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

[bbyrd009]

Then in that sense, I'm meaning a true state of existence WHETHER OR NOT someone can furnish evidence (of any kind) to-prove-to-your-satisfaction, or not, whether or not it/he exists. In other words, something or someone that truly "exists", but people can dispute whether or not the evidence is convincing or not.

those gods are made of wood, i think, the ones that can be "proved?"
i would be suspicious of any god that could be proven to "exist," fwiw

Not sure I understand your "issues" here. Are you asking if God ("yah") is a personal being ? Ie.: a "who" not an "it", right ? Or are you making allusions to the triune nature of God ? Lost ya bro.

sorry, i mean that believers seem to broadly expect to be able to have a convo with Yah someday, maybe ask "Him" some questions or whatever? And i sure dont know but i doubt that there is a what we call a "personality" or even "ego" present in Yah, no Old White Guy in a long white robe iow, almost surely. "Persons" in Yah i find heretical. At best. There is only One Immortal, Who lives in unapproachable light
.

There are many things that truly "exist", that can not be put into a test tube. Yet we know they exist because we see their effects.

yes, although i cant think of any, can you? "Wind" is the Scriptural example, but we figured that one out i guess. What else? "Exists" kind of implies "test tube" i think

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Your "take" is the problem here.....

AAAaahhh, then pray-tell : What did you mean by "Real" ? As in "really wrong" ? Is murder of innocent people only subjectively wrong (your view, not mine) ? If so, then it wasn't wrong , other than your preference and opinion, for the Nazis to kill all those people. After all, their society and culture and society "subjectively and relatively" chose those moral standards. Then on your view then, the most you can say is "you don't prefer it".

..... It's a fact that as concepts, right and wrong exist. ...

Dude, what the heck are we talking about ? If it's a "fact" and if they truly "exist", then presto, they're objective ! Don't you see how you are perpetually bumping into reality ?

...... It's also a fact that many things that are considered as either right or as wrong depends on who is answering the question of whether a thing is right or wrong. That proves the subjectivity! ....

The fact that people can do wrong things (murder, rape, etc...) only proves that people can break objective moral standards. It doesn't prove that "morals are relative/subjective". Or the fact that a society can decide "gay bashing is ok", only proves that entire societies can break objective moral codes. It doesn't make "gay-bashing subjective". See ?

.... Your preconceptions and bias is making this harder than it needs be here......

Aaahh, I love it Let me guess: Truth-OT has no preconceptions or biases. Right ?

.... No need to suspect, just read what I said. There is no contradiction. As for why someone should care what I and the society I am a part of care about how they behave within the society, the answer is relatively obvious. It's because we share a space in time within a world were we have to coexist (hopefully as human peers).....

Great. And that's exactly why they look across the ocean at you and your society's moral codes/standards, and say the same thing : "The reason we care about 'how they behave' , is we want to share our wonderful Nazi ideals with people like Truth-OT. ". But the problem is, you have no scoring card to adjudicate, since on-your-view, morals are simply relative and subjective. See the problem ? It's "might makes right" on your view. It's "majority rules" on your views. Then on your view, if the Nazi's had won WWII, and now, 75 yrs. later their sentiments were adopted world-wide, then on your view, what they say is "good", would therefore be "good". Ok ? See ?

....Due to that being the case we will inevitably develop rules that outline how we can acceptably behave with and towards our fellow human cohabitors.....

RIGHT ! Exactly as the Nazis did. They "developed rules" that "outlined how they can acceptably behave towards their fellow human cohabitors". You are so easy to answer Truth-OT. All I have to do is look at what you say, and take it for a test drive. And as you can see, unless you have an objective moral standard outside our individual whimsical subjective opinions, then you have no way to look across time and the ocean and say "Nazis were wrong". Oh sure, you can *say* it, but you'll only be saying it subjectively. They were not TRULY wrong. And if you say "no no Tom , they were truly wrong", then presto, you've just acknowledged objective absolutes.

