Morality

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

amadeus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2008
22,394
31,448
113
80
Oklahoma
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No, If god decides what is right and wrong that is subjective. You are objectively following a subjective moral code just Like I do.
If I decide or you decide it is certainly subjective. With God it is already decided. It is an absolute which means that ultimately tt cannot be subjective. This is God's perspective which a man alone cannot see or understand.

Is the god of the bible different than the one you know? I am only quoting his words, rules and commands.

The Bible is a book describing with words for men things which men without help cannot understand. You are quoting them and making rulings on them without that help. He is the only one who can help and without asking of Him as one must, there is NO help forthcoming.

Gods morality is subjective, you following it is objective because you can compare your actions to his standard, but his standard is still subjective.
This thing of being subjective is what men do according to whims or judgments or rulings or deductions or conclusions or etc. God has no such whims or judgments or rulings and such for He is not a man. His Word was settled before any man was who could have a whim or a judgment or a ruling. His Word does not change as He does not change.


Then why does god command immoral acts? None of this addresses why you dismiss those verses that call for immoral acts.
You have effectively defined moral and immoral in your own mind as if your understanding and your explanation would be unflawed, but you as a man cannot even say what accurately for all hearers what flawless would be even to every man, much less to an all powerful all knowing God.

"Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" Job 38:2

God said those words to Job and Job was considered and is considered a wise man. What is the wisdom of even the wisest of men before God?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reggie Belafonte

Berserk

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2019
878
670
93
76
Colville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Vince: "The last thing is the concept of situational ethics meaning that the same action can be morally good or morally bad depending on the context. For example, lying is generally a morally bad act but in a situation where someone can get hurt if you tell the truth then lying can be a morally good act but it is based on the objective standard of well-being."

My posts decisively refute your point here because your point and subsequent evasive comments duck my criticism that you fail to justify the metaethical question of what makes right actions right. Why should I or anyone care about your notion of your so-called "objective standard of wellbeing" of others?" Why shouldn't I instead live by my criteria of what makes me happy and serves my best interests regardless of who I hurt, if I'm clever enough to get away with it? You continually duck this decisive refutation of your position in your replies to my posts. If my hurtful conduct creates a world that works for me, why should I (a sociopath with no conscience) care whether it works for anyone else? You can't reply that I wouldn't get away with it because you cannot know that. You cannot reply that I would be deprived of love from most others because self-love may be my core value. In short, with no assured accountability in this life or the next, you have no basis for morality and any protestations that an atheist can be a good and decent person is no more than an arbitrary expression of emotional preference.

Your moral pretenses are thus deciisvel refuted by Richard Dawkins (author of "The God Delusion") chilling nihilistic admission: ad

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

Dr. Kenneth Miller, author of biology text books most commonly used in high school and college, confronted Dawkins on the inconsistency of this statement with Dawkins passionate life of purpose. Dawkins had no meaningful answer. Social convention, cultural consensus, and evolved human herd instincts ultimate express only the result of natural selection and genetic mutation working to the advantage of human procreation and survival, but they provide no defensible grounds for moral accountability and Right and Wrong.

Vince: "I am going to assume here that god does in fact exist. If he does then how does god know what is moral? Is god’s morality good because he says it is or is it good because it is good by itself? If god is just advocating for an objective good morality then morality exists independent of god and humans can through time discover this morality."

God cannot be moral on the basis of standards apart from Himself because God is the ground of all Being and is by definition All That Is. God is subject to nothing apart from Himself.

Vince: "If morality is good only because god commands it then morality is arbitrary and humans would be unable to reason to this morality because it is not based on reason."
Wrong! The essence of the Christian God is Love. This fact has x implications:

(1) Moral issues like justice, compassion, and patience must conceive these virtues as implications of Love, as God conceives it.
(2) In a theistic model, morality is thus "based on reason," but reason is a function of arguments with premises and conclusions; and thus the soundness of arguments depends on the assumptions implicit in the premises. These assumptions in turn are shaped by intuition and experience. So true morality is ultimately based on divinely guided intuition and experience--other terms for divine revelation. But our determination of this morality differs because some have sharper intuition and more authentic spiritual experiences than others and some understand progressive revelation differently than others. But moral debate merely reflects human limitations, not the objective grounding of morality in God's nature. The claim that morality so conceived is arbitrary is irrelevant to the fact that those who correctly perceive God's moral will are fully justified in claiming that they can be good, just, and loving. But as already deomonstrated, atheist have no grounds for claiming to be moral in any sense that is not arbitrary and purely based on social and cultural norms that have ultimately evolved through the evolution of human herd survival instincts.






