The argument that God provides a basis for objective moral values is bad

[serp777]

Then I concede the debate. You win.

Someone actually conceded a point? This is a biblical level miracle in the religious debate section.

 

[bmk2416]

So perhaps you can enlighten me how they show morals aren't relative? WLC talks about moral growth all the time--he claims that morals can improve. But the only basis for him claiming an improvement is his subjective interpretation and choice of God. WLC and Turek make the fallacy that once they decide a morality, that must mean God supports and aligns with their said morality. But Islam claims the same thing. So this isn't a good argument for claiming moral authority. The problem is that the bible is inherently ambiguous and so you can't postulate you know the mind of God.

"And to your point about someone in the bronze age their later arguments show that that person would be in error in their thinking"
But the only basis for that claim is that they know what morality is best, which means they have special knowledge or the ability to interpret something better than anyone else. This contradicts, also, with the fact that WLC knows what moral growth is. He says he knows what moral growth is and yet that would imply that he already knows what they best morals are in order to determine that morals are in fact growing instead of shrinking.

I apologize in that I'm not familiar with his assertions that there is moral growth but there are countless defenses for why the Bible, specifically the new testament, is true over other religions, I can get into them of you'd like.

And they're saying that the morality that most closely follows our innate morality is the Christian morality.

 

[bmk2416]

No, this kind of statement reflects a profound strawman.
It also shows a misunderstanding of science as well as a misunderstanding of what I said.

First and foremost, you can't scientifically decide something. You can make decisions based on something in science, but science is a process that determines things for itself based on evidence and reason. The decisions the nazis made were anti scientific because the genetics shows that human beings are all pretty much the same with a few minor genetic differences. There was no scientific basis for the inferiority of jews to make such a decision anyways. The Nazis had faith that they were the superior race. If anything this is closer to religion. And you can't decide that something is right or wrong with science so you can't scientifically decide that jews shouldn't live.

Let me ask you a similar question: is it right that all the first born children in Egypt were mercilessly slaughtered because Moses had a disagreement with the Pharaoh? Or is genocide against the Canaanites right because God demanded it? So neither religion nor science can claim a domain over objective morality. All you have is secular logic and utilitarianism based on a scientific analysis of what is best for society. That however isn't inherently good or bad. And the nazis certainly did not align with utilitarianism. In fact a fascist genocidal dictator ship is about the furthest thing from secular moral reasoning in a utilitarian framework.

Unfortunately science is not a process that determines things for itself based on evidence and reason, it is full of human bias and human interpretation. Whereas the Bible yes can be interpreted but it can also be disputed if it is not followed, that's the problem with "science" is that there is no debate, ever, there's nothing to compare to.

The nazis used interpretation of their data to cut off debate about it, and no one knew any better. but on the religious front they couldn't change established truths without it being evident

 

[serp777]

I apologize in that I'm not familiar with his assertions that there is moral growth but there are countless defenses for why the Bible, specifically the new testament, is true over other religions, I can get into them of you'd like.

And they're saying that the morality that most closely follows our innate morality is the Christian morality.

Yes I am fascinated to here your countless defenses which would show Christianity, instead of Islam for instance, is in fact the true religion. And I would love to hear how you know the new testament is a moral guide instead of the old testament, and on what authority you claim that it is. I also want to know on what authority you claim to know that your particular interpretation is correct, and is in fact the moral guideline that God would recommend.

And I am interested to hear whether you think governments should allow a human sacrifice to redeem the sins of a criminal? Where does vicarious redemption stand? Also where do you stand on the concept of hell and eternal punishments for finite crimes?

Even if Christianity is the true religion, (you'd still have to idenity which form of Christianity you are talking about) it still has ambiguous morals that are subject to personal interpretation. I mean, compare the old testament, Leviticus, and exodus to what Christians now normally pick and choose from. Who has the moral authority to decide what God's word actually is? Is his holiness the pope such a person?

 

[bmk2416]

Yes I am fascinated to here your countless defenses which would show Christianity, instead of Islam for instance, is in fact the true religion. And I would love to hear how you know the new testament is a moral guide instead of the old testament, and on what authority you claim that it is. I also want to know on what authority you claim to know that your particular interpretation is correct, and is in fact the moral guideline that God would recommend.

And I am interested to hear whether you think governments should allow a human sacrifice to redeem the sins of a criminal? Where does vicarious redemption stand? Also where do you stand on the concept of hell and eternal punishments for finite crimes?

