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

[DogmaHunter]

It’s not that simple; sometimes the same act will lead to happiness and wellbeing for one group will lead to pain and misery to another. That’s why you will never find a definition of morality that includes “improving wellbeing” except for the one you made up.

I don't think I every said that moral values of actions is absolute, in the sense that if X is wrong in setting A, it's also wrong in setting B.

Obviously context is relevant.

To take your example...
Eventhough it's far fetched, I can for example imagine a bacteria that works in symbiosis with our western bodies and actually have health benefits for us, while it might be utterly incompatible with the immune systems of a remote tribe on some island.

In that case, it would be moral to inject that bacteria in our bodies and immoral to inject it in the bodies of the members of that tribe.

Sure. How is this a problem?

Also, did you notice how this came back to indeed wellbeing and suffering?

Tell me, whatever action you were thinking of that leads to happiness and wellbeing in one group while leading to pain and misery in another group....
Would it be moral to do it in the first group while immoral in the second group, by any chance?

No when a justified killing is labeled murder by an immoral law. An example might be considered self defense that leads to the death of a person legally allowed to murder you by an immoral law.

Ow okay, you're taking strictly legal terms and lawmaking.
I already acknowledged that law and morality isn't the same thing.

I just took "murder" to mean any avoidable / unecessary / unjustified killing of pretty much innocents in the broad sense, regardless of legal definitions and restrictions.

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't think I every said that moral values of actions is absolute, in the sense that if X is wrong in setting A, it's also wrong in setting B.

Obviously context is relevant.

To take your example...
Eventhough it's far fetched, I can for example imagine a bacteria that works in symbiosis with our western bodies and actually have health benefits for us, while it might be utterly incompatible with the immune systems of a remote tribe on some island.

In that case, it would be moral to inject that bacteria in our bodies and immoral to inject it in the bodies of the members of that tribe.

Sure. How is this a problem?

Also, did you notice how this came back to indeed wellbeing and suffering?

Tell me, whatever action you were thinking of that leads to happiness and wellbeing in one group while leading to pain and misery in another group....
Would it be moral to do it in the first group while immoral in the second group, by any chance?

Robbing Peter to pay Paul adds to the wellbeing of Paul while causing harm to Peter.

Ow okay, you're taking strictly legal terms and lawmaking.
I already acknowledged that law and morality isn't the same thing.

I just took "murder" to mean any avoidable / unecessary / unjustified killing of pretty much innocents in the broad sense, regardless of legal definitions and restrictions.

Who determines what is avoidable, unnecessary, or unjustified? It’s all subjective.

 

[Ed1wolf]

So if I understand you correctly, you only have a problem with what they call "Macro" Evolution; is that correct? Forget about evolution as they apply to humans, lets look at bacteria, insects, fish, etc. If micro evolution were to take place within a species every couple hundred years, how much change do you suppose could take place in a couple million years?

Bacteria has been around at least 1 billion years and the oldest fossils of bacteria are basically the same species living to day, no macroevolution there. Same with insects. Fish changed as the ecosystems changed but no transition forms between genera. Probably means God created replacement species as each old species became extinct due to changes in the ecosystems.

 

[Ed1wolf]

It seems to me that you're placing limits on the power of God with that statement I quoted.

Actually there are limits to what God can do, such as He can't make a square circle or a rock that is so heavy He cant lift it. Not sure He can COMPLETELY sanctify someone in all areas of their lives instantly. There has to time to learn and grow spiritually, that is why He gave us life and this universe to live in. One of the main purposes of life is to be a school for our souls.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Robbing Peter to pay Paul adds to the wellbeing of Paul while causing harm to Peter.

Not just to Peter. To the whole of society.
If robbing people becomes acceptable behaviour, then that is detrimental to a cooperative society.

Who determines what is avoidable, unnecessary, or unjustified? It’s all subjective.

No. There's 2 different issues here.

First, there is the acknowledgement that avoidable / unnecessary / unjustified killing is immoral.

Second, there is the determination of wether or not individual killings actually were avoidable unnecessary / unjustified.

The second is not part of the acknowledgement that such a killing is immoral.
You can be mistaken in your determination wether a killing was avoidable or not, while still agreeing that avoidable killings are immoral.

