Frank, I find it interesting that atheists comment on your videos. Why do they care? If Atheism is true, Christianity would fall on it's face without their help. Yet many come here and use vulgar language and call names. It leads me to believe that they are hateful because they want to believe that they are their own highest authority. I pray that their exposure to your work will soften their hearts as Lee Strobel's was.
@@xaindsleena8090 if you want to know if GOD is real Istvan then all you have to do is ask Him to reveal himself to you. It's that simple my friend. Ask with a geniune heart and watch what happens 👍
To someone that denies God: Man, values and morals are two different things. someone might take killing someone lie is a morality. And trust me when you see him chasing you after you lied to somebody, you are not gonna say, "Well, let him do what he pleases." Why do you think we have a constitution in every country. Simple, it is to be objective. Why can't judges penalize people with what they think is good and bad, instead of looking for sections to judge people fairly? Man, there should be an objective morality, which is set by highest authority who know everything(literally everything) and not just the past, present, future. If you don't believe there is an Originator to this universe, well, it's your problem. But even after looking at the wonders in the nature and in the universe that happens every split second, if you still say there is no Creator, I mean, then you are at loss.
What you mentioned here is simply a species working within a hierarchy to achieve and maintain order within the group. Instinct dictates that. Those of the species who try to work outside of the natural hierarchy are either disciplined or expelled. This is true of almost every social species.
He seems to think the only witches that were killed were in Salem. He also ignores the verse in the Bible telling people "you shall not suffer a witch to live"
In Europe lots of witches were burned, but i Amerika it stopped, because biblebelieving christians pointed out that you needed 2 or three wittneses to prove your guilt, and not be judged be accusations only, and it stopped because none were found guity. Slavery has a similar story. Religious people are dangerous, wellinformed believers are not.
Morality has always been a problem for religion. Whilst individual theists can be moral, they have no way to explain why any act is right or wrong through faith.
Does the witch idea apply to abortion as well perhaps? Like we all agree that Murder is wrong (objective morality) however we just disagree on whether or not a fetus is considered a human with a soul? Just pointing out another example
@@jessebryant9233 We started out as hunter gatherers right, there are fossil records and archaeological evidence to prove this. Studies have shown that as we travelled and our hunting needs grew more complex our cognitive abilities also developed. We learnt to communicate, function in societies also learning morals and ethics as instincts along the way. No gods needed or shown to be involved whatsoever. Where do you think morality comes from?
@@TheTruthKiwi "We started out as..."? How do you know that? Did you just admit you have not empirical science to support your faith? "Learning morals and ethics"? Do you mean we discovered them or that we made up rules because of preferences? Are YOU a "moral" person? The only possible source: transcendence.
Even animals have shown to practice various moral codes so it's not totally subjective. And a lot of atheist literature I've read has pointed that out as well as how people from the past and present had similar morals whenever they argue that religion is unnecessary for morality. And honestly even if morality were just subjective and meaningless one cannot possibly live their life as if that were so.
DEAR FRANK, I think you doing a great Job and we Need more of that, the reason why i am writing you is, i saw on a Video, maybe more than 1 that you use Picture´s which we should not use, i can see how you love God and the Holy Spirit in me just sad, you have to tell Frank thats not god. second law of >God, dont make Picture of god..... you know what i mean Brother, well anyhow i wish you and your Family all the best and Gods Love in Jesus Namen amen
This is not true the commandment is not that we shouldn't make any pictures of God it says that we shouldn't make "graven images", meaning idols of God to be worshiped as if the image or statue were God Himself. it's not about the image it's about what we do with it. the images are fine as long as we use them for teaching or illustrative purposes and not as shrines to practice our worship of God.
If God exist he is a subject. Making all his likes wants and rules subjective to him and to us. The objectivity comes when one can quantify and predict what could happens when an action occurs.
All you did was agree that they are suppose! to have it. A "disorder" as rightly you called it. So do you think if there was a God that he should intervene every time something goes wrong or whenever someone does wrong?
1)Something is SUBJECTIVE, if its existence is necessarily CONTINGENT on a SUBJECT. 2)All VALUES are necessarily CONTINGENT on valuERS to bring about and maintain their existence. 3)All valuERS are SUBJECTS. 4)Given 1, from 2&3 it follows that all VALUES are necessarily CONTINGENT on SUBJECTS. 5)Given 1, from 4 it follows that all VALUES are necessarily SUBJECTIVE. 6)From 5 it follows there are NO OBJECTIVE VALUES. And there never could be.
Houston Davis Very interesting argument, clear and to the point! I do disagree with a few of these points, however: 1) I largely agree, although clarification might be required in that all individual experience is subjective. 2) I wouldn't agree these are necessarily contingent. Take logical and numerical values, for instance, which according to some schools of philosophy are held to exist independently of subjective experience. I'll agree they are sufficiently contingent, in that the existence of a valuer can explain the subjective existence of a value, but that doesn't reduce the value to a purely relativistic one. 3) Agreed. 4) See 2. Possible revision: "all VALUES are sufficiently CONTINGENT on SUBJECTS". 5) See 2&4. Possible revisions: "all VALUES are sufficiently SUBJECTIVE." 6) See 5. In conclusion, I don't believe this argument proves that there are necessarily no objective values. This argument doesn't follow when applied even to clearly objective values. For example: Value X = there is a door in front of me. 1) X is necessarily contingent on subject Y 2) All values are necessarily contingent on a valuer to bring about and maintain its existence. 3) Valuer is subject Y. 4) Given 1, 2 & 3 > X is necessarily contingent on Y. 5) Given 1, 4 > X is necessarily subjective. 6) 5 > X is not objective. Here we can see that even when belief X is deductively shown to be subjective, the door still exists. Also, this argument can be used to favour theism by assuming that the valuer-subject is a creator God. In this scenario morality is simply a value which is contingent on God, which is precisely Turek's definition of objective morality.
James Brown How are you interpreting the term value? Because what you called "logical and numerical values" are not values by the same definition of the term in use, nor is a door. The term "value" in this case is referencing what we colloquially call "moral values". Trying to make an argument in the manner you suggested would not be argument for theism it would simply be begging the question. Also if morality _is simply_ a value which is contingent on God then morality is necessarily subjective, both by my original syllogism and your modified version.
Apologies for the confusion, however this distinction between moral/numerical/logical value still doesn't detract from the central point of my review: that the argument fails to show any necessary link between moral values and their creation by subjects beyond assertion. The argument begs the question, in that one has to assume morality is necessarily subjective in order to work. The position proposed is that all values contingent on God may be said to be "subjective" only from God's perspective as a subject. This doesn't impinge on objective morality, since this morality is objectively binding in any world, including the actual world, in which God is creator and object. Perhaps a distinction is required between subjective morality, which only requires one moral subject, and relativistic morality, which describes the validity of possibly conflicting values of multiple moral subjects.
James Brown I understand my argument fails to provide a defense for P2 (I knew that when I posted it) and it is as you say an assertion, but that doesn't technically equate to begging the question. Though I understand where you're coming from. I don't understand what you are trying to say in this 2nd paragraph, can you expand on it a little? I see no reason to make the distinction or even bring up relativism, I prefer not to talk about it really as I find it to be an unnecessary extrapolation of subjectivism in these conversations (and most really).
+Houston Davis "my argument fails to provide a defense for P2 (I knew that when I posted it) and it is as you say an assertion, but that doesn't technically equate to begging the question. " "All VALUES are necessarily CONTINGENT on valuERS to bring about and maintain their existence." I don't think it is a real 'assertion', and a valid premis. It even hinges on a problem often brought into these 'value-discussion'. All definitions (i am aware of) of what 'value' means are based on an act of comparison or judgement. So it is subjective by definition. Anyone attacking this premise needs to have a 'definition' of value that does not include a subjective act...