When are you going to see this Truth-OT ?

..... Problems invariably arise when dogmas are adapted by those in power or by a society in general that separates people into groups and begins to value some groups more than others.....

Huh ? Why is that a "problem" ? On your view, that morals are subjective and relative, what you are saying EXACTLY DEFINES "subjective and relative". If a society "separates people into groups" and "begins to value some more than others", then you have no scoring card to say "that's wrong". Perhaps they think that doing that is RIGHT ? Then you can't say that society is wrong for doing that. That's THEIR moral, and you have YOUR moral.

Don't you see Truth-OT ? You keep saying "there's no moral absolutes", but then in the very next breath, you point at things in the world that are absolutely wrong. If you meant that last quote in only subjective terms, then why should that society you speak of, or anyone else, care what you think ? That's just your opinion that what they're doing is wrong. But they don't happen to share that opinion. No, on the contrary, when you are saying they're "wrong", you REALLY MEANT THAT (can you spell "O-B-J-E-C-T-I-V-E " ? )

.... When a "them" class of people is created, for some reason morally it becomes okay to justify treating "them" differently. "They" shouldn't be allowed to vote (women). "They" should keep quiet in worship services and ask any questions they have to their husbands (women again). "They" should not be allowed to be placed in positions of authority over men (women again). All exemplify how discrimination can and has been considered morally justifiable.
"They" which includes women, children, and even babies, don't deserve any pity and should be killed and slaughtered (Amalekites). Well I'll be, GENOCIDE here is morally justifiable it appears! Speaking of rape, if the "They" group were virgin women from the daughters of Shiloh, it was okay to ambush, kidnap, and force them to marry you if you were of the tribe of Benjamin......

Truth-OT, why do you go on and on and shake your fist at these things you're saying are "wrong" and "evil" ? On your view, they're not *really* wrong and evil. It's just yours and/or your particular society's *preference* (like ice-cream flavors which depend on the subjective individual to choose flavors). Those things you're shaking your fist at are not objectively wrong. So why are you getting your panties in a wad ? Perhaps thoses peoples and groups like doing those things ? And you have no transcendent (ie.: "outside") scoring card to bring in, to call those things TRULY WRONG .

So if you continue to shake your fist and call those things wrong (in any true sense), then I highly suggest you adopt the fact that there are objective moral absolutes. It's implicit in everything you're writing and shaking your fist at. Yet in the very next breath you deny that there are objective moral absolutes. Fascinating. And what's more fascinating, is I have painstakingly "taken your view for a test drive multiple times", yet you're still not seeing it. You still smuggle objective morality in through the back door, yet on your view "morals are subjective". You can't have it both ways bro.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....I'd venture to say that even to you, IT DEPENDS, and if it depends, that means you believe and admit that the rightness or wrongness is subject to the circumstances......

Ok, then why oh why do you list all those horrible injustices and wrongs in the world, if it "depends on what the other person believes" and what they believe the circumstances call for, etc..... On your view, you shouldn't be shaking your fist at them and calling it "wrong". Perhaps they choose to like doing those things . Perhaps their whole society votes that those things are "good". Then who are you to shake your fist and call them "bad" ? The moment you do so, hints at some objective standard that allows you to say they're "wrong". Yet in the very next breath, you deny that such a standard exists ? Don't you see how you are falling all over yourself with this contradiction ?

..... Would it be wrong to murder someone because they did not want to be ruled by your rules?
Is it wrong to purposely murder babies?
Is it wrong to ambush, kidnap, and rape young girls?......

There you go again : Shaking your fist at things you say are "wrong". But those people, who did those things, didn't think so. Hence on your view, it wasn't wrong for THEM, in THEIR world, and THEIR society.

Each time you list these things, ask yourself: Are those things REALLY wrong ? Or just your preference ? (think hard). If you answered REALLY wrong (despite what those other peoples or societies thought), then presto, you believe in objective moral absolutes.