Vince: "When we take god out of the morality business and try to reason to good morals we find an objective morality that we can live by. If we made a list of morally good and bad actions that most humans agree upon we will come to the conclusion that bad morals are things that cause unnecessary suffering like bathing a child in battery acid. Morally good things lead to a person’s well-being such as feeding a hungry person, most people would agree this is a good thing. (There is a lot more that goes into well-being as the basis for morality) So if we have other people’s well-being as a standard for morals then we can objectively decide if an action is moral or not based on this criteria. We can objectively say beating someone else with a hammer is objectively wrong and clothing a naked person is objectively good."

Vince: "There are many moral actions that are not as easily decided based on this criteria. These also may over time change as we gain new information on what is morally good such as asbestos, once it was morally ok to use this and expose people to asbestos dust now we know that it would be morally bad to do so based on well-being as the standard. These are still objective morals based on the standard of well-being. If you reject this notion it is like rejecting math because we cannot solve some math problems yet."

Vince: "So god cannot be the source of objective morality but only subjective morality and atheists can base their morality on reason and science without the need for a god. How can a theist be moral when they throw out reason and rely on a subjective morality form a book that is 2000+ years old? Many of the morals have been replaced with better ones such as how we treat gay people and slaves for example."
 

Vince

Active Member
Feb 20, 2019
814
98
43
54
Ft Worth
Faith
Atheist
Country
United States
Better not tell the diet industry. They count on their customers to behave subjectively to the objective rules of their diet plan.
This is backwards. The Diet Rules are subjective. The dieter can determine if an actions objectively conforms to those rules.

God follows His own rules. If He “woke up” each day, acting completely unpredictably, He and our universe would be unknowable.
Ok, but they are his rules that are subjectively determined by him.

I would questioned it because if the requirement was foreign to what I know about God’s character, I would assume I was incorrect in my understanding. I am not a Calvinist for this very reason - the doctrine does not match what I know about God’s character. Frankly, if I suddenly found myself standing before a god that was a hyperCalvinist, I would excuse myself and starting looking for the door because I would assume I wandered into Hell accidentally.
But your understanding about god comes from the bible, right? So if you don't think god supported sex slavery because of other verses in the bible then what do you do when you read the verses that support sex slavery in the bible?

So you view Christ as a human sacrifice? Not as a man who gave up everything for love?
Most Christians I know believe Jesus was fully man and fully god at the same time. God said Jesus was a propitiation or atonement for sins. Why could not god have just forgiven us without Jesus Crucifixion like he asked us to forgive others without a sacrifice?

I do not believe that God had to murder His Son so he could forgive the very trespasses he allowed to exist within us. I treat my dog better than that.
I believe you treat your dog better than that. This is my very thought. My issue is that this is what the bible says god did. How can you say different?

Yes lying is sinful because it is a lesser/broken form of truth. Unfortunately, people have been framing God since Abram’s house God started talking back to him. Indeed, people of all cultures and faith practices have a propensity for assigning their own character traits to God. Yet, through all this, God has loved us and continues to reveal himself.
How does he reveal himself? And I don't agree that lying is immoral in every situation.

The Bible is inspired by God, not dictated by Him. Often mistaken for God by fundamentalists, the scriptures are mostly comprised of a long record of humanity failings; to understand God, His plan for us and of treating their neighbors like objects and often, obstacles to be removed.
How do you know it is inspired by god?

I believe the stories of Jesus and His partial teachings and his ministry; reintroducing us to the reason for our existence, which is loving God and neighbor perfectly. I believe the Bible is helpful for me in many ways - it teaches, inspires, provides perspective, and encourages me to continue loving others in in a sometimes cruel world.
Can you love others without god? How do you know god is helping you?

Well, it does help to be omnipotent....and to be the definition and very Form of love. I think God’s law must be consistent with God’s character of Love, at all times, in order to be followed. If it deviates from God’s character it is outside of His will and must be a misunderstanding.
But the bible testifies to his character does it not? Why can you take the traits about god you like in the bible and dismiss the traits you dislike?
 

