Depends on the context of subjectivity, but indeed moral relativism and social constructionism fail to argue objectivity for the emotional and moral concepts, it is because they are objects created from beyond the chemical, they're designed and consistent We wouldn't ever made sense to one another if we were evolved beings, we indeed are creatures
I don't think that's correct either. We know human ethics is subjective, and from that we can infer the existence of an objective ethical standard beyond human ethics. We can argue about what that objective standard is, but we have already effectively derived its existence from subjectivity. Subjectivity doesn't exist unless there is objectivity, like how we know there is evil because there is good, how there are shadows because there is light.
Here's the problem with this guy's interpretation "All human beings suffer, and suffering is undesirable". Problem is, people have different definitions of what it means to suffer. There might be a common ground, but that still leaves the question of "Why should I care about the suffering of others?" Plus, suffering can be productive if channelled in a certain manner, but that's just beside the point Then he goes on to say that human ethics can be used as a standard for objective morality. Problem there is 1)Human ethics are subject to change, and therefore cannot be objective 2)Human ethics can be dismissed as human inventions, like fables or ideas ready to be discarded 3)Human ethics are subject to emotions and opinions ie subjective. Studying human actions and tendency will not produce a standard HIGHER than human values, which by definition are not objective
Agreed. A moral standard derived from man will result in a relative standard whose rules vary according to the society. Moral relativism leads to many problems, as mentioned by Samuel Hunter, and is another attempt for the atheist to justify their actions to appear “good” before the eyes of others. With anything relative no truth exists since truth, as they claim, only applies to the person creating it. If a person claims their belief is coherent because they deem so, the veracity it a result of their own interpretation and does not conform to reality. Thus, making it false.
Irrefutable my friend. Irrefutable. That leaves the atheist wanting, and there is no possible way to worm their way out of it. They have to face it. God is real and he exists. Not only that but he dwelt among us sinners to teach us and save us from our sinful imperfect nature. And when the time comes i know i will weep uncontrollably at the sight of my Lord who saved me.
@Al Garnier ... well I will still go with willie until they find that "cure" What could more delusional that to be believe the universe came out of nothing or collisions.
@@BerishaFatian It's the old watch maker analogy which is a fallacy. Just because clocks, cars and paintings are created humans doesn't mean mountains, oceans and rocks are created.
"I'm not presupposing that all suffering is bad. I am observing that everyone acts as if his suffering were bad."- Sharp of the young fellow to make the distinction there. Good thinking.
John 316 - That’s right. It’s part of the scheme! When you “remove” God of the Bible, you are left with serious dilemmas that you have to somehow explain. Pretty tough!
It’s because if there’s no God, you can live in sin and like a child of the devil. On the broad road instead of the narrow one. There’s a reason why so many are walking the broad path, because that one is easier.
@@jollygoodgordon5580 so, let’s just all support kill isis because we all feel that way about them killing people let’s just take em out and it’s survival.
I can do all things I’m an atheist and I agree with this statement. But there are invisible arguments surrounding this statement that we will most likely disagree on, such as the definition of “human ethics” that presupposes alternative ethics existing outside humans. Hmmmmm what could it be?
@Al Garnier if you say that there is only one purpose for DNA and that purpose is survival, if that is indeed the case then humans can merely rape in order for their DNA to survive. Also if each individual has the responsibility for DNA to survive so why not rape to survive. Because DNA can survive by raping others and thus would comply with that one purpose you stated above.
How can a person extrapolate morality or ethics from humanity *as a whole* if they never knew, know, or will know all the humans that have existed, are existing and will ever exist? That doesn't make sense.
@@rockywellbalboa If there is no objective morality, where did those rules and regulations come from though? I ask that, because how would they know what would be right or wrong? And then, even if the rule makers claim that something is right, there would always be another group claiming that the exact opposite is right, and no one would really know if what they say is true, because, what would truth mean? I mean, we're talking about the reality in which we live, where 1 + 1 = 2, versus the one I described, where 1 + 1 = 2 and 53 and -100,000 and "The '+' sign really means '×'" and "The '=' sign really means '=/='" and so on. So, yes, I definitely believe people have a sense of morality because it is objective.
@@Keesha_Hardy I agree with what you are saying but I suppose we were in a society where lets say killing is acceptable, i don't think many people would have a sense of morality. I could kill somebody and then justify it by saying its allowed. But thankfully we don't live in such a place.
@@rockywellbalboa I heard this talked about somewhere else like for example, with the nazis, the soldiers only found it okay to murder innocent Jews after being heavily brainwashed and most probably scared out of their skin by fear. This is explained by the psychology of social influence - that they may be the only one to support their view to not murder the Jews and that the entire of Germany would be against them if they did disobey. They could be lulled themselves if they didn’t want to obey orders. Also, such a thing called the agentic state, which Adolf eichman showed he was in when he claimed he was just “obeying orders” from Hitler, can make you feel irresponsible for the wrong actions you take as Eichman would say “it was Hitler’s responsibility for the deaths of those millions of Jews, not mine”, making him only an agent. This shows that there are many reasons such as fear and lack of responsibility which make us feel it is okay to do extremely bad things and maybe deep down our moral conscience is screaming that it is wrong and this is the deep unsettlement many of them probably felt but tried to ignore out of fear as mentioned earlier. Social influence is extremely powerful.
My suffering over a very long protracted time has brought me more joy than I would have known otherwise. It brought me closer to my Lord it brought me into a deeper relationship with God so that I could feel that Joy it is something far beyond happiness. Even though I am in remarkable pain around the clock that doesn't relent and I use a wheelchair now when I was a ballerina. Being a suffering human being has brought me closer to God and to experience a deep Joy that most other people don't ever get to. I have also been provided great comfort by God and I intern love him with all of my heart and soul. :-)
This kid just refuses to consider what he doesn't want to believe. Funny thing is, by default, he would have to believe in evolution, which seems to make no allowance for "society building" where the weak are protected. Besides, the old maxim "One man's loss is another man's gain, one man's pleasure is another man's pain" also neatly explains away his theory of "morality" being objectively possible.
Johnny Appleseed Sure. You assumed h doesn’t want to believe. A typical creationist excuse that you have copied from your leaders instead of thinking for yourself.
Johnny Appleseed Then you falsely claim that he would have to believe in evolution which is another false accusation made by your leaders that you have again parroted.
Johnny Appleseed Thirdly, you falsely apply evolution to some sort of societal distinction which again is what you’re copying from your leaders. So yeh. Learn to think for yourself and actually ask each none believer what they believe instead of projecting false beliefs onto them.
Suffering itself isn’t a grounding for morality, it’s just a feeling. People may prefer not to feel suffering, but that says nothing on wether it should happen or not.
I like the golden rule. It has 3 elements: you, me, and how we treat each other. It's implied in the rule that we have equal rights to decent treatment, and equal responsibility to treat others decently. And the benefits of treating each other with respect are realized in the real, observable, secular world.
No he isn't. His idea simply amounts to using the averaged subjectivity of humanity as a whole through history as opposed to any one, or few given human cultures as the basis for an objective standard. The problem is if there isnt an objective standard to begin with, and all Said human cultures ideals are indeed subjective, then averaging a bunch of subjective standards together does not suddenly create an objective standard. Now if am objevtive standard actually exists apart from human subjection then the method of averaging various cultures ideals across time would be a decent idea as to trying to fun out what said objective standards are, but it cannot be the foundation for an objective standard like he wants it to be.
The work of the Holy Spirit in the history of humanity explains why there have been people who have done good things. The work of satan influencing sinful human beings explains where the evil has come from.
At 2:58, he doesn’t understand that Humanity was born with the potential to comprehend transcendental concepts, such as Numbers, Logic, and Morality. This means that these traits came from a transcendent source.
All that Turek needs to do to recognize his error is to start by explaining what morality is in the first place. What is the purpose of it and why does it matter? Saying that God commands it, or that it's in God's nature, or that God designed it into the universe, doesn't get us to an OUGHT. The is/ought divide that theists like to use so option is not solved by theism. None of those claims about God tell us why we OUGHT to obey him, or follow him, or go along with his design. In order to advocate for that Turek MUST make a claim about subjective value. He has to appeal to our shared interests (which is what the theology of heaven and hell is meant to do) and ultimately say that our inherent ideal of well-being (in christianity: heaven or the kindgom of god) is what grounds moral value. He asserts that claims about god's nature get him out of the Euthyphro dilemma but it puts him right into the issue of deriving an ought from and is.
How do you “create” standards outside of yourself when the idea came from within. The standard of morality exists whether there is people or not. This kids argument defeated itself within 8 words ha! Good question though.
Modern Machiavelli Gods moral code is not put in place to live by. It’s to reveal sin. Although, Jesus is the standard by which we should model ourselves after. With that said, the idea of the gospel is that this is impossible for evil beings such as humans and it is why we are imparted Jesus’ righteousness as Christians when we die according to the Bible.
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Hebrews 4:12 | KJV
I believe in good and evil but here is something I don't understand: We know truth is reality but good and evil only exists in our minds, in our conscience and feelings, if somebody kills, it doesn't show a sign that says: "this is evil". It's simply mental and emotional. How can good and evil exist If they are not in reality?
I think the idea is that if good and evil do truly objectively exist, then they must be true outside of whether we exist to think about it or not. I.e. if the entire worlds population of humans died out because of nuclear war, all those murders would still be wrong even though there is now no humans left to think about it and declare it was wrong. Now if the atheistic worldview was true then this is proof to why good and evil wouldn’t exist because atheists think good is what feels good and bad is what feels bad, so if there’s nobody left to experience good or bad then nothing is good or bad anymore. However as Christians we believe that God is by definition good, and evil is the absence of God in things, and therefore even if there was no humans left, as he created all things, all things do good or have fallen from what they were meant to do and in the creation story we are one of those things which have fallen. Therefore, the Christian worldview or any other theistic worldview which says about God being the standard for good is the only way to explain how objective morality could exist beyond the need for a human.
Also another thing that Frank said similar to the book and author. you see a car and people who don’t believe Harrison Ford would look at it or look inside and say. I don’t see Harrison Ford doing this. But you can’t have a universe or a planet or Love without God.
