I appreciate Frank furthering positive discourse by putting Paul on his channel! Letting those that challenge you express their ideas themselves (especially one as knowledgeable and well-spoken as Paul) is a great way to show integrity! Thank you Frank!
I don't. Pauloozer is only superficially knowledgeable (at best); he's not particularly well-spoken; and, anti-theists/New-Atheists should have as few platforms as possible from which to eject their poisonous, insidious, conceptual 'fee seas'.
@@dansaber4427 Nothing to it. The laws of physics point to a creator of great power and wisdom. Imagine trying to make a gorgeous painting with no power or wisdom.
@@GuitarDog_atx the foolishness of a worldview void of intelligent design. Everything exists either because of random chance or intelligent design, and to believe it's due to random chance is just silly.
I suggest everyone view the full video and full responses from Paul. Check out his full videos. Even if you are a Christian, it is worth your time to hear the arguments.
@@jessebryant9233 That's sort of true in a live setting. The moral argument is a tangled mess of logic. Apologists have gotten really good at obfuscating the real issue. It can be difficult to untangle.
@@amarpal1316 I think you're right about that. I just think accepting reality on reality's terms is more fruitful, and provides a reliable baseline by which to improve from. Asserting that morality is grounded in the mind of God doesn't help the people who disagree over the mind of God, or those who are born without the belief that torturing babies is wrong. It's nice to think that every wrong will ultimately be righted, that just doesn't make it true.
Historically in philosophy, morality has since Socrates always about how people should behave not how they actually behave. That's why a major branch of it is called 'deontology' or 'what doesn't exist' (yet).
1. At like 3:25 Frank says that what he really wants to address is the ontological issue, but then immediately starts asking about how we can know certain things, which is clearly an epistemological question. The reason this happens is because all of Frank's actual work has to be explaining how fallible, finite, subjective creatures can access an objective standard. Until he does that whether or not such a standard actually exists is really and truly irrelevant. He doesn't appear interested in actually engaging that question, however, he wants to score points by making Paul squirm answering questions about Nazis. 2. Christian history is instructive. Despite the claim that Christians have access to THE objective moral standard, the institutional church largely ignored even prominent voices like Gregory of Nyssa who gave a Biblical case for condemning slavery in the 5th century. It has taken about 1000 years for the church's cultural biases to shift toward majority condemnation of the enslavement of people, but even today you have people like Doug Wilson who still contend that "Godly slavery" is not an oxymoron. How can the community with access to THE objective moral standard be divided for it's entire history about something so destructive?
//1. At like @ Frank says that what he really wants to address is the ontological issue, but then immediately starts asking about how we can know certain things, which is clearly an epistemological question. // Indeed. I see this so often from apologists. They want the opposition to explain some idea while allowing that they should be able to get away with merely asserting their own counter ideas. Thus they say that "God accounts for X" while asking their critic to "Please explain how X". It's a double standard they apply and I don't think they are aware of it. I think this may be because so many apologists have been immersed in the idea from birth that only they have the objective truth, and therefore it's up to all others to explain why they think differently. Hence they cannot see the double standard they apply.
@@rolandwatts3218 You're so right. I was doing hurricane relief a few years back and there was a girl from Chicago and a girl from rural North Carolina arguing about who had an accent. They can't seem to imagine that their assumptions and norms are contingent.
@Frederick Shull It is a double standard if one side to a debate or discussion requires (either implicitly or explicitly) that the other side provide explanation while it should be able to get away with assertion. //Nature cannot give us morality, period.// I assert that - Surpernature cannot give us morality. ^^ Do you see my point?
@Frederick Shull this is fallible logic, no? To assert that I cannot have B without A? Especially when there is claim to have B without having complete knowledge A exists?
Is morality subjective? Morality that’s relative to circumstances is NOT moral relativism. “Certain people” tend to disagree that morals are objective. For some reason there are people who think that for every immoral action there exists a scenario where that action becomes moral. For example, a killer asks you where your family is. Is it immoral to lie to save them? So therefore morals are subjective? Notice this logic. If morality is dependent on a situation, then morality must be subjective. These people seem to be a bit puzzled to what it means for morality to be subjective, so let’s define some terms. Subjective morality, also called relativism, is the view that morality is based on what some particular person believes. On this view, what is right and what is wrong depend completely on the individual, or the subject. That’s why they call it subjectivism. On relativism, premarital sex may be wrong for me, but the exact same behavior might be right for someone else. Now, here’s the payoff. In subjective morality, right and wrong depend completely on the individual subject. But in objective morality, by contrast, right and wrong do not depend on the individual subject but on the individual SITUATION. So for some reason certain people out there are actually confusing morality that’s relative to situations, objectivism, with morality that is relative to subjects, relativism. So when someone says that morality is ALWAYS relative to situations, they’re right, BUT…that’s moral objectivism, NOT moral relativism. These people are confusing the definition of relativism with the definition of objectivism. The example I gave above actually demonstrates these common mistakes by them. These people try to offer a moral dilemma in the form of a question. A killer asks you where your family is. Is it immoral to lie to save them? The dilemma is, if you tell the truth, your family will be killed. Bad. But if you protect your family, you’ll have to lie. Also bad. But wait. If morals are SUBJECTIVE, as certain people will say, then there is NO DILEMMA. The answer to the question is simple. If you think it’s immoral to lie, then it is….FOR YOU! If you think it’s more moral to protect your family, then it is….FOR YOU! So there is no dilemma on relativism because whatever you choose is right….FOR YOU! For the moral relativist, both options are equally legitimate because there is no objective right or wrong decision. For the moral objectivist though, there is a right response and a wrong response in this particular situation. Yes, it’s wrong to lie to protect a thief from the police. But it’s right to lie to protect your family from a killer, and this is true for anyone facing the same situation. In subjectivism, the subject gets to decide what’s right and wrong, and he’s always right BY DEFINITION. In objectivism, it’s the objective circumstances that determine what’s right and wrong. See the difference? So these people keep mistaking objective morality for subjective morality. Is it always wrong to lie? Well, it depends not on the subject, that’s relativism, but on the objective situation, that’s objectivism. First, objective morality ALWAYS depends on the situation or circumstances. Relativism is when right and wrong depend on, or are relative to, the person. Second, moral dilemmas based on circumstances, like the example given above, ALWAYS demonstrate objectivism, NOT subjectivism. Third, if we OUGHT to save our family from a killer, then morality is objective, NOT subjective. So these people trying to put forward these “ethical dilemmas” are just illustrating subjective morality. Ironically, it illustrates just the opposite.
It seems to me that whenever an apologist tries to frame a discussion about morality as an "ontological" issue, they are trying to dodge the fact that epistemologically they don't have a good argument, and that they are trying to sneak in an argument from authority through the backdoor.
I agree with Fredrick. Atheistic, and materialistic positions defacto go with subjective morality, because under such a thought, you can have justification for objective morals. The mistake athiestic/materialistic thinkers make is assuming that they are correct in their worldview, and therefor, anyone arguing for objective morals must do so under an atheistic/materialist framework.
Why does an omnipotent god need humans? For entertainment because he's bored, for company because he's lonely or maybe we are just an accidental aberration in his Plan that he keeps trying to eliminate.
@Frederick Shull You said: _"Incorrect, the question is ontological in nature."_ In that case, please tell me what "morality" is according to you, what the question under discussion is, according to you, and what the ontological nature of that question is according to you. I think you will find that whatever you are going to say will lead you back to some version of a "might is right" authority argument: "I believe my God made you, he has the power, so shut up and listen." You said: _"There is no justification for "morality" by definition in an atheist/naturalist worldview."_ I don't know if that is true, and I don't know if "morality" needs a "justification" to begin with.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 You said: _"Atheistic, and materialistic positions defacto go with subjective morality, because under such a thought, you can have justification for objective morals."_ I think you forgot a negative in that sentence. I assume you mean "you *_can't_* have justification for objective morals". Please tell me what you mean when you say "objective morals". If you mean whatever your God says, then I would think those morals are subjective to the whims of your God. I would also then ask you why we ought to consider your God's subjective morals as objective in relation to us. The way I see it, the only argument you have why we ought to do so is that you believe your God has power over us. I don't consider "might makes right" a very good justification. You said: _"The mistake athiestic/materialistic thinkers make is assuming that they are correct in their worldview, and therefor, anyone arguing for objective morals must do so under an atheistic/materialist framework."_ I don't think I am making that mistake, if it is a mistake at all. Also, the other side of this medal is that religious/idealistic thinkers make the same mistake if and when they assume their worldview is correct in making their arguments. Should I therefore expect you to make your argument while you are not assuming your God is real?
@@JamesRichardWiley You said: _"Why does an omnipotent god need humans?"_ Indeed, why would a perfect entity want anything at all? We are but the playthings of the gods who use us for their sport...
I’ve never seen an argument for objective morality that got beyond “I believe that objective morality exists even in the absence of good evidence for it” or “I want objective morality to exist”.
You were never a Christian to begin with. The Bible makes it clear a saved person cannot depart because they cannot lose eternal life. Currently, the Lake of Fire awaits you as it always did.
We have to separate the concept of "good" from the concept of "God" for statements like "God is good" to have any meaningful content. If these terms are defined as exactly equivalent, then saying "God is good" is like saying "God is God" or "good is good." It becomes a tautology. Divine Command Theory is the technical term for an ethical system that defines right as what God commands, and wrong as what God prohibits. A slight variation on this pins morality to God's character, rather than commands. Either way, God or his actions are considered all-good, by definition. According to this view it is not something like harm to humans that defines wrong actions, it is disobedience to God's will or commands. There is no external standard of right and wrong beyond God. In this view there is not, and perhaps could not be, a standard of right and wrong grounded in anything apart from God. I realize that most Christians intuitively believe that God's nature or commands must be all-good by definition, but if this is so humans can have no ability to judge God and come to moral conclusions about his character. By what metric could we, or any entity, judge God and his behavior and conclude that it is either moral or immoral? If God is simply defined as all-good, then it is logically impossible to conclude that God could ever be anything other than perfectly good. We already defined God as good and good as God. Under such a view there can be no moral judgment about God's character whatsoever. Whatever way God is, that is good. Even in principle there would be no way to morally compare God and Satan's actions or conclude that God is morally good. There are two ways out for the Christian, I think. We might continue to ontologically ground morality in God or his commands while acknowledging that under such an ethical system we lose all ability to come to moral conclusions about God--even in principle. Under such a view morality becomes nothing more than obedience to an authority who can't provide moral justification for his own actions. Any moral question applied to God's actions is still asking some form of, "is God consistent with himself?" And I think a question like that can only be answered with "yes, of course he is." In fact, I think for us to make any meaningful claim about God's goodness at all (apart from simply assuming his absolute goodness as a necessary metaphysical fact) we need a standard of goodness separate from God. That's certainly possible, but I don't think it's what most Christians believe, and it would nullify a number of classic theistic arguments for God's existence, such as the moral argument. To say "God is good" many Christians must adjust their view of morality. Instead of attaching the definition of good to divine character or commands, we might simply say that good actions are those that help others while avoiding harm. There are lots of options in the arena of secular morality, but any framework that grounds goodness outside of God will solve our problem. Under such a view we can coherently evaluate God's actions on Earth (if we assume an inspired Bible). For example, we could simply see if God's behavior seemed to help humans and avoid harming them without justification. If so, then we could say "God is good," and it would actually mean something.
Hi Matthew, the problem with the God of the Bible is that He is not all-good and people try to use all kind of intellectual gymnastics to fit in this portrayal of God in the category of "good", which cannot be done. God is far better than how He is described in the Bible.
@@kristijanpavlovic8605 I agree that the God of the Bible is not all-good and the intellectual dishonesty/gymnastics of Bible apologists are not in the least convincing. However to be fair to God the Bible was written mostly in the iron age by multiple, poorly educated individuals with limited experience and virtually no access to scholarly resources (such as we have today) over a very long period mostly transcribing oral traditions of events that occurred decades or even centuries before they lived so it is unsurprising that it is inconsistent, often contradictory and seemingly legendary in nature. However this is all we have to describe the nature and even existence of God. Its not very satisfactory to base an all encompassing, universal morality on, as there are so many interpretations of what Bible phrases and teachings actually mean.
@@davidstirk4732 Yes David ,I agree with you. although I feel that there are other ways in determining God's nature and character. The first being by having a direct contact with God so He can tell us personally what He is like. The other way we can do that is by observing creation. This is somewhat difficult as the world is in a state of degradation so we can't judge God based on the imperfections we see in the world. Even in this imperfect world, there is still a lot of natural beauty, love and intelligence that can certainly show us something about God. The third way is that we can observe and experiment with the laws of the universe and see how they work.
@@kristijanpavlovic8605 How can you be sure that you are having direct contact with the God of the Bible? Many people of all religions and faiths sincerely believe they have divine experiences with their God. They can't all be correct. Occam's razor says Its more likely to be the brain creating an experience based on life experiences and closely held beliefs. Dreams work in this way for example. We have scientific explanations for the way the world is. Natural beauty is a subjective opinion. Love and intelligence have scientific explanations. This doesn't make love any less wonderful to experience but it doesn't have to be divine. The laws of the universe are consistent and science depends on this to make predictions and create technology. If there were unpredictable supernatural forces regularly interfering with the universal laws, science would be useless. Why the laws of the universe exist (gravity for example) is not yet explained by science but they are necessary for the universe we live in. Different universes may have different laws but we are unable to observe them. Where science does not yet have an explanation for a phenomena it does not mean that we can then claim a God. Rainbows, lightning and natural disasters used to be assumed to be divinely caused but we now have scientific explanations for them. We understand the natural causes of them and can now predict in what circumstances they will occur.
@@davidstirk4732 I don't because from my experience, God is different to how He is portrayed in the Bible. I can't really say about other people as I would have to question them on an individual basis on what actually happened to them but I do know that to have an experience with God it doesn't matter as much what you intellectually believe but what is in your heart, your emotional state, as God responds to our heart and not our head. Now, for those experiences with God to continue on a fairly frequent basis, a person must also accept some truths that God is presenting but most people that do have some experience with God only have one or few in their life time and they do not know how to repeat the experience. They think that their certain belief system caused them to connect to God when actually it was their sincere longings of the heart that created a response from God. That is why everyone can connect to God, no matter the religion, color of skin, gender, age or any other thing. I do not see God as some religious belief system but as a scientific truth. In fact, I believe God is the first and the greatest scientist as everything He does is scientific and logical. Science would not be possible if there was no God. Natural beauty is subjective, but so is our life experience as we experience life subjectively, and that does not diminish the value of beauty in our life. It is not a necessary part but it still exists. Everything God creates has beauty and functionality. I agree that the laws are predictable and unchanging, that is one more evidence that someone made them.
I continue to be impressed by the nonsequitors some Christians can put together, then appeal to a law they don't have the second clue about like that proves their point
Paulogia could have answered this better. Frank is right: we can’t even assess why our society is better than a nazi regime, if we don’t have an ultimate moral law giver to determine this. You need to bite the bullet here and accept that no societies are superior to others. It’s relative, it’s subjective, it’s qualitative. If you are born and raised a German from the early 20th century, and indoctrinated into hating particular races, chances are you will condone these practices. We can’t blame nazis for being born in a certain time and place, because we ourselves are also immersed in our own localised setting. Nazis are no more or less human than the rest of us (are we forgetting that racism and discrimination still exists?) We are just taught how to co-operate differently in society. The issue is that Christianity does not provide an ultimate moral law giver, if it is also divided by denominations and different ideas of well-being as a society. We are stuck in this perpetuance of chaos without a concrete answer. It’s not enough to simply claim that you have a moral law giver: it needs to be backed up and demonstrated, and churches just fail here. Keep singing hymns of unity, it’s just a failure of recognising the reality we exist in. The only answer is that we are trapped in a prison of influences that surrounds us. That’s how we get our biases in thinking we are better than other societies because we simply don’t understand or imagine what it’s like being in them. Yet those very same societies would say the same about us because of these local influences perpetuating us.
I'm not sure how derivatives of proclamation discredit that which is being proclaimed. Judeo Christianity is the authentic and sole representative of the Faith those of the apostles and Jesus of Nazareth himself believed and preached. There are numerous spin-offs sequels, and also fanfics to original artistry whether literary, cinematography or an amalgamation of the two. Since there's various installations that may disregard established events, there's a restriction enacted referred to as canonization that is written as an authorization as to what is considered real or not in the series. This creates segregation of the aforementioned. As it is with The Scriptures. For example: There's no established text that affirms the Trinitarian doctrine in the original manuscripts.
@@thegrandvisionaire5619 umm the Bible is pretty clear that God is trinitarian. Anthony Rodgers does a great job explaining that. Got a better example?
@@arcguardian Actually I'd argue it refers to no such trinitarian belief, such insurrection wasn't made until well after the passing of John; author of Revelation and the last of the apostles. There's no reference made until around the 2nd-4th century if I remember correctly. It's often preconceived and read _into_ the context rather than *from* it _[for instance...1 John 5:7, specifically the part pertaining to the trinity isn't found in any of the original NT manuscriptsand is actually confirmed to be written latter, as in intentionally misinterpreted and mistranslated]_ A less controversial example I suppose is incentive, necessitated tithes _[Malachi 3]_ is taken out of context and it actually directly contradicts principle in the New Testament when we're encouraged to give freely and cheerfully without obligation _[2 Corinthians 9:7]._
Over its two thousand year history and cultural dominance multiple Christianities with radically contradictory positions on key questions on morality have existed side-by-side and often violently. This tells me that even if an objective morality can be sourced from their god's existence any clarity or answers will not be found in their preaching or anywhere in their poorly written holy texts. I see the same in Hinduism, Wiccan, Islam, or whatever we care to mention, with vastly different internal and external explanations to the structure of the universe, tales of its creation, and moral teachings. But even if they had an objective standard that could be gleamed, I don't see why we should follow it simply because of that. To take an example. The Catholic faith teaches that same-sex marriage and sex is sinful, yet I see love rising from those unions and it will be a positive to society if accepted as no less normal than hetero ones. Yet their god commands otherwise and even if I believed he was real and the source and standard of morality, I don't see why I should value or model my behavior after those commandments, much less worship him, due to the pain and suffering doing so causes. I'd rather be evil and immoral if it means I can contribute to our collective kindess, happiness and prosperity. Morality is subjective. But because we're human there's a discreet range to the behaviors and traits that we share: physical needs, capability to feel emotions, to reason, to empathize. Genetics throws any concept of Tabula Rasa out the window. From there we can make judgements about which behaviors to reject or praise and use as a basis to fashion a Humanist philosophy that betters our societies by grounding it in our common experiences rather than a distant deity. Advancing technology, deeper understanding of our biology, and changing social norms will necessarily make this an iterative process.
2:04 Problem is, the Nazis were not trying to "protect" their population. As far as living space is concerned, Hitler went way beyond what his people needed by the start of the war with the invasion of Poland in 1939. 2:22 While the fact of the matter is that history is written by the victors and highlights them in a favorable light over the losers, the point is that we can all agree that the ideology behind the fascist party, the Nazi party and Imperial Japan was very much "wrong" in the sense that they went very much against the concept of a "society". Those that do not listen to us will be killed" is not exactly a very cohesive message with regards to living together as a society, but that was the overarching impression given by these 3 nations that formed the axis powers 3:27 The problem here is that there is no ontological moral standard that is apparent. Frank is simply asserting that there MUST be one and that we NEED one instead of actually telling us why we need one (much less show that there is one). Yes, a standard of morality tailored towards a certain purpose is by all means subjective, ontologically speaking, but why is that something that we cannot or shouldn't consider as an acceptable moral standard. 4:30 Yup, Frank is fixated on this, the problem is he can't actually SHOW what is "the Good" beyond simply asserting it by touting a subjective moral standard that in his mind is "the absolute TRUE moral standard" but which cannot be shown as such and can only be asserted as such. It would be much more productive if Frank is actually able to a.) demonstrate such a thing as a "true moral standard" beyond simply asserting one and b.) that we actually need this true moral standard. Yup, that's basically it, Frank needs an ontologically "true" standard of morality and believes that his God provides him with that. The problem is that it's impossible to actually prove this or show that this is the case. Simply assuming it or taking the Bible at its word doesn't do that. So we're left with a sort of "moral tiebreaker" that is basically whatever it is that the one proposing such a tiebreaker wants it to be in essence. The part about whether we need this sort of unprovable moral standard is pretty much ignored when actually that's an important point. If a standard of morality serves no purpose in actually affecting our lives positively, then even if we can somehow show that it is "the TRUE moral standard", why should we then adopt it in this case? (btw by "true moral standard" I'm only stating that it somehow "objectively true" and not making any other assumptions about WHAT that standard entails)
I know Paulogia is supposed to be some Atheist heavy hitter but if these are the best arguments he can make (littered with special pleading and is ought fallacies) it’s time for him to just admit he doesn’t believe morality exists at all and just say that it’s based on his personal preferences
I'm hooked, I want to hear more. Frank must understand that morality has shifted culturally over time. The Bible has, for the sake of argument, a few negative moral actions within it which we now look back on culturally as wrong. If morality is based on an objective and unchanging source, then shouldn't we expect today to see all of Christianity supporting the morality of the Bible. I think that our cultures understanding of flourishing has changed as well as who we seem to include in our in group... hopefully the change continues. Good argument!!! Am I missing the link to the entire video?
Search up “Paulogia Frank Turek Star Wars & Superheroes ” Unfortunately, this discussion was cut short because of the break and because, while this was an awesome discussion, the topic of the debate was about Movies pointing to Jesus, not morality.
Well Jesus says that laws for divorce were allowed in the Mosiac law because the hearts of people were hardened in those days. People were rougher back then and God chose to accommodate those people with laws they could grapple with. Of course Yhwh is a god of progression which is why Christians aren’t blinded by the old law anymore. I find it very disheartening when I see fundamentalist Christians try to use the Old Testament to bring back stoning and turning America into a theocracy.
@Frederick Shull well they’re saying that it’s bad… for human well-being. We know that because new scientific advances have been made in the 2000 years since the Bible was written that suggest that things like accepting homosexual relationships are socially beneficial for society’s well-being. As for on who’s authority we say human flourishing is good… there really isn’t any “ultimate” sense why, only our biology which drives the vast majority of people to have both empathy and self preservation. Essentially my ultimate authority is reality. If I say something is true, but it’s not comporting with reality … is it really true?
@@baalzagoroth4693 To a better world where there will be no more death, sorrow, and sickness. This will be finalized when the New Jerusalem is created.
I'm not getting where this whole tie breaker argument is coming from on Paul's side. Paul said that the only way to ejudicate between two moral ideals is with majority agreement on what a given ideal/standard is. So frank presented the idea that if Hitler was the Victor of WW2, and the majority of the western world now agrees upon the ideal that Jess, homos, and gypsies are all inherently bad, and should be killed with prejudice, then is it not now right? Paul seems to be the one avoiding the question in this instance, because by his own logic the obvious answer to the question is, yes. Killing, Jews, homos, and gypsies is good, because it would now be the standard agreed upon by the majority. Paul probably just doesn't want to say that, because such a belief of morals ultimately backfires on the believer itself, since it makes any effort, you make to any good going against the grain pointless. Since by definition, if you aren't in agreement with the standard, you cannot be doing good.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 You are conflating two questions: How do I decide what is right? and How do we come to a collective agreement about what is right? The first will be based on your personal values. The second requires some sort of agreement between people. Paul isn't saying that you should base your _own_ personal values on the majority. He's pointing out the obvious fact that _if_ we want to come to some sort of agreement about morality, _then_ we need to start by finding agreement about common values or goals. If Hitler won WW2, then we may not have much common ground, and it will be difficult to come to any sort of agreement. Hence, the massive unrest that would likely follow.
@@incredulouspasta3304 then Paul still needs to answer Frank's question. Frank was asking when disagreement comes. How should you know which side to fight for? Or if you should fight at all. The simple answer is that you shouldn't. If morals are subjective then theg mean nothing, and can be changed. Why would you risk your life, or others lives for make believe that doesn't mean anything? Letting the nazis take over, abd win is the best outcome for you, so long as your not a jew, gay, or gypsie. Because if you fight them for make believe ideas, then you have a high likelihood of dying. But if you just change your make believe ideas to agree with their make belive ideas, then there is a high likelihood of you living. If your morals are subjective, the moment any unrest is occurring you have no justification for not conforming to the majority view for your own benefit. And in doing so your not doing anything wrong, even if it means oppressing jews, and gays, because the very idea of wrong is make believe, and subject to change at any time you feel like it. Does this illustrate this part of the issue well enough?. If you belive morality is subjective, then if you live and act as if that is the truth, you can never justify opposing anything, for any reason. Nor justify standing up for something for any reason.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 _"when disagreement comes. How should you know which side to fight for?"_ Ask yourself, "what do I most deeply care about, and how do certain actions affect the stuff that I care about". Go from there. _"If morals are subjective then theg mean nothing, and can be changed."_ Huh? Of course it means something. It means the difference between protecting the stuff you most deeply care about, and letting it get destroyed. What better motivation could you possibly ask for? Most people can't change what they most deeply care about on a whim, nor do they want to. _"If your morals are subjective, the moment any unrest is occurring you have no justification for not conforming to the majority view for your own benefit."_ And if morality is objective in the way Frank describes, you have no justification for acting according to that morality in the first place, since it has no connection to anything you care about.
If one person (subjectively) asserts that "X" is the standard of good, this still requires others to (subjectively) agree with him for "X" to be used as "the" standard. What means did the first person use to determine "X" is good? Is he simply asserting it as a presupposed truth, with no justification or demonstration as to why it's true? Asserting that "X" is a god does not relieve one from justifying why "X" is necessarily good in the first place. How did the first person determine "X" was good? Or must it forever be an unjustifiable assertion? Are unjustifiable assertions sufficient reason for others to agree with him?
For me, the main question is always, how can you ground morality using God, given that I have a hard time believing in morality without consequences. If God says "A is bad," but A has no consequences, grounding failed. In comparison, it is relatively easy to ground morality in the natural world, as we can see actual consequences play out in the physical space. On the other hand, I have disagreed with Paulogia on morality in the past, due to a disagreement over the fundamental nature of what morality is. In this clip, for example, he implies that there must be an adjudicator for morality. This implies morality is inherently subjective. However, if morality exists only subjectively, then it doesn't really exist.
I wouldn't underestimate how important a subjective thing is. The value of money is subjective. It's used to represent abstract value so we can more easily exchange goods and services.
I could be mistaken but it appears to me that you're attempting to smuggle in an unfounded assumption here that there is some objective "universal" morality that applies to everyone and everything. Just because it's possible to imagine such a concept, doesn't establish that it exists. Objective (i.e. universal) morality conflicts with the evidence we can observe in the natural world. There's seemingly infinite examples of a actions that a sentient being/species can partake in that would arguably infringe on moral constructs that can be defined/imagined for the other. The necessarily cruel (by modern humanist standards) circle of life within the animal kingdom is one of the most obvious examples. It's very clear that many other animal species are capable of pain, suffering, love, compassion, and altruism and MUST exist at the expense of others species or individuals within their environment. This makes attempts to define a universal objective morality, that governs all things that exist without creating objective internal contradictions, literally impossible.
To claim, that something which is subjective, doesn't exist, is a hardcore position of mereological nihilism. What about love? It's subjective. It's based on biochemical processes in a person's brain. Does it not exist, because it is subjective?
Turek's question to Paulogia about P's morality being nothing more than "one person's opinion against another" shows he has entirely failed to grasp Paulogia's argument. It is precisely because our moral sense is grounded in our biology that it goes beyond individual opinion. Our evolutionary history as a social primate has given us innate drives towards cooperation and empathy, regardless of our individual opinions. That's why it is easy to adjudge the Nazi project as immoral. Conversely, to argue that the God of the Bible provides a stable moral grounding is problematic when at some times, he is clearly described as carrying out and ordering genocides and condoning chattel slavery, whilst at others commanding us to love each other. Taking a moral lead from the Bible amounts to adjudicating between a vast diversity of theological interpretations.
Those statements are false. The argument God condones slavery has been debunked a thousand times and the genocide accusation is crude at best. God ordered the deaths of people as a last resort. And if you think biological evolution has any answers you're wrong as well because it's impossible.
@@johnlewisbrooks Thanks. The "debunking" of Biblical slavery is hard to accept, given that Leviticus 25:39-46 describes a two-tier model of slavery that distinguishes Israelites from foreign slaves. It requires that Israelites be indentured only temporarily while foreigners can be enslaved as chattel (permanent property). This is consistent with custom and practice in other contemporary societies of the region. Your suggestion that "the genocide argument is crude" is hardly a refutation, particularly when you admit that the OT God resorted to genocide more than once. For a supposedly all powerful god to be unable to think of no solution other than genocide seems pretty weak, don't you think? In any case, it hardly provides a sound moral basis for guiding humanity. As far as evolution goes, simply asserting "it's impossible" convinces no-one. The only people who make this claim are those who do so because they hold to a dogmatic theological position. There are literally no serious biologists who do so on the basis of the scientific evidence.
@@johnlewisbrooks that isn't what I said, though, is it? There are some serious biologists - albeit a tiny minority - who don't accept evolution. But they do so not *on the basis of scientific evidence*, but because they have a commitment to a religious dogma that precludes their accepting that evidence. Having said that, if you can provide any links to a peer reviewed paper that rejects the theory of evolution and is unrelated to a religious project, I'd be pleased to read it
@@shinywarm6906 Religion has NOTHING to do with the fact that abiogenesis is impossible and that genetically we are falling apart. THESE ARE THE FACTS, to reject these FACTS means that you believe this DESPITE THE DAMNING EVIDENCE which means you are far more religious than I ever was. Even Hawking admitted that life is a mathematical impossibility. On top of that we simply do not have enough time for deep time evolution to happen! Let's reverse the solar system by about 100 million years. What happens? The sun gains a huge amount of weight and the moon is way too close to us. Another huge problem is that nice warm cup of coffee you may enjoy every morning. It cools off too quickly. So does the center of the earth. NASA has admitted these are huge problems with evolution, not to mention the fact that the fossils simply do not tell the tale.
In Joshua 6 v21 we have an example of an army murdering all the inhabitants of a city and then presenting it afterwards as a righteous act. It has been handed down to history as an example of good rather than evil.
To me, this is a misunderstanding of the language used in the text, but that's easy to do by today's standards especially if we read it literally from our point of view and not from that of the ancient world. Textual criticism, scholarly research, and historical finding would show otherwise. Murdering all the inhabitants of the city was not done (not only does Rahab and her family live, we also see further text in the bible and other places that the Canaanites are alive). this is more of a cultural misunderstanding. In their culture, "Kill them all!" was warfare rhetoric for "win a decisive victory." The Israelites, and even most of the ancient armies and wars, were not "killing them all." The universal language was also typical of judgment by the gods, so they would again have the rhetoric of universality when they were fighting a war they presumed was of divine mandate. In other words, the Israelites were not killing every man, woman, child, and cattle. To take it even further, the Hebrew term cherem was really a term that means "remove from human use" rather than "kill them all." Sometimes things were killed, yes, but at other times they were set aside, dedicated, or repurposed. It's simply false to assume that God was commanding genocide. There's plenty of evidence from the ancient world as well as from the Bible that was not the case. I can provide multiple examples of this 'kill them all' rhetoric in various ancient armies if you'd like to show proof to this theory. Not only that, the Caananites were doing quite terrible things in the name of their gods even after they had rejected the Israelite God of the bible. So was God demanding them be killed because they didn't worship Him? Not really; it was their practices that justified action. For example, the Caananites had one god they worshipped named Moloch. This god demanded sacrifice and specifically the sacrifice of babies. They had a large statue in the shape of Moloch made of brass with a fire pit on the bottom of it. For their rituals, they would heat up this statue and then put the living babies on it to burn them alive. The tribe would play huge drums to cover the sound of the crying baby as it burned. These are the kinds of acts God was trying to stop by taking over this group. But he didn't demand everyone be killed. I hope this helps to make sense of this scripture more.