Vince

Active Member
Feb 20, 2019
814
98
43
54
Ft Worth
Faith
Atheist
Country
United States
If I decide or you decide it is certainly subjective. With God it is already decided. It is an absolute which means that ultimately tt cannot be subjective. This is God's perspective which a man alone cannot see or understand.
It is already decided by god, so his morals are subjective. Your moral actions can be objectively compared to his subjective standard.

The Bible is a book describing with words for men things which men without help cannot understand. You are quoting them and making rulings on them without that help. He is the only one who can help and without asking of Him as one must, there is NO help forthcoming.
Then if you can understand then cab you explain why he supports slavery, sex slavery and forces rape victims to marry their rapist?


This thing of being subjective is what men do according to whims or judgments or rulings or deductions or conclusions or etc. God has no such whims or judgments or rulings and such for He is not a man. His Word was settled before any man was who could have a whim or a judgment or a ruling. His Word does not change as He does not change.
The definition of subjective is based on personal opinions or feelings etc. That is what god has done with his laws and commands. If he did not decide what these rules should be then he is not god right? If he did they are subjective to him.



You have effectively defined moral and immoral in your own mind as if your understanding and your explanation would be unflawed, but you as a man cannot even say what accurately for all hearers what flawless would be even to every man, much less to an all powerful all knowing God.
Did you read my post on how I come to my moral values?


"Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" Job 38:2
God said those words to Job and Job was considered and is considered a wise man. What is the wisdom of even the wisest of men before God?
No one has ever shown that the bible is gods word.
 

amadeus

Well-Known Member
Jan 26, 2008
22,394
31,448
113
80
Oklahoma
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@Vince

amadeus said:
If I decide or you decide it is certainly subjective. With God it is already decided. It is an absolute which means that ultimately tt cannot be subjective. This is God's perspective which a man alone cannot see or understand.

Vince said:
It is already decided by god, so his morals are subjective. Your moral actions can be objectively compared to his subjective standard.
Communication is our problem, that is yours and mine in this little discussion. I used the word "decided" but while you read it as a simple past tense depicting a single decision made by God, that is NOT what I intended it to be. God is not like that. Man is. God doesn't think about something considering alternatives and then at some point render a decision. Man does that. For God is without time and His Word is timeless. We try to understand it and unless He helps us we cannot understand it at all... even though we may think we do and say that we do. God knows. He does NOT live by faith.

Amadeus said:

The Bible is a book describing with words for men things which men without help cannot understand. You are quoting them and making rulings on them without that help. He is the only one who can help and without asking of Him as one must, there is NO help forthcoming.
Vince said:
Then if you can understand then cab you explain why he supports slavery, sex slavery and forces rape victims to marry their rapist?
Remember that I also am a man. God has revealed some things to me and some of them I am able to share with a heart that is hungry and thirsty, if it my job according to God do so.

Your questions with regard to slavery, sex slavery and requirements for rape victims speak of what man has brought upon himself. God made man with ability to move away from the Way that God wants them to go. With Adam and Eve men began to move away from that Way and they and their descendants have continued for the most part to move onward and downward. The results are what we all, every man of flesh, is able to perceive with his own 5 carnal senses and the conclusions that he is able to make with his own carnal mind [brain?]. But all of this is NOT reality, not the reality of God in which God wants men to choose as their own.



Men believe they have alternatives but any choices [or set of choices] that excludes God is simply as Jesus expressed it: mammon.

You would conclude that either God does not exist or that he exists as an immoral entity... but very simply this means that you do not even begin to understand Him. Do I? Mine is as through a glass darkly, but yours is total blindness. You believe you see, but what you see is a fictional display that seems to be perceived by the carnal senses and seems to you to be real. If before the end of your allotted time you fail to have a vision of reality [God's reality] you will have nothing at all. Enjoy what you seem to have if you can, but consider also that you could in your fiction also suffer in the slavery, sex slavery or rape consequences; or perhaps worse you could see others about whom you do care in such circumstances.

Why God has chosen such a way to handle things I only touch the surface on understanding and I will not attempt to convey what I do understand to your as you would not understand and/or reject it out of hand anyway.


Amadeus said:
This thing of being subjective is what men do according to whims or judgments or rulings or deductions or conclusions or etc. God has no such whims or judgments or rulings and such for He is not a man. His Word was settled before any man was who could have a whim or a judgment or a ruling. His Word does not change as He does not change.