Without a standard how can one know whose morals are more superior? How is it that one can do so if there is no standard, no point of reference? Are you farther up or down the ladder and which is better the bottom or the top of the ladder? Your position on the ladder may even change dramatically but because you have no idea which end of the ladder has the higher moral values there is no way to tell if your new position is better than the old one. Are your morals getting better or worse as you move? Let's use a simple illustration to make this much easier to understand. Take a blank sheet of paper and place on it 5 random dots. Now label those dots with names like Sally or Bob. The dots represent a group of children at day camp. They are all in a race running back to camp for dinner. Tell us, who's winning the race? You can’t tell, because the location of the camp has not been specified. According to the atheistic world view the location of the camp is anywhere that the majority of the people want to put it. And it can change location as the people and their society changes making it based on mutual opinions not objective values. Like in the example above: One cannot claim that one morality is better than another without a point of reference. Attempting to do so would be logically incoherent. The very fact that even an atheist can tell the difference between a good morality and bad one is evidence that there is a standard, one outside of our selves, one that we do not make. An atheist simply cannot account for this standard under his world view. The typical atheist simply ignores the facts we just discussed and places the camp (his moral standard) anywhere he pleases making his standard irrelevant outside of himself. To say otherwise is also logically incoherent.
I had a conversation with some with the same view as this person recently. He said we create objective moral truths base on a third-person perspective and go back to say slavery is immoral when past societies agreed it wasn't. We both believe that objective morality is a universal moral truth, but we disagree on the source where objective morality comes from. The issue in believing humans creating objective morality is that it cannot hold true in the past. Humans began to exist at a certain point in time. Since we are the source of objective morality, that means objective morality only came into existence when the person began to exist. People can say past societies were immoral, but that will be a moot point. That moral truth cannot transcend into the past because we can't transcend into the past. That means there has to be a source that is independent and beyond human society that transcends past, present, and future in order for the moral truth to be universal throughout time.
This kid's argument contradicts itself. He agrees that had Nazis won, and subsequent public opinion had come to conclude that killing Jews, etc. was morally acceptable, but yet the consensus morality was wrong. [2:20] But then his very next comment is that the objective measure of morality is whether all people act "as if it is wrong" [2:37] You can't have it both ways. Either the consensus does provide ground for a moral framework, or it does not.
As other thinkers have observed people want meaning often times more than freedom from suffering. But some atheists seem perfectly happy to tear that away. If your ethical system is based on what people want how is that ok?
That kid goes on attempting to claim that "all people act the same way about suffering" and so therefore you can extrapolate objectivity. Ironically, his own claim is falsified in the example he was attempting to explain away. The case presented to him about Hitler convincing the whole world that murdering is good. In that case, all people are NOT acting as if suffering is bad as he claimed. Even without that example, all people are NOT in agreement about what deems any amount of suffering necessary or unnecessary. Many people hold the mere belief that suffering for themselves is undesirable, and suffering for others bears no impact or meaning on their life. In fact, they would argue suffering for others can be desirable, and necessary, if it benefits themselves. No only is the foundation for his claim false, there are also a few other issues.
But setting the standard at the low-mark of what an individual agent expresses as suffering would birth the morality of excuse. If you can excuse a behavior under the umbrella of suffering, (like being asked to do an undesired task at work,) then we slip into a world reaction...which i believe would teach us to presuppose that a person might suffer from a thing. In order to make any request we must know the list of things a person suffered which would, i think, relegate us to assume the worst about people. Are we not getting closer and closer to this in society already? And is this more desirable than society 20 years ago? 50 years ago? 100 years ago? Would Beethoven ever had done what he did? Or Stephen Hawkins? Or dyslexic Einstein? Suffering is least qualifiable attribute of human beings by which we should set our standards to. And to answer the question, it would be entirely subjective and would have to rewritten and applied differently in most cases, house by house, and therefore, NOT objectifiable!
"Unnecessary suffering." That line is already dubious and subjective. For example, Calvanists believe in predestination, which means that for the Calvinist, all suffering is necessary and was predestined. That's strike one. Then there's the problem of suffering; suffering is subjective. What some consider suffering others do not. There are some things that all peoples consider to be suffering, but most forms of "suffering" are subjective. What a rich person considers to be a poor living situation might be a dream house to someone less fortunate. I've been to concerts that I hated that others loved--I was suffering while they were enjoying it. Suffering is subjective.
. Tell me dear is your OPINION the "correct" God who's allegedly the basis for morality a "SUBJECTIVE" one or a "OBJECTIVE" one ?? 🙄 Can we use *ANY* "God" as the basis for this "objective" moral standard you speak of or just the SPECIFIC SUBJECTIVE invisible being *YOU* determined to be the "correct" one out of the many thousands man has preposed.? 🙄 🤔 If its the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if its the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍 The claim that theistic morality is somehow superior because its "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
Frank purposes a very complicated notion. Many other species of animals understand the concept of empathy and cooperation. Like everything else concerning a god, Frank needs to provide evidence that the concepts come via a god.
@Andrew Petty Empathy and cooperation is subject to subjectivity and so is everything else if you want it to. Hot and cold, happy and sad. Is a man 7 foot in height tall or is that just a subjective view that has no basis without God?
@@jacksfavorite4808, Those don't seem to be good examples because hot and cold can't be subjective. Height can't be subjective. Those things aren't based on perception. Temperature can be measured and height can as well.
I have promised myself not to fight with an atheist again, they just drive me crazy but here we go again, he calls unreasonable to believe that there is no book author after reading the book, but yet when it comes to Creation, you see there is no creator, it drives me crazy.
Jose Diego Torres the book and the author... The painter and the painting.. The building and the builder... These are all just variations of the watchmaker argument.. And it’s been debunked
Despite being a Christian I do struggle with the insistence that morality is a proof of God's existence. Morality is merely a term to describe behaviour, and behaviour is essentially our physical actions which are driven by our knowledge, thoughts and decisions. We can logically assume that morality would not exist in the absence of humans (and we can't speak for the animal kingdom because we cannot comprehend their understanding of their own existence).
Humans don't define what good is, God does, because He *_is_* all that is good. He *_is_* truth (why lying is evil), life (why murdering is evil), grace, mercy, justice, soverignty, I could go on. Those facts allows us humans to know what evil is. If you take God out of it, what does good even mean? Also, as a Christian, you know that God made only humans in His image.
If you erase God from morality then you're left with subjective morality or opinions therefore can't differentiate what is right or wrong. Without an objective morality, who are you to say one is right or wrong?
1. "Morality is merely a term to describe behaviour, and behaviour is essentially our physical actions which are driven by our knowledge, thoughts and decisions". No, morality is the standard by which our actions (which could be good or evil) are judged. 2. "We can logically assume that morality would not exist in the absence of humans". No, we cannot. What is right will be right even if there were no humans, though we would not be here to observe the process. By that statement, you are essentially saying humans formed the standards of morality, That is exactly what atheists claim. Now I am not condemning you. Some of these thing could be confusing when not properly understood. Since you are a Christian, you believe there is a God. So, would there be God without humans? Yes. So, even if there were no humans, there would still be morality.
If non-believers put as much effort into believing there is a god as they did into NOT WANTING to believe there is a god, they would be a lot better off. The ONLY reasonable explanation for origin of life, evolution, morality and suffering etc. is a supreme being outside of time, space and matter. So much time and effort wasted trying to explain away what is obvious.
Frank’s always three steps ahead of these guys 🧐 You have to be an intellectual contortionist to believe that everything came from nothing. You only need to be intellectually honest to believe God. And you just have to confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised him from death to be saved (Romans 10:9).
_"You have to be an intellectual contortionist to believe that everything came from nothing"_ No scientist or atheist ever said that. It's just a well-known strawman frequently used by Christians.
@@theovanrossum8652 the only way anyone can rightly say no scientist or atheist ever said everything came from nothing is if he has some means of hearing everything every scientist and atheist has ever said. We both know atheists say whatever they want to. So if your rebuttal isn’t a straw man prove me wrong. Where did everything come from if it didn’t come from nothing? It appears you agree with me that the notion that everything came from nothing is ridiculous, so where did everything come from? Saying we don’t know is to admit it God is a possibility. If atheists can’t say everything came from nothing that is an indication that God may exist. If atheists can’t prove there is no God it may be because it’s impossible to prove something that exists to be nonexistent. Accept logic; accept Christ.
@@poliincredible770 I do not have to know every atheist and scientist. There is something called PUBLICATIONS. _"We both know atheists say whatever they want to."_ Another strawman. We do not claim that we know where everything came from. The Big Bang is not about how the universe came into existence. It's about the evolution of the universe. It's the religious who believe they have the answer to everything. Good thing we know that morals need to evolve so that we no longer need the outdated and today immoral morals of ages ago.
@@poliincredible770 Where did your God come from and how feasible is this great magician who said _"Let there be light"_ and "poof!" there was light? Why would atheists need to prove there "is a God"? We don't make any claims about that. You do.
@@theovanrossum8652 atheists don’t put everything they say in PUBLICATIONS. Straw man down. You said atheists don’t claim they know where everything came from? So that means you can’t say it didn’t come from God. There was a time when atheists believed the universe just always existed because a universe that always existed wouldn’t require a creator. But then scientists discovered the universe is expanding which means if we could rewind time it would contract to a beginning point. So the Biblical notion that the universe had a beginning is now verified by science. The Big Bang is about how the universe came into existence, and it actually proves God. Type “believe in God in 5 minutes” in the TH-cam search. There you will see a brief presentation by an accredited scientist who uses settled science to make a simple semantical connection atheists don’t want made. Enjoy. The bottom has fallen out of Darwinism/ evolution. No one has ever observed the transition of one kind (family) of creature to another kind of creature (fish to snake, etc.). However, many people throughout history have interacted with God. Choose recorded history, not hypothetical atheistic conjecture; choose Christ!
I love how trying to eliminate suffering is something Frank Turek is arguing AGAINST in order to support the Bible. If your god doesn't care about our suffering, then what do we get from worshipping him, a ticket out of the god torturing us? That's a good reason to worship him, but shouldn't we try to stand up against god before we submit to his cruelty?
@@orbitamusic316 Why do you say that? If God doesn't exist, then suffering is a natural part of this life, which is a perfectly reasonable explanation given our current understanding of the universe. Events naturally occur which cause some to suffer, volcanoes erupting, for example, people make bad choices, or people react to situations poorly. These are all perfectly reasonable explanations for suffering.
If you were to create a truly objective morality, one based upon objective criteria that can be applied universally. Then it may include such things as maximising well-being and minimising harm, freedom of thought, freedom of belief etc. In other words, keep religion out of morality!
The statement is true even if religion continues to distort people's understanding of morality. If you want an objective morality you need objective criteria appealing to an ancient book of horrors, fantasy and forgery does not cut it.