.... If you live in a isolated setting with no others to answer to, then yes. However, for those of us that live among others, the answer is no. We are not free to set and live by whatever codes we determine because we are compelled by the nature of having to coexist with others to comply and adhere to the behaviors society dictates are good for the society.

Dude, look closely at all the words I've put in bold, above, in your quote : "We" and "society" and "us". Who is that ? Who is the "we" ? Is that the USA ? Is that Europe ? Is that Iran ? Is that Asia ? And what era ? How about the 1700s when the majority of the world had no problem with slavery ? Why not then instead of now ? And if you were living the 1700s, when the majority of the world thought slavery was fine, then the "we" and "society" that you speak of, would have "coexisted" just fine with slavery. Then on your view, if you were living then, you'd have to say "there's nothing wrong with slavery". After all, the "we" and "society" that you speak of condones it. You have no outside scoring card to call on, other than the "majority rules ' we ' & ' society ' " to call down to break any ties. Since you believe morals are subjective to the society and culture after all.

Hitler was "compelled by nature" just fine. He figured the best way to "coexist" was to expand his borders and take over the rest of Europe. It will be best for them and his own German people. And the German populace was actually going along with it for 8 or 10-ish yrs ! (ie.: it wasn't just a few fanatical Nazis).

 

[Truth OT]

Tom, please objectively define wrong outside of saying it's contrary to the andates of the authority.

Dude, what the heck are we talking about ? If it's a "fact" and if they truly "exist", then presto, they're objective ! Don't you see how you are perpetually bumping into reality ?

The facts that the concepts exist doesn't mean they are objective. Why is that hard to swallow?

Is murder of innocent people only subjectively wrong (your view, not mine) ?

Emphatically YES!

If so, then it wasn't wrong , other than your preference and opinion, for the Nazis to kill all those people. After all, their society and culture and society "subjectively and relatively" chose those moral standards. Then on your view then, the most you can say is "you don't prefer it".

Wrong again. I can say that their actions were wrong in my estimation as from my subjective point of view I find their actions to be vile and inhuman. To me, whenever someone engages in vile and inhuman behaviors towards human beings, I find that to be wrong (even if the perpetrators are doing so in accordance with what they deem a divine command).

Aaahh, I love it Let me guess: Truth-OT has no preconceptions or biases. Right ?

We all do. That's a major reason that so much is subjective.

The fact that people can do wrong things (murder, rape, etc...) only proves that people can break objective moral standards. It doesn't prove that "morals are relative/subjective". Or the fact that a society can decide "gay bashing is ok", only proves that entire societies can break objective moral codes. It doesn't make "gay-bashing subjective". See ?

But the fact is that up until VERY recently, gay bashing was accepted and not considered as wrong. No moral standard put worth defended gay rights in the past that I am aware of. Society's subjective viewpoint changed so that what is tolerated as it relates to the treatment of gay people has become more equitable.

But the problem is, you have no scoring card to adjudicate, since on-your-view, morals are simply relative and subjective.

We create and develop the ever-evolving scoring card. Just look at history. Your slip in stating that morals are simply relative and subjective is accurate.

It's "might makes right" on your view.

If you buy into divine command setting up immutable morals, isn't might makes right EXACTLY what you are advocating?

Then on your view, if the Nazi's had won WWII, and now, 75 yrs. later their sentiments were adopted world-wide, then on your view, what they say is "good", would therefore be "good". Ok ? See ?

Let me ask you the same question using different cultures of people. If the Ancient Israelites had conquered the land of Canaan, having murdered women, children, and babies in the process, would what they say as good therefore be good?
In both cases my answer is no. Yours?

Huh ? Why is that a "problem" ? On your view, that morals are subjective and relative, what you are saying EXACTLY DEFINES "subjective and relative". If a society "separates people into groups" and "begins to value some more than others", then you have no scoring card to say "that's wrong".