Vince said:
The definition of subjective is based on personal opinions or feelings etc. That is what god has done with his laws and commands. If he did not decide what these rules should be then he is not god right? If he did they are subjective to him.

God does not have personal opinions or feelings in the way that men do although we and the scriptures may describe them that way to help man understand... but how many really do? You are a case a prime example. To the extent that I am in error I am also an example.

Amadeus said:

You have effectively defined moral and immoral in your own mind as if your understanding and your explanation would be unflawed, but you as a man cannot even say what accurately for all hearers what flawless would be even to every man, much less to an all powerful all knowing God.

Vince said:
Did you read my post on how I come to my moral values?
Probably not, but I have not read many of the posts of many of the people who post many things on this forum. Without having read it I would likely NOT be surprised by anything you wrote in that regard.

Amadeus said:

"Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" Job 38:2
God said those words to Job and Job was considered and is considered a wise man. What is the wisdom of even the wisest of men before God?

Vince said:
No one has ever shown that the bible is gods word.

I have not said that it is. I would say rather that the written Bible is the bare dead bones of Jesus [or his dead flesh]. It is like the bones in the valley described in Ezekiel chapter 37 dead and dry until God breathes into them. The Bible is Jesus dead on the cross prior to his resurrection. During that time he healed no one. The Word of God is Alive.

When a person reads the Bible without the quickening [Life bringing] Spirit of God, he might as well be reading from the Encyclopedia Britannica or Webster's dictionary. Jesus expressed his thought on it here:


"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:53-54


When we read the Bible we eat his flesh, but like the flesh of a carnal man without the blood there is no life. The Blood of the flesh [scripture] we have eaten is the Holy Spirit which is why BOTH are necessary:


"[God] Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." II Cor 3:6
 

Vince

Active Member
Feb 20, 2019
814
98
43
54
Ft Worth
Faith
Atheist
Country
United States
Vince: "The last thing is the concept of situational ethics meaning that the same action can be morally good or morally bad depending on the context. For example, lying is generally a morally bad act but in a situation where someone can get hurt if you tell the truth then lying can be a morally good act but it is based on the objective standard of well-being."

My posts decisively refute your point here because your point and subsequent evasive comments duck my criticism that you fail to justify the metaethical question of what makes right actions right. Why should I or anyone care about your notion of your so-called "objective standard of wellbeing" of others?"
Why shouldn't I instead live by my criteria of what makes me happy and serves my best interests regardless of who I hurt, if I'm clever enough to get away with it? You continually duck this decisive refutation of your position in your replies to my posts.
Anyone cane make their own subjective standard for morality. That does not mean that an objective morality exists, which it does not even if a god exists. To have an objective morality there needs to be an object to compare it to. That is well-being for me and that is subjective. The fact that you don't like that there is no objective morality doe snot mean that it must exist.

If my hurtful conduct creates a world that works for me, why should I (a sociopath with no conscience) care whether it works for anyone else? You can't reply that I wouldn't get away with it because you cannot know that. You cannot reply that I would be deprived of love from most others because self-love may be my core value. In short, with no assured accountability in this life or the next, you have no basis for morality and any protestations that an atheist can be a good and decent person is no more than an arbitrary expression of emotional preference.
I do have a basis for morality, well-being. I can compare my actions to that standard and see if they are moral or not. Well-being is another topic that probably needs to be discussed because it en tales more than just a one sentence explanation.


Your moral pretenses are thus deciisvel refuted by Richard Dawkins (author of "The God Delusion") chilling nihilistic admission: ad

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
I already said that the universe was not made for us. We get to decide what is good or not but there is a process to do that.

Dr. Kenneth Miller, author of biology text books most commonly used in high school and college, confronted Dawkins on the inconsistency of this statement with Dawkins passionate life of purpose. Dawkins had no meaningful answer. Social convention, cultural consensus, and evolved human herd instincts ultimate express only the result of natural selection and genetic mutation working to the advantage of human procreation and survival, but they provide no defensible grounds for moral accountability and Right and Wrong.

Vince: "I am going to assume here that god does in fact exist. If he does then how does god know what is moral? Is god’s morality good because he says it is or is it good because it is good by itself? If god is just advocating for an objective good morality then morality exists independent of god and humans can through time discover this morality."