I am not saying that morality is always easy. I am not saying that there aren't gray area's.
But I am saying that the words "moral" and "immoral" have meaning. And that based on that meaning, we can create arguments, moral reasoning, to determine pretty objectively what would and wouldn't be moral.

That doesn't mean that it's always easy to determine the moral value of individual actions.

I just completely oppose the idea saying that morality is just a matter of "opinion". It's not.
As in, person X says that stealing is okay and person Y says it's not okay, and that both somehow are equally valid. They aren't.

How valid their statements are, is determined by the moral reasoning / arguments they offer to support their statement.

That's the thing. In my world, moral evaluation of actions is not a matter of opinion or belief or "statements". In my world, a moral evaluation is a conclusion of a reasoning process. That reasoning process can be valid or invalid. Just like any other argument.

 

[quatona]

Not just to Peter. To the whole of society.
If robbing people becomes acceptable behaviour, then that is detrimental to a cooperative society.



No. There's 2 different issues here.

First, there is the acknowledgement that avoidable / unnecessary / unjustified killing is immoral.

Second, there is the determination of wether or not individual killings actually were avoidable unnecessary / unjustified.

The second is not part of the acknowledgement that such a killing is immoral.
You can be mistaken in your determination wether a killing was avoidable or not, while still agreeing that avoidable killings are immoral.

I am not saying that morality is always easy. I am not saying that there aren't gray area's.
But I am saying that the words "moral" and "immoral" have meaning. And that based on that meaning, we can create arguments, moral reasoning, to determine pretty objectively what would and wouldn't be moral.

That doesn't mean that it's always easy to determine the moral value of individual actions.

I just completely oppose the idea saying that morality is just a matter of "opinion". It's not.
As in, person X says that stealing is okay and person Y says it's not okay, and that both somehow are equally valid. They aren't.

How valid their statements are, is determined by the moral reasoning / arguments they offer to support their statement.

That's the thing. In my world, moral evaluation of actions is not a matter of opinion or belief or "statements". In my world, a moral evaluation is a conclusion of a reasoning process. That reasoning process can be valid or invalid. Just like any other argument.

You would have a point if criteria like wellbeing, justified, avoidable, necessary were actually quantifiable/calculable.
However, they are not, and on top of that - even if they were - our conclusions depend a lot on our subjective values and the way we weigh up the wellbeing of individuals, groups, societies, mankind and the totality of all beings that are able to suffer. Thus, they don´t lend themselves to "objective" evaluation.
Add to that the impossibility to "objectively" weigh up the short-, mid- and longterm effects of an action (on each individual or group) against each other.

Thus, while I agree that morality is about enhancing wellbeing (rather than obedience to an authority), I fail to see how our evaluations based on this general criteria can be in any way "objective".

 

[DogmaHunter]

You would have a point if criteria like wellbeing, justified, avoidable, necessary were actually quantifiable/calculable.

I completely disagree that wellbeing and suffering are things that aren't quantifiable.
I'll agree that it's not an exact science, where you can put a number on "amount of pain" for example and express it in some kind of unit. Not yet anyway. Perhaps one day we could be able to do something like that through neurological sciences or whatever.

But certainly you will agree that there clearly is a difference between well-being and suffering, right? A difference that can be concluded rather objectively, right?

A person with functioning limbs is objectively in better shape then a person that has amputated limbs.

A person in good health is objectively in better shape then a person with bone cancer.

However, they are not, and on top of that - even if they were - our conclusions depend a lot on our subjective values and the way we weigh up the wellbeing of individuals, groups, societies, mankind and the totality of all beings that are able to suffer. Thus, they don´t lend themselves to "objective" evaluation.

This is where we differ primarily.
I don't consider the difference between "wellbeing" and "suffering", to being subjective.

A sick person's wellbeing is objectively lower then a healthy person's wellbeing.
Eventhough you can't express in a unit how "sick" somebody is.

Add to that the impossibility to "objectively" weigh up the short-, mid- and longterm effects of an action (on each individual or group) against each other.

You can, insofar as knowledge permits you to.
This is why we have moral development. Because we gather more knowledge and gain better understanding of the nature of reality and the impact of actions and decisions.

The more you know about the world, the better you are equipped for moral evaluation.

You can't make any non-arbitrary moral evaluations, if you don't know what the impact of your actions are.

Thus, while I agree that morality is about enhancing wellbeing (rather than obedience to an authority), I fail to see how our evaluations based on this general criteria can be in any way "objective".

