We ALL Have a Universal Moral Code In Us

[enoob57]

I truly believe the Theist has more trouble accounting for morality as defined by some being they refer to as "God".

the perfect basis for morality is the Bible.

 

Lev.19:19 :  “‘Keep my decrees.

“‘Do not mate different kinds of animals.

“‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.

“‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

 

can you explain to me why it is a sin to grow 2 kinds of seeds on a field and why i cannot wear my tshirt at the moment?

i don't really see the sinning in this.

One who is in the place of sin and is in fact sin themselves cannot see anything else but sin...

Lost is when you are here and there is no other! Love, Steven

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

I truly believe the Theist has more trouble accounting for morality as defined by some being they refer to as "God".

the perfect basis for morality is the Bible.

 

 

Lev.19:19 :  “‘Keep my decrees.

“‘Do not mate different kinds of animals.

“‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.

“‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

 

can you explain to me why it is a sin to grow 2 kinds of seeds on a field and why i cannot wear my tshirt at the moment?

i don't really see the sinning in this.

 

It illustrates a larger principle.  God didn't want the Israelites to mix or mingle the pure worship of the true God with the worship of other gods and didn't want the Israelites to imitate the pagans by trying worship God using pagan practices.  

 

God is a holiness and purity.  The point wasn't that it was a sin to make clothing of say a mixture of linen and wool, but that he forbid mixture of those things to further reenforce the need for them to remain separate from the surrounding cultures in their worship of Him.

[LuftWaffle]

Although I think William Lane Craig admitted recently that morality evolves. Interesting stuff.

 

 

William Lane Craig is a moral objectivist, so I don't think he was speaking of morals evolving in the sense of the nature of morality, but perhaps in terms of moral knowledge.

Do you perhaps have the quote where he said this, I like to read it?

[Bonky]

 

Although I think William Lane Craig admitted recently that morality evolves. Interesting stuff.

 

 

William Lane Craig is a moral objectivist, so I don't think he was speaking of morals evolving in the sense of the nature of morality, but perhaps in terms of moral knowledge.

Do you perhaps have the quote where he said this, I like to read it?

 

 

 

It was in a debate with Lawrence Krauss that he eluded to the idea that morality, in human history, has evolved.   Now, he asserts that we have a perfect moral standard to strive for [God].

 

It must have been in the debate in Brisbane where he actually said it, but here is the video where they reference his statement:

 

Link removed

 

This is the tricky thing about morality.  I see where Craig is coming from, I really do.  I'm just not convinced that perfect moral standard exists.

[LuftWaffle]

 

 

Although I think William Lane Craig admitted recently that morality evolves. Interesting stuff.

 

 

William Lane Craig is a moral objectivist, so I don't think he was speaking of morals evolving in the sense of the nature of morality, but perhaps in terms of moral knowledge.

Do you perhaps have the quote where he said this, I like to read it?

 

 

 

It was in a debate with Lawrence Krauss that he eluded to the idea that morality, in human history, has evolved.   Now, he asserts that we have a perfect moral standard to strive for [God].

 

It must have been in the debate in Brisbane where he actually said it, but here is the video where they reference his statement:

 

link removed

 

This is the tricky thing about morality.  I see where Craig is coming from, I really do.  I'm just not convinced that perfect moral standard exists.

 

 

Hi Bonky,

 

I had a look at the clip and it is as I thought. Craig isn't saying that the nature of morality itself has evolved, but rather that human beings throughout history has evolved morality with respect to an absolute standard.

Moral reform is only possible if there are objective moral values and duties.

 

I think you get it, but let me clarify by an example.

Martin Luther King fought to abolish slavery in the US.

Before then, slavery was common practise.

If moral subjectivism is true, then there is no objective standard by which to measure morality. Morality is based on societal preference and nothing else.

If the societal preference is that it's fine to keep slaves, then keeping slaves is moral.

