ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Give Me an Answer -
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 พ.ค. 2015
- Cliffe Knechtle has a great conversation with college students at a campus in the southwest US.
The "Give Me An Answer" ministry began as an outgrowth of the dialogues Cliffe Knechtle has had with students on various university campuses throughout the United States. These universities include the University of Maine, Harvard, MIT, University of Florida, University of Texas, University of Wisconsin, University of Minnesota, University of California Los Angeles, University of California San Diego, Berkeley, Stanford, University of Hawaii and the University of Washington. Cliffe spoke on these campuses in front of the Student Union or Library at noon for five to ten minutes. At the close of his initial remarks, he'd open up the time for questions and answers, which usually turned into a two to four hour dialogue with students. His crowd size ranged from 25 - 500 students at a time, and between classes, new students would join the discussion. This is an extremely effective way to reach a large number of university students with the Gospel of Christ.
![[UNCUT] เพื่อไทยดันอุ๊งอิ๊งนั่งนายกฯ หลังเศรษฐาถูกถอดถอน | คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ | 15 ส.ค. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SpprmDJ6QEE/mqdefault.jpg)
This guy seems to be sincere, and inteligent. I hope, he 'll continue to pursue the truth. The rest is up to he, and God.
That last statement, "you can't put justice at the bottom of a test tube" was flippin' beautiful!!!!!!!!!
That student looked genuinely sincere and intelligent with his questions and responses. He seems so close to finally seeing the truth! I'm going to pray for him.
The questioner has great questioning responses but that can only go so far when you seek to put all of reality in a lab. Great job encouraging this brother who is lost in the world of atheism. May are Lord call him into his arms one day. Thanks cliff for your service in Christ.
Rich Yes, because he would be ONE POWERFUL CHRISTIAN!
Cliffe God bless you im a Christian and support what you are doing.
This was one of the best episodes of Give Me an Answer. The student made very good philosophical argumentation but it was quite clear that he was hoping that Cliffe could demonstrate the reliability of objective morality through the scientific method, which is impossible. It was interesting that near the end that the student gave an enormous hint that he may not trust himself with morality.
Very articulate and an intelligent questioner. Glad he pushed Cliffe the way he did. God bless you Cliffe in all you do.
The guy with the sun glasses sounds like a innocent robot questioning life.
Cliff kicks butt! Love this dude!
Just found your channel through quarantine and you’ve encouraged me so much sir. I appreciate your work and am praying for you my friend.
WOW, that was amazing...! one of the best dialogues I've ever seen from you
Mr Knechtle..
You seem to be getting better at handling your anger!.. I've watched you for many years and I've sometimes felt some kind of rebellion to the students asking what sometimes are ridiculous questions. But you keeped your cool in this video and gave some outstanding answers..Thank you so much!....! I'm going to watch this video again!~ lol..Love ya Cliffe...Some day I will get enough money to come to the states and visit you at your church.....Keep going buddy!
it was one of the best debates I have seen in these videos~ Great Job Cliffe~ and I really like the way the last person took the humble attitude to end the conversation
This felt like a chess game. Everything was going well for the student until he affirmed that it WASN'T objectively wrong to abuse a child. Big mistake! After that we entered the end game, Cliff kept checking him until he resign! Respect to the kid for doing it so graciously.
Right. One way I think that would be a great challenge for the student when he said "that abusing a child wasnt objectively wrong" was to try and create a "what if" scenario that contains the abuse of an innocent child that is justified. Cause I cant think of any scenario or reasons to justify the abuse of an innocent child no matter how far I want to stretch it, i dont think that college student can too
I will keep you in my prayers Clift, you’re a real servant of God. May the Lord filled you with His knowledge and Love. 🙏🏼
Nice work! What a great opponent! Well handled Cliffe (and Dan).
Kind of scary that guy had to question whether choosing a sandwich vs abusing an innocent child were morally different..
Im assuming he might be a psychopath / sociopath who struggles to feel other emotions like the majority do. But thats just me
Yeah kinda scary for me too :(
@@JoeMama-sd2kl or when you reject God then ultimately evil settles within you.
The questioner was actually VERRY good. In fact, he appeared to me as very intelligent.
+HoopLah clunk lol amen
But after listening to it you begin to realise this mans argument and how flawed it really is.