God’s promise: I’m willing to freely forgive your sins and grant you everlasting life if you repent of your sins and have faith in Jesus. Atheists: wE cAmE FRoM MonKEys!
The atheist always tries to use suffering as a measuring stick for morality. But is all suffering always bad? Would we really want a society where all suffering was avoided? No. This is the type of logic used by parents who don’t want to keep score at their kids’ soccer games because losing may mentally traumatize the children. Christianity tells us that suffering can be a good thing. It can teach us and mold us into better human beings. Everyone has used some type of suffering in their lives to improve themselves. And trust me, we don’t want the Left deciding what suffering is or isn’t.
Humans like all animals have an inherent morality. Ethics is the science that deals with moral principals. Society (humans living in organized groups) decide on what is important for the society or group. Often by an elite group in control of that society or group. The crux of the matter is whether you believe morality is part of the natural make up of biology or whether it comes from God.
I don't understand why secular morality is so complicated for theists to grasp. It's like a game of chess: the objective is winning, which pretty much everybody can agree on (there's your goal) so from there we can determine an objective set of actions you OUGHT or OUGHT NOT take in order to increase your chances of winning the game. That's it. We know all people have the capacity to suffer and as a social species with heightened empathetic tendencies, we can agree that well-being is preferable to suffering and from that (subjective) goal, we can evaluate moral actions objectively. Occam's razor. Read about meta-ethics to understand why actions in regards to a goal are objective, but the standard can never be objective. Take the dark ages for example. Is stoning homosexuals or burning witches at the stake still morally acceptable under our ever-shifting cultural standard?
@@almondwater9583 thank you for demonstrating the validity of my argument. They believe it is the right thing to do but most people here do not, therefore morality is (unfortunately) subject to opinion. It just so happens that (fortunately) the western world seems to agree on a shared goal.... that well-being is preferable to suffering. If you disagree with this subjective goal, we who share the same values have the right to separate you from the pack like chimpanzees do in their tribes.
Your idea of "winning" may be for everyone to get along and work together. My idea of winning could be to take what I want and squash all those who get in my way. Without God, both of our ideas of winning are the same. It's only the opinions and feelings about them that differ. Without a moral authority like God to dictate absolute good and evil and hold all people accountable to it, it doesn't matter what we do or how it makes anyone feel. We'll all be equally annihilated and forgotten in time.
@@dja-bomb6397 No. But I do know that if I'm an accident and you're an accident, neither of us have any business telling each other how to live our lives.
"Inferring the truth of what people believe from their actions... and from that we can extrpolate positive ethics"....positive ethics for who, those "suffering" ? So I would extrapolate from this young guy's logic that his idea of positive ethics woud need to be based on how those he observes define "their suffering" let's just hope in his 'world' there are no ...."positive" ethics for the "sufferring" of those with anti social personal disorders or who are psychopaths. This young guy is being obtuse..after this latest video (lost count)...it looks deliberately so. God bless FT and CE and although this is an engaging video.... watching this in small bits can over stretch a video.
He does want there to be a god.thats what his question is really about. He just wants to stump Frank to validate what he wants to be true....not what actually is true
Subjective morality is *NOT* valid or binding on anyone else. That includes cultures which are made of subjective humans with their subjective feelings. Therefore in an atheistic worldview, there is no dictating to others what the standard of objective good is. You have none as said, what you have is not valid or binding on anyone else. There is no good or evil in an Atheistic worldview. Period. However, you still yell "hey! That's not right, that's an injustice!". Whenever you do that, you are affirming objective moral values and duties. And the one and only source of objective moral values and duties come from God's nature, or as we say, his essence.
Go Or:What would you say to a Muslim who claims his objective moral values comes from his god? How would you convince him your objective moral truth is correct?
Go Or no, there are plenty of other worldviews that employ objective morals. You don’t need a god to make up your own morals and apply them as being objective. The truth of this concept lies in solipsism and Existentialism where the universe outside of you does not exist and you must essentially make your own morals. There is also a concept known as objective consequentialism where morals are concerned in the matter which consequences are objectively evaluated. If for instance climate change is only causing negative impacts across the globe, then it is morally objective to act/abstain against climate change, within that particular context. You can’t demonstrate this to be an opinion because the world is evidently in a climate crisis.
Again the strawmanning of atheists. No atheist has ever said that we're "overgrown germs" or that ethics are just "molecules bumping around in our heads". I also find the analogy of book has to have an author, therefore morality needs God a fallacy here. It doesn't make sense. _"I can read a book and know what the book says and still deny it has an author and say nobody wrote this, right?"_ No, you can't. That is utterly ridiculous. A dog can carry a human baby out of a burning house because the dog loves the humans he grew up with. Not even an animal needs religious morals to know what's right and wrong. Our capacity for empathy as well as disgust is something we're all born with. Why would we need religion for that? But even more disturbing, why do some Christians claim that they'd be bad without God? What kind of a human being are you if you really need religion to be a good person in the first place?
For example? even the slave owners new they were doing wrong. And you can ´t tell we´re living in shangri la these days. The world is full with wars, injustice, murder, corruption and pestilence.
@@jackprescott9652 example: stoning gay people to death. Stoning a man to death because he was working during sabbath day. Racism, gender equality etc.
@@bagnasbayabas yeah and today we have sicarios, drug wars between cartels, gangs, junkies and alcoholics everywhere, kidnappings, you named it. Morals of this days are no better.
What is good if everything is subjective? It would all just be a matter of opinion and we would have no way of knowing what is true, or what truth even is.
@@tedidk8639 Just because people act as if morality is subjective doesn't mean that it is. Everyone will understand that soon enough though, whether they accept the truth or not.
@@frankbromley1512 It's really not about what I want, that's what you don't seem to understand. It's about what is true. You can reject the truth, we all have that right, but it doesn't stop the truth from being what it is. I've come to accept that. You, on the other hand, obviously haven't.
One dosn't need to be a Christian to understand right from wrong at least in part. The golden or silver rule seems to be assumed in his defense of his "better" ethic. Why not seek only to avoid my own suffering seems to be very rational to be a sneeky freeloader in a materialistic universe. After all is suffering is the greatest evil and pleasure the greatest good I owe nothing to anyone as justice or love from my neighbor would have too come 1st not the avoidance of pain. Also he makes the point of saying avoiding unnecessary suffering. By unessasary what does he mean does he apeal to justice or the will of the mob? If the later why would chatle enslavement of minorities be wrong. Also people dislike necessary suffering as much as unesssasary suffering. Often they are more than happy to pass the buck to another. What rule determines necessary/ vs unnecessary where does it come from by what right are we obliged to obey it? In other words what is justice and where does it come from? He seems to think that his philosophy can reject some moral standards on the ground that they are not modern and keep the rest. Much like the Soviets dropped some and the nazis did as well. The worldview he operates under seems very likaly to be one that incorporates a universal acid. He has used it so far to simply remove what he and many in our society do not like. But on what grounds other than his preference could he decide. Logically there is no reason to stop with the erasing due to this universal acid. Or no reason to suppose that justice is the standard if we can modify it to suit or will. At the end it seems each human would either subjectively decide which forms of suffering are unnecessary and which are not that is as he would invent a standard of justice. If justice isn't transcendent unchanging and universal in time and place we have no logical right to judge other times, places nor to say that things are getting better without a proper standard to obey. If your standard is based on what people normally do how can you say history was bad as people were just doing what they were naturally inclined to do. He needs to justify those things he brings to the table within his world view. Is that rule simply made up by individuals or the government or is it transcendent. He also smuggles in a moral status for human beings (or at least some.) Afterall it really wouldn't matter much what your fellow man wanted unless they actually have moral status. He keeps a standard of human exceptionalism (at least for some.) He seems to restrict the democracy of who decides right and wrong to some humans then says that the preferred actions/rules are objective. Is that how we decide truth in other avenues? If that isnt what is the case why should we do it here. If every human believed in God would God exist on soley those grounds? Would God's existance then be an objective fact if it wasn't before? I think I know what he smuggles in something along the line of "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with inaliable rights..." However if atheism is true as Chesterton says “The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal." What grounds does he have for that dogma? From what authority does it come? If atheism is true our rights are granted by secular authorities. Governments give us rights they don't protect pre-existing rights. There are then no logical grounds for saying they are bad when they infringe upon certian rights. In other words if the universe is amoral then morality is a human invention and is in no way true. A man discovers truth 2+2=4 is a discovery 7 Billion people saying it is so alters its truth not one iota nor would 2+2 =5 if all said it did.
Morality comes to us based on probability of outcome. Every action has a reaction. In order to thrive as a specie we are most successful when we work together and support each other. For that to happen we need to trust each other. You lose the trust and support of other people when acts that negetively impacts society are made too often or if the consequences of your actions are too high. Morality comes from the will to be accepted and trusted in order to have the best survival probability
Not all humans live as if suffering is wrong. Most humans will say it is wrong if you ask them. But the majority do not act as if it is wrong on a daily basis. We live self centered lives. Self is the object of thought in most humans minds. So you may be living as your suffering is wrong that people may knowingly or unknowingly inflict on you, but you don’t live consciously trying to make sure other people aren’t suffering. Your not even thinking about other people. You could research all through history and see what has caused human suffering, but it’s still not going to solve the core issue, which is everyone serves self. That’s why Jesus said “whom ever desires to be my disciples, my deny themselves, take up there cross, and follow me”. Self is the root issue. Until humanity learns to deny themselves as Jesus taught, there won’t be any real progress. No matter how much we advance artificially. Pride is what causes all suffering in the world, and it’s the nature of Satan, and we inherit it from Adam. The Lord Jesus is the only one who can redeem us from it. How do we get rid of self you may ask? Die, that’s the only way, you must die. So that you may be resurrected spiritually, and get a new nature. The unselfish nature of God displayed in Christ. That’s why Jesus said in John 3, you must be born again to enter the kingdom of heaven. Your dead to all things spiritual. But you must die to all things carnal to become reconciled to the unselfish spiritual nature of God. Down is the way up. Go low in humility, make your “self” nothing so that God may be all and all. Then you will take on the suffering of Christ in your life to prevent the suffering of others. “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others. In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death- even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Philippians 2:3-11 NIV Edit: just had a thought so I’m gonna add it. I believe the Holy Spirit just spoke this to me in my spirit. It’s not a matter of figuring out what our morality should be. It’s a matter of losing our idea of morality all together, so that we can gain Christ’s.
