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

[Ed1wolf]

The categories of supernatural miracles directly performed by God and the categories of natural processes following rules created by God.

The more we learn about the laws of physics the easier it has become to make that differentiation.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, humans have plenty to do with it, only Humans and God are free will moral beings.

ken: But we're talking about God and morality only; not humans.

We were talking how God's objective moral character affects humans and whether we should live by it since it is the only objectively existing morality.

ken: Besides; how do you know beasts of the field and insects aren’t moral agents as well?

There is no evidence that they have a moral conscience. For example, chimps and lions kill and eat the young in their groups sometimes and they are never punished or ostracized by the other members of the group for doing so.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, it does. God CREATED everything else including humans. He can determine what their goals are and what is best for them and He knows what is best for them and that is to live their lives according to His moral laws which are based on His objective moral character.
ken: Creating everything doesn’t mean you get to be the moral dictator.

Someone that creates or invents something that has never existed before, is the only one that knows what it is for and how to use it. So it is with God and humans.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Because all the evidence points to there being only one universe which is all things that exist.

ken: One universe doesn’t mean there is only one all knowledge, and it doesn’t mean there is such a thing as an all knowledge. One has nothing to do with the other

An omniscient being would have to know everything about the one universe at the very least.

 

[Ken-1122]

We were talking how God's objective moral character affects humans and whether we should live by it since it is the only objectively existing morality.

No; I made the point that if morality is objective, then God is subject to these objective laws the same as humans are. God doesn’t get to dictate objective morality any more than he can dictate math equations.

There is no evidence that they have a moral conscience. For example, chimps and lions kill and eat the young in their groups sometimes and they are never punished or ostracized by the other members of the group for doing so.

Just because their morals are different than ours doesn’t mean they aren’t moral agents! Hitler was responsible for the death of millions and he was never punished or ostracized by members of his group either.

Someone that creates or invents something that has never existed before, is the only one that knows what it is for and how to use it. So it is with God and humans.

How do you know this?

An omniscient being would have to know everything about the one universe at the very least.

Again; how do you know only one person can fit this description? Or how do you know such a being that knows everything actually exists?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I believe so, otherwise survival of the fittest means nothing. If something doesn't die and something else doesn't survive how can evolution occur? My point is that if evolution is true then death is actually a good thing.

ken: I've explained over and over how even if nothing died, evolution would still take place. How many times do I have to explain this to you?

No, you have not explained how that would be possible. I nothing died then there would never be survival of the fittest which is the basic foundation of evolution.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, my scenario above was about supposedly what happens if evolution is true in the real world where death occurs.

ken: The reality is, evolution is true, and death does occur.

You have not proven that evolution is true, but if it is true then death MUST occur as I have shown.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, but all evolutionists use the same scenario to try to prove evolution. Genetic structure can change without causing the organism to turn into another organism. A human with Downs syndrome which is a genetic structure change, is still a human. Right?

ken: News Flash!!! An organism does not have to change into another organism in order for evolution to take place

Yes it does otherwise you could never go from amoeba to Man.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, you have not explained how that would be possible. I nothing died then there would never be survival of the fittest which is the basic foundation of evolution.

As I said before, when a random mutant is born and is allowed to reproduce, THAT is how evolution occurs. Nothing has to die in order for that to happen.

Yes it does otherwise you could never go from amoeba to Man.

You don't need to go from amoeba to man in order for evolution to take place. Bruh! you seriously need to learn a little more about evolution before commenting on it.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Before I even begin to reply to these concluded assertions, let me ask you...

1. What is your definition of morality?

Our Creator's rules for living a safe and fulfilling life.

cv: 2. If morality was demonstrated to exist in animals, besides humans, would you then retract your current conclusions in any way?

No, because animals have the same creator we do. But all the evidence says otherwise.

cv: 3. Do you think morality is a universal construct? Meaning, does absolute 'good' and absolute 'bad' exist, absent of being assessed by the defined moral agent?

Yes, absolute good resides in the moral character of the Creator. "Bad" or evil is primarily just the absence of good.

cv: 4. If the universe was shown to most likely be eternal, would you retract any of your current conclusions about asserting a creator?

Possibly since that would be evidence against the Christian God.

cv: If you are steadfast in your conclusions, and nothing can sway your current position, then answering becomes superfluous.

Thanks

The same applies to you. If you decided to agree that some of my assertions are true, would you retract your view regarding the existence of God?

 

[cvanwey]

Our Creator's rules for living a safe and fulfilling life.

To me, this is no different than a master telling their dog to 'attack', and the dog does not actually know why. The dog is not a moral agent, but is instead following orders or commands.

Possibly since that would be evidence against the Christian God.