He was arguing past Cliffe. Cliffe was on Objective & Subjective morality, & the questioner was using utility. It was two different arguments. Also, in the end Utility can allow great moral injustice. It is a measurable system, & that was probably why he liked it. So, he probably picked it because he knows has less grey areas, but it also has the same flaws communism has. Unchecked rules, great evil is fine as long as the utility is high, & implementation almost requires either a massive governing structure OR elite class to decide what is best & oppressive enforcement. Utility needs an enforcement structure because it is not natural. It is one of those things that promises Utopia & is a dystopia in actuality. You have to work with human nature, not against it. Utility will not work, sorry. It is a tested & failed idea.
The questioner was very intelligent! Good job Cliffe.
What IS intelligence?
@@juaneatobeing civil and speaking with courtesy, using a much deeper vocabulary.
The guy did a wise act towards the end after Cliffe gave the example of the innocent child.
what i got from this video was that the individual just did not have a clear understanding of objective and subjective morality. A clear understanding of the two would make it black and white that subjective morality is inferior to objective morality.
That young gentleman was a bad boy! He had some GOOD questions!
His questions had big words, but said very little. On the other hand, cliff spoke simply and said alot
you gotta hand it tho, this guy asks some intelligent questions that I'm sure a lot of sharp people have asked regarding the existence of God
Cliffe, I just want to say thank you for playing a big role in teaching me how to defend the existence of God and the credibility of the Gospels with meekness and gentleness. Thanks for providing logical answers to some of the most meaningful questions in life such as is God real? where do morals come from? and is Jesus reliable?
Watching your videos on TV here in New Zealand and on TH-cam over the past couple years has really helped me answer some of the difficult questions that my Athiest mates at university bring up. Many points such as how you cant live out moral relativism, how life cant come from non-life, how it is more logical to conclude that order, design and complexity come from an intelligent creator and how we are not 'pond scum evolved to a higher order' but rather beings that have innate value because God has a plan for each and everyone of us have been a major eye opener to many of my friends and have really got them thinking. I know that seeds have been planted and chains have been made so again thanks a lot! God bless and to God be all the glory! :)
Its always interesting to see these students lead Cliffe down a road of science only to find God.
Lol i like this comment.
This guy was great. I was thinking hard all the way through.
Ultimately, the value of hypotheses and theories lies in their explanatory power. How do they explain the evidence. If someone says that morality is subjective, but then nobody in the world lives that out as Cliffe can explain so beautifully, then the atheistic view of morality falls short in its ability to explain reality.
This student raised important philosophical questions very eloquently. I think that Cliffe could have done a better job, but he did well with the point at the end. Really, he should have said that morality from God is objective because everything that God creates is what we consider to be objective.
Dr. Logos Hi Dr Logos, so are you saying if God didn't exist we would have no morality?
bonnie43uk I don't see that we would have objective morality. In other words, I don't see how we would be able to say that "murdering innocent people is wrong" in the same way that we could say "2+2=4" unless God defined a moral code along with the creation of the universe. It wouldn't be a fact that something is wrong without God. God's nature of transcending the universe is what distinguishes his moral code as objective from the subjective moral code of a human within the universe.
To understand this from a different perspective, consider this: if God doesn't exist, then there is no omniscient being to even define what is true. A heroine addict that's having a hallucination is really experiencing that hallucination, and the only reality is his subjective reality, if God doesn't exist. Then, no one can actually tell him that the pink bunny he sees isn't "real." On the other hand, a transcendent, omniscient God can set an objective standard for "reality" due to his omniscience. This is similar to how God could set an objective moral standard. Note that God could still be an amoral being if Christians/Muslims/Jews/Hindus etc. are wrong, but the possibility of objective morality is only there if God exists.
