Questioning God's Chosen Communication

[POI]

(1) Why would an omniscient God reveal to ancient societies the questions that modern scientific communities would be interested in? (2) Why would God care more about making scientific knowledge available in these texts versus addressing how He wanted humans to live?

For debate: Does the provided video below answer the above two questions sufficiently? If not, why not? If so, then I guess God is inept?

[POI]

I agree humans won't follow whatever the law is.

Then the following rationale does not compute. --> "God is willing to work with us, taking a slower route, because it will be better for us in the long run."

Then there exists no valid reason for God to temporarily conform to human standards instead of the Bible-God's objective moral standards.

If God knows humans won’t perfectly follow the law, why is not moving them forward at all better than moving them forward slowly?

As the video already pointed out, humans moved "forward" slowly in spite of some of God's proposed laws.

[The Tanager]

As the video already pointed out, humans moved "forward" slowly in spite of some of God's proposed laws.

Can you get more specific on what you mean here?

[POI]

As the video already pointed out, humans moved "forward" slowly in spite of some of God's proposed laws.

Can you get more specific on what you mean here?

Sure. Watch the video.

[The Tanager]

Sure. Watch the video.

What I got from the video was the assumption that our modern morals are better than ancient ones without any justification for why they are objectively better. If that is the same thing you got, then what is the justification for this judgment?

[POI]

Sure. Watch the video.

What I got from the video was the assumption that our modern morals are better than ancient ones without any justification for why they are objectively better. If that is the same thing you got, then what is the justification for this judgment?

You are absolutely right. The topics, mentioned in the video, should never have been abandoned or revoked by later generations. It was objectively wrong to later spite such prior allowances and/or laws.

[The Tanager]

What I got from the video was the assumption that our modern morals are better than ancient ones without any justification for why they are objectively better. If that is the same thing you got, then what is the justification for this judgment?

You are absolutely right. The topics, mentioned in the video, should never have been abandoned or revoked by later generations. It was objectively wrong to later spite such prior allowances and/or laws.

On what basis are the video's or your moral views objectively true?

[TRANSPONDER]

Human morals are socially evolved from instinct just as music, art, language and indeed religion are (so I suggest) based on evolved instinct that still isn't understood. But that doesn't mean 'God' has got to be the answer.

Do you view morality as an objective or subjective feature of reality?

That should be obvious if you followed my posts, but let me set it out - it iisn'tall one thing or the other. Indeed i suspect nothing is. Art, music, language and literature, and indeed religion, royalty and politics, warfare and society, are all clealy human developments, but I think can be ascribed to evolutionary survival instincts, or we wouldn't have them.

Our pal Mae pointed out that Evolution is about survival. True, but co -operation also enables survival. Critters (especially pack and tribal animals) have evolved to co -operate because it increases chances of survival.

This I argue (and I have seen some Biologists do so) is the basis of human culture that has been so developed that we have lost sight of the evolutionary instinct. Animals and birds use tools to get food. That is the basis of modern technology, even if we hardly connect the two.

So the answer is, it is objective as an evolved instinct and with human survival as the 'meaning' (not that the universe cares). The 'subjective' bit is how humans have taken the evolutionary ball and run with it to the extent that we now adapt the environment to ourselves, rather than adapt to the environment. Out subjective little minds have bean evolution at its' own game.

I'm not saying whether this is all good and a path to Utopia, no more that evolution is 'Good' as regards ethics; often it is so horrifically bad that one cannot ascribe it to an ethical being, but a force of nature that had no morals or ethics, because that is largely a human invention.

[TRANSPONDER]

Sure. Watch the video.

What I got from the video was the assumption that our modern morals are better than ancient ones without any justification for why they are objectively better. If that is the same thing you got, then what is the justification for this judgment?

Moving on from my post above, where the 'objective basis' is survival instinct with human social evolution progressing it further, that is all the objective basis you are going to get, and really all we need. We are here, we want to live, mainly because evolution gave us the instinct to live.

"I have gone to the edge and looked over and decided i didn't want to jump. Having made that purely personal decision, I asked 'What do I do with my life?' The answer was 'whatever you like'. Wow!" (me at 17)

A cosmic objectivity to life, human well -being and morality is not there, no more than any meaning, Plan or morals imposed by a god (name your own), and a good job too. Rules imposed by a dictator (even a good one, which Biblegod really isn't) is not objective, but the epitome of subjectivity.

I'd argue that most people want a simple life: 'survive, eat, reproduce' or in a more complex and sophisticated society 'Drive carefully, where shall we have lunch and your place or mine?' (1) and, just as humans developed technology, art, literature and music and indeed religion as it seemed good to them, we had empathy for those in our group and (when we invented or discovered logic) realised that others have feelings too and that trade is better than war (I wish someone would tell these dictators) and stone age archaeology shows it was a time of remarkably extensive trade and co - operation. I don't know whether, if or how, growth of nation - or tribal states, the change from fertiliy and seasonal gods to tribal gods and the discovery of bronze had anything to do with it, but warfare became as much a feature of ancient life as trade and co -operation.

Point is, right or wrong, good or bad, steps forward or back, recognising and thinking about social ethics and moral rules has moved us fforwards, or so it seems. Who would want to go back to royal autocracy, child labour, women without the vote and slavery? We have, generally, moved the idea at least of better morals forward, and by reasoning and the betterment of all as the objective as well as subjective.

And no reason at all to ascribe any of that to a god, religion or Holy Book. Name your own.

(1) one day, that'll get a laugh

[The Tanager]

So the answer is, it is objective as an evolved instinct and with human survival as the 'meaning' (not that the universe cares). The 'subjective' bit is how humans have taken the evolutionary ball and run with it to the extent that we now adapt the environment to ourselves, rather than adapt to the environment. Out subjective little minds have bean evolution at its' own game.

I'm not saying whether this is all good and a path to Utopia, no more that evolution is 'Good' as regards ethics; often it is so horrifically bad that one cannot ascribe it to an ethical being, but a force of nature that had no morals or ethics, because that is largely a human invention.

I don’t see how this is objective in the subjective/objective morality debate sense. Yes, individuals would have evolved certain moral instincts, but simply in the same way that individuals have evolved different preferred flavors (which I'm sure you agree taste is subjective). We would expect different moral principles to have developed simultaneously within different individuals and societies. And these moral principles could have developed entirely different than they actually did. Bee or shark “morality” allow for certain behaviors to be accepted that we don’t accept as a species. These species all survive. This isn’t objective, but purely subjective morality.

Point is, right or wrong, good or bad, steps forward or back, recognising and thinking about social ethics and moral rules has moved us fforwards, or so it seems. Who would want to go back to royal autocracy, child labour, women without the vote and slavery? We have, generally, moved the idea at least of better morals forward, and by reasoning and the betterment of all as the objective as well as subjective.

A subjectivist cannot rationally say our society has moved forward. It has simply moved to a different spot than before. It's moved closer to your preferences, sure. And away from other individuals' preferences. There is no forwards and the only way it seems forward is if you are thinking like an objectivist, which subjectivism says is an illusion. Sure people will prefer what they prefer and not want to go back, but this isn’t moving forward.

[POI]

What I got from the video was the assumption that our modern morals are better than ancient ones without any justification for why they are objectively better. If that is the same thing you got, then what is the justification for this judgment?

You are absolutely right. The topics, mentioned in the video, should never have been abandoned or revoked by later generations. It was objectively wrong to later spite such prior allowances and/or laws.

On what basis are the video's or your moral views objectively true?

Is there an "objective" answer, or is everything relative, by way of personal option alone?