Have you explored the claims to an eternal universe? If so, what led you to concluding the claims are false? If you have not explored such a claim, are you interested in researching; since this is what some researchers are starting to conclude, or have concluded (without a presupposition or bias)?

The same applies to you. If you decided to agree that some of my assertions are true, would you retract your view regarding the existence of God?

Demonstrate the existence of your specific God, and we can get started on hashing out the details. But until then, I'm skeptical to all claimed Gods equally Give me the best piece of evidence to demonstrate your specific God, verses some absent or present deity of some sort.

 

[Strathos]

Possibly since that would be evidence against the Christian God.

Why?

 

[Ken-1122]

There is no evidence that they have a moral conscience. For example, chimps and lions kill and eat the young in their groups sometimes and they are never punished or ostracized by the other members of the group for doing so.

A female Orca whale that recently gave birth has been carrying it's dead newborn on her back for days with the entire family of Orca around her making stressful and grieving sounds in what can only be described as a funeral procession.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article215571205.html
Dolphins have been known to do this as well
https://www.adventuresportsnetwork....-discussion-about-whether-the-mammals-grieve/
If you are so certain that you have a soul, what makes you so certain that these animals do not?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
We were talking how God's objective moral character affects humans and whether we should live by it since it is the only objectively existing morality.

ken: No; I made the point that if morality is objective, then God is subject to these objective laws the same as humans are.

He IS subject to His own objective moral character. He cannot go against His own moral character. That is why He cannot choose to be evil. He can only be good.

ken: God doesn’t get to dictate objective morality any more than he can dictate math equations.

No, as our creator He can dictate how we work, just like when Alexander Graham Bell invented the phone, if someone back then was handed his phone they would not have any idea what it is and how it should be used unless Mr. Bell told them. So it is with God's moral rules for us. Only he knows what we were created to do and be and He has told us that in His moral law.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
There is no evidence that they have a moral conscience. For example, chimps and lions kill and eat the young in their groups sometimes and they are never punished or ostracized by the other members of the group for doing so.

ken: Just because their morals are different than ours doesn’t mean they aren’t moral agents!

First you have to prove that they have morals at all. What is your evidence?

ken: Hitler was responsible for the death of millions and he was never punished or ostracized by members of his group either.

Not his immediate group, the Germans, because they had been brainwashed for a time. But all his other fellow humans DID punish him and his fellow cohorts with war, destruction, and the Nuremburg Trials. Also, after the war Jewish Nazi hunters have captured and punished many Nazi leaders over time.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Someone that creates or invents something that has never existed before, is the only one that knows what it is for and how to use it. So it is with God and humans.

ken: How do you know this?

This is true of human creators and inventors so it would very likely be true for God, see my example of Mr. Alexander Bell and the invention of the phone above.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
An omniscient being would have to know everything about the one universe at the very least.

ken: Again; how do you know only one person can fit this description? Or how do you know such a being that knows everything actually exists?

We know because He has told us this in His written message to us. There is evidence that such a being exists as I explained earlier in this thread about BB theory and logic

 

[Ken-1122]

He IS subject to His own objective moral character. He cannot go against His own moral character.

Yeah; neither can I.

That is why He cannot choose to be evil. He can only be good.

No, according to the Bible, there were many things he did that I believe was wrong.

H No, as our creator He can dictate how we work, just like when Alexander Graham Bell invented the phone, if someone back then was handed his phone they would not have any idea what it is and how it should be used unless Mr. Bell told them. So it is with God's moral rules for us. Only he knows what we were created to do and be and He has told us that in His moral law.

First of all according to the bible the only people God created was Adam and Eve; the rest of us was created by our parents via childbirth
Second: When someone creates a human being, they do not have moral authority over them once they become adult; only as a child. So even if God did create everybody, he still would not have moral authority over us, any more than our parents have moral authority over their adult children.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, you have not explained how that would be possible. I nothing died then there would never be survival of the fittest which is the basic foundation of evolution.

ken: As I said before, when a random mutant is born and is allowed to reproduce, THAT is how evolution occurs. Nothing has to die in order for that to happen.

No, as I stated above, if the fittest does not survive long term, then evolution can not occur. So when a mutant is born and is allowed to reproduce, if it doesn't displace (cause to die out) the organism that it was competing with for the ecological niche, then evolution stops. So the death of the competing organism MUST occur or evolution comes to a halt. Now do you understand? This is Evolutionary Biology 101. Survival of the Fittest. Without death that phrase means nothing.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes it does otherwise you could never go from amoeba to Man.

ken: You don't need to go from amoeba to man in order for evolution to take place. Bruh! you seriously need to learn a little more about evolution before commenting on it.