God cannot be moral on the basis of standards apart from Himself because God is the ground of all Being and is by definition All That Is. God is subject to nothing apart from Himself.
How do you know this. The definition of subjetivity is the quality of being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. If the rules god institutes are not gods opinions then whose are they?Did god make t hem up or not? You are objectively following an subjective standard just like me. And further you have not demonstrated that this standard you claim is objective exists.

Vince: "If morality is good only because god commands it then morality is arbitrary and humans would be unable to reason to this morality because it is not based on reason."
Wrong! The essence of the Christian God is Love.
This has not been demonstrated and conflicts with many passages i the bible. This fact has x implications:


(2) In a theistic model, morality is thus "based on reason,"
How so? Most Christians I know look to the bible for their morals and believe whatever they think it says.

but reason is a function of arguments with premises and conclusions; and thus the soundness of arguments depends on the assumptions implicit in the premises. These assumptions in turn are shaped by intuition and experience. So true morality is ultimately based on divinely guided intuition and experience--other terms for divine revelation.
This is subjective.

But our determination of this morality differs because some have sharper intuition and more authentic spiritual experiences than others and some understand progressive revelation differently than others. But moral debate merely reflects human limitations, not the objective grounding of morality in God's nature.
Does god determine right and wrong or not? If he does it is subjective.

The claim that morality so conceived is arbitrary is irrelevant to the fact that those who correctly perceive God's moral will are fully justified in claiming that they can be good, just, and loving. But as already deomonstrated, atheist have no grounds for claiming to be moral in any sense that is not arbitrary and purely based on social and cultural norms that have ultimately evolved through the evolution of human herd survival instincts.
Maybe but atheist use reason to determine what is morally right and wrong. Theists just assert what is right and wrong with no other justification other than a book tells me so that is not substantiated by any objective means.

Vince: "When we take god out of the morality business and try to reason to good morals we find an objective morality that we can live by. If we made a list of morally good and bad actions that most humans agree upon we will come to the conclusion that bad morals are things that cause unnecessary suffering like bathing a child in battery acid. Morally good things lead to a person’s well-being such as feeding a hungry person, most people would agree this is a good thing. (There is a lot more that goes into well-being as the basis for morality) So if we have other people’s well-being as a standard for morals then we can objectively decide if an action is moral or not based on this criteria. We can objectively say beating someone else with a hammer is objectively wrong and clothing a naked person is objectively good."

Vince: "There are many moral actions that are not as easily decided based on this criteria. These also may over time change as we gain new information on what is morally good such as asbestos, once it was morally ok to use this and expose people to asbestos dust now we know that it would be morally bad to do so based on well-being as the standard. These are still objective morals based on the standard of well-being. If you reject this notion it is like rejecting math because we cannot solve some math problems yet."

Vince: "So god cannot be the source of objective morality but only subjective morality and atheists can base their morality on reason and science without the need for a god. How can a theist be moral when they throw out reason and rely on a subjective morality form a book that is 2000+ years old? Many of the morals have been replaced with better ones such as how we treat gay people and slaves for example."
Any comments on these comments of mine?

 

Berserk

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2019
878
670
93
76
Colville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Vince: "Anyone cane make their own subjective standard for morality. That does not mean that an objective morality exists, which it does not even if a god exists."
On the contrary, if God exists as a God of Love and Justice, then conduct consistent with this divine essence is objective because we are held accountable to God's standards, regardless of whether we believe in God or not. As the Creator, God might simply prefer and honor those whose instincts inspire a lifestyle consistent with His values. There js no objective morality without accountability and principles that transcend social conditioning, cultural influence, and biological instinct. I repeat the same crucial question that you always duck: Why can't I hurt others, if that makes me happy and serves my goals, if I can get away with it? Why should I be bound by anyone's idea of social wellbeing or social interests?

Vince: "I do have a basis for morality, well-being. I can compare my actions to that standard and see if they are moral or not. Well-being is another topic that probably needs to be discussed because it en tales more than just a one sentence explanation."

No, you've got nothing! Whatever your concept of social "wellbeing" is, it is an emotive arbitrary standard with no basis for applicability to others who reject it in favor of personal pleasure and self-interest.


Vince: "I already said that the universe was not made for us. We get to decide what is good or not but there is a process to do that."