Frank Turek might think this explanation shows the Bible is true, but it actually shows the opposite. He says morality changes or is different among culture, yet the moral values are the same. If that were true, God would have been clear about this issue. Instead God says, "Slavery, rape, and murder are morally acceptable." If what Frank Turek says were true, you would expect God to say, "Slavery, rape, and murder are evil because the moral value is that every sentient life should be treated with respect."
@@goranmilic442 If Christians' reason for believing X is good or bad is only because God says so, that's a flawed system anyway. I was raised in the IFB church where they based morality off of what the pastor said. Things were good as long as the pastor got morality correct. In cases where he didnt, it was a bad situation. The same is true for God. Also, there are multiple instances where God commands people to wipe out innocent people and gives permission to take the virgins for themselves, and God outright says owning slaves is permissible.
Yeah, of course! How do we know slavery is wrong? Because of "objective morality"? Then why was it morally permissible for 1000's of years, including by tons of religious groups? This is just a total BS argument, I wish apologists like Turek would give it a rest.
The bible allowed slavery because the people at the time did not consider it to be immoral. How do you reconcile that with considering the bible to be a guide for morality?
@@simplerstrength "Slavery in biblical times was more like what we understand to be “indentured servitude” today. To understand an ancient text, you have to understand the culture and context of the time."... ...Actually, you are mistaken, but lets be sure we do not misunderstand each other, as you could be using a strange definitions to reach that mistaken conclusion. Slave: a person held in forced servitude. chattel: : an enslaved person held as the legal property of another : BONDMAN ...Since two people can use the same term but define that term differently, can you accept my definitions of "slave", and "chattel", so I know we are talking about the same thing? ...Chattel slavery is what I am refering to that the bible allowed as well as indentured servitude, but want to make sure we both can agree on how to define a slave and chattel first...So if you can not accept my definitions I would like to know why and would like to know how you define the term instead...Thanks
@@simplerstrength Do you want to have a conversation where we treat each other the way we would want to be treated? I am trying to understand how you could be incorrect about what scripture teaches us, but first want to make sure we understand how to properly define the terms "slave" and "chattel". If you just want to make a false statement then run off instead of having an honest and equally respectful conversation, that is ok too as it will show me that you may not even understand what you are talking about...
@@simplerstrength “Although God liberated the Hebrews from slavery in Egypt, slavery is not universally prohibited in the Bible. Slavery was permissible in certain situations, so long as slaves were regarded as full members of the community (Gen. 17:12), received the same rest periods and holidays as non-slaves (Exod. 23:12; Deut. 5:14-15, 12:12), and were treated humanely (Exod. 21:7, 26-27). Most importantly, slavery among Hebrews was not intended as a permanent condition, but a voluntary, temporary refuge for people suffering what would otherwise be desperate poverty. “When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt” (Exod. 21:2). Cruelty on the part of the owner resulted in immediate freedom for the slave (Exod. 21:26-27). This made male Hebrew slavery more like a kind of long-term labor contract among individuals, and less like the kind of permanent exploitation that has characterized slavery in modern times.”... ...I realize you may have copy/pasted this reply without even reading it, but the first two sentences support my position...plus there is a glaring problem...Your copy/paste reply is explaining how the followers of the Bible treated other Hebrews, and not how they were allowed to treat non-Hebrews according to Leviticus 25:39-46. This is where God explains that we are forbidden from considering Hebrews as slaves, but instead, we can purchase non-Hebrews and consider them inheritable property. The Bible allows chattel slavery as long as the slave is not Hebrew.
Uhh... why not? Today, we think slavery is wrong. 1000's of years ago, slavery is perfectly fine. Morality is never objective-- it changes from one time period to the next, and one society to the next-- and it certainly isn't proof of "God" in any way, shape or form.
i think he is on a intentionally good path of thinking, but perhaps he doesnt consider the ecological relationship each culture has with their inherit environment. For instance; What if we use up all of our cows? Where do you think all the good cows would come from, Grandma? WTF
Though i'm used to disagreeing with the views of mr. Turek, I do expect better from him than this particular piece. Here he takes valid objections, chooses terrible examples to represent those points and come up with even weaker explainations why these examples wrong and then considers that proof that the whole notion is flawed.... really? But let's break it down: The first objection he mentions is that cultures have different values and he uses the sacred cows in India as an example. The first miss he makes is assuming cows are sacred because that could be grandma in reïncarnated form, but cows are considered sacred due to the servitude they provide and to their gentle nature, it has almost nothing to do with reïncarnation... Reïncarnation can occur into all kinds of animals, so why would a cow be more sacred then any other animal (generally speaking all animals are to be respected in Hinduïsm). On a side note, there are tribes in Papua Newguinea that have tribe members whos task it is to kill any senior tribe member that isn't contributing to the tribe anymore. So yes, you also have cultures that have no problem in killing grandma... So his explaination doesn't make any sense. And beside of this there are loads of other (better) examples of difference in value. Take for instance vegitarian who consider eating meat murder, or animal rights activists that feel the same about wearing real fur, or what about the discussion for or against abortion? These are different values at its core... Then he goes on about the greetings, that different expressions are basicly the same sentiment, except ofcourse... they are not... The fundamentalist view in the Islamic faith not to greet women for instance cannot be seen as a different expression of the same sentiment. Also how you greet still has a value system behind it, while one culture considers kissing strangers no problem, other cultures might think that is reserved only for loved ones, that is different value. As to the witch hunt, he starts with a monumental underestimation of the number of victims which between 1200-1800 in Europe and North-America, which is is not 18, but is estimated somewhere between 35.000 to 100.000 officially and up to 200.000 unofficially, not even counting the rest of the world. These also where not trials about murder, otherwise they where murdertrials. For most of these trials even the suspicion of witchcraft was enough reason to begin a trial. So no, they weren't burned for murder, they where burned for being a witch. But lets look at other examples, like slavery, or the use of harddrugs, or child labour, the persecution of gays, marrying girls that had just entered puberty (12 years old), hitting disobedient children with rods, death penalty, etc. all these examples show a different value set in earlier times then we have now. So beside the many misses he makes in the examples he gives, he also hasn't come close to refuting the (in my opinion) very valid objections to a objective morality.
brabbelbeest okay so frank may have been mistaken about the sacred cow example, but I think the point he was trying to make is still there. The basis for our systems of morality aren’t as different as you might originally think. Take for example your example of the tribes in New Guinea, even they value human life. They would object to the killing of the young healthy person that can help provide for the tribe. They aren’t just killing the older people because they hate wrinkles, they are doing it because the old people can no longer do the work required for the tribes survival and are just taking from the tribe. It is for the survival of the tribe that they do what they think is necessary. As for the stuff about Islam, actually it can be seen as a different expression of the same sentiment. In every culture there is a way to greet people, the thing with Islam is they don’t consider women as people. They think of women more as property than an actual person, so of course they don’t greet women. As for the witches, frank was specifying one particular example from the town of Salem. Salem was a mostly Protestant town, that went through a time of mass paranoia that resulted in a lot of people getting accused of being a witch. Only about 18 of those accused were actually hanged for the crime of witchcraft. There were people who died in prison, but that was because of sanitary issues of the time. Prison was a place where disease ran rampant due to the unsanitary conditions and the close quarters of those imprisoned, and with the rise of prisoners the diseases became more severe. Witches were accused of putting curses on people that would make them sick, go insane, or die, so yes witches were thought to be murderers.
brabbelbeest I don’t know if you saw my previous comment on the video we were originally talking on, about me defining objective and subjective morality, if not please tell me so I can repost it. Your comment seemed to say you only got two of my comments.
Hi Sherlock, in our conversation below the video of Kitty the last comment was from me, reacting to your two comments above that (one leading to this video, the other leading to Craig), telling you i've commented separately on each video. Is the comment you're referring to a recent comment, or an older one?
