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 still think we can be adequately certain of many of our moral observations.

Okay. I'll just agree for now. Let's move this along....

According to these "objective moral observations", are we now?

a) heading away from rightness, in regard to the topic of gay sex?
b) heading towards rightness, in regard to the topic of rape?
c) heading away from rightness, in regard to the topic of slavery?

[The Tanager]

I still think we can be adequately certain of many of our moral observations.

Okay. I'll just agree for now. Let's move this along....

According to these "objective moral observations", are we now?

a) heading away from rightness, in regard to the topic of gay sex?
b) heading towards rightness, in regard to the topic of rape?
c) heading away from rightness, in regard to the topic of slavery?

You are skipping a step, though. To be able to move in the right OR wrong direction, morality has to be objective. Subjective morality cannot give us that. That’s my critique of the video right now. You may want to move to something else, but why would I do that with you when you won't finish addressing what we've already been discussing?

If you want to continue our discussion, then are you a subjectivist? If so, then the video’s critique fails because subjective morality can’t rationally claim we are moving in the wrong or right direction. If you are not a subjectivist, then what objectively grounds our moral judgments?

[POI]

are you a subjectivist?

I haven't decided yet. I'd say the video maker, as well as yourself, seem to conclude that 'moral assessments/observations' are objective? Thus, I'm willing to go with your assessment that (paraphrased) "moral observations can be objective", to see where this goes.

What say-you about the following topics?

According to these "objective moral observations", are we now?

a) heading away from rightness, in regard to the topic of gay sex?
b) heading towards rightness, in regard to the topic of rape?
c) heading away from rightness, in regard to the topic of slavery?

[The Tanager]

are you a subjectivist?

I haven't decided yet. I'd say the video maker, as well as yourself, seem to conclude that 'moral assessments/observations' are objective? Thus, I'm willing to go with your assessment that (paraphrased) "moral observations can be objective", to see where this goes.

What say-you about the following topics?

According to these "objective moral observations", are we now?

a) heading away from rightness, in regard to the topic of gay sex?
b) heading towards rightness, in regard to the topic of rape?
c) heading away from rightness, in regard to the topic of slavery?

You are still skipping ahead. For the video maker and myself, we need to be able to ground our belief that it is objective in something. I've offered the grounding in God and the video maker offered nothing for that grounding. You don't believe in God, so to see where this goes, what are you offering in God's place for the atheist to ground such a claim?

[TRANSPONDER]

Since you seem disinclined to answer my post, I'll just observe that you are in failure mode because you insist on objectivity in something that is no more 'objective' than instinct plus social evolution and logical reasoning and does not need to be.

You are demanding something (God) that isn't needed or you refuse to accept that it is valid.

But you fail because what you will or will not accept is nothing to the point. What matters (as always) is that the reader with their mind still open will see that evolutionary (bio and social) evolution is adequate (if not actually better) to account for human morals and ethics, and sight better than any religious morality, including the Bible.

Your case Fails if you can't make a convincing one to others, never mind what you deny in order to cling to your own faith. It was never about persuading those who deny even hard evidence. Or as we have seen elsewhere even what the Bible says. Faith is the worst reason of all (other than race hate, of course) for believing any claim.

I’ll try one more time to get us on the same page, then. Your view is not objective. Yes, instinct plus social evolution plus logical reasoning can theoretically account for the actual moral views and behaviors we see in the world. But that’s not ‘objective morality’ any more than socio-biological evolution accounting for the ice cream flavors we like is ‘objective food taste’. Those are both objective facts about reality (you like X, I like Y), but those are facts about parts of reality that are subjective features. That's the first bit. Do you understand this part before going onto what I've said or haven't said about how reality needs to be objective and how God does or doesn't need to come into play.

I would really like us to be on the same page, but you won't do it. Your (apparently deliberate) misstep about 'objective reality' gives you away. Reality is (on the best logical bases) objective; it is what it is whatever we think about it, or even know about it. Morality (beyond the evolved basics) is not like that; it is a human reasoning construct trying to devise rules to achieve those desired conditions (based on evolved instinctive human preferences) and to try to get people to play by those rules. It would be nice if it has objective, but on all the evidence it is not, and you are doing it wrong to insist that it has to be. If you can take that step of accepting that this is at least as a fair hypothetical explanation, we can get onto the same page. All the time you insist it has to be objective (never mind God's dictated rules, which is not objective but a different opinion) you cannot join me on the page.

[TRANSPONDER]

I still think we can be adequately certain of many of our moral observations.

Okay. I'll just agree for now. Let's move this along....

According to these "objective moral observations", are we now?

a) heading away from rightness, in regard to the topic of gay sex?
b) heading towards rightness, in regard to the topic of rape?
c) heading away from rightness, in regard to the topic of slavery?

You are skipping a step, though. To be able to move in the right OR wrong direction, morality has to be objective. Subjective morality cannot give us that. That’s my critique of the video right now. You may want to move to something else, but why would I do that with you when you won't finish addressing what we've already been discussing?

If you want to continue our discussion, then are you a subjectivist? If so, then the video’s critique fails because subjective morality can’t rationally claim we are moving in the wrong or right direction. If you are not a subjectivist, then what objectively grounds our moral judgments?

