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?

[The Tanager]

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.

I have not insisted morality must be objective. I have already said morality being subjective is a perfectly logical explanation. I have said this multiple times. I’ve been on that page.

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.

How can there be a right/wrong? Taste preference is just as subjective as how you are describing morality. There is no right/wrong taste preference. There are only different taste preferences.

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.

I agree there can be progress towards subjective goals you (or your group) have, although other people will have other subjective goals and what you call progress they will call regress. This isn’t objective progress or regress (if your worldview is correct), it’s just relative to different subjective standards.

[The Tanager]

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?

Is your critique that God has the wrong standards or that those standards are correct, but conveyed ineptly?

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

I have not insisted morality must be objective. I have already said morality being subjective is a perfectly logical explanation. I have said this multiple times. I’ve been on that page.

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.

How can there be a right/wrong? Taste preference is just as subjective as how you are describing morality. There is no right/wrong taste preference. There are only different taste preferences.

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.

I agree there can be progress towards subjective goals you (or your group) have, although other people will have other subjective goals and what you call progress they will call regress. This isn’t objective progress or regress (if your worldview is correct), it’s just relative to different subjective standards.

Not bad, but I think you still have the problem of not seeing it as valid to have a subjective standard of right and wrong. Or you feel that if there isn't a Cosmic Moral Law, there isn't anything valid in human ethics.

My argument is (and I think you are almost there) that (like art, music, literature and other human inventions - likely based on evolved instincts) they don't have to be handed down either by physics or a divine being to be valid. In other words, subjective consensus views of morals and ethics, roughly based on human preferences and instincts and also reasoning like seeing that reasoned co -operation benefits everyone more than a competitive -instinctive conflict are valid, or in yet other words, it doesn't matter if it subjective (human preferences); it is the best we have and all that we have (on any evidential bases) and it isn't entirely hopeless.

[The Tanager]

Not bad, but I think you still have the problem of not seeing it as valid to have a subjective standard of right and wrong. Or you feel that if there isn't a Cosmic Moral Law, there isn't anything valid in human ethics.

My argument is (and I think you are almost there) that (like art, music, literature and other human inventions - likely based on evolved instincts) they don't have to be handed down either by physics or a divine being to be valid. In other words, subjective consensus views of morals and ethics, roughly based on human preferences and instincts and also reasoning like seeing that reasoned co -operation benefits everyone more than a competitive -instinctive conflict are valid, or in yet other words, it doesn't matter if it subjective (human preferences); it is the best we have and all that we have (on any evidential bases) and it isn't entirely hopeless.

What do you mean by valid? I agree it would be the best we would have. But whether I like it or not simply depends on if I agree with the preferences of the majority in power. That’s the deciding factor. One will have hope if the majority in power doesn’t decide to oppress them or limit them in key areas and it will be hopeless for the individual who is being oppressed or limited to their disliking. Is that what you mean by valid?

[TRANSPONDER]

Not bad, but I think you still have the problem of not seeing it as valid to have a subjective standard of right and wrong. Or you feel that if there isn't a Cosmic Moral Law, there isn't anything valid in human ethics.

My argument is (and I think you are almost there) that (like art, music, literature and other human inventions - likely based on evolved instincts) they don't have to be handed down either by physics or a divine being to be valid. In other words, subjective consensus views of morals and ethics, roughly based on human preferences and instincts and also reasoning like seeing that reasoned co -operation benefits everyone more than a competitive -instinctive conflict are valid, or in yet other words, it doesn't matter if it subjective (human preferences); it is the best we have and all that we have (on any evidential bases) and it isn't entirely hopeless.

What do you mean by valid? I agree it would be the best we would have. But whether I like it or not simply depends on if I agree with the preferences of the majority in power. That’s the deciding factor. One will have hope if the majority in power doesn’t decide to oppress them or limit them in key areas and it will be hopeless for the individual who is being oppressed or limited to their disliking. Is that what you mean by valid?

I mean accepted as valid, useful and meaningful, just as in my examples of art, music and literature, aldo the rules of sports and games. They mean something even though humans invented them. Some even treat the breaking of them as immoral. Which in a way it is, as rules are intended to make it work and be fair. Moral and Ethical game -play is even more valid because it has an instinct more than just making it work - human well -being.