@@scape211 It doesn't make sense. Rahab and her family had to mark their house with a red rope and not take one step outside because of all the slaughter that was going on outside. And their blood would be own their own hands if they did wander outside. It was indiscriminate holy war slaughter, and there's nothing wrong with that. If someone survived it was because they were able to escape or hide, not that an Israelite looked the other way.
@@joedaley1878 it only doesn’t makes sense if you don’t follow the evidence of how ancient wars went within the context of the warfare rhetoric I mentioned. You also have to look at the history of the Israelites. Where they a waring or conquering nation in general? No. And certainly not if you compare to some others. Your reading the text at face value and thinking it means exactly what it does without context of who it was written by and for.
@@scape211 Rahab's quarantine shows that Jericho was total war and indiscriminate slaughter. Escapees and hideaways (under dead bodies) are not examples of discrimination.
@@joedaley1878 Of course it was war and they were leaving a warning for them to be careful during the encounter. Rahab was in a military city. Also I was making a small footnote about Rahab not showing that as the only survivor or the whole purpose. There is much to this story as to why its reasonable to consider the importance of the conquest as well as why God told them to do it but also that mercy happened and they didn't commit genocide. We get a picture of that from the text and history overtime: 1 - Leviticus and Deuteronomy talk about the practices of the Canaanites and they were awful; demonic idols, taboo sexual acts, and child sacrifice like a mentioned to name some. God wasn't just mad at these people or just wanted to drive them out so the Israelites could have it. They had terrible practices for any society. 2 - As said, the cities taken over were not just any city with homes and lives like we might picture at first. These were military in nature. Joshua Ryan Butler writes in his book The Skeletons in God's Closet: _“The cities Israel takes out are military strongholds, not civilian population centers... So when Israel ‘utterly destroys’ a city like Jericho or Ai, we should picture a military fort being taken over-not a civilian massacre. God is pulling down the Great Wall of China, not demolishing Beijing. Israel is taking out the Pentagon, not New York City.”_ 3 - God put boundaries around the areas they could conquer and areas to not harm (Deut. 2), they had peace offerings laid out to give the Canaanites a chance (Deut. 20) though many did not take it, and when they did fight the language used is about driving them out (exodus 23:27-30, deut. 9:1), not just on killing. 4 - Many of the Canaanites were spared as said. Like 2 locations we are told about of Hebron and Debir in Joshua 10 where we are told no Canaanites survived. Yet later on in Joshua 15 there are still Canaanite people living here. The point is this isn't just God commanding Genocide and them carrying it out. It was structured. The enemy was bad on all moral ground yet were given ways to either surrender and/or survive. The idea of killing them all doesn't track with how it happened, how God laid it out, how the history unfolds, and how other ancient wars carried themselves. Its like how we fought to defeat the Nazis. They had terrible practices and needed to be stopped. But did we kill them all? no. We won a victory. This is what is happening here and why it's considered reasonable. Historical and scholarly research points to this beyond reading one text at face value.
I agree with Paul here. It's not an individuals opinion, it's basic survival instinct on a larger and larger scale. The same reason you wince when you see a video of someone getting badly injured, we're empathetic creatures. It's how we made it this far as a species
Even though the video cuts off at this point and there is more to the discussion, I think Frank has already shown that his perspective is fundamentally flawed. Just looking at history, if there is a god and he's the arbiter of what is good and not good, he certainly has failed in expressing and showing what that is. The Bible is filled with god violating his own commandments, laws and rules when gods feels it was necessary, or convenient, to do so. Reading the Bible doesn't provide a clear or even consistent foundation for morality. At best, it teaches, "might makes right" and "I made you so I can do what I want with you", which are moral concepts that are largely abhorrent today. The answer to morality is more in line with what Paulogia says. People have empathy and they have a sense of what is right or wrong that has been developed over a very long period of time as people and societies have grown. People have made choices and developed morality as individuals, and they have gotten together in groups to discuss, debate, and develop what morality is. And in doing so, we've pretty much together figured out the basics, and we continue to debate the nuances and differences today. God didn't do that, and the Bible doesn't bring us any closer to that. The "Axis and Allies" debate that Frank wants to solve with his god is foolish. There are people today that feel that Hitler was correct, at least in some of the things he did. Some people outright deny that the holocaust happened. Most people agree that the holocaust and the plan for world domination were wrong, and that's what makes it wrong. No god required. You would think that if god was going to solve that debate, he'd have the power and forethought to make it 100% clear, but of course god does no such thing. God let millions upon millions of people needlessly die during this period of history - for what? So we'd still debate it today? So we can sort-of all agree that the Nazis were bad and the Allies were good? Frank just provides a red herring argument to try and divert from the actual argument. He introduces what seems to be a "black and white" situation, and say that it can only be black or white because of God. And it's absurd. Frank does this often, and so do other apologists. They love using the example of "torturing babies for fun" as an example of a "black and white" situation of morality. They love to say that if there is no grounding for morality, then torturing babies for fun is therefore ok. But that's again absurd. If everyone agrees that torturing babies for fun is immoral, then it is immoral. No god required. Hanging people on crosses and leaving them to die and rot is immoral, and nearly everyone in the world today would agree with that. But rarely do we talk about the morality of that - something which was an all-too-common event in Rome and other places during that time period. Christians don't even think about that - they are on board with it being necessary for salvation. After all, if Jesus wasn't crucified, then what? Crucifixion was a disgusting and immoral act. So was Noah's Flood (which never happened). So were many Biblical accounts of war, death, and treatment of people. And slavery. And stoning. And women's rights and treatments. On and on. The point being, if Frank Turek's God is the grounding for morality, then He certainly has a lot to explain for why people strongly disagree with that morality, and why that morality is so inconsistent with what are the moral norms of today. Did his God just lack the foresight or the actual moral capacity to get it right? Why is Frank Turek's God so inferior to his alleged creation when it comes to morality? These are much better questions that deserve answers.
Scott McCalla -- so, are you suggesting that you have this all figured out? That you know how the universe was created? That you know how a concept of morality came into existence? Also, you are grossly misrepresenting the Bible. Are you a valid Biblical scholar? Are you an avid learner and student of the Bible?
The majority say it's immoral to kill babies therefore it is immoral. So if the majority thought it was moral to kill babies it would be? So in your opinion morality doesn't exist? Or at least there is no objective morals and only subjective? So what about when it comes to things such as the treatment of women in certain cultures? They can't be considered as wrong as the majority thunk its OK. On another note, Noah's flood.... there are plenty of historians who would argue there is evidence for a great flood
Whatever rules God gave through Moses applies only to humans. It doesn't apply to him. If you understand this, most of your above arguments fail. It doesn't apply to him because he's categorically different to us. It's like a code should perform the way coder designs it. The coder doesn't need to do the same stuff the code does.
It is just one person's opinion against another. Except, person A and person B are the different opinions in the public discourse, aiming towards finding out what is best for as many people as possible. Claiming it is otherwise is denying moral relativism. But why isn't slavery permissible anymore, if it is more than just opinion; if it is more than just subjective? If slavery shouldn't be taken out of historical context and shouldn't be measured by today's standards, how is it possible to deny moral relativism then?
It's strange that Paulogia posits the idea of God being a 'tiebreaker' regarding morality, but doesn't see the same logic in advocating a concept of agreed societal principles for morality, as being the exact same thing.
That's fair, but I don't think that's the point that Paul is making here. One can be explained without relying on the supernatural, and thus makes it reasonable to believe in his mind.
@@ernest3286 To be honest, that makes the idea even more confusing. As a Christian for example, saying that God is the grounding for morality is still saying that the grounding comes from outside of ourselves. Society driven morality would have to be 'grounded' internally, which gives off more of a tiebreaker vibe than the idea of it coming from a Higher Being.
Yes that is the thing though that there are no agreed societal principles. Murder is wrong in many cultures but the nazis has no problem doing it. There’s a culture. Slavery is wrong but the Jews romans British American and many African nations today did it and saw no wrong in it. Rape is bad yet many nations allow it and have honor killings of the women does not marry her rapist, that’s not universal. Theft is wrong except in every war, disobeying the government except for revolution, if morality is absolute across all cultures why isn’t it?
@@annaclaytowaterson8283 As I understand it, when Paul says tie-breaker, he's referring to a third party in any situation that can come in and lend weight to an argument where both sides could conceivably be correct. So if you feel that Paul's society-driven morality also fits the description of a tie-breaker, you're absolutely right. Which one better fits the "vibe" of a tie-breaker is not Paul's point here. Whether you think God or society (or neither) should act as a tie-breaker in determining morality is entirely subjective. Paul's point is that when you invoke a God of any kind to support your arguments, it feels very much like you've just pushed your friend Jerry onto the playing field and said "he's the referee now, and he agrees with me." You don't have to rely on society to determine your morals, but if you want to be a part of 'society' (i.e., get along with people), then it does make some amount of sense to live by rules that most people can agree on. On the other hand, it *doesn't* make sense to appeal to an outside authority figure to determine rules that people should follow until you can at least show that it's plausible that said authority figure exists in the first place. When you say "my Christian God says I'm right and you're wrong," what I immediately want to know is why an invisible, unproven being that most of the world would agree doesn't exist gets to break the tie here and tell me what I should or shouldn't do. Cos from my perspective, I don't see God telling me what to do. I see *you* telling me what to do.
@@ernest3286 That was the point of pointing out the irony in his statement which is tantamount to saying, 'why should your 'friend' get to be a tiebreaker, when instead my friends should be the tiebreaker' The funny(weird) part is that the topic relates to morality, which looking from the outside, seems to be a word that people forget actually has a definition, as opposed to the linguistic gymnastics that needs to take place to find the best adjacent fit. I'm pretty sure an argument from Theism regarding morality is specific to the grounding of it relative to a Higher Being, not specifically that the argument is being made for the existence of that Higher Being - that argument is further down stream. Now alot of people won't find that view persuasive for the reasons you've mentioned, fair enough, but it could be worse - people could argue that morality (remember has a definition) is a result of some evolutionary process. Maybe the rest of us are not inclined to engage in an exercise of how much 'reaching' we would need to do in order to find a coherent grounding in being a 'social species'.
Whether it's an opinion or a separate standard is irrelevant if you have no access to that standard. If a separate standard exists then it would apply equally to god, else it's just god's opinion. We have no good reason to think the religious texts are true and many to suggest they are not. If you treat a religious text as true and follow its ethical principles you will very likely end up in prison. I'd rather stick with collectively agreed "opinions" that have demonstrable positive results that adjust to new information than grotesque dictates with no evidence base.
Fortunately, there is a way to access that standard. What is unfortunate is that the Way to do that has been lost on the Earth for a long time and has been recently reintroduce to the Earth. That way is what Jesus taught in the first century(and has since been distorted through history) about a personal relationship with God where God gives you all the answers and you don't have to rely on any book or a priest to tell you what is right and what is wrong.
@@kristijanpavlovic8605 lots of people claim to have a relationship with god, they so strongly believe that their relationship is the true one that they'll kill each other over it, even when it's the same god they claim to have a relationship with. Hardly a great advertisement for a moral system. Perhaps if there were any good evidence for a god and a demonstrably successful way of communicating with it then people wouldn't need to kill each other, sadly there isn't and secular morality remains the best system.
@@greyinggoose5495 I agree, there are a lot of people claiming all sorts of things, but claiming something and that thing being true are two different things. I can assure you that anyone who is willing to be violent or even kill in the name of "God" has no understanding or a relationship with God. If they did, they would know that God does not condone any type of violence. There is a way of communicating with God but it requires our feelings and emotions(which come from the soul) and not our mind(thoughts) , which most of us are fairly resistive to communicate in that way since emotions have mostly been beaten out of us since we were a young child. So the time we grow up, we are mostly highly emotionally suppressed and we use a lot of addictions to cover over our childhood hurt. All of that pain would have to be exposed and felt by us if we wanted to have a relationship with God and most people are not prepared to do that.
@@kristijanpavlovic8605 it's interesting to me that you recognise the difference between truth and claims yet fail to recognise all you're doing is making claims and cannot reliably demonstrate the truth of any of it. We've been waiting thousands of years for good evidence yet here we are.
@@greyinggoose5495 everything I have said can be experimented with and therefore it can be determined whether I'm telling you the truth or not. I think there's plenty of evidence, it just depends on what you view as evidence.
Frank is correct: one persons opinion against another is the best we have. Fortunately, opinion can change, subjective morality can change. We can review the outcomes of situations, we can see suffering and have it appeal to our emotions, we can bring awareness to suffering, and unfortunately, we can also hide, ignore, or down-play suffering and persuade others to do the same. Luckily, we humans are generally a very emotional animal so we can feel sympathy and empathy for others, and generally, most would see well-being as a good thing, equality as a good thing, and the suffering of others a bad thing. But objective morality takes all that away and says “this is how you SHOULD feel” or “even if you feel this way, you are wrong about your emotions”. I’m not sure Hitler winning would have automatically convinced the world that his views are moral. He as an individual may have convinced a few, but only by changing their natural emotional response.
You're smuggling in a hidden "ought" in your subjective moral argument though. Why is empathy and sympathy for others a good thing? When I can be empathetic towards only my family and rob everyone else in order to feed my family. It doesn't matter if "most" people would see well-being as a good thing, majority rule doesn't dictate something is moral. The term "well-being" is so vague and doesn't bring anything new onto the table. When you state "we can review outcomes and see how suffering can make us feel empathetic", you're just describing how things are, but also implicitly implying that we should strive "well-being" for those who suffer. But remember you can't derive an ought from an is. It seems like you hold to a utilitarian ethical theory but the problems with that it is inconsistent and can be used to justify anything.
@@tuav you mean like Christians can use anything to justify their behavior. Churches didn’t condemn hitler in Germany. Christianity has justified every murderous bloody thing it has caused using god. Hypocrisy is its only constant.
The existence of an objective morality doesn't make it such that you should feel a particular way about a situation or dilemma. You can still have imperfect knowledge about an objective morality even if there is one and reasoning from that imperfect knowledge be completely justified in having feelings even if they do contradict the objective moral values. There's another big consequence of there not being objective values though: you lose the ability to improve moral values. There would be no standard at all to even begin to make a judgment of whether one moral value is better than another. There's simply no point in having a discussion about moral values if none of them are grounded in objectivity. It would be opinion versus opinion, none of us would be more right than another even if we strongly feel that way. We can of coursestill discuss them and convince each other, but we would know that no improvement was made at all. Moral values merely changed and that's it. And now we feel better about them. If objective moral values do exist then there's a reasonable case to be made that these improvements that we feel we've made are grounded in reality and not mere superstition.
@@brianpeterson3884 Yes, all people regardless of religion are fallible and committed grave sins. There are even people today that abuse Christianity and rip it out of its context such as the KKK. Unfortunately, you cannot judge an entire religion based on its abuse. Look at the words of Jesus, who is the founder of Christianity, and compare His actions and words to discern on who is a real Christian or not. And the statement "Christianity has justified every murderous bloody thing it has caused using god" is an extremely exaggerated statement. Although there has been bad moments, Christianity is one of the primary reasons of why Western Civilization flourished and is one of the greatest civilizations ever, because of the influence of Christian culture and thinking.
@@tuav I wasn’t trying to hide the ought, but now you’ve brought it up I would agree - all we have is ought. True it is inconsistent, true it can be used to justify anything, true that it is a problem. But unfortunately that’s all we have. The best we can do it try to make a faux objective morality by introducing laws into society. But again that’s an ought. I’m not saying it’s perfect, I’m saying it’s what we have. Just because it would be better if we had a list of is’, doesn’t mean that we do. If you wanted to go around robbing people to feed your family, and your own subjective morality allowed it, then go for it. But unfortunately, everyone else who could sympathise with the people being robbed will see your actions as unethical and immoral. You may tell yourself that it’s fine but everyone around you who could imagine what it would be like to be robbed by you would disagree. However, you might be able to say that robbing people is bad, but allowing your family to die of starvation is worse. In that instance, where is the cut-off? If you robbed from a big chain is that ok? Or if you manage to feed your family but can’t afford desert, is that ok? Just because I’m saying that morality is subjective, I’m not saying that the issue of morality is solved.
I don’t think that evolution ALONE can ground morality, there are definitely social and experiential factors involved - as well as the ability to internalize and reason (all quite natural). Grounding morality on God, on the other hand (also known as divine command theory) suggests that we are merely blindly obeying commands (like slaves). If God’s nature is good then good = god and moral reasoning (explanations for WHY something is good) is senseless.
Kim Swanson -- God is the foundation and ultimate standard of morality. As God's creation, we are supposed to ground our morality in God... but, we are sinful by nature and we don't do this as we should, and many people don't ever do it at all. -- that doesn't lower God's standards, or what is expected of us. -- that's why we need a Savior. Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay our sin debt. We believe in Him, because we cannot attone our sins on our own. -- Also, we are not slaves, and we don't operate on "blind" Faith. God has given us His Word, His evidence in creation, and He has given us His Son to redeem us. --- this is overwhelming, because God loves us. -- but, one must open their eyes to the fact that they sin, and need a Savior.
@@thormunable Yes, because even in "gray areas" often we end up just saying "well as long as behavior/ action x isn't hurting anyone its okay". Which to me speaks to the social aspect of morality basically being whats best for the group is moral and if it doesn't affect the group them it isn't immoral (homosexuality, and many other "sins"). The root of our morality is subjective (human flourishing = good) but we can make objective morality statements if we can agree that that's what morality is. Thats why we can say the nazis were objectively evil, if we can subjectively agree that killing humans is immoral.
@@jeffkrantz9916 Ok, but which god? And before you say the Christian god, then I will have to ask for you to specify which of the over 40,000 denominations within the Christian religion is correct? If God is the foundation and ultimate standard of morality how is it then that there are a multitude of competing religions, and thus a multitude of equally credible yet contrary foundations for morality. An all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good Being would not tolerate confusion.
@@kimmyswan -- there is only one true God. The God of the Bible, who has revealed Himself through His Word and through His creation. -- God is the foundation of all. -- the scientific proof God has revealed for creating the universe. The mathematical proof of the Bible is also undeniable. -- there are a multitude of denominations because of little nuances that have no effect on the overwhelming fact that we are sinful, and we need a Savior. Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins. But, we need to accept that gift, and believe in Him. -- there are numerous religions because many people do not want to acknowledge the one true God,... yet they know that they have to have a reason for their existence and their behavior. But... they want to do things their way. Again, we are sinful, and need to be transformed. -- but, many simply just continue to want to rebel. They think they know better than God. They deny God.... but, that doesn't change truth or reality. I am nondenominational. I believe in God. I know I'm a sinner and I need a Savior. I profess that Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior, and He died on the cross to pay for my sins, and He rose from the dead to complete my salvation.
To say that morality is a default that was bestowed upon all humans by god is to say that morality is a perfect, highly specific code that should never need modification. If this were the case, our perception of morality would never have to change over time to evolve with current societal expectations. However, it unquestionably has. A couple hundred years ago slavery was universally acceptable, so much so that the bible outright supports it. Our modern view on slavery is that it is morally reprehensible. This complete 180 degree change over time proves that morality ONLY comes from social acceptability and not at all from a creator.
Hi Kara, the laws of morality are perfect and they are unchangeable as they stem from God's nature which is eternal and unchanging. The thing that changes is human perception of these moral laws, as we become more and more aware of the truth on what is and what isn't moral. God is Love and everything God creates is in harmony with love. Morality is a part of laws of love and the more we as humans learn and grow in love, in the way God defines love, we will approach God's definition of morality.
@@kristijanpavlovic8605 Hi there! I think I understand what you're saying. God doesn't give us an internal map to morality, but more of an internal compass?
@@karakaspar1791 yes, but it's a bit more complex than that, as you would imagine. I have to say that I feel that not everything in the Bible reflects the true nature of God and therefore doesn't represent God's morality accurately. Some parts are erroneous, like the one you mentioned and there are examples where God is violent, which is not the case in reality at all. God does not condone any type of violence, whether it be physical, mental or emotional. That being said, I'm still learning and developing a relationship with God so I also may not be 100% accurate on everything I say here, just have that in mind. There are many ways in which God delivers truth(about all sorts of subjects) to us and He does it on a moment by moment basis. It's just the matter of how open and humble we are in receiving and accepting it. The way God designed us is that we can have a direct connection with God, in two separate mechanisms. The first is the conscience, through which God shares truth with us, if we have a desire for it. If not, we can shut down the "channel" so to speak and not allow ourselves to hear what God is telling us. The other way of direct communication with God can be established by receiving a substance from God, God's Love into our heart which has the effect of transforming it from a "heart of stone into a heart of flesh". Meaning that it softens us and expands our heart's capacity to love ourselves, others and God. In that way our heart becomes the compass that leads us and tells us what is loving and what is not, including what is moral in any circumstance. Most of us are pretty resistive in having a direct connection with God so He has to use other mechanisms to deliver truth to us. He uses other people, events, animals, the environment, spirits, our pleasure/pain mechanism etc...so we would eventually learn the truth.
@@kristijanpavlovic8605 I see. Your description is much more insightful than the the one from the video! The argument that the christian gentleman was trying to make is that, as humans, our sense of morality is ontological, meaning it is programmed into our biology and, of course, that god programmed us this way. He is arguing that there is an objective sense of right and wrong that most rational people subscribe to whether they have a relationship with god or not. This seems false to me considering how greatly moral principles can vary across different cultures. So I believe that morality does not exist outside of the context of societal and cultural norms and perhaps ,as you taught me, through a spiritual connection with god. I'm curious, do you think that the gentleman from the video is correct? or do you think that to receive guidance on true morality you need to open the "channel"? Alsoooo back to what you said... I wouldn't say that god does not condone ANY type of violence considering the fact that he regularly sentences people to hell just because they don't believe that Jesus is their savior despite the fact that there is no evidence other than a super old book that (as you said) contains many errors. Would you disagree that sending a flood to kill almost everything on earth is an extreme act of violence? Sounds like mass murder to me lol
@@karakaspar1791 thanks! I would say that morality has nothing to do with biology as morality pertains to the soul. Our bodies are just biological machines, an interface which the soul uses to experience life and express itself. Again, I would say that it's a complex thing due to the fact that humans have fallen from perfection and become imperfect. So even the act of examining imperfection from the point of imperfection is flawed, if you get what I mean. I do believe objective morality exists, as a heap of laws that all stem from God's nature and character and are unchanging. The way to prove that those laws exist is by seeing and examining the results of abiding them or breaking them and measuring and comparing the results. Whenever we break God's laws there is always pain and suffering that is created and when we work in harmony with the law there is always peace, harmony and joy created. I do not believe those laws are automatically written on our heart(heart is the metaphor for the soul in this case) but that we rather learn and discover them through our life. I do feel we have an intuition of what is truth and what is love, due to the our perfect nature as I believe we were created perfect, pristine and when we incarnate we absorb all of truths and errors our parents had on all sorts of subjects so that muddies the waters a lot. We can either discover them through our own trials and errors(which include other people telling us) or through a personal relationship with God where God tells us directly. Most people choose the first option for variety of reasons. Mainly because they for not know how to establish a direct link with God or they do not want to do it. I do feel that God is trying to tell us truth through our conscience and other means as I've described but we have the free will option to ignore those attempts. The only way that I have found for those laws be written on my heart is through the reception of God's Love where that love educates me on all sort of subjects, including what is moral and what is not. Yeah, as I've said there are many errors in the Bible so when there's lack of love or logic, it most probably isn't true. God does not kill his creations. Why would He? He created us perfect, and He also created a perfect system that correct us when we act outside of harmony with those laws. Hell does exist but is not eternal and people who end up there are evil people who do not know or understand love. No one ends up in hell just because they do not accept Jesus. On the other hand, no one ends up in heaven just by accepting Jesus...
Atheist on morality- in a nutshell. We are the by product of a cosmological accident, there is no ultimate purpose, but hey guys we ought to love one another and treat everyone equally.
Thank you for sharing this clip. It seems like this was cut from a larger discussion, and I was very curious to hear what Paul would have said after the end of this clip in response. If it were me responding to Frank’s last point, I might protest in a couple of ways: 1) he seems to be giving an either-or scenario, but there are other options to consider, and 2) he appears to have misunderstood what Paul was getting at in reference to our general sense of morality being inextricably tied to our biology through evolution. If Frank were to push back on evolution, that would be surprising, given that it is a fact, and since all the convincing evidence is there if you search for it. And since it is a fact, it is easy to connect our behavior with our survival.
Frank actually was affording the idea of evolution and biological flourishing. His proposition though was showing that “Hitlers” ideology of human flourishing was a real possibility granted if his regime were a success, yet the question would still remain, after that population “surviving” and thriving, would he still be wrong? This is the question that goes beyond material and naturalistic terms he is arguing. In fact, Hitlers whole reasoning for those atrocities committed was based on evolution and the flourishing and survival of the “stronger” races. So in terms of biology and the naturalist interpretation, if one people group wants to flourish more than the other, there is no objective grounding of any kind of moral constraints that would or should hinder. And those of us who would try to stop that proliferation would only be doing so based on our own personal subjective opinions and morality without an objective standard. So remove all life and biology, would good or bad still exist as categories? By placing a definition of those terms is assuming an objective definition would it not? This is what the ontological point Frank is alluding to.
@@travishickerson2688 I noticed that too. That's the bottom line, it's either subjective or objective and each conclusion has very telling limits. One conclusion allows rape to be bad at all times, while the other does not. Ppl really are good at overcomplicating things.
The moral argument always seems to boil down to what world would be most ideal to live and often forgets: What world do we live in? Even if without God you can't ground morality objectively, so what? We are still in this world, stuck with our fellow humans to live our lives. Morality in this case isn't a math quiz where there's one objective, undisputable answer to a question, but a problem we have to solve together for ALL of our benefit, because neither of us wants to be hurt. It's not "what is 2+2=4", it's "what rules can we advise to live our lives best when interacting with each other"?
The problem is there are people who don't want to solve it. They believe they are right and it doesn't matter if you believe what they believe. Annihilation of the opposition is the solution. The other side is willing to talk about it but if the other side only believes in his ideology then Hitler really has to go and allied powers should win to keep the peace even just for a time
The word "god" fills in for "I don't know". Next comes the name, the gender, it's qualities and what it wants. After that the fighting begins over who "god" is Boss.
I disagree Because you cannot have a direction for what we should do, without an ideal to strive towards, and if there is no objective morality, then there is no ideal. After that it just becomes who has the most power to realize their vision of the world the most, and no matter how bad, or how much it screws someone over to achieve that, you cannot claim they did anything wrong.
Are you related to Matt D. ? Again refusing to why we need a justification for grounding moral laws and duties will justify objectively why we act or judge the way we do in a constant basis not how you feel every day when you get off of bed.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 Once again, you're talking about what world you want to live in, not the world you live in. Making the argument "if there's no objective morality" is irrelevant. Is there an objective morality?
If God is the author of morality, its still subjective morality. If morality is independent of god, then is objective, but then God would be unnecessary for morals.
This is a common undersight. Obviously the way it works is a God that is the author of all existence has full arbitrary authority to decide everything about Tha reality. He invents space, gravity, physics, matter, emotions, and morals. He also defines the who, what, when, where, and why of all these things. Sure this argument could mean God isn't bound by the rules of morals that apply to us. But I fail to see how that doesn't make sense. God wouldn't be bound by space, time,gravity, or physics like we are either. Those are rules that apply to us, but by merit of being the creator of those things, he would be inherently beyond it.
Buddhist ethics has no need for a creator to ascribe right and wrong. It is self-evident that your own actions reap good, bad or indifferent consequences and that we thus reap what we sow. A very simple recipe for a better world.
Buddhism The Eightfold Path consists of eight practices: right view, right resolve, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right samadhi ('meditative absorption or union'; alternatively, equanimous meditative awareness). Wikipedia.
The difference between the two positions is that Paul's position has empirical evidence which supports it, doesn't prove it, but supports it well, but Frank's position is all faith, no empirical evidence. Frank also has a very bad habit of strawmanning all things atheists
It seems to me that what grounds morality is for the most part consensus. Not so many years back almost everyone was agreeing that owning other humans and selling them was fine. Nowadays the western majority consensus is different. But consensus is more than „just opinion“. So I think, evolutionary processes lay the groundwork but the battle of ideas and indeed feelings determine our moral framework in the end.
That's a very poor idea of morality. Because by that measure, any act, no matter how depraved, violent, or horrendous it is, is okay so long as it is condoned by the group.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 it‘s just an observation. That I sometimes don‘t like the outcome of that process doesn’t invalidate the truth of the observation. Fortunately humans seem to tend to acknowledge the well-being of all our species more and more as a worthy goal. But that was a development that took thousands of years.
@@gmlr no. Humans tend to vote for whatever allows them/those they are grouped with to survive/succeed/thrive. Once that means throwing another indivual, or group under the bus to do so, the vast majority of people won't hesitate to do so. Human history is littered with such examples of going with the flow, just to get along, if others gotta suffer, so be it as long as it's not me, or mine. And if you think that fact of humanity is ever gonna change, then your banking on a pipe dream.
There is no grounding for the idea that survival and following nature are positives or "good" within an atheistic viewpoint. From a Christian perspective, we can view how God designed nature, and conclude that survival is good because nature is designed to survive . But from an atheistic perspective, where creation is all random chance, then the design of nature would be random chance as well, and there is no reason to derive moral truths from it aside from a personal opinion that nature and survival is good. The very argument is, as Dr. Turek likes to say, stealing from God, since it steals the assumption that we can gleam truths about reality from how nature is designed, which is an assumption that only makes sense if there is a creator.
There is no grounding for the idea that following God's design is positive or "good" within a Christian viewpoint. (This type of rhetoric can go both ways.) _"it steals the assumption that we can gleam truths about reality from how nature is designed, which is an assumption that only makes sense if there is a creator."_ Perhaps this is where the confusion lies. I'm not using that assumption at all.
"From a Christian perspective, we can view how God designed nature, and conclude that survival is good because nature is designed to survive ." So survival has no "goodness" in and of itself unless it is designed to that end. So the goodness of survival is in the intention for it to be that way "by design" ... and there's a reason behind God's intention that it be this way rather than any other?
You don't know that a god designed anything. Actually, you don't even know a god exists. Also, if nature is designed to survive, why is it that 99.9% of all species that has ever existed is now extinct? Most atheist that I know don't believe the universe came about by random processes. The universe is theorized to have come about by natural means. This process doesn't require a creator. And besides, where did this creator come from?