Dr. Logos So do you think objective morality is set in stone by God and we could not improve on our morals as a species? Are we at the peak of human morality?. I disagree with you that God has set the standard for morality. I think there are quite a few things that, as a species, we can improve on. It was only a few hundred years ago that society found it morally acceptable to treat black people abhorrently, this was quite prevalent as you know in the deep south of America as depicted in the movie "12 years a slave". They even used the bible itself to morally justify their beliefs that it was ok. Colossians 3:22 "Slaves obey your masters". Could Jesus have made his view on slavery and the treatment of slaves any clearer?, I believe he could, Where in the New Testament does Jesus say implicitly "It is wrong for man to own another person and to mistreat that person?, or he could even have been even more crystal clear and said "Slavery is wrong". Ah, you may say to me, things were different then, well, Jesus was supposedly a reformer wasn't he?, during his short time on earth it would have been a perfect time for him to outright condemn slavery once and for all. Why didn't he?. Why not make it one of the basic 10 commandments? Thou shalt not own another person regardless of colour or creed. Would the bible be a more moral book if God had told Moses to include that phrase? Undoubtedly *yes* .It's taken society hundreds of years to slowly realize we should treat people of a different colour with the same respect. It's something we've had to learn as a species. It took people like Martin Luther King and many others to lead the way in giving blacks a level platform. Even today there is much prejudice against blacks. Women's rights are another issue that's taken time. Anyhoo, morality is a huge subject, I better stop here :-)
bonnie43uk This is why moral philosophers make a distinction between moral ontology (a basis for morality) and moral epistemology (how we come to know what is moral). Certainly, we as humans can improve our morals, but we can only objectively "improve" rather than simply "change" if there is an objective standard which we can work toward. Objective morality doesn't in any way imply that we are currently perfect moral beings.
Certainly, the Bible doesn't capture and address every moral dilemma. In fact, in Christian theology, many parts of the Old Testament are explicitly immoral in comparison to the ideal that God desires. Compromise is done in order to have an extremely primitive people voluntarily take a step forward morally. Was the interpretation of the 19th century U.S. South a sincere interpretation? Consider the fact that the Northerners were descendants of Puritans while the Southerners were descendants of those who settled in America for commercial purposes. Actually, despite the fact that the Old Testament made moral compromises, the Southerners, at least in regard to slavery, were morally inferior to the Israelites! Why? Exodus 21:16 "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper's possession." Slaves in old Israel, although still treated as slaves for the most part, were often prisoners of war or indentured servants. So even though their treatment was still largely immoral, it's important to recognize this difference.
Jesus did not explicitly condemn all slavery either. However, I think that you are wrong to say that he did not implicitly condemn slavery. The way that Jesus emphasized the equal value of individuals, no matter their background, circumstance, or race does counter the concept of slavery. Consider the effect that Jesus had on Paul, who writes "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)
bonnie43uk One correction: It is not fair to say even that Jesus never explicitly condemned slavery. Rather, any statement of his regarding slavery was not put into the Gospels. After all, not all of his teachings could be captured. However, it is very possible that he never explicitly condemned slavery.
I would like to also sit and Pick Cliffes brain a bit…. 💯😂 guys is very articulate in his words. God bless him.🙏🏽
this was a very powerful debate
Have an Awesome Day Cliff Im happy be happy christ is with you
awsome video awsome message. thanks so much for what u do.I get to learn so much myself.
Is amazing how society has change, today students are very hostile to intellectual discussion. Look at how those students are sitting listening without being unnecessary hostile.
The first guy is Spock's 2nd cousin Sonak, who's going through Kolinahr (the Vulcan process that purges all emotions). He seems to be on the right track.
Cliff is an excellent bibical intellectual translator.
Romans 12:2
Finally, a thinking student!
This young man is an asking machine.
The abuse of a child is not usually done in the open. It is done in secret. It is hidden because the abusive person knows that it is morally and legally wrong. Otherwise, they wouldn't hide the fact that they are abusing the child, as an example. There is a shame associated with this crime. It is evident when the person is arrested and on trial. They know they have done wrong, regardless if they admit to believing in God or not. This is one way we know that God exists.
Aside from direct appeal to a proven authority, moral reasoning depends upon some level of intuited or a priori axiomatic assumptions.
Even such proper authority and justice, and the distinction between these and arbitrary power dynamics are axiomatic conceptions that are unexplorable by reason because it is upon just such axioms that reason itself is based.
He's basically asking, why are our standards ultimately arbitrary but God's are transcendent and absolute?
I would have answered differently. I would say that the difference is that God is not just some other schmoe muddling through existence, determining right and wrong like a blindfolded kid swinging at a pinata.
Instead the reason God's standard of goodness and morality is not arbitrary is because (a) all things must have an ultimate source and claiming God's moral standards are arbitrary is like a boat complaining the ocean and its waves and currents are arbitrary, and (b) these standards are part of God's nature and character.
It seems strange to me that people will venerate a source of goodness and morality as long as it is inanimate and abstract. But the moment anyone suggests that this source might be an eternal living entity, they dismiss its standards as arbitrary.
I'm convinced that this is in most cases because an inanimate abstraction can't talk back to you and tell you what you're doing is wrong but at the same time give you a patina of depth and sophistication to impress others. And also, inanimate things can be manipulated without any pushback.
