Do these two points defeat the "moral argument" for God's existence

  • 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!

Tom_in_CA

Member
May 31, 2020
91
19
8
62
Salinas, CA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hello. I'm talking to an atheist friend. And am using the route of the "moral argument" as the method to show him evidence of God's existence. And as can be expected, he pushed back the the usual atheist's stance and said "evolution can explain objective moral absolutes". To which I responded with the typical theist replies given at this junction : Attempting to show various civilizations and eras would perhaps condone racism, or throw Jews into gas chambers, etc... So the atheist therefore has to explain how to adjudicate between those "evolved morals", and the ones he holds.

If he answers that evolution can adjudicate, then he's just contradicted himself. Since, of course, evolution brought about various things he's going to try to point to, and say "that's wrong". It's a vicious circle that evolution can't solve. Hence known as the moral argument.

However, my friend pushed back with 2 answers, that appear to crush the theist's stance. And appear to allow for evolution to ground morals after all. Two things I've never thought of. So can you guys see if his points hold water or not :

1) The minute I tossed out the examples of Nazi Germany, Jim Crow laws in the deep south in the 1950s and early 1960s, and other examples , he was quick to point out that in all the examples I was giving, they were isolated locations at isolated times in history. So that while it's true that they had a societal norm (that we might even say they "evolved" to), yet that wasn't taking into account that the larger populace . Like if we include the whole world, for instance, they WOULD NOT have "voted that way". So example: Even though German sentiment, for a short while, was indeed anti-Semitic, and did indeed vote the Nazi party into power, yet .... if you had taken all of Europe's vote, then it could be argued that the vote would NOT have gone that way.

Because, let's be perfectly honest :

Whenever you measure evolution's effects on the population, you don't study the "outliers" . You don't study the "flukes". You don't study "the exceptions". You study the accumulated whole. Ie.: not a "vote of a single horrible person" or a "single horrible country". Otherwise you'd be saying you're only studying THAT INDIVIDUAL person or country's "evolution". So when HE is saying "evolution", he's meaning OF ALL OF MANKIND.

Such that: If it were theoretically possible to take a vote of the entire world, across time, for their opinion on the murder of innocent people, or racism, or rape, etc... I think we can all agree they'd say "it's wrong". EVEN though we can find singular isolated flukes (like Nazi Germany, or Jim Crow law days/places) where such things were condoned.

Therefore he rejected the examples I gave, since they're studying the fluke outliers . And that is not what he means by "evolution". He's saying all of mankind's evolution, not the vote of an isolated sect or people at some individual point.

I realize, for this to be true, that it would assume that the vote taken of the entire world WOULD INDEED say "murder is wrong", etc.... And at this point I can speak hypothetically and say : "Well perhaps they WOULD vote that way. *HOWEVER*, if they hypothetically voted that murder is good, THEN do we have an adjudicating score card that is higher than the popular vote ?". But I'm going to look mighty silly throwing out that hypothetical. Since common sense reason dictates that the *average* person does NOT think it's right to murder. And therefore such a vote would never perform & fulfill the hypothetical in-the-first place.

2) His other objection was a little easier to address, but it was still one that initially caught me off guard : He was of the opinion, that ... using the Hitler/Nazi example, that those people KNEW what they were doing was wrong. Yet did it anyways. So in that sense, when I ask my atheist friend "what adjudicates between your moral view of murder and their moral view of murder ?", my friend could say that there isn't an adjudication needed IN THE FIRST PLACE. Because on BOTH sides of aisle, they're BOTH saying "this is wrong". It's merely that the other side of the aisle (the Nazis) are saying "we don't care and we're going to do it anyhow". My friend seems to think that Hitler and the Nazis would NOT have said "this is a good moral" (in which case, yes, you'd need an adjudication). Instead, he thinks the Nazis KNEW it was wrong (just like we do) and simply said "too bad, we're going to do it". Therefore, in that sense, there's no disagreement to adjudicate, since BOTH sides are saying "murder is wrong".

Does that make sense ? I did have some pushback to answer this one. But before I list it, I wanted to see what you folks would say.