Even if Christianity is the true religion, (you'd still have to idenity which form of Christianity you are talking about) it still has ambiguous morals that are subject to personal interpretation. I mean, compare the old testament, Leviticus, and exodus to what Christians now normally pick and choose from. Who has the moral authority to decide what God's word actually is? Is his holiness the pope such a person?

Well I surely don't know what governments would think of a God sacrifice to atone for a crime and maybe that's the point, same with vicarious redemption. I also think that even you should understand that if you were to assume God existed committing a crime against him would surely deserve retribution.

The Bible has the authority to decide, and that's the point, actions can be compared to a documented standard.

 

[serp777]

Unfortunately science is not a process that determines things for itself based on evidence and reason, it is full of human bias and human interpretation. Whereas the Bible yes can be interpreted but it can also be disputed if it is not followed, that's the problem with "science" is that there is no debate, ever, there's nothing to compare to.

The nazis used interpretation of their data to cut off debate about it, and no one knew any better. but on the religious front they couldn't change established truths without it being evident

Although true to some very small extent, science is the most unbiased thing we have and is subject to the lowest amount of interpretation in anything humans have ever done. Either the empirical data confirms something, or it doesn't. Chinese science is the same thing as European science. Two scientists anywhere in the world come to the same conclusion regardless of upbringing or mood. Science is also 99.99999% honest because the way you get famous in science, as Lawrence Krauss says, is to prove your other colleagues wrong.

that's the problem with "science" is that there is no debate, ever

I don't think you mean this seriously. Whenever there is limited evidence, or not enough evidence, then scientists almost always disagree with each other. That's why you often get multiple competing theories. Take inflation for that matter. Some scientists have hypothesized based on calculations that it is more likely than not that the multiverse exists in some shape or form. Others argue that since there is no conclusive evidence for the multiverse, that the inflation calculations implications are just a mathematical artifact/coincidence. So there is always debate with limited evidence particularly very limited evidence. Also look at dark matter for example--there are hundreds of competing theories. Or string theory where there are 5 different kinds based on different reasoning. Once a lot of evidence is gathered though all pointing to the same thing, it becomes futile and pointless to try and debate it. Evolution is a good example/

The nazis used interpretation of their data to cut off debate about it, and no one knew any better.

They didn't subject themselves to peer review with the rest of the world, so clearly they weren't being scientific.

 

[bmk2416]

science is the most unbiased thing we have and is subject to the lowest amount of interpretation in anything humans have ever done

Unfortunately this is probably the biggest untruth I've ever seen, most studies that get funded are done purely on political grounds, one of the most biased areas. On top of this scientific fraud is extremely prevalent and results are most always skewed to one viewpoint or another.

I don't think you mean this seriously. Whenever there is limited evidence, or not enough evidence, then scientists almost always disagree with each other. That's why you often get multiple competing theories.

I believe you're misunderstanding me, I quoted science to point out that when people throw around that something is science they mean to say that it's a guaranteed fact, but it proves my point, that by basing things off of something that is constantly changing, even if it's the latest and greatest, we are left on extremely shaky ground when talking about something as important as morals.

 

[serp777]

Well I surely don't know what governments would think of a God sacrifice to atone for a crime and maybe that's the point, same with vicarious redemption. I also think that even you should understand that if you were to assume God existed committing a crime against him would surely deserve retribution.

The Bible has the authority to decide, and that's the point, actions can be compared to a documented standard.

But God didn't make it clear what the crimes were. There are so many competing religious which all proclaim divine revelation and special knowledge. Some people haven't even heard the word of Jesus Christ, so how can they be expected to know whats expected of them? If God reads my mind when I die, then he will know that I legitimately had no idea what his criteria was. I tried to be a good person based on utilitarianism, but since he designed me to be a skeptical poorly evolved primate, the he should have figured out that I wasn't going to believe the assertions of another human who says he knows the mind of God and the true objective morality.

And furthermore God is supposed to have infinite mercy, not be vengeful. And God knew that we were going to sin before we were created. He designed and allowed us to sin. We were setup for the ultimate entrapment scenario. None of this is logical, or consistent, or expected from perfect omnipotent being.