Cliffe could have pressed him further about his view of the abuse of a child. I would have said, in your view, why can you tell him to stop, don't you believe he can decide for himself if it's right or wrong? Can you say to him what he "ought" to do? And unfortunately this is probably what abusers think. They have bought the lie that what they do doesn't matter.
Cliffe, I do not always agree, but you do a great job. I wish I could speak with you about something.
Who else could perceive the voice of Lucifer coming thru the more this myopic kid spoke?
The Holy Spirit Bible is the only book that gives meaning of life. Jesus Christ dies for the sinners and says he is the way, the truth and life. He is the real Savior of mankind. Even Google can answer questions these days.
When one creates its something out of nothing. When makes something tbey use ready made ingredients and produce a product. So man has never created any life.
The was an incredible video. That student had some awesome questions.
Yeah but he wasn't sure if abusing a child is absolutely evil, very weird how many atheists can't come to that logical conclusion.
Make you wonder what else is at play when you reject God.
Oh for f's sake, God did not create justice. He IS justice.
This guy must be fun at parties.
Take turn in the life raft ,simple
What an interesting man.I hope he went on to be very successful (and a Christian).
I think in the first half of this debate would have been more stable by putting "value and justice" aside for a more tangible clear definition of higher ethics and by showing that objective morality is God's simply by definition and that the value of that morality is in His wisdom and access to knowledge. If you make a machine and via determinism virtualize the many options of interaction then make a manual laying down the best practices for use of the machine. You would know on 2 fronts that this is best(right) by knowing the future and by designing the placement of handles and internal workings that the end user may not. We are the end user and do not know enough to determine what is best but He who created the universe would both know it's purpose/designed use and know both the location and velocity of all the parts simultaneously which allows foresight and thirdly He could know these things on the many levels of system interactions.
Brilliant debate. It takes a denying of self to realize there is an objective reality and it’s not all subjective based on what each person believes is to be just. Jesus showed us this by surrendering His life because God is so just that He puts His life (His only begotten Son Jesus) on the line for it; and actually suffered and died for justice. If He didn’t care about us he would never try and prove His justice. He would just be fed up with us and wipe us out. But He loves us so much that He’s proving we belong to Him by becoming flesh and bone like us. And by resurrecting He shows He is One with God and that we too will be victorious over our selfishness (subjective reality) and become new and powerful in His objective reality which has been here all along!
He can't tell the difference between a taste in sandwich and abusing a child, and thinks they're basically the same decision. Hmmm is that Atheism? I guess so when there's no Moral absolute. No ultimate just law giver who is above humans. Humans who can be petty n stupid and rationalise atrocities for selfish reasons.
Mark 7:18-23,
This dude is a robot.
The dude somehow reminds me of Ben Shapiro 😅
Innocent child example is incomplete - innocent anything but then most are guilty and justifiable -so much for man self importance .
Cliffe your lungs are a collection of atoms and how much are they worth to you? Cliffe also seems to be the master of making assertions.
Does anyone know what college this is?
That guy is extremely smart, but he worries me about the way he thinks. He thinks like a robot.
Cliff dodging every question again
Human vs Robot. I hope that man finds God.
God's law is not kept today. Hebrews says it's weak and unprofitable. Because the standard of right and wrong was just to the Jews and Paul's commands for women to submit and cover their heads is cultural then morality and right and wrong is subjective. The law was said to be perfect, holy, just, good and spiritual. Why then do Christians reject it as a standard for righteousness?
God IS THE standard of everything except evil.
Dr. Logos "because everything that God creates is what we consider to be objective"
I sense a lot of christians indeed do this... but i don't really get why. The only reason that seems to be given is because if one does not consider it that way, you don't get to the christian worldview; which seems sort of circular.
Can you explain why you do consider the things that god creates objective (and in what sense they are actual objective)?
(seperate post so i dont intrude on the other converstation)
P.G. Burgess What I meant was that when talking about objective reality, we're either referring to objects in the universe or necessary eternal truths. If God exists, objects in the universe would be his creation, and necessary eternal truths would be co-eternal to him. Because morality isn't a necessary truth, if it really exists, God has to have defined it. Therefore it would be a real object in the universe and morality would be objective.
Dr. Logos I don't think the IF you use here "If god exists"; is in agreement with your previous statement.