As to your response here. You are absolutely right that that is because of different values that they act differently. With tribes that engage in senicide they value productivity, and indeed in a large part of the Islam women are valued as lesser, sometimes to the point of being property. But value is completely where morality is based on... A killer just sees less value in another mans life, a thief holds a new phone in higher value then the welfare of others, a marital cheater holds his/her own feelings/needs in higher regard then the feelings of their partner or the vows they made, etc. To me that is what objective value/morality is all about. And as to the witches, I indeed think Frank used a very dishonest tactic here. He starts asking how many felt victim to the trials, then he adds "in Salem" behind it. He names the 19 deaths by these trials in Salem and then continues declaring you would have expected thousands, so apparently he then switched back to the total picture, giving the idea that 19 is the total number of deaths by witchtrials. Because the estimated population of Salem village at the time of the trials was about 500 people, 2000 if you include the surrounding area, so the expected "thousands" he mentioned couldn't possibly be the deathtoll of the Salem trials... Another flaw (to put it gentle) is that he uses a single favorable situation to represent a nearly global event. That would be the same as me declaring the holocaust wasn't all that bad because I have a example that in one camp the Jews where treated quite good... And to me it would seem especially bad if I would try to project that benevolent example as a indicator of the whole situation...
brabbelbeest I don’t think turek was being dishonest. He was taking a historical moment that has been greatly exaggerated and putting the facts straight. Before I actually did research on it I had heard that thousands of supposed witches were killed in Salem. I think Salem has become somewhat of a legend as most people think there were a lot of witches that were burned at the stake there. But in reality only about 18 were actually killed. Now of course there are other places that killed people for witchcraft but that wasn’t what he was talking about and he isn’t trying to hide that fact. He was simply talking about a specific event that has been exaggerated. I actually disagree about the tribes having different values, they have the absolute value of human life, but the relative understanding on the best way to preserve that life. The tribe yes does value your ability to work but that is because they value the lives of the tribe members. If the people don’t work the tribe dies. So they kill off the older people who have lived a long life so that the young may survive. What is the purpose of productivity other than to continue living? It is because they value the lives of the tribe members that they do what they do. So while they differ on the method of survivability they still value lives like we do.
All those empty seats, gives me hope. Also, mentions one town in US concerning the killing of "witches". Only 18, why the uproar? In Europe, number of witches killed, between 50 000 to 80 000.
So no one can do right or wrong. If it's legal it's allowable? Murder isn't allowable, but someone who commits murder isn't objectively wrong. Rape is punitive and not allowable by law, but the person who commits rape is right to himself. Is this your argument?
@@a.nash.594 What you're asking makes no sense. "So no one can do right or wrong." What does that mean? People make moral assessments all the time. Or haven't you noticed?
"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves" Numbers 31:17-18 If morality is subjective and it comes from the judeo-christian litterally interpretation of God then this commandment is completely moral in every possible scenario, every time and everywhere, since God's ultimate moral standard commanded this. If this is not the case and people would answer, that is the old testament, that was a different context and culture then the context and culture does change morality and the objectivity of morality it's not real.
lol ... your argument holds water when your speaking to Christian or Jewish scriptures... But objective morality still stands☝🏾 With or without what religions say, I bet when you go to bed, you lock your door at nights 🙂
One little phrase from the bible _"suffer not a witch to live"_ led to tens of thousands being burnt alive in a practice that continues to this day in many parts of Africa. Frank says we now understand that witches don't really kill people, perhaps someone should have told the bible authors 😜
@Chris Cuomo _"Catholicism isn't Christianity"_ Lol I hate to break this to you cupcake but most of them think YOU are not a "real" Christian. Let's just assume for the sake of argument that the christian God is the only God and all the thousands of other man made are false. This still leaves me with many problems as I often struggle to ascertain the christian perspective with regards to several issues such as..... The trinity 🤔 Is the pope the head of the church 🤔 Can priests marry 🤔 Birth control 🤔 Sexuality🤔 Can women be ordained 🤔 How to attain salvation🤔 The nature of mary 🤔 Dispensationalism vrs covernantalism🤔 Freewill vrs predestination 🤔 Eternal security 🤔 Faith vrs works 🤔 Heaven 🤔 Hell🤔 Evolution🤔 Alcohol🤔 Literal or aligorical bible 🤔 Divorce 🤔 It's so difficult because According to Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, there exist roughly 43,000 Christian denominations worldwide in 2012. That is up from 500 in 1800 and 39,000 in 2008 and this number is expected to grow to 55,000 by 2025 They disagree and have different opinions with regard to all of the above that's precisely WHY they have different denominations. *ITS ALL SUBJECTIVE* All these different gods and denominations past and present offer differing morality that has nothing to do with human wellbeing but often contradict and conflict with each other on almost every issue. So my question to you is ....... Which specific denomination is it that in your SUBJECTIVE OPINION represents the percieved whims of the god that's the "correct" Moral reference standard that humanity should aspire and adhere to ????? Theists often attempt to obfuscate and evade with vague non specific denomination nonsense for fear of me exposing just how subjective their beliefs are, but I'm sure you won't do that will you 😜
@@trumpbellend6717 Most of them think? So what? What does the Bible teach? If you didn't waste so much time trying keep yourself unconvinced (while being completely unable to defend your own position), you might actually learn something at some point. But then we all know what your problem is... (Proverbs 26:12)
@@jessebryant9233 _"what does the bible teach"_ Lol well that's rather unclear dear hence the 43,000 plus denominations with conflicting ideology. 🤣🤣🤣 I noticed you once again failed to tell us which of those denominations is the "correct" one dear 😉 why is that ?? _"trying to keep yourself convinced"_ *BELIEF IS NOT A "CHOICE"* or a mere act of volition. Sure someone can pretend to believe anything but the things one actually believe are not something you choose they are an involuntary response to one's level of information and understanding of their environment. You are either convinced or you are unconvinced and its EVIDENCE that convinces. I could not just make myself believe in pixies no matter how much I closed my eyes and stamped my feet. Anymore than you could right now "choose" to be convinced that God is not real or that the laws of gravity don't apply to you if you step off that cliff. Tell me could you genuinely "choose" to believe the internet does not exist and we are not having this discourse now ?? I'm talking about being CONVINCED of it bud not just pretending!! Give me an honest answer , could you right now "Choose" to believe in Thor or Zeus ??? 🤔 for exactly the same reason I can't choose to believe in Yahweh. Now if I recieved some irrefutable knowledge or evidence then I would have no "choice" but to believe, I would have to deny my own reasoning and senses. That what changes beliefs, not "choice" If you came home and found your spouse in bed with the neighbour, could you just "CHOOSE" to believe in her fidelity and go back downstairs to make her a nice cup of tea ?? 🤣😅🤣
@@jessebryant9233 _"what does the bible teach"_ A more pertinent question would be ..... Why should anyone give a hoot what the bible says about anything ?? You magic book has no more relevance, validity, knowledge, or truth than one would expect from any of those authored by ignorant superstitious uneducated immoral iron age tribesmen.
Who is getting high and mighty? You again agreed by saying "its against the norm" again I ask should God intervene at every turn. Are you saying "if a god exist the world and the people in it should be perfect?"
was slavery in the bible moral or immoral? If owning people as property is immoral now, surely it was immoral then? If this is true, why would a moral god condone immoral actions?
No arguments for objetive morality. Only some groups have the same moral in one case is no argument. But the bibel says you have to kill witches, not to kill only witches who where murderers.
@chriscuomo9334 Even christians can not arrange if equality of women/homosexual is good or bad. So they have no method to find out the objectiv moral. Moral is a evolution benefit. No community can exist with the rule "killing every body is allowed.
The claim that theistic morality is somehow superior because its "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
@@daddada2984 perhaps instead of picking nonsensical fights with people on the internet you should ask our Father for discernment. Almighty God will judge us all and we have but one intercessor - Christ Jesus.
