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]

[Mae von H]

[Mae von H]

[TRANSPONDER]

[TRANSPONDER]

[The Tanager]

God has no problem laying down his moral standards. God already knows society will fail, regardless of circumstance. An objective God given moral law, or a (not-yet) God given objective moral law, is still impossible to follow. Hence, there is no need to beat around the bush.

It's not logically impossible to follow, but I agree humans won't follow whatever the law is. What is the supposed problem?

[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.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

And it looks to me (at least) like the old business of 'That is just how it would look if there was no god there). Which means no reason to believe there is a (intervening) god. It is the same with ID. and a few other apologetics - trying to take what is known and make it look like evidence for a god (Biblegod or one of the others). Bible apologetics have always been bedevilled by 'a priori godfaith' which invalidates the logic to begin with. Poking holes in Evolution in finding an unanswered question or two does not invalidate evolution, and the effort to shoehorn God i with IC was shot down at Dover and shown what a shame IC was.

Morality doesn't have the same science backup as Evolution being more subjective (human behavior), but with DNA explaining how human (an animal) instinct works, it was the start of research into biology -based morality. Or may be, as I haven't seen any such research being done, but I can see it as an apologetic - morals (good or bad) are evolved animal instincts.

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. It does not (never mind 'Which god?') and hasn't been since the 90's, when argument from morality failed as a Bible apologetic.

I don't need to cue the dirty smear of old time dictators, we got that right away. It is as invalid as citing the evils done in the name of religion. They only get cited when religious apologists try to claim the high moral ground, and then a Tuo Quoque is perfectly valid. Otherwise it is what humans do (good and bad) and has no bearing on whether Theism or atheism is correct.

[The Tanager]

[The Tanager]

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?