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?

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

You refute yourself. Shark (or indeed any animal morality, ethics survival co -operation or whatever, cannot be subjective (thought up by other animals) so it must have a basis outside of human preference, no? That is what we might call 'objective'.

You also do yourself no favors as what I might call a 'golden - ageist'. The fact is that human life is in every measurable respect better than it was even 100 years ago, quite apart from various emancipations.

It looks to me like you are struggling for denial in order to invalidate ethics or morality unless dictated by a god, which isn't 'Objective' anyway.

[TRANSPONDER]

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?

At the very worst, morals and ethics either as a human construct or as having some basis outside human thought (1) is as valid ab objection to goddunnit as Abiogenesis, Consciousness or cosmic origins. Even without any evidence, it is at least a counter -claim and this invalidated the god -claim as the default hypothesis. But the Believers do not and cannot understand this.

However, the matter of ethical similarity is interesting. By and large, human morality has evolved along similar lones. Now, one could credit that to a god, if one likes a god that approves dictatorship, war, harems of wives, slaves and religious exploitation. I rather see all that as having a basis in survival instincts, as is the case with art, music and literature, though as our pal Mae wouyld say, I have no real evidence to back that claim up. 1) and as I said, it is rather falling between the two, or rather benefitting from both..

[The Tanager]

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?

For the video’s critique you are talking about to be of any worth there has to be an objective answer. So, give the objective answer or realize the critique should be discarded.

[The Tanager]

You refute yourself. Shark (or indeed any animal morality, ethics survival co -operation or whatever, cannot be subjective (thought up by other animals) so it must have a basis outside of human preference, no? That is what we might call 'objective'.

Subjective doesn’t mean “thought up by other animals” and objective doesn’t mean “outside of human preference”? Objective human morality would be about the moral behavior of humans coming from outside of humanity, but you were talking about animal morality here.

You also do yourself no favors as what I might call a 'golden - ageist'. The fact is that human life is in every measurable respect better than it was even 100 years ago, quite apart from various emancipations.

Measured by what objective standard as being better?

It looks to me like you are struggling for denial in order to invalidate ethics or morality unless dictated by a god, which isn't 'Objective' anyway.

Do you have any objective grounding to morality? Without that, then society cannot be moving forward and the video’s critique we are talking about fails.

[POI]

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?

For the video’s critique you are talking about to be of any worth there has to be an objective answer. So, give the objective answer or realize the critique should be discarded.

Define 'objective'? Is it what the God you believe in's opinion is, or other?

[TRANSPONDER]

You refute yourself. Shark (or indeed any animal morality, ethics survival co -operation or whatever, cannot be subjective (thought up by other animals) so it must have a basis outside of human preference, no? That is what we might call 'objective'.

Subjective doesn’t mean “thought up by other animals” and objective doesn’t mean “outside of human preference”? Objective human morality would be about the moral behavior of humans coming from outside of humanity, but you were talking about animal morality here.

You also do yourself no favors as what I might call a 'golden - ageist'. The fact is that human life is in every measurable respect better than it was even 100 years ago, quite apart from various emancipations.

Measured by what objective standard as being better?

It looks to me like you are struggling for denial in order to invalidate ethics or morality unless dictated by a god, which isn't 'Objective' anyway.

Do you have any objective grounding to morality? Without that, then society cannot be moving forward and the video’s critique we are talking about fails.

Wasn't that answered? The objective of betterment is in contributing to the well -being of humans individually and collectively. And it gets no more objective than doing what evolutionary nature intended.Animal survival and co - operation isn't of course the objective yardstick for comparing that to but evidence that it evolved and was not handed down from on High in a book.

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?

For the video’s critique you are talking about to be of any worth there has to be an objective answer. So, give the objective answer or realize the critique should be discarded.

Define 'objective'? Is it what the God you believe in's opinion is, or other?

I was thinking that. The error seems to be in the Theist assuming there has to be a sort of universal comic rule or morality, just as they assume there has to be a Universal meaning to human life.

There agin it is the survival of species and that is all the objective objectives you are going to get or should expect. The universe does not care whether we survive, live long and prosper or not, and that's a good thing. I don't want there should be anyone but us deciding what meaning there is in our life or what our morals should be.

Believers get stuck in this mindset that there has to be a Plan for us because that is their god -faith mindset, and they suppose that must be a good thing.