Because what enhances wellbeing (or not) can be (and is) objectively determined.

This is why we no longer use asbest en masse in construction sites and we we consider it immoral today to do so.

I predict that this is also why our grand-grand-grand kids will be consider our use of fossil fuels to being immoral as well.

 

[Strathos]

Actually there are limits to what God can do, such as He can't make a square circle or a rock that is so heavy He cant lift it. Not sure He can COMPLETELY sanctify someone in all areas of their lives instantly. There has to time to learn and grow spiritually, that is why He gave us life and this universe to live in. One of the main purposes of life is to be a school for our souls.

Logical impossibilities are one thing, but that doesn't apply to the action we're talking about.

 

[durangodawood]

Logical impossibilities are one thing, but that doesn't apply to the action we're talking about.

"Square circle" is not really logically impossible per se. Its meaningless.

Asking whether God can make one is as meaningful as asking whether God can make an unbiffled phaliptozord.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Didn't you read that Wikipedia article where it stated that that is what the singularity basically is?

ken: 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.
Big Bang - Wikipedia

Oops wrong article, I meant to say the article I mentioned from Natural History Magazine where Dr. Donald Goldsmith stated that most cosmologists believe that the universe came into existence at the Big Bang and nothing existed prior to it.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Huh? Logical reasoning is a MAJOR part of any scientific theory. You do know that without logical reasoning science is impossible, right?

ken: No; scientific theories include “Abductive reasoning.
Scientific theory - Wikipedia
Abductive reasoning - Wikipedia

Same thing. Abductive and deductive reasoning are both forms of logical reasoning and both are used in science. From your article: Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, abductive inference or retroduction) is a form of logical inference which goes from an observation to a theory which accounts for the observation, ideally seeking to find the simplest and most likely explanation.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, they would just say that there has not been enough time for it to occur.

ken: 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 man

Exactly, thanks for making my point.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I already provided one, most people like to spend time with people like themselves in race, social status, intelligence, etc

ken: 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?

Yes that has increased in recent years, but that is another case of being influenced by God thru His principles that Western societies have incorporated. You dont see this in many non-western societies. And you see in nations that start abandoning Gods principles people start becoming more tribalized again, you can see this in American politics starting to occur. Very few democrats have republican friends and vice versa.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Also people are by nature social beings who prefer living in groups rather than alone. That cannot be changed by other humans.

ken: I agree humans like being around each other.

Yes, that is a strong part of human nature.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Also, people by nature want a spouse and have children. These are unchangeable facts of human nature.

ken: That is changing. I know many people who don’t want children, and though many want relationships, they don’t necessarily want a spouse.
These human natures you claim humans are unable to change? A quick look in the real world and you will see today more and more people are going against that nature than ever before.

I probably should have said this is more of the nature of human women not as much in men. Only in western societies that begin to reject God's principles is this occurring a little and even there most women deep down still want these things but society pressure has caused them not to verbalize these desires. Worldwide especially regarding the nature of women strongly still want these things.

 

[Ken-1122]

Bacteria has been around at least 1 billion years and the oldest fossils of bacteria are basically the same species living to day, no macroevolution there. Same with insects. Fish changed as the ecosystems changed but no transition forms between genera. Probably means God created replacement species as each old species became extinct due to changes in the ecosystems.

Would you consider applying macro to reptiles, or other non mammals?

 

[Ken-1122]

Not just to Peter. To the whole of society.
If robbing people becomes acceptable behaviour, then that is detrimental to a cooperative society.

So what constitutes robbery? If the Government forces the rich man to pay extra to supplement the financial short comings of the poor man, is that robbery? It’s all subjective.

No. There's 2 different issues here.

First, there is the acknowledgement that avoidable / unnecessary / unjustified killing is immoral.

There is no acknowledgment of this; this is not the definition of immoral; it’s just something you made up. Only you acknowledge this; I just went along with it for the sake of conversation.

Second, there is the determination of wether or not individual killings actually were avoidable unnecessary / unjustified.

The second is not part of the acknowledgement that such a killing is immoral.
You can be mistaken in your determination wether a killing was avoidable or not, while still agreeing that avoidable killings are immoral.