So objective morals exist (I think there are holes in your argument, but let's just assume that what you say is true). So what? What's that got anything to do with God? Notice he didn't mention God, or anything divine for that matter, at all in the video. 'Proving' that morality is objective has nothing to do with whether or not God exists.
I think his view is that if objective morals exist, then God exists necessarily - because the only logical foundation for objective morals is in God. Other grounds for objective morality - like "my opinion" or "your opinion" or "the current views of my particular community" fail - they allow for only subjective morality. In a non-God world, I can say that I'd PREFER you don't murder me, but I can't say it's "wrong". Or my society can say that it's our collective opinion that targeting civilians with terrorist bombs is bad, but that's no more binding on another society (i.e., a terrorist group) than our preference for hamburgers over hummus. I think that's the connection Turek is making.
Perhaps, but if his 'objective morality' comes from the Bible, then we'd be in a pretty bad place. There are plenty of examples of where the 'moral teachings' of the Bible have been cast aside because they don't fit with what in reality is deemed to be moral. It condones slavery, rape, sexism and brutal murder, to name a few. So if objective morality does exist (and there are plenty of examples of where it doesn't - such as society's attitude towards homosexuals) then its origin has to be something other than the Bible.
John Dennis Where in the Bible does it condone those things? I think you've mixed up mentioning and condoning, because I've read the bible and nowhere does it tell anyone to rape another person. It mentions it quite a bit. Slavery? The bible doesn't condone slavery either. Slaves in the time of Israel weren't sold. They were prisoners of war. In the New Testament, slavery was extremely different from slavery that we practiced, in that it was imperialistic and not based on the race of the man who was your slave. Sexism isn't condoned either. The bible tells women to submit to their husbands and to God. Submission isn't one of those "make me a sandwich" kind of things. It's an intimate submission. Besides, the book of Ester is all about a strong willed woman! Not only that, but Jesus treated women with nothing but respect, laying hands on them only to heal them, and even then it wasn't in a perverted fashion. As to brutal murder, that was for judgement. God told His people to enact His judgement, and sometimes did it Himself. This was Old Testament times so it was normal for God to enact His judgement on people, because He had not yet sent Jesus. The Bible is not the origin of moral values, God is. Without an objective moral first cause, we would not be able to create our own morals. Because then it's our morals against Hitler's, or Stalin's. I can say that murder is wrong but if you say it's right, then who's to say I'm right and you're wrong, or vice versa? There has to be some sort of objective moral first cause, and if there is no God, then we are a Darwinist society and if I wanted to kill you, I could and there would be no way to say if I was right or wrong objectively. Much Blessings!
Zangomatic "I can say that I'd PREFER you don't murder me, but I can't say it's "wrong" Why not.. try it.. it works just fine. (and that is only half-sarcastic) And.. if you agree with me on the preferation (which is likely, because there are rather good objective reasons to prefer not being killed yourself) .. we can unite and tell everybody else we think it's wrong! And if enough people agree... we can call it wrong, make laws, .. And if there are demonstrable reasoning behind why... we can call it objectivly wrong (for the common goal we share.) I think you hang to much weight on 'wrong' and 'good'.. they are label.. If you run into a psycho 'disagreeing'.. calling it wrong alters nothing. Builiding social rules on objective and democratic basis is what gives you protection and justice. This is what everybody is doing when discussing morality and ethics.. well everybody accept theologians.
@Jesus Christ If god exist he by definition is an subject making all his likes wants wishes and rules subjective to him and to us. Objectivity comes from having the ability to predict and study what happens when a action occurs
I think morality is objective, but I don't think the objectivity of morality depends on God at all. Its like another God of the Gaps argument, just applied to morality this time
If the objective standard of mathematics and science is logic, why not morality also? If morally good and morally bad actions can be determined purely by logic, God no longer becomes necessary
TheSimpleDudeOne yeah math is logic applied to numbers and science is logic applied to the natural world, I'm not disputing that. How do I justify logic? To me logic justifies itself because objective knowledge/understanding emerges wherever logic is applied. Its justified because it works. If you're trying to invoke God here you'll have to be more specific with your question. But I think the better question is, particularly in the absence of God being necessary for objective morality, how do you justify God?
What you just describe there is what we called God. The objective morality is Him. He is the ultimate standard. You might think that ‘why is it that the objective morality has to be a person?’ it’s because everyone has a moral obligation on person and we have no moral obligation on non-person. It’s not a God of the Gaps fallacy. God of the gaps fallacy is when you are inserting God on the things you don’t know. Example; “I don’t know where objective morality came from therefore it must be God.” You are just accusing us that we are using the God of the gaps fallacy for two or more possible reason first you don’t know and you assumed that we don’t know either so you accused us that we used that fallacy. Secondly you might don’t want it to be God and it shouldn’t or can’t be God and whenever someone claims that the Objective Morality is God then you directly accused that someone as ‘someone who uses God of the gaps fallacy’. We Christians knows ‘Who’ is good and he is God. He is the good, the infinitely good. That’s why we have a moral obligations for Him and to one another. Do you have any doubts that everyone have moral obligations towards one another? Don’t you?
There's no evidence for objective morality. We have evidence for moral standards but they demonstrably differ to various extents from issue to issue. We see no evidence for an objective moral standard. Turek starts with "we have objective moral standards" when there is no good reason to. His position is based on the belief/assumption that God exists. Again, no good evidence available for that position. However, even of God exists, it doesn't automatically follow that objective morality exists. If objective morality exists it must surely apply to God as much as it does to us. If it's a case of "do as I say, not as I do" then it's an enforced moral code, not an objective one. God kills babies during passover. He kills alomost the entirety of humanity in the flood. He sends most of humanity to hell for believing the wrong things. If he can dish out this death and destruction then so can we if we operate under an objective moral code. If God can do it but we can't, the laws are not objective.
No it surely must not apply to you as much as God and the reason behind that is because atheist can't say what is right or wrong without having God in the equation because without God you leave out objective morality and all you have left is subjective morality which never gives you a clear answer on weither or not murder is wrong and even if you were to come up with an answer it would only be an opion and with your opion I could just contradict you the whole time and say murder isn't wrong while you contradict me and say no murder is wrong and we wouldn't have no certainty on weither or not if it's wrong but with God you have an objective basis to say no murder is wrong it's against God's nature and your able to call it wrong and be considered right without contradiction is because Christianity uses objective Morality while the atheist can't use objective Morality and if they were to then they would have to accept that God exist because without God you can't have objective Morality
@@ChrisFineganTunes so you eaither believe in subjective Morality which suggests that we don't have a definitive answer on if stealing is wrong because there's no objective Morality to tell you what is wrong and what is right and if there were one then you would have to be gittng that from and outside source which would point towards God
Frank, I find it interesting that atheists comment on your videos. Why do they care? If Atheism is true, Christianity would fall on it's face without their help. Yet many come here and use vulgar language and call names. It leads me to believe that they are hateful because they want to believe that they are their own highest authority.
I pray that their exposure to your work will soften their hearts as Lee Strobel's was.
If a group of Muslims started converting people and changing laws to fit their beliefs in the city you live in, wouldn't you try fight them?
@@xaindsleena8090 if you want to know if GOD is real Istvan then all you have to do is ask Him to reveal himself to you. It's that simple my friend. Ask with a geniune heart and watch what happens 👍
@mrjo2thec Athiesm is not a belief........ but a lack of belief.
@James Gray There is an estimated 46 "million slaves today... 2018 , with 400,000 in the USA , and 134, 000 in the UK.... I guess
@mrjo2thec
When presented with evidence that you deny and then conclude from, it's a belief. "There's probably no God" is a belief.
Is there more? If there is where can I watch it?
Witches don't come out and say their witches. They are in all the high places in society.
To someone that denies God:
Man, values and morals are two different things. someone might take killing someone lie is a morality. And trust me when you see him chasing you after you lied to somebody, you are not gonna say, "Well, let him do what he pleases."