As I already stated, WE develop the scoring card. The fact that you'd ask why mistreatment of people would be a problem is problematic in and of itself and suggests that your understand of and/or empathy for your fellow human beings doesn't make the answer obvious.

then why should that society you speak of, or anyone else, care what you think ? That's just your opinion that what they're doing is wrong.

Let me give you several reasons. Empathy, compassion, a desire for peace, fear of reciprocity, social happiness, etc.

Truth-OT, why do you go on and on and shake your fist at these things you're saying are "wrong" and "evil" ? On your view, they're not *really* wrong and evil.

Because IN MY VIEW, those things are not right. I'd venture to say that if MY VIEW was objective, it would have always been shared and those things would not have been the norm throughout history. But that was not the case was it? Many of those things were accepted as right and in accordance with morality for millennia which again points directly to the subjective nature.

And you have no transcendent (ie.: "outside") scoring card to bring in, to call those things TRULY WRONG .

No need to make up something that is not objectively verifiable. As I've repeated a few times now, we have score cards that we've developed and created that continue to evolve.

 

[Truth OT]

Ok, then why oh why do you list all those horrible injustices and wrongs in the world, if it "depends on what the other person believes" and what they believe the circumstances call for, etc..... On your view, you shouldn't be shaking your fist at them and calling it "wrong".

You realize that what you are basically saying is that if I don't know there to be be an objective moral standard that is "transcendent", then I am not allow to have a moral standard of my own that I hold myself to and judge others by. That logic makes no sense.

Shaking your fist at things you say are "wrong". But those people, who did those things, didn't think so. Hence on your view, it wasn't wrong for THEM, in THEIR world, and THEIR society.

In my view, it SHOULD have been wrong to them just as it is wrong to me, but it apparently wasn't. Why? Subjectivity.

Then on your view, if you were living then, you'd have to say "there's nothing wrong with slavery". After all, the "we" and "society" that you speak of condones it. You have no outside scoring card to call on, other than the "majority rules ' we ' & ' society ' " to call down to break any ties. Since you believe morals are subjective to the society and culture after all.

You swing and miss yet again. I could have just as I can now look back and say that though they thought slavery was morally justifiable under the circumstances they initiated the practice, I sure think they are/were wrong and immoral for doing that and for even thinking that way. Society could force me to comply with their norms, but they can't make be believe they are moral and right. That belief is a personal one based on a myriad of factors included but not limited to life experiences, upbringing, personal values, etc.

 

[Truth OT]

A real exploratory inquiry would be how could we best determine what is right and moral in a given situation. Religions and philosophies have been trying to come up with answers for 1000's of years. I wonder what we would come up with?

In religion, right is basically defined as that which is in accordance with divine will and mandate. This divine command approach is basically an appeal to might, with the ultimate might being divine, being right. It's as simple as might makes right and lacks objectivity in regards to any behavior.

 

[Bobby Jo]

... It's as simple as might makes right and lacks objectivity in regards to any behavior.

If there were no GOD, and no conscience, then you'd be correct. But because we have BOTH, we can rely upon Scripture where it's available, and our conscience where Scripture is unavailable.

But to pre-suppose we have neither Scripture nor conscience is incorrect.
Bobby Jo

 

[Bobby Jo]

... Nazis thought they were doing a good thing by ridding this world of Jews. ...

It seems incorrect that they "thought" but more accurately "rationalized".

Just look in this Forum where so many disregard Scripture in deference to their FALSE DOCTRINES not because they thought, but because they rationalized. It was TRUE when Cain murdered Able; when the Jews murdered Jesus; and is still true today.

Bobby Jo

 

[Truth OT]

But to pre-suppose we have neither Scripture nor conscience is incorrect.

The idea that we have conscience is generally agreed upon and I'll put forth no argument against it existing. Is it always right? That's were we get a little iffy. As far as scripture is concerned what is prescribed therein is a might makes right philosophy where God = might.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Tom, please objectively define wrong outside of saying it's contrary to the andates of the authority......