Do these two points support evolution's ability to ground objective moral absolutes ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RainAndIceCream

Prayer Warrior

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2018
5,789
5,776
113
U.S.A.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
2) His other objection was a little easier to address, but it was still one that initially caught me off guard : He was of the opinion, that ... using the Hitler/Nazi example, that those people KNEW what they were doing was wrong. Yet did it anyways. So in that sense, when I ask my atheist friend "what adjudicates between your moral view of murder and their moral view of murder ?", my friend could say that there isn't an adjudication needed IN THE FIRST PLACE. Because on BOTH sides of aisle, they're BOTH saying "this is wrong". It's merely that the other side of the aisle (the Nazis) are saying "we don't care and we're going to do it anyhow". My friend seems to think that Hitler and the Nazis would NOT have said "this is a good moral" (in which case, yes, you'd need an adjudication). Instead, he thinks the Nazis KNEW it was wrong (just like we do) and simply said "too bad, we're going to do it". Therefore, in that sense, there's no disagreement to adjudicate, since BOTH sides are saying "murder is wrong".

Welcome to the forum!

The assumption that the Nazis KNEW it was murder/wrong to kill the Jews is a huge one. While working on a Masters degree, I took a course in Nazi Germany. I'm convinced that some, if not many, Nazis thought they were doing a good thing by ridding this world of Jews. Of course, I don't agree with this at all, but they thought of the Jews as less than human.

Also, in terms of evolution, how is it that morals evolved by the time an animal becomes human, but there are no morals among lower animals? Animals have no concept of murder, stealing, adultery, etc. I'm not an evolutionist, so I may not be addressing your questions in a way that helps you. But I pray that you will get the answers you need.

Just a thought. In order to get more responses from people on this forum, you may want to change the title of this thread or start a new thread if changing the title is not possible.
.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nancy

Tom_in_CA

Member
May 31, 2020
91
19
8
62
Salinas, CA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
prayer-warrior : Thanx for taking a stab at my question !

a) You are right, that in the late 1930s and early 1940s, THERE WAS IN FACT a societal pulse of anti- antisemitism going on in Germany. Not everyone, of course, but surprisingly a majority. So you're right that the Nazi ideals were NOT just a few fanatical Nazi's imposing their will on the populace. It was, in fact, held by a majority of Germans. At least till Germany started loosing the war. And THEN everyone says "I didn't know" or "I was only following orders", etc... So what you are saying is historically accurate and has many proofs. Not sure if those antisemitic folk would have gone so far as to condone gas chambers, but they were indeed all-for taking away the wealth of the Jews, shunting them to ghettos, imposing racist rules, breaking their windows, etc...

b) as for your stab at the evolution part of the question : I suppose that my friend would merely dismiss that, and say they had "animal morals". And since we're talking humans, he'd dismiss it. But it's interesting that, on his view, there were intermediate stages of "man" . But .... still, this seems only like a rabbit trail. Great effort though ! Thanx.

c) Not sure what was wrong with the title of my thread. But... Ok.
 

Heart2Soul

Spiritual Warrior
Staff member
May 10, 2018
9,863
14,508
113
65
Tulsa
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
My memory of World History and the Holocaust had to deal with Hitler's delusion of a pure race and that the Jews represented a threat to that delusion......especially their growth in numbers....sound familiar? (Pharaoh)...

Nazi Racism
Nazi Racism/The Holocaust
For years before Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany, he was obsessed with ideas about race. In his speeches and writings, Hitler spread his beliefs in racial "purity" and in the superiority of the "Germanic race"—what he called an Aryan "master race." He pronounced that his race must remain pure in order to one day take over the world. For Hitler, the ideal "Aryan" was blond, blue-eyed, and tall.

When Hitler and the Nazis came to power, these beliefs became the government ideology and were spread in publicly displayed posters, on the radio, in movies, in classrooms, and in newspapers. The Nazis began to put their ideology into practice with the support of German scientists who believed that the human race could be improved by limiting the reproduction of people considered "inferior." Beginning in 1933, German physicians were allowed to perform forced sterilizations, operations making it impossible for the victims to have children. Among the targets of this public program were Roma (Gypsies), an ethnic minority numbering about 30,000 in Germany, and handicapped individuals, including the mentally ill and people born deaf and blind. Also victimized were about 500 African-German children, the offspring of German mothers and African colonial soldiers in the Allied armies that occupied the German Rhineland region after World War I.