This is a nonsense statement. People weren't created. We are also not a product of random chance, we are a product of natural development and evolution. People have determined what is right, wrong, moral, immoral, and best for individuals as well as in groups. And we still debate it today, especially the nuances. If God had any hand in morality, don't you think he would have established it a whole lot better than how it is? But no, it's always been very unclear, and a product of human development. And even today there is much that is unclear. God could have made it very clear from the beginning, but the best we have is the Bible, which promotes and allows all kinds of immoral and abhorrent acts, and even changes over time. Does that sound like a God to you - an entity that promotes immoral and abhorrent acts, and changes over time? It is very clear how morality works. What is good and not good is up to the individual, but as groups (organizations, communities, states, countries, etc) we decide what is moral and immoral, and it differs depending on the group. Most groups come to similar decisions, which is why murder is usually abhorrent. It's not because of the 10 Commandments, because obviously God and his chosen people don't follow these so-called Commandments. I eat shellfish. I am wearing a fabric-blend shirt, and I am working on Sunday. These are not immoral to me, although to god it is written that these are (or at least were) immoral acts. Yet my peers also don't see them as immoral. So are they? God's book seems to say yes, but people say no. Who's right, and how do we know? This "grounding" of morals is nonsense and it's just part of the apologist's tools to con people to believe in their particular religion. Morals are determined by people, not by a god. That's absolutely crystal clear.
If Frank concludes that Nazi genocide was “bad” and against God’s law then he would have to agree that Saul’s genocide of the Amalekites was also wrong.
No, because what makes something right or wrong in his worldview is just God saying it is right or wrong. God said to kill the Amalekites, so it was good. If God had commanded the Holocaust, that would be good too by the same standard. Basically, actions aren't actually right and wrong, it's about who told you to do them.
He is saying that in order for there to be objective morality, there has to be some standard beyond the human. That standard being God. If there is no God, morality is just an opinion and therefore subjective. EDIT: For clarification, I do not believe that religions have a correct depiciton of God as there are many errors, illogical and unloving teachings in them. I believe God to be a perfectly loving, logical and just being. If anyone is interested, the truth about God can be found at the Divine Truth youtube channel.
I think frank is confused on a bunch of subjects, I see that paulogia's responses are very accurate, and it seems like frank just doesn't want to understand anything
I still really want someone to demonstrate objective morality. Meaning something is objectively wrong, that there's a standard within reality by which we can measure an action against. Something that exists independent of minds.
First you have to constitute what would count as a demonstration of it. Because if you refuse to define what evidence would work, then you can always move to goal posts. If you insist that we should be able to measure objective morality in the same way you measure the length of a stick, then you are already talking nonsense. You might as well ask someone to destroy the number 3. Obviously that's impossible, sure you could build a big number 3 out of wood, and burn it down, but that does no alter the reality that 3 as an integer exists apart from any physical representation of it. Morality is the exact same way. Just like math, it apples to physical reality, but is not inherently a part of physical reality itself.
Frank judged and defines the being he worships as "good". It may be a being that aims for maximal suffering... If god is good and God wants suffering, how does that "good" even relate to our moral intuitions anymore?
I don't believe that Frank worships the psychotic, baby killer in Genesis. He worships his other self "Yeshua" who loves everybody but demands obedience to his rules or else.
Just because God is good, why do you assume He is the source of our suffering? There are 3 major world views; 1) that everything comes from nature, 2) that everything is a frame of mind, and 3) that God created everything good and man messed it up. All 3 must deal with the problem that things aren't the way they're supposed to be, but the evolutionist (naturalist) has no solution to this problem, neither does those who are pantheistic. The Judeo-Christian mindset says there is a loving God, and we rebelled against Him almost right from the start. Yet, knowing this God put a rescue plan in operation. Since God said death was the payment for sin, He needed to find a perfect person who would be willing to die for the sins of the world. That couldn't happen, because there were no sinless men. So God came as a man, born of a virgin, tempted in all ways the we are, yet without sin. Because of this He was able to offer Himself up to die for us. When He died on the cross He nailed our sins and the requirements of the Law to the cross for us and gave us His righteousness. He doesn't change your environment, but He changes us in our environment. Tragically there will be some that will go on thinking that God is some evil monster constructing pain for us, while the rest of us will be praising Him for lifting us above all the carnage.
@@rockandsandapologetics7254 "1) that everything comes from nature" "All 3 must deal with the problem that things aren't the way they're supposed to be" I'm not following here, do you think there is a "problem of evil" -argument to be made under the assumption of naturalism ? Is one of the premisses "things are not what they are supposed to be" ? Who "supposed" something when there is no creator ? Can you explain that argument please ?
@@rockandsandapologetics7254 why would a loving God arbitrarily decide the punishment for sin is death and that the ritual murder of an innocent somehow solves this?
@@kylewalsh5397 First God is the source of Objective Morality. The punishment for sin being death was not arbitrary. In Genesis 2:15-17 it reads, "The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, 'Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.'” Of all the things God created and did, He gave mankind ONE thing he was not to do. Only ONE. It seems that was fine for some time, but in chapter 3, satan clothed like a serpent (at that point serpents walked, so get the idea of a snake out of your mind) He lied to Eve. She bought the lie AND GAVE TO ADAM AND HE ATE ALSO. Adam should have told the serpent to get lost, but he allowed this creature to deceive his wife, who managed to get him to eat. Instantly the fellowship they had with God was broken. This was not God's plan. His plan was that we HAVE fellowship with Him. So something needed to be done about the sin. In the days of Moses priests offered up sacrifices for each family every year. That's because man was sinful and could not take the sin on himself. So God became man and took the sin on Himself. To all who believe in this God-man Jesus, and His sacrifice for them, they have eternal life. For those who do not, they are condemned already. God will not force Himself on us. And yet He still has provided a way to have that fellowship that was lost in the Garden.
You have to specify what is meant by good. If your definitely of good is god, then in your mind god is the source of all good and good cannot exist without him. However, if good is defined as what benefits mankind overall, such as wellbeing, then god isn't needed for good to exist. Now who determines the definition of good?
Who determines the words benefit and wellbeing? Without God there is no good, just "good", whoever determines what good means for them. This is not true as it is evident by our life experience that objective good and objective evil does exist.
To me nature looks profoundly amoral most of the time. Grounding morality in nature simplifies it to a question of survival, doesn't it? Pleasure/life=good... Pain/death=bad. At the end of the day, all moral decisions can only be a construct of human consciousness, and therefore, doggedly subjective. We can only ground morality on our individual interpretations of a mysterious set of perceived facts, filtered through our unique biases and conditioning. It is unimaginable that Hitler truly thought he had a moral high ground, but you have to admit it seems unlikely that the many, many German people who followed and helped him thought they were doing something objectively evil. So, since morality is also subjective to human shortcomings, following nature's lead, and grounding morality in pain reduction and increasing pleasure in the world would be a decent step towards fixing some of our real problems, would it not? God is a no-show, bible's no help... we need to do this ourselves.
I agree. Hitler believed in 'Survival and domination of the stronger races over the weaker ones'. That was his morality. To him it transcended individual compassion. If Germany won WWII this might have been the dominant view/morality taught in all schools world wide. Weaker people, cultures and races would have been exploited and even eliminated. Fortunately the Allies won the war whose ideals of equality, freedom and human dignity largely prevail today and so this is our current 'morality'. For many centuries and even millennia, slavery and racism in most cultures was considered normal, acceptable and 'moral' by the majority as ancient economies relied on slavery. The Bible even condones it. (Ephesians 6 v 5). However with the industrial revolution in the 1700's slavery was not so critical for economies and the ideas of freedom and equality (eg French Revolution) became popular and this became the new 'morality'. Morality is subjective, varies between cultures and is constantly evolving. It is essentially the majority view point in any particular society.
I would say morality is not as different between cultures as many would make it out to be. For example murder, cheating, stealing, etc are almost universally seen as immoral. The particulars of how those are to be applied may be different, but the premise remains the same. And if morality was truly subjective, then we would have to come to the realization that there is no reason to adhere to it. The only right way to live would be to do what you must and avoid retribution. There would be absolutely no logical reason to follow a disproven idea like morality. And a final point. From an atheist point of view, the Bible is an attempt at "doing it ourselves" as it is man made. So why would the moral framework provided there be any worse than any other.
@@owlobsidian6965 The reason morality is similar (but not exact) between cultures is that humans are basically similar in their hopes, fears and aspirations. Murder, cheating and stealing are fairly obvious ones. If these were not widely accepted as immoral there would be anarchy as people would constantly be defending their family and possessions from everyone else and so could not cooperate to improve society. You could only have small groups of family hunter gatherers suspicious of other groups. However there are still differences between cultures. In some, polygamy is considered moral in others only monogamy is considered moral. Depends on the property rights, gender ratios and attitudes towards women. There is no 'universal' reason to adhere to a certain morality. The reason is ultimately what the societal reaction will be to your 'immoral' action. If there is no adverse societal reaction or disapproval to your action once it becomes widely known then it is not 'immoral'. An important factor is what belief system we instil in our children. If a child does something we don't like we exhibit anger, displeasure or any other negative response including punishment. The child will then develop their morality/belief system based on this and it will be reinforced by the wider society. Different parents have different values/belief systems and so there is an evolution of this over time. I am sure the Bible was a reasonable standard in its day but it is now out dated and does not cover all the modern circumstances of today (modern medicine, contraception, technology etc). Things that the Bible prohibits such as wearing clothing woven of 2 kinds of material (Leviticus 19 v19) or not eating rabbits (Deuteronomy 14 v7) are not really relevant and Christians choose to ignore these.
@@davidstirk4732 exactly my point, there are morals that are universal. As the human condition is the same across cultures and time, there are certain essential morals that are required to have coherent and fruitful human interactions. While some of the cultural norms contained in the Old Testament may not seem relevant in modern times, the core moral framework of Christianity is very much still viable to this day. What specific Christian (not ancient Israelite) moral ideas do you find are no longer applicable?
Yes, it is just an opinion. But a collective opinion. A few hundred years ago, the collective opinion in the US is that slavery is OK. These days, that isn't the collective opinion. We are a social species and the collective opinion changes as the collective changes.
"How can we say it is the Allies who are right?" You can't, that's what makes morality so difficult. There is no simple, objective measuring stick; as evidenced by the fact plenty of people, even today, think the Nazis were right. And if they had won, we might all be praising them today, just as many Germans did while they were in power...
Lets put together 100 babys, examine them for 3 years and then decide which of them are allowed to live on, because 50% of them came out to be weaker (or the blood-results shew they were 51% jewish). Is this your world view? An Atheist should say „Yes, terminate the 50 weak babys“ if he is honest. But the conscience tells him: „No way!“ It is always wrong to murder, it is always right to forgive. This is why biblical Christianity, in a very practical sence, is superior to any other philosophy out there as a means to „bring humanity forward“ or „build the paradise Kingdom“. You wont. Humanity at its finest has produced nothing but loss of life, suffering, and injustice. After death, the judgement. All those who repent and believe in Christ Jesus for salvation will have forgiveness and life eternal.
@@dominicwinterberger1058 Pregnancies with severe genetic disorders are terminated regularly. So are those that significantly endanger the life of the mother.
@Frederick Shull Everything is indifferent from an objective sense, the universe doesn't care whether you drive to work, or shoot someone on your day off. But WE care; as people, as a society, we care, because other people are important to us. The dilemma comes from how exactly we weigh our wants and needs against each other, which people's wellbeing we put before that of others, and to what degree. People have given very different answers to that dilemma throughout the course of history, and there is no way to determine which, if any, of them were correct.
@Frederick Shull That is entirely correct. Most of us just agreed at some point you shouldn't be allowed to stab people, because most of us don't like to be stabbed. But there is no objective standard behind that, it's just something we humans decided on.
Imagine that Frank found the ontological grounding for morality, and somehow discovered that eating red skittles is objectively wrong. Being the deviant that I am, I find a red skittle and pop one in my mouth. Does anything happen? Is there any reason whatsoever for me to refrain from eating these red skittles?
@@choosejesus1910 Sort of. I intentionally chose something unrelated to human flourishing for my hypothetical, since Frank insists that's not what morality is ontologically grounded in. Why should I not eat the skittle?
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 I think you missed the point of my hypothetical. I'm not addressing any scary implications of Christian morality. Rather, I'm pointing out that Franks specific argument in this video has _no implications_ whatsoever.
Nature grounds morality in many other species, not just humans. For example, herd animals often have "bodyguard" animals who keep an eye out for predators while the others graze. When he sounds the alarm, he puts himself at risk, because the predator also hears the alarm call. He is less likely to survive...but the gang consists largely of his extended family, so his genes have a better chance of survival, and thus evolution reinforces that guarding behavior. Voila, morality without the need of a written list of dos and don'ts. Any soldier who voluntarily goes to war to protect his family and his country should be able to empathize with that.
@@jimp5133 Right but the question is where does morality come from under naturalism. Once easily answered responding instead with "yeah well everything is created by god anyway so ha" doesn't refute the fact that morality can be explained without him. Besides, the origin of the universe is a different question to where morality comes from if not form God. Under that logic, EVERYTHING is evidence of god, but that's only if you already believe he created and is responsible for everything. Pick a question/stay on topic. Morality can easily be explained by natural selection. No one knows how exactly the universe began or if it even began. Either way the origin of the cosmos is a little beyond the scope of the question of where morality comes from anyway.
>herd animals often have "bodyguard" animals who keep an eye out for predators while the others graze. When he sounds the alarm, he puts himself at risk, because the predator also hears the alarm call. He is less likely to survive. This is false. The one that raises an alarm is not the one most likely to die, the sick are the ones or the target the predator has already chosen. And no herds do not have watch animals. Parents will watch over the young, yes. Alpha males will watch to protect his harem. But there are no guard animals.
Paul makes a strong case. Paul always makes a strong case. The idea that mortality is founded on God, makes no sense. It just doesn't. I have not heard or read a logical evidenced argument for the case of morality being grounded in God. I haven't heard a sensible argument for it.
Agreed, and even if a God did exist an gave us a moral code, we still have the Euthyphro dilemma. Is God good because it is good by some standard or is God good because God says God is good. I've heard apologists argue that the answer to this is that God's nature is good, but that doesn't solve the problem. Good by what standard?
@@yuxini2976 Yes, God's nature doesn't solve the Euthyphro. His nature is totally arbitrary. He doesn't pick his nature and if he DID that would mean he was appealing to some standard in order to know what nature would be the most moral to pick!
Heres an article made by an atheist, maybe it does a better job explaining to you: "Morality requires a god, whether you're religious or not. I have no religious convictions. I am, or try to be, a man of reason, not of faith. Nevertheless, I believe a few simple arguments demonstrate that morality requires a god. Take moral commands. It is trivially true that a moral command is a command. A command is a command, right? It is also true that commands (real ones, rather than apparent or metaphorical ones) are always the commands of an agent, a mind with beliefs and desires. My chair cannot command me to sit in it. And commands cannot issue themselves. It follows that moral commands are the commands of an agent or agents. Many philosophers maintain that moral commands are commands of reason. They are right, I think. But the point still stands. Reason’s commands are commands. Therefore, reason’s commands are the commands of an agent or agents. So if moral commands are a subset of the commands of reason - and they surely are - they must still be commands of an agent or agents. We are agents. Could moral commands be our commands? That does not seem plausible. For one thing, it would mean we could make anything morally right just by commanding ourselves to do it. That doesn’t appear to work - and we can test that easily enough. Command yourself to do something that has hitherto seemed obviously wrong to you - physically assaulting someone, say - and see if it suddenly starts to seem morally right to assault someone now. I bet it won’t. If moral commands appeared to us to be our own commands it would strike us as silly to wonder whether an act is right or wrong, or think anyone else could provide us with moral insight into the matter. We know better than anyone else what we are commanding ourselves to do at any given point, so it would be obvious to us that we could establish the morality of any deed by introspection. Yet we all sometimes wonder whether a particular act is right or wrong, and consider it perfectly sensible to think others may have greater insight than we do into the matter. So moral commands appear to be external. Appearances can be accurate or inaccurate. Appearances of external commands will only be accurate if there are external commands. Whatever else a moral command must be, it must be something capable of making an appearance of a moral command accurate. So, moral commands must be external commands: the commands of some external agent or agents. It’s no good suggesting that moral commands are commands of our communities. Communities are not agents, so cannot actually command anything. And it seems clear physical assault will not suddenly appear right to us just because a majority of agents decide to command us to assault someone. Another basic truth about moral commands (and the commands of reason more generally) is that they have a single source across all of us. This can be demonstrated by the fact that “Tim is morally commanded to X” and “Tim is morally commanded not to X” are clearly contradictory statements. They cannot both be true. Yet, there would be no necessary contradiction if moral commands could have different ultimate sources. And as those statements contradict each other whenever or wherever they are made, moral commands must have a single unifying source across all space and time. Now we can put it all together: Moral commands are commands Only agents can issue commands - so moral commands are the commands of an agent or agents Moral commands have an external source - so moral commands are the commands of an external agent or agents All moral commands have a single source across all of us and all time. Therefore, all moral commands are the commands of a single, external agent. We are heavily influenced by moral commands and other commands of reason. Thus, this single agency is immensely influential. Moral commands are, then, the commands of a unique, external, eternal agent who has colossal influence over virtually all of us. It is no abuse of the term to describe this agency as a kind of god. Thus, the commands of morality (and the commands of reason more generally) require a god because they are, and can only be, the commands of one. This raises an obvious worry: what if there are no gods? Well, if that is the case all moral and rational appearances constitute illusions and all our moral beliefs are false. Happily, however, there seems no rational way to reach this conclusion. If the commands of reason really do require a god, then that god exists beyond reasonable doubt. For any argument that sought to show that a god does not exist would have to appeal to some commands of reason, and thus would have to presuppose the existence of the very thing it is denying. The same applies to any argument that seeks to show that the commands of reason do not exist in reality. All such arguments undermine themselves. Thus, if the commands of reason are - and can only be - the commands of a god, then that god exists indubitably." "By Gerald Harrison"
@@yuxini2976 Catholic answers has this exelent response: "How to know good and bad First, let’s take premise three. A theist, at least of the classical sort, has no problem in affirming that God commands an action because it’s good. Now, my theist buddies might be thinking, “Why are you affirming the antecedent of premise three? Doesn’t it imply a standard of goodness independent of God?” No. Let me explain why it doesn’t. In the natural moral law tradition as articulated by St. Thomas Aquinas and others, what is good and bad for human beings is determined by the various capacities and ends set for us by nature. So, for example, nature directs us to preserve our own lives. This is something we share with all living things. Nature also directs us to preserving our species through procreation and rearing of children-something we share with animals specifically. Finally, nature directs us to certain ends or goals that are peculiar to us as rational animals: namely, to know the truth about God, live in society, shun ignorance, and avoid harming those with whom one has to live. The whole understanding of good and bad is based on these goods of human nature. Any behavior that facilitates the achievement of these natural ends is considered good-that is to say, it will fulfill human nature. Any behavior that frustrates the achievement of these natural ends is considered bad-that is to say, it won’t bring about human flourishing. God commands because an act is good Now, God commands all actions that facilitate the achievement of our natural ends; i.e., the good, and prohibits actions that frustrate them; i.e., the bad, because he wills our perfection. So, we can say God commands certain actions because they’re good. But this doesn’t mean a standard of goodness exists independently of God. First of all, as a universal, human nature preexists in the divine intellect as an archetype by which God creates. As such, the ordering of human nature is an expression of God’s will-it is of his making. Therefore, the measure of goodness for man¬-i.e., human nature-is not independent of God. Moreover, God is necessary for human nature to have an act of existence in human beings, both to come into existence and to remain in existence. So, given the traditional understanding that human nature determines what is good and bad for man, and given the understanding that God is the author of that nature, affirming the idea that God commands something because it is good does not imply a standard of goodness independent of God; thus premise three is not a problem for theists. Can God command evil? This leads us to a question that has to do with premise two: “Can God command us to act contrary to our human nature-i.e., do what is evil?” If we can prove the answer is no, then premise two, like premise three, has no persuasive force against theists. There are two reasons we can put forward for why God can’t will us to act contrary to human nature. The all-wise God First, if God were to command us to act contrary to our nature, then he would be violating his infinite wisdom. Why would God create us with a specific nature, and order that nature to certain ends, only to command us to frustrate those ends and thereby violate our nature? That would be unreasonable. As I wrote in a previous blog, this would be analogous to someone installing an air conditioning system in his home and then turning the system off every time it turns on to cool the house. One might reasonably ask, “Why did you install the air conditioning system in the first place?” Similarly, it would be unreasonable for God to create us with a nature ordered to certain ends and then command us to frustrate the achievement of those ends. But given the perfection of his intellect God can command only in accordance with reason. And since willing what is good for us is in accordance with reason, it follows God can’t command us to act contrary to our nature. He can only command good actions. More specifically, God could never command us to torture babies for fun, because torturing babies for fun violates the goods of human nature, both our nature and the babies’ nature. As Brian Davies writes: God could never command us to torture children because, in effect, that would involve him contradicting himself, or going against his nature as the source of creaturely goodness (The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil, 102). The all-good God A second reason why God can’t command evil is that if he were to do so, he would lack in goodness, which is metaphysically impossible, given the classical understanding of God as ipsum esse subsistens-subsistent being itself. According to the doctrine of the transcendentals (aspects of being-e.g., being, one, true, and good-that transcend Aristotle’s categories of being), being and goodness are convertible. So to say God is subsistent being is the same as saying he is subsistent goodness. And if God is subsistent goodness, then there could be no privation of goodness in him. But to command us to act contrary to human nature, i.e., to do evil, would entail a privation of goodness. Since this is not possible, it’s incoherent to say God could command evil actions. That would be like saying the all-powerful God is too weak to lift a rock he created. St. Thomas Aquinas takes this line of reasoning: God is the highest good, as has been shown. But the highest good cannot bear any mingling with evil, as neither can the highest hot thing bear any mingling with the cold. The divine will, therefore, cannot be turned to evil (Summa Contra Gentiles, I:95). Conclusion I’ll admit that at first glance the Euthyphro dilemma seems to propose a major obstacle for theists advocating God is necessary for morality. But when a coherent explanation of what constitutes good and bad for human beings is given, and one understands God is the ultimate ground for that standard of good and bad, then the Euthyphro dilemma no longer has any force against a theistic account of morality."
Damn, the video ended before Paulogia could answer that point.. that if morality is subjective, it's just one opinion against another... yes, it is, but we can evaluate the different opinions in a real sense by seeing the consequences of each opinion..eg: had Hitler won, would the total extermination of a subset of people... jews, gays gypsies etc, be a good thing? ... i think we can state categorically that it would not be good if you happen to be a jew, gay or gypsy... if we go by the golden rule... how would i like it if someone did that to me.. it's safe to say none of us would want to be exterminated..so, overall, Hitler winning, and killing other minority groups would ultimately not be good for society. Would the Nazi's like to be wiped out? no. ..so don't do the same thing to the jews, gays and gypsies.
The hitler, Machiavellian type is “wrong” from a naturalist perpetual in that they are not accounting for the undeniable fact that humans are a social species, and that no sub type of human is intrinsically more valuable than any other
Paul, like yourself, cannot answer any of the points in a rational or consistent manner. All you're doing is assuming things that make no sense given your own position. Proving, as always, that you are unable to either rational or consistent within your own worldview/philosophy. You are always using terms with a moral impetus, which is the very thing in question. You've spent 50-years of your life confusing yourself, and could not have been too successful, because week after week and year after year, here you are, making the same foolish arguments and getting debunked over and over and over again, only to return and repeat the same nonsense over and over and over again. I fear all you're doing is dragging yourself to hell.
Jesse Bryant At the end of the day, your “objective” moral values are coming from subjective interpretations of a book written thousands of years ago. No matter how hard you try to convince yourself and others that you have some objective grounding for your morals, you do not.
I'm glad Frank separates what he knows (epistemology) from what is real (ontology_. Lots of people don't get the difference. think that if it exists you can know it, and if you can't know it it doesn't exist. And the grounding of morality is the question, not whether people feel moral.
He separates them at times, but he never actually actually explains WHY moral ontology is important. Pay careful attention to his questions. "How can we say the Nazis were wrong?" Well, we'd have to know something about morality, wouldn't we? His concern seems to be that without God, we can't justify our claims that X or Y is right/wrong/good/bad. That is fundamentally an epistemelogical issue, not an ontological one. Paulogia's point is that the existence of moral facts, or objective morality, or any of these ontological questions doesn't help anyone in behaving morally, since we don't have ACCESS to those facts in any verifiable way. Paul was extremely clear: if we have a goal, we can evaluate actions and outcomes with respect to that goal. The goal itself is subjective, but if we can agree, why does that matter? It's not merely "Paul's opinion" that the Nazis were bad. It's the position that any informed person who accepts that human flourishing is good and human suffering is bad. Let's grant Frank's position. Somehow, we know that there is a true, objective standard of morality. Without knowing what it is (aka moral epistemology), how does that help us say the Nazis were bad?
Your thought that if you can't know it, that it must not exist, is an inherently infalsifiable presupposition though. Why should we go on such a thought that can never be verified, ,or falsified.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 That's not what I said, at all. I asked what EFFECT on moral decisions the existence of objective moral facts has if we can't access them. Let's say we're trying to write rules to run society. There's a face down piece of paper, that we have on good authority contains the objectively correct rules. It's out of reach, none of us can turn it over and read it. You say we should do what the sheet says. I say if we can agree that flourishing is good and harm is bad, we can create rules to maximize that for everyone on average. How is your approach better? You can point to the sheet, but that doesn't help in creating the rules, because we can't read it.
@@MrSpleenface oh it has no effect at least not an immediate reprocissive effect due to the wrong, or right decision. like you aren't going to be hit with a magic force field that eliminates your ability to do objectively wrong things. And why would you want that? It eliminates the choice in the matter, thus eliminating the point of doing good for the sake of doing good. As far as no reprocussive consequence, but mabey having a verified list of objective good, and objective bad. Well the argument can be made that we do have that in the form of the Bible, and ten commandments. But that brings up the issue of without being struck down by god immediately for violating that moral law, what kind of verification could we have? And if God does straight up interviene any time someone chooses wrong, then we're back to eliminating free will.
No, the point Turek wanted to show is that atheism points to might is right because the only reason why we think the Nazis are wrong is because the allies won, since there are no absolute groundings for morals in atheism.
He's not talking about skydaddy. Your argument is based on Milton's writing as opposed to Christian doctrine. Turek's saying there is NO way to get from is to ought without a grounding force.
No, the opposite. He's saying might is right on a naturalistic pov since we are conditioned to have a western morality because the wester thought is the prevailing thought in the world. I don't know what war you're reffering to because that never happened, but i assume you want to say what if God was evil, would than our morality be evil but considered good? The problem here is that when we look at the ontology of such a being, he is Good and therefore the arbiter of what is Good and what is Bad. We won't be able to make that judgment saying "oh but what is bad is now good" because without that same Arbiter, no good or bad exist. The question you're raising is in fact called the "euthyphro dilemma" in which the question is something like "Does God like something because its Good, or is it Good because God likes it?". However its a false dilemma because there is a 3rd option - Good and God aren't separate meaning that God is Goodness, and Goodness is God.
@@ljubaceranic937 "However its a false dilemma because there is a 3rd option - Good and God aren't separate meaning that God is Goodness, and Goodness is God." God is good, good is God ... I don't see what this solution contributes to an understanding of or basis for good beyond a name change and an associated (but redundant) personality. God is good ... okay, but even if I accepted that equivalence, why is good/God what it is rather than other? The dilemma seems to still be there. Could good be totally disassociated from our well-being and flourishing and yet still be good "because" it was Godly? Can you offer or even imagine such an example?
How does the existence of moral facts or objective morality (the moral ontology frank seems so concerned with) actually help us make a determination vis a vis the Nazis without an accompanying moral epistemology?
To those who believe in God: Where does God get his morality? If you asked God "why is this action more moral than that action?" Would he say "Because I said so, and literally no other reason." or would he say "because of the following reasons,..." and lay out a philosophical justification that doesn't reference himself. If your conception of God leads you to believe he would give the second answer than you believe morality exists outside of God. If you God would give you the first answer than you believe in a capricious deity whose morality I reject. If you believe God would give a different answer please help me correct my false dichotomy.
God is the standard of goodness. not that he arbitrarily made up morality but has had the same standard of morality for all eternity. its his nature. So it would be closer to your first answer in your dichotomy but needed some clarification.
@@FALL3NW0RLD What do you mean when you say "God is the standard of goodness."? I think that standards are purely abstract concepts, not something that is strictly speaking "real". That does not match the understanding of God as a real conscious entity most theists I know hold to. I think we might be using different definitions for the word "standard". If you believe that God models moral behavior in all circumstances then that model has limited utility to me because a powerful god will have options in responding to circumstances that I do not have. For example, I could not allocate scarce resources by multiplying them to feed a multitude with five loaves and two fishes.
There's truth in both. Supposedly, if God is the creator of everything, then he is over everything. He has every insight of his own creation, and how it works. 'I am the way, the truth, and the life.' , he says. But also because God is life, the reason to follow him is to live. Everything that is regarded as a sin leads to decay, and eventually death. That's the reason behind his morality. If he knows how things work, then he can tell how to live a good life in his world. If he orders to live by that, it shows his good will. Also, it usually comes up that if God created a perfect world, humans wouldn't sin or die. In the beginning, Adam and Eve only had to die because they decided to sin. Originally they didn't have to. In a world where people can't sin, is there free will at all? You can do anything, but it will have consequences. The difference between the human world and God's world is that in God's world you can't cheat judgement. However, you can be forgiven, contrary to the human world of limited grace. You really should read the Bible besides asking people if you are seriously interested, because until that, you don't know if they say what is in the Bible, or what they themselves invented. Was this helpful?
@@p.b.5107 Thank you. I am not sure that I understand your position, but you are trying to help me understand. That is helpful by my definition. The way I understand your position is that you seem to have an almost pantheistic view of God. God is life (or THE life as John 14:6 puts it), so a little bit of God is in all things that live. Following God is pursuing life, and rejecting God is rejecting life. If that is not what you mean, I apologize and ask you to clarify. This does suggest a third option to my dichotomy. If you conceptualize God in a way that includes the wellbeing of things that we value (like life) any value placed on that thing we value is some form of honoring God. I know this conception of God goes against the beliefs of many people, but it is an option I should have considered. As for reading the Bible, I was a Christian for most of my life. I have studied the Bible. My question was not to find out what the Bible says, but what some theists (including non-Christians) believe. If you are wondering, my conception of God was that he would have given a justification for his pronouncements of morality, putting myself solidly in 'Answer 2' camp. Even when I was a believer I did not give much weight to the argument from morality
@@michaeleldredge4279 Now I understand you much better, thank you for explaining. I supposed we were talking about the God of the Bible, as it is the case in the video. But now it's an even better question for several reasons, and for much more people. The funny thing is, that my concept of God is that one from the Bible. Consequently the Bible becomes my source for God's image. So I tried my best to only tell what the Bible says. Reflecting on your first paragraph, it is somewhat part of what I was talking about. Especially rejecting God concluding in rejecting life. Shortly put, let's suppose God is the source of all lives, and life is regarded good. Then we ask the question, what is God's source of morality. The answer contains both of your first two possibilities: God's morality is the compass to the bettermen of individual and societal life. Why? Because God knows best, since he is the creator. It's self referential, because the existing things supposedly originate in God. But it's also reasonable, because it helps you live in the God made world with God made rules. The reason is to benefit everyone. There are other moralities with reasons. The gamble is whether or not there is God. If there is, the other moralities won't save people from final destruction. If there isn't, then I think that it's only power through strength that puts someone's values over others'. I got confused in your third option. But I'm curious about that too.