But I never agreed to that

That's the thing. In my world, moral evaluation of actions is not a matter of opinion or belief or "statements". In my world, a moral evaluation is a conclusion of a reasoning process. That reasoning process can be valid or invalid. Just like any other argument.

It's that way in my world as well. Only difference; moral evaluations via my reasoning process will often reach a different conclusion than will be reached in your world. What method do you employ to confirm your moral evaluations trump mine?

 

[Ken-1122]

Same thing. Abductive and deductive reasoning are both forms of logical reasoning and both are used in science. From your article: Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, abductive inference or retroduction) is a form of logical inference which goes from an observation to a theory which accounts for the observation, ideally seeking to find the simplest and most likely explanation.

All abductive reasoning is logical, but not everything logical is abductive reasoning. When you said “all you have to do is make a step of logic and conclude…..” that logic was not abductive reasoning.

Thanks for making my point

Your point was a little more than mankind is no longer evolving, your point was also that mankind NEVER evolved.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
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.

ken: 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?

No, I said from the beginning that God thru His teachings can change our nature but only permanently if you become a Christian. People who dont want children or spouses are only in recent years and most live in societies that have dead end demographics so wont be around much longer, such as Europe. This characteristic is primarily female human nature.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
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.

ken: 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.

No, I can prove using logical reasoning that you cannot be the creator of the universe and therefore cannot be the objective standard of morality.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
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.

ken: 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!

No, another writer wrote the last chapter of Deuteronomy explaining how Moses died, so that was another eyewitness to Moses. Also, the writer of Exodus and Deut. shows evidence of knowing a great deal about the time period, the area, and being an eyewitness to the events. And the people at the base of Sinai also heard God's voice not just Moses.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
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: 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.

You dont have any objective basis for claiming what they did was wrong. It is similar to all the Vietnamese that left their country to come to live in the US after the war because they did not want to live in a horrible communist country. Sometimes the parents sent their children against their will, do you think what those parents did was wrong? The children as adults now are glad they did even though many never saw their parents again. It is not genocide, the term genocide comes from after the Holocaust when the Nazis killed the jews only because of WHO they were not because of anything they had done wrong. God killed these people because of the things that they had done not because of who they were, most of the people living around ancient Israel were of the same race as the jews, ie, Semites, so it could not have anything to do with their race or ethnicity.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
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.

ken: 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.

That is not what we were talking about, I was making the point that if you base your morality on your subjective feelings then things that are beyond your control such as drugs and hormones can cause you believe things about morality that you would not normally believe. But if you base your morality on an objective standard such as God's character and His word, then you have something that can over ride and correct those beliefs based on feelings.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, I can prove using logical reasoning that you cannot be the creator of the universe and therefore cannot be the objective standard of morality.

Being creator of the Universe has nothing to do with being the objective standard of morality.

No, another writer wrote the last chapter of Deuteronomy explaining how Moses died, so that was another eyewitness to Moses. Also, the writer of Exodus and Deut. shows evidence of knowing a great deal about the time period, the area, and being an eyewitness to the events. And the people at the base of Sinai also heard God's voice not just Moses.

How do you know these people weren’t lying?

You dont have any objective basis for claiming what they did was wrong.

I never said I had an objective basis for anything; I just said what they did was wrong.

That is not what we were talking about, I was making the point that if you base your morality on your subjective feelings then things that are beyond your control such as drugs and hormones can cause you believe things about morality that you would not normally believe. But if you base your morality on an objective standard such as God's character and His word, then you have something that can over ride and correct those beliefs based on feelings.

I don’t trust your God’s moral character; I’d rather stick with my own.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
See my response above to the rape accusation. As far as genocide, genocide is the killing of a group because of WHO they are,

ken: This dictionary disagrees with you
GENOCIDE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

No, nothing in that definition disproves what I wrote.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
this was an ordered capital punishment because of what these people had DONE, ie their rebellion against God from birth.

ken: How do you know what they did? Because Moses said so? How do you know Moses wasn't lying?
So if a nation of people don't worship your God that is justification for genocide?