Joseph Bowman I strongly disagree that self-interest is the root of the problem. The moment you deny your self, you forfeit everything that makes you, you. Your individuality, your autonomy, your identity. Take those away and you might as well become what theists describe atheists: random chanced floating energy will no real value. Of course your take on this is that value comes externally from god. But you simply don’t exist as a person and I can only recognise you as a representation of Christian conformity. Adam Smith rationalised why self-interest is important because it lends an ‘invisible hand’ that actually builds our economy. If you’ve read a bit on the wealth of nations, the more self-interest you create, the more you end up helping others as well as yourself. Suffering is not exclusive in the argument for self-interest.
Patrick Majewski when you see your nothingness in the light of God’s greatness in Christ, it’s an honor to forfeit your identity that you’ve established yourself, for one he gives you. It’s self that causes humanity to be in opposition towards God, to actually be the creator of the universes enemy, because your thinking is in direct conflict with his. It is pride, and it is what causes all suffering. Bettering yourself a little bit isn’t going to cause you to always think about the interest of others before your own. You have to have God’s spirit, you have to have his nature, you have to have the teachings of Jesus. Humanity isn’t going to get anywhere. We are fallen, and we can’t get up without Christ. It’s as simple as that.
Joseph Bowman the identity you get from god isn’t yours though. Right now I’m not talking to you because your words are not your own. I have the feeling that freewill is forfeited also because the decisions you make are now in control of the Holy Spirit. How much do you hate yourself, or the better question is, how much does god hate you that he wants you to be like him? It’s a fair question and I think you must really hate yourself to bend over and allow religion to take you up the backside. I’m so sorry I don’t mean to offend it’s just my anger at religion. Not you.
Patrick Majewski When I say self, and when Jesus says self, we are referring to righteousness. There’s self righteousness, and there’s God’s righteousness that’s in Christ. In other words, how I say I should behave and conduct myself, verses what Gods says in regard to the way I should behave and conduct myself. I love his way of doing things that has been revealed in Christ. I gladly forfeit my way of righteousness for his. Because his is simply better and more fulfilling. His has completeness and wholeness and satisfaction, mans does not. You will always be trying to Climb the metaphorical ladder, chasing a pipe dream of fulfillment that will never be achieved. You’ll always be left wanting more. Not in Christ, he fills you with his “self” and keeps you full, because he is eternal and never runs out of anything. Hating yourself is simply embracing who Jesus is and what he did for you. And it’s not a bad thing, it’s quite wonderful and freeing. Imagine a 4 year old that wants its way in everything and cries when it doesn’t get it. This is us towards God. Eventually it’s time to grow up and stop questioning mom and dad, stop fighting them and arguing with them and wanting our own way. Only then can you begin maturing. Otherwise rebellion and disobedience will be your conduct. Jesus is not a religion, he’s Lord and king of everything. And he’s awesome in every way imaginable and beyond. He’s worthy to be served and adored and loved and obeyed. His righteousness is far superior than any others and I wouldn’t trade him for anything this world can offer. Trying to better yourself gets you no where and will never satisfy. Jesus said it best himself.. he said what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul. He also said a mans life does not persist in the abundance of his possessions. And God doesn’t hate me. He hates my way, he hates my righteousness, my “self”. He hates the life that I choose outside of him.. why? Because he’s can’t love you or bless you when you go your own way. Same goes for any parent, child relationship. As much as any loving parent would want to bless there child, they can’t if the child chooses to rebel and disobey the parent. There going to be at odds with each other. I enjoy peace and harmony with my Father through faith in Christ. Nothing will ever come close. That’s why I hate self. And that’s why Jesus said to deny it. Simply put, his “self” is beyond better than mine. As the Bible puts it. “Our righteousness is as filthy rags”. Dirty, filthy rags. Compared to Gods perfect righteousness in Christ that he offered me as a free gift, and I could not refuse. 👍🏻
Joseph Bowman I hear this a lot that god doesn’t hate me, but he hates my ways. What is it about me that he doesn’t hate if we eliminate my way, my righteousness, my “self”. What do I have left that he doesn’t hate? It’s seems like that’s everything that is me. I’m not trying to corner you in this discussion, I’m trying to understand the differences here between me and the “self”. It seems kind of synonymous.
Because of Satan. His lies. Their sinful desires. are some people more honest than others? If so it is the same thing just not as big. We all have a standard from God but we also have free will, meaning we can do what we want even at the cost of punishment from God. Hope this helps! God bless you!
If I was looking for a standard above humanity to have morality i would definitely not be looking for it in the bible nor getting it from the god of the bible.
Mark L Sorry but in no way did I get my morals from the bible or the god of the bible if it exists. If I did then surely I’d be ok with all of gods immoral deeds and laws within it?
Jokes I get it from the same place the majority of life gets it from. It’s inherent in us all. I’m happy to hear your opinion...........if you don’t mind giving it to such a foolish one? 😊
If there is not objective morals the subjective morals dont matter because who are you the OBJECT to my subjective morals if OBJECTIVE morals that define your morals isnt existent. Then morals dont matter.
Amadeus you sound like you’re trying to parrot Turek. You think if objective morality was proven false then people would suddenly throw up their arms and say ‘we dont care about morality anymore, let’s go rape and steal!’?
Objective morality is a reality. We all intrinsically know that certain actions like murder and stealing are wrong. We don’t have to be taught that. Since we know that life only comes from life, we can know that we were created and therefore it is completely logical and rational to conclude that we were endowed with this sense of right and wrong by our creator.
Mark L is not taking gods name in vain one of these objective morals? What about abstaining from premarital sex? And what do you think the overall purpose of having morals is?
@@MarkNOTW We all have a propensity towards certain intrinsic behaviors such as love your family, help your group, return favors, be brave, defer to authority, be fair and respect others’ property. Studies have shown that these morals are universal across time and culture. Isn't it strange that this list doesn't include help or love strangers which Christians would consider a moral imperative? This should be a clue that the whole idea of objective Christian morality is complete nonsense. Evolution has a much better explanation of where morality came from. Why is it that other social species such as apes and monkeys display very similar intrinsic behaviors to that which I listed previously? Its because these behaviors are important for social cohesion which in turn is important for survival in a hostile environment where starvation, disease, injury, exposure etc are constant threats
So, the young man is holding the standard of all humanity collectively above humanity. Loved Frank's answer.
Andrew Petty yep, ironic
Young people living in extremely corrupt society... you gotta give credit to the young man even asking.
YOU CANNOT DERIVE OBJECTIVITY FROM SUBJECTIVITY...
Agreed
Human ethics change yes true
Depends on the context of subjectivity, but indeed moral relativism and social constructionism fail to argue objectivity for the emotional and moral concepts, it is because they are objects created from beyond the chemical, they're designed and consistent
We wouldn't ever made sense to one another if we were evolved beings, we indeed are creatures
I don't think that's correct either. We know human ethics is subjective, and from that we can infer the existence of an objective ethical standard beyond human ethics. We can argue about what that objective standard is, but we have already effectively derived its existence from subjectivity. Subjectivity doesn't exist unless there is objectivity, like how we know there is evil because there is good, how there are shadows because there is light.
Saying "because God says so" doesn't make it objective either.
The video starts with "I believe." That's where people differ
Agreed
what do you mean?
@@Dominick7 Sorry?
@@stilllooking was asking what you mean by your comment..? can you clarify ?
@@Dominick7 I just mean I agree
Here's the problem with this guy's interpretation
"All human beings suffer, and suffering is undesirable".
Problem is, people have different definitions of what it means to suffer. There might be a common ground, but that still leaves the question of "Why should I care about the suffering of others?"
Plus, suffering can be productive if channelled in a certain manner, but that's just beside the point
Then he goes on to say that human ethics can be used as a standard for objective morality. Problem there is
1)Human ethics are subject to change, and therefore cannot be objective
2)Human ethics can be dismissed as human inventions, like fables or ideas ready to be discarded
3)Human ethics are subject to emotions and opinions ie subjective.
Studying human actions and tendency will not produce a standard HIGHER than human values, which by definition are not objective
Agreed
Still Looking well said
Agreed. A moral standard derived from man will result in a relative standard whose rules vary according to the society. Moral relativism leads to many problems, as mentioned by Samuel Hunter, and is another attempt for the atheist to justify their actions to appear “good” before the eyes of others. With anything relative no truth exists since truth, as they claim, only applies to the person creating it. If a person claims their belief is coherent because they deem so, the veracity it a result of their own interpretation and does not conform to reality. Thus, making it false.
Irrefutable my friend. Irrefutable. That leaves the atheist wanting, and there is no possible way to worm their way out of it. They have to face it. God is real and he exists.
Not only that but he dwelt among us sinners to teach us and save us from our sinful imperfect nature. And when the time comes i know i will weep uncontrollably at the sight of my Lord who saved me.
@Andy Shattered Tortured by who?
There is an eternal creator outside space and time. He has rules on everlasting life.
How could you possibly know that?
@@frankbromley1512 because this creator a has told us.
@Al Garnier ... well I will still go with willie until they find that "cure"
What could more delusional that to be believe the universe came out of nothing or collisions.
@Al Garnier what makes you think I have psychosis?
@@maow9240 the psychobabble they have invented in a vain attempt to explain that which they can't understand or refuse to believe.
That analogy is amazing
🕊️ amen
Can you explain? I don't really get it. How can you know what a book says but deny that there's an author?
No, it's not. It makes no sense.
"You couldn't read a book, unless someone wrote it". And scientists study the universe and say there is no creator.
Funny right? I don't have much faith to be an atheist either.
That analogy doesn't make sense.
@@theovanrossum8652 There wouldn't be a universe to study if God doesn't exist. That was my point.
@@BerishaFatian
Don't see why.
@@BerishaFatian
It's the old watch maker analogy which is a fallacy. Just because clocks, cars and paintings are created humans doesn't mean mountains, oceans and rocks are created.
"I'm not presupposing that all suffering is bad. I am observing that everyone acts as if his suffering were bad."- Sharp of the young fellow to make the distinction there. Good thinking.
Just more excuses for people to try and reject their Creator. Nothing new.
John 316 - That’s right. It’s part of the scheme! When you “remove” God of the Bible, you are left with serious dilemmas that you have to somehow explain. Pretty tough!
True
It’s because if there’s no God, you can live in sin and like a child of the devil. On the broad road instead of the narrow one. There’s a reason why so many are walking the broad path, because that one is easier.
@@jollygoodgordon5580 so, let’s just all support kill isis because we all feel that way about them killing people let’s just take em out and it’s survival.