If it doesn't go from amoeba to man, then we never come into existence. But yes, that is the big picture there is also smaller scale like going from an amoeba to a microscopic multicellular organism. But if the multicellular organism cannot displace (cause to die out) the amoeba then evolution stops there. So death is absolutely necessary for any evolution to occur or even for just natural selection to occur. As a biologist I had to learn a great deal about evolution, believe me. I can tell that unfortunately you are the one that has not learned very much about evolution, especially macroevolution.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

No, as I stated above, if the fittest does not survive long term, then evolution can not occur. So when a mutant is born and is allowed to reproduce, if it doesn't displace (cause to die out) the organism that it was competing with for the ecological niche, then evolution stops. So the death of the competing organism MUST occur or evolution comes to a halt. Now do you understand? This is Evolutionary Biology 101. Survival of the Fittest. Without death that phrase means nothing.

Nonsense.

Two organisms vie for a particular resource, let’s say a particular food type. One mutates to no longer need that particular resource, but now needs a different resource that the first does not need. The two organisms live in harmony without the need for the death of either. They both survive because they’re both as fit as they need to be.

If you’re going to accuse someone of not understanding biology, you should probably understand it yourself...

 

[Ken-1122]

No, as I stated above, if the fittest does not survive long term, then evolution can not occur. So when a mutant is born and is allowed to reproduce, if it doesn't displace (cause to die out) the organism that it was competing with for the ecological niche, then evolution stops.

Organisms don't need to compete for anything in order for evolution to take place. And in your scenario, nothing dies remember? So if this evolved organism lives forever and continues to reproduce, you will have both organisms living together because in your scenario nothing dies.

So the death of the competing organism MUST occur or evolution comes to a halt. Now do you understand?

No because in your scenario whether they compete or not, nothing dies remember?

This is Evolutionary Biology 101. Survival of the Fittest. Without death that phrase means nothing.

In your scenario, survival of the fittest means nothing because everything lives; nothing dies. Evolution biology 101 doesn’t apply to this conversation because in the real world things do die; in this scenario we are discussing nothing dies.

If it doesn't go from amoeba to man, then we never come into existence.

Evolution took place long before mankind came about.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Our Creator's rules for living a safe and fulfilling life.

cv:To me, this is no different than a master telling their dog to 'attack', and the dog does not actually know why. The dog is not a moral agent, but is instead following orders or commands.

No, your analogy is wrong. It is more like a parent telling a child rules for life. Dogs are not moral agents, you are correct. But a child and a human are. God actually does often tell us why in His written word AND in his creation. We dont always learn why immediately sometimes it takes maturity to see it. For example, we learn from His creation that violating God's law against sexual immorality very often leads to STDs or a destroyed marriage. That way we can see why He doesn't want us to engage in such things. I could similar examples for many other things.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Possibly since that would be evidence against the Christian God.

cv: Have you explored the claims to an eternal universe? If so, what led you to concluding the claims are false? If you have not explored such a claim, are you interested in researching; since this is what some researchers are starting to conclude, or have concluded (without a presupposition or bias)?

Actually that was the old theory prior to BB theory. It was called the Steady State Theory and was popular up until the 1960s. But it was gradually rejected when all the overwhelming evidence for the BB theory started coming in and now has pretty much proven that the universe had a definite beginning and will end in a heat death. Look it up.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
The same applies to you. If you decided to agree that some of my assertions are true, would you retract your view regarding the existence of God?

cv: Demonstrate the existence of your specific God, and we can get started on hashing out the details. But until then, I'm skeptical to all claimed Gods equally Give me the best piece of evidence to demonstrate your specific God, verses some absent or present deity of some sort.

Well of course the law of causality applied to the BB theory demonstrates that the Creator or Cause of the universe is "outside" or transcendent to the universe, just as the Christian God is. And given that purposes exist in the universe, ie eyes are for seeing, ears for hearing, etc., that shows that the creator is a personal being because only persons can create purposes for things. And then only the Christian Bible teaches the three fundamental scientific facts about the universe that no other religious book does, 1. that the universe came into existence from no physical thing. 2. That the universe is expanding. and 3. The universe is winding down energetically. All three of these have been confirmed by the BB theory. This shows that the creator of the universe is most likely the Christian God.

 

[cvanwey]

No, your analogy is wrong. It is more like a parent telling a child rules for life. Dogs are not moral agents, you are correct. But a child and a human are. God actually does often tell us why in His written word AND in his creation. We dont always learn why immediately sometimes it takes maturity to see it. For example, we learn from His creation that violating God's law against sexual immorality very often leads to STDs or a destroyed marriage. That way we can see why He doesn't want us to engage in such things. I could similar examples for many other things.