The Bible has the authority to decide

But you're using your own authority to claim that 1. You can interpret the bible correctly, and 2. that you're able to recognize which holy book is the true word of God. I don't claim to have special knowledge of that, you do apparently. And I ask you again if you think that say, genocide or slavery as the bible describes it is morally sound. On what authority do you claim certain parts of the bible are to be ignored or are simply metaphorical stories, and on what authority are you able to make that determination ?

actions can be compared to a documented standard

There are numerous contradictions in this so called standard document.

 

[bmk2416]

Some people haven't even heard the word of Jesus Christ, so how can they be expected to know whats expected of them? If God reads my mind when I die, then he will know that I legitimately had no idea what his criteria was.

Well if God is the perfect judge and he judges that to be a good reason in both cases then you'll be fine, I don't believe I or anyone else can tell you the punishment on it and the Bible doesn't say we can either. We can provide axioms and be discerning to what I see to warn but we're not the one ultimately handing out the verdict, we don't have the intimate knowledge.

And furthermore God is supposed to have infinite mercy, not be vengeful. And God knew that we were going to sin before we were created. He designed and allowed us to sin. We were setup for the ultimate entrapment scenario. None of this is logical, or consistent, or expected from perfect omnipotent being.

So if by this scenario you're assuming God exists, you also must realize that he's God and you can't judge the plan because you don't know why it was created.

On what authority do you claim certain parts of the bible are to be ignored or are simply metaphorical stories, and on what authority are you able to make that determination ?

On Jesus's authority and by his words,

 

[serp777]

Unfortunately this is probably the biggest untruth I've ever seen, most studies that get funded are done purely on political grounds, one of the most biased areas. On top of this scientific fraud is extremely prevalent and results are most always skewed to one viewpoint or another.



I believe you're misunderstanding me, I quoted science to point out that when people throw around that something is science they mean to say that it's a guaranteed fact, but it proves my point, that by basing things off of something that is constantly changing, even if it's the latest and greatest, we are left on extremely shaky ground when talking about something as important as morals.

Scientific fraud is by definition fraud. That means its not actually science. Just because people attempt to hijack science for political purposes doesn't mean that true science becomes biased. Its just the corruption of politics trying to make its own form of science. Science is good at weeding out flaws in studies through the process of peer review too. Just because someone publishes one study doesn't make it a science standard. Normally to prove something that your peers will agree with, you need dozens of double blind peer reviewed studies which not only show correlation, but also demonstrate causation.

Many studies can hardly be considered scientific too. Polling studies are not science for instance. You're more pointing out the flaws with statistics and certain parts of mathematics rather than with science itself.

I quoted science to point out that when people throw around that something is science they mean to say that it's a guaranteed fact

But that would be a false explanation of science. Science doesn't confirm anything, even gravity, as a fact. But the more evidence you add the more likely its true. At some point we just round up 99.9999999999999% true to a fact. Like gravity for example. And something like quantum physics has been confirmed by literally every experiment ever done by anybody. Its pretty hard to say all those experiments are up for debate. You would have your work cut out for you.

 

[bmk2416]

Scientific fraud is by definition fraud.

Right and if people are basing moral ideas off of scientific fraud it's impossible to determine until someone proves that fraud.

Science doesn't confirm anything, even gravity, as a fact

Sure, and that's why it's a terrible idea to base morals on science.

 

[serp777]

Well if God is the perfect judge and he judges that to be a good reason in both cases then you'll be fine, I don't believe I or anyone else can tell you the punishment on it and the Bible doesn't say we can either. We can provide axioms and be discerning to what I see to warn but we're not the one ultimately handing out the verdict, we don't have the intimate knowledge.



So if by this scenario you're assuming God exists, you also must realize that he's God and you can't judge the plan because you don't know why it was created.



On Jesus's authority and by his words,

So what this is starting to show is moral relativism and subjectivity. Psychopaths may not have known that what they were doing was a bad thing, and thus the murdered indiscriminately.

So if by this scenario you're assuming God exists, you also must realize that he's God and you can't judge the plan because you don't know why it was created.

I think I can judge it because he gave me intelligence and I know how to do it better. Let me provide some basic examples--dont allow anti biotics resistant bacteria. Don't let babies come in this world and die horribly from cancer or some other illness. Many others.