I think the fact that Paul answers "Well that depends on how you define good" to the question around the 3:30 mark is one of the most honest, and telling, things about this entire idea of morality without God. So you're basically saying that morality is decided to be "that which is agreed upon by the majority" . . . and that thought doesn't terrify you? What majority gets to decide these things? In a "just survive and flourish" model, the majority of powerful people would be the ones who decided. Physically powerful people, or those with the largest amount of resources. If all we are meant to do is survive and flourish then we wouldn't need morality at all. Morality and altruism would be a hindrance, because you have zero reason to think about another human being outside yourself, or maybe your direct family. It dehumanizes everyone else down to "what can I get out of you in order to advance my own position". Recognizing that someone has intrinsic value and determining where that value comes from are two very different things.
The majority will win whenever the outcomes are acceptable and beneficial to the majority. The problem is the people who have certain beliefs about a god, want to defacto impose ther beliefs on everyone, whether the majority agree or not. Yes I am pro-choice, and I am in the majority and I want to continue to exercise my free will.
If you look at the Old Testament and most of the new, all the rules are clearly set up to benefit powerful men and the warriors they command. Most of humanity, until maybe 2 or 3 hundred years ago, was just physically powerful people imposing their desires on everyone else. Christianity was no exception. It took the secular enlightenment to finally change this paradigm, and religion has been dragged kicking and screaming into modern ethics with the rest of us.
@@justlikeu7659 but this doesn't answer my question at all, it just rephrases the problem. Who determines what is meant by "beneficial"? And what majority decides this? Think in terms of wealth; the majority of wealth is held by a small number of people. Should this small number of people decide how the rest of our lives should be lived simply because they have a majority of resources? Or should something be considered beneficial just because a large number of people agree to it? What if we woke up tomorrow and a large number of people (say, over 75% of a given population) all decided that in order to increase the odds of survival for their population, they should kill all children under 2 years old because it would free up X amount of time and money, and it would allow more people to go back into the work force. Is this actually beneficial, or is it a horrendous idea that has no place in society?
@@weirdwilliam8500 I think you can argue that most rules are set up to benefit powerful men, but so what? It's not their power that's the problem, it's what is done with that power. In other words, the morality. And Christianity absolutely was the exception. It came along and said you need to take care of, and value, the poor and weak and needy just as if you were taking care of yourself. That was completely counter intuitive to the current culture.
@@Lightborn1311 Oh? Is this set of principles why serfdom was the model in all of Christendom for more than a thousand years, which was a form of de facto slavery? Why women were seen as inferior under god and under the law? Why slavery was justified for hundreds of years according to the clear biblical laws that condone it? Was it why Christians enacted genocide on millions of people around the world for hundreds of years, in an effort to convert or destroy them? Why the Church sold indulgences to the rich? Christianity did all this, and better people have fought against this religion to get us where we are today. It was the humanism of the secular enlightenment that developed ideas of human rights and human dignity, of representation, liberty, and self-determination, of the pursuit of scientific knowledge to understand and solve our problems. Christianity is absolutely exceptional, in that it says we are all depraved, wicked, should not trust our own understanding or desires or wishes, are deserving of infinite torture by default, and are utterly worthless unless a god takes notice and smears magic blood everywhere. This theology is grotesque, and it's holding back every pathway of human progress today, as it has for hundreds of years.
Let's say homo sapiens has been around for about 200,000 years, and managed to survive well enough for you, I and many others to be here. Obviously social co-operation was essential, and that involves social rules of behaviour. Is Frank really claiming that for well over 100,000 years, -before Jesus, humanity had no moral compass at all ? Special pleading, methinks.
You know that Father God of israel is the father of Christ right? before Christ, people still followed the God of Israel which is the father of Christ. Jesus didnt need to be here yet...
Remember, well before Jesus, there was the 10 Commandments and other Jewish Traditions. Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi and Messiah, would have come to build on that foundation which preceded his physical existence. Before the Jewish Law, most Christians would claim that God wrote the Moral Law on Men's Conscience. Remember, you don't need any religious system whatsoever to ground your morality in God.
Theres things that cannot be explained by evolution. Love for example: Love means loving someone without having expectations or limiting beliefs. It means caring for someone, putting their needs before your own, and having a genuine desire for their happiness. It teaches you the value of kindness, compassion, and selflessness. You always have that one person by your side to hold your hand when the going gets tough. Love doesnt satify our needs, the contrary is true, it creates more needs. Love is not mechanistic, it is also part of Gods nature. Love is not just a social utility, social bounding, child rearing... We love people who have died, wheres the social utility in that? Love transcends dimensions of time and space. Love can connect us to our loved us that died, love can connect us to God. Love is something that we dont fully understand, as for every emotion, science cant even explain dreams. Love is something higher than just mechanistic. Love doesnt need to provide mechanistic solutions, it has them as a second effect but it is not the main effect of love. :materialism was debunked by quantum physics. Nothing is just mechanistic.
@@goncalojesus7583 actually love can be scientifically explained, measured and tested. It's a combination of chemicals and how your brain process them. The bodies reaction when it 'feels love' can be observed on MRI's and that is used to understand what causes certain people to feel love as well as what it is that causes people to feel it to varying degrees. Such as imbalances or differences in the brain that affect the quantity or regularity with which your brain processes these chemicals. God does not need to exist for the feeling of love to exist. What you describe is closer to empathy than love and that is in fact a result of evolution within social species. We see or feel pain and realize that, as a society, condoning or allowing that pain to be inflicted is detrimental to not only individuals but to society as a whole.
@@TFStudios That is not science explaining emotions, those Results from such studies made just make clear that human emotions are not just fuzzy feelings but 'real' in an objective scientific sense, inasmuch as they produce measurable signals in reproducible experiments. We still cant recreate emotions on virtual simulations or explain how those emotions are created, we just can explain what are the biological effects of emotions. As I said above, Love is not necessary for survival, it actualy makes survival harder bc you feel conected to people who you lost and that can even cause depression wich lowers your chances of survival a lot! Love is not the same as just empathy, you can feel empathy for someone without loving that person. You can feel empathy for an animal for example, how does that help us survive? Many people are vegans bc they feel a lot of empathy for animals. It would be hard for them to survive in the wild where you need to hunt to live. Many animals dont show empathy for theyr kind. Male lions for example kill each other and the rivals offspring. Empathy is not as usefull as many think.
only in response to the question at the end of this clip, god or not, is not the thing. the humility and wisdom to know that neither you nor your enemy are any closer to god, is. Proximity to good, or, proximity to moral, as equivocation to proximity to god, is unnecessary overdesign on the part of thinking beings, and so I'm with Paulogia in that the reality, and therefore, details, about which side is right, matters, and that god, an inconmensurable concept, only strips the rational discussion of its reality. casuistry 1: a resolving of specific cases of conscience, duty, or conduct through interpretation of ethical principles or religious doctrine Notice that the existence, mystery, or nature of a god does not presuppose the validity of these materials which are interpreted for the purpose of casuistry.
@@JamesRichardWiley a) giving god a name is like putting a decal on a corvette. Fairly certain it will not answer to that b) sounds like you were brainwashed, or are being facetious, or are just acting pious by saying that looking for god is a baseline to a human existence or something
There’s no objective grounding for morality even if there is a god. For all we know god(s) put us here to watch us suffer. Belief in a Christian worldview is subjective. All we can really go on is our conscience and what is culturally acceptable. That’s as objective as it gets. Morality is more than just an individual opinion though.
@@crota8373 what is the source of objective morality? If it’s god then which god and why? And how does belief in that god answer our moral dilemmas? How do we know that paedophilia is wrong? It’s not condemned in the Bible, so how do we know what god thinks about it?
You don't need God to determine what is right and wrong. Morality is rationally grounded in the golden rule. You need God for it to be rational to be moral. If there is no judgment for misdeeds and no eternal life for those misdeeds to matter, then morality doesn't matter either.
"You need a set of rules to adjudicate whether something is right or wrong". Without a moral objective, there is no point of reference to start the adjudication process. If (a big IF) the Nazi and Japanese successfully defended their territories and unanimously defeated the Allies, it is still wrong to massacre and oppress the millions of innocence civilians. Why? Because the Word of God said you shall not murder, human has intrinsic worth, be kind to one another, etc, which trumps any argument about human flourishing as the oppressors will insist that the Nazi and Japanese shall flourish while the rest can eat dust and rot to hell.
_"Without a moral objective, there is no point of reference to start the adjudication process."_ Right. Step one is to find some common ground. _"Because the Word of God said you shall not murder... which trumps any argument about human flourishing..."_ Only if both parties agree to prioritize what the "Word of God" says. If they don't, then you are back to square one. The reason why secular morality is much more useful, is because you can get much broader agreement to prioritize general human flourishing, than to prioritize a particular set of scriptures as the arbiter of morality.
@@incredulouspasta3304 @Incredulous Pasta @Incredulous Pasta you said that secular morality is more useful as it has much broader agreement to prioritise human flourishing. As far as the Nazi and Japanese are concerned in WWII, they support that school of thought and could not understand why the Allies would want to obstruct their great mission to flourish their human race.
@@jpcchiang _"could not understand why the Allies would want to obstruct their great mission to flourish their human race."_ If that's the case, then ontological grounding wasn't the problem. The problem was that they were factually incorrect about what promotes human flourishing. The solution is to demonstrate that they are incorrect.
I was never indoctrinated into *ANY* religion, the idea that you need the Christian god to be able to justify what action is moral and what isn't looks childish to me. Image someone tell you (seriously) that if Thor doesn't exist you cannot justify your moral positions... 😳 Wow! It's shocking what religion can do to people's minds.
Well, it’s not so much a specific God, it’s an uncreated eternal being that is perfect. That being is necessary to morality. Without that being who is above all of us, then morality is relative and anything goes.
@@browserboy1984 Yes, but it may not be enough for someone like you, with such high standards of evidence. I have it tucked away in the evidence drawer, along with the irrefutable proof that the fairies, spirits and the god of the bible are real.
@@paradisecityX0 You're saying don't listen to Paul because he USED to believe in silly things. Well Frank CURRENTLY believes in silly things. Not sure if you want to use that logic. How about instead we look at what they actually currently say and believe, because if you need to poison the well...it honestly says a lot more about you.
@@Enaccul I say listen to all sides. But his understanding of what he no longer believes STILL is silly since he looks at it though a fundamentalist lense. Frank currently believes in rational things. If you think the universe magically exploded out of nothing and unwittingly arranged itself -- resulting in infinitely complex lifeforms because...just because, I'm not sure l really care what your idea of silly is. Saulogia poisons the well all the time. But it's ok when your tribe does it...
Saying "I ground my morality in God" is meaningless, unless everyone who says that has same morality, which is not the case. God based morality is also just one person's opinion against another. Forget Morality, even what God is also totally one person's opinion against another's. Also, even yeast cells, with no brain, mind or soul have altruistic tendencies, and when starved for nutrition, around 95% cells sacrifice themselves so that 5% may survive on their remnants. Tendency to sacrifice is baked into selfish genes, so that one copy of DNA may survive at the cost of another.
Would like to know how would Frank go about demonstrating that objective morality comes from his god, otherwise this is just like saying objective morality comes from superman, spiderman or anything else, it's just his claim, Whereas reality shows us morality is fluid, situational and therefore is subjective, it comes from me, from you, and branches outwards throughout society.
Frank is saying that if there is no God then there is no morality. It’s merely your preference to mine. A child predator isn’t wrong, he just us different preferences. If there is no God you can’t really call anything evil, all you can say is that you don’t like it. “reality shows us morality is fluid” How did you come to that conclusion? Is there a situation where the Nazi’s killing 6 million Jews is moral?
Hi Carl, the way objective morality is demonstrated is by the results and effects we get from abiding the laws of morality or breaking them and comparing the difference. In every case when the laws of morality are broken, there is pain and suffering created for everyone involved. In every instance the law is respected, harmony, peace and joy is created. What society has shown us is that our perception of morality is fluid and that we have to at some point come and recognize(and accept) God's view of morality if we ever want to be happy and fulfilled.
@@thomasb4467 again, that word "god" it gets us nowhere, yes, we have what is called morality (the choice between doing good and bad) and again I say it comes from me, from you, and differently throughout societies worldwide.If you think morality comes from god you will need to show how and from which god (there has been a few proclaimed throughout the ages). Now, the thing with the Nazis is that most of them (the soldiers and suvilians) was against the atrocities that took place, just like in Russia now, they're going with their leader, the leader controls the majority, the leader has the power, and that is what religion does, religious people give the power to god, I bet you and most belivers don't advocate for slavery, genocide, mass murder of children, stoning unruly child to death or punishing someone forever for miniscule crimes, but belivers still go along worshipping there god who advocates for those things, yes if you are a Christian you're giving glory and power to the dictator who will commit immortal things that you don't agree with.
@@carlv424 I’m not saying morality comes from God. I’m saying that without God there is no such thing as good or bad nothing is moral or immoral. It’s merely your preference to mine and it makes no sense for someone who doesn’t believe in anything outside of the material to even speak about morality. For something to be good or evil there must be a standard that we can judge by to know. If there is no standard then there is no morality. It’s pretty simple.
@@kristijanpavlovic8605 "the laws of morality" you will need to explain these laws to me as I see morality as subjective. you stated " objective morality is demonstrated is by the results" you then further stated " society has shown us is that our perception of morality is fluid" how can this be? if morality is objective then it cannot be fluid. "we have to at some point come and recognize(and accept) God's view of morality if we ever want to be happy and fulfilled" I assume you're a Christian believer? if so, my morality tells me that slavery is not good, genocide is not good, mass murdering of children is not good, stoning people for picking up sticks on the sabbath day is not good, I can go on and on, and you're saying we need to accept these sorts of morality to be happy and fulfilled? We're flawed humans, we do bad things and we do good things, but on the whole, we do more good things, we do very well with our morality, as flawed and diverse as they're.
The fact that Paul was absolutely demolished by Kent Hovind in a debate, actually in multiple debates...)] Just blows me away that he would even think to go up against Frank Turek
@@magicker8052 worse he’s on indoctrination. Hicks is a liar, perverse, con man and yet many people do not see through his smile. While he sues his son and his third wife complains he stole from her his fourth wife says how great he is. While the scientists he cites condemn his bastardized science the illiterate cannot read his lies. While he calls for the execution of those different from himself the immoral cheer him on.
😆 Kent Hovind is completely ignorant of everything except how to parrot refuted points and how to talk fast and never listen to what the other person has to say. He is the kind of person for whom the term "Scamvangelist" was coined. He has never answered a direct question in a debate. I'm sure he bored his fellow inmates stiff when he was in prison, and the thought that he ever beat ANYONE in a debate is laughable.
If God gives a command, it's still one person's opinion against another. It's just a really, really smart and powerful person's opinion against a far inferior being's opinion... If God said his favorite flavor of ice cream was chocolate, would it become an objective fact that chocolate is the best ice cream? It just seems weird to say that God saying something means it is objective, rather than it just being a really good idea.
Frank, you do not get your morality from god. Even if we were to accept that the bible is true (which it clearly is not), you do not follow the moral law set out in that book, and you do not follow the morals that your god seems to follow. You have made your own m,oral code, based on your feelings and opinions. Subjective morals, just like the rest of us.
@@Doc-Holliday1851 I didn't man. I made a comment asking what happened to it. Looks like they deleted a heap of comments on that video. I had 3 other convos going on other threads that are all gone now. What was your last response? I'm happy to continue here
@@somerandom3247 I doubt very much that Cross Examined deleted comments. But TH-cam’s comment system has been getting progressively worse recently. I can’t remember the exact wording of my reply, but simply put I was waiting on you to explain how life could exist if abiogenesis isn’t real.
@@Doc-Holliday1851 It seems to only happen to me on this chanel. You are probably right in that its a yt issue, but it doesnt seem that way based on my experience. I actually think that abiogenesis is the only option. life has clearly not always existed. The universe was inhospitable to life (as we know it) for a long period of its history. And given that life is completely comprised of non-living matter(when reduced to its smallest parts) I see no need for a god. You offered life as evidence of a god, but i don't see how it is. I don't see any part of life that a god was involved in. Can you point to the exact thing that a god was clearly involved with?
@@somerandom3247 sorry but I’m going to have to push you on this. Saying that all matter is “lifeless” at its most basic form is just another way of claiming abiogenesis. This is a full metal alchemist situation. You can have 100% of the compounds that make up a human being, but it won’t be alive even though at its most basic form everything is exactly the same. What you seem to unknowingly confirm is that there is something intrinsic, yet immeasurable, that causes something to be living. But I’m not going to get into whether or not we have a soul. I want to know how life could possibly exist if abiogenesis doesn’t and we don’t have a creator.
"If the atheistic worldview is correct and there is no purpose to life..." The atheistic worldview is that there is no God. It's actually the Christian worldview that says that if there is no God then there is no purpose to life though, so I understand your confusion. Thanks for the quality video, Frank.
@@Zac200812 atheism is more akin to Satanism because the core belief is that you can do whatever you want. Aleistar Crowly said ""Do what thou wilt" shall be the whole of the Law." Sounds a lot like what we're seeing more today. 🤔
So, according to the Bible, the god of the Bible is an immoral monster (murder, genocide, child cancer, rape all flow from his choice to create this universe, and not the infinite others in his power). He chose this, exact, world. He could have chosen a world with one less child being raped - and didn’t. Unless your god isn’t all knowing… see Epicurean Dilemma. He could have chosen a world where everyone freely chose god, but he didn’t - unless you think god isn’t powerful enough to do that. Within the Bible, morality is subjective - lying is wrong, except when it’s Rahab and then it’s a righteous act. Murder is wrong, unless god tells you to. Morality is subjective. Period. Further, Frank shows his disingenuous tactics in editing here. But what else do you expect from someone who believes in a book where lying for god is ok?
You have a severe misunderstanding of the scriptures and Frank’s position. Besides how do you know God hasn’t created a world with one less child being raped? How do you even measure that? You can’t. You are just making blind assumptions. And how does creating a world “where everyone chooses me” make them free will beings? They aren’t free. You have so many faults in your logic of thinking dude.
@@I-Need-Saving Because... we can count. If there are X number of child rapes currently, there can be X-1. Ah so you're saying that god can't make a world in which everyone freely chose him. Thank you for surrendering the position of omnipotence. We atheists already know all your omni properties are nonsense, and you're one step closer now. Finally, my 14 years in ministry and seminary before that, I think i have the credentials. Please don't waste your time with a reply, let me save you the time. "You weren't a true scotsman!!"
Nature is all there is. We have nothing else to ground anything on..... If you want to use a god as the grounding of morality, you would need to prove that a god exists, and prove that we have can ground morality in it.
Survival needs? If atheism is true, nobody NEEDS to survive. And anyone who does survive... only does so for so long, then cease to be. People, pragmatism and personal preferences ≠ morality.
When I was an atheist I didn't care about our survival because I thought it was meaningless. I actually hated humanity and wanted an asteroid to destroy us.
@@choosejesus1910 And without a transcendent authority or objective meaning, value, or purpose, what could atheists who didn't agree with you say? That they don't like what you thought? How could they say it was actually wrong? What can they do other than ask for... a show of hands? Hey, going from that mindset as an atheist to where you are now, must have been quite the change! You're familiar with David Woods (Acts 17 Apologetics) story, right? If not, check out his testimony video...
If theism is true, nobody needs to survive, either. However, if you don't feel some kind of need (urge) to survive, chances are you won't make it for long. Which means those who feel a need to survive have a higher chance to have offspring and become the foundation of the future population.
I'm convinced that it is impossible for atheists to actually be prepared... These dudes spend their career doing this, yet always end up just looking silly. I mean, 'built into our biology'? It would seem-if we look around us and see all the brokenness and crime and hate even within family members-not so much!
Paulogia used to believe this rubbish. He educated his way out of it and has don’t many videos debunking the claims of well known apologists leaving no stone unturned. Where bible worshippers get the answer they want and leave all the other stones unturned.
@@Sir-Chancelot Hi. Thanks for the response. Could you give an example of how one would educate themselves into faith? I can easily give an example of Paulogia’s deconversion as I’ve spoke with him.
@@frankcardano4142 they educate themselves into faith by way of philosophy of Christians. By reading history through a Christian lens they see the rightness of Christians. When reading the science of Christians they see the rightness of Christians. Yet they do not see how their philosophy doesn’t match the real world, their science has no predictive power and is refuted, they do not see how their history was written, and they never think to remove the wool they pulled over their own eyes
@@timothywilliams8530 What nonsense are you talking about? There’s no such thing as Christian Science just like there’s no such thing as Muslim science. Science probes the bible wrong.
@@theoskeptomai2535 I guess I did not specify which part I asked proof for. I meant the second part: all moral assessments are always and necessarily subjective.
But it can be used as a clear example of equal treatment for men and women. "Anyone who *beats their male or female slave* with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, *but they are not to be punished* if the slave recovers after a day or two, *since the slave is their property."* Exodus 21:20-21
@@bany512 Everyone is ignorant with regards to something, the difference is what we decide to do about it. "When a man *sells his daughter as a slave,* she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she *does not satisfy her owner,* he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer *treat her as a slave* but as a daughter. If a man who has married *a slave wife* takes *another wife* for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy. If he fails in any of these three obligations, she may leave as a free woman *without making any payment."* Exodus 21:7-11
I see what you're trying to do Frank, but in breaking it down into movable parts you're giving him the chance to misunderstand what you're saying. C.S. Lewis said, "Everyone has a sense of right and wrong, however imperfect that may be. Occasionally someone will claim they do not have a sense of right and wrong, but if you take something from them or put a gun to their head they will suddenly admit to that being wrong." The strength of this argument is that in order for anyone to have some sense of right and wrong, there MUST be a pre-existing absolute right, which you rightly define as Objective Morality. What these gentlemen do not understand is that their own personal ideas of morality are based on that Objective Morality. They cannot make any truth claims without leaning on that Objective Morality, no matter how they may wish to redefine it.
@@simonodowd2119 Of course. The point is we wouldn't even be able to come up with a sense of right and wrong unless there was a perfect, absolute right, which we may or may not agree with, but the fact that we have our own sense of right and wrong tells us that it needed something to establish that point.
@@rockandsandapologetics7254 could you explain to me why you believe that we wouldn't be able to come up with a sense of right or wrong if there wasn't a perfect, absolute right? Does this apply to hot or cold, do we need a perfect, absolute hot to be able to have a sense of hot or cold? Height could be another example, is a perfect, absolute tall required to have a sense of tall or short? If the answer is "no" to both of these, what is it that makes right or wrong special and different to these examples?
@@seal9390 do you know how long that takes? Not only that but my grandfather said once you make a garden you marry it. In other words you have to put in all the time and effort into the garden.
@@Zevelyon But not everyone lives out in the country and has plots of land. For starters you could grow mushrooms which don't need light to grow. That's if you needed food immediately.
If we are here debating about the ultimate source of morality, just imagine after evolution. How did the ape-men community settle the issue? Maybe the majority, but what majority? Can any evolved forms of different fishes have a comprehensive understanding of morality? and why would they in the first place? What is an arbiter? By definition - ar·bi·ter /ˈärbədər/ noun a person who settles a dispute or has ultimate authority in a matter. "the military acted as arbiter of conflicts between political groups" Similar: adjudicator arbitrator judge umpire referee assistant referee linesman line judge mediator conciliator intervenor intercessor go-between negotiator peacemaker Similar words are: judge authority determiner controller director governor master expert pundit critic 1. By definition, an arbiter has to be a person. 2. This person cannot have any nor be biased toward’s views of morality. 3. Arbiter, by definition, is hands down speaking from a moral perspective. 4. Therefore, God is by far the best explanation for the “Epistemology argument!
@@kylewalsh5397 Everything God made was good, everything God does is good, everything God says is good, and everything God is is good. He is light and in Him, there is no darkness. We will see, by the light of God Himself, how very good He is! The darkness, hatred, and evil in the world are not of God nor are they from God. They are the result of the choice Adam and Eve made in the Garden of Eden to listen to Satan, the father of lies (John 8:44), rather than God. The day is coming when goodness will reign again, and evil will be obliterated once and for all. There is no evil God but an evil prince (Satan). Evil is the opposite of good, and so in a sense, we are all evil because no one is “morally good.” This means that a person does “good” all the time, but no such person exists; however, Jesus Christ was the only person ever to accomplish this.
Download FREE Cheat Sheet “The 4-Point Case For Christianity” 👉📱cutt.ly/ZYMC4nl
I appreciate Frank furthering positive discourse by putting Paul on his channel! Letting those that challenge you express their ideas themselves (especially one as knowledgeable and well-spoken as Paul) is a great way to show integrity! Thank you Frank!
I don't. Pauloozer is only superficially knowledgeable (at best); he's not particularly well-spoken; and, anti-theists/New-Atheists should have as few platforms as possible from which to eject their poisonous, insidious, conceptual 'fee seas'.
Here here
As knowledgeable as Paulogia? Please...
@@johnlewisbrooks imagine having to prove God existed first before you admitted hurting someone was wrong
@@dansaber4427 Nothing to it. The laws of physics point to a creator of great power and wisdom.
Imagine trying to make a gorgeous painting with no power or wisdom.
I love Paulogia, he is one of the kindest guys on the entire Internet!
For an atheist he is. Most of the megaatheist are obnoxious clowns.
Right? He's exactly the guy I want to see battling misinformation.
@@ernest3286 you mean producing it?
@@paulbeahm3891 What misinformation is he producing?
@@GuitarDog_atx the foolishness of a worldview void of intelligent design.
Everything exists either because of random chance or intelligent design, and to believe it's due to random chance is just silly.
I suggest everyone view the full video and full responses from Paul. Check out his full videos. Even if you are a Christian, it is worth your time to hear the arguments.
Specifically, look at his scripted videos about morality. He admits that he isn't very articulate in a live discussion.
I’ve watched some of Paulogia’s videos and I don’t find him convincing. A lot of speculation and common atheistic misinformation.
I have heard the arguments and they're awful. But yeah, it does give us a confidence boost, so sure.
@@incredulouspasta3304
No atheist is... I mean, even the best reveal that their argument is neither rational nor consistent.
@@jessebryant9233 That's sort of true in a live setting. The moral argument is a tangled mess of logic. Apologists have gotten really good at obfuscating the real issue. It can be difficult to untangle.
A good clip and Paulogia explains himself well. Thanks for sharing Frank.
I listen to Paul all the time. One of my favorites.
He actually begged the question
Religious Faith is not a necessary condition for moral behaviour.
No you just cant get morals without God epistemologically. Cultural christians can APE morality. God gave it to them. They just choose evil.
That's not the question. The question is whether requiring moral behavior is consistent with naturalism and subjective morality. And if so, why?
@Justin Gary 🤣🙏🏾😄🙏🏾
@Justin Gary That tactics is called "If you can't answer the question,kill the questioner"...🤣
I am more interested in your behavior than what you believe.
Paul describing morality as it actually operates, Frank describing morality as he would like it to be.
How it operates doesn't necessarily mean how it's supposed to operate.
@@amarpal1316 I think you're right about that. I just think accepting reality on reality's terms is more fruitful, and provides a reliable baseline by which to improve from.
Asserting that morality is grounded in the mind of God doesn't help the people who disagree over the mind of God, or those who are born without the belief that torturing babies is wrong.
It's nice to think that every wrong will ultimately be righted, that just doesn't make it true.
Historically in philosophy, morality has since Socrates always about how people should behave not how they actually behave. That's why a major branch of it is called 'deontology' or 'what doesn't exist' (yet).
1. At like 3:25 Frank says that what he really wants to address is the ontological issue, but then immediately starts asking about how we can know certain things, which is clearly an epistemological question. The reason this happens is because all of Frank's actual work has to be explaining how fallible, finite, subjective creatures can access an objective standard. Until he does that whether or not such a standard actually exists is really and truly irrelevant. He doesn't appear interested in actually engaging that question, however, he wants to score points by making Paul squirm answering questions about Nazis.
2. Christian history is instructive. Despite the claim that Christians have access to THE objective moral standard, the institutional church largely ignored even prominent voices like Gregory of Nyssa who gave a Biblical case for condemning slavery in the 5th century. It has taken about 1000 years for the church's cultural biases to shift toward majority condemnation of the enslavement of people, but even today you have people like Doug Wilson who still contend that "Godly slavery" is not an oxymoron. How can the community with access to THE objective moral standard be divided for it's entire history about something so destructive?
//1. At like @ Frank says that what he really wants to address is the ontological issue, but then immediately starts asking about how we can know certain things, which is clearly an epistemological question. //
Indeed. I see this so often from apologists.
They want the opposition to explain some idea while allowing that they should be able to get away with merely asserting their own counter ideas. Thus they say that "God accounts for X" while asking their critic to "Please explain how X".
It's a double standard they apply and I don't think they are aware of it. I think this may be because so many apologists have been immersed in the idea from birth that only they have the objective truth, and therefore it's up to all others to explain why they think differently. Hence they cannot see the double standard they apply.
@@rolandwatts3218 You're so right. I was doing hurricane relief a few years back and there was a girl from Chicago and a girl from rural North Carolina arguing about who had an accent. They can't seem to imagine that their assumptions and norms are contingent.
@Frederick Shull
It is a double standard if one side to a debate or discussion requires (either implicitly or explicitly) that the other side provide explanation while it should be able to get away with assertion.
//Nature cannot give us morality, period.//
I assert that - Surpernature cannot give us morality.
^^ Do you see my point?
@Frederick Shull
So are your words just an opinion?
@Frederick Shull this is fallible logic, no? To assert that I cannot have B without A? Especially when there is claim to have B without having complete knowledge A exists?
Is morality subjective?
Morality that’s relative to circumstances is NOT moral relativism. “Certain people” tend to disagree that morals are objective. For some reason there are people who think that for every immoral action there exists a scenario where that action becomes moral. For example, a killer asks you where your family is. Is it immoral to lie to save them? So therefore morals are subjective?
Notice this logic. If morality is dependent on a situation, then morality must be subjective. These people seem to be a bit puzzled to what it means for morality to be subjective, so let’s define some terms.
Subjective morality, also called relativism, is the view that morality is based on what some particular person believes. On this view, what is right and what is wrong depend completely on the individual, or the subject. That’s why they call it subjectivism. On relativism, premarital sex may be wrong for me, but the exact same behavior might be right for someone else. Now, here’s the payoff. In subjective morality, right and wrong depend completely on the individual subject. But in objective morality, by contrast, right and wrong do not depend on the individual subject but on the individual SITUATION.