And it changes. Rules change and the same with morals. This is good as we keep what delivers and change what doesn't. We may pat ourselves on the back for Emancipation, but women still didn't have the vote, and when women were votiong same sex relationships were still illegal. It is not only valid but a good thing that subjectivity and discussion with the grassroots and various authorities goes on, and even religious ones have had to catch up or be left behind, Just as the GOP may find itself left behind for overturning Roe vs wade.

[The Tanager]

I mean accepted as valid, useful and meaningful, just as in my examples of art, music and literature, aldo the rules of sports and games. They mean something even though humans invented them. Some even treat the breaking of them as immoral. Which in a way it is, as rules are intended to make it work and be fair. Moral and Ethical game -play is even more valid because it has an instinct more than just making it work - human well -being.

The rules are intended to make it work and be fair to those whom the majority in power prefer. And they get to define what "well-being" is, leaving others who disagree to deal with it.

And it changes. Rules change and the same with morals. This is good as we keep what delivers and change what doesn't. We may pat ourselves on the back for Emancipation, but women still didn't have the vote, and when women were votiong same sex relationships were still illegal. It is not only valid but a good thing that subjectivity and discussion with the grassroots and various authorities goes on, and even religious ones have had to catch up or be left behind, Just as the GOP may find itself left behind for overturning Roe vs wade.

Those in power keep what delivers what they want and change what doesn't. Again, this isn't a "good" thing but just differences that move towards one's view or away from it. If that is what you mean by "valid," then okay.

[TRANSPONDER]

I mean accepted as valid, useful and meaningful, just as in my examples of art, music and literature, aldo the rules of sports and games. They mean something even though humans invented them. Some even treat the breaking of them as immoral. Which in a way it is, as rules are intended to make it work and be fair. Moral and Ethical game -play is even more valid because it has an instinct more than just making it work - human well -being.

The rules are intended to make it work and be fair to those whom the majority in power prefer. And they get to define what "well-being" is, leaving others who disagree to deal with it.

And it changes. Rules change and the same with morals. This is good as we keep what delivers and change what doesn't. We may pat ourselves on the back for Emancipation, but women still didn't have the vote, and when women were votiong same sex relationships were still illegal. It is not only valid but a good thing that subjectivity and discussion with the grassroots and various authorities goes on, and even religious ones have had to catch up or be left behind, Just as the GOP may find itself left behind for overturning Roe vs wade.

Those in power keep what delivers what they want and change what doesn't. Again, this isn't a "good" thing but just differences that move towards one's view or away from it. If that is what you mean by "valid," then okay.

Well - being is an instinct we all have. Of course how to achieve that varies with the individual and indeed groups. This is why reciprocation and discussion is a way of getting past the selfishness you point to as the apparent only result of a 'subjective'man - made morality.

I think you know better and you know that's not what we do. By instinct or reason or both we have learned that the better thing is well - being for everyone, as a principle, objective and aim.

I know it's difficult and people don't play that way, but you are confusing the problems with the essential validity of 'subjective' human morality. After all, you can't deny that even with religion we got problems of the same kind.

[POI]

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?

Is your critique that God has the wrong standards or that those standards are correct, but conveyed ineptly?

I don't know yet, because you never answered my prior inquiry. What is God's objective position on the following topics?

a) gay sex (okay or not okay)?
b) rape (okay or not okay)?
c) slavery (okay or not okay)?

[The Tanager]

Is your critique that God has the wrong standards or that those standards are correct, but conveyed ineptly?

I don't know yet, because you never answered my prior inquiry. What is God's objective position on the following topics?

a) gay sex (okay or not okay)?
b) rape (okay or not okay)?
c) slavery (okay or not okay)?

Not okay. Now, which critique are you making?

[The Tanager]

Well - being is an instinct we all have. Of course how to achieve that varies with the individual and indeed groups. This is why reciprocation and discussion is a way of getting past the selfishness you point to as the apparent only result of a 'subjective'man - made morality.

People disagree on what constitutes “well-being” not just how to achieve it. Some have thought enslaving others adds to well-being (even for the slaves themselves), others have disagreed, for instance. Subjective morality is all about making rules work for one’s own preferences and those with the most power get their preferences. The rest have to deal with it. There is no right/wrong, just differences.