Dude, glad you're seeing that there's an "authority" involved. Because YOU'RE RIGHT ! A "thing" can't issue rules and laws. Ie.: we have no moral obligations to rocks and inanimate objects. Eh ? Only personal agents ("who's" not "what's" ) can issue rules and moral obligations, right ? Ok, then in the context of your above quote, what "authority" did YOU have in mind ?? That needs to be answered before I can answer you.

I have a suspicion that the "authority" you speak of, is the collective societal "we" and "us", right ? That codifies their laws into laws (eg.: don't murder, don't rape, don't steal, etc...). Right ? So then on that view (that you've spelled out at-length so far), then presto: Societies and cultures (ie.: the collective "we") are the "authority". Right ? YET AS YOU CAN SEE, this fails the test drive when we do a simple look at history. Right ?

So now you're turning the tables on me (as if to admit defeat in your test drive) and asking ME: "Who then, is this authority ?". Have I understood you correctly ? As soon as you answer that, I will answer you. But first, you must admit that your stance failed the test drive. If you do not, then I can only fear you will "move the goal post" on me. If you continue to say "whatever society says", then all I will continue to do is show the failure of that. But if you truly acknowledge that this puts you in a pickle, THEN I will tell you what "authority" I cite. Agreed ?

.... The facts that the concepts exist doesn't mean they are objective. Why is that hard to swallow?.....

Here is what you're not swallowing : You're making the typical mistake that atheists (forgive me if that's a wrong label for you) make : They confuse epistemology and ontology . Go ahead and google them. But in a nutshell, using an easy analogy, here it is :

It's like 2 people discussing the 25 mph speed limit on a certain residential street. BOTH OF THEM can agree that the "concept exists" (notice that is pulled from your quote above). The atheist and the theist BOTH AGREE that the speed limit exists. And in fact, the atheist can keep that speed limit just as obediently as the theist can. But when it comes time to argue "where did the speed limit come from ?", the atheist points at the speed limit sign and says "what's wrong with you ? Don't you see the speed limit sign ? ", while the theist is saying "sure, but WHO MADE THE SPEED LIMIT ?". It had to be some city council meeting decades earlier that decided, and put that sign up.
So as you see, the "existence" of a speed limit is not the question , it's WHO MADE THE SPEED LIMIT that is the question. Ie.: ontology and epistemology.

..... Emphatically YES!.....

The above answer was in response to the question: "Is the murder of innocent people only subjectively wrong ?"

Ok folks, let's all let truth-OT's answer sink in. He is now acknowledging that yes, even murder is subjective. So when he says "that's wrong", then it's not necessarily wrong for the murdering society or persons. Ok, let that sink in. At least Truth-OT is being honest. Yet let's all wait a few minutes, and you'll see truth-OT wave his fist and give a list of things that are "wrong". But not to worry : They're not *really* wrong. They're just his , and perhaps his present society's cultural position.

All I have to do (which you will again promptly ignore) is cite various evils-in-the-world (eg.: torturing kittens, gay-bashing, slashing your tires, etc....). And you will immediately wave your fists and say "that's wrong". And guess what ? : You will mean "wrong" in an objective, not subjective sense. When are you going to see ? If you don't , then I am guessing I know why : Because you have a "prior commitment" . And you see where this is going.

.....Wrong again. I can say that their actions were wrong in my estimation as from my subjective point of view I find their actions to be vile and inhuman. To me, whenever someone engages in vile and inhuman behaviors towards human beings, I find that to be wrong (even if the perpetrators are doing so in accordance with what they deem a divine command). .....

You are so much fun. Ok, let's analyze the above quote . They were only "wrong in your estimation from your subjective point of view" . Ok, fine. Then why should they care less what you think ? They're "wrong", but only "subjectively wrong" (from your point of view). Fine, then why are you waiving your fists complaining ? They are waiving their fists and complaining about you. Ok ? So who cares ? They're saying you're wrong. Ok ? And since there is no TRUE "right and wrong" (since it's all subjective), then presto, quit your whining and listing all the evils of the world. Since it's not *really* evil. It's only questions of chocolate vs vanilla. Ok ?