What you don't get is this: the morality that "we get to decide" merely reflects arbitrary emotive social conditioning and cultural influence and therefore ultimately lacks accountability or any basis for dering an ought out of what is.


How do you know this. The definition of subjetivity is the quality of being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. If the rules god institutes are not gods opinions then whose are they?Did god make t hem up or not? You are objectively following an subjective standard just like me. And further you have not demonstrated that this standard you claim is objective exists.

This has not been demonstrated and conflicts with many passages i the bible. This fact has x implications:


How so? Most Christians I know look to the bible for their morals and believe whatever they think it says.

This is subjective.

Does god determine right and wrong or not? If he does it is subjective.

Maybe but atheist use reason to determine what is morally right and wrong. Theists just assert what is right and wrong with no other justification other than a book tells me so that is not substantiated by any objective means.

Any comments on these comments of mine?

[/QUOTE]
 

Vince

Active Member
Feb 20, 2019
814
98
43
54
Ft Worth
Faith
Atheist
Country
United States
Vince: "Anyone cane make their own subjective standard for morality. That does not mean that an objective morality exists, which it does not even if a god exists."
On the contrary, if God exists as a God of Love and Justice, then conduct consistent with this divine essence is objective because we are held accountable to God's standards, regardless of whether we believe in God or not.​
Yes this is objective, but the standard is subjective because god decides what is right and wrong.

As the Creator, God might simply prefer and honor those whose instincts inspire a lifestyle consistent with His values.
And this is the definition of subjective.

There js no objective morality without accountability and principles that transcend social conditioning, cultural influence, and biological instinct.
I may agree with this.

I repeat the same crucial question that you always duck: Why can't I hurt others, if that makes me happy and serves my goals, if I can get away with it?
I have answered. You can.

Why should I be bound by anyone's idea of social wellbeing or social interests?
You don't have to.

Vince: "I do have a basis for morality, well-being. I can compare my actions to that standard and see if they are moral or not. Well-being is another topic that probably needs to be discussed because it en tales more than just a one sentence explanation."

No, you've got nothing! Whatever your concept of social "wellbeing" is, it is an emotive arbitrary standard with no basis for applicability to others who reject it in favor of personal pleasure and self-interest.
You don't know what my definition of well-being is but you know it has to be emotive and arbitrary. I may start a new thread explaining in more detail my moral standard.


Vince: "I already said that the universe was not made for us. We get to decide what is good or not but there is a process to do that."
What you don't get is this: the morality that "we get to decide" merely reflects arbitrary emotive social conditioning and cultural influence and therefore ultimately lacks accountability or any basis for dering an ought out of what is.
I don't agree with this fully but what if you are right. How does this help your claim that here is an objective standard.
 

Berserk

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2019
878
670
93
76
Colville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Vince: "Yes this is objective, but the standard is subjective because god decides what is right and wrong."
You don't even understanding the subjective-objective distinction. God is the ground of all Being and therefore God's love and consequent moral requirements are grounded in the nature of the universe. That makes them as objective as the law of gravity.
Also, morality by definition consists of norms for conduct for which we are held accountable. That accountability makes these norms as objective as natural law. Your limited awareness of these norms through intuition or revelation changes neither the reality of these norms nor the accountability an more than limited awareness of the laws of gravity does not exempt you from the applicability of these laws.

On the other hand, however you conceive of social wellbeing, it still remains your arbitrary conception with no way of logically grounding your concept in universally applicable Truth. Many atheists as well as modern philosophy departments realize this; indeed, this problem is itself a reason many atheists have cited for their leap of faith into theism to give their life objective meaning.
 

ScottA

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
11,696
5,575
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It is already decided by god, so his morals are subjective.
The idea that anything is "subjective" with God, is wrong.

God is. On the contrary, subjectivity requires a process. You got the wrong god.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amadeus

ScottA

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
11,696
5,575
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It is already decided by god, so his morals are subjective.
Your idea of morals with God is also wrong.

God is the standard for what is moral or not. By definition, that means His subjects are subject to His moral standards, but He is subject to none.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amadeus

Vince

Active Member
Feb 20, 2019
814
98
43
54
Ft Worth
Faith
Atheist
Country
United States
Vince: "Yes this is objective, but the standard is subjective because god decides what is right and wrong."
You don't even understanding the subjective-objective distinction.
This is what the discussion is about.