Since he's God and he's all powerful, you must realize that he has the ability to make a universe with free that is significantly less cruel than the one we live in. If he can't then he isn't all powerful. And if he doesn't care then he isn't a personal intervening God who loves. And if he cares but did it this way anyways then he is being sadistic or needs sin and pain. You're seriously telling me he couldn't come up with a better plan than having is son tortured to death in bronze age Palestine in order to forgive us from the sins he made, in order to save us from himself? He could just, you know, forgive us with his supposedly infinite mercy. oh, and we are inherently sick by default--we inherit the sins of a non existent forebearer, Adam. To say God is mysterious or that you can't judge his plan is baseless.

we don't have the intimate knowledge.

This is what i am talking about. This is why moral objectivity doesn't exist. We don't have intimate knowledge of God's perfect morality. He could have very easily enlightened all of us so that we know precisely the stakes and in fact that he is the true God. its sure awfully convenient that some humans decided that God has this mysterious plan and that they will write the word of God down for you, which you have to believe in or face retribution. It sounds entirely like a con to get power. It sounds no different than scientology. I see no good reason to believe it and God should know better to provide us with better information than a 2000 year old book written by superstitious people who didn't know the earth orbited the sun.

 

[serp777]

Right and if people are basing moral ideas off of scientific fraud it's impossible to determine until someone proves that fraud.



Sure, and that's why it's a terrible idea to base morals on science.

Well we definitely, most certainly, wouldn't want to base our morality off of the bible.

Right and if people are basing moral ideas off of scientific fraud it's impossible to determine until someone proves that fraud.

There has been an insane amount of religious fraud. Look at Joseph Smith, a convicted con man. Therefore there's no reason to buy into any religion because its impossible to determine fraud until somebody proves that corresponding fraud. So if you consider this a valid point then why are you religious, or at the very least how can you accept religious morals?

 

[bmk2416]

I think I can judge it because he gave me intelligence and I know how to do it better. Let me provide some basic examples--dont allow anti biotics resistant bacteria. Don't let babies come in this world and die horribly from cancer or some other illness. Many others.

If you'll surmise with me that heaven exists and God knows that even when a baby dies a horrible death he spends eternity in heaven, is it really an evil thing?

Since he's God and he's all powerful, you must realize that he has the ability to make a universe with free that is significantly less cruel than the one we live in. If he can't then he isn't all powerful.

OK so if you're assuming he's all powerful shouldn't you gather from that that he is smarter than you and he is doing what's best for the world? I'm in no way saying he's mysterious but you can't assume the axioms of a God (omniscient, omnipotent etc) and then contradict them by saying he's not smart enough or powerful enough. You certainly can't say he's not smarter than you.

 

[bmk2416]

Well we definitely, most certainly, wouldn't want to base our morality off of the bible

But America for example, has done this and it's the reason why we can even begin to debate our "rights", because they're not opinions they're unchanging standards

Therefore there's no reason to buy into any religion because its impossible to determine fraud until somebody proves that corresponding fraud

Not necessarily, being that a religious text doesn't change, you can immediately prove fraud by inconsistent actions.

 

[serp777]

If you'll surmise with me that heaven exists and God knows that even when a baby dies a horrible death he spends eternity in heaven, is it really an evil thing?



OK so if you're assuming he's all powerful shouldn't you gather from that that he is smarter than you and he is doing what's best for the world? I'm in no way saying he's mysterious but you can't assume the axioms of a God (omniscient, omnipotent etc) and then contradict them by saying he's not smart enough or powerful enough.

If you'll surmise with me that heaven exists and God knows that even when a baby dies a horrible death he spends eternity in heaven, is it really an evil thing?

It is because they had to be tortured for no reason in order to go to heaven. Why not just let them into heaven? Surely an all powerful, all merciful God didn't have to do that.

OK so if you're assuming he's all powerful shouldn't you gather from that that he is smarter than you and he is doing what's best for the world?

I have no reason to believe he is doing whats best for the world. For all you and I know we may just be rats in a laboratory that he is experimenting with.

And I am not breaking the axioms. I am giving you all possible scenarios that show contradictions which logically follow from your own axioms. When you admit to a condition then it shows a contradiction.

"Since he's God and he's all powerful, you must realize that he has the ability to make a universe with free that is significantly less cruel than the one we live in. If he can't, then he isn't all powerful. And if he doesn't care then he isn't a personal intervening God who loves. And if he cares but did it this way anyways then he is being sadistic or needs sin and pain. You're seriously telling me he couldn't come up with a better plan than having is son tortured to death in bronze age Palestine in order to forgive us from the sins he made, in order to save us from himself? He could just, you know, forgive us with his supposedly infinite mercy. oh, and we are inherently sick by default--we inherit the sins of a non existent forebearer, Adam. To say God is mysterious or that you can't judge his plan is baseless."