Hitler and other Nazi leaders viewed the Jews not as a religious group, but as a poisonous "race," which "lived off" the other races and weakened them. After Hitler took power, Nazi teachers in school classrooms began to apply the "principles" of racial science. They measured skull size and nose length, and recorded the color of their pupils' hair and eyes to determine whether students belonged to the true "Aryan race." Jewish and Romani (Gypsy) students were often humiliated in the process.

Key Dates
February 24, 1920
Nazis outline political agenda

The first public meeting of the Nazi party, then called the German Workers’ Party, takes place in Munich, Germany. Adolf Hitler issues a "25 Point Program" outlining the party's political agenda. The party platform embodies racism. It demands racial purity in Germany; proclaims Germany's destiny to rule over inferior races; and identifies Jews as racial enemies. Point 4 concludes that "No Jew, therefore, may be a member of the Nation."

July 18, 1925
The first volume of Mein Kampf appears

Adolf Hitler wrote Mein Kampf while in prison for treason following his failed attempt to seize power in 1923. In Mein Kampf, he outlined his racial ideas. Hitler saw history as the struggle between races for living space. He envisioned a war of conquest in the east, with the Slavic peoples enslaved to German interests. He believed the Jews to be an exceptional evil, working within the nation to subvert "racial purity." He urged the "removal" of Jews from Germany.

July 14, 1933
Nazi state enacts racial purity law

Believing that "racial purity" requires state regulation of human reproduction, Adolf Hitler issues the Law to Prevent Hereditarily Diseased Offspring. Among other provisions, the measure prohibits "undesirables" from having children and mandates forced sterilization of certain physically or mentally impaired individuals. The law will affect some 400,000 people over the next 18 months.


SERIES: NAZI RULE

1
Nazi Rule

2
Hitler Comes to Power

3
The Nazi Terror Begins

4
SS Police State

5
Nazi Propaganda and Censorship

6
Nazi Racism

7
World War II in Europe

8
The Murder of the Handicapped

9upload_2020-6-2_18-9-32.gif
German Rule in Occupied Europe
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nancy

Tom_in_CA

Member
May 31, 2020
91
19
8
62
Salinas, CA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yeshua : Thanx for chiming in. This doesn't address his objection that by trying to use Germany/Nazis, for that 10-ish year period of world history, is not gauging ALL of mankind. It's only looking at an "outlier ". Thus he'd say (and is no doubt correct), that if you polled ALL OF EUROPE (and not just Germany) in the late 1930s, that the vote would have gone AGAINST antisemitism . Thus he'd say it's a mistake to toss out WWII Germany as an example of evolution giving people their morals. Since that's studying the outlier flukes, and not all of civilization .
 

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,156
21,420
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Do these two points support evolution's ability to ground objective moral absolutes ?
"Objective Moral Absolutes" . . . according to what?

What makes one morality better than another? This is simply saying that just as people have preferences of what they want to happen, or think should happen, so also people groups, if treated in survey fashion, as it were, also show preferences. And if you want to call these preferences "moral", then it's an arbitrary scale, based on the luck of the draw, same I got the "unibrow".

So killing people, not killing people, evolution comes up with a pragmatic set of rules for society, but not because one is "right" and the other "wrong". It's only right for the society, but in the same way something is right or wrong for themself.

So a man murders, and so what? A nation murders, and so what? Because it could turn out to be in some horrible time to come that half the population murders the other half, and who is right?

If it's based on "what works for evolution", and since we know that not all agree (Nazis, et. al.) then it's actually a "majority rule" thing. And if it's a majority rule, then it's the majority inflicting their preference over the minority, and so "evolutionary morality" is another name for "mob rule".

Much love!
 
Last edited:

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@Tom_in_CA

This story of yours rings of bulls***. I believe you're just trying to prove your own bull and created a story of a 'friend'.

As for morality, you can throw it out the window. That is a man made measure. Does not apply to God at all.

Stranger
 

RainAndIceCream

Active Member
May 26, 2020
223
166
43
I woke up like this
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Welcome to the community.