So for some reason certain people out there are actually confusing morality that’s relative to situations, objectivism, with morality that is relative to subjects, relativism. So when someone says that morality is ALWAYS relative to situations, they’re right, BUT…that’s moral objectivism, NOT moral relativism. These people are confusing the definition of relativism with the definition of objectivism.
The example I gave above actually demonstrates these common mistakes by them. These people try to offer a moral dilemma in the form of a question. A killer asks you where your family is. Is it immoral to lie to save them? The dilemma is, if you tell the truth, your family will be killed. Bad. But if you protect your family, you’ll have to lie. Also bad. But wait. If morals are SUBJECTIVE, as certain people will say, then there is NO DILEMMA. The answer to the question is simple.
If you think it’s immoral to lie, then it is….FOR YOU! If you think it’s more moral to protect your family, then it is….FOR YOU! So there is no dilemma on relativism because whatever you choose is right….FOR YOU! For the moral relativist, both options are equally legitimate because there is no objective right or wrong decision. For the moral objectivist though, there is a right response and a wrong response in this particular situation. Yes, it’s wrong to lie to protect a thief from the police. But it’s right to lie to protect your family from a killer, and this is true for anyone facing the same situation.
In subjectivism, the subject gets to decide what’s right and wrong, and he’s always right BY DEFINITION. In objectivism, it’s the objective circumstances that determine what’s right and wrong. See the difference?
So these people keep mistaking objective morality for subjective morality. Is it always wrong to lie? Well, it depends not on the subject, that’s relativism, but on the objective situation, that’s objectivism.
First, objective morality ALWAYS depends on the situation or circumstances. Relativism is when right and wrong depend on, or are relative to, the person.
Second, moral dilemmas based on circumstances, like the example given above, ALWAYS demonstrate objectivism, NOT subjectivism.
Third, if we OUGHT to save our family from a killer, then morality is objective, NOT subjective. So these people trying to put forward these “ethical dilemmas” are just illustrating subjective morality. Ironically, it illustrates just the opposite.
Morality comes through direct experience with the everyday world that surrounds each of us.
Very good explanation. I'll have to borrow some of that sometimes.
It seems to me that whenever an apologist tries to frame a discussion about morality as an "ontological" issue, they are trying to dodge the fact that epistemologically they don't have a good argument, and that they are trying to sneak in an argument from authority through the backdoor.
I agree with Fredrick. Atheistic, and materialistic positions defacto go with subjective morality, because under such a thought, you can have justification for objective morals.
The mistake athiestic/materialistic thinkers make is assuming that they are correct in their worldview, and therefor, anyone arguing for objective morals must do so under an atheistic/materialist framework.
Why does an omnipotent god need humans?
For entertainment because he's bored,
for company because he's lonely
or maybe we are just an accidental aberration in his Plan that he keeps trying to eliminate.
@Frederick Shull You said: _"Incorrect, the question is ontological in nature."_
In that case, please tell me what "morality" is according to you, what the question under discussion is, according to you, and what the ontological nature of that question is according to you. I think you will find that whatever you are going to say will lead you back to some version of a "might is right" authority argument: "I believe my God made you, he has the power, so shut up and listen."
You said: _"There is no justification for "morality" by definition in an atheist/naturalist worldview."_
I don't know if that is true, and I don't know if "morality" needs a "justification" to begin with.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 You said: _"Atheistic, and materialistic positions defacto go with subjective morality, because under such a thought, you can have justification for objective morals."_
I think you forgot a negative in that sentence. I assume you mean "you *_can't_* have justification for objective morals".
Please tell me what you mean when you say "objective morals". If you mean whatever your God says, then I would think those morals are subjective to the whims of your God. I would also then ask you why we ought to consider your God's subjective morals as objective in relation to us. The way I see it, the only argument you have why we ought to do so is that you believe your God has power over us. I don't consider "might makes right" a very good justification.
You said: _"The mistake athiestic/materialistic thinkers make is assuming that they are correct in their worldview, and therefor, anyone arguing for objective morals must do so under an atheistic/materialist framework."_
I don't think I am making that mistake, if it is a mistake at all. Also, the other side of this medal is that religious/idealistic thinkers make the same mistake if and when they assume their worldview is correct in making their arguments. Should I therefore expect you to make your argument while you are not assuming your God is real?
@@JamesRichardWiley You said: _"Why does an omnipotent god need humans?"_
Indeed, why would a perfect entity want anything at all?
We are but the playthings of the gods who use us for their sport...
I’ve never seen an argument for objective morality that got beyond “I believe that objective morality exists even in the absence of good evidence for it” or “I want objective morality to exist”.
You cut it off before the answer??? Who does that???
A good promoter.
Tune in next time...
Complicated subject. Thanks for talking about in a civil manner. No easy answers, and that's what makes it interesting.
Thank you.
You're right there are no easy answers if you're looking for an ideal. If you're not looking for an ideal then the easy answer is a god.
I credit Both Paulogia and Frank Turek for helping me leave Christianity.
I credit the Bible and Christian behavior and logic
You were never a Christian to begin with. The Bible makes it clear a saved person cannot depart because they cannot lose eternal life. Currently, the Lake of Fire awaits you as it always did.
Repent . Turn back to Christ .
Love your comment!
Is there a full video somewhere?
I think the conversation was on Unbelievable? and it was about Star Wars initially, hope this helps
We have to separate the concept of "good" from the concept of "God" for statements like "God is good" to have any meaningful content. If these terms are defined as exactly equivalent, then saying "God is good" is like saying "God is God" or "good is good." It becomes a tautology.
Divine Command Theory is the technical term for an ethical system that defines right as what God commands, and wrong as what God prohibits. A slight variation on this pins morality to God's character, rather than commands. Either way, God or his actions are considered all-good, by definition. According to this view it is not something like harm to humans that defines wrong actions, it is disobedience to God's will or commands. There is no external standard of right and wrong beyond God. In this view there is not, and perhaps could not be, a standard of right and wrong grounded in anything apart from God.
I realize that most Christians intuitively believe that God's nature or commands must be all-good by definition, but if this is so humans can have no ability to judge God and come to moral conclusions about his character. By what metric could we, or any entity, judge God and his behavior and conclude that it is either moral or immoral? If God is simply defined as all-good, then it is logically impossible to conclude that God could ever be anything other than perfectly good. We already defined God as good and good as God. Under such a view there can be no moral judgment about God's character whatsoever. Whatever way God is, that is good. Even in principle there would be no way to morally compare God and Satan's actions or conclude that God is morally good.
There are two ways out for the Christian, I think. We might continue to ontologically ground morality in God or his commands while acknowledging that under such an ethical system we lose all ability to come to moral conclusions about God--even in principle. Under such a view morality becomes nothing more than obedience to an authority who can't provide moral justification for his own actions. Any moral question applied to God's actions is still asking some form of, "is God consistent with himself?" And I think a question like that can only be answered with "yes, of course he is."
In fact, I think for us to make any meaningful claim about God's goodness at all (apart from simply assuming his absolute goodness as a necessary metaphysical fact) we need a standard of goodness separate from God. That's certainly possible, but I don't think it's what most Christians believe, and it would nullify a number of classic theistic arguments for God's existence, such as the moral argument.
To say "God is good" many Christians must adjust their view of morality. Instead of attaching the definition of good to divine character or commands, we might simply say that good actions are those that help others while avoiding harm. There are lots of options in the arena of secular morality, but any framework that grounds goodness outside of God will solve our problem. Under such a view we can coherently evaluate God's actions on Earth (if we assume an inspired Bible). For example, we could simply see if God's behavior seemed to help humans and avoid harming them without justification. If so, then we could say "God is good," and it would actually mean something.
Hi Matthew, the problem with the God of the Bible is that He is not all-good and people try to use all kind of intellectual gymnastics to fit in this portrayal of God in the category of "good", which cannot be done. God is far better than how He is described in the Bible.
@@kristijanpavlovic8605 I agree that the God of the Bible is not all-good and the intellectual dishonesty/gymnastics of Bible apologists are not in the least convincing. However to be fair to God the Bible was written mostly in the iron age by multiple, poorly educated individuals with limited experience and virtually no access to scholarly resources (such as we have today) over a very long period mostly transcribing oral traditions of events that occurred decades or even centuries before they lived so it is unsurprising that it is inconsistent, often contradictory and seemingly legendary in nature. However this is all we have to describe the nature and even existence of God. Its not very satisfactory to base an all encompassing, universal morality on, as there are so many interpretations of what Bible phrases and teachings actually mean.
@@davidstirk4732 Yes David ,I agree with you. although I feel that there are other ways in determining God's nature and character. The first being by having a direct contact with God so He can tell us personally what He is like. The other way we can do that is by observing creation. This is somewhat difficult as the world is in a state of degradation so we can't judge God based on the imperfections we see in the world. Even in this imperfect world, there is still a lot of natural beauty, love and intelligence that can certainly show us something about God. The third way is that we can observe and experiment with the laws of the universe and see how they work.
@@kristijanpavlovic8605 How can you be sure that you are having direct contact with the God of the Bible? Many people of all religions and faiths sincerely believe they have divine experiences with their God. They can't all be correct. Occam's razor says Its more likely to be the brain creating an experience based on life experiences and closely held beliefs. Dreams work in this way for example. We have scientific explanations for the way the world is. Natural beauty is a subjective opinion. Love and intelligence have scientific explanations. This doesn't make love any less wonderful to experience but it doesn't have to be divine. The laws of the universe are consistent and science depends on this to make predictions and create technology. If there were unpredictable supernatural forces regularly interfering with the universal laws, science would be useless. Why the laws of the universe exist (gravity for example) is not yet explained by science but they are necessary for the universe we live in. Different universes may have different laws but we are unable to observe them. Where science does not yet have an explanation for a phenomena it does not mean that we can then claim a God. Rainbows, lightning and natural disasters used to be assumed to be divinely caused but we now have scientific explanations for them. We understand the natural causes of them and can now predict in what circumstances they will occur.
@@davidstirk4732 I don't because from my experience, God is different to how He is portrayed in the Bible. I can't really say about other people as I would have to question them on an individual basis on what actually happened to them but I do know that to have an experience with God it doesn't matter as much what you intellectually believe but what is in your heart, your emotional state, as God responds to our heart and not our head. Now, for those experiences with God to continue on a fairly frequent basis, a person must also accept some truths that God is presenting but most people that do have some experience with God only have one or few in their life time and they do not know how to repeat the experience. They think that their certain belief system caused them to connect to God when actually it was their sincere longings of the heart that created a response from God. That is why everyone can connect to God, no matter the religion, color of skin, gender, age or any other thing.
I do not see God as some religious belief system but as a scientific truth. In fact, I believe God is the first and the greatest scientist as everything He does is scientific and logical. Science would not be possible if there was no God.
Natural beauty is subjective, but so is our life experience as we experience life subjectively, and that does not diminish the value of beauty in our life. It is not a necessary part but it still exists. Everything God creates has beauty and functionality.
I agree that the laws are predictable and unchanging, that is one more evidence that someone made them.
No purpose = no reason, no reason = chaos, chaos = death. 2nd law of thermodynamics.
I continue to be impressed by the nonsequitors some Christians can put together, then appeal to a law they don't have the second clue about like that proves their point
Paulogia could have answered this better. Frank is right: we can’t even assess why our society is better than a nazi regime, if we don’t have an ultimate moral law giver to determine this.
You need to bite the bullet here and accept that no societies are superior to others. It’s relative, it’s subjective, it’s qualitative.
If you are born and raised a German from the early 20th century, and indoctrinated into hating particular races, chances are you will condone these practices. We can’t blame nazis for being born in a certain time and place, because we ourselves are also immersed in our own localised setting.
Nazis are no more or less human than the rest of us (are we forgetting that racism and discrimination still exists?) We are just taught how to co-operate differently in society.
The issue is that Christianity does not provide an ultimate moral law giver, if it is also divided by denominations and different ideas of well-being as a society. We are stuck in this perpetuance of chaos without a concrete answer. It’s not enough to simply claim that you have a moral law giver: it needs to be backed up and demonstrated, and churches just fail here. Keep singing hymns of unity, it’s just a failure of recognising the reality we exist in.
The only answer is that we are trapped in a prison of influences that surrounds us. That’s how we get our biases in thinking we are better than other societies because we simply don’t understand or imagine what it’s like being in them. Yet those very same societies would say the same about us because of these local influences perpetuating us.
I'm not sure how derivatives of proclamation discredit that which is being proclaimed. Judeo Christianity is the authentic and sole representative of the Faith those of the apostles and Jesus of Nazareth himself believed and preached. There are numerous spin-offs sequels, and also fanfics to original artistry whether literary, cinematography or an amalgamation of the two. Since there's various installations that may disregard established events, there's a restriction enacted referred to as canonization that is written as an authorization as to what is considered real or not in the series. This creates segregation of the aforementioned. As it is with The Scriptures.
For example: There's no established text that affirms the Trinitarian doctrine in the original manuscripts.
@@thegrandvisionaire5619 umm the Bible is pretty clear that God is trinitarian. Anthony Rodgers does a great job explaining that. Got a better example?
K, which denomination rejects the 10 commandments?
@@arcguardian Actually I'd argue it refers to no such trinitarian belief, such insurrection wasn't made until well after the passing of John; author of Revelation and the last of the apostles. There's no reference made until around the 2nd-4th century if I remember correctly. It's often preconceived and read _into_ the context rather than *from* it _[for instance...1 John 5:7, specifically the part pertaining to the trinity isn't found in any of the original NT manuscriptsand is actually confirmed to be written latter, as in intentionally misinterpreted and mistranslated]_
A less controversial example I suppose is incentive, necessitated tithes _[Malachi 3]_ is taken out of context and it actually directly contradicts principle in the New Testament when we're encouraged to give freely and cheerfully without obligation _[2 Corinthians 9:7]._
Over its two thousand year history and cultural dominance multiple Christianities with radically contradictory positions on key questions on morality have existed side-by-side and often violently. This tells me that even if an objective morality can be sourced from their god's existence any clarity or answers will not be found in their preaching or anywhere in their poorly written holy texts. I see the same in Hinduism, Wiccan, Islam, or whatever we care to mention, with vastly different internal and external explanations to the structure of the universe, tales of its creation, and moral teachings. But even if they had an objective standard that could be gleamed, I don't see why we should follow it simply because of that.
To take an example. The Catholic faith teaches that same-sex marriage and sex is sinful, yet I see love rising from those unions and it will be a positive to society if accepted as no less normal than hetero ones. Yet their god commands otherwise and even if I believed he was real and the source and standard of morality, I don't see why I should value or model my behavior after those commandments, much less worship him, due to the pain and suffering doing so causes. I'd rather be evil and immoral if it means I can contribute to our collective kindess, happiness and prosperity.
Morality is subjective. But because we're human there's a discreet range to the behaviors and traits that we share: physical needs, capability to feel emotions, to reason, to empathize. Genetics throws any concept of Tabula Rasa out the window. From there we can make judgements about which behaviors to reject or praise and use as a basis to fashion a Humanist philosophy that betters our societies by grounding it in our common experiences rather than a distant deity. Advancing technology, deeper understanding of our biology, and changing social norms will necessarily make this an iterative process.
2:04 Problem is, the Nazis were not trying to "protect" their population. As far as living space is concerned, Hitler went way beyond what his people needed by the start of the war with the invasion of Poland in 1939.
2:22 While the fact of the matter is that history is written by the victors and highlights them in a favorable light over the losers, the point is that we can all agree that the ideology behind the fascist party, the Nazi party and Imperial Japan was very much "wrong" in the sense that they went very much against the concept of a "society". Those that do not listen to us will be killed" is not exactly a very cohesive message with regards to living together as a society, but that was the overarching impression given by these 3 nations that formed the axis powers
3:27 The problem here is that there is no ontological moral standard that is apparent. Frank is simply asserting that there MUST be one and that we NEED one instead of actually telling us why we need one (much less show that there is one). Yes, a standard of morality tailored towards a certain purpose is by all means subjective, ontologically speaking, but why is that something that we cannot or shouldn't consider as an acceptable moral standard.
4:30 Yup, Frank is fixated on this, the problem is he can't actually SHOW what is "the Good" beyond simply asserting it by touting a subjective moral standard that in his mind is "the absolute TRUE moral standard" but which cannot be shown as such and can only be asserted as such. It would be much more productive if Frank is actually able to a.) demonstrate such a thing as a "true moral standard" beyond simply asserting one and b.) that we actually need this true moral standard.
Yup, that's basically it, Frank needs an ontologically "true" standard of morality and believes that his God provides him with that. The problem is that it's impossible to actually prove this or show that this is the case. Simply assuming it or taking the Bible at its word doesn't do that. So we're left with a sort of "moral tiebreaker" that is basically whatever it is that the one proposing such a tiebreaker wants it to be in essence.
The part about whether we need this sort of unprovable moral standard is pretty much ignored when actually that's an important point. If a standard of morality serves no purpose in actually affecting our lives positively, then even if we can somehow show that it is "the TRUE moral standard", why should we then adopt it in this case? (btw by "true moral standard" I'm only stating that it somehow "objectively true" and not making any other assumptions about WHAT that standard entails)
A good example of different worldviews and epistemology.
Yes you're right except that religion is not a philosophical question. Religion is a belief in a chosen god. Belief is all you need not understanding.
I know Paulogia is supposed to be some Atheist heavy hitter but if these are the best arguments he can make (littered with special pleading and is ought fallacies) it’s time for him to just admit he doesn’t believe morality exists at all and just say that it’s based on his personal preferences
Yes, morality is based on personal preferences.
Morality is not based on any one person's personal preference, but on many person's preferences
@Frederick Shull correct
@Frederick Shull
Exactly.
Clearly no xtian apologists can do better. Otherwise this theology wouldn't need armies of apologists for 2000 years.
I'm hooked, I want to hear more.
Frank must understand that morality has shifted culturally over time. The Bible has, for the sake of argument, a few negative moral actions within it which we now look back on culturally as wrong. If morality is based on an objective and unchanging source, then shouldn't we expect today to see all of Christianity supporting the morality of the Bible. I think that our cultures understanding of flourishing has changed as well as who we seem to include in our in group... hopefully the change continues.
Good argument!!!
Am I missing the link to the entire video?
Search up “Paulogia Frank Turek Star Wars & Superheroes ”
Unfortunately, this discussion was cut short because of the break and because, while this was an awesome discussion, the topic of the debate was about Movies pointing to Jesus, not morality.
Well Jesus says that laws for divorce were allowed in the Mosiac law because the hearts of people were hardened in those days. People were rougher back then and God chose to accommodate those people with laws they could grapple with. Of course Yhwh is a god of progression which is why Christians aren’t blinded by the old law anymore. I find it very disheartening when I see fundamentalist Christians try to use the Old Testament to bring back stoning and turning America into a theocracy.
@@randomango2789 Progressing towards what?
@Frederick Shull well they’re saying that it’s bad… for human well-being.
We know that because new scientific advances have been made in the 2000 years since the Bible was written that suggest that things like accepting homosexual relationships are socially beneficial for society’s well-being.
As for on who’s authority we say human flourishing is good… there really isn’t any “ultimate” sense why, only our biology which drives the vast majority of people to have both empathy and self preservation.
Essentially my ultimate authority is reality. If I say something is true, but it’s not comporting with reality … is it really true?
@@baalzagoroth4693 To a better world where there will be no more death, sorrow, and sickness. This will be finalized when the New Jerusalem is created.
Is this just Frank repeating "I don't understand what your saying" over and over again?
Frank insists that he's not just talking about a tie-breaker, but his only argument is "but what if there's no tie-breaker??"
Frank's argument is based on faith instead of testable evidence. Testable evidence comes first - then faith.
I'm not getting where this whole tie breaker argument is coming from on Paul's side.
Paul said that the only way to ejudicate between two moral ideals is with majority agreement on what a given ideal/standard is.
So frank presented the idea that if Hitler was the Victor of WW2, and the majority of the western world now agrees upon the ideal that Jess, homos, and gypsies are all inherently bad, and should be killed with prejudice, then is it not now right?
Paul seems to be the one avoiding the question in this instance, because by his own logic the obvious answer to the question is, yes. Killing, Jews, homos, and gypsies is good, because it would now be the standard agreed upon by the majority. Paul probably just doesn't want to say that, because such a belief of morals ultimately backfires on the believer itself, since it makes any effort, you make to any good going against the grain pointless. Since by definition, if you aren't in agreement with the standard, you cannot be doing good.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 You are conflating two questions: How do I decide what is right? and How do we come to a collective agreement about what is right? The first will be based on your personal values. The second requires some sort of agreement between people.
Paul isn't saying that you should base your _own_ personal values on the majority. He's pointing out the obvious fact that _if_ we want to come to some sort of agreement about morality, _then_ we need to start by finding agreement about common values or goals. If Hitler won WW2, then we may not have much common ground, and it will be difficult to come to any sort of agreement. Hence, the massive unrest that would likely follow.
@@incredulouspasta3304 then Paul still needs to answer Frank's question. Frank was asking when disagreement comes. How should you know which side to fight for? Or if you should fight at all. The simple answer is that you shouldn't. If morals are subjective then theg mean nothing, and can be changed. Why would you risk your life, or others lives for make believe that doesn't mean anything? Letting the nazis take over, abd win is the best outcome for you, so long as your not a jew, gay, or gypsie. Because if you fight them for make believe ideas, then you have a high likelihood of dying. But if you just change your make believe ideas to agree with their make belive ideas, then there is a high likelihood of you living. If your morals are subjective, the moment any unrest is occurring you have no justification for not conforming to the majority view for your own benefit. And in doing so your not doing anything wrong, even if it means oppressing jews, and gays, because the very idea of wrong is make believe, and subject to change at any time you feel like it.
Does this illustrate this part of the issue well enough?. If you belive morality is subjective, then if you live and act as if that is the truth, you can never justify opposing anything, for any reason. Nor justify standing up for something for any reason.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 _"when disagreement comes. How should you know which side to fight for?"_
Ask yourself, "what do I most deeply care about, and how do certain actions affect the stuff that I care about". Go from there.
_"If morals are subjective then theg mean nothing, and can be changed."_
Huh? Of course it means something. It means the difference between protecting the stuff you most deeply care about, and letting it get destroyed. What better motivation could you possibly ask for? Most people can't change what they most deeply care about on a whim, nor do they want to.
_"If your morals are subjective, the moment any unrest is occurring you have no justification for not conforming to the majority view for your own benefit."_
And if morality is objective in the way Frank describes, you have no justification for acting according to that morality in the first place, since it has no connection to anything you care about.
If one person (subjectively) asserts that "X" is the standard of good, this still requires others to (subjectively) agree with him for "X" to be used as "the" standard. What means did the first person use to determine "X" is good? Is he simply asserting it as a presupposed truth, with no justification or demonstration as to why it's true?
Asserting that "X" is a god does not relieve one from justifying why "X" is necessarily good in the first place. How did the first person determine "X" was good? Or must it forever be an unjustifiable assertion? Are unjustifiable assertions sufficient reason for others to agree with him?
If you have good reason to assert X is God, then why not let God Himself define good. Is ur assertion that not even God can define good?
For me, the main question is always, how can you ground morality using God, given that I have a hard time believing in morality without consequences. If God says "A is bad," but A has no consequences, grounding failed.
In comparison, it is relatively easy to ground morality in the natural world, as we can see actual consequences play out in the physical space.
On the other hand, I have disagreed with Paulogia on morality in the past, due to a disagreement over the fundamental nature of what morality is. In this clip, for example, he implies that there must be an adjudicator for morality. This implies morality is inherently subjective. However, if morality exists only subjectively, then it doesn't really exist.
I wouldn't underestimate how important a subjective thing is. The value of money is subjective. It's used to represent abstract value so we can more easily exchange goods and services.
I could be mistaken but it appears to me that you're attempting to smuggle in an unfounded assumption here that there is some objective "universal" morality that applies to everyone and everything. Just because it's possible to imagine such a concept, doesn't establish that it exists. Objective (i.e. universal) morality conflicts with the evidence we can observe in the natural world. There's seemingly infinite examples of a actions that a sentient being/species can partake in that would arguably infringe on moral constructs that can be defined/imagined for the other. The necessarily cruel (by modern humanist standards) circle of life within the animal kingdom is one of the most obvious examples. It's very clear that many other animal species are capable of pain, suffering, love, compassion, and altruism and MUST exist at the expense of others species or individuals within their environment. This makes attempts to define a universal objective morality, that governs all things that exist without creating objective internal contradictions, literally impossible.
To claim, that something which is subjective, doesn't exist, is a hardcore position of mereological nihilism. What about love? It's subjective. It's based on biochemical processes in a person's brain. Does it not exist, because it is subjective?
Where does the scripture say some thing 'is bad and doesn't have consequences'?
@@jayyrod1 What are the consequences of eating shellfish?
2:55 and what that agreement should be based upon?
Turek's question to Paulogia about P's morality being nothing more than "one person's opinion against another" shows he has entirely failed to grasp Paulogia's argument. It is precisely because our moral sense is grounded in our biology that it goes beyond individual opinion. Our evolutionary history as a social primate has given us innate drives towards cooperation and empathy, regardless of our individual opinions. That's why it is easy to adjudge the Nazi project as immoral. Conversely, to argue that the God of the Bible provides a stable moral grounding is problematic when at some times, he is clearly described as carrying out and ordering genocides and condoning chattel slavery, whilst at others commanding us to love each other. Taking a moral lead from the Bible amounts to adjudicating between a vast diversity of theological interpretations.
Those statements are false. The argument God condones slavery has been debunked a thousand times and the genocide accusation is crude at best.
God ordered the deaths of people as a last resort.
And if you think biological evolution has any answers you're wrong as well because it's impossible.
@@johnlewisbrooks Thanks. The "debunking" of Biblical slavery is hard to accept, given that Leviticus 25:39-46 describes a two-tier model of slavery that distinguishes Israelites from foreign slaves. It requires that Israelites be indentured only temporarily while foreigners can be enslaved as chattel (permanent property). This is consistent with custom and practice in other contemporary societies of the region.
Your suggestion that "the genocide argument is crude" is hardly a refutation, particularly when you admit that the OT God resorted to genocide more than once. For a supposedly all powerful god to be unable to think of no solution other than genocide seems pretty weak, don't you think? In any case, it hardly provides a sound moral basis for guiding humanity.
As far as evolution goes, simply asserting "it's impossible" convinces no-one. The only people who make this claim are those who do so because they hold to a dogmatic theological position. There are literally no serious biologists who do so on the basis of the scientific evidence.
And many serious biologists reject evolution I can show you a list of hundreds.
@@johnlewisbrooks that isn't what I said, though, is it? There are some serious biologists - albeit a tiny minority - who don't accept evolution. But they do so not *on the basis of scientific evidence*, but because they have a commitment to a religious dogma that precludes their accepting that evidence. Having said that, if you can provide any links to a peer reviewed paper that rejects the theory of evolution and is unrelated to a religious project, I'd be pleased to read it
@@shinywarm6906 Religion has NOTHING to do with the fact that abiogenesis is impossible and that genetically we are falling apart. THESE ARE THE FACTS, to reject these FACTS means that you believe this DESPITE THE DAMNING EVIDENCE which means you are far more religious than I ever was. Even Hawking admitted that life is a mathematical impossibility. On top of that we simply do not have enough time for deep time evolution to happen!
Let's reverse the solar system by about 100 million years. What happens?
The sun gains a huge amount of weight and the moon is way too close to us.
Another huge problem is that nice warm cup of coffee you may enjoy every morning. It cools off too quickly.
So does the center of the earth.
NASA has admitted these are huge problems with evolution, not to mention the fact that the fossils simply do not tell the tale.
Stupidity... It's a very simple concept to understand: morality is either subjective or objective. No way around it...
In Joshua 6 v21 we have an example of an army murdering all the inhabitants of a city and then presenting it afterwards as a righteous act. It has been handed down to history as an example of good rather than evil.
To me, this is a misunderstanding of the language used in the text, but that's easy to do by today's standards especially if we read it literally from our point of view and not from that of the ancient world. Textual criticism, scholarly research, and historical finding would show otherwise. Murdering all the inhabitants of the city was not done (not only does Rahab and her family live, we also see further text in the bible and other places that the Canaanites are alive). this is more of a cultural misunderstanding. In their culture, "Kill them all!" was warfare rhetoric for "win a decisive victory." The Israelites, and even most of the ancient armies and wars, were not "killing them all." The universal language was also typical of judgment by the gods, so they would again have the rhetoric of universality when they were fighting a war they presumed was of divine mandate. In other words, the Israelites were not killing every man, woman, child, and cattle. To take it even further, the Hebrew term cherem was really a term that means "remove from human use" rather than "kill them all." Sometimes things were killed, yes, but at other times they were set aside, dedicated, or repurposed. It's simply false to assume that God was commanding genocide. There's plenty of evidence from the ancient world as well as from the Bible that was not the case. I can provide multiple examples of this 'kill them all' rhetoric in various ancient armies if you'd like to show proof to this theory.
Not only that, the Caananites were doing quite terrible things in the name of their gods even after they had rejected the Israelite God of the bible. So was God demanding them be killed because they didn't worship Him? Not really; it was their practices that justified action. For example, the Caananites had one god they worshipped named Moloch. This god demanded sacrifice and specifically the sacrifice of babies. They had a large statue in the shape of Moloch made of brass with a fire pit on the bottom of it. For their rituals, they would heat up this statue and then put the living babies on it to burn them alive. The tribe would play huge drums to cover the sound of the crying baby as it burned. These are the kinds of acts God was trying to stop by taking over this group. But he didn't demand everyone be killed. I hope this helps to make sense of this scripture more.
@@scape211 It doesn't make sense. Rahab and her family had to mark their house with a red rope and not take one step outside because of all the slaughter that was going on outside. And their blood would be own their own hands if they did wander outside. It was indiscriminate holy war slaughter, and there's nothing wrong with that. If someone survived it was because they were able to escape or hide, not that an Israelite looked the other way.
@@joedaley1878 it only doesn’t makes sense if you don’t follow the evidence of how ancient wars went within the context of the warfare rhetoric I mentioned. You also have to look at the history of the Israelites. Where they a waring or conquering nation in general? No. And certainly not if you compare to some others. Your reading the text at face value and thinking it means exactly what it does without context of who it was written by and for.
@@scape211 Rahab's quarantine shows that Jericho was total war and indiscriminate slaughter. Escapees and hideaways (under dead bodies) are not examples of discrimination.
@@joedaley1878 Of course it was war and they were leaving a warning for them to be careful during the encounter. Rahab was in a military city. Also I was making a small footnote about Rahab not showing that as the only survivor or the whole purpose. There is much to this story as to why its reasonable to consider the importance of the conquest as well as why God told them to do it but also that mercy happened and they didn't commit genocide. We get a picture of that from the text and history overtime:
1 - Leviticus and Deuteronomy talk about the practices of the Canaanites and they were awful; demonic idols, taboo sexual acts, and child sacrifice like a mentioned to name some. God wasn't just mad at these people or just wanted to drive them out so the Israelites could have it. They had terrible practices for any society.