This includes a number of if statements that are conditional and reflect something contradictory. I postulate that if God is real and is loves and is intervening, then he would have made a universe with much less cruelty, but still has free will, because he is all powerful

 

[serp777]

But America for example, has done this and it's the reason why we can even begin to debate our "rights", because they're not opinions they're unchanging standards



Not necessarily, being that a religious text doesn't change, you can immediately prove fraud by inconsistent actions.

"But America for example, has done this and it's the reason why we can even begin to debate our "rights", because they're not opinions they're unchanging standards"
Those are a result of secular moral analysis and a utilitarian framework. They aren't claimed to be objectively good, they're claimed to be best for society as far as they can tell.

Not necessarily, being that a religious text doesn't change, you can immediately prove fraud by inconsistent actions

Actually religious texts do change. The most obvious case is that they're translated. Who knows what was modified or lost in translation. In addition, the bible itself took a long time to complete and was written after the fact of the experiences with Jesus. So it was changing for centuries basically. Plenty of time to modify it however you would want if you wanted political or social power.

"The development of the biblical canon took centuries, and was nearly complete (with exceptions known as the Antilegomena, written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed) by the time the Muratorian fragment was written.[67]"
First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And this: Biblical canon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scroll down to the bottom and see what all the various sects of Christianity include or don't include. Its almost arbitrary. They also have not included the dead sea scrolls and the gospel of Mary Magdelin.

 

[jchristopher]

The problem is, we have no way of knowing for sure what those teachings are. I think it is unreasonable for God to demand we believe things that are so easily debated. Now, the spirit of Jesus' teachings ... all good in the neighborhood.

People dispute the "spirit of Jesus' teachings" too. But there is a way to "know for sure what those teachings are". It is called divinely revealed truth. The scriptures contain them, but I also believe in continuing revelation, otherwise known as modern prophecy. We cannot know God unless he reveals himself to us, because of the veil of mortality that covers our eyes and memory of our former home. Now with respect to the scriptures, namely, the Bible, most of them are not a perfect translation and they are much debated as to their true meaning. This is why modern prophecy is so important, because it is the means by which scripture is properly interpreted and taught to the people. And, as times and cultures change, prophetic interpretation becomes more important in helping us understand the gospel as laid out in ancient scripture from a new or changed perspective. This is why I also believe that scripture is and always was an open canon. People incorrectly interpret the passages in Revelations that state that anyone who adds or subtracts "from this work", namely, John's book titled "Revelations", shall be accursed as proof that all has been written that God wanted to be written and that there will be no more revelations or scriptures given. I believe this to be false, and misinterpretations like this are the very reason that prophecy is necessary today.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well that's really interesting, I haven't really talked to you about your worldviews before. Really fascinating.

What do you think of the prospects of an individual such as you, me or the family cat advancing to a state where you'd describe them as a deity, in the 'lower' form of deity you describe here?

It depends on their Will to pursue apotheosis which is a long process that takes multiple lifetimes and involves radical individualization and subjugating reality to your Will through various magickal and practical means. In a way, it is a revolt against the natural order and a sort of hijacking of evolution for your own means. It is self-creation You basically have to undertake the path of the archetypal Hero as well as worship of your Self (your Daimon/Genius/Holy Guardian Angel/True Self).

So it is a path that is open to all spiritual beings, I suppose, but it's not a path that really becomes an option until you reach a certain state of awareness. Non-human animals are too much in tune with the natural order to posit such a thing. That's not a bad thing, it's just a different path from the one of a Western LHP practitioner who seeks to free themselves from the subjugation of external paradigms.

 

[bmk2416]

Surely an all powerful, all merciful God didn't have to do that.

He never claimed to be all merciful, instead he claimed to be a perfect judge

I postulate that if God is real and is loves and is intervening, then he would have made a universe with much less cruelty, but still has free will, because he is all powerfu

He did, it's called heaven so I'll ask again if you think that world is perfect, would it be evil if a baby, who suffered at most 3 years, died then went to a perfect place for eternity? And again if he is ALL powerful his plan is also PERFECT exactly how it is now. Again you're assuming axioms and then unassuming them later on.