Patently false. Commanded genocide, instructed misogyny (discrimination/inequality), commanded or expressed disdain (or expressed contempt) for homosexuality, have nothing to do with later 'maturity'. Such dictates also has nothing to do with 'learning.' One could 'cherry pick' rationalized 'good' attributes from the Holy Qur'an as well, (and they do)

Furthermore, God does not mention anything about contracting disease/STD's from promiscuity. The rule was most likely written from the perspective that jealousy is a natural human emotion. If it actually did speak of specific related disease, then I would have something to actually think about; as this would have been very forward thinking....

But the most likely reality, is that no one writing such verses wanted to think of their loved one cheating with another.

Actually that was the old theory prior to BB theory. It was called the Steady State Theory and was popular up until the 1960s. But it was gradually rejected when all the overwhelming evidence for the BB theory started coming in and now has pretty much proven that the universe had a definite beginning and will end in a heat death. Look it up.

I was just asking, since it is controversial. But I did look it up, and the latest (from 2015) does more-so suggest:

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

But my point is this....

1. If the universe IS eternal, then the concept of a creator negates itself - and the topic is concluded/settled.

2. If the universe had a beginning, you still must account for the following:
a: Prove a singular god (vs) more than one god.
b: Prove such a god is 'perfect'
c: Prove such a singular god is actually just
d: Prove the universe did not just change form from a prior state of existence, even if it is not eternal.
e: Prove this claimed singular god is still around
f: Prove this god is actually interactive with humans
etc........

Well of course the law of causality applied to the BB theory demonstrates that the Creator or Cause of the universe is "outside" or transcendent to the universe, just as the Christian God is. And given that purposes exist in the universe, ie eyes are for seeing, ears for hearing, etc., that shows that the creator is a personal being because only persons can create purposes for things. And then only the Christian Bible teaches the three fundamental scientific facts about the universe that no other religious book does, 1. that the universe came into existence from no physical thing. 2. That the universe is expanding. and 3. The universe is winding down energetically. All three of these have been confirmed by the BB theory. This shows that the creator of the universe is most likely the Christian God.

Please see above

 

[Ken-1122]

Actually that was the old theory prior to BB theory. It was called the Steady State Theory and was popular up until the 1960s. But it was gradually rejected when all the overwhelming evidence for the BB theory started coming in and now has pretty much proven that the universe had a definite beginning and will end in a heat death. Look it up.

Why on Earth would you trust anything science has to say? If those silly scientists don't know what they are talking about when they dismiss your God creation theories, why would you assume they would know what they are talking about when they dismiss the Steady State Theory?

Well of course the law of causality applied to the BB theory demonstrates that the Creator or Cause of the universe is "outside" or transcendent to the universe, just as the Christian God is.

The law of casualty says for every movement, there is a mover. This law does not make an exception for God, so that means if God moves, there has to be something prior to God that caused him to move. If you are going to make an exception for God, claiming this law doesn’t apply to him; then an exception can be made for anything, which means the law is invalid.

 

[cvanwey]

Why on Earth would you trust anything science has to say? If those silly scientists don't know what they are talking about when they dismiss your God creation theories, why would you assume they would know what they are talking about when they dismiss the Steady State Theory?

Simple.. Because science is only 'right' if it already agrees with scripture in some loosely round-about or even definitive way.

The law of casualty says for every movement, there is a mover. This law does not make an exception for God, so that means if God moves, there has to be something prior to God that caused him to move. If you are going to make an exception for God, claiming this law doesn’t apply to him; then an exception can be made for anything, which means the law is invalid.

Until the full fledged theist invokes a logical fallacy/fallacies.

 

[quatona]

No, your analogy is wrong. It is more like a parent telling a child rules for life. Dogs are not moral agents, you are correct. But a child and a human are. God actually does often tell us why in His written word AND in his creation. We dont always learn why immediately sometimes it takes maturity to see it. For example, we learn from His creation that violating God's law against sexual immorality very often leads to STDs or a destroyed marriage. That way we can see why He doesn't want us to engage in such things. I could similar examples for many other things.

You seem to be shooting your own foot here.
If there are intelligible natural *reasons why* (i.e. certain behaviours have undesirable consequences - as in your examples), we don´t need no god to put up rules. We just need to observe and think.
Whereas if your God has created these consequences in order to make his rules appear reasonable, the whole thing is completely arbitrary.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Why?

Because the bible teaches that the universe had a definite beginning and will have an end. It is not eternal, so if it was discovered that the universe is eternal that would be evidence for the non-existence of the Christian God. It would not disprove Him though.