We must accept that believersd are always going be demanding a cosmic Law of morality or it somehow fails or isn't true, but it is a fallacy, specifically, assuming as a given what one is attempting to argue.

The evidence I am sure is that morality is at best based on the needs of evolution, in all life, and there is no valid reason to expect anything else. It is no use in their demanding that there should be a clear cut book of moral codes, there isn't, Certainly not the Bible.

[Data]

That was all total irrelevance or misdirection and the only relevant point is this:

Shocked at your offhand dismissal because you give it even after you denied you would just as I told you you would.

Avery obvious trick to make a bad argument and play the bias card 'I knew you would just dismiss it'.

The only relevant point is if old Tyre in buried under present Tyre ("Sur") and it is. Thus Tyre was rebuilt and the prophecy (if it is one) fails. All the rest is irrelevant.

Do you have anything else to say than playing the bias card and saying i didn't discuss points that were irrelevant anyway? Is there anything in your post that you think shows that Tyre was not rebuilt?

Which prophecy? Where are the two prophecies? What's the difference? Which applied to Nebuchadnezzar and which to Alexander? Which Tyre?

[TRANSPONDER]

That was all total irrelevance or misdirection and the only relevant point is this:

Shocked at your offhand dismissal because you give it even after you denied you would just as I told you you would.

Avery obvious trick to make a bad argument and play the bias card 'I knew you would just dismiss it'.

The only relevant point is if old Tyre in buried under present Tyre ("Sur") and it is. Thus Tyre was rebuilt and the prophecy (if it is one) fails. All the rest is irrelevant.

Do you have anything else to say than playing the bias card and saying i didn't discuss points that were irrelevant anyway? Is there anything in your post that you think shows that Tyre was not rebuilt?

Which prophecy? Where are the two prophecies? What's the difference? Which applied to Nebuchadnezzar and which to Alexander? Which Tyre?

You are smokescreening. Whichever one the purported prophecy really means. It is not clear, because Nebuchadnezzar did not really reduce Tyre but Alexander did. Also the silted up causeway he built sounds like the net -drying place the passage speaks of. But whichever one was supposed to be never built again is wrong because it was. And it covers (as I said) all of old Tyre, mainland, Island and causeway, entire.

Slice it where you like, either it is not a prophecy at all, or it is wrong. I may say again the old apologetics misdirection about the masonry in the sea or the necropolis built outside are what they are (I suspect later than Hellenistic period Tyre, anyway) and do not alter the fact that archaeology (saw the foundations remains marked on a map) shows the old city remains under the new city. It was rebuilt, and quite quickly, too.

You may bet on this to win; the Bible apologists who bank on the prophecy of Tyre are either ignorant or lying. They know the prophecy is wrong, or they should. Now you know yourself, or you should.

[TRANSPONDER]

I throw myself upon the mercy of the court.

I should not post videos solus. But I enjoyed this one as it was about a subject that muchly affects me - the censoship and cancel culture about evolution.

It was widespread and spread almost as fact as Dainikenism. Which shows that conspiracy theories may spread like wildfire but like the success of Christianity or any other missionary religion (Islam or Buddhism and even Hinduism did pretty well) it does not make it true, It has its' best exposure up to the 90's when the pushback began against heavily propagandised anti - evolution propaganda, and it's best shot - I/C - was torpedoed at the Dover trial. Since then it had been merely Faithbased denial, misinformation and lies and trying to take over politically what Creationism can't get with scientific credibility.

And that should be enough to excuse the video.

[The Tanager]

Define 'objective'? Is it what the God you believe in's opinion is, or other?

That certainly can’t be the definition, for it would beg the question in favor of theistic morality. I would define “objective” as something like “independent of one’s opinion”.

So, for instance, there is an objective truth about the shape of the Earth because of how reality is. The truth doesn’t matter who you ask “what is the shape of the Earth” to. There is an objective truth of 2+2=4. There isn’t an objective truth when you ask “what is the best ice cream flavor?” We get subjective truths there depending on each individual’s taste buds.

Now, of course, there are objective truths about subjective matters. It is objectively true that I love chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream. That is true, even if you don’t like that flavor. On atheism, it would be objectively true that humans developed the moral behavior that they did (in contrast to bee behavior on moral questions), but that doesn’t mean that behavior is what our behavior should be. And morality is really about how we should act, not how we actually act.

So, why should humans act with more modern sensibilities, if we are concerned with acting objectively moral (i.e., independent of one’s opinions)?