"Vile and inhuman" are strictly subjective. So : Who are you to push your morals on me or any other culture ? Ie.: "You've got your truth and I've got my truth". Ok ? Then in that case, don't 'diss those cultures that choose to throw virgins into volcanoes, or enact Jim Crow laws, or throw jews into gas chambers.

.....We all do. That's a major reason that so much is subjective. .....

Wait, the problem here is, in using this very conversation as a case example is: You think you're right and I'm wrong (and I don't blame you for your persistence, since I'm equally as persistent). BUT WAIT : Only one of us can be right, in the same way at the same time. Study the "law of non-contradiction" (google it). In other words: Since each of our views contradict each other (only one can be true), then , by definition, the matter CAN'T BE SUBJECTIVE . Only one of the views can be correct. Hence why else would you be arguing for your view, if you didn't think it was objectively correct ? And why else would I be arguing for my view if I didn't think it was objectively correct ?

Don't you see ?

..... But the fact is that up until VERY recently, gay bashing was accepted and not considered as wrong. No moral standard put worth defended gay rights in the past that I am aware of. Society's subjective viewpoint changed so that what is tolerated as it relates to the treatment of gay people has become more equitable. . .....

Correct. So on-your-view, if you were speaking/living "back then when gay-bashing was accepted", you'd have to say : "that's morally ok". Got it.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... We create and develop the ever-evolving scoring card. Just look at history. Your slip in stating that morals are simply relative and subjective is accurate.. .....

Ok, so since you've now made it an "ever -evolving scoring card", I've got you right-where-I-want-you. Look back in the history of evolution. And find something that you find morally abhorent. Eg.: throwing virgins into volcanoes, throwing Jews into gas chambers, Jim Crow laws (that's fairly recent), 1700s when world-wide back-&-forth- slavery was norm, etc.... Ok , then , obviously we've "evolved past that". Right ? OK PERFECT : Then can you point to those episodes of evolutionary history and say "that was wrong" ?

To be consistent with your own view, you'd have to say that WASN'T wrong (for them at that time). Ok ? Then on that view, Martin Luther King (who fought racism) was the IMMORAL ONE (for standing up against the "we" of his time and place). Are you willing to admit this (to save your view ?). If so, I think I can recommend you for a top spot at the next KKK meeting in Alabama. Ok ?

..... If you buy into divine command setting up immutable morals, isn't might makes right EXACTLY what you are advocating?.. .....

Wait, are you admitting that the buck has to stop somewhere ? Are you admitting that it CAN'T be the collective "we" and "us" and "society" and "culture" ? You need to answer that first, before I answer your question . Otherwise you can simply jump around and move the goal posts.

..... Let me ask you the same question using different cultures of people. If the Ancient Israelites had conquered the land of Canaan, having murdered women, children, and babies in the process, would what they say as good therefore be good?. .....

Wait, what are you griping about ? There's nothing objectively wrong (on your view) of "murdering women children and babies". It's only your personal preference. So what are you griping about ? (and again, don't confuse epistemology and ontology ).

..... In both cases my answer is no. Yours?.....

Wait, you're trying to jump ahead before terms are defined. We haven't even defined whether or not morals are objective or subjective. Let's answer that first, and THEN go on to what I think grounds morals. Right now, we're on a very interesting "test drive" of your moral scoring card. You are saying it's the collective "we" and "us" and "society" and "culture" and "evolution" . Right ? Then I'm not putting forth an answer as to what's right-or-wrong so far (and my "scoring card") . I'm still inquiring and test driving yours.

So before you start trying to try a "red-herring " on me, finish the first conversation.

..... "....As I already stated, WE develop the scoring card. The fact that you'd ask why mistreatment of people would be a problem is problematic in and of itself and suggests that your understand of and/or empathy for your fellow human beings doesn't make the answer obvious.....".....