What then would you call 'objective' if he doesn't: the physical universe and the neccessary truths themself?
How do you get from that 'if' to the 'is'?
P.G. Burgess You are right. I left out an important philosophical concept. If God doesn't exist, necessary truths remain objective. Note that without God, it actually can't be that anything relating to the physical universe is objective. However, we assume things relating to the physical universe to be objective, because it is a reasonable assumption and we avoid philosophical dilemmas tied to solipsism. In other words, we assume that both you and I have to travel the same number of miles to get from A to B, and someone who says otherwise is either living in another dimension or is delusional. On the other hand (still assuming that God doesn't exist), it is not reasonable to assume that morality is objective in the same way that we assumed physical reality to be objective, because morality does not operate on the physical plane and is not verifiable in the same way. You and I can disagree about a moral truth without being in different dimensions or being delusional. Furthermore, it would not make sense to expect a God-less universe to have morality somehow woven into nature like physical reality, because morality deals with an interaction between persons. Without God, no person existed at the beginning of the universe and for several billion years afterward. That's why we're only left with God as a reasonable explanation for objective morality.
Dr. Logos [we assume things relating to the physical universe to be objective]
Except for the part of hard sollipsism, this is not the case. We make objective statements about all sort of things, but we understand that the frames of reference our relative to one another. If you properly define units, coordinates,.. you can make all sorts of objective measurement-statements (given our subjective registration of the experiment coresponds to reality, which is the sollopsism part).
[it is not reasonable to assume that morality is objective in the same way that we assumed physical reality to be objective, because morality does not operate on the physical plane and is not verifiable in the same way]
I agree, it would not be objective "in the same way"... it adresses, imo, a matter of subjective experiences and psychology (our wellbeing, harm...) There are plenty of levels on which we can objectively talk about these things. But if you cut out all matters of subjective experiences.. as far as i am concerned, you are not talking about morality anymore (perhaps theology?)
Morality adresses question on how we can make objective statements of our human experiences and interactions.
So: i think there are ways to talk objectivly about morality (even if it is about subjective things)... If you are talking about the nature of god, his will... to me, that is a completely unimportant matter, and not what i call morality.
ps: i think you tend to mix up the concepts of absolute-relative and objective-subjective here and there.
Dr. Logos pt2: a bit more general.
What frustrates me is the assumption that men-made frameworks for morality are useless and delusions..
To me (just as the relative frameworks we use to do scientific measurements-based on subjective experiences of experiments) it is a very uselfull and important working model. Like science 'it works'.
If everyone accepted the relativity of there framework, accept that preferences are important but not universal.. we could build a great society.
I don't think this is true, when people think there are absolute truths... despite the fact noone has actual access to it.
That one kid with the sunglasses and long hair thinks he is brilliant. You can tell by how he talks.
"He is not a mixture of good and evil."
Surely he is, by the very act of omnipotently allowing so much evil in this world.
Michael 마익흘 Aronson hope you stuck around cliffes channel and got your concern Answered
My goodness, this such a weak argument... God does not allow evil... We human beings do... In fact, we humans commit the evil in the world! If humans stopped committing evil, there would be no evil in the world. You need to boss up and make the correct choice to do right and the first right, correct choice is Christ ..
And no... He is not a mixture of good and evil... God is only good and all His ways are good... He sets His ways down as a standard of good for us to follow. Evil only occurs when we take His ways and standards and pervert them...
@@SOULSafeProductionZ I love your response
7th!!!
He was calling an intentionally created sheep, (made from preexisting matter) the same as a creation from the one who ordered how matter would be structured. In effect, everything we make is from preexisting stuff. We did not truly create anything. That sheep was also made from a preexisting species. A great leap for us, that is very hard to repeat & the clone is not identical in temperament either (a crude clone). It is nothing like the original creation of sheep. Can we even claim to have created Dolly the sheep? It was 99.999999999% God & 00.000000001% us.
The point is, as creator, he knows what everything was meant to be. Is it then his opinion, or a fact? God's opinions are facts. How about one of our opinions? Are they always facts? No. That is the difference. He knows all, we do not. He is truthful, we do lie. He lacks needs, we have many that may color our opinions. In the end, that is the difference. We will never be what God is, but we can be with him.
That is the real point. God is the objective maximal Good being! We are not. I would suggest, & so would Cliffe, that you should get to know that God (unless you already do).
