The battle of evolution vs creationism

[cottage]

If objective moral values exist then there has to be an objective standard by which goodness stems from.

The notion of what we call ‘morality’, our generally accepted view of what is right, is based on a need to safeguard ourselves and our kin and to co-exist harmoniously with our neighbours for our own security. Take the statement “Murder is wrong’. Why is it wrong? It isn’t - other than on the terms I’ve just described? There is certainly no logical impediment in stating ‘murder is not wrong’. So it isn’t an argument to say there is an objective moral law because God is a moral being, for that’s just a matter of faith or belief that begs the question, not a self-evident proposition. And which case the term ‘morality’ is just a human construct, self-serving but essential for the continuity of the human race. And ‘God’ is not required for that!

Back to morally sufficient reasons. The evil is caused by people that chooses to do evil...and the suffering comes from the original sin that we are all born in to.

Well you’ve put the blame at God’s door. We were born into suffering. So where was our all loving Creator’s benevolence and mercy?

If there was no evil before the creation of man/beings...but there was evil after the creational of man/beings...doesn't that tell you that evil stems from man/beings?

It tells me that if God is omnipotent and evil and suffering exists, then those things exist because God meant for them to exist. The contrary argument leads to a contradiction: i.e. that an omnipotent God didn’t mean for them to exist.

Well, is it possible for God to have morally sufficient reasons to allow evil/suffering? Yes or no?

Yes of course it is! God can create any system of rules and call it ‘moral’; that’s certainly his omnipotent prerogative. But he cannot be an all loving and omnibenevolent being.

 

[Parsimony]

Lets take this to mibbit.

Eh, don't worry about it. Doesn't feel worth it. I just like playing Devil's advocate (perhaps a little too literally here!).

 

[McBell]

Ok, so me murdering your entire family and rapeing all of the women in your family isn't objectively wrong.

Wow.
You have just demonstrated you have no idea what "objective" means.

What part of God may have morally sufficient reasons to cause/permit evil and suffering did you not understand?

Ah.
So you do acknowledge that evil comes from god...

Capable of doing evil = the ability to have free will to act on your own accord and make your own decisions. God cannot guarantee that everyone will make the right decision with every single action that they take.

Nice sermon, but what does it have to do with god being the source of evil?

Second, if God does not exist then there isn't any objective evil anyway, as you already stated that there is no objective moral values. So if there is no objective evil, then everything is arbitrary and you have no case to make against evil.

Please pay attention.

I have not made a case against evil.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Eh, don't worry about it. Doesn't feel worth it. I just like playing Devil's advocate (perhaps a little too literally here!).

Yet you seemed ready and willing to discuss it in depth on here though, right?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Wow.
You have just demonstrated you have no idea what "objective" means.

I do but it seems apparent that you don't.

Ah.
So you do acknowledge that evil comes from god...

I don't like the "comes from" rendering.

Nice sermon, but what does it have to do with god being the source of evil?

You just don't get it, do you? You see, some people are best just left to their own ignorance. I will leave you to it.

Please pay attention.

I have not made a case against evil.

You said there are no objective moral values, but then you turn around and say god is the source of evil...but if there are no objective moral values, then there is no objective moral evil...so therefore, your critique is meaningless and once again, I will leave you to your ignorance.

 

[Ouroboros]

Ah.
So you do acknowledge that evil comes from god...

Interesting point.

If morality comes from God, God is behind good and evil.

Besides, if morality had to be created, the morality isn't absolutely objective. It's only objective to us, but subjective in relation to God. If morality is created, then it's made-up by God. So whatever God says is good, is good. Whatever he says is evil, is evil. He can just make stuff up on the fly... Don't think that's such a great system of morality.

 

[adi2d]

Its a sure sign you've debated yourself into a corner if you have to stoop to calling another poster ignorant

 

[McBell]

I don't like the "comes from" rendering.

Your liking or disliking it makes no difference.
It is what it is.

You just don't get it, do you? You see, some people are best just left to their own ignorance. I will leave you to it.

I am not the one revealing my ignorance with every post...

You said there are no objective moral values,

Because there aren't any.

but then you turn around and say god is the source of evil...

I am merely pointing out that you are the one holding that position.

but if there are no objective moral values, then there is no objective moral evil...

YOU are the one claiming objective this and that, not me.

Like I said, you need to pay better attention.

so therefore, your critique is meaningless and once again, I will leave you to your ignorance.

Again, it is not me who is revealing their ignorance with each post.

your inability/unwillingness to understand what is being said reveals much more about you than it ever will about me.

 

[McBell]

Interesting point.

If morality comes from God, God is behind good and evil.

Besides, if morality had to be created, the morality isn't absolutely objective. It's only objective to us, but subjective in relation to God. If morality is created, then it's made-up by God. So whatever God says is good, is good. Whatever he says is evil, is evil. He can just make stuff up on the fly... Don't think that's such a great system of morality.

The problem is that some people cannot grasp concepts they think interferes with their worldview...

 

[Parsimony]

Yet you seemed ready and willing to discuss it in depth on here though, right?

Precisely. Which is why I would prefer to continue discussing it here.

