JWs and Contradition

[POI]

The JW.org website states they are not antiscience. This sounds like a rational position. (i.e.):

"Although Jehovahs Witnesses believe in creation, we are not antiscience. We believe that true science and the Bible are compatible."

JW.org also states:

"Evil and suffering. These began when one of Gods angels rebelled. (John 8:44) This angel, who after his rebellion was called "Satan" and "Devil," persuaded the first human couple to join him, and the consequences have been disastrous for their descendants. (Genesis 3:1-6; Romans 5:12) In order to settle the moral issues raised by Satan, God has allowed evil and suffering, but He will not permit them to continue forever."

For debate: If no evil/suffering existed before the "fall of man", then why do we have evidence that evil/suffering existed prior to the fall of man?

Receipts #1: Dinosaurs exists prior to humans. Fossils exist, of dinosaurs sustaining injury:(http://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamonta ... 28ccf42e8c)

Receipt #2: More dinosaur suffering: (https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ing-about/)

[bluegreenearth]

That doesn't logically follow from the context of the argument. Why ought humanity prioritize the objective morality prescribed by the god over their own moral intuitions?

I have no idea but it seems to be the human condition. I think it's definitional, that is to say, morality is what one should do. And the difference between morality and one's own personal benefit is that sometimes, one should do what is right rather than seek personal benefit.

Under that definition of morality, the question of what one should do (i.e., what is right) is not answered by an objective morality. The "right" action as prescribed by an objective moral law would be no less arbitrary than the "right" action prescribed by your moral intuition. The scenario you described where the action one should take is the "right" action rather than seek personal benefit could be equally justified by your moral intuitions as it would by your adherence to an objective morality.

[oldbadger]

It was my way of showing how manipulating religion can be...

And how does that relate to the OP?

For debate: If no evil/suffering existed before the "fall of man", then why do we have evidence that evil/suffering existed prior to the fall of man?

Well! Since you posted up that picture on a thread titled 'JWs and contradiction', maybe you would like to explain why you did that? Then you would understand why I replied to you?

This thread's OP made mention of the JW approach to science, and the fact that you then posted up that picture shows me that your perception of the world is a bit shallow?

[TRANSPONDER]

So, you are free to avoid being murdered by taking the objectively immoral action of defending yourself.

Sure, but I kind of assume a human being's first priority should be to act morally.

That doesn't logically follow from the context of the argument. Why ought humanity prioritize the objective morality prescribed by the god over their own moral intuitions?

I have no idea but it seems to be the human condition. I think it's definitional, that is to say, morality is what one should do. And the difference between morality and one's own personal benefit is that sometimes, one should do what is right rather than seek personal benefit.

I'm sure this has been done before; Human morality is based on animal instinct further engineered in response to complex society. Religious laws (moral codes) were devised along with civil ones like Hammurabi's (though wagging a god or two about as validation, I don't doubt) and the OT laws were basically those, but written to suit the religion, as were the revisions of the NT.

Now we have gone so far beyond the morality of the Bible that only extreme fundamentalists advocate living by them. Bible apologists use human morality to judge God's deeds as Good and to be approved, or Bad and excused or denied.

[Purple Knight]

Under that definition of morality, the question of what one should do (i.e., what is right) is not answered by an objective morality. The "right" action as prescribed by an objective moral law would be no less arbitrary than the "right" action prescribed by your moral intuition. The scenario you described where the action one should take is the "right" action rather than seek personal benefit could be equally justified by your moral intuitions as it would by your adherence to an objective morality.

The right action would be independent of my moral intuition. It would simply be defined as the right action whether or not either of us can know that it is.

I think people have this understanding. I know that my moral intuition can be wrong. It's possible for me to think something isn't wrong, and be mistaken. This means that morality must be objective.

[otseng]

your perception of the world is a bit shallow?

Moderator Comment

Please debate without commenting on others.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[bluegreenearth]

The right action would be independent of my moral intuition. It would simply be defined as the right action whether or not either of us can know that it is.

I think people have this understanding. I know that my moral intuition can be wrong. It's possible for me to think something isn't wrong, and be mistaken. This means that morality must be objective.

Who gets to define what the "right" action is and how is that decision justified?

[Purple Knight]

Who gets to define what the "right" action is and how is that decision justified?

Nobody. It would simply be what is. A feature of the universe, like how canaries are sometimes yellow or gravity brings things closer and makes them ball-shaped if they're big enough. It does not imply anyone's ability to know it.

[bluegreenearth]

Who gets to define what the "right" action is and how is that decision justified?

Nobody. It would simply be what is. A feature of the universe, like how canaries are sometimes yellow or gravity brings things closer and makes them ball-shaped if they're big enough. It does not imply anyone's ability to know it.

Why ought anyone take an action in accordance with what the universe has determined to be an objective morality?

[TRANSPONDER]

Who gets to define what the "right" action is and how is that decision justified?

Nobody. It would simply be what is. A feature of the universe, like how canaries are sometimes yellow or gravity brings things closer and makes them ball-shaped if they're big enough. It does not imply anyone's ability to know it.

We are in morality there, aren't we? Species or sub - species or even coloring (which can evolve) is governed by natural forces. Ethics are not. Apart from human well being it is all human preferences and rules. We decide; it is not a cosmic law like gravity.

Who gets to define what the "right" action is and how is that decision justified?

Nobody. It would simply be what is. A feature of the universe, like how canaries are sometimes yellow or gravity brings things closer and makes them ball-shaped if they're big enough. It does not imply anyone's ability to know it.

Why ought anyone take an action in accordance with what the universe has determined to be an objective morality?

Interesting point (and I'd better get this in quick before i get slung off the board ) even if Morals and ethics were a law of physics (never mind the opinion of a god) why should we follow it? Obviously gravity means if we ignore it we smash on the pavement, but we think our way around it and hundreds of passengers defy gravity in aircraft every day.

But that may be irrelevant, whether human rules of r a law of physics (which reason, it would appear not to be, humans can find a way around it.

[POI]

Quote: "Suffering is a product of the fall, a consequence of human sin against God (Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:21). Suffering is in our lives because we are living in a broken world. Some suffering is due to our sinful and wrong choices, but some is due simply to the world being fallen."

The JW cannot reconcile this contradiction without back-peddling or back-tracking. JW's state they do not deny science, which means JW's acknowledge dinosaurs went extinct before humans came into the picture. The fossil record reveals that dinosaurs suffered, even by their definition. This presents a direct contradiction. Why? Dinosaurs should never have suffered. Hence, the reason JW's will spin things, by redefining terms, etc...

To retain being a JW is to acknowledge a belief system which is involved in contradiction.