I wish you many blessings in your effort to convince an atheist to think otherwise, when they ignore their own reflection and all existence, as having a source other than mere chance or cosmic luck.
Many an atheist who also ascribe to evolution hold to the work of Darwin. One thing that vexed Darwin all his days is that which is today notably recalled as the Cambrian Explosion, or, Cambrian Radiation.
Further, while science proceeds in part from theory, and of course spirituality, religion, from the fount of faith, what science cannot yet find a way to explain nor fully theorize to provide a logical premise for existence is, "first cause".

Maybe this quote derived from Darwin's autobiography will give you some ideas as to how to proceed. "Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backward and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist."


You might consider also that if your friend is meant to have his mind changed from atheism unto theism, that it may be best to let God do the work. "A fool says in his heart there is no God."


Atheists: The only people dedicated to fighting something they say doesn't exist.

God be with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Heart2Soul

Tom_in_CA

Member
May 31, 2020
91
19
8
62
Salinas, CA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
... "Objective Moral Absolutes" . . . according to what? ...

According to IF YOU GAUGED THE SENTIMENTS of all of mankind. Not just a fluke outlier example at a chosen moment.

... What makes one morality better than another?...

He would answer : "The evolution of ALL of mankind, if a theoretical vote could be taken, will make one morality the "best" morality ". And as I'm sure you'd agree, there is NO TIME in all of history that that vote would have been "murder of innocent people is ok ". Thus he'd say : "therefore, that's objective via our evolution"

... based on the luck of the draw ...

Then why is it, that the "luck of the draw" (ie.: the "vote" ) will ... admittedly ... be "murder of innocent people is wrong" (once you've taken a vote of the entire world, and not just outlier fluke countries at certain times). We Christians would, of course, say that's because "God's law is written on our hearts". Thus OF COURSE the "vote will tend to go that way". But to the atheist, he attributes that resulting vote to evolution. But NEITHER SIDE can point to the outliers as proof that the scoring system doesn't work . See ?

I'm not disagreeing that evolution can't bring us moral absolutes. I'm just pointing out the weakness of the argument, on the theist's side, when we go to point out examples like Nazi Germany, or Jim Crow law times, or civilizations that threw virgins into volcanoes, etc.... Those are all examples of outliers, that , if the entire world were invited to chime in on the vote, that it would not have gone that way. So why then do we theists continue to point to those as examples of "where evolution brought them" ?

...It's only right for the society, but in the same way something is right or wrong for themself. ...

Hmm, I guess he would answer that : "Once it's 'right for society', then it becomes "right or wrong in themselves" . So he would see no contradiction going on there.

... So a man murders, and so what? A nation murders, and so what?...
Here's the answer to "So what ?" that he would give: That it went against the vote of collective sum-total evolution. Since , in the cases you just gave (a single man , a single nation) those are examples of outlier flukes. And not humanity as a whole.


... Because it could turn out to be in some horrible time to come that half the population murders the other half, and who is right? ...

I guess on his view, you'd take a vote of the battle participants *just prior* to the battle . And ask them : Who is going to be right ? Although, what if the vote were EXACTLY 50/50 ? Then what ? What measures good vs bad morals then, eh ? haha Is there anything that can break that tie ? Hhmm

... If it's based on "what works for evolution", and since we know that not all agree (Nazis, et. al.) then it's actually a "majority rule" thing. And if it's a majority rule, then it's the majority inflicting their preference over the minority, and so "evolutionary morality" is another name for "mob rule"....

Yes, this does sort of make for a concept of "whoever wins a war, creates the futures morals". And that poses a problem for my friend. Because for example: If Hitler had won the race to invent the atom bomb before the allies did, and had dropped them on New York and San Francisco, London and Moscow, then perhaps he would have brought the allies to their knees, right ?

And if so, then perhaps THAT generation would have grudgingly hated the Nazi ideals, even though we were under their subjigation (ie.: perhaps WE wouldn't have been anti-semitic, even though under the rule that WAS anti-semitic. ). But here's where it gets interesting : Human nature tends to adopt the morals of their laws, within a generation or two. For example: If you'd have polled the USA, prior to Roe VS Wade, there was a majority that thought abortion was wrong. And it had NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGIOUS VIEWS. However, now that nearly 50 yrs. has elaped, if you took that SAME VOTE NOW, you'd have a majority saying it's Ok. And why did that shift occur ? MERELY BECAUSE THE LAWS CHANGED. So people tend to think "then it must be ok".