God is the ground of all Being and therefore God's love and consequent moral requirements are grounded in the nature of the universe. That makes them as objective as the law of gravity.
Nope. Does God have the ability to decide what is right and wrong? If so, then his judgments are subjective, if not, then he is not god.

Also, morality by definition consists of norms for conduct for which we are held accountable.
I disagree. Morality is about what is right and wrong not what the consequences are for wrong decisions.

That accountability makes these norms as objective as natural law.
I agree these are objective to the standard of the bible. Just like my actions are objective as compared to my standard.

Your limited awareness of these norms through intuition or revelation changes neither the reality of these norms nor the accountability an more than limited awareness of the laws of gravity does not exempt you from the applicability of these laws.
You have yet to demonstrate these laws exist.

On the other hand, however you conceive of social wellbeing, it still remains your arbitrary conception with no way of logically grounding your concept in universally applicable Truth.
I agree, but I can objectively compare my actions to my standard.

Many atheists as well as modern philosophy departments realize this; indeed, this problem is itself a reason many atheists have cited for their leap of faith into theism to give their life objective meaning.
That is an illogical decision. Just because morals are not objective does not mean that a god must exist or even hints that one should exist.

In summary I agree that morals are not ultimately objective. I can make a case for a standard of morality and then objectively compare my actions to that standard. If god exists then he is the ultimate decision maker for what is right or wrong and that is a subjective standard. If he does not determine what is right and wrong then he is just agreeing with a standard that he did not create, so is he really god?
 

Vince

Active Member
Feb 20, 2019
814
98
43
54
Ft Worth
Faith
Atheist
Country
United States
Your idea of morals with God is also wrong.

God is the standard for what is moral or not. By definition, that means His subjects are subject to His moral standards, but He is subject to none.
You said it, "his moral standards" and "he is subject to none". This is the definition of subjectivity. Does god decide what is morally right and wrong?
 

ScottA

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
11,696
5,575
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You said it, "his moral standards" and "he is subject to none". This is the definition of subjectivity. Does god decide what is morally right and wrong?
No. He does not decide. God is.

The fact that He has given us the illusion of a "moment of decision", does not mean anything is actually subjective either, not with God and not with men. It is simply the medium of revelation we experience, wherein, just as God is "I am", we also "are." There is no subjectivity, only "revelation" of what "is."

Or...did you just want the children's version, where you stomp your feet and only learn when you are older?
 
Last edited:

ScottA

Well-Known Member
Feb 24, 2011
11,696
5,575
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You refuse to demonstrate this.
You demonstrate that you were born...and then get back to me.

You see...you are being ridiculous. You cannot demonstrate what you cannot, nor can I. But I can explain it, and have. And if you were to try to explain something you cannot demonstrate, I could be just as ridiculous and do the same as you are now doing...but that would accomplish nothing.

When a person has questions, and another person has answers...it doesn't have to be this way, nor should it be.

But you are missing the point. The point is, as I have said, this is an open book test...and each person must take it with or without the help of others. The evidence is available for the asking. But not if it comes with demands, expectations, or conditions. Those are the terms...which only exist because you are already who you are, doing what you will do. It's your move.
 

Vince

Active Member
Feb 20, 2019
814
98
43
54
Ft Worth
Faith
Atheist
Country
United States
Your idea of morals with God is also wrong.

God is the standard for what is moral or not. By definition, that means His subjects are subject to His moral standards, but He is subject to none.
What makes god good?
 

Vince

Active Member
Feb 20, 2019
814
98
43
54
Ft Worth
Faith
Atheist
Country
United States
You demonstrate that you were born...and then get back to me.

You see...you are being ridiculous. You cannot demonstrate what you cannot, nor can I. But I can explain it, and have. And if you were to try to explain something you cannot demonstrate, I could be just as ridiculous and do the same as you are now doing...but that would accomplish nothing.

When a person has questions, and another person has answers...it doesn't have to be this way, nor should it be.

But you are missing the point. The point is, as I have said, this is an open book test...and each person must take it with or without the help of others. The evidence is available for the asking. But not if it comes with demands, expectations, or conditions. Those are the terms...which only exist because you are already who you are, doing what you will do. It's your move.
You have told me I cannot question you. That I must believe everything you say just because you say you know the truth. That is not a pathway to truth.