 

[Ouroboros]

Its a sure sign you've debated yourself into a corner if you have to stoop to calling another poster ignorant

Which means that Jesus lost the debate 2,000 years ago.

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?"

He also called them spawn of the devil and whitewashed tombs.

Jesus lost. Pharisees won. :/

 

[Thief]

Which means that Jesus lost the debate 2,000 years ago.

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?"

He also called them spawn of the devil and whitewashed tombs.

Jesus lost. Pharisees won. :/

A bit of a stretch to say He lost...

Are you sure about that?

 

[Skwim]

A bit of a stretch to say He lost...

Are you sure about that?

When one is reduced to name calling it's a good sign they've lost.

 

[Ouroboros]

A bit of a stretch to say He lost...

Nope. Not a stretch.

Are you sure about that?

Yup.


Aren't you?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Ok, so me murdering your entire family and rapeing all of the women in your family isn't objectively wrong.

"Wrong" lacks technical meaning. You can't get to any objectivity with technically meaningless terms.

Instead of getting so caught up in the concept of 'right' and 'wrong', just try to track the technical/objective consequences of certain actions.

Humans think about morals because we've evolved to be social creatures, so there's a rooted concern for how we interact with other members of our species. I think it's also a lost cause to search for "absolute" morals; i.e. morals that don't chance with circumstance. Values change with circumstance and morals are ultimately rooted in values.

Honestly, as far as I can tell, if we consider circumstance, it all makes more sense. As bad as murdering may seem, under extreme circumstances, such as competing for vital resources when there's objectively not enough to go around, then objective morals may change where murdering someone yields benefits that outweigh the detriments it may bring.

I rather not use the word "moral" at all though, but rather, "socially beneficial/detrimental."

 

[averageJOE]

A bit of a stretch to say He lost...

Are you sure about that?

He reduced himself to name calling, and got nailed to a cross. I'd say he lost.

 

[Thief]

He reduced himself to name calling, and got nailed to a cross. I'd say he lost.

Well.....seems the call that got Him nailed was a false accusation.....
'king of the Jews'

He didn't say it....the Pharisees put it to the Romans.
The Romans put it on the Cross.
The Pharisees then objected.

He may have died.....but we all do.

 

[Ouroboros]

Well.....seems the call that got Him nailed was a false accusation.....
'king of the Jews'

It seems like you're not following the argument.

1. Two people having an argument/debate
2. One of them start calling the other one names (viper, ignorant, etc)
3. The one calling names automatically loses the debate

1. Jesus and the Pharisees had a debate
2. Jesus called them vipers
3. Jesus lost the debate

 

[outhouse]

It seems like you're not following the argument.

1. Two people having an argument/debate
2. One of them start calling the other one names (viper, ignorant, etc)
3. The one calling names automatically loses the debate

1. Jesus and the Pharisees had a debate
2. Jesus called them vipers
3. Jesus lost the debate

That is all assuming there ever was a debate.

I highly doubt it.


He caused trouble in the temple with half a million people at passover. A goos squad went out at night and arrested him and beat him in the morning and nailes his carcass up to a cross.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The notion of what we call ‘morality’, our generally accepted view of what is right, is based on a need to safeguard ourselves and our kin and to co-exist harmoniously with our neighbours for our own security.

That is subjective reasoning though. Suppose I don't want to co-exist harmoniously with my neighbors, am I objectively wrong for wiping them out? How is your view any better than mines? We both have our reasons...

Take the statement “Murder is wrong’. Why is it wrong?

If there is no objective standard, then murder isn't objectively wrong.

It isn’t - other than on the terms I’ve just described? There is certainly no logical impediment in stating ‘murder is not wrong’. So it isn’t an argument to say there is an objective moral law because God is a moral being, for that’s just a matter of faith or belief that begs the question, not a self-evident proposition.

But when I say an omnibenvoelent exists, I am presupposing a standard of morality, an objective standard which means that some things are right and some things are wrong regardless of what man thinks. Now, I do have corroborating reasons for believing this, but that is the jest of it.

God's commandments reflect his holy character, so any act that is contrary to the ultimate standard of goodness would be considered wrong.

And which case the term ‘morality’ is just a human construct, self-serving but essential for the continuity of the human race. And ‘God’ is not required for that!

I am talking about objective morality...people can think what they want.

Well you’ve put the blame at God’s door. We were born into suffering. So where was our all loving Creator’s benevolence and mercy?

We are all sinful beings, and any suffering that we may go through may very well be as an act of judgment by God, or even to draw us closer to him, as many people can personally testify too.

It tells me that if God is omnipotent and evil and suffering exists, then those things exist because God meant for them to exist.

Evil is the opposite of righteousness, and one can only be righteous if one chooses to be righteous...that is called FREE WILL, cot. Evil exist because there are people that chooses to do the wrong thing. Suffering exists because of sin, and we've all committed a sin or two in our lives.

Yes of course it is! God can create any system of rules and call it ‘moral’; that’s certainly his omnipotent prerogative. But he cannot be an all loving and omnibenevolent being.

I am trying to figure out what part of "FREE WILL" are you not understanding? God cannot make someone "freely" do something, cot. Ominbenvolent or not.