You really think we're "looking for excuses"?
Human ethics can’t make objective morality
I can do all things I’m an atheist and I agree with this statement. But there are invisible arguments surrounding this statement that we will most likely disagree on, such as the definition of “human ethics” that presupposes alternative ethics existing outside humans. Hmmmmm what could it be?
Al Garnier what is your evidence for this claim?
@Al Garnier Are your statements objective?
Al Garnier you have empirical evidence for the idea that objective morality doesn’t exist? That’s groundbreaking. Please share 😊
@Al Garnier if you say that there is only one purpose for DNA and that purpose is survival, if that is indeed the case then humans can merely rape in order for their DNA to survive. Also if each individual has the responsibility for DNA to survive so why not rape to survive. Because DNA can survive by raping others and thus would comply with that one purpose you stated above.
Killed it. Great question from the student and great, patient answer from Frank.
My hat is off to Frank, he patiently cast _alot_ of pearls..!
Humanity is corrupted by sin. We can't come up with morality apart from God.
@Al Garnier I agree. There is one God.
@Al Garnier And yet, you can do the same thing and it's right and just (abortion)
Al Garnier There is an eternal creator outside space and time. He has rules on everlasting life.
@Al Garnier you reject sin out of reality but yet you use it as an example?
@Al Garnier you said there is no God so you dont believe in it, yet you wrote after "the sin of religion" where you gave an example of evil,sin.
Thanks for keeping it real Frank.
Much blessings to you. 🙏
I drove a Ford to the conference tonight, and another drove a Toyota. Looks like we have the free will question answered.
Keep up the good work.
How can a person extrapolate morality or ethics from humanity *as a whole* if they never knew, know, or will know all the humans that have existed, are existing and will ever exist?
That doesn't make sense.
But are we moral because only there is a standard above us or because of the rules and regulations present in society? Just wanted to discuss.
@@rockywellbalboa If there is no objective morality, where did those rules and regulations come from though?
I ask that, because how would they know what would be right or wrong?
And then, even if the rule makers claim that something is right, there would always be another group claiming that the exact opposite is right, and no one would really know if what they say is true, because, what would truth mean?
I mean, we're talking about the reality in which we live, where 1 + 1 = 2, versus the one I described, where 1 + 1 = 2 and 53 and -100,000 and "The '+' sign really means '×'" and "The '=' sign really means '=/='" and so on.
So, yes, I definitely believe people have a sense of morality because it is objective.
@@Keesha_Hardy I agree with what you are saying but I suppose we were in a society where lets say killing is acceptable, i don't think many people would have a sense of morality. I could kill somebody and then justify it by saying its allowed.
But thankfully we don't live in such a place.
@@rockywellbalboa Yes, thankfully.
@@rockywellbalboa I heard this talked about somewhere else like for example, with the nazis, the soldiers only found it okay to murder innocent Jews after being heavily brainwashed and most probably scared out of their skin by fear. This is explained by the psychology of social influence - that they may be the only one to support their view to not murder the Jews and that the entire of Germany would be against them if they did disobey. They could be lulled themselves if they didn’t want to obey orders. Also, such a thing called the agentic state, which Adolf eichman showed he was in when he claimed he was just “obeying orders” from Hitler, can make you feel irresponsible for the wrong actions you take as Eichman would say “it was Hitler’s responsibility for the deaths of those millions of Jews, not mine”, making him only an agent. This shows that there are many reasons such as fear and lack of responsibility which make us feel it is okay to do extremely bad things and maybe deep down our moral conscience is screaming that it is wrong and this is the deep unsettlement many of them probably felt but tried to ignore out of fear as mentioned earlier. Social influence is extremely powerful.
My suffering over a very long protracted time has brought me more joy than I would have known otherwise. It brought me closer to my Lord it brought me into a deeper relationship with God so that I could feel that Joy it is something far beyond happiness. Even though I am in remarkable pain around the clock that doesn't relent and I use a wheelchair now when I was a ballerina. Being a suffering human being has brought me closer to God and to experience a deep Joy that most other people don't ever get to. I have also been provided great comfort by God and I intern love him with all of my heart and soul. :-)
This kid just refuses to consider what he doesn't want to believe.
Funny thing is, by default, he would have to believe in evolution, which seems to make no allowance for "society building" where the weak are protected.
Besides, the old maxim "One man's loss is another man's gain, one man's pleasure is another man's pain" also neatly explains away his theory of "morality" being objectively possible.
Nonsense. Learn to think for yourself.
@@frankbromley1512 I suggest you follow your own advice, sir.
I'd love to know where you disagree
Johnny Appleseed
Sure. You assumed h doesn’t want to believe.
A typical creationist excuse that you have copied from your leaders instead of thinking for yourself.
Johnny Appleseed
Then you falsely claim that he would have to believe in evolution which is another false accusation made by your leaders that you have again parroted.
Johnny Appleseed
Thirdly, you falsely apply evolution to some sort of societal distinction which again is what you’re copying from your leaders.
So yeh. Learn to think for yourself and actually ask each none believer what they believe instead of projecting false beliefs onto them.
Great question. Even greater answer
Suffering itself isn’t a grounding for morality, it’s just a feeling. People may prefer not to feel suffering, but that says nothing on wether it should happen or not.
Great response as always
Great analogy
I like the golden rule. It has 3 elements: you, me, and how we treat each other. It's implied in the rule that we have equal rights to decent treatment, and equal responsibility to treat others decently. And the benefits of treating each other with respect are realized in the real, observable, secular world.
The young guy is right, Tureks answer as usual Is ludicrous.
No he isn't.
His idea simply amounts to using the averaged subjectivity of humanity as a whole through history as opposed to any one, or few given human cultures as the basis for an objective standard.
The problem is if there isnt an objective standard to begin with, and all Said human cultures ideals are indeed subjective, then averaging a bunch of subjective standards together does not suddenly create an objective standard. Now if am objevtive standard actually exists apart from human subjection then the method of averaging various cultures ideals across time would be a decent idea as to trying to fun out what said objective standards are, but it cannot be the foundation for an objective standard like he wants it to be.
Exactly.God Bless you Frank.Another great and informational video.
The work of the Holy Spirit in the history of humanity explains why there have been people who have done good things. The work of satan influencing sinful human beings explains where the evil has come from.
amen
@@NewCreationInChrist896 amen! Praise the Lord. Nice to see you again sister. 🙂👍🏻
At 2:58, he doesn’t understand that Humanity was born with the potential to comprehend transcendental concepts, such as Numbers, Logic, and Morality. This means that these traits came from a transcendent source.
Can anyone please explain me with some examples? I am trying harder to understand but I m slow 🙏
Knowing morality doesn’t explain morality
just like it has been said that Atheist can count but they cannot account for counting.
All that Turek needs to do to recognize his error is to start by explaining what morality is in the first place. What is the purpose of it and why does it matter?
Saying that God commands it, or that it's in God's nature, or that God designed it into the universe, doesn't get us to an OUGHT. The is/ought divide that theists like to use so option is not solved by theism. None of those claims about God tell us why we OUGHT to obey him, or follow him, or go along with his design. In order to advocate for that Turek MUST make a claim about subjective value. He has to appeal to our shared interests (which is what the theology of heaven and hell is meant to do) and ultimately say that our inherent ideal of well-being (in christianity: heaven or the kindgom of god) is what grounds moral value.
He asserts that claims about god's nature get him out of the Euthyphro dilemma but it puts him right into the issue of deriving an ought from and is.
This guy is so brilliant. I'm very much impressed
How do you “create” standards outside of yourself when the idea came from within. The standard of morality exists whether there is people or not. This kids argument defeated itself within 8 words ha! Good question though.
Modern Machiavelli Gods moral code is not put in place to live by. It’s to reveal sin.
Although, Jesus is the standard by which we should model ourselves after. With that said, the idea of the gospel is that this is impossible for evil beings such as humans and it is why we are imparted Jesus’ righteousness as Christians when we die according to the Bible.
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Hebrews 4:12 | KJV
His premise is wrong. All people DO NOT act as if causing suffering is wrong.
I believe in good and evil but here is something I don't understand: We know truth is reality but good and evil only exists in our minds, in our conscience and feelings, if somebody kills, it doesn't show a sign that says: "this is evil". It's simply mental and emotional. How can good and evil exist If they are not in reality?
I think the idea is that if good and evil do truly objectively exist, then they must be true outside of whether we exist to think about it or not. I.e. if the entire worlds population of humans died out because of nuclear war, all those murders would still be wrong even though there is now no humans left to think about it and declare it was wrong.
Now if the atheistic worldview was true then this is proof to why good and evil wouldn’t exist because atheists think good is what feels good and bad is what feels bad, so if there’s nobody left to experience good or bad then nothing is good or bad anymore. However as Christians we believe that God is by definition good, and evil is the absence of God in things, and therefore even if there was no humans left, as he created all things, all things do good or have fallen from what they were meant to do and in the creation story we are one of those things which have fallen. Therefore, the Christian worldview or any other theistic worldview which says about God being the standard for good is the only way to explain how objective morality could exist beyond the need for a human.
Above the individual human means to go above or outside humanity. The iron curtain still exists in many heads still, mentally speaking.
Al Garnier ugh you sound so pretentious and indoctrinated by atheism when you say that 🤣
He speaks of Suffering as if it is an absolute it's not it's relative.
Also another thing that Frank said similar to the book and author. you see a car and people who don’t believe Harrison Ford would look at it or look inside and say. I don’t see Harrison Ford doing this. But you can’t have a universe or a planet or Love without God.
I think what he is trying to say is we can have objective morality by the morality of all people in general. But I think there is a problem with that
Morals and ethics were developed over 10s of thousands of years so society could organize religions stole the concept as their own
Yep.
Not true atheists steal morals from God to argue against God
I love that last answer
Without a standard how can one know whose morals are more superior? How is it that one can do so if there is no standard, no point of reference? Are you farther up or down the ladder and which is better the bottom or the top of the ladder? Your position on the ladder may even change dramatically but because you have no idea which end of the ladder has the higher moral values there is no way to tell if your new position is better than the old one. Are your morals getting better or worse as you move?
Let's use a simple illustration to make this much easier to understand.
Take a blank sheet of paper and place on it 5 random dots. Now label those dots with names like Sally or Bob. The dots represent a group of children at day camp. They are all in a race running back to camp for dinner.