Not just Moses, but because we have seen down throughout all of human history that we are in rebellion against our creator. People of every nation and culture violate His ten commandments everyday. Not my God, their God too. But not genocide, it has nothing to do with race or ethnicity, those tribes were Semites too just like the jews so it had nothing to do with race or ethnicity. Not worshipping the creator is a sin and the wages of sin is death. We all deserve to die, and God determines when that is and it was their time and God commanded the ancient Hebrews to carry it out for those tribes. That is a once in history event for the Hebrews to be God's arm of judgement. No other nation had or will have that responsibility.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Ok, can you provide an example of something that exists outside the human mind that does not objectively exist?

efm: That question misses the point entirely, which is that you are special pleading a case for Yahweh. If it derives from a mind - any mind - it's subjective.

No, this is not special pleading for Yahweh. There are similar things. For example, animal instincts are derived from animal minds but they objectively exist in relation to humans. Animal behaviorists study objectively existing animal instincts all the time.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
His moral character does not derive from His mind, it is part of who He is.

efm: That is a complete non-sequitur of an argument. Being 'part of who he is' does not magically make it objective.

No, since it is part of who He is, it is not just something He arbitrarily made up.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
While some are anonymous, most are not. And most were written near the time of the events that are recorded by eyewitnesses. And there is strong evidence of its divine origin as I have explained earlier in this thread.
efm: I believe you believe that.

Not just me, but many historians and biblical scholars believe it too.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, if any experience and conclusion goes against His two books, the bible and nature, then we know it is wrong.

efm: No you don't. There is no more reason for anyone to accept that criteria than any other criteria. You both stand on the exact same ground in calling the other wrong - which is to say, no ground at all.

Not if they are claiming to be a Christian. Those have been the criteria for determining God's truth for at least 2000 years for the overwhelming majority of Christians.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
There are many more examples than that, other moral issues such as promiscuous sex, homosexual behavior, and not attending church hurts human flourishing too.

efm: All three of those are amoral, not immoral. And to the point, the (false) idea that they are immoral is not limited to Christianity.

Attending church is not a moral issue for unbelievers but the other two are universal moral issues.

efm: You're beginning to approach a right answer with 'not attending church', because it is at least demonstrably true that engaging in social activities is beneficial. But there is nothing magical about attending church. It goes for any social activity. That's why largely secular nations like Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand, etc., do not suffer in the slightest for their lack of church attendance.

No, sociological studies have shown that regular churchgoers are more law abiding than non-churchgoers.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Without an objective moral standard

efm: You can stop right there. You don't have one. You have the writings of people purporting to speak on behalf of Yahweh, which wouldn't be 'objective' even if you could somehow prove they were from Yahweh. That's all.

No, see above about animal instincts, we have His written moral laws based on His objectively existing moral character.

efm: This is always the most amusing and frustrating thing about having these discussions with theists. You can't seem to help but speak from a position of pretend authority, as if you stand at a level of having established the veracity of your moral philosophy, and everyone else is obligated to bring themselves up to you.

I am not claiming any authority, I am just speaking about all the evidence for God's authority. Christian moral philosophy has been established as the most rational. Many philosophy departments in major secular universities are now dominated by Christian philosophers for this reason.

efm: Understand something: I do not grant you that ground. You don't get to just assume it and expect me to meet you there.

Since one of God objective moral standards is freedom of conscience, you are perfectly free to believe what you want.

efm: But enough about you. Harm and wellbeing are my standards. They are objectively quantifiable. Now, whether that is valued is necessarily subjective, and no appeal to Yahweh or any other imaginary non-entity will magically make it objective, which is one of the many reasons he is worthless in my consideration of morality.

They may be objectively quantifiable but they are based on an irrational sentimentality for your own species. There is no objectively rational reason to base morality on the well being of homo sapiens above other species since they are just another animal. If there is no God, then there is nothing special about humans.

efm: Which is all to say nothing of the fact that moral behavior is utterly irrelevant to your moral philosophy in the first place. If I can spend my entire life as a child murdering serial rapist, have a last second deathbed and go to heaven, or spend my entire life as an atheist philanthropist humanitarian and go to hell, then it is a waste of time to even talk about the moral character of any behavior. Only belief in Yahweh matters.
.

While theoretically possible, it is extremely unlikely that someone who has lived their life as a murdering rapist would sincerely repent on their deathbed. Most people believe that most of the things they have done in life were not in vain, even rapists. They might just say the words for fire insurance but that is not good enough. God sees the true intent of the heart. Christ said you will be judged by your words AND deeds. Just having the right beliefs will not save you if it does not affect how you live. If it does not affect how you live, then it is a false faith, this is plainly taught in the bible. Also, Christ said that there are different levels of hell, so an atheist that does good deeds will be in one of the "better" levels of hell.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

No, this is not special pleading for Yahweh.