2 - As said, the cities taken over were not just any city with homes and lives like we might picture at first. These were military in nature. Joshua Ryan Butler writes in his book The Skeletons in God's Closet: _“The cities Israel takes out are military strongholds, not civilian population centers... So when Israel ‘utterly destroys’ a city like Jericho or Ai, we should picture a military fort being taken over-not a civilian massacre. God is pulling down the Great Wall of China, not demolishing Beijing. Israel is taking out the Pentagon, not New York City.”_
3 - God put boundaries around the areas they could conquer and areas to not harm (Deut. 2), they had peace offerings laid out to give the Canaanites a chance (Deut. 20) though many did not take it, and when they did fight the language used is about driving them out (exodus 23:27-30, deut. 9:1), not just on killing.
4 - Many of the Canaanites were spared as said. Like 2 locations we are told about of Hebron and Debir in Joshua 10 where we are told no Canaanites survived. Yet later on in Joshua 15 there are still Canaanite people living here.
The point is this isn't just God commanding Genocide and them carrying it out. It was structured. The enemy was bad on all moral ground yet were given ways to either surrender and/or survive. The idea of killing them all doesn't track with how it happened, how God laid it out, how the history unfolds, and how other ancient wars carried themselves. Its like how we fought to defeat the Nazis. They had terrible practices and needed to be stopped. But did we kill them all? no. We won a victory. This is what is happening here and why it's considered reasonable. Historical and scholarly research points to this beyond reading one text at face value.
I agree with Paul here. It's not an individuals opinion, it's basic survival instinct on a larger and larger scale. The same reason you wince when you see a video of someone getting badly injured, we're empathetic creatures. It's how we made it this far as a species
Even though the video cuts off at this point and there is more to the discussion, I think Frank has already shown that his perspective is fundamentally flawed. Just looking at history, if there is a god and he's the arbiter of what is good and not good, he certainly has failed in expressing and showing what that is. The Bible is filled with god violating his own commandments, laws and rules when gods feels it was necessary, or convenient, to do so. Reading the Bible doesn't provide a clear or even consistent foundation for morality. At best, it teaches, "might makes right" and "I made you so I can do what I want with you", which are moral concepts that are largely abhorrent today.
The answer to morality is more in line with what Paulogia says. People have empathy and they have a sense of what is right or wrong that has been developed over a very long period of time as people and societies have grown. People have made choices and developed morality as individuals, and they have gotten together in groups to discuss, debate, and develop what morality is. And in doing so, we've pretty much together figured out the basics, and we continue to debate the nuances and differences today. God didn't do that, and the Bible doesn't bring us any closer to that.
The "Axis and Allies" debate that Frank wants to solve with his god is foolish. There are people today that feel that Hitler was correct, at least in some of the things he did. Some people outright deny that the holocaust happened. Most people agree that the holocaust and the plan for world domination were wrong, and that's what makes it wrong. No god required. You would think that if god was going to solve that debate, he'd have the power and forethought to make it 100% clear, but of course god does no such thing. God let millions upon millions of people needlessly die during this period of history - for what? So we'd still debate it today? So we can sort-of all agree that the Nazis were bad and the Allies were good? Frank just provides a red herring argument to try and divert from the actual argument. He introduces what seems to be a "black and white" situation, and say that it can only be black or white because of God. And it's absurd.
Frank does this often, and so do other apologists. They love using the example of "torturing babies for fun" as an example of a "black and white" situation of morality. They love to say that if there is no grounding for morality, then torturing babies for fun is therefore ok. But that's again absurd. If everyone agrees that torturing babies for fun is immoral, then it is immoral. No god required. Hanging people on crosses and leaving them to die and rot is immoral, and nearly everyone in the world today would agree with that. But rarely do we talk about the morality of that - something which was an all-too-common event in Rome and other places during that time period. Christians don't even think about that - they are on board with it being necessary for salvation. After all, if Jesus wasn't crucified, then what? Crucifixion was a disgusting and immoral act. So was Noah's Flood (which never happened). So were many Biblical accounts of war, death, and treatment of people. And slavery. And stoning. And women's rights and treatments. On and on.
The point being, if Frank Turek's God is the grounding for morality, then He certainly has a lot to explain for why people strongly disagree with that morality, and why that morality is so inconsistent with what are the moral norms of today. Did his God just lack the foresight or the actual moral capacity to get it right? Why is Frank Turek's God so inferior to his alleged creation when it comes to morality? These are much better questions that deserve answers.
Scott McCalla -- so, are you suggesting that you have this all figured out? That you know how the universe was created? That you know how a concept of morality came into existence?
Also, you are grossly misrepresenting the Bible.
Are you a valid Biblical scholar?
Are you an avid learner and student of the Bible?
The majority say it's immoral to kill babies therefore it is immoral. So if the majority thought it was moral to kill babies it would be?
So in your opinion morality doesn't exist? Or at least there is no objective morals and only subjective?
So what about when it comes to things such as the treatment of women in certain cultures? They can't be considered as wrong as the majority thunk its OK.
On another note, Noah's flood.... there are plenty of historians who would argue there is evidence for a great flood
Whatever rules God gave through Moses applies only to humans. It doesn't apply to him. If you understand this, most of your above arguments fail.
It doesn't apply to him because he's categorically different to us. It's like a code should perform the way coder designs it. The coder doesn't need to do the same stuff the code does.
@Notim Yeah that's it. I can keep a rule to my pets that they shouldn't jump on to my bed. But I can sleep on my bed. God is greater than humans.
@Notim -- wow. No. Morality is not a human construct. Absolute right and wrong would exist with, or without humans. Same as math.
It is just one person's opinion against another. Except, person A and person B are the different opinions in the public discourse, aiming towards finding out what is best for as many people as possible. Claiming it is otherwise is denying moral relativism. But why isn't slavery permissible anymore, if it is more than just opinion; if it is more than just subjective? If slavery shouldn't be taken out of historical context and shouldn't be measured by today's standards, how is it possible to deny moral relativism then?
It's strange that Paulogia posits the idea of God being a 'tiebreaker' regarding morality, but doesn't see the same logic in advocating a concept of agreed societal principles for morality, as being the exact same thing.
That's fair, but I don't think that's the point that Paul is making here. One can be explained without relying on the supernatural, and thus makes it reasonable to believe in his mind.
@@ernest3286 To be honest, that makes the idea even more confusing. As a Christian for example, saying that God is the grounding for morality is still saying that the grounding comes from outside of ourselves. Society driven morality would have to be 'grounded' internally, which gives off more of a tiebreaker vibe than the idea of it coming from a Higher Being.
Yes that is the thing though that there are no agreed societal principles. Murder is wrong in many cultures but the nazis has no problem doing it. There’s a culture. Slavery is wrong but the Jews romans British American and many African nations today did it and saw no wrong in it. Rape is bad yet many nations allow it and have honor killings of the women does not marry her rapist, that’s not universal. Theft is wrong except in every war, disobeying the government except for revolution, if morality is absolute across all cultures why isn’t it?
@@annaclaytowaterson8283 As I understand it, when Paul says tie-breaker, he's referring to a third party in any situation that can come in and lend weight to an argument where both sides could conceivably be correct. So if you feel that Paul's society-driven morality also fits the description of a tie-breaker, you're absolutely right.
Which one better fits the "vibe" of a tie-breaker is not Paul's point here. Whether you think God or society (or neither) should act as a tie-breaker in determining morality is entirely subjective. Paul's point is that when you invoke a God of any kind to support your arguments, it feels very much like you've just pushed your friend Jerry onto the playing field and said "he's the referee now, and he agrees with me."
You don't have to rely on society to determine your morals, but if you want to be a part of 'society' (i.e., get along with people), then it does make some amount of sense to live by rules that most people can agree on. On the other hand, it *doesn't* make sense to appeal to an outside authority figure to determine rules that people should follow until you can at least show that it's plausible that said authority figure exists in the first place. When you say "my Christian God says I'm right and you're wrong," what I immediately want to know is why an invisible, unproven being that most of the world would agree doesn't exist gets to break the tie here and tell me what I should or shouldn't do.
Cos from my perspective, I don't see God telling me what to do. I see *you* telling me what to do.
@@ernest3286 That was the point of pointing out the irony in his statement which is tantamount to saying, 'why should your 'friend' get to be a tiebreaker, when instead my friends should be the tiebreaker'
The funny(weird) part is that the topic relates to morality, which looking from the outside, seems to be a word that people forget actually has a definition, as opposed to the linguistic gymnastics that needs to take place to find the best adjacent fit.
I'm pretty sure an argument from Theism regarding morality is specific to the grounding of it relative to a Higher Being, not specifically that the argument is being made for the existence of that Higher Being - that argument is further down stream. Now alot of people won't find that view persuasive for the reasons you've mentioned, fair enough, but it could be worse - people could argue that morality (remember has a definition) is a result of some evolutionary process. Maybe the rest of us are not inclined to engage in an exercise of how much 'reaching' we would need to do in order to find a coherent grounding in being a 'social species'.
Why do I have no sound? I click away to another video and there's sound. I click back to this, there's no sound.
Perhaps because you don’t want to listen to the lord and want to carry on sinning?
@@frankcardano4142 , it's a miracle, Frank, the sound just came back on!
@@erichodge567
Praise the lord. 🙏 😂
Whether it's an opinion or a separate standard is irrelevant if you have no access to that standard.
If a separate standard exists then it would apply equally to god, else it's just god's opinion.
We have no good reason to think the religious texts are true and many to suggest they are not. If you treat a religious text as true and follow its ethical principles you will very likely end up in prison.
I'd rather stick with collectively agreed "opinions" that have demonstrable positive results that adjust to new information than grotesque dictates with no evidence base.
Fortunately, there is a way to access that standard. What is unfortunate is that the Way to do that has been lost on the Earth for a long time and has been recently reintroduce to the Earth. That way is what Jesus taught in the first century(and has since been distorted through history) about a personal relationship with God where God gives you all the answers and you don't have to rely on any book or a priest to tell you what is right and what is wrong.
@@kristijanpavlovic8605 lots of people claim to have a relationship with god, they so strongly believe that their relationship is the true one that they'll kill each other over it, even when it's the same god they claim to have a relationship with. Hardly a great advertisement for a moral system. Perhaps if there were any good evidence for a god and a demonstrably successful way of communicating with it then people wouldn't need to kill each other, sadly there isn't and secular morality remains the best system.
@@greyinggoose5495 I agree, there are a lot of people claiming all sorts of things, but claiming something and that thing being true are two different things. I can assure you that anyone who is willing to be violent or even kill in the name of "God" has no understanding or a relationship with God. If they did, they would know that God does not condone any type of violence.
There is a way of communicating with God but it requires our feelings and emotions(which come from the soul) and not our mind(thoughts) , which most of us are fairly resistive to communicate in that way since emotions have mostly been beaten out of us since we were a young child. So the time we grow up, we are mostly highly emotionally suppressed and we use a lot of addictions to cover over our childhood hurt. All of that pain would have to be exposed and felt by us if we wanted to have a relationship with God and most people are not prepared to do that.
@@kristijanpavlovic8605 it's interesting to me that you recognise the difference between truth and claims yet fail to recognise all you're doing is making claims and cannot reliably demonstrate the truth of any of it. We've been waiting thousands of years for good evidence yet here we are.
@@greyinggoose5495 everything I have said can be experimented with and therefore it can be determined whether I'm telling you the truth or not. I think there's plenty of evidence, it just depends on what you view as evidence.
Frank is correct: one persons opinion against another is the best we have. Fortunately, opinion can change, subjective morality can change. We can review the outcomes of situations, we can see suffering and have it appeal to our emotions, we can bring awareness to suffering, and unfortunately, we can also hide, ignore, or down-play suffering and persuade others to do the same. Luckily, we humans are generally a very emotional animal so we can feel sympathy and empathy for others, and generally, most would see well-being as a good thing, equality as a good thing, and the suffering of others a bad thing. But objective morality takes all that away and says “this is how you SHOULD feel” or “even if you feel this way, you are wrong about your emotions”. I’m not sure Hitler winning would have automatically convinced the world that his views are moral. He as an individual may have convinced a few, but only by changing their natural emotional response.
You're smuggling in a hidden "ought" in your subjective moral argument though. Why is empathy and sympathy for others a good thing? When I can be empathetic towards only my family and rob everyone else in order to feed my family. It doesn't matter if "most" people would see well-being as a good thing, majority rule doesn't dictate something is moral. The term "well-being" is so vague and doesn't bring anything new onto the table. When you state "we can review outcomes and see how suffering can make us feel empathetic", you're just describing how things are, but also implicitly implying that we should strive "well-being" for those who suffer. But remember you can't derive an ought from an is. It seems like you hold to a utilitarian ethical theory but the problems with that it is inconsistent and can be used to justify anything.
@@tuav you mean like Christians can use anything to justify their behavior. Churches didn’t condemn hitler in Germany. Christianity has justified every murderous bloody thing it has caused using god. Hypocrisy is its only constant.
The existence of an objective morality doesn't make it such that you should feel a particular way about a situation or dilemma. You can still have imperfect knowledge about an objective morality even if there is one and reasoning from that imperfect knowledge be completely justified in having feelings even if they do contradict the objective moral values.
There's another big consequence of there not being objective values though: you lose the ability to improve moral values. There would be no standard at all to even begin to make a judgment of whether one moral value is better than another. There's simply no point in having a discussion about moral values if none of them are grounded in objectivity. It would be opinion versus opinion, none of us would be more right than another even if we strongly feel that way. We can of coursestill discuss them and convince each other, but we would know that no improvement was made at all. Moral values merely changed and that's it. And now we feel better about them.
If objective moral values do exist then there's a reasonable case to be made that these improvements that we feel we've made are grounded in reality and not mere superstition.
@@brianpeterson3884 Yes, all people regardless of religion are fallible and committed grave sins. There are even people today that abuse Christianity and rip it out of its context such as the KKK. Unfortunately, you cannot judge an entire religion based on its abuse. Look at the words of Jesus, who is the founder of Christianity, and compare His actions and words to discern on who is a real Christian or not. And the statement "Christianity has justified every murderous bloody thing it has caused using god" is an extremely exaggerated statement. Although there has been bad moments, Christianity is one of the primary reasons of why Western Civilization flourished and is one of the greatest civilizations ever, because of the influence of Christian culture and thinking.
@@tuav I wasn’t trying to hide the ought, but now you’ve brought it up I would agree - all we have is ought. True it is inconsistent, true it can be used to justify anything, true that it is a problem. But unfortunately that’s all we have. The best we can do it try to make a faux objective morality by introducing laws into society. But again that’s an ought. I’m not saying it’s perfect, I’m saying it’s what we have. Just because it would be better if we had a list of is’, doesn’t mean that we do. If you wanted to go around robbing people to feed your family, and your own subjective morality allowed it, then go for it. But unfortunately, everyone else who could sympathise with the people being robbed will see your actions as unethical and immoral. You may tell yourself that it’s fine but everyone around you who could imagine what it would be like to be robbed by you would disagree. However, you might be able to say that robbing people is bad, but allowing your family to die of starvation is worse. In that instance, where is the cut-off? If you robbed from a big chain is that ok? Or if you manage to feed your family but can’t afford desert, is that ok? Just because I’m saying that morality is subjective, I’m not saying that the issue of morality is solved.
I don’t think that evolution ALONE can ground morality, there are definitely social and experiential factors involved - as well as the ability to internalize and reason (all quite natural). Grounding morality on God, on the other hand (also known as divine command theory) suggests that we are merely blindly obeying commands (like slaves). If God’s nature is good then good = god and moral reasoning (explanations for WHY something is good) is senseless.
id say morality is purely a social construct personally
Kim Swanson -- God is the foundation and ultimate standard of morality. As God's creation, we are supposed to ground our morality in God... but, we are sinful by nature and we don't do this as we should, and many people don't ever do it at all. -- that doesn't lower God's standards, or what is expected of us.
-- that's why we need a Savior. Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay our sin debt. We believe in Him, because we cannot attone our sins on our own.
-- Also, we are not slaves, and we don't operate on "blind" Faith. God has given us His Word, His evidence in creation, and He has given us His Son to redeem us. --- this is overwhelming, because God loves us. -- but, one must open their eyes to the fact that they sin, and need a Savior.
@@thormunable Yes, because even in "gray areas" often we end up just saying "well as long as behavior/ action x isn't hurting anyone its okay". Which to me speaks to the social aspect of morality basically being whats best for the group is moral and if it doesn't affect the group them it isn't immoral (homosexuality, and many other "sins"). The root of our morality is subjective (human flourishing = good) but we can make objective morality statements if we can agree that that's what morality is. Thats why we can say the nazis were objectively evil, if we can subjectively agree that killing humans is immoral.
@@jeffkrantz9916 Ok, but which god? And before you say the Christian god, then I will have to ask for you to specify which of the over 40,000 denominations within the Christian religion is correct? If God is the foundation and ultimate standard of morality how is it then that there are a multitude of competing religions, and thus a multitude of equally credible yet contrary foundations for morality. An all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good Being would not tolerate confusion.
@@kimmyswan -- there is only one true God. The God of the Bible, who has revealed Himself through His Word and through His creation. -- God is the foundation of all. -- the scientific proof God has revealed for creating the universe. The mathematical proof of the Bible is also undeniable.
-- there are a multitude of denominations because of little nuances that have no effect on the overwhelming fact that we are sinful, and we need a Savior. Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins. But, we need to accept that gift, and believe in Him.
-- there are numerous religions because many people do not want to acknowledge the one true God,... yet they know that they have to have a reason for their existence and their behavior. But... they want to do things their way. Again, we are sinful, and need to be transformed. -- but, many simply just continue to want to rebel. They think they know better than God. They deny God.... but, that doesn't change truth or reality.
I am nondenominational. I believe in God. I know I'm a sinner and I need a Savior. I profess that Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior, and He died on the cross to pay for my sins, and He rose from the dead to complete my salvation.
To say that morality is a default that was bestowed upon all humans by god is to say that morality is a perfect, highly specific code that should never need modification.
If this were the case, our perception of morality would never have to change over time to evolve with current societal expectations. However, it unquestionably has.
A couple hundred years ago slavery was universally acceptable, so much so that the bible outright supports it.
Our modern view on slavery is that it is morally reprehensible.
This complete 180 degree change over time proves that morality ONLY comes from social acceptability and not at all from a creator.
Hi Kara, the laws of morality are perfect and they are unchangeable as they stem from God's nature which is eternal and unchanging. The thing that changes is human perception of these moral laws, as we become more and more aware of the truth on what is and what isn't moral. God is Love and everything God creates is in harmony with love. Morality is a part of laws of love and the more we as humans learn and grow in love, in the way God defines love, we will approach God's definition of morality.
@@kristijanpavlovic8605 Hi there! I think I understand what you're saying. God doesn't give us an internal map to morality, but more of an internal compass?
@@karakaspar1791 yes, but it's a bit more complex than that, as you would imagine. I have to say that I feel that not everything in the Bible reflects the true nature of God and therefore doesn't represent God's morality accurately. Some parts are erroneous, like the one you mentioned and there are examples where God is violent, which is not the case in reality at all. God does not condone any type of violence, whether it be physical, mental or emotional.
That being said, I'm still learning and developing a relationship with God so I also may not be 100% accurate on everything I say here, just have that in mind. There are many ways in which God delivers truth(about all sorts of subjects) to us and He does it on a moment by moment basis. It's just the matter of how open and humble we are in receiving and accepting it. The way God designed us is that we can have a direct connection with God, in two separate mechanisms. The first is the conscience, through which God shares truth with us, if we have a desire for it. If not, we can shut down the "channel" so to speak and not allow ourselves to hear what God is telling us. The other way of direct communication with God can be established by receiving a substance from God, God's Love into our heart which has the effect of transforming it from a "heart of stone into a heart of flesh". Meaning that it softens us and expands our heart's capacity to love ourselves, others and God. In that way our heart becomes the compass that leads us and tells us what is loving and what is not, including what is moral in any circumstance.
Most of us are pretty resistive in having a direct connection with God so He has to use other mechanisms to deliver truth to us. He uses other people, events, animals, the environment, spirits, our pleasure/pain mechanism etc...so we would eventually learn the truth.
@@kristijanpavlovic8605 I see. Your description is much more insightful than the the one from the video! The argument that the christian gentleman was trying to make is that, as humans, our sense of morality is ontological, meaning it is programmed into our biology and, of course, that god programmed us this way. He is arguing that there is an objective sense of right and wrong that most rational people subscribe to whether they have a relationship with god or not. This seems false to me considering how greatly moral principles can vary across different cultures. So I believe that morality does not exist outside of the context of societal and cultural norms and perhaps ,as you taught me, through a spiritual connection with god.
I'm curious, do you think that the gentleman from the video is correct? or do you think that to receive guidance on true morality you need to open the "channel"?
Alsoooo back to what you said... I wouldn't say that god does not condone ANY type of violence considering the fact that he regularly sentences people to hell just because they don't believe that Jesus is their savior despite the fact that there is no evidence other than a super old book that (as you said) contains many errors.
Would you disagree that sending a flood to kill almost everything on earth is an extreme act of violence? Sounds like mass murder to me lol
@@karakaspar1791 thanks! I would say that morality has nothing to do with biology as morality pertains to the soul. Our bodies are just biological machines, an interface which the soul uses to experience life and express itself. Again, I would say that it's a complex thing due to the fact that humans have fallen from perfection and become imperfect. So even the act of examining imperfection from the point of imperfection is flawed, if you get what I mean.
I do believe objective morality exists, as a heap of laws that all stem from God's nature and character and are unchanging. The way to prove that those laws exist is by seeing and examining the results of abiding them or breaking them and measuring and comparing the results. Whenever we break God's laws there is always pain and suffering that is created and when we work in harmony with the law there is always peace, harmony and joy created. I do not believe those laws are automatically written on our heart(heart is the metaphor for the soul in this case) but that we rather learn and discover them through our life. I do feel we have an intuition of what is truth and what is love, due to the our perfect nature as I believe we were created perfect, pristine and when we incarnate we absorb all of truths and errors our parents had on all sorts of subjects so that muddies the waters a lot.
We can either discover them through our own trials and errors(which include other people telling us) or through a personal relationship with God where God tells us directly. Most people choose the first option for variety of reasons. Mainly because they for not know how to establish a direct link with God or they do not want to do it. I do feel that God is trying to tell us truth through our conscience and other means as I've described but we have the free will option to ignore those attempts. The only way that I have found for those laws be written on my heart is through the reception of God's Love where that love educates me on all sort of subjects, including what is moral and what is not.
Yeah, as I've said there are many errors in the Bible so when there's lack of love or logic, it most probably isn't true. God does not kill his creations. Why would He? He created us perfect, and He also created a perfect system that correct us when we act outside of harmony with those laws. Hell does exist but is not eternal and people who end up there are evil people who do not know or understand love. No one ends up in hell just because they do not accept Jesus. On the other hand, no one ends up in heaven just by accepting Jesus...
Christians on morality - in a nutshell.
_But if there is no land of Oz, where does the Yellow Brick Road lead?_
Atheist on morality- in a nutshell.
We are the by product of a cosmological accident, there is no ultimate purpose, but hey guys we ought to love one another and treat everyone equally.
@@jacobroel
You think it's a bad idea..?
@@jacobroel can you express te problem you see.
@@jacobroel That sounds ideal.
@@Rei-Rei Why is loving my fellow human ideal but eating them is not? Like a lion eating a zebra?
Ooh i wish the discussion was longer
Thank you for sharing this clip. It seems like this was cut from a larger discussion, and I was very curious to hear what Paul would have said after the end of this clip in response. If it were me responding to Frank’s last point, I might protest in a couple of ways: 1) he seems to be giving an either-or scenario, but there are other options to consider, and 2) he appears to have misunderstood what Paul was getting at in reference to our general sense of morality being inextricably tied to our biology through evolution. If Frank were to push back on evolution, that would be surprising, given that it is a fact, and since all the convincing evidence is there if you search for it. And since it is a fact, it is easy to connect our behavior with our survival.
I beleive it's from the "Unbelievable?" TH-cam channel. The discussion is titled "Star wars, superheroes and Jesus".
Frank actually was affording the idea of evolution and biological flourishing. His proposition though was showing that “Hitlers” ideology of human flourishing was a real possibility granted if his regime were a success, yet the question would still remain, after that population “surviving” and thriving, would he still be wrong? This is the question that goes beyond material and naturalistic terms he is arguing. In fact, Hitlers whole reasoning for those atrocities committed was based on evolution and the flourishing and survival of the “stronger” races. So in terms of biology and the naturalist interpretation, if one people group wants to flourish more than the other, there is no objective grounding of any kind of moral constraints that would or should hinder. And those of us who would try to stop that proliferation would only be doing so based on our own personal subjective opinions and morality without an objective standard. So remove all life and biology, would good or bad still exist as categories? By placing a definition of those terms is assuming an objective definition would it not? This is what the ontological point Frank is alluding to.
@@travishickerson2688 I noticed that too. That's the bottom line, it's either subjective or objective and each conclusion has very telling limits. One conclusion allows rape to be bad at all times, while the other does not. Ppl really are good at overcomplicating things.
The moral argument always seems to boil down to what world would be most ideal to live and often forgets: What world do we live in?
Even if without God you can't ground morality objectively, so what? We are still in this world, stuck with our fellow humans to live our lives. Morality in this case isn't a math quiz where there's one objective, undisputable answer to a question, but a problem we have to solve together for ALL of our benefit, because neither of us wants to be hurt. It's not "what is 2+2=4", it's "what rules can we advise to live our lives best when interacting with each other"?
The problem is there are people who don't want to solve it. They believe they are right and it doesn't matter if you believe what they believe. Annihilation of the opposition is the solution. The other side is willing to talk about it but if the other side only believes in his ideology then Hitler really has to go and allied powers should win to keep the peace even just for a time
The word "god" fills in for "I don't know".
Next comes the name, the gender, it's qualities and what it wants.
After that the fighting begins over who "god" is Boss.
I disagree
Because you cannot have a direction for what we should do, without an ideal to strive towards, and if there is no objective morality, then there is no ideal. After that it just becomes who has the most power to realize their vision of the world the most, and no matter how bad, or how much it screws someone over to achieve that, you cannot claim they did anything wrong.
Are you related to Matt D. ? Again refusing to why we need a justification for grounding moral laws and duties will justify objectively why we act or judge the way we do in a constant basis not how you feel every day when you get off of bed.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 Once again, you're talking about what world you want to live in, not the world you live in. Making the argument "if there's no objective morality" is irrelevant. Is there an objective morality?
If God is the author of morality, its still subjective morality. If morality is independent of god, then is objective, but then God would be unnecessary for morals.
“If morality is independent of god, then is objective,”
How do you come to that conclusion?
More like, independent of minds, including God, but that's a minor inaccuracy.
@@thomasb4467 If its independent of all minds
God is not moral. He is a mass murderer of the unborn.
This is a common undersight. Obviously the way it works is a God that is the author of all existence has full arbitrary authority to decide everything about Tha reality. He invents space, gravity, physics, matter, emotions, and morals. He also defines the who, what, when, where, and why of all these things. Sure this argument could mean God isn't bound by the rules of morals that apply to us. But I fail to see how that doesn't make sense. God wouldn't be bound by space, time,gravity, or physics like we are either. Those are rules that apply to us, but by merit of being the creator of those things, he would be inherently beyond it.
Buddhist ethics has no need for a creator to ascribe right and wrong. It is self-evident that your own actions reap good, bad or indifferent consequences and that we thus reap what we sow. A very simple recipe for a better world.
Buddhism
The Eightfold Path consists of eight practices: right view, right resolve, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right samadhi ('meditative absorption or union'; alternatively, equanimous meditative awareness). Wikipedia.
The difference between the two positions is that Paul's position has empirical evidence which supports it, doesn't prove it, but supports it well, but Frank's position is all faith, no empirical evidence. Frank also has a very bad habit of strawmanning all things atheists
It seems to me that what grounds morality is for the most part consensus. Not so many years back almost everyone was agreeing that owning other humans and selling them was fine. Nowadays the western majority consensus is different.
But consensus is more than „just opinion“.
So I think, evolutionary processes lay the groundwork but the battle of ideas and indeed feelings determine our moral framework in the end.
Morality is an agreement. Humans are animal primates learning to adapt and cooperate for the benefit of all.
That's a very poor idea of morality. Because by that measure, any act, no matter how depraved, violent, or horrendous it is, is okay so long as it is condoned by the group.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 it‘s just an observation. That I sometimes don‘t like the outcome of that process doesn’t invalidate the truth of the observation.
Fortunately humans seem to tend to acknowledge the well-being of all our species more and more as a worthy goal. But that was a development that took thousands of years.
And the good thing about this view is that you can participate and take action. Help shape this consensus to make life better for more people.
@@gmlr no. Humans tend to vote for whatever allows them/those they are grouped with to survive/succeed/thrive. Once that means throwing another indivual, or group under the bus to do so, the vast majority of people won't hesitate to do so.
Human history is littered with such examples of going with the flow, just to get along, if others gotta suffer, so be it as long as it's not me, or mine. And if you think that fact of humanity is ever gonna change, then your banking on a pipe dream.
There is no grounding for the idea that survival and following nature are positives or "good" within an atheistic viewpoint. From a Christian perspective, we can view how God designed nature, and conclude that survival is good because nature is designed to survive . But from an atheistic perspective, where creation is all random chance, then the design of nature would be random chance as well, and there is no reason to derive moral truths from it aside from a personal opinion that nature and survival is good.
The very argument is, as Dr. Turek likes to say, stealing from God, since it steals the assumption that we can gleam truths about reality from how nature is designed, which is an assumption that only makes sense if there is a creator.
Nicely put 👍🏿
There is no grounding for the idea that following God's design is positive or "good" within a Christian viewpoint. (This type of rhetoric can go both ways.)
_"it steals the assumption that we can gleam truths about reality from how nature is designed, which is an assumption that only makes sense if there is a creator."_
Perhaps this is where the confusion lies. I'm not using that assumption at all.
"From a Christian perspective, we can view how God designed nature, and conclude that survival is good because nature is designed to survive ."
So survival has no "goodness" in and of itself unless it is designed to that end. So the goodness of survival is in the intention for it to be that way "by design" ... and there's a reason behind God's intention that it be this way rather than any other?
You don't know that a god designed anything. Actually, you don't even know a god exists.
Also, if nature is designed to survive, why is it that 99.9% of all species that has ever existed is now extinct?
Most atheist that I know don't believe the universe came about by random processes. The universe is theorized to have come about by natural means. This process doesn't require a creator. And besides, where did this creator come from?
This is a nonsense statement. People weren't created. We are also not a product of random chance, we are a product of natural development and evolution. People have determined what is right, wrong, moral, immoral, and best for individuals as well as in groups. And we still debate it today, especially the nuances. If God had any hand in morality, don't you think he would have established it a whole lot better than how it is? But no, it's always been very unclear, and a product of human development. And even today there is much that is unclear. God could have made it very clear from the beginning, but the best we have is the Bible, which promotes and allows all kinds of immoral and abhorrent acts, and even changes over time. Does that sound like a God to you - an entity that promotes immoral and abhorrent acts, and changes over time?