Tell us, who's winning the race? You can’t tell, because the location of the camp has not been specified. According to the atheistic world view the location of the camp is anywhere that the majority of the people want to put it. And it can change location as the people and their society changes making it based on mutual opinions not objective values.
Like in the example above: One cannot claim that one morality is better than another without a point of reference. Attempting to do so would be logically incoherent. The very fact that even an atheist can tell the difference between a good morality and bad one is evidence that there is a standard, one outside of our selves, one that we do not make. An atheist simply cannot account for this standard under his world view.
The typical atheist simply ignores the facts we just discussed and places the camp (his moral standard) anywhere he pleases making his standard irrelevant outside of himself. To say otherwise is also logically incoherent.
I had a conversation with some with the same view as this person recently. He said we create objective moral truths base on a third-person perspective and go back to say slavery is immoral when past societies agreed it wasn't. We both believe that objective morality is a universal moral truth, but we disagree on the source where objective morality comes from.
The issue in believing humans creating objective morality is that it cannot hold true in the past. Humans began to exist at a certain point in time. Since we are the source of objective morality, that means objective morality only came into existence when the person began to exist. People can say past societies were immoral, but that will be a moot point. That moral truth cannot transcend into the past because we can't transcend into the past.
That means there has to be a source that is independent and beyond human society that transcends past, present, and future in order for the moral truth to be universal throughout time.
I can’t even follow the questioners line of thought.
This kid's argument contradicts itself.
He agrees that had Nazis won, and subsequent public opinion had come to conclude that killing Jews, etc. was morally acceptable, but yet the consensus morality was wrong. [2:20]
But then his very next comment is that the objective measure of morality is whether all people act "as if it is wrong" [2:37]
You can't have it both ways. Either the consensus does provide ground for a moral framework, or it does not.
As other thinkers have observed people want meaning often times more than freedom from suffering. But some atheists seem perfectly happy to tear that away. If your ethical system is based on what people want how is that ok?
praise the Lord and God bless you
That kid goes on attempting to claim that "all people act the same way about suffering" and so therefore you can extrapolate objectivity. Ironically, his own claim is falsified in the example he was attempting to explain away. The case presented to him about Hitler convincing the whole world that murdering is good. In that case, all people are NOT acting as if suffering is bad as he claimed. Even without that example, all people are NOT in agreement about what deems any amount of suffering necessary or unnecessary. Many people hold the mere belief that suffering for themselves is undesirable, and suffering for others bears no impact or meaning on their life. In fact, they would argue suffering for others can be desirable, and necessary, if it benefits themselves. No only is the foundation for his claim false, there are also a few other issues.
But setting the standard at the low-mark of what an individual agent expresses as suffering would birth the morality of excuse.
If you can excuse a behavior under the umbrella of suffering, (like being asked to do an undesired task at work,) then we slip into a world reaction...which i believe would teach us to presuppose that a person might suffer from a thing. In order to make any request we must know the list of things a person suffered which would, i think, relegate us to assume the worst about people.
Are we not getting closer and closer to this in society already?
And is this more desirable than society 20 years ago? 50 years ago? 100 years ago?
Would Beethoven ever had done what he did?
Or Stephen Hawkins? Or dyslexic Einstein?
Suffering is least qualifiable attribute of human beings by which we should set our standards to.
And to answer the question, it would be entirely subjective and would have to rewritten and applied differently in most cases, house by house, and therefore, NOT objectifiable!
The guy who is asking questions is trying to hard to sound intelligent
I think that kid has stated that objection as well as I have ever heard but it still doesn't work.
💙 from India
"Unnecessary suffering." That line is already dubious and subjective. For example, Calvanists believe in predestination, which means that for the Calvinist, all suffering is necessary and was predestined. That's strike one. Then there's the problem of suffering; suffering is subjective. What some consider suffering others do not. There are some things that all peoples consider to be suffering, but most forms of "suffering" are subjective. What a rich person considers to be a poor living situation might be a dream house to someone less fortunate. I've been to concerts that I hated that others loved--I was suffering while they were enjoying it. Suffering is subjective.
.
Tell me dear is your OPINION the "correct" God who's allegedly the basis for morality a "SUBJECTIVE" one or a "OBJECTIVE" one ?? 🙄
Can we use *ANY* "God" as the basis for this "objective" moral standard you speak of or just the SPECIFIC SUBJECTIVE invisible being *YOU* determined to be the "correct" one out of the many thousands man has preposed.? 🙄 🤔
If its the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if its the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍
The claim that theistic morality is somehow superior because its "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
I am also such a better person than I would have been had this not happen to me.
Not all suffering is evil.
3:16
Maybe we can never understand.
So this questioner wants cultures to replace GOD as standard for morality or is there anything I'm missing here?
If everyone's reaction judged what is morally good and evil then dentists would become evildoers
Frank purposes a very complicated notion. Many other species of animals understand the concept of empathy and cooperation. Like everything else concerning a god, Frank needs to provide evidence that the concepts come via a god.
He did provide evidence, you just either didn't listen, or don't know what evidence is.
To:Docbndgrl9113 What evidence do you have?
Isn't empathy and cooperation still subject to subjectivity?
@Andrew Petty Empathy and cooperation is subject to subjectivity and so is everything else if you want it to. Hot and cold, happy and sad. Is a man 7 foot in height tall or is that just a subjective view that has no basis without God?
@@jacksfavorite4808, Those don't seem to be good examples because hot and cold can't be subjective. Height can't be subjective. Those things aren't based on perception. Temperature can be measured and height can as well.
I have promised myself not to fight with an atheist again, they just drive me crazy but here we go again, he calls unreasonable to believe that there is no book author after reading the book, but yet when it comes to Creation, you see there is no creator, it drives me crazy.
Jose Diego Torres the book and the author...
The painter and the painting..
The building and the builder...
These are all just variations of the watchmaker argument..
And it’s been debunked
@@bazstrutt8247 it has not been debunked
@@bazstrutt8247 scientists cant even make a grain of sand out of nothing. They dont know where to start. You atheists are so far from logic.
Amadeus
🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
“Science can’t create a grain of sand from nothing, therefore god exists “....
Really, how old are you? 6?
@@bazstrutt8247 where did this material come from?
Frank Turek is a 1 string banjo.
This one was confusing to me.
Despite being a Christian I do struggle with the insistence that morality is a proof of God's existence. Morality is merely a term to describe behaviour, and behaviour is essentially our physical actions which are driven by our knowledge, thoughts and decisions. We can logically assume that morality would not exist in the absence of humans (and we can't speak for the animal kingdom because we cannot comprehend their understanding of their own existence).
Humans don't define what good is, God does, because He *_is_* all that is good. He *_is_* truth (why lying is evil), life (why murdering is evil), grace, mercy, justice, soverignty, I could go on.
Those facts allows us humans to know what evil is.
If you take God out of it, what does good even mean?
Also, as a Christian, you know that God made only humans in His image.
@Docbndrl9913 How does God define what is good and bad? What makes you think God is doing anything?
If you erase God from morality then you're left with subjective morality or opinions therefore can't differentiate what is right or wrong. Without an objective morality, who are you to say one is right or wrong?
@Ferz N Why do you think God is good? What are you basing that on, what criteria?
1. "Morality is merely a term to describe behaviour, and behaviour is essentially our physical actions which are driven by our knowledge, thoughts and decisions". No, morality is the standard by which our actions (which could be good or evil) are judged.
2. "We can logically assume that morality would not exist in the absence of humans". No, we cannot. What is right will be right even if there were no humans, though we would not be here to observe the process. By that statement, you are essentially saying humans formed the standards of morality, That is exactly what atheists claim.
Now I am not condemning you. Some of these thing could be confusing when not properly understood. Since you are a Christian, you believe there is a God. So, would there be God without humans? Yes. So, even if there were no humans, there would still be morality.
If non-believers put as much effort into believing there is a god as they did into NOT WANTING to believe there is a god, they would be a lot better off. The ONLY reasonable explanation for origin of life, evolution, morality and suffering etc. is a supreme being outside of time, space and matter. So much time and effort wasted trying to explain away what is obvious.
Frank’s always three steps ahead of these guys 🧐
You have to be an intellectual contortionist to believe that everything came from nothing.
You only need to be intellectually honest to believe God.
And you just have to confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised him from death to be saved (Romans 10:9).
_"You have to be an intellectual contortionist to believe that everything came from nothing"_
No scientist or atheist ever said that. It's just a well-known strawman frequently used by Christians.
@@theovanrossum8652 the only way anyone can rightly say no scientist or atheist ever said everything came from nothing is if he has some means of hearing everything every scientist and atheist has ever said. We both know atheists say whatever they want to. So if your rebuttal isn’t a straw man prove me wrong. Where did everything come from if it didn’t come from nothing? It appears you agree with me that the notion that everything came from nothing is ridiculous, so where did everything come from? Saying we don’t know is to admit it God is a possibility. If atheists can’t say everything came from nothing that is an indication that God may exist. If atheists can’t prove there is no God it may be because it’s impossible to prove something that exists to be nonexistent. Accept logic; accept Christ.
@@poliincredible770
I do not have to know every atheist and scientist. There is something called PUBLICATIONS.
_"We both know atheists say whatever they want to."_
Another strawman. We do not claim that we know where everything came from. The Big Bang is not about how the universe came into existence. It's about the evolution of the universe. It's the religious who believe they have the answer to everything. Good thing we know that morals need to evolve so that we no longer need the outdated and today immoral morals of ages ago.
@@poliincredible770
Where did your God come from and how feasible is this great magician who said _"Let there be light"_ and "poof!" there was light?
Why would atheists need to prove there "is a God"? We don't make any claims about that. You do.
@@theovanrossum8652 atheists don’t put everything they say in PUBLICATIONS. Straw man down.
You said atheists don’t claim they know where everything came from?
So that means you can’t say it didn’t come from God. There was a time when atheists believed the universe just always existed because a universe that always existed wouldn’t require a creator. But then scientists discovered the universe is expanding which means if we could rewind time it would contract to a beginning point. So the Biblical notion that the universe had a beginning is now verified by science. The Big Bang is about how the universe came into existence, and it actually proves God. Type “believe in God in 5 minutes” in the TH-cam search. There you will see a brief presentation by an accredited scientist who uses settled science to make a simple semantical connection atheists don’t want made. Enjoy.
The bottom has fallen out of Darwinism/ evolution. No one has ever observed the transition of one kind (family) of creature to another kind of creature (fish to snake, etc.). However, many people throughout history have interacted with God. Choose recorded history, not hypothetical atheistic conjecture; choose Christ!