So I'd venture to say that if Hitler had won the war, then , after a generation or two, things would have been VERY DIFFERENT worldwide, in terms of how people think. So in that case, you're right : That it COULD be the case that something, even as evil as murder, can merely be up-to-the-whims of whoever is in power. And it could have VERY CONCEIVABLE that Hitler could have won the war, if he'd invented the atom bomb first. I mean, sheesk, look at how fast Japan surrendered (within a week or 10 days) once they saw that power. So too would the USA have waived the white flag if they'd seen those dropped on our cities :(
 

Tom_in_CA

Member
May 31, 2020
91
19
8
62
Salinas, CA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
@Tom_in_CA

This story of yours rings of bulls***. I believe you're just trying to prove your own bull and created a story of a 'friend'.

Haha, Really ? No, this is not made up :) This is a metal detecting hobbyist buddy of mine. And the subject of God came up awhile back, and we began talking. I chose the "moral argument" route to discuss the existence of God, and these are indeed his pushbacks. So why would that ring as bulls*** ?
 

Tom_in_CA

Member
May 31, 2020
91
19
8
62
Salinas, CA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Welcome to the community.

I wish you many blessings in your effort to convince an atheist to think otherwise, ...

thanx for the welcome ! And yes: After he and I are done with the moral argument, then yes: The "first cause" (what caused the "big bang", blah blah) is where I'm going next.

thanx for your input ! :)
 

Cristo Rei

Well-Known Member
Apr 30, 2020
6,156
5,558
113
46
In Christ
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Hello. I'm talking to an atheist friend. And am using the route of the "moral argument" as the method to show him evidence of God's existence.

To be honest i don't think using morality is a good way to prove God's existence.

I usually use morality to demonstrate the error which atheists face
The subject can get very complicated, there are morals, values, virtues, principles, ethics and can all get quite confusing

Im just going to stick to two types of morals; personal and societal.
U have to first agree on definitions cos that in itself is subjective.
I like to define "an immoral act is a conscious one that does harm or damage."

Then there are societal morals which are the ones based on family and sex.
I define this as; "acts that promote the expansion of a society" he might not agree,

Adultery is serious. It forced men to commit to a women for the greater good of society. Now every couple are having plenty of kids and their growing up with a mum and dad in a healthy environment that promotes development.

Then u have the other sexual sins such as homosexuality, beastiality which are counter expansion.
He approves of allowing and promoting homosexuality. Ask if he would give the same allowances to zoophiles. Why not, love is love, born that way, not harming anyone, my body my choice. All the arguments used for homosexuality apply with beastiality.

I had an excellent conversation recently on here with an agnostic about this.

For the generation before me, any sex outside of a hetro marriage was wrong.
My generation allowed open divorce, anything else was wrong
Millenials allowed homosexuality, anything else is wrong
What will this generation introduce, gen z, could be zoophilia

And so which generation is right and why. U can get him in a real knot.

Then give examples where we have seen societies deviate from the sexual morals.
It always contributes to a collapse. The Minoans, the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians.

So the bibles sexual morals have been successful in its objective for over 7,000 years. Those same morals have also seen societies expand across Asia. But every time sexual morals are deviated from, the society soon falls

Sorry for writing a book, i hope its not boring
 

Tom_in_CA

Member
May 31, 2020
91
19
8
62
Salinas, CA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
... Sorry for writing a book, i hope its not boring

Cristo Rei, thanx for chiming in. I liked your input and will implement those examples into the conversation. Thanx ! And yes: I made triple sure to "define all the words". So that the confusing jumps back and forth between objective and subjective morals doesn't occur (word conflation). I went to great pains to lay-all the ground work. And once all that is done, there's really no way the moral argument fails, if the atheist is honest . Every time he tries to rely on evolution to explain absolute objective morals, it always fails in the test drive.