Going against the moral preference of society is immoral, so if subjectivism is true, then Martin Luther King was immoral since he went against the societal preference of the day. Would you say that Martin Luther King was immoral, or does this seem counter intuitive to you as well?

 

After slavery was abolished, the societal preference is not to keep slaves.

In the subjectivist viewpoint one cannot say that society's morality is better with respect to slaves than it was before the abolition. At best one can say morality was different back then.

But from the objectivist viewpoint one can indeed say that society's morality is better than it was, since one has a scale to measure societies moral performance by: Slavery is wrong, society is no longer doing a wrong thing, therefore society is morally better.

 

So, William Lane Craig is being perfectly consistent with the objectivist viewpoint when he says that society's morals has improved.

Conversely when moral subjectivists point out so-called atrocities in the Old Testament, for instance, they're actually being inconsistent, because on one hand they're claiming that there is no real right or wrong, and then claiming that what happened in the old testament is really wrong.

 

Hope this helps to clarify

 

 

I'm just not convinced that perfect moral standard exists.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "perfect moral standard".

 

Think about it this way. Do you think that a perfect understanding of science exists? I would say no, and I'm sure you would agree.

But now suppose I asked you, "Do you think that if one understood everything there is to understand about science, that one would have a perfect understanding of science?" I'm sure you would say yes.

A perfect understanding of science would be an understanding that is 100% in line with scientific reality.

 

I think the same is true of morality. I don't think we have a perfect understanding of morality, but I do think that there is a moral reality.

[Schouwenaars]

The universe is in fact just a large bunch of some atoms and some more particles who are randomly reacting with each other.

I cannot really believe that same universe consists a whole moral law. Like there is no rule a elektron may not destroy a positron, but there would be a rule a human may not kill a human?

The thing i can believe best is that moral depends on how a species survives. It's not positive for a species to kill each other, so that will be in our (their) head as bad.

[enoob57]

What dumb founds us is that you see yet do not! The only instruction set that satisfies what we see in creation 'IS'

The Word of God which leads us to the only sense of what we are seeing!  Love, Steven

[enoob57]

The universe is in fact just a large bunch of some atoms and some more particles who are randomly reacting with each other.

I cannot really believe that same universe consists a whole moral law. Like there is no rule a elektron may not destroy a positron, but there would be a rule a human may not kill a human?

The thing i can believe best is that moral depends on how a species survives. It's not positive for a species to kill each other, so that will be in our (their) head as bad.

Really what needs to be answered is the where did the concept of surviving come from-> seeing from your

view all is began only to end-> entropy. For no other purpose than to survive for what exactly? Your answer

to ultimately end. Ours is to glorify He Who is without begin and end thus the only reality of survival

and its exist... You see your logic is the existence of desire to continue with no continuance! So where did

the desire come from? Love, Steven

[Guest shiloh357]

The universe is in fact just a large bunch of some atoms and some more particles who are randomly reacting with each other.

I cannot really believe that same universe consists a whole moral law. Like there is no rule a elektron may not destroy a positron, but there would be a rule a human may not kill a human?

The thing i can believe best is that moral depends on how a species survives. It's not positive for a species to kill each other, so that will be in our (their) head as bad.

Well if it's all about survival, then why do we have courts of law?   Why have justice?  I mean if the universe is nothing but atoms and particles randomly reacting with each other than killing other people, or stealing their possessions, molesting their children should be no different than eating a bag of peanuts.

[Schouwenaars]

You're right shiloh, in fact for the universe there is no difference. The only thing that makes us think it is bad, is because it is written in our genes like that. Why can you more easely kill a bug than a baby? They both are living beings. Or when dogs have bitten someone, they will be euthansied. Why don't we kill people if they bite someone else? Because it's our own species. It's bad for the continueing of our own kind. Like why do we eat meat of pigs and not from humans? Because it harms our own species. For every morallity you can find a survival reason.