Yes it is. Minds are necessarily subjective. You don't get ad hoc you're way out of that.

No, since it is part of who He is, it is not just something He arbitrarily made up.

Did he choose his own nature, or did he not?

If he did, then it's arbitrary.

If he didn't, then there is necessarily an independent standard to which his nature is being measured.

Which horn of Euthyphro would you care to impale yourself on?

Not just me, but many historians and biblical scholars believe it too.

Some who are already inclined to believe, believe that. I'm not impressed.

Not if they are claiming to be a Christian. Those have been the criteria for determining God's truth for at least 2000 years for the overwhelming majority of Christians.

If you are both purporting to have received 'revelation' from Yahweh, you stand on exactly the same ground - nothing at all.

Attending church is not a moral issue for unbelievers but the other two are universal moral issues.

Nope. You can argue that they are moral issues if you like (you will fail, because they're amoral), but you cannot begin to make a case that they are 'universal'. All I would need to disprove such an assertion is one counterexample, and I have one - me.

No, sociological studies have shown that regular churchgoers are more law abiding than non-churchgoers.

Wrong. You've been thoroughly schooled on this point before.

Is denying God moral? (Atheists)

When you actually look at such studies, and the critiques of them, you will find that social activity in general is beneficial. There is nothing magical about church attendance. Clearly not, since more secular nations (and states, and cities) are better off than the religious ones. There are some outliers on either side, but the overwhelming trend is blatantly obvious.

I am not claiming any authority, I am just speaking about all the evidence for God's authority.

You don't have any. You have people purporting to speak on Yahweh's behalf. Nothing else.

Christian moral philosophy has been established as the most rational.

What part of I do not grant you that ground did you not understand?

They may be objectively quantifiable but they are based on an irrational sentimentality for your own species. There is no objectively rational reason to base morality on the well being of homo sapiens above other species since they are just another animal. If there is no God, then there is nothing special about humans.

That of course, is conflating standards with values. Values are necessarily subjective.

In this case, they are subjective to the fact that I am a sentient being with the capacity for suffering and wellbeing, which is why I've adopted that as the standard. If there were no other animals in the universe, this would still be my position. That's an irrelevant point.

For that matter, so is Yahweh.

If Yahweh didn't exist, I would be opposed to harm and supportive of wellbeing.

If Yahweh existed and was opposed to harm and supportive of wellbeing, I would be opposed to harm and supportive of wellbeing.

If Yahweh existed and was supportive of harm and opposed to wellbeing, I would be opposed to harm and supportive of wellbeing.

Yahweh, or any other magical non-entity you care to imagine, simply does not enter into the equation of any moral consideration I make.

While theoretically possible, it is extremely unlikely that someone who has lived their life as a murdering rapist would sincerely repent on their deathbed

If it's possible, then it's a valid internal critique. But you don't even have to take the extreme example of the deathbed for the point to be made. Suppose a serial rapist, torturer, murderer and cannibal simply converted later in life.

Oh look, that actually happened Jeffrey Dahmer - Wikipedia

Belief, not behavior, is the only relevant factor to your moral philosophy. As such, it's not moral at all.

Also, Christ said that there are different levels of hell, so an atheist that does good deeds will be in one of the "better" levels of hell.

Ah, so the atheist philanthropist has a lesser degree of eternal pain and suffering than say, Hitler. Meanwhile, Jeffrey Dahmer still enjoys eternity in Heaven.

And while we're on it, the victims that Jeffrey Dahmer raped, tortured, murdered and ate are all suffering in hell forever, too. They were homosexuals and fornicators after all, which according to you are 'universal' moral issues.

So, you've not exactly fixed the problem. To put it politely.

 

[Ed1wolf]

The question is, can you point to something that is objective (other than your claims of morality) that cannot be demonstrated as true or false. That is the question you didn't answer

What do you mean by true or false? You mean whether something objectively exists? How about whether we landed on the moon, some people believe we never landed on the moon. But there is strong evidence that we did, but it cannot be proven with absolute certainty unless you take the doubters to the moon and show them the footprints. There will always be doubters about objective facts. And I explained in my post why morality has even more doubters because of all the emotional baggage associated with it.