Another option a lot of atheists take (when they see the pickle they're in) is to say that "Morals are subjective". But then they look might silly having to look you in the eye and admit that they , therefore, CAN'T say that Hitler was "wrong". All they can say with subjective morals is: "I don't *prefer* Hitler". Or if you slash their tires, they will quickly say "That was wrong". AND TRUST ME : They mean that OBJECTIVELY, not subjectively. So they fail this test drive as well.

So I actually see the moral argument (once carefully laid out) is a very good method.

And yes you're right : The world would be a lot better place if men were not always letting their sex drives dictate all their actions. Sexual matters are the top 3 reasons people are in jail for . The three biggest causes of crimes are 1) quest for power, 2) quest for money, and 3) sexually driven crimes. Thus yes, the world would be a better place if men kept their pants on. Doh !
 

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,156
21,420
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If you'd have polled the USA, prior to Roe VS Wade, there was a majority that thought abortion was wrong. And it had NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGIOUS VIEWS. However, now that nearly 50 yrs. has elaped, if you took that SAME VOTE NOW, you'd have a majority saying it's Ok. And why did that shift occur ? MERELY BECAUSE THE LAWS CHANGED. So people tend to think "then it must be ok".
Hi Tom,

Good example here, because the question is, given that opinion is so strongly decided, is there an actual right or wrong? Because if there is, it didn't come by majority vote.

Much love!
 

Tom_in_CA

Member
May 31, 2020
91
19
8
62
Salinas, CA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Marks, good point. If we can see in our recent past, that the vote for or against abortion has changed (1950s vs now), then this dashes the hopes that evolution can explain objective moral absolutes. I mean, you can't have it both ways : Abortion is either murder, or it's not. Evolution led those people in the 1950s to think one way. And evolution that brought us to 2020 now makes us think another way. YET THEY ARE CONTRADICTORY . So is there a scoring card standard that is OUTSIDE THE SUBJECTIVE VOTES of people ? SURE ! And that is : God.
 

Truth OT

Active Member
Oct 24, 2019
424
68
28
44
Cypress
Faith
Agnostic
Country
United States
The idea that
evolution can explain objective moral absolutes
is flawed on a number of levels starting with the idea that moral absolutes exist at all.

To oversimplify morals I'd reduce the concept to these aspects: Coexistence within a class of peers. Rules for acceptable conduct within a society falls under coexistence while who and what class gets to be considered as having societal rights (e.i. a peer) falls under classification. There are of course additional nuances that have various qualities that involve concepts ranging from personal well-being to utilitarian ideals at play as well, but again, I'm trying to keep things simple.
 

Truth OT

Active Member
Oct 24, 2019
424
68
28
44
Cypress
Faith
Agnostic
Country
United States
Another option a lot of atheists take (when they see the pickle they're in) is to say that "Morals are subjective". But then they look might silly having to look you in the eye and admit that they , therefore, CAN'T say that Hitler was "wrong". All they can say with subjective morals is: "I don't *prefer* Hitler". Or if you slash their tires, they will quickly say "That was wrong". AND TRUST ME : They mean that OBJECTIVELY, not subjectively. So they fail this test drive as well.
Thanks for starting a thought provoking thread. I happen to fall into the camp that asserts that morals are wholly subjective. To go a step further, I'd point out that both right and wrong are terms humans derived to describe concepts that are either socially acceptable and in accordance to the social values or conduct that is adverse to the socially accepted behavior.
 

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,156
21,420
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Marks, good point. If we can see in our recent past, that the vote for or against abortion has changed (1950s vs now), then this dashes the hopes that evolution can explain objective moral absolutes. I mean, you can't have it both ways : Abortion is either murder, or it's not. Evolution led those people in the 1950s to think one way. And evolution that brought us to 2020 now makes us think another way. YET THEY ARE CONTRADICTORY . So is there a scoring card standard that is OUTSIDE THE SUBJECTIVE VOTES of people ? SURE ! And that is : God.
And that's the heart of the matter.

Both aren't right. Either this simply expresses a groupthink preference, or there is a correct answer. And if there is, it of necessity came from Outside.

Much love!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom_in_CA

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
I think the world has made it to the "propaganda and censorship stage, that fake news stuff, can see where we are heading again, There is nothing new under the sun.