Why do you think we have a constitution in every country. Simple, it is to be objective.
Why can't judges penalize people with what they think is good and bad, instead of looking for sections to judge people fairly?
Man, there should be an objective morality, which is set by highest authority who know everything(literally everything) and not just the past, present, future. If you don't believe there is an Originator to this universe, well, it's your problem. But even after looking at the wonders in the nature and in the universe that happens every split second, if you still say there is no Creator, I mean, then you are at loss.
What you mentioned here is simply a species working within a hierarchy to achieve and maintain order within the group. Instinct dictates that. Those of the species who try to work outside of the natural hierarchy are either disciplined or expelled. This is true of almost every social species.
Raghavay, I accept that there is a God. But God is way bigger than Christianity.
I've had someone tell me we can look at the overall values that are similar in all cultures and judge people on that.
I've not encountered such a person so determined to twist, not only logic, but offer up a splendid show of duplicity.
Haha! I agree!
great vid. God bless
Whiches could be summoning evil forces to murder. Also if someone hates the are as bad as murderer.
Which is more powerful witches or God?
God will protect His children.
Where can I watch the rest?
God bless
He seems to think the only witches that were killed were in Salem. He also ignores the verse in the Bible telling people "you shall not suffer a witch to live"
fred smith Just wondering, can you give me the verse for that? Like where to find it in the bible.
DarkWolf
It is Exodus 22:18
fred smith Do not allow a sorceress to live.
In Europe lots of witches were burned, but i Amerika it stopped, because biblebelieving christians pointed out that you needed 2 or three wittneses to prove your guilt, and not be judged be accusations only, and it stopped because none were found guity. Slavery has a similar story. Religious people are dangerous, wellinformed believers are not.
Morality has always been a problem for religion. Whilst individual theists can be moral, they have no way to explain why any act is right or wrong through faith.
Does the witch idea apply to abortion as well perhaps? Like we all agree that Murder is wrong (objective morality) however we just disagree on whether or not a fetus is considered a human with a soul?
Just pointing out another example
4:54 was hilarious 🤣
We most likely naturally developed morals and ethics as instincts as we evolved as a species. No gods needed or shown to be involved whatsoever.
"Most likely"? Who told you that and why did you believe them? Hey, pragmatism and preferences ≠ morality.
@@jessebryant9233 Common sense which, unfortunately, isn't as common as it should be. :)
@@TheTruthKiwi
So you can make claims but can't defend anything? Figures...
@@jessebryant9233 We started out as hunter gatherers right, there are fossil records and archaeological evidence to prove this. Studies have shown that as we travelled and our hunting needs grew more complex our cognitive abilities also developed.
We learnt to communicate, function in societies also learning morals and ethics as instincts along the way. No gods needed or shown to be involved whatsoever.
Where do you think morality comes from?
@@TheTruthKiwi
"We started out as..."? How do you know that? Did you just admit you have not empirical science to support your faith?
"Learning morals and ethics"? Do you mean we discovered them or that we made up rules because of preferences? Are YOU a "moral" person?
The only possible source: transcendence.
Even animals have shown to practice various moral codes so it's not totally subjective. And a lot of atheist literature I've read has pointed that out as well as how people from the past and present had similar morals whenever they argue that religion is unnecessary for morality. And honestly even if morality were just subjective and meaningless one cannot possibly live their life as if that were so.
DEAR FRANK, I think you doing a great Job and we Need more of that, the reason why i am writing you is, i saw on a Video, maybe more than 1 that you use Picture´s which we should not use, i can see how you love God and the Holy Spirit in me just sad, you have to tell Frank thats not god. second law of >God, dont make Picture of god..... you know what i mean Brother, well anyhow i wish you and your Family all the best and Gods Love in Jesus Namen amen
This is not true the commandment is not that we shouldn't make any pictures of God it says that we shouldn't make "graven images", meaning idols of God to be worshiped as if the image or statue were God Himself. it's not about the image it's about what we do with it. the images are fine as long as we use them for teaching or illustrative purposes and not as shrines to practice our worship of God.
If God exist he is a subject. Making all his likes wants and rules subjective to him and to us. The objectivity comes when one can quantify and predict what could happens when an action occurs.
All you did was agree that they are suppose! to have it. A "disorder" as rightly you called it. So do you think if there was a God that he should intervene every time something goes wrong or whenever someone does wrong?
1)Something is SUBJECTIVE, if its existence is necessarily CONTINGENT on a SUBJECT.
2)All VALUES are necessarily CONTINGENT on valuERS to bring about and maintain their existence.
3)All valuERS are SUBJECTS.
4)Given 1, from 2&3 it follows that all VALUES are necessarily CONTINGENT on SUBJECTS.
5)Given 1, from 4 it follows that all VALUES are necessarily SUBJECTIVE.
6)From 5 it follows there are NO OBJECTIVE VALUES. And there never could be.
Houston Davis Very interesting argument, clear and to the point!
I do disagree with a few of these points, however:
1) I largely agree, although clarification might be required in that all individual experience is subjective.
2) I wouldn't agree these are necessarily contingent. Take logical and numerical values, for instance, which according to some schools of philosophy are held to exist independently of subjective experience. I'll agree they are sufficiently contingent, in that the existence of a valuer can explain the subjective existence of a value, but that doesn't reduce the value to a purely relativistic one.
3) Agreed.
4) See 2. Possible revision: "all VALUES are sufficiently CONTINGENT on SUBJECTS".
5) See 2&4. Possible revisions: "all VALUES are sufficiently SUBJECTIVE."
6) See 5.
In conclusion, I don't believe this argument proves that there are necessarily no objective values. This argument doesn't follow when applied even to clearly objective values. For example:
Value X = there is a door in front of me.
1) X is necessarily contingent on subject Y
2) All values are necessarily contingent on a valuer to bring about and maintain its existence.
3) Valuer is subject Y.
4) Given 1, 2 & 3 > X is necessarily contingent on Y.
5) Given 1, 4 > X is necessarily subjective.
6) 5 > X is not objective.
Here we can see that even when belief X is deductively shown to be subjective, the door still exists.
Also, this argument can be used to favour theism by assuming that the valuer-subject is a creator God. In this scenario morality is simply a value which is contingent on God, which is precisely Turek's definition of objective morality.
James Brown How are you interpreting the term value? Because what you called "logical and numerical values" are not values by the same definition of the term in use, nor is a door. The term "value" in this case is referencing what we colloquially call "moral values".
Trying to make an argument in the manner you suggested would not be argument for theism it would simply be begging the question. Also if morality _is simply_ a value which is contingent on God then morality is necessarily subjective, both by my original syllogism and your modified version.
Apologies for the confusion, however this distinction between moral/numerical/logical value still doesn't detract from the central point of my review: that the argument fails to show any necessary link between moral values and their creation by subjects beyond assertion. The argument begs the question, in that one has to assume morality is necessarily subjective in order to work.
The position proposed is that all values contingent on God may be said to be "subjective" only from God's perspective as a subject. This doesn't impinge on objective morality, since this morality is objectively binding in any world, including the actual world, in which God is creator and object.
Perhaps a distinction is required between subjective morality, which only requires one moral subject, and relativistic morality, which describes the validity of possibly conflicting values of multiple moral subjects.
James Brown I understand my argument fails to provide a defense for P2 (I knew that when I posted it) and it is as you say an assertion, but that doesn't technically equate to begging the question. Though I understand where you're coming from.
I don't understand what you are trying to say in this 2nd paragraph, can you expand on it a little?
I see no reason to make the distinction or even bring up relativism, I prefer not to talk about it really as I find it to be an unnecessary extrapolation of subjectivism in these conversations (and most really).
+Houston Davis
"my argument fails to provide a defense for P2 (I knew that when I posted it) and it is as you say an assertion, but that doesn't technically equate to begging the question. "
"All VALUES are necessarily CONTINGENT on valuERS to bring about and maintain their existence."