Yup, same problem as above : The "we " is not defined. And the continuing confusion on the part of truth-OT on epistemology vs ontology (see above explanation).

 

[Truth OT]

A "thing" can't issue rules and laws.

Isn't government "a thing?"

Only personal agents ("who's" not "what's" ) can issue rules and moral obligations, right ?

Wrong. Governments can.

Laws for people's supposed well-being and for what people can and cannot do are made by people. No need for any agency that is not of this world is required.

 

[Truth OT]

Societies and cultures (ie.: the collective "we") are the "authority". Right ? YET AS YOU CAN SEE, this fails the test drive when we do a simple look at history. Right ?

Yes, you've caught what I was throwing! Individuals and the societies they are a part of determine what is behaviors are acceptable. Those acceptable behaviors have proven to be dynamic thus proving that the moral behavior humans are willing to accept are subjective.

 

[Truth OT]

So now you're turning the tables on me (as if to admit defeat in your test drive) and asking ME: "Who then, is this authority ?". Have I understood you correctly ?

No who is being invoked and no appeal to authority is being made. In order to progress the conversation I'm asking you to define what you mean when you say right so that when we discuss the term, we are talking about the same thing, otherwise we'll talk past each other both thinking the other is missing something or is flat out wrong. I'm trying to be......FAIR.

They're not *really* wrong. They're just his , and perhaps his present society's cultural position.

And?

And you will immediately wave your fists and say "that's wrong". And guess what ? : You will mean "wrong" in an objective, not subjective sense.

The above is flat out tone-deaf and dishonest. I mean wrong the way I said I meant it.

Then why should they care less what you think ?

The above question is what's causing you to stubble as it seems that you don't see how or why someone should care what other people think and expect. To answer your why question AGAIN listen:
Since I don't and cannot function out of any social setting (e.i. society) and I must live with you and a myriad of other people, I am compelled to abide by the rules we set for coexisting.. If I do not, I can be punished and/or ostracized. Therefore, it is in my best interest to conform to society's regulations else I and by extension those I love will suffer negative consequences.

 

[Bobby Jo]

... God = might.

I would most strongly disagree. You appear to propose that GOD can do wrong, but HE can't. HE can only do RIGHT. Now on the other hand WE can do all kinds of wrong, and rationalize/justify it in our own intellect. But whether OUR choice is by might/right/wrong, there's an ultimate right, and we will be held accountable, -- unless we have someone to appeal to whose sacrifice has already covered our sin.

And to make sure that GOD is always right, all we have to do is look at Bible Prophecy to see where events are detailed some 2,500 years before they occur, -- and those events are MORE ACCURATE than our own history books which often miss specific details such as when Russia's "green light" for North Korea's attack on South Korea wasn't known until some three decades later when the Russian archives were opened to western researchers.

Bobby Jo

 

[Truth OT]

And to make sure that GOD is always right, all we have to do is look at Bible Prophecy to see where events are detailed some 2,500 years before they occur, -- and those events are MORE ACCURATE than our own history books which often miss specific details such as when Russia's "green light" for North Korea's attack on South Korea wasn't known until some three decades later when the Russian archives were opened to western researchers.

Seems we've got some eschatology to unpack as well as some prophetic details to examine.

 

[Truth OT]

Look back in the history of evolution. And find something that you find morally abhorent. Eg.: throwing virgins into volcanoes, throwing Jews into gas chambers, Jim Crow laws (that's fairly recent), 1700s when world-wide back-&-forth- slavery was norm, etc.... Ok , then , obviously we've "evolved past that". Right ? OK PERFECT : Then can you point to those episodes of evolutionary history and say "that was wrong" ?

To be consistent with your own view, you'd have to say that WASN'T wrong (for them at that time). Ok ? Then on that view, Martin Luther King (who fought racism) was the IMMORAL ONE (for standing up against the "we" of his time and place). Are you willing to admit this (to save your view ?). If so, I think I can recommend you for a top spot at the next KKK meeting in Alabama. Ok ?