I love how trying to eliminate suffering is something Frank Turek is arguing AGAINST in order to support the Bible. If your god doesn't care about our suffering, then what do we get from worshipping him, a ticket out of the god torturing us? That's a good reason to worship him, but shouldn't we try to stand up against god before we submit to his cruelty?
If there is no God, there won't be any reasonable explanation for suffering
@@orbitamusic316 Why do you say that?
If God doesn't exist, then suffering is a natural part of this life, which is a perfectly reasonable explanation given our current understanding of the universe. Events naturally occur which cause some to suffer, volcanoes erupting, for example, people make bad choices, or people react to situations poorly. These are all perfectly reasonable explanations for suffering.
@@zeddicuszorrander3599 natural? That's more like standing on the 5th floor and denying the buildings foundation
@@orbitamusic316 Could you explain what you mean?
Stand up against an infinite, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent being?
If you were to create a truly objective morality, one based upon objective criteria that can be applied universally. Then it may include such things as maximising well-being and minimising harm, freedom of thought, freedom of belief etc. In other words, keep religion out of morality!
Matt Holton Religion has nothing to do with objective morality
@@MarkNOTW I agree, but try telling religious folks that.
@@Matthew_Holton But you can't so statement refuted...😂😂👍
The statement is true even if religion continues to distort people's understanding of morality. If you want an objective morality you need objective criteria appealing to an ancient book of horrors, fantasy and forgery does not cut it.
God’s promise: I’m willing to freely forgive your sins and grant you everlasting life if you repent of your sins and have faith in Jesus.
Atheists: wE cAmE FRoM MonKEys!
No atheist ever said that.
@@theovanrossum8652
I have met numerous atheists claiming monkeys are their ancestors.
@@thomasb4467
You must have misheard "common ancestor" then.
@@theovanrossum8652
Doubtful.
@@thomasb4467
Evolution speaks of a common ancestor. Not of monkeys or apes.
The atheist always tries to use suffering as a measuring stick for morality. But is all suffering always bad? Would we really want a society where all suffering was avoided? No. This is the type of logic used by parents who don’t want to keep score at their kids’ soccer games because losing may mentally traumatize the children. Christianity tells us that suffering can be a good thing. It can teach us and mold us into better human beings. Everyone has used some type of suffering in their lives to improve themselves. And trust me, we don’t want the Left deciding what suffering is or isn’t.
Frank, why did you cut the video? I would like to hear his reply...
To be honest there's so much of thus guy on various videos and he keeps asking virtually the same question which Frank keeps gracefully answering.
Why abground outside of humanity? You didn't answer the Frank.
The guy on stage doesn't make a single valid point during this entire conversation
This young man needs to live among other cultures before making these statements...
Humans like all animals have an inherent morality. Ethics is the science that deals with moral principals.
Society (humans living in organized groups) decide on what is important for the society or group. Often by an elite group in control of that society or group.
The crux of the matter is whether you believe morality is part of the natural make up of biology or whether it comes from God.
🤦♂️
Yo
Pain and harm don't have any concrete meaning.
Mind blown
I don't understand why secular morality is so complicated for theists to grasp. It's like a game of chess: the objective is winning, which pretty much everybody can agree on (there's your goal) so from there we can determine an objective set of actions you OUGHT or OUGHT NOT take in order to increase your chances of winning the game. That's it. We know all people have the capacity to suffer and as a social species with heightened empathetic tendencies, we can agree that well-being is preferable to suffering and from that (subjective) goal, we can evaluate moral actions objectively. Occam's razor. Read about meta-ethics to understand why actions in regards to a goal are objective, but the standard can never be objective. Take the dark ages for example. Is stoning homosexuals or burning witches at the stake still morally acceptable under our ever-shifting cultural standard?
Adam Courtney they still kill homosexuals in other secular countries. So that example is moot
@@almondwater9583 thank you for demonstrating the validity of my argument. They believe it is the right thing to do but most people here do not, therefore morality is (unfortunately) subject to opinion. It just so happens that (fortunately) the western world seems to agree on a shared goal.... that well-being is preferable to suffering. If you disagree with this subjective goal, we who share the same values have the right to separate you from the pack like chimpanzees do in their tribes.
Your idea of "winning" may be for everyone to get along and work together. My idea of winning could be to take what I want and squash all those who get in my way. Without God, both of our ideas of winning are the same. It's only the opinions and feelings about them that differ.
Without a moral authority like God to dictate absolute good and evil and hold all people accountable to it, it doesn't matter what we do or how it makes anyone feel. We'll all be equally annihilated and forgotten in time.
@@festushaggen2563 are you familiar with John Rawls' veil of ignorance, or the euthyphro dilemma?
@@dja-bomb6397 No. But I do know that if I'm an accident and you're an accident, neither of us have any business telling each other how to live our lives.
"Inferring the truth of what people believe from their actions... and from that we can extrpolate positive ethics"....positive ethics for who, those "suffering" ? So I would extrapolate from this young guy's logic that his idea of positive ethics woud need to be based on how those he observes define "their suffering" let's just hope in his 'world' there are no ...."positive" ethics for the "sufferring" of those with anti social personal disorders or who are psychopaths. This young guy is being obtuse..after this latest video (lost count)...it looks deliberately so. God bless FT and CE and although this is an engaging video.... watching this in small bits can over stretch a video.
He does want there to be a god.thats what his question is really about. He just wants to stump Frank to validate what he wants to be true....not what actually is true
Subjective morality is *NOT* valid or binding on anyone else. That includes cultures which are made of subjective humans with their subjective feelings. Therefore in an atheistic worldview, there is no dictating to others what the standard of objective good is. You have none as said, what you have is not valid or binding on anyone else. There is no good or evil in an Atheistic worldview. Period.
However, you still yell "hey! That's not right, that's an injustice!". Whenever you do that, you are affirming objective moral values and duties. And the one and only source of objective moral values and duties come from God's nature, or as we say, his essence.
Go Or:What would you say to a Muslim who claims his objective moral values comes from his god? How would you convince him your objective moral truth is correct?
Go Or no, there are plenty of other worldviews that employ objective morals. You don’t need a god to make up your own morals and apply them as being objective. The truth of this concept lies in solipsism and Existentialism where the universe outside of you does not exist and you must essentially make your own morals.
There is also a concept known as objective consequentialism where morals are concerned in the matter which consequences are objectively evaluated. If for instance climate change is only causing negative impacts across the globe, then it is morally objective to act/abstain against climate change, within that particular context. You can’t demonstrate this to be an opinion because the world is evidently in a climate crisis.
Again the strawmanning of atheists. No atheist has ever said that we're "overgrown germs" or that ethics are just "molecules bumping around in our heads".
I also find the analogy of book has to have an author, therefore morality needs God a fallacy here. It doesn't make sense.
_"I can read a book and know what the book says and still deny it has an author and say nobody wrote this, right?"_
No, you can't. That is utterly ridiculous.
A dog can carry a human baby out of a burning house because the dog loves the humans he grew up with. Not even an animal needs religious morals to know what's right and wrong. Our capacity for empathy as well as disgust is something we're all born with. Why would we need religion for that? But even more disturbing, why do some Christians claim that they'd be bad without God? What kind of a human being are you if you really need religion to be a good person in the first place?
Morality evolves. What seemed to be good before, humanity realized it was bad in today's standard.
Morality comes from evolution
For example? even the slave owners new they were doing wrong. And you can ´t tell we´re living in shangri la these days. The world is full with wars, injustice, murder, corruption and pestilence.
@@jackprescott9652 example: stoning gay people to death.
Stoning a man to death because he was working during sabbath day.
Racism, gender equality etc.
@@bagnasbayabas yeah and today we have sicarios, drug wars between cartels, gangs, junkies and alcoholics everywhere, kidnappings, you named it. Morals of this days are no better.
@@y.martel842morality can't come from evolution
This guy basic wants us to use AI, but AI is created by us too.
I don't see why there needs to be an objective standard for morality. Why can't there be subjective morality?
What is good if everything is subjective?
It would all just be a matter of opinion and we would have no way of knowing what is true, or what truth even is.
@@Keesha_Hardy
I don't see how this does not already exists. Everyone acts like this so why couldn't morality be subjective?
Docbndgrl9113
That seems to be what we observe.
Regardless of what you want.
Morality isn’t as black and white as you’ve been led to believe.
@@tedidk8639 Just because people act as if morality is subjective doesn't mean that it is.
Everyone will understand that soon enough though, whether they accept the truth or not.
@@frankbromley1512 It's really not about what I want, that's what you don't seem to understand.
It's about what is true. You can reject the truth, we all have that right, but it doesn't stop the truth from being what it is.
I've come to accept that. You, on the other hand, obviously haven't.
One dosn't need to be a Christian to understand right from wrong at least in part. The golden or silver rule seems to be assumed in his defense of his "better" ethic. Why not seek only to avoid my own suffering seems to be very rational to be a sneeky freeloader in a materialistic universe. After all is suffering is the greatest evil and pleasure the greatest good I owe nothing to anyone as justice or love from my neighbor would have too come 1st not the avoidance of pain. Also he makes the point of saying avoiding unnecessary suffering. By unessasary what does he mean does he apeal to justice or the will of the mob? If the later why would chatle enslavement of minorities be wrong. Also people dislike necessary suffering as much as unesssasary suffering. Often they are more than happy to pass the buck to another. What rule determines necessary/ vs unnecessary where does it come from by what right are we obliged to obey it? In other words what is justice and where does it come from?
He seems to think that his philosophy can reject some moral standards on the ground that they are not modern and keep the rest. Much like the Soviets dropped some and the nazis did as well. The worldview he operates under seems very likaly to be one that incorporates a universal acid. He has used it so far to simply remove what he and many in our society do not like. But on what grounds other than his preference could he decide. Logically there is no reason to stop with the erasing due to this universal acid. Or no reason to suppose that justice is the standard if we can modify it to suit or will. At the end it seems each human would either subjectively decide which forms of suffering are unnecessary and which are not that is as he would invent a standard of justice. If justice isn't transcendent unchanging and universal in time and place we have no logical right to judge other times, places nor to say that things are getting better without a proper standard to obey. If your standard is based on what people normally do how can you say history was bad as people were just doing what they were naturally inclined to do.