I don't think it is a real 'assertion', and a valid premis. It even hinges on a problem often brought into these 'value-discussion'.
All definitions (i am aware of) of what 'value' means are based on an act of comparison or judgement. So it is subjective by definition. Anyone attacking this premise needs to have a 'definition' of value that does not include a subjective act...
why do Laws exist? do animals have laws?
Did I doze off during the part where he demonstrates there is a set of objective morals?
Frank Turek might think this explanation shows the Bible is true, but it actually shows the opposite. He says morality changes or is different among culture, yet the moral values are the same. If that were true, God would have been clear about this issue. Instead God says, "Slavery, rape, and murder are morally acceptable." If what Frank Turek says were true, you would expect God to say, "Slavery, rape, and murder are evil because the moral value is that every sentient life should be treated with respect."
Christians believe rape, slavery and murder are bad solely because God decide so.
@@goranmilic442 If Christians' reason for believing X is good or bad is only because God says so, that's a flawed system anyway. I was raised in the IFB church where they based morality off of what the pastor said. Things were good as long as the pastor got morality correct. In cases where he didnt, it was a bad situation. The same is true for God.
Also, there are multiple instances where God commands people to wipe out innocent people and gives permission to take the virgins for themselves, and God outright says owning slaves is permissible.
@@zeddicuszorrander3599 I agree.
Yeah, of course! How do we know slavery is wrong? Because of "objective morality"? Then why was it morally permissible for 1000's of years, including by tons of religious groups? This is just a total BS argument, I wish apologists like Turek would give it a rest.
The bible allowed slavery because the people at the time did not consider it to be immoral.
How do you reconcile that with considering the bible to be a guide for morality?
@@simplerstrength "Slavery in biblical times was more like what we understand to be “indentured servitude” today. To understand an ancient text, you have to understand the culture and context of the time."...
...Actually, you are mistaken, but lets be sure we do not misunderstand each other, as you could be using a strange definitions to reach that mistaken conclusion.
Slave: a person held in forced servitude.
chattel: : an enslaved person held as the legal property of another : BONDMAN
...Since two people can use the same term but define that term differently, can you accept my definitions of "slave", and "chattel", so I know we are talking about the same thing?
...Chattel slavery is what I am refering to that the bible allowed as well as indentured servitude, but want to make sure we both can agree on how to define a slave and chattel first...So if you can not accept my definitions I would like to know why and would like to know how you define the term instead...Thanks
@@simplerstrength Do you want to have a conversation where we treat each other the way we would want to be treated? I am trying to understand how you could be incorrect about what scripture teaches us, but first want to make sure we understand how to properly define the terms "slave" and "chattel". If you just want to make a false statement then run off instead of having an honest and equally respectful conversation, that is ok too as it will show me that you may not even understand what you are talking about...
@@simplerstrength “Although God liberated the Hebrews from slavery in Egypt, slavery is not universally prohibited in the Bible. Slavery was permissible in certain situations, so long as slaves were regarded as full members of the community (Gen. 17:12), received the same rest periods and holidays as non-slaves (Exod. 23:12; Deut. 5:14-15, 12:12), and were treated humanely (Exod. 21:7, 26-27). Most importantly, slavery among Hebrews was not intended as a permanent condition, but a voluntary, temporary refuge for people suffering what would otherwise be desperate poverty. “When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt” (Exod. 21:2). Cruelty on the part of the owner resulted in immediate freedom for the slave (Exod. 21:26-27). This made male Hebrew slavery more like a kind of long-term labor contract among individuals, and less like the kind of permanent exploitation that has characterized slavery in modern times.”...
...I realize you may have copy/pasted this reply without even reading it, but the first two sentences support my position...plus there is a glaring problem...Your copy/paste reply is explaining how the followers of the Bible treated other Hebrews, and not how they were allowed to treat non-Hebrews according to Leviticus 25:39-46. This is where God explains that we are forbidden from considering Hebrews as slaves, but instead, we can purchase non-Hebrews and consider them inheritable property. The Bible allows chattel slavery as long as the slave is not Hebrew.
Guess who, it's easy, you just scream like Frank does.
There could be no moral value conflicts if morality were not objective.
Why
Uhh... why not?
Today, we think slavery is wrong. 1000's of years ago, slavery is perfectly fine. Morality is never objective-- it changes from one time period to the next, and one society to the next-- and it certainly isn't proof of "God" in any way, shape or form.
i think he is on a intentionally good path of thinking, but perhaps he doesnt consider the ecological relationship each culture has with their inherit environment. For instance; What if we use up all of our cows? Where do you think all the good cows would come from, Grandma? WTF
You didnt understand.
❤❤❤❤❤
Though i'm used to disagreeing with the views of mr. Turek, I do expect better from him than this particular piece. Here he takes valid objections, chooses terrible examples to represent those points and come up with even weaker explainations why these examples wrong and then considers that proof that the whole notion is flawed.... really?
But let's break it down: The first objection he mentions is that cultures have different values and he uses the sacred cows in India as an example. The first miss he makes is assuming cows are sacred because that could be grandma in reïncarnated form, but cows are considered sacred due to the servitude they provide and to their gentle nature, it has almost nothing to do with reïncarnation...
Reïncarnation can occur into all kinds of animals, so why would a cow be more sacred then any other animal (generally speaking all animals are to be respected in Hinduïsm). On a side note, there are tribes in Papua Newguinea that have tribe members whos task it is to kill any senior tribe member that isn't contributing to the tribe anymore. So yes, you also have cultures that have no problem in killing grandma...
So his explaination doesn't make any sense. And beside of this there are loads of other (better) examples of difference in value. Take for instance vegitarian who consider eating meat murder, or animal rights activists that feel the same about wearing real fur, or what about the discussion for or against abortion? These are different values at its core...
Then he goes on about the greetings, that different expressions are basicly the same sentiment, except ofcourse... they are not... The fundamentalist view in the Islamic faith not to greet women for instance cannot be seen as a different expression of the same sentiment. Also how you greet still has a value system behind it, while one culture considers kissing strangers no problem, other cultures might think that is reserved only for loved ones, that is different value.
As to the witch hunt, he starts with a monumental underestimation of the number of victims which between 1200-1800 in Europe and North-America, which is is not 18, but is estimated somewhere between 35.000 to 100.000 officially and up to 200.000 unofficially, not even counting the rest of the world.
These also where not trials about murder, otherwise they where murdertrials. For most of these trials even the suspicion of witchcraft was enough reason to begin a trial. So no, they weren't burned for murder, they where burned for being a witch.
But lets look at other examples, like slavery, or the use of harddrugs, or child labour, the persecution of gays, marrying girls that had just entered puberty (12 years old), hitting disobedient children with rods, death penalty, etc. all these examples show a different value set in earlier times then we have now.
So beside the many misses he makes in the examples he gives, he also hasn't come close to refuting the (in my opinion) very valid objections to a objective morality.
brabbelbeest okay so frank may have been mistaken about the sacred cow example, but I think the point he was trying to make is still there. The basis for our systems of morality aren’t as different as you might originally think. Take for example your example of the tribes in New Guinea, even they value human life. They would object to the killing of the young healthy person that can help provide for the tribe. They aren’t just killing the older people because they hate wrinkles, they are doing it because the old people can no longer do the work required for the tribes survival and are just taking from the tribe. It is for the survival of the tribe that they do what they think is necessary.
As for the stuff about Islam, actually it can be seen as a different expression of the same sentiment. In every culture there is a way to greet people, the thing with Islam is they don’t consider women as people. They think of women more as property than an actual person, so of course they don’t greet women.