Wow, let's break this down further. Things I find abhorrent are not allowed in my house. Things my neighbors and I find abhorrent are not permitted in our neighborhood. Things our city citizens find abhorrent are not permitted in our city. Together we've developed a moral code that is at whatever point in time viewed what it is, but if viewed at a later point in time may differ making it ever evolving. When we look back at what our code was lacking or included initially and compare it to now, we might very likely say that we WERE WRONG in our past position, though at the time we held them, we felt right in doing so.

It seems that you are making a bad point that you are trying to slip in unnoticed that it is immoral to disagree with the moral position of the society you are a part of. Real slick, but inaccurate. Dissent is not necessarily immoral in a society unless coded as such by the society.

 

[Truth OT]

Wait, are you admitting that the buck has to stop somewhere ? Are you admitting that it CAN'T be the collective "we" and "us" and "society" and "culture" ?

The buck rests with those that have decision making influence and authority. Those in authority tend to change over time.
No, I think the authority CAN be those that have decision making influence and authority.

There's nothing objectively wrong (on your view) of "murdering women children and babies". It's only your personal preference. So what are you griping about

What you attempt to minimize, my values that hold that it is wrong to bring about murder upon other humans, is amusing to me. Is this position a laughable one or irrational to hold in you opinion or something?

What it seems you're genuinely grasping for is a why. Why should someone hold that anything is right or wrong if that determination is not a fixed dictate from an immutable law giver outside of space and time. For me, the answer is going to reflect my bias as a human being. (Others may have different reasons and conclusions because SUBJECTIVITY!)
As a human, I favor that which benefits human well-being, starting with my own and extending from mines to my fellow man. I don't want there to be slavery for many reasons, not the least of which is that I don't want myself or my loved ones subject to slavery. I don't want murder to be accepted because again, I don't wish to have those that I care about subject to it. I don't want discrimination to be accepted because again, I don't want me and mines to be subject to its negative repercussions. I have a vested interest in humanity because I am a human. That same level of concern doesn't extend to my fellow living creatures in the animal kingdom. Having horses being used for sport and human labor don'y really bother me as compared to how I'd be bothered if humans were subjected to that treatment because I am not a horse and therefore don't value horses the way I value humans. I am in most ways biased to what I perceive is good or enjoyable for mankind and my moral compass tends to reflect that.

 

[Truth OT]

You are saying it's the collective "we" and "us" and "society" and "culture" and "evolution"

No mention of evolution of species, just the ever changing beliefs of what is and is not right as depicted on our collective moral scorecards.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... You realize that what you are basically saying is that if I don't know there to be be an objective moral standard that is "transcendent", then I am not allow to have a moral standard of my own that I hold myself to and judge others by. That logic makes no sense.....

The reason it's not making sense to you, is as I've said: You're confusing epistemology and ontology again. Yes: You can look at the speed limit sign and know, just like I can, that the speed limit is 25 mph. THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION. The question is : Where did the speed limit come from. You're saying "from society, evolution, the collective 'we', and 'us' ". So I merely took that for a test drive, and showed you where that crashed.

Yes, you HAVE INDEED made a "moral standard for yourself". Then why are you pointing around at injustices and evils in the world, and calling them "wrong" ? Why do they / we care what your personal preferences are ? Just as in the same way that you can't look at my bowl of chocolate ice cream and say "that's wrong, and vanila is right ", then so too are you not able to say that the evils you are shaking your fist at are objectively wrong. They're only wrong on your personal subjective preference. Since you are the one saying there's nothing outside of you and/or your current society's view.

....In my view, it SHOULD have been wrong to them just as it is wrong to me, but it apparently wasn't......

I will let this view sink in to you and the other readers : It apparently wasn't [objectively] wrong for the Nazis to murder innocent people. This is what you are essentially saying and admitting. Hhhhmmm. This will speak very loudly for itself. But I have to admit: At least you are following your views to where they *do* logically take you .