God Bless
I have a question. I have watched cliffe many times and have agreed with the point of objective morality, but i have an friend who is on the fence about God anf has been watching some of cliffes videos. And he can't see that cliffe is right on this and ibwas running out of ways to describe this. I was discussing it with my wife who confessed she was not sure that morals were objective and she gave me example of kids and babies who grow up in a family who have no problem with theft for example, and as i think about it i have known people who cant understand why we make such a big deal about a "little" theft. And their kids dont even question it as if they dont really know its wrong, the next example was of a baby say 2 years old who would take that candy and not even care that it wasnt theirs to begin with or that its not good for them but they see no issue inatly with it... i had no answers for this idea. So dose our inbuilt idea of right and wrong start at a certain age? Or i dunno how dose that work? Links to vids explaining wouls be good.
scottfraser5000
People know that something is wrong when something happens to them. People will steal. However, they know something is wrong if someone steals from them.
scottfraser5000 Here some questions you can ask your wife. Is the family or parents the objective standards for morality to everyone? If the children are taught that theft is not wrong or "no big deal" then would they object to someone else stealing from them?
scottfraser5000 Hi Scott, good points, I would say behaviour is learned from as soon as babies become aware of their surroundings, a good parent will constantly drum into a toddler what is acceptable and what is not, ..the tone of a parents voice will give the little one an idea of what is right and what is wrong. It's my guess the parent(s) of the naughty child wasn't given those early pointers to right and wrong in life. Good parenting skills are the key to a well adjusted child. Too much emphasis is put on objective and subjective morality, it only confuses the issue even more I think.
bonnie43uk yeah that's exactly what my wife was getting at, so this leaves me wondering why cliffe spends so much time on this topic, and leaves me unsure of how to discuss this further with my friend...
Man.. Does this T100 think he just evolved?
Brother, skynet created you. 😂.
The devil is strong in this one.
Stop it😂I shouldn't laugh...a little
Non-Christian: Asks insightful, interesting philosophical question about Cliff’s worldview
Christians: HE’S THE DEVIL!!!! CLOSE YOUR EYES AND COVER YOUR EARS!!
I like this atheist guy. He reminds me off a young Kevin Price. Cliffe kept dodging the question. All he could do is make unsubstantiated assertion about God. All Cliffe proved is that we all have subjective opinions about philosophical and moral questions. You can't just claim something comes from God without evidence to back it up.
I meant to say Robert Price
First
Yes Cliffe...if the woman was from a different culture her value may indeed change. This happens with or without your God.
Again Cliff avoided the answer, as he seems to do in every video, when adressed these question. This time with an allround favourite trick: the jump at 0:07:45 from objective moral values (which he was defending an was asked about) to eternal, 'absolute' values. Those are not the same!
and again at 0:21:00 ... even worst, conflicting 'absolute truths' with 'absolutely held to an opinion'.
askcliffe Please stop making this mistake!
From about halfway trough the arguments used by Cliffe go downhill... from special pleading to plain preaching (somehow with a very disingeous note that all atheist are just blinded by there selfindulgent way of live and without an intellectual argument.. that was very low!)
P.G. Burgess
What is the basis for morality -- human morality ? That is what the argument is about.
If there is no God ( who is the basis for human morality ), then no belief and no action could be bad nor wrong.
TheMirabillis the question is, how does 'god' become an objective basis? What makes his nature, his opinion, ... more objective as our human nature or opinions (given we still have to evaluate his claims by our human standards).
Objective 'good or bad' always relate to something. You can say good is in accordance to god. You can say good is in relation to wellbeing of beings.
What objective way do we have to differentiate between the two? That question is what relates to the absolute (or relative) nature of morality. (Which is seperate from the previous question on objective vs subjective.)
P.G. Burgess
God does not become an objective basis. Rather, God is the objective basis for morality.
God is the Supreme Moral Law Giver over human existence. God is the creator. In everyday vernacular -- God is the the boss.
If there is no God, then there is no good. Period !
TheMirabillis i understand christians keep saying that... but what makes him the boss, why is he the objective standard... how this does work?
When people, like the guy in the video, ask questions.. they d like answers.. not over and over the same assertion.
Please, if you want to leave a comment, great.. but then adress the questions with actual answers, arguments and explanations;
P.G. Burgess
I have told you what makes Him the boss. I gave you the answer.
God is the creator. God created all of space / time reality. It is very straightforward.
Thats the answer !
If you don't like the answer, then no one can help you with anything else.