It is very clear how morality works. What is good and not good is up to the individual, but as groups (organizations, communities, states, countries, etc) we decide what is moral and immoral, and it differs depending on the group. Most groups come to similar decisions, which is why murder is usually abhorrent. It's not because of the 10 Commandments, because obviously God and his chosen people don't follow these so-called Commandments. I eat shellfish. I am wearing a fabric-blend shirt, and I am working on Sunday. These are not immoral to me, although to god it is written that these are (or at least were) immoral acts. Yet my peers also don't see them as immoral. So are they? God's book seems to say yes, but people say no. Who's right, and how do we know?
This "grounding" of morals is nonsense and it's just part of the apologist's tools to con people to believe in their particular religion. Morals are determined by people, not by a god. That's absolutely crystal clear.
If Frank concludes that Nazi genocide was “bad” and against God’s law then he would have to agree that Saul’s genocide of the Amalekites was also wrong.
No, because what makes something right or wrong in his worldview is just God saying it is right or wrong. God said to kill the Amalekites, so it was good. If God had commanded the Holocaust, that would be good too by the same standard. Basically, actions aren't actually right and wrong, it's about who told you to do them.
@@someguy2249 I hope you're joking
@@someguy2249 That’s completely untrue. You’re just presenting one side of the Euthyphro dilemma.
@@jeremiahgrayest
Sadly no. SomeGuy is pretty much spot on.
@@brando3342
Do you prefer the other side of the dilemma, where God is not in control of "good and bad"?
I don't understand Franks point. Is he saying that he wouldn't like it if morality is subjective?
He is saying that in order for there to be objective morality, there has to be some standard beyond the human. That standard being God. If there is no God, morality is just an opinion and therefore subjective.
EDIT: For clarification, I do not believe that religions have a correct depiciton of God as there are many errors, illogical and unloving teachings in them. I believe God to be a perfectly loving, logical and just being.
If anyone is interested, the truth about God can be found at the Divine Truth youtube channel.
@@kristijanpavlovic8605 yes but so what?
@@slyker25 there is a big difference in morality being objective vs subjective. It changes everything in your life.
@@kristijanpavlovic8605 that isn't relevant.
Frank says if god doesn't exist then morality is subjective. So what?
Morality IS subjective
@@slyker25 Morality is not subjective.
I think frank is confused on a bunch of subjects, I see that paulogia's responses are very accurate, and it seems like frank just doesn't want to understand anything
I wonder if inviting Paul onto his channel is a good idea.
Paul is very skilled at picking apart religious claims.
@@JamesRichardWiley yet he himself doesn't have a claim to stand on..... Wow heroic.
@@jacobroel Exactly!! He doesn't have any claim to stand on😂
In nearly all wars both sides thought both god and good are on their side.
Which god
@@johndeoliveira8476 any relevant god at the time. There are so many.
@@richardbradley1532 doubt the real God would be on a side of men that used his name for evil and at the same time blasphemy his name
@@johndeoliveira8476 which real god?
@@richardbradley1532 Yashua
Love the civil discussion and maturity from both sides. I agree with Frank’s point on this one
I still really want someone to demonstrate objective morality. Meaning something is objectively wrong, that there's a standard within reality by which we can measure an action against. Something that exists independent of minds.
Minds don't exist?
@@iseriver3982 It's possible for minds to not exist, but they do exist.
If you are a normal, healthy person with a good character you instinctively know what is right and wrong - for you. Debating it is pointless.
First you have to constitute what would count as a demonstration of it. Because if you refuse to define what evidence would work, then you can always move to goal posts. If you insist that we should be able to measure objective morality in the same way you measure the length of a stick, then you are already talking nonsense. You might as well ask someone to destroy the number 3. Obviously that's impossible, sure you could build a big number 3 out of wood, and burn it down, but that does no alter the reality that 3 as an integer exists apart from any physical representation of it.
Morality is the exact same way. Just like math, it apples to physical reality, but is not inherently a part of physical reality itself.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 if math isn't a part of physical reality then how come pi exists?
Frank judged and defines the being he worships as "good". It may be a being that aims for maximal suffering...
If god is good and God wants suffering, how does that "good" even relate to our moral intuitions anymore?
I don't believe that Frank worships the psychotic, baby killer in Genesis.
He worships his other self "Yeshua" who loves everybody but demands obedience to his rules or else.
Just because God is good, why do you assume He is the source of our suffering? There are 3 major world views; 1) that everything comes from nature, 2) that everything is a frame of mind, and 3) that God created everything good and man messed it up. All 3 must deal with the problem that things aren't the way they're supposed to be, but the evolutionist (naturalist) has no solution to this problem, neither does those who are pantheistic. The Judeo-Christian mindset says there is a loving God, and we rebelled against Him almost right from the start. Yet, knowing this God put a rescue plan in operation. Since God said death was the payment for sin, He needed to find a perfect person who would be willing to die for the sins of the world. That couldn't happen, because there were no sinless men. So God came as a man, born of a virgin, tempted in all ways the we are, yet without sin. Because of this He was able to offer Himself up to die for us. When He died on the cross He nailed our sins and the requirements of the Law to the cross for us and gave us His righteousness. He doesn't change your environment, but He changes us in our environment. Tragically there will be some that will go on thinking that God is some evil monster constructing pain for us, while the rest of us will be praising Him for lifting us above all the carnage.
@@rockandsandapologetics7254
"1) that everything comes from nature"
"All 3 must deal with the problem that things aren't the way they're supposed to be"
I'm not following here, do you think there is a "problem of evil" -argument to be made under the assumption of naturalism ?
Is one of the premisses "things are not what they are supposed to be" ?
Who "supposed" something when there is no creator ?
Can you explain that argument please ?
@@rockandsandapologetics7254 why would a loving God arbitrarily decide the punishment for sin is death and that the ritual murder of an innocent somehow solves this?
@@kylewalsh5397 First God is the source of Objective Morality. The punishment for sin being death was not arbitrary. In Genesis 2:15-17 it reads, "The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, 'Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.'” Of all the things God created and did, He gave mankind ONE thing he was not to do. Only ONE. It seems that was fine for some time, but in chapter 3, satan clothed like a serpent (at that point serpents walked, so get the idea of a snake out of your mind) He lied to Eve. She bought the lie AND GAVE TO ADAM AND HE ATE ALSO. Adam should have told the serpent to get lost, but he allowed this creature to deceive his wife, who managed to get him to eat. Instantly the fellowship they had with God was broken. This was not God's plan. His plan was that we HAVE fellowship with Him. So something needed to be done about the sin. In the days of Moses priests offered up sacrifices for each family every year. That's because man was sinful and could not take the sin on himself. So God became man and took the sin on Himself. To all who believe in this God-man Jesus, and His sacrifice for them, they have eternal life. For those who do not, they are condemned already. God will not force Himself on us. And yet He still has provided a way to have that fellowship that was lost in the Garden.
You have to specify what is meant by good. If your definitely of good is god, then in your mind god is the source of all good and good cannot exist without him. However, if good is defined as what benefits mankind overall, such as wellbeing, then god isn't needed for good to exist. Now who determines the definition of good?
Who determines the words benefit and wellbeing? Without God there is no good, just "good", whoever determines what good means for them. This is not true as it is evident by our life experience that objective good and objective evil does exist.
To me nature looks profoundly amoral most of the time. Grounding morality in nature simplifies it to a question of survival, doesn't it? Pleasure/life=good... Pain/death=bad.
At the end of the day, all moral decisions can only be a construct of human consciousness, and therefore, doggedly subjective. We can only ground morality on our individual interpretations of a mysterious set of perceived facts, filtered through our unique biases and conditioning.
It is unimaginable that Hitler truly thought he had a moral high ground, but you have to admit it seems unlikely that the many, many German people who followed and helped him thought they were doing something objectively evil.
So, since morality is also subjective to human shortcomings, following nature's lead, and grounding morality in pain reduction and increasing pleasure in the world would be a decent step towards fixing some of our real problems, would it not? God is a no-show, bible's no help... we need to do this ourselves.
I agree. Hitler believed in 'Survival and domination of the stronger races over the weaker ones'. That was his morality. To him it transcended individual compassion. If Germany won WWII this might have been the dominant view/morality taught in all schools world wide. Weaker people, cultures and races would have been exploited and even eliminated. Fortunately the Allies won the war whose ideals of equality, freedom and human dignity largely prevail today and so this is our current 'morality'. For many centuries and even millennia, slavery and racism in most cultures was considered normal, acceptable and 'moral' by the majority as ancient economies relied on slavery. The Bible even condones it. (Ephesians 6 v 5). However with the industrial revolution in the 1700's slavery was not so critical for economies and the ideas of freedom and equality (eg French Revolution) became popular and this became the new 'morality'. Morality is subjective, varies between cultures and is constantly evolving. It is essentially the majority view point in any particular society.
I would say morality is not as different between cultures as many would make it out to be.
For example murder, cheating, stealing, etc are almost universally seen as immoral. The particulars of how those are to be applied may be different, but the premise remains the same.
And if morality was truly subjective, then we would have to come to the realization that there is no reason to adhere to it. The only right way to live would be to do what you must and avoid retribution. There would be absolutely no logical reason to follow a disproven idea like morality.
And a final point. From an atheist point of view, the Bible is an attempt at "doing it ourselves" as it is man made. So why would the moral framework provided there be any worse than any other.
@@owlobsidian6965 The reason morality is similar (but not exact) between cultures is that humans are basically similar in their hopes, fears and aspirations. Murder, cheating and stealing are fairly obvious ones. If these were not widely accepted as immoral there would be anarchy as people would constantly be defending their family and possessions from everyone else and so could not cooperate to improve society. You could only have small groups of family hunter gatherers suspicious of other groups. However there are still differences between cultures. In some, polygamy is considered moral in others only monogamy is considered moral. Depends on the property rights, gender ratios and attitudes towards women. There is no 'universal' reason to adhere to a certain morality. The reason is ultimately what the societal reaction will be to your 'immoral' action. If there is no adverse societal reaction or disapproval to your action once it becomes widely known then it is not 'immoral'. An important factor is what belief system we instil in our children. If a child does something we don't like we exhibit anger, displeasure or any other negative response including punishment. The child will then develop their morality/belief system based on this and it will be reinforced by the wider society. Different parents have different values/belief systems and so there is an evolution of this over time. I am sure the Bible was a reasonable standard in its day but it is now out dated and does not cover all the modern circumstances of today (modern medicine, contraception, technology etc). Things that the Bible prohibits such as wearing clothing woven of 2 kinds of material (Leviticus 19 v19) or not eating rabbits (Deuteronomy 14 v7) are not really relevant and Christians choose to ignore these.
@@davidstirk4732 exactly my point, there are morals that are universal. As the human condition is the same across cultures and time, there are certain essential morals that are required to have coherent and fruitful human interactions.
While some of the cultural norms contained in the Old Testament may not seem relevant in modern times, the core moral framework of Christianity is very much still viable to this day. What specific Christian (not ancient Israelite) moral ideas do you find are no longer applicable?
Beautiful. Thank u
Yes, it is just an opinion. But a collective opinion. A few hundred years ago, the collective opinion in the US is that slavery is OK. These days, that isn't the collective opinion. We are a social species and the collective opinion changes as the collective changes.
"How can we say it is the Allies who are right?"
You can't, that's what makes morality so difficult. There is no simple, objective measuring stick; as evidenced by the fact plenty of people, even today, think the Nazis were right. And if they had won, we might all be praising them today, just as many Germans did while they were in power...
Lets put together 100 babys, examine them for 3 years and then decide which of them are allowed to live on, because 50% of them came out to be weaker (or the blood-results shew they were 51% jewish).
Is this your world view? An Atheist should say „Yes, terminate the 50 weak babys“ if he is honest. But the conscience tells him: „No way!“
It is always wrong to murder, it is always right to forgive.
This is why biblical Christianity, in a very practical sence, is superior to any other philosophy out there as a means to „bring humanity forward“ or „build the paradise Kingdom“. You wont. Humanity at its finest has produced nothing but loss of life, suffering, and injustice.
After death, the judgement. All those who repent and believe in Christ Jesus for salvation will have forgiveness and life eternal.
@@dominicwinterberger1058 Pregnancies with severe genetic disorders are terminated regularly. So are those that significantly endanger the life of the mother.
@Frederick Shull Everything is indifferent from an objective sense, the universe doesn't care whether you drive to work, or shoot someone on your day off.
But WE care; as people, as a society, we care, because other people are important to us. The dilemma comes from how exactly we weigh our wants and needs against each other, which people's wellbeing we put before that of others, and to what degree. People have given very different answers to that dilemma throughout the course of history, and there is no way to determine which, if any, of them were correct.
@Frederick Shull That is entirely correct. Most of us just agreed at some point you shouldn't be allowed to stab people, because most of us don't like to be stabbed. But there is no objective standard behind that, it's just something we humans decided on.
@@Marconius6 Murder based on uncertain facts.
How do people who do not share your belief be moral.
I don't know, maybe you could ask them.
Imagine that Frank found the ontological grounding for morality, and somehow discovered that eating red skittles is objectively wrong. Being the deviant that I am, I find a red skittle and pop one in my mouth. Does anything happen? Is there any reason whatsoever for me to refrain from eating these red skittles?
Are you comparing eating red skittles to what the Nazis did?
@@choosejesus1910 Sort of. I intentionally chose something unrelated to human flourishing for my hypothetical, since Frank insists that's not what morality is ontologically grounded in.
Why should I not eat the skittle?
@@incredulouspasta3304
I like skittles. Sour skittles especially.
@@Mike00513 Just be careful about the red ones. They are objectively immoral or something.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 I think you missed the point of my hypothetical. I'm not addressing any scary implications of Christian morality. Rather, I'm pointing out that Franks specific argument in this video has _no implications_ whatsoever.
Nature grounds morality in many other species, not just humans. For example, herd animals often have "bodyguard" animals who keep an eye out for predators while the others graze. When he sounds the alarm, he puts himself at risk, because the predator also hears the alarm call. He is less likely to survive...but the gang consists largely of his extended family, so his genes have a better chance of survival, and thus evolution reinforces that guarding behavior. Voila, morality without the need of a written list of dos and don'ts. Any soldier who voluntarily goes to war to protect his family and his country should be able to empathize with that.
If all things were created by God, seeing morality in nature can reinforce common design, the same one creator.
@@jimp5133 Right but the question is where does morality come from under naturalism. Once easily answered responding instead with "yeah well everything is created by god anyway so ha" doesn't refute the fact that morality can be explained without him. Besides, the origin of the universe is a different question to where morality comes from if not form God. Under that logic, EVERYTHING is evidence of god, but that's only if you already believe he created and is responsible for everything.
Pick a question/stay on topic.
Morality can easily be explained by natural selection.
No one knows how exactly the universe began or if it even began. Either way the origin of the cosmos is a little beyond the scope of the question of where morality comes from anyway.
>herd animals often have "bodyguard" animals who keep an eye out for predators while the others graze. When he sounds the alarm, he puts himself at risk, because the predator also hears the alarm call. He is less likely to survive.
This is false. The one that raises an alarm is not the one most likely to die, the sick are the ones or the target the predator has already chosen. And no herds do not have watch animals. Parents will watch over the young, yes. Alpha males will watch to protect his harem. But there are no guard animals.
@@Enaccul so we can equally propose both, naturalism is an evolutionary premise propped up.
@@Enaccul if we are creation then naturalism can’t explain it.
Paul makes a strong case. Paul always makes a strong case. The idea that mortality is founded on God, makes no sense. It just doesn't. I have not heard or read a logical evidenced argument for the case of morality being grounded in God. I haven't heard a sensible argument for it.
Agreed, and even if a God did exist an gave us a moral code, we still have the Euthyphro dilemma. Is God good because it is good by some standard or is God good because God says God is good. I've heard apologists argue that the answer to this is that God's nature is good, but that doesn't solve the problem. Good by what standard?
@@yuxini2976 Yes, God's nature doesn't solve the Euthyphro. His nature is totally arbitrary. He doesn't pick his nature and if he DID that would mean he was appealing to some standard in order to know what nature would be the most moral to pick!
Heres an article made by an atheist, maybe it does a better job explaining to you: "Morality requires a god, whether you're religious or not.
I have no religious convictions. I am, or try to be, a man of reason, not of faith. Nevertheless, I believe a few simple arguments demonstrate that morality requires a god.
Take moral commands. It is trivially true that a moral command is a command. A command is a command, right? It is also true that commands (real ones, rather than apparent or metaphorical ones) are always the commands of an agent, a mind with beliefs and desires. My chair cannot command me to sit in it. And commands cannot issue themselves. It follows that moral commands are the commands of an agent or agents.
Many philosophers maintain that moral commands are commands of reason. They are right, I think. But the point still stands. Reason’s commands are commands. Therefore, reason’s commands are the commands of an agent or agents. So if moral commands are a subset of the commands of reason - and they surely are - they must still be commands of an agent or agents.
We are agents. Could moral commands be our commands? That does not seem plausible. For one thing, it would mean we could make anything morally right just by commanding ourselves to do it. That doesn’t appear to work - and we can test that easily enough. Command yourself to do something that has hitherto seemed obviously wrong to you - physically assaulting someone, say - and see if it suddenly starts to seem morally right to assault someone now. I bet it won’t.
If moral commands appeared to us to be our own commands it would strike us as silly to wonder whether an act is right or wrong, or think anyone else could provide us with moral insight into the matter. We know better than anyone else what we are commanding ourselves to do at any given point, so it would be obvious to us that we could establish the morality of any deed by introspection.
Yet we all sometimes wonder whether a particular act is right or wrong, and consider it perfectly sensible to think others may have greater insight than we do into the matter. So moral commands appear to be external.
Appearances can be accurate or inaccurate. Appearances of external commands will only be accurate if there are external commands. Whatever else a moral command must be, it must be something capable of making an appearance of a moral command accurate. So, moral commands must be external commands: the commands of some external agent or agents.
It’s no good suggesting that moral commands are commands of our communities. Communities are not agents, so cannot actually command anything. And it seems clear physical assault will not suddenly appear right to us just because a majority of agents decide to command us to assault someone.
Another basic truth about moral commands (and the commands of reason more generally) is that they have a single source across all of us. This can be demonstrated by the fact that “Tim is morally commanded to X” and “Tim is morally commanded not to X” are clearly contradictory statements. They cannot both be true.
Yet, there would be no necessary contradiction if moral commands could have different ultimate sources. And as those statements contradict each other whenever or wherever they are made, moral commands must have a single unifying source across all space and time.
Now we can put it all together:
Moral commands are commands
Only agents can issue commands - so moral commands are the commands of an agent or agents
Moral commands have an external source - so moral commands are the commands of an external agent or agents
All moral commands have a single source across all of us and all time.
Therefore, all moral commands are the commands of a single, external agent.
We are heavily influenced by moral commands and other commands of reason. Thus, this single agency is immensely influential. Moral commands are, then, the commands of a unique, external, eternal agent who has colossal influence over virtually all of us.
It is no abuse of the term to describe this agency as a kind of god. Thus, the commands of morality (and the commands of reason more generally) require a god because they are, and can only be, the commands of one.
This raises an obvious worry: what if there are no gods?
Well, if that is the case all moral and rational appearances constitute illusions and all our moral beliefs are false. Happily, however, there seems no rational way to reach this conclusion. If the commands of reason really do require a god, then that god exists beyond reasonable doubt.
For any argument that sought to show that a god does not exist would have to appeal to some commands of reason, and thus would have to presuppose the existence of the very thing it is denying. The same applies to any argument that seeks to show that the commands of reason do not exist in reality. All such arguments undermine themselves.
Thus, if the commands of reason are - and can only be - the commands of a god, then that god exists indubitably."
"By Gerald Harrison"
@@yuxini2976 Catholic answers has this exelent response: "How to know good and bad
First, let’s take premise three. A theist, at least of the classical sort, has no problem in affirming that God commands an action because it’s good. Now, my theist buddies might be thinking, “Why are you affirming the antecedent of premise three? Doesn’t it imply a standard of goodness independent of God?” No. Let me explain why it doesn’t.
In the natural moral law tradition as articulated by St. Thomas Aquinas and others, what is good and bad for human beings is determined by the various capacities and ends set for us by nature. So, for example, nature directs us to preserve our own lives. This is something we share with all living things. Nature also directs us to preserving our species through procreation and rearing of children-something we share with animals specifically. Finally, nature directs us to certain ends or goals that are peculiar to us as rational animals: namely, to know the truth about God, live in society, shun ignorance, and avoid harming those with whom one has to live.
The whole understanding of good and bad is based on these goods of human nature. Any behavior that facilitates the achievement of these natural ends is considered good-that is to say, it will fulfill human nature. Any behavior that frustrates the achievement of these natural ends is considered bad-that is to say, it won’t bring about human flourishing.
God commands because an act is good
Now, God commands all actions that facilitate the achievement of our natural ends; i.e., the good, and prohibits actions that frustrate them; i.e., the bad, because he wills our perfection. So, we can say God commands certain actions because they’re good.
But this doesn’t mean a standard of goodness exists independently of God. First of all, as a universal, human nature preexists in the divine intellect as an archetype by which God creates. As such, the ordering of human nature is an expression of God’s will-it is of his making. Therefore, the measure of goodness for man¬-i.e., human nature-is not independent of God.
Moreover, God is necessary for human nature to have an act of existence in human beings, both to come into existence and to remain in existence.
So, given the traditional understanding that human nature determines what is good and bad for man, and given the understanding that God is the author of that nature, affirming the idea that God commands something because it is good does not imply a standard of goodness independent of God; thus premise three is not a problem for theists.
Can God command evil?
This leads us to a question that has to do with premise two: “Can God command us to act contrary to our human nature-i.e., do what is evil?” If we can prove the answer is no, then premise two, like premise three, has no persuasive force against theists.
There are two reasons we can put forward for why God can’t will us to act contrary to human nature.
The all-wise God
First, if God were to command us to act contrary to our nature, then he would be violating his infinite wisdom. Why would God create us with a specific nature, and order that nature to certain ends, only to command us to frustrate those ends and thereby violate our nature? That would be unreasonable.
As I wrote in a previous blog, this would be analogous to someone installing an air conditioning system in his home and then turning the system off every time it turns on to cool the house. One might reasonably ask, “Why did you install the air conditioning system in the first place?”
Similarly, it would be unreasonable for God to create us with a nature ordered to certain ends and then command us to frustrate the achievement of those ends. But given the perfection of his intellect God can command only in accordance with reason. And since willing what is good for us is in accordance with reason, it follows God can’t command us to act contrary to our nature. He can only command good actions.
More specifically, God could never command us to torture babies for fun, because torturing babies for fun violates the goods of human nature, both our nature and the babies’ nature. As Brian Davies writes:
God could never command us to torture children because, in effect, that would involve him contradicting himself, or going against his nature as the source of creaturely goodness (The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil, 102).
The all-good God
A second reason why God can’t command evil is that if he were to do so, he would lack in goodness, which is metaphysically impossible, given the classical understanding of God as ipsum esse subsistens-subsistent being itself. According to the doctrine of the transcendentals (aspects of being-e.g., being, one, true, and good-that transcend Aristotle’s categories of being), being and goodness are convertible.
So to say God is subsistent being is the same as saying he is subsistent goodness. And if God is subsistent goodness, then there could be no privation of goodness in him. But to command us to act contrary to human nature, i.e., to do evil, would entail a privation of goodness. Since this is not possible, it’s incoherent to say God could command evil actions. That would be like saying the all-powerful God is too weak to lift a rock he created.
St. Thomas Aquinas takes this line of reasoning:
God is the highest good, as has been shown. But the highest good cannot bear any mingling with evil, as neither can the highest hot thing bear any mingling with the cold. The divine will, therefore, cannot be turned to evil (Summa Contra Gentiles, I:95).
Conclusion
I’ll admit that at first glance the Euthyphro dilemma seems to propose a major obstacle for theists advocating God is necessary for morality. But when a coherent explanation of what constitutes good and bad for human beings is given, and one understands God is the ultimate ground for that standard of good and bad, then the Euthyphro dilemma no longer has any force against a theistic account of morality."
Yahweh is not moral. He is a mass murderer of unborn babies and it's still going on right now.
0:50 strong and altruistic. Which heroes classically meet that?
Damn, the video ended before Paulogia could answer that point.. that if morality is subjective, it's just one opinion against another... yes, it is, but we can evaluate the different opinions in a real sense by seeing the consequences of each opinion..eg: had Hitler won, would the total extermination of a subset of people... jews, gays gypsies etc, be a good thing? ... i think we can state categorically that it would not be good if you happen to be a jew, gay or gypsy... if we go by the golden rule... how would i like it if someone did that to me.. it's safe to say none of us would want to be exterminated..so, overall, Hitler winning, and killing other minority groups would ultimately not be good for society. Would the Nazi's like to be wiped out? no. ..so don't do the same thing to the jews, gays and gypsies.
The hitler, Machiavellian type is “wrong” from a naturalist perpetual in that they are not accounting for the undeniable fact that humans are a social species, and that no sub type of human is intrinsically more valuable than any other
Paul, like yourself, cannot answer any of the points in a rational or consistent manner. All you're doing is assuming things that make no sense given your own position. Proving, as always, that you are unable to either rational or consistent within your own worldview/philosophy. You are always using terms with a moral impetus, which is the very thing in question. You've spent 50-years of your life confusing yourself, and could not have been too successful, because week after week and year after year, here you are, making the same foolish arguments and getting debunked over and over and over again, only to return and repeat the same nonsense over and over and over again. I fear all you're doing is dragging yourself to hell.
@@jessebryant9233 Appealing to in invisible being to solve that "problem" is everything but rational. And of course it doesn't solve it.
Jesse Bryant At the end of the day, your “objective” moral values are coming from subjective interpretations of a book written thousands of years ago. No matter how hard you try to convince yourself and others that you have some objective grounding for your morals, you do not.
@@vejeke
How is the appeal to what could only be a transcendent authority irrational? And yes, the God of the Bible does solve it...
I'm glad Frank separates what he knows (epistemology) from what is real (ontology_. Lots of people don't get the difference. think that if it exists you can know it, and if you can't know it it doesn't exist.
And the grounding of morality is the question, not whether people feel moral.
He separates them at times, but he never actually actually explains WHY moral ontology is important. Pay careful attention to his questions.
"How can we say the Nazis were wrong?"
Well, we'd have to know something about morality, wouldn't we? His concern seems to be that without God, we can't justify our claims that X or Y is right/wrong/good/bad. That is fundamentally an epistemelogical issue, not an ontological one. Paulogia's point is that the existence of moral facts, or objective morality, or any of these ontological questions doesn't help anyone in behaving morally, since we don't have ACCESS to those facts in any verifiable way. Paul was extremely clear: if we have a goal, we can evaluate actions and outcomes with respect to that goal. The goal itself is subjective, but if we can agree, why does that matter? It's not merely "Paul's opinion" that the Nazis were bad. It's the position that any informed person who accepts that human flourishing is good and human suffering is bad.
Let's grant Frank's position. Somehow, we know that there is a true, objective standard of morality. Without knowing what it is (aka moral epistemology), how does that help us say the Nazis were bad?
@@MrSpleenface I'm not expecting everything! Especially in a clip.
Your thought that if you can't know it, that it must not exist, is an inherently infalsifiable presupposition though. Why should we go on such a thought that can never be verified, ,or falsified.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 That's not what I said, at all.
I asked what EFFECT on moral decisions the existence of objective moral facts has if we can't access them.
Let's say we're trying to write rules to run society.
There's a face down piece of paper, that we have on good authority contains the objectively correct rules.
It's out of reach, none of us can turn it over and read it.
You say we should do what the sheet says.
I say if we can agree that flourishing is good and harm is bad, we can create rules to maximize that for everyone on average.
How is your approach better? You can point to the sheet, but that doesn't help in creating the rules, because we can't read it.
@@MrSpleenface oh it has no effect at least not an immediate reprocissive effect due to the wrong, or right decision. like you aren't going to be hit with a magic force field that eliminates your ability to do objectively wrong things. And why would you want that? It eliminates the choice in the matter, thus eliminating the point of doing good for the sake of doing good.
As far as no reprocussive consequence, but mabey having a verified list of objective good, and objective bad. Well the argument can be made that we do have that in the form of the Bible, and ten commandments. But that brings up the issue of without being struck down by god immediately for violating that moral law, what kind of verification could we have? And if God does straight up interviene any time someone chooses wrong, then we're back to eliminating free will.
Turek is essentially saying might is right. If Satan won the war in heaven, turek would be adopting the other guys morality.
No, the point Turek wanted to show is that atheism points to might is right because the only reason why we think the Nazis are wrong is because the allies won, since there are no absolute groundings for morals in atheism.
He's not talking about skydaddy. Your argument is based on Milton's writing as opposed to Christian doctrine. Turek's saying there is NO way to get from is to ought without a grounding force.
No, the opposite. He's saying might is right on a naturalistic pov since we are conditioned to have a western morality because the wester thought is the prevailing thought in the world. I don't know what war you're reffering to because that never happened, but i assume you want to say what if God was evil, would than our morality be evil but considered good? The problem here is that when we look at the ontology of such a being, he is Good and therefore the arbiter of what is Good and what is Bad. We won't be able to make that judgment saying "oh but what is bad is now good" because without that same Arbiter, no good or bad exist. The question you're raising is in fact called the "euthyphro dilemma" in which the question is something like "Does God like something because its Good, or is it Good because God likes it?". However its a false dilemma because there is a 3rd option - Good and God aren't separate meaning that God is Goodness, and Goodness is God.
@@ljubaceranic937 "However its a false dilemma because there is a 3rd option - Good and God aren't separate meaning that God is Goodness, and Goodness is God."
God is good, good is God ... I don't see what this solution contributes to an understanding of or basis for good beyond a name change and an associated (but redundant) personality. God is good ... okay, but even if I accepted that equivalence, why is good/God what it is rather than other? The dilemma seems to still be there.
Could good be totally disassociated from our well-being and flourishing and yet still be good "because" it was Godly? Can you offer or even imagine such an example?
Where do you get that conclusion from? That makes no sense. No wonder for an atheist.
How does the existence of moral facts or objective morality (the moral ontology frank seems so concerned with) actually help us make a determination vis a vis the Nazis without an accompanying moral epistemology?
To those who believe in God: Where does God get his morality?
If you asked God "why is this action more moral than that action?" Would he say "Because I said so, and literally no other reason." or would he say "because of the following reasons,..." and lay out a philosophical justification that doesn't reference himself.
If your conception of God leads you to believe he would give the second answer than you believe morality exists outside of God. If you God would give you the first answer than you believe in a capricious deity whose morality I reject.
If you believe God would give a different answer please help me correct my false dichotomy.
God is the standard of goodness. not that he arbitrarily made up morality but has had the same standard of morality for all eternity. its his nature. So it would be closer to your first answer in your dichotomy but needed some clarification.
@@FALL3NW0RLD What do you mean when you say "God is the standard of goodness."?
I think that standards are purely abstract concepts, not something that is strictly speaking "real". That does not match the understanding of God as a real conscious entity most theists I know hold to. I think we might be using different definitions for the word "standard".
If you believe that God models moral behavior in all circumstances then that model has limited utility to me because a powerful god will have options in responding to circumstances that I do not have. For example, I could not allocate scarce resources by multiplying them to feed a multitude with five loaves and two fishes.