As for the witches, frank was specifying one particular example from the town of Salem. Salem was a mostly Protestant town, that went through a time of mass paranoia that resulted in a lot of people getting accused of being a witch. Only about 18 of those accused were actually hanged for the crime of witchcraft. There were people who died in prison, but that was because of sanitary issues of the time. Prison was a place where disease ran rampant due to the unsanitary conditions and the close quarters of those imprisoned, and with the rise of prisoners the diseases became more severe. Witches were accused of putting curses on people that would make them sick, go insane, or die, so yes witches were thought to be murderers.
brabbelbeest I don’t know if you saw my previous comment on the video we were originally talking on, about me defining objective and subjective morality, if not please tell me so I can repost it. Your comment seemed to say you only got two of my comments.
Hi Sherlock, in our conversation below the video of Kitty the last comment was from me, reacting to your two comments above that (one leading to this video, the other leading to Craig), telling you i've commented separately on each video. Is the comment you're referring to a recent comment, or an older one?
As to your response here. You are absolutely right that that is because of different values that they act differently. With tribes that engage in senicide they value productivity, and indeed in a large part of the Islam women are valued as lesser, sometimes to the point of being property.
But value is completely where morality is based on... A killer just sees less value in another mans life, a thief holds a new phone in higher value then the welfare of others, a marital cheater holds his/her own feelings/needs in higher regard then the feelings of their partner or the vows they made, etc. To me that is what objective value/morality is all about.
And as to the witches, I indeed think Frank used a very dishonest tactic here. He starts asking how many felt victim to the trials, then he adds "in Salem" behind it. He names the 19 deaths by these trials in Salem and then continues declaring you would have expected thousands, so apparently he then switched back to the total picture, giving the idea that 19 is the total number of deaths by witchtrials.
Because the estimated population of Salem village at the time of the trials was about 500 people, 2000 if you include the surrounding area, so the expected "thousands" he mentioned couldn't possibly be the deathtoll of the Salem trials...
Another flaw (to put it gentle) is that he uses a single favorable situation to represent a nearly global event. That would be the same as me declaring the holocaust wasn't all that bad because I have a example that in one camp the Jews where treated quite good... And to me it would seem especially bad if I would try to project that benevolent example as a indicator of the whole situation...
brabbelbeest I don’t think turek was being dishonest. He was taking a historical moment that has been greatly exaggerated and putting the facts straight. Before I actually did research on it I had heard that thousands of supposed witches were killed in Salem. I think Salem has become somewhat of a legend as most people think there were a lot of witches that were burned at the stake there. But in reality only about 18 were actually killed. Now of course there are other places that killed people for witchcraft but that wasn’t what he was talking about and he isn’t trying to hide that fact. He was simply talking about a specific event that has been exaggerated.
I actually disagree about the tribes having different values, they have the absolute value of human life, but the relative understanding on the best way to preserve that life. The tribe yes does value your ability to work but that is because they value the lives of the tribe members. If the people don’t work the tribe dies. So they kill off the older people who have lived a long life so that the young may survive. What is the purpose of productivity other than to continue living? It is because they value the lives of the tribe members that they do what they do. So while they differ on the method of survivability they still value lives like we do.
Witches do still cast spells and witches do still murder.
Grow up
@@VladShamaida ?
All those empty seats, gives me hope. Also, mentions one town in US concerning the killing of "witches". Only 18, why the uproar? In Europe, number of witches killed, between 50 000 to 80 000.
Each and every individual is the sole arbiter of his/her own morality.
So no one can do right or wrong. If it's legal it's allowable?
Murder isn't allowable, but someone who commits murder isn't objectively wrong. Rape is punitive and not allowable by law, but the person who commits rape is right to himself. Is this your argument?
@@a.nash.594 I have no idea what you're rambling on about. Reread my comment.
@@a.nash.594 Did you take the opportunity to reread my post?
@@theoskeptomai2535 I read it. I'm asking is my analysis with real world examples of YOUR view on morality correct.
@@a.nash.594 What you're asking makes no sense. "So no one can do right or wrong." What does that mean? People make moral assessments all the time. Or haven't you noticed?
"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves"
Numbers 31:17-18
If morality is subjective and it comes from the judeo-christian litterally interpretation of God then this commandment is completely moral in every possible scenario, every time and everywhere, since God's ultimate moral standard commanded this.
If this is not the case and people would answer, that is the old testament, that was a different context and culture then the context and culture does change morality and the objectivity of morality it's not real.
lol ... your argument holds water when your speaking to Christian or Jewish scriptures... But objective morality still stands☝🏾 With or without what religions say, I bet when you go to bed, you lock your door at nights 🙂
Flybandit, even if all of that is true - by Christian standards, you and I are no better in God's eyes. So why hasn't God ordered anyone to kill us?
That Salem witch comparison was horrible other than that a decent
More rationalizing.
One little phrase from the bible _"suffer not a witch to live"_ led to tens of thousands being burnt alive in a practice that continues to this day in many parts of Africa. Frank says we now understand that witches don't really kill people, perhaps someone should have told the bible authors 😜
@Chris Cuomo _"Catholicism isn't Christianity"_
Lol I hate to break this to you cupcake but most of them think YOU are not a "real" Christian. Let's just assume for the sake of argument that the christian God is the only God and all the thousands of other man made are false.
This still leaves me with many problems as I often struggle to ascertain the christian perspective with regards to several issues such as.....
The trinity 🤔
Is the pope the head of the church 🤔
Can priests marry 🤔
Birth control 🤔
Sexuality🤔
Can women be ordained 🤔
How to attain salvation🤔
The nature of mary 🤔
Dispensationalism vrs covernantalism🤔
Freewill vrs predestination 🤔
Eternal security 🤔
Faith vrs works 🤔
Heaven 🤔
Hell🤔
Evolution🤔
Alcohol🤔
Literal or aligorical bible 🤔
Divorce 🤔
It's so difficult because According to Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, there exist roughly 43,000 Christian denominations worldwide in 2012. That is up from 500 in 1800 and 39,000 in 2008 and this number is expected to grow to 55,000 by 2025
They disagree and have different opinions with regard to all of the above that's precisely WHY they have different denominations. *ITS ALL SUBJECTIVE*
All these different gods and denominations past and present offer differing morality that has nothing to do with human wellbeing but often contradict and conflict with each other on almost every issue.
So my question to you is .......
Which specific denomination is it that in your SUBJECTIVE OPINION represents the percieved whims of the god that's the "correct" Moral reference standard that humanity should aspire and adhere to ?????
Theists often attempt to obfuscate and evade with vague non specific denomination nonsense for fear of me exposing just how subjective their beliefs are, but I'm sure you won't do that will you 😜
@@trumpbellend6717
Most of them think? So what? What does the Bible teach? If you didn't waste so much time trying keep yourself unconvinced (while being completely unable to defend your own position), you might actually learn something at some point. But then we all know what your problem is... (Proverbs 26:12)
@@jessebryant9233 _"what does the bible teach"_
Lol well that's rather unclear dear hence the 43,000 plus denominations with conflicting ideology. 🤣🤣🤣 I noticed you once again failed to tell us which of those denominations is the "correct" one dear 😉 why is that ??
_"trying to keep yourself convinced"_
*BELIEF IS NOT A "CHOICE"* or a mere act of volition. Sure someone can pretend to believe anything but the things one actually believe are not something you choose they are an involuntary response to one's level of information and understanding of their environment. You are either convinced or you are unconvinced and its EVIDENCE that convinces.
I could not just make myself believe in pixies no matter how much I closed my eyes and stamped my feet. Anymore than you could right now "choose" to be convinced that God is not real or that the laws of gravity don't apply to you if you step off that cliff.
Tell me could you genuinely "choose" to believe the internet does not exist and we are not having this discourse now ?? I'm talking about being CONVINCED of it bud not just pretending!! Give me an honest answer , could you right now "Choose" to believe in Thor or Zeus ??? 🤔 for exactly the same reason I can't choose to believe in Yahweh.