He needs to justify those things he brings to the table within his world view. Is that rule simply made up by individuals or the government or is it transcendent. He also smuggles in a moral status for human beings (or at least some.) Afterall it really wouldn't matter much what your fellow man wanted unless they actually have moral status. He keeps a standard of human exceptionalism (at least for some.) He seems to restrict the democracy of who decides right and wrong to some humans then says that the preferred actions/rules are objective. Is that how we decide truth in other avenues? If that isnt what is the case why should we do it here. If every human believed in God would God exist on soley those grounds? Would God's existance then be an objective fact if it wasn't before? I think I know what he smuggles in something along the line of "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with inaliable rights..." However if atheism is true as Chesterton says “The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal." What grounds does he have for that dogma? From what authority does it come? If atheism is true our rights are granted by secular authorities. Governments give us rights they don't protect pre-existing rights. There are then no logical grounds for saying they are bad when they infringe upon certian rights. In other words if the universe is amoral then morality is a human invention and is in no way true. A man discovers truth 2+2=4 is a discovery 7 Billion people saying it is so alters its truth not one iota nor would 2+2 =5 if all said it did.
Saying “ a god” does not explain it either.
“ a god” is an answer not an explanation.
It’s just religion folks
It shouldn’t be confused with reality 😀
TwwwJ JwwwT
Reality is what the facts are.
Mick Q I think you should watch the video dude again why are you on a Christian video if you think it’s a fairytale 🤣
TwwwJ JwwwT
“ of this reality “
Do you know of another reality ?
TwwwJ JwwwT
What people believe is, has no bearing on what is .
Don’t you know any facts ?
TwwwJ JwwwT
Reality is what the facts are .
If it’s a fact , then it’s part of reality
Do you know any facts ?
Mmm👏
Jesus is my Prophet, my Priest and my King.
Morality comes to us based on probability of outcome. Every action has a reaction. In order to thrive as a specie we are most successful when we work together and support each other. For that to happen we need to trust each other. You lose the trust and support of other people when acts that negetively impacts society are made too often or if the consequences of your actions are too high. Morality comes from the will to be accepted and trusted in order to have the best survival probability
Morality! Just watched half time, jlo, shakira? GOD help OUR kids and grandchildren!
Not all humans live as if suffering is wrong. Most humans will say it is wrong if you ask them. But the majority do not act as if it is wrong on a daily basis.
We live self centered lives. Self is the object of thought in most humans minds.
So you may be living as your suffering is wrong that people may knowingly or unknowingly inflict on you, but you don’t live consciously trying to make sure other people aren’t suffering. Your not even thinking about other people.
You could research all through history and see what has caused human suffering, but it’s still not going to solve the core issue, which is everyone serves self.
That’s why Jesus said “whom ever desires to be my disciples, my deny themselves, take up there cross, and follow me”.
Self is the root issue. Until humanity learns to deny themselves as Jesus taught, there won’t be any real progress. No matter how much we advance artificially.
Pride is what causes all suffering in the world, and it’s the nature of Satan, and we inherit it from Adam. The Lord Jesus is the only one who can redeem us from it. How do we get rid of self you may ask?
Die, that’s the only way, you must die.
So that you may be resurrected spiritually, and get a new nature. The unselfish nature of God displayed in Christ.
That’s why Jesus said in John 3, you must be born again to enter the kingdom of heaven. Your dead to all things spiritual.
But you must die to all things carnal to become reconciled to the unselfish spiritual nature of God.
Down is the way up. Go low in humility, make your “self” nothing so that God may be all and all. Then you will take on the suffering of Christ in your life to prevent the suffering of others.
“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others. In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death- even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
Philippians 2:3-11 NIV
Edit: just had a thought so I’m gonna add it. I believe the Holy Spirit just spoke this to me in my spirit.
It’s not a matter of figuring out what our morality should be. It’s a matter of losing our idea of morality all together, so that we can gain Christ’s.
Joseph Bowman I strongly disagree that self-interest is the root of the problem. The moment you deny your self, you forfeit everything that makes you, you. Your individuality, your autonomy, your identity. Take those away and you might as well become what theists describe atheists: random chanced floating energy will no real value.
Of course your take on this is that value comes externally from god. But you simply don’t exist as a person and I can only recognise you as a representation of Christian conformity.
Adam Smith rationalised why self-interest is important because it lends an ‘invisible hand’ that actually builds our economy. If you’ve read a bit on the wealth of nations, the more self-interest you create, the more you end up helping others as well as yourself. Suffering is not exclusive in the argument for self-interest.
Patrick Majewski when you see your nothingness in the light of God’s greatness in Christ, it’s an honor to forfeit your identity that you’ve established yourself, for one he gives you.
It’s self that causes humanity to be in opposition towards God, to actually be the creator of the universes enemy, because your thinking is in direct conflict with his. It is pride, and it is what causes all suffering.
Bettering yourself a little bit isn’t going to cause you to always think about the interest of others before your own. You have to have God’s spirit, you have to have his nature, you have to have the teachings of Jesus. Humanity isn’t going to get anywhere. We are fallen, and we can’t get up without Christ. It’s as simple as that.
Joseph Bowman the identity you get from god isn’t yours though. Right now I’m not talking to you because your words are not your own. I have the feeling that freewill is forfeited also because the decisions you make are now in control of the Holy Spirit. How much do you hate yourself, or the better question is, how much does god hate you that he wants you to be like him? It’s a fair question and I think you must really hate yourself to bend over and allow religion to take you up the backside. I’m so sorry I don’t mean to offend it’s just my anger at religion. Not you.
Patrick Majewski When I say self, and when Jesus says self, we are referring to righteousness. There’s self righteousness, and there’s God’s righteousness that’s in Christ. In other words, how I say I should behave and conduct myself, verses what Gods says in regard to the way I should behave and conduct myself.
I love his way of doing things that has been revealed in Christ. I gladly forfeit my way of righteousness for his. Because his is simply better and more fulfilling.
His has completeness and wholeness and satisfaction, mans does not.
You will always be trying to
Climb the metaphorical ladder, chasing a pipe dream of fulfillment that will never be achieved. You’ll always be left wanting more. Not in Christ, he fills you with his “self” and keeps you full, because he is eternal and never runs out of anything.
Hating yourself is simply embracing who Jesus is and what he did for you. And it’s not a bad thing, it’s quite wonderful and freeing.
Imagine a 4 year old that wants its way in everything and cries when it doesn’t get it.
This is us towards God. Eventually it’s time to grow up and stop questioning mom and dad, stop fighting them and arguing with them and wanting our own way. Only then can you begin maturing. Otherwise rebellion and disobedience will be your conduct.
Jesus is not a religion, he’s Lord and king of everything. And he’s awesome in every way imaginable and beyond. He’s worthy to be served and adored and loved and obeyed. His righteousness is far superior than any others and I wouldn’t trade him for anything this world can offer.
Trying to better yourself gets you no where and will never satisfy. Jesus said it best himself.. he said what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul. He also said a mans life does not persist in the abundance of his possessions.
And God doesn’t hate me. He hates my way, he hates my righteousness, my “self”. He hates the life that I choose outside of him.. why? Because he’s can’t love you or bless you when you go your own way. Same goes for any parent, child relationship. As much as any loving parent would want to bless there child, they can’t if the child chooses to rebel and disobey the parent. There going to be at odds with each other. I enjoy peace and harmony with my Father through faith in Christ. Nothing will ever come close.
That’s why I hate self. And that’s why
Jesus said to deny it. Simply put, his “self” is beyond better than mine. As the Bible puts it. “Our righteousness is as filthy rags”. Dirty, filthy rags. Compared to Gods perfect righteousness in Christ that he offered me as a free gift, and I could not refuse. 👍🏻
Joseph Bowman I hear this a lot that god doesn’t hate me, but he hates my ways. What is it about me that he doesn’t hate if we eliminate my way, my righteousness, my “self”. What do I have left that he doesn’t hate? It’s seems like that’s everything that is me.
I’m not trying to corner you in this discussion, I’m trying to understand the differences here between me and the “self”. It seems kind of synonymous.
but ... they don't all act in the same way ... because if they did ... the NAZI's would never have existed.
Because of Satan. His lies. Their sinful desires. are some people more honest than others? If so it is the same thing just not as big. We all have a standard from God but we also have free will, meaning we can do what we want even at the cost of punishment from God. Hope this helps! God bless you!
@@laptap1885 yep.
i know.
This video should be called "Why watch this video.....?" At least Frank will always have a job in politics - there a plenty of clowns there. :)
The kid is too 'smart' for his own good. Relax and let God.
If I was looking for a standard above humanity to have morality i would definitely not be looking for it in the bible nor getting it from the god of the bible.
You got it from the God of the Bible whether you like it or not. We are born with this sense of right and wrong. You don’t have to look for it.
Then where would you get it from of foolish one?
Mark L Sorry but in no way did I get my morals from the bible or the god of the bible if it exists.
If I did then surely I’d be ok with all of gods immoral deeds and laws within it?
Jokes I get it from the same place the majority of life gets it from. It’s inherent in us all.
I’m happy to hear your opinion...........if you don’t mind giving it to such a foolish one? 😊
And the immorality of the bible is inexplicable. There is no explaining it.
Turek claims
that objective morals exist and that god is the source of this. Yet he provides evidence for neither
If there is not objective morals the subjective morals dont matter because who are you the OBJECT to my subjective morals if OBJECTIVE morals that define your morals isnt existent. Then morals dont matter.
Amadeus you sound like you’re trying to parrot Turek. You think if objective morality was proven false then people would suddenly throw up their arms and say ‘we dont care about morality anymore, let’s go rape and steal!’?
Objective morality is a reality. We all intrinsically know that certain actions like murder and stealing are wrong. We don’t have to be taught that. Since we know that life only comes from life, we can know that we were created and therefore it is completely logical and rational to conclude that we were endowed with this sense of right and wrong by our creator.
Mark L is not taking gods name in vain one of these objective morals? What about abstaining from premarital sex? And what do you think the overall purpose of having morals is?
@@MarkNOTW We all have a propensity towards certain intrinsic behaviors such as love your family,
help your group, return favors, be brave, defer to authority, be fair and respect others’ property. Studies have shown that these morals are universal across time and culture. Isn't it strange that this list doesn't include help or love strangers which Christians would consider a moral imperative? This should be a clue that the whole idea of objective Christian morality is complete nonsense. Evolution has a much better explanation of where morality came from. Why is it that other social species such as apes and monkeys display very similar intrinsic behaviors to that which I listed previously? Its because these behaviors are important for social cohesion which in turn is important for survival in a hostile environment where starvation, disease, injury, exposure etc are constant threats