There's truth in both.
Supposedly, if God is the creator of everything, then he is over everything. He has every insight of his own creation, and how it works. 'I am the way, the truth, and the life.' , he says.
But also because God is life, the reason to follow him is to live. Everything that is regarded as a sin leads to decay, and eventually death. That's the reason behind his morality. If he knows how things work, then he can tell how to live a good life in his world. If he orders to live by that, it shows his good will. Also, it usually comes up that if God created a perfect world, humans wouldn't sin or die. In the beginning, Adam and Eve only had to die because they decided to sin. Originally they didn't have to. In a world where people can't sin, is there free will at all? You can do anything, but it will have consequences. The difference between the human world and God's world is that in God's world you can't cheat judgement. However, you can be forgiven, contrary to the human world of limited grace.
You really should read the Bible besides asking people if you are seriously interested, because until that, you don't know if they say what is in the Bible, or what they themselves invented.
Was this helpful?
@@p.b.5107 Thank you. I am not sure that I understand your position, but you are trying to help me understand. That is helpful by my definition.
The way I understand your position is that you seem to have an almost pantheistic view of God. God is life (or THE life as John 14:6 puts it), so a little bit of God is in all things that live. Following God is pursuing life, and rejecting God is rejecting life. If that is not what you mean, I apologize and ask you to clarify.
This does suggest a third option to my dichotomy. If you conceptualize God in a way that includes the wellbeing of things that we value (like life) any value placed on that thing we value is some form of honoring God. I know this conception of God goes against the beliefs of many people, but it is an option I should have considered.
As for reading the Bible, I was a Christian for most of my life. I have studied the Bible. My question was not to find out what the Bible says, but what some theists (including non-Christians) believe. If you are wondering, my conception of God was that he would have given a justification for his pronouncements of morality, putting myself solidly in 'Answer 2' camp. Even when I was a believer I did not give much weight to the argument from morality
@@michaeleldredge4279 Now I understand you much better, thank you for explaining.
I supposed we were talking about the God of the Bible, as it is the case in the video. But now it's an even better question for several reasons, and for much more people. The funny thing is, that my concept of God is that one from the Bible. Consequently the Bible becomes my source for God's image. So I tried my best to only tell what the Bible says.
Reflecting on your first paragraph, it is somewhat part of what I was talking about. Especially rejecting God concluding in rejecting life.
Shortly put, let's suppose God is the source of all lives, and life is regarded good. Then we ask the question, what is God's source of morality. The answer contains both of your first two possibilities:
God's morality is the compass to the bettermen of individual and societal life. Why? Because God knows best, since he is the creator.
It's self referential, because the existing things supposedly originate in God. But it's also reasonable, because it helps you live in the God made world with God made rules. The reason is to benefit everyone.
There are other moralities with reasons. The gamble is whether or not there is God. If there is, the other moralities won't save people from final destruction. If there isn't, then I think that it's only power through strength that puts someone's values over others'.
I got confused in your third option. But I'm curious about that too.
I think the fact that Paul answers "Well that depends on how you define good" to the question around the 3:30 mark is one of the most honest, and telling, things about this entire idea of morality without God. So you're basically saying that morality is decided to be "that which is agreed upon by the majority" . . . and that thought doesn't terrify you? What majority gets to decide these things? In a "just survive and flourish" model, the majority of powerful people would be the ones who decided. Physically powerful people, or those with the largest amount of resources. If all we are meant to do is survive and flourish then we wouldn't need morality at all. Morality and altruism would be a hindrance, because you have zero reason to think about another human being outside yourself, or maybe your direct family. It dehumanizes everyone else down to "what can I get out of you in order to advance my own position". Recognizing that someone has intrinsic value and determining where that value comes from are two very different things.
The majority will win whenever the outcomes are acceptable and beneficial to the majority. The problem is the people who have certain beliefs about a god, want to defacto impose ther beliefs on everyone, whether the majority agree or not. Yes I am pro-choice, and I am in the majority and I want to continue to exercise my free will.
If you look at the Old Testament and most of the new, all the rules are clearly set up to benefit powerful men and the warriors they command. Most of humanity, until maybe 2 or 3 hundred years ago, was just physically powerful people imposing their desires on everyone else. Christianity was no exception. It took the secular enlightenment to finally change this paradigm, and religion has been dragged kicking and screaming into modern ethics with the rest of us.
@@justlikeu7659 but this doesn't answer my question at all, it just rephrases the problem. Who determines what is meant by "beneficial"? And what majority decides this? Think in terms of wealth; the majority of wealth is held by a small number of people. Should this small number of people decide how the rest of our lives should be lived simply because they have a majority of resources? Or should something be considered beneficial just because a large number of people agree to it? What if we woke up tomorrow and a large number of people (say, over 75% of a given population) all decided that in order to increase the odds of survival for their population, they should kill all children under 2 years old because it would free up X amount of time and money, and it would allow more people to go back into the work force. Is this actually beneficial, or is it a horrendous idea that has no place in society?
@@weirdwilliam8500 I think you can argue that most rules are set up to benefit powerful men, but so what? It's not their power that's the problem, it's what is done with that power. In other words, the morality. And Christianity absolutely was the exception. It came along and said you need to take care of, and value, the poor and weak and needy just as if you were taking care of yourself. That was completely counter intuitive to the current culture.
@@Lightborn1311 Oh? Is this set of principles why serfdom was the model in all of Christendom for more than a thousand years, which was a form of de facto slavery? Why women were seen as inferior under god and under the law? Why slavery was justified for hundreds of years according to the clear biblical laws that condone it? Was it why Christians enacted genocide on millions of people around the world for hundreds of years, in an effort to convert or destroy them? Why the Church sold indulgences to the rich? Christianity did all this, and better people have fought against this religion to get us where we are today.
It was the humanism of the secular enlightenment that developed ideas of human rights and human dignity, of representation, liberty, and self-determination, of the pursuit of scientific knowledge to understand and solve our problems. Christianity is absolutely exceptional, in that it says we are all depraved, wicked, should not trust our own understanding or desires or wishes, are deserving of infinite torture by default, and are utterly worthless unless a god takes notice and smears magic blood everywhere. This theology is grotesque, and it's holding back every pathway of human progress today, as it has for hundreds of years.
Let's say homo sapiens has been around for about 200,000 years, and managed to survive well enough for you, I and many others to be here. Obviously social co-operation was essential, and that involves social rules of behaviour. Is Frank really claiming that for well over 100,000 years, -before Jesus, humanity had no moral compass at all ? Special pleading, methinks.
You know that Father God of israel is the father of Christ right? before Christ, people still followed the God of Israel which is the father of Christ. Jesus didnt need to be here yet...
Remember, well before Jesus, there was the 10 Commandments and other Jewish Traditions.
Jesus, as a Jewish Rabbi and Messiah, would have come to build on that foundation which preceded his physical existence.
Before the Jewish Law, most Christians would claim that God wrote the Moral Law on Men's Conscience. Remember, you don't need any religious system whatsoever to ground your morality in God.
Theres things that cannot be explained by evolution. Love for example:
Love means loving someone without having expectations or limiting beliefs. It means caring for someone, putting their needs before your own, and having a genuine desire for their happiness. It teaches you the value of kindness, compassion, and selflessness. You always have that one person by your side to hold your hand when the going gets tough.
Love doesnt satify our needs, the contrary is true, it creates more needs.
Love is not mechanistic, it is also part of Gods nature.
Love is not just a social utility, social bounding, child rearing...
We love people who have died, wheres the social utility in that?
Love transcends dimensions of time and space.
Love can connect us to our loved us that died, love can connect us to God.
Love is something that we dont fully understand, as for every emotion, science cant even explain dreams. Love is something higher than just mechanistic. Love doesnt need to provide mechanistic solutions, it has them as a second effect but it is not the main effect of love.
:materialism was debunked by quantum physics. Nothing is just mechanistic.
@@goncalojesus7583 actually love can be scientifically explained, measured and tested. It's a combination of chemicals and how your brain process them. The bodies reaction when it 'feels love' can be observed on MRI's and that is used to understand what causes certain people to feel love as well as what it is that causes people to feel it to varying degrees. Such as imbalances or differences in the brain that affect the quantity or regularity with which your brain processes these chemicals. God does not need to exist for the feeling of love to exist.
What you describe is closer to empathy than love and that is in fact a result of evolution within social species. We see or feel pain and realize that, as a society, condoning or allowing that pain to be inflicted is detrimental to not only individuals but to society as a whole.
@@TFStudios That is not science explaining emotions, those Results from such studies made just make clear that human emotions are not just fuzzy feelings but 'real' in an objective scientific sense, inasmuch as they produce measurable signals in reproducible experiments.
We still cant recreate emotions on virtual simulations or explain how those emotions are created, we just can explain what are the biological effects of emotions.
As I said above, Love is not necessary for survival, it actualy makes survival harder bc you feel conected to people who you lost and that can even cause depression wich lowers your chances of survival a lot!
Love is not the same as just empathy, you can feel empathy for someone without loving that person. You can feel empathy for an animal for example, how does that help us survive?
Many people are vegans bc they feel a lot of empathy for animals. It would be hard for them to survive in the wild where you need to hunt to live.
Many animals dont show empathy for theyr kind. Male lions for example kill each other and the rivals offspring. Empathy is not as usefull as many think.
only in response to the question at the end of this clip,
god or not, is not the thing.
the humility and wisdom to know that neither you nor your enemy are any closer to god, is.
Proximity to good, or, proximity to moral, as equivocation to proximity to god, is unnecessary overdesign on the part of thinking beings,
and so I'm with Paulogia in that the reality, and therefore, details, about which side is right, matters, and that god, an inconmensurable concept, only strips the rational discussion of its reality.
casuistry
1: a resolving of specific cases of conscience, duty, or conduct through interpretation of ethical principles or religious doctrine
Notice that the existence, mystery, or nature of a god does not presuppose the validity of these materials which are interpreted for the purpose of casuistry.
I'm 73 years old and still looking for Yahweh or his son. Either one will do.
@@JamesRichardWiley
a) giving god a name is like putting a decal on a corvette. Fairly certain it will not answer to that
b) sounds like you were brainwashed, or are being facetious, or are just acting pious by saying that looking for god is a baseline to a human existence or something
There’s no objective grounding for morality even if there is a god. For all we know god(s) put us here to watch us suffer. Belief in a Christian worldview is subjective. All we can really go on is our conscience and what is culturally acceptable. That’s as objective as it gets. Morality is more than just an individual opinion though.
How so? Can you give examples?
@@crota8373 examples of what?
Some people are conscious of God and go on that.
@@richardhunt809 That morality is subjective and there is no objective moral
@@crota8373 what is the source of objective morality? If it’s god then which god and why? And how does belief in that god answer our moral dilemmas? How do we know that paedophilia is wrong? It’s not condemned in the Bible, so how do we know what god thinks about it?
Even of there was a god, it would just be his opinion vs a human on morality
You don't need God to determine what is right and wrong. Morality is rationally grounded in the golden rule. You need God for it to be rational to be moral. If there is no judgment for misdeeds and no eternal life for those misdeeds to matter, then morality doesn't matter either.
“there was only one Christian, he died on the cross” "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him."
"You need a set of rules to adjudicate whether something is right or wrong". Without a moral objective, there is no point of reference to start the adjudication process. If (a big IF) the Nazi and Japanese successfully defended their territories and unanimously defeated the Allies, it is still wrong to massacre and oppress the millions of innocence civilians. Why? Because the Word of God said you shall not murder, human has intrinsic worth, be kind to one another, etc, which trumps any argument about human flourishing as the oppressors will insist that the Nazi and Japanese shall flourish while the rest can eat dust and rot to hell.
_"Without a moral objective, there is no point of reference to start the adjudication process."_
Right. Step one is to find some common ground.
_"Because the Word of God said you shall not murder... which trumps any argument about human flourishing..."_
Only if both parties agree to prioritize what the "Word of God" says. If they don't, then you are back to square one. The reason why secular morality is much more useful, is because you can get much broader agreement to prioritize general human flourishing, than to prioritize a particular set of scriptures as the arbiter of morality.
@@incredulouspasta3304 @Incredulous Pasta @Incredulous Pasta you said that secular morality is more useful as it has much broader agreement to prioritise human flourishing. As far as the Nazi and Japanese are concerned in WWII, they support that school of thought and could not understand why the Allies would want to obstruct their great mission to flourish their human race.
@@jpcchiang _"could not understand why the Allies would want to obstruct their great mission to flourish their human race."_
If that's the case, then ontological grounding wasn't the problem. The problem was that they were factually incorrect about what promotes human flourishing. The solution is to demonstrate that they are incorrect.
@Incredulous Pasta how did you come to that conclusion that the Nazi/Japanese were factually incorrect about what promotes human flourishing?
I want something to be a certain way, therefore my argument is true is not really an argument.
If you god has opinions on shell fish.. it is not an objective source of anything.
I was never indoctrinated into *ANY* religion, the idea that you need the Christian god to be able to justify what action is moral and what isn't looks childish to me.
Image someone tell you (seriously) that if Thor doesn't exist you cannot justify your moral positions... 😳 Wow! It's shocking what religion can do to people's minds.
Well, it’s not so much a specific God, it’s an uncreated eternal being that is perfect. That being is necessary to morality. Without that being who is above all of us, then morality is relative and anything goes.
@@user-gx4wi4cv2m "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
@@vejeke And the dismissal is no better than the assertion.
@@browserboy1984 Yes, but it may not be enough for someone like you, with such high standards of evidence.
I have it tucked away in the evidence drawer, along with the irrefutable proof that the fairies, spirits and the god of the bible are real.
@@joedaley1878 Yeah right, those who dismiss Thor without evidence are in the same position as those adults who believe in his existence... 👏🏻
Saulogia thought humans lived with dinosaurs most of his life until a few years ago
Frank currently believes in sky daddy
@@Enaccul If that's your most sophisticated view of the Unmoved Mover, that says more about you
@@paradisecityX0 You're saying don't listen to Paul because he USED to believe in silly things. Well Frank CURRENTLY believes in silly things. Not sure if you want to use that logic.
How about instead we look at what they actually currently say and believe, because if you need to poison the well...it honestly says a lot more about you.
@@Enaccul I say listen to all sides. But his understanding of what he no longer believes STILL is silly since he looks at it though a fundamentalist lense.
Frank currently believes in rational things. If you think the universe magically exploded out of nothing and unwittingly arranged itself -- resulting in infinitely complex lifeforms because...just because, I'm not sure l really care what your idea of silly is.
Saulogia poisons the well all the time. But it's ok when your tribe does it...
@@Enaccul Plus, Saulogia is part of the Woke cult. They believe all manner of batshit crazy things
Saying "I ground my morality in God" is meaningless, unless everyone who says that has same morality, which is not the case. God based morality is also just one person's opinion against another. Forget Morality, even what God is also totally one person's opinion against another's.
Also, even yeast cells, with no brain, mind or soul have altruistic tendencies, and when starved for nutrition, around 95% cells sacrifice themselves so that 5% may survive on their remnants. Tendency to sacrifice is baked into selfish genes, so that one copy of DNA may survive at the cost of another.
Would like to know how would Frank go about demonstrating that objective morality comes from his god, otherwise this is just like saying objective morality comes from superman, spiderman or anything else, it's just his claim,
Whereas reality shows us morality is fluid, situational and therefore is subjective, it comes from me, from you, and branches outwards throughout society.
Frank is saying that if there is no God then there is no morality. It’s merely your preference to mine. A child predator isn’t wrong, he just us different preferences. If there is no God you can’t really call anything evil, all you can say is that you don’t like it.
“reality shows us morality is fluid”
How did you come to that conclusion? Is there a situation where the Nazi’s killing 6 million Jews is moral?
Hi Carl, the way objective morality is demonstrated is by the results and effects we get from abiding the laws of morality or breaking them and comparing the difference. In every case when the laws of morality are broken, there is pain and suffering created for everyone involved. In every instance the law is respected, harmony, peace and joy is created.
What society has shown us is that our perception of morality is fluid and that we have to at some point come and recognize(and accept) God's view of morality if we ever want to be happy and fulfilled.
@@thomasb4467 again, that word "god" it gets us nowhere, yes, we have what is called morality (the choice between doing good and bad) and again I say it comes from me, from you, and differently throughout societies worldwide.If you think morality comes from god you will need to show how and from which god (there has been a few proclaimed throughout the ages).
Now, the thing with the Nazis is that most of them (the soldiers and suvilians) was against the atrocities that took place, just like in Russia now, they're going with their leader, the leader controls the majority, the leader has the power, and that is what religion does, religious people give the power to god, I bet you and most belivers don't advocate for slavery, genocide, mass murder of children, stoning unruly child to death or punishing someone forever for miniscule crimes, but belivers still go along worshipping there god who advocates for those things, yes if you are a Christian you're giving glory and power to the dictator who will commit immortal things that you don't agree with.
@@carlv424
I’m not saying morality comes from God. I’m saying that without God there is no such thing as good or bad nothing is moral or immoral. It’s merely your preference to mine and it makes no sense for someone who doesn’t believe in anything outside of the material to even speak about morality. For something to be good or evil there must be a standard that we can judge by to know. If there is no standard then there is no morality.
It’s pretty simple.
@@kristijanpavlovic8605 "the laws of morality" you will need to explain these laws to me as I see morality as subjective.
you stated " objective morality is demonstrated is by the results" you then further stated " society has shown us is that our perception of morality is fluid" how can this be? if morality is objective then it cannot be fluid.
"we have to at some point come and recognize(and accept) God's view of morality if we ever want to be happy and fulfilled" I assume you're a Christian believer? if so, my morality tells me that slavery is not good, genocide is not good, mass murdering of children is not good, stoning people for picking up sticks on the sabbath day is not good, I can go on and on, and you're saying we need to accept these sorts of morality to be happy and fulfilled?
We're flawed humans, we do bad things and we do good things, but on the whole, we do more good things, we do very well with our morality, as flawed and diverse as they're.
The fact that Paul was absolutely demolished by Kent Hovind in a debate, actually in multiple debates...)] Just blows me away that he would even think to go up against Frank Turek
are you on drugs?
@@magicker8052 worse he’s on indoctrination. Hicks is a liar, perverse,
con man and yet many people do not see through his smile. While he sues his son and his third wife complains he stole from her his fourth wife says how great he is. While the scientists he cites condemn his bastardized science the illiterate cannot read his lies. While he calls for the execution of those different from himself the immoral cheer him on.
😆 Kent Hovind is completely ignorant of everything except how to parrot refuted points and how to talk fast and never listen to what the other person has to say. He is the kind of person for whom the term "Scamvangelist" was coined. He has never answered a direct question in a debate. I'm sure he bored his fellow inmates stiff when he was in prison, and the thought that he ever beat ANYONE in a debate is laughable.
Kent Hovind? LOL!
Paul debated Kent Hovind? And Hovind somehow won...?
If God gives a command, it's still one person's opinion against another. It's just a really, really smart and powerful person's opinion against a far inferior being's opinion... If God said his favorite flavor of ice cream was chocolate, would it become an objective fact that chocolate is the best ice cream? It just seems weird to say that God saying something means it is objective, rather than it just being a really good idea.
Frank, you do not get your morality from god.
Even if we were to accept that the bible is true (which it clearly is not), you do not follow the moral law set out in that book, and you do not follow the morals that your god seems to follow.
You have made your own m,oral code, based on your feelings and opinions. Subjective morals, just like the rest of us.
Why did you delete your comment on the other video?
@@Doc-Holliday1851
I didn't man.
I made a comment asking what happened to it. Looks like they deleted a heap of comments on that video. I had 3 other convos going on other threads that are all gone now.
What was your last response? I'm happy to continue here
@@somerandom3247 I doubt very much that Cross Examined deleted comments. But TH-cam’s comment system has been getting progressively worse recently.
I can’t remember the exact wording of my reply, but simply put I was waiting on you to explain how life could exist if abiogenesis isn’t real.
@@Doc-Holliday1851
It seems to only happen to me on this chanel. You are probably right in that its a yt issue, but it doesnt seem that way based on my experience.
I actually think that abiogenesis is the only option.
life has clearly not always existed. The universe was inhospitable to life (as we know it) for a long period of its history.
And given that life is completely comprised of non-living matter(when reduced to its smallest parts) I see no need for a god.
You offered life as evidence of a god, but i don't see how it is. I don't see any part of life that a god was involved in.
Can you point to the exact thing that a god was clearly involved with?
@@somerandom3247 sorry but I’m going to have to push you on this. Saying that all matter is “lifeless” at its most basic form is just another way of claiming abiogenesis. This is a full metal alchemist situation. You can have 100% of the compounds that make up a human being, but it won’t be alive even though at its most basic form everything is exactly the same. What you seem to unknowingly confirm is that there is something intrinsic, yet immeasurable, that causes something to be living. But I’m not going to get into whether or not we have a soul. I want to know how life could possibly exist if abiogenesis doesn’t and we don’t have a creator.
"If the atheistic worldview is correct and there is no purpose to life..." The atheistic worldview is that there is no God. It's actually the Christian worldview that says that if there is no God then there is no purpose to life though, so I understand your confusion. Thanks for the quality video, Frank.
@Frederick Shull It's a somewhat logical conclusion if you're a Christian, yes I agree.
@@Zac200812 atheism is more akin to Satanism because the core belief is that you can do whatever you want. Aleistar Crowly said ""Do what thou wilt" shall be the whole of the Law." Sounds a lot like what we're seeing more today. 🤔
@@pigzcanfly444 No idea what you're talking about. As an atheist all I can tell you is that you seem confused.
@Frederick Shull Why are you talking about naturalism? I was talking about atheism. You seem to be confusing topics here.
@@Zac200812 care to specify where I am confused?
So, according to the Bible, the god of the Bible is an immoral monster (murder, genocide, child cancer, rape all flow from his choice to create this universe, and not the infinite others in his power). He chose this, exact, world. He could have chosen a world with one less child being raped - and didn’t. Unless your god isn’t all knowing… see Epicurean Dilemma. He could have chosen a world where everyone freely chose god, but he didn’t - unless you think god isn’t powerful enough to do that. Within the Bible, morality is subjective - lying is wrong, except when it’s Rahab and then it’s a righteous act. Murder is wrong, unless god tells you to. Morality is subjective. Period.
Further, Frank shows his disingenuous tactics in editing here. But what else do you expect from someone who believes in a book where lying for god is ok?
You have a severe misunderstanding of the scriptures and Frank’s position.
Besides how do you know God hasn’t created a world with one less child being raped? How do you even measure that? You can’t. You are just making blind assumptions. And how does creating a world “where everyone chooses me” make them free will beings? They aren’t free. You have so many faults in your logic of thinking dude.
@@I-Need-Saving Because... we can count. If there are X number of child rapes currently, there can be X-1. Ah so you're saying that god can't make a world in which everyone freely chose him. Thank you for surrendering the position of omnipotence. We atheists already know all your omni properties are nonsense, and you're one step closer now. Finally, my 14 years in ministry and seminary before that, I think i have the credentials. Please don't waste your time with a reply, let me save you the time.
"You weren't a true scotsman!!"
Nature is all there is. We have nothing else to ground anything on.....
If you want to use a god as the grounding of morality, you would need to prove that a god exists, and prove that we have can ground morality in it.
praise the only true living LORD and GOD bless you all glory be to the HOLY TRINITY forever and ever amen 💖✝️✝️✝️
Is that the Christian's version of Tourette's, just coming out with non sequitur interjections?
So if species leave their biology is that good or bad?
What do you mean by leave their biology?
Trans ppl:
If you sneeze, did you leave some of yr biology?
Survival needs? If atheism is true, nobody NEEDS to survive. And anyone who does survive... only does so for so long, then cease to be. People, pragmatism and personal preferences ≠ morality.
When I was an atheist I didn't care about our survival because I thought it was meaningless. I actually hated humanity and wanted an asteroid to destroy us.
@@choosejesus1910
And without a transcendent authority or objective meaning, value, or purpose, what could atheists who didn't agree with you say? That they don't like what you thought? How could they say it was actually wrong? What can they do other than ask for... a show of hands? Hey, going from that mindset as an atheist to where you are now, must have been quite the change! You're familiar with David Woods (Acts 17 Apologetics) story, right? If not, check out his testimony video...
If theism is true, nobody needs to survive, either.
However, if you don't feel some kind of need (urge) to survive, chances are you won't make it for long. Which means those who feel a need to survive have a higher chance to have offspring and become the foundation of the future population.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930
Keep making stuff up and demonstrating that the Bible got at least one thing exactly right... (See Romans 1:22)
Are you familiar with the idea of "selfish genes"?
Good video
Puologia definitely came unprepared
I'm convinced that it is impossible for atheists to actually be prepared... These dudes spend their career doing this, yet always end up just looking silly. I mean, 'built into our biology'? It would seem-if we look around us and see all the brokenness and crime and hate even within family members-not so much!
he was literally cut off before he could answer
@@magicker8052
If that is your excuse, then go watch the entire thing.
the purpose of life is to live
Paulogia used to believe this rubbish.
He educated his way out of it and has don’t many videos debunking the claims of well known apologists leaving no stone unturned.
Where bible worshippers get the answer they want and leave all the other stones unturned.
And others have educated their way into faith. You’re premise is false
@@Sir-Chancelot
Hi. Thanks for the response.
Could you give an example of how one would educate themselves into faith?
I can easily give an example of Paulogia’s deconversion as I’ve spoke with him.
@@frankcardano4142 they educate themselves into faith by way of philosophy of Christians. By reading history through a Christian lens they see the rightness of Christians. When reading the science of Christians they see the rightness of Christians. Yet they do not see how their philosophy doesn’t match the real world, their science has no predictive power and is refuted, they do not see how their history was written, and they never think to remove the wool they pulled over their own eyes
@@timothywilliams8530
What nonsense are you talking about?
There’s no such thing as Christian Science just like there’s no such thing as Muslim science.
Science probes the bible wrong.
I know quite a number of people who reasoned their way to faith. Want examples? Whaddoyoumeme, Ruslan KD and David Wood (Acts17Apologetics).
Each and every individual is the arbiter of his or her own morality. All moral assessments are always and necessarily SUBJECTIVE.
How do you know? I see no proof of that
@@Jarige2 If I am not the one forming my own moral assessments, then tell me who is forming those assessments on my behalf.
@@theoskeptomai2535 I guess I did not specify which part I asked proof for. I meant the second part: all moral assessments are always and necessarily subjective.
@@Jarige2 Moral assessments are cognitive processes, are they not?
@@theoskeptomai2535 Moral assessments done by humans, yes.
Slavery was moral in the Old Testament. Just sayin'
But it can be used as a clear example of equal treatment for men and women.
"Anyone who *beats their male or female slave* with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, *but they are not to be punished* if the slave recovers after a day or two, *since the slave is their property."* Exodus 21:20-21
ignorance is bliss.... just sayin'
@@bany512 Everyone is ignorant with regards to something, the difference is what we decide to do about it.
"When a man *sells his daughter as a slave,* she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she *does not satisfy her owner,* he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer *treat her as a slave* but as a daughter.
If a man who has married *a slave wife* takes *another wife* for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy. If he fails in any of these three obligations, she may leave as a free woman *without making any payment."*
Exodus 21:7-11
Exactly. God gave directions on how they should be treated AND to release them.
@@vejeke Well said.
I see what you're trying to do Frank, but in breaking it down into movable parts you're giving him the chance to misunderstand what you're saying. C.S. Lewis said, "Everyone has a sense of right and wrong, however imperfect that may be. Occasionally someone will claim they do not have a sense of right and wrong, but if you take something from them or put a gun to their head they will suddenly admit to that being wrong." The strength of this argument is that in order for anyone to have some sense of right and wrong, there MUST be a pre-existing absolute right, which you rightly define as Objective Morality. What these gentlemen do not understand is that their own personal ideas of morality are based on that Objective Morality. They cannot make any truth claims without leaning on that Objective Morality, no matter how they may wish to redefine it.
So the argument is just accept my presup ?
Could everyone have a sense of right and wrong, and yet disagree about which things are right and which things are wrong?
@@simonodowd2119 Of course. The point is we wouldn't even be able to come up with a sense of right and wrong unless there was a perfect, absolute right, which we may or may not agree with, but the fact that we have our own sense of right and wrong tells us that it needed something to establish that point.
@@cpt.kimintuitiondemon What's your "presup"?
@@rockandsandapologetics7254 could you explain to me why you believe that we wouldn't be able to come up with a sense of right or wrong if there wasn't a perfect, absolute right?
Does this apply to hot or cold, do we need a perfect, absolute hot to be able to have a sense of hot or cold?
Height could be another example, is a perfect, absolute tall required to have a sense of tall or short?
If the answer is "no" to both of these, what is it that makes right or wrong special and different to these examples?
Paulogia need to eat some nutricious food...
kinda difficult with inflation at about 8.54%
@@ythatesfacts Grow your own food.
@@seal9390 do you know how long that takes? Not only that but my grandfather said once you make a garden you marry it. In other words you have to put in all the time and effort into the garden.
@@ythatesfacts Learn the right methods, grow the right crops, simplify your diet and that will no longer be true.
@@Zevelyon But not everyone lives out in the country and has plots of land. For starters you could grow mushrooms which don't need light to grow. That's if you needed food immediately.
If we are here debating about the ultimate source of morality, just imagine after evolution. How did the ape-men community settle the issue? Maybe the majority, but what majority? Can any evolved forms of different fishes have a comprehensive understanding of morality? and why would they in the first place?
What is an arbiter?
By definition - ar·bi·ter
/ˈärbədər/
noun
a person who settles a dispute or has ultimate authority in a matter.
"the military acted as arbiter of conflicts between political groups"
Similar:
adjudicator
arbitrator
judge
umpire
referee
assistant referee
linesman
line judge
mediator
conciliator
intervenor
intercessor
go-between
negotiator
peacemaker
Similar words are:
judge
authority
determiner
controller
director
governor
master
expert
pundit
critic
1. By definition, an arbiter has to be a person.
2. This person cannot have any nor be biased toward’s views of morality.
3. Arbiter, by definition, is hands down speaking from a moral perspective.
4. Therefore, God is by far the best explanation for the “Epistemology argument!
How did god decide what's good? And how could you tell the difference between a good God and an evil one?
@@kylewalsh5397 Everything God made was good, everything God does is good, everything God says is good, and everything God is is good. He is light and in Him, there is no darkness. We will see, by the light of God Himself, how very good He is!
The darkness, hatred, and evil in the world are not of God nor are they from God. They are the result of the choice Adam and Eve made in the Garden of Eden to listen to Satan, the father of lies (John 8:44), rather than God. The day is coming when goodness will reign again, and evil will be obliterated once and for all.
There is no evil God but an evil prince (Satan). Evil is the opposite of good, and so in a sense, we are all evil because no one is “morally good.” This means that a person does “good” all the time, but no such person exists; however, Jesus Christ was the only person ever to accomplish this.
@@Jay-kw2kb if an evil God existed, would you be able to tell?
@@kylewalsh5397 I can tell by the opposite of what good is that evil is a real force.
@@Jay-kw2kb if God did something unnecessary and wicked like drown babies for no reason, would that make him evil?