ask that of you. I am asking in the realms of your understanding of evolution are you able to get from one creature to the next. Given the fact that all dogs come from an ancient canine - and not we have a Pug who is related to a St Bernard, we know this for a fact because we did that.

Instead of going through a long chain, I'll skip straight to the real question: Which step in this picture do you think could not have happened.

Do you have an issue with any of these steps?
1) Mesonychid to Ambulocetus
2) Ambulocetus to Rodhocetus
3) Rodhocetus to Killer whale

Step 2. The changes that are required to go from a terrestrial mammal to a fully aquatic mammal especially all the changes that whales have gone thru could not have occurred by natural selection in 2 million years. It is nowhere near enough time. Even some evolutionists have admitted this.

riv: By issue I mean do you believe that one is just not possible.

Yes, it is not possible to make such radical changes in morphology in just 2 million years. We know that 2 million years ago almost all genera and even many species living then still exist today relatively unchanged.

riv: Given that we know the Dog evolution this happened as a matter of fact and this happened in a very very short amount of time 70k years.

All of those animals shown are the same genus, Canis, so no it is not a fact that ANY evolution has occurred in 70,000 years. In fact most of the animals pictured are the same species, Canis lupus, ssp. domesticus.

 

[dmmesdale]

Are you under the impression that this drawing is consistent with the Theory of Evolution?

Darwin was mentioned seven times in the quote and ignored by you. Why is that? It is consistent with Darwinism. The drawing is by Darwinist Haeckel based on the writings of Darwin in Descent. Am i repeating myself again? According to Darwin, Negroes were closer to apes than the highest human and that is how they were viewed by the educated elite in pre-WW2 Germany. What they did in Germany was study and apply Darwin to humans. Darwin predicted race wars including exterminating and replace the savages with the civilized. Do u need the quote or will that be ignored, also?

Thou shall preserve the species. Hitler.

National Socialism is applied Biology. Rudolf Hess.
New Page 1
Terms such as "superior race," "lower human types," "race contamination," "pollution of the race," and evolution itself (entwicklung) were often used by Hitler and other Nazis leaders. Hitler's race views were not from fringe science, as often claimed, but rather,

Hitler's views are rather straightforward German social Darwinism of a type widely known and accepted throughout Germany and which, more importantly, was considered by most Germans, scientists included, to be scientifically true. More recent scholarship on national socialism and Hitler has begun to realize that... [Darwin's theory] was the specific characteristic of Nazism. National socialist "biopolicy," [was] a policy based on a mystical-biological belief in radical inequality, a monistic, antitranscendent moral nihilism based on the eternal struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest as the law of nature, and the consequent use of state power for a public policy of natural selection (Stein 1988, 51).

 

[Ken-1122]

Darwin was mentioned seven times in the quote and ignored by you. Why is that? It is consistent with Darwinism.

What is “Darwinism”? It obviously isn’t any kind of a scientific study; I was assuming it was a pejorative for “the Theory of Evolution. If it is not, please explain so I can know what we are talking about.

If it is a pejorative for the T.O.E., I must ask; who cares about what Darwin believed? Yeah he published the T.O.E, but that was 150 years ago! so much has been learned since then. That would be like talking about what Henry Ford believed about cars when discussing modern cars of today! If (for example) you wanna talk about the effects of a turbocharger on a low compression vs high compression engine, why would you bring Henry Ford into this conversation? If you want to talk about evolution, why would you want to bring Charles Darwin into this conversation?

 

[Ed1wolf]

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.

Why?

riv: 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.

Actually it has, creation scientists predicted that so-called junk DNA would be found to have functions, and recently it has been found to have functions. They also predicted that so-called vestigial organs would have functions, and many have been show to have functions. Also, they predicted that there would be systematic gaps in the fossil record, and this has been shown to be true. And there are other cases as well. Creationists dont have all the millions of dollars that evolutionary scientists have so they are not as able to do as much research as establishment scientists have.

riv: 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.

See above creation model predictions that have been confirmed by creationists.

riv: 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).

True, but the majority view is not always right as seen many times in the history of science.

riv: 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.

No, none of the major points such as macroevolution has ever been empirically observed. The Big Bang theory is probably the strongest theory in science since its effects have been empirically observed even in the deep past and it is also the strongest evidence for the existence of the Christian God.

riv: My Christian biology teacher said it: In the scientific world Evolution is 95% certain, creationism is 0.01% and unknown makes the rest.

Where did he come up with those percentages? Wishful thinking? The historical extrapolation known as the Theory of (macro) Evolution has never been empirically observed. Many aspects of Creation theory HAVE been empirically observed for thousands of years, such as complex linguistic codes (DNA) can only be created by an intelligent personal being. This has been observed millions of times thru all of human history and experience. Ever hear of alphabets?

riv: 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.

No, evolution is part of theoretical science because it has never been empirically observed or had repeated experiments confirming it, unlike the laws of physics which are scientific facts that have been tested empirically over and over. I have studied and learned about evolution for over 35 years as a student and a practicing biologist, so I think a know a great deal about it. In fact I believed in evolution for a time but became a convinced creationist the more I learned about biology in college and grad school.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, evolution is part of theoretical science because it has never been empirically observed or had repeated experiments confirming it, unlike the laws of physics which are scientific facts that have been tested empirically over and over.