This is continuing to insist on what I argue is an invalid argument - that morality has to be objective, or there is no right or wrong basis. I argue, correct, there isn't apart from the instinctive desire for a better life for us as individuals, groups and species. That is all the Objectivity you are going to get and all there is and we have to do the best we can (on reason) to obtain this.

It is not easy. Philosophy, law -codes and indeed religion has tried to make it work. It has made progress (I think you did accept that or I argued that you did) and we know where we want to get to but find it hard to make the required steps. It is too simple for any religious, political or philosophical system to declare 'Just play by these rules and it will work fine'. It does not work and does not help to claim the system (political, religious or philosophical) is right and true and it's just the fault of people it isn't working.

It is only people who can make this work, not the system, or indeed religion.

[POI]

You are still skipping ahead. For the video maker and myself, we need to be able to ground our belief that it is objective in something. I've offered the grounding in God and the video maker offered nothing for that grounding. You don't believe in God, so to see where this goes, what are you offering in God's place for the atheist to ground such a claim?

I am not skipping ahead. God has standards for the aforementioned topics in the video. The OP asks if God is inept in conveying those standards? I would assume you think he is not. So I ask, for a third time:

Is society:

a) heading away from rightness, in regard to the topic of gay sex?
b) heading towards rightness, in regard to the topic of rape?
c) heading away from rightness, in regard to the topic of slavery?

[Mae von H]

Since you seem disinclined to answer my post, I'll just observe that you are in failure mode because you insist on objectivity in something that is no more 'objective' than instinct plus social evolution and logical reasoning and does not need to be.

You are demanding something (God) that isn't needed or you refuse to accept that it is valid.

But you fail because what you will or will not accept is nothing to the point. What matters (as always) is that the reader with their mind still open will see that evolutionary (bio and social) evolution is adequate (if not actually better) to account for human morals and ethics, and sight better than any religious morality, including the Bible.

Your case Fails if you can't make a convincing one to others, never mind what you deny in order to cling to your own faith. It was never about persuading those who deny even hard evidence. Or as we have seen elsewhere even what the Bible says. Faith is the worst reason of all (other than race hate, of course) for believing any claim.

Every first or second word is “you” or “your.” POI and Tanager focus on the topic. You focus on the poster.

[TRANSPONDER]

Since you seem disinclined to answer my post, I'll just observe that you are in failure mode because you insist on objectivity in something that is no more 'objective' than instinct plus social evolution and logical reasoning and does not need to be.

You are demanding something (God) that isn't needed or you refuse to accept that it is valid.

But you fail because what you will or will not accept is nothing to the point. What matters (as always) is that the reader with their mind still open will see that evolutionary (bio and social) evolution is adequate (if not actually better) to account for human morals and ethics, and sight better than any religious morality, including the Bible.

Your case Fails if you can't make a convincing one to others, never mind what you deny in order to cling to your own faith. It was never about persuading those who deny even hard evidence. Or as we have seen elsewhere even what the Bible says. Faith is the worst reason of all (other than race hate, of course) for believing any claim.

Every first or second word is “you” or “your.” POI and Tanager focus on the topic. You focus on the poster.

No. I focus on the poster's argument and why it fails, on evidence and logic. There is a held truth we don't hear very often and it is this - Christian apologists are not stupid, illogical or ignorant. They are as smart, rational and well - informed as any. Once they deconvert, we see that. It is Faithbased adherence to dogmas, doctrines and stock apologetics that creams their arguments and makes them look bad.

[Mae von H]

Since you seem disinclined to answer my post, I'll just observe that you are in failure mode because you insist on objectivity in something that is no more 'objective' than instinct plus social evolution and logical reasoning and does not need to be.

You are demanding something (God) that isn't needed or you refuse to accept that it is valid.

But you fail because what you will or will not accept is nothing to the point. What matters (as always) is that the reader with their mind still open will see that evolutionary (bio and social) evolution is adequate (if not actually better) to account for human morals and ethics, and sight better than any religious morality, including the Bible.

Your case Fails if you can't make a convincing one to others, never mind what you deny in order to cling to your own faith. It was never about persuading those who deny even hard evidence. Or as we have seen elsewhere even what the Bible says. Faith is the worst reason of all (other than race hate, of course) for believing any claim.

Every first or second word is “you” or “your.” POI and Tanager focus on the topic. You focus on the poster.

No. I focus on the poster's argument and why it fails, on evidence and logic. There is a held truth we don't hear very often and it is this - Christian apologists are not stupid, illogical or ignorant. They are as smart, rational and well - informed as any. Once they deconvert, we see that. It is Faithbased adherence to dogmas, doctrines and stock apologetics that creams their arguments and makes them look bad.

If you would focus on the argument alone you would not start all your paragraphs focusing on the poster evidenced by using "you" or "your" in every single paragraph without fail in the post I responded. I read what the others wrote and they did not do this. When you start out repeatedly with your first thought being them, you are not focusing on the argument. This is why I found it tiresome to exchange with you. Your focus is repeatedly the poster. It is tiring.