There are countless examples of evolution being empirically verified. If you disagree with what is called “macro evolution” this doesn’t dispel the fact that evolution is a reality. If I make the mistake and claim the evolution of aircraft over the years is a part of the theory of evolution, I would be wrong; but my wrong claim does not discredit the theory of evolution in any way; it just shows what I am attempting to put under the umbrella of Evolution as an explanation should not be.

 

[Ed1wolf]

If our ancestors were created with a natural desire to embrace him, they would have embraced him; not rejected him.

No, they were not created with a natural desire to embrace Him either. It was a pure free will with no inclination one way or the other. But when their test came (the Tree of All Knowledge) with the serpent tempting them, they chose to rebel against God.

ken: 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?

They were our representatives chosen by the Judge. Just like in a case where you cant afford a lawyer the judge chooses an attorney to represent you. The power of sin became incorporated into our spiritual "DNA" so it was inherited.

ken: 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.

No problemo.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, they were not created with a natural desire to embrace Him either. It was a pure free will with no inclination one way or the other. But when their test came (the Tree of All Knowledge) with the serpent tempting them, they chose to rebel against God.

My question was; why didn’t he create them (Adam and Eve) with a natural desire to embrace him. If God wanted his creation to embrace him, he should have created them that way. And as far as free will, if you provide negative consequences for making the wrong choice, and or positive consequences for making the right choice; by definition you are not providing free will. A robber putting a gun to your head and saying “your money or your life” is not giving you free will.

They were our representatives chosen by the Judge. Just like in a case where you cant afford a lawyer the judge chooses an attorney to represent you.

Except in this case the Judge (God) chooses an attorney he knows (via omniscience) is going to fail at representing us. We would have been better off being allowed to represent ourselves!

The power of sin became incorporated into our spiritual "DNA" so it was inherited.

Why would a fair God choose to allow the incorporation of the power of sin into our DNA, then punish us for sinning? Can you see the unfairness of that?

 

[Ed1wolf]

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.

No, it is made up of laws, it was valid even 65 mya. Two dinosaurs could not occupy the same space at the same time, ie the law of non-contradiction and no humans to be found using it as a tool.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, it is made up of laws, it was valid even 65 mya. Two dinosaurs could not occupy the same space at the same time, ie the law of non-contradiction and no humans to be found using it as a tool.

Your example of the dinosaurs is based on fact. All facts are logical, but not all logic is based on facts.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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.

No, that doesn't make the laws of logic subjective. It is like using a hammer to build a house that you like and then me using the same hammer to build a house that I like. The hammer objectively exists but we each use it for our particular circumstances. So it is with logic. People use it for different things but sometimes when they use for one particular thing that each person is trying to understand, like God, they ignore the logical conclusion if it doesn't fit what they want it to. And try to rationalize, which is not logical, it away.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, that doesn't make the laws of logic subjective.

So answer the question. What is the most logical way to go from point A to point B?
Also, what are these laws of logic that you speak of?

It is like using a hammer to build a house that you like and then me using the same hammer to build a house that I like. The hammer objectively exists but we each use it for our particular circumstances.

Unlike logic, a hammer does not only exist within the context of human thought.

So it is with logic. People use it for different things but sometimes when they use for one particular thing that each person is trying to understand, like God,

When people use their logic to understand God, don’t their beliefs, perceptions, and interpretations color how their logic is used?

they ignore the logical conclusion if it doesn't fit what they want it to. And try to rationalize, which is not logical, it away.

So you are claiming that only those who share your belief in God are logical. and everyone else is illogical? What do you base this on?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
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.

ken: I agree! They are both subjective reasoning, even though the conclusions are different.

Since they are both subjective reasoning then neither conclusion is better than the other, so you have no real basis for condemning Hitler. That is why not having an objective morality is a slippery slope toward an evil society.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
So you are saying that Hitler did nothing wrong and the USA did nothing right?

ken: When I said Hitler gave himself the right to attack, I meant right as in authority.

No, the people voted for him and gave him that authority because most of them did not believe in an objective morality, see above about the slippery slope.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
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.

ken: How do you know your moral base isn’t based on the subjective feelings of God?

Well for one thing God's feelings are not subjective relative to humans because they exist outside human minds and therefore are objective. But my moral base is based on His moral character not His feelings.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Almost all laws are based on morals..

ken: True! And though similar, there is still a difference between morality and the law, and laws are enforced, morality is not.

Human morality is not enforced but God's moral law is enforced either in this world or the next.

 

[Ken-1122]

Since they are both subjective reasoning then neither conclusion is better than the other,

How did you make the leap, that because they are both subjective reasoning that neither conclusion is better than the other?

so you have no real basis for condemning Hitler.

I do have a basis for condemning Hitler; because I believe his morality is wrong!

Well for one thing God's feelings are not subjective relative to humans because they exist outside human minds and therefore are objective.

No; they are subjective relative to God because they exist within God's mind and are therefore subjective.

Human morality is not enforced but God's moral law is enforced either in this world or the next.

God’s moral laws are no more enforced than mine.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
That sounds correct, but his theory was plainly practically speaking atheistic.

st: Which theory would that be?

The Theory of Evolution.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
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.

st: 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.

True. Though I have read some studies on prayer that showed that prayer does "work".

 

[Ed1wolf]

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.

You are correct, sir!