Now if I recieved some irrefutable knowledge or evidence then I would have no "choice" but to believe, I would have to deny my own reasoning and senses. That what changes beliefs, not "choice"
If you came home and found your spouse in bed with the neighbour, could you just "CHOOSE" to believe in her fidelity and go back downstairs to make her a nice cup of tea ?? 🤣😅🤣
@@trumpbellend6717
Unclear says the God hating homosexual troll. Okay, pick a specific passage and let's test your claim...
@@jessebryant9233 _"what does the bible teach"_
A more pertinent question would be .....
Why should anyone give a hoot what the bible says about anything ??
You magic book has no more relevance, validity, knowledge, or truth than one would expect from any of those authored by ignorant superstitious uneducated immoral iron age tribesmen.
Who is getting high and mighty? You again agreed by saying "its against the norm" again I ask should God intervene at every turn. Are you saying "if a god exist the world and the people in it should be perfect?"
was slavery in the bible moral or immoral? If owning people as property is immoral now, surely it was immoral then? If this is true, why would a moral god condone immoral actions?
Explain with reference
No arguments for objetive morality. Only some groups have the same moral in one case is no argument.
But the bibel says you have to kill witches, not to kill only witches who where murderers.
@chriscuomo9334
Even christians can not arrange if equality of women/homosexual is good or bad. So they have no method to find out the objectiv moral.
Moral is a evolution benefit. No community can exist with the rule "killing every body is allowed.
@chriscuomo9334 Where is your argument for objective moral?
Lots of fake triggering Happening Here Frank, let the ad hominem attacks commence...
The claim that theistic morality is somehow superior because its "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
Nah.
Curses can and do kill people Frank, nevertheless you make a great point. As always 🙏
But which is more powerful curses or God?
@@daddada2984 if you even ask that question I despair of your salvation 😞
@@timhickman3407 so you are the authority of salvation? You know my heart & deeds? Are you God?
Are you condemning me already? Is this judgement day?
@@daddada2984 perhaps instead of picking nonsensical fights with people on the internet you should ask our Father for discernment. Almighty God will judge us all and we have but one intercessor - Christ Jesus.
@@timhickman3407 who says im picking a fight?
Im just saying a discernment.. that God is powerful than any curses.
Uuuuuuh witches do murder
Jesus would have us forgive those murderers anyway, even if they did murder with curses.
So objective morals exist (I think there are holes in your argument, but let's just assume that what you say is true).
So what?
What's that got anything to do with God? Notice he didn't mention God, or anything divine for that matter, at all in the video. 'Proving' that morality is objective has nothing to do with whether or not God exists.
I think his view is that if objective morals exist, then God exists necessarily - because the only logical foundation for objective morals is in God. Other grounds for objective morality - like "my opinion" or "your opinion" or "the current views of my particular community" fail - they allow for only subjective morality. In a non-God world, I can say that I'd PREFER you don't murder me, but I can't say it's "wrong". Or my society can say that it's our collective opinion that targeting civilians with terrorist bombs is bad, but that's no more binding on another society (i.e., a terrorist group) than our preference for hamburgers over hummus. I think that's the connection Turek is making.
Perhaps, but if his 'objective morality' comes from the Bible, then we'd be in a pretty bad place. There are plenty of examples of where the 'moral teachings' of the Bible have been cast aside because they don't fit with what in reality is deemed to be moral. It condones slavery, rape, sexism and brutal murder, to name a few. So if objective morality does exist (and there are plenty of examples of where it doesn't - such as society's attitude towards homosexuals) then its origin has to be something other than the Bible.
John Dennis Where in the Bible does it condone those things? I think you've mixed up mentioning and condoning, because I've read the bible and nowhere does it tell anyone to rape another person. It mentions it quite a bit. Slavery? The bible doesn't condone slavery either. Slaves in the time of Israel weren't sold. They were prisoners of war. In the New Testament, slavery was extremely different from slavery that we practiced, in that it was imperialistic and not based on the race of the man who was your slave. Sexism isn't condoned either. The bible tells women to submit to their husbands and to God. Submission isn't one of those "make me a sandwich" kind of things. It's an intimate submission. Besides, the book of Ester is all about a strong willed woman! Not only that, but Jesus treated women with nothing but respect, laying hands on them only to heal them, and even then it wasn't in a perverted fashion. As to brutal murder, that was for judgement. God told His people to enact His judgement, and sometimes did it Himself. This was Old Testament times so it was normal for God to enact His judgement on people, because He had not yet sent Jesus. The Bible is not the origin of moral values, God is. Without an objective moral first cause, we would not be able to create our own morals. Because then it's our morals against Hitler's, or Stalin's. I can say that murder is wrong but if you say it's right, then who's to say I'm right and you're wrong, or vice versa? There has to be some sort of objective moral first cause, and if there is no God, then we are a Darwinist society and if I wanted to kill you, I could and there would be no way to say if I was right or wrong objectively. Much Blessings!
Zangomatic
"I can say that I'd PREFER you don't murder me, but I can't say it's "wrong"
Why not.. try it.. it works just fine. (and that is only half-sarcastic)
And.. if you agree with me on the preferation (which is likely, because there are rather good objective reasons to prefer not being killed yourself) .. we can unite and tell everybody else we think it's wrong!
And if enough people agree... we can call it wrong, make laws, ..
And if there are demonstrable reasoning behind why... we can call it objectivly wrong (for the common goal we share.)
I think you hang to much weight on 'wrong' and 'good'.. they are label..
If you run into a psycho 'disagreeing'.. calling it wrong alters nothing. Builiding social rules on objective and democratic basis is what gives you protection and justice.
This is what everybody is doing when discussing morality and ethics.. well everybody accept theologians.
@Jesus Christ If god exist he by definition is an subject making all his likes wants wishes and rules subjective to him and to us. Objectivity comes from having the ability to predict and study what happens when a action occurs
Life waft..Lol
To make fun of animal suffering is despicable.
If Christianity is false then you are misleading people.
If atheism is true then it does not matter.
@@Dave-oj7sd It does.... The state of the world with a lot of people being delusional is undesirable.
The truth matters regardless.
I think morality is objective, but I don't think the objectivity of morality depends on God at all. Its like another God of the Gaps argument, just applied to morality this time
If the objective standard of mathematics and science is logic, why not morality also? If morally good and morally bad actions can be determined purely by logic, God no longer becomes necessary
TheSimpleDudeOne yeah math is logic applied to numbers and science is logic applied to the natural world, I'm not disputing that. How do I justify logic? To me logic justifies itself because objective knowledge/understanding emerges wherever logic is applied. Its justified because it works. If you're trying to invoke God here you'll have to be more specific with your question. But I think the better question is, particularly in the absence of God being necessary for objective morality, how do you justify God?
lavenderson so you are using logic and reasoning to justify logic and reasoning. That is a logical fallacy.
What you just describe there is what we called God. The objective morality is Him. He is the ultimate standard. You might think that ‘why is it that the objective morality has to be a person?’ it’s because everyone has a moral obligation on person and we have no moral obligation on non-person.
It’s not a God of the Gaps fallacy. God of the gaps fallacy is when you are inserting God on the things you don’t know. Example; “I don’t know where objective morality came from therefore it must be God.”
You are just accusing us that we are using the God of the gaps fallacy for two or more possible reason first you don’t know and you assumed that we don’t know either so you accused us that we used that fallacy. Secondly you might don’t want it to be God and it shouldn’t or can’t be God and whenever someone claims that the Objective Morality is God then you directly accused that someone as ‘someone who uses God of the gaps fallacy’.
We Christians knows ‘Who’ is good and he is God. He is the good, the infinitely good.
That’s why we have a moral obligations for Him and to one another.
Do you have any doubts that everyone have moral obligations towards one another? Don’t you?
@@mharzmhason1787 In the time since I posted this comment years ago, I have become a fervent Christian.
Crap video but then again. But it's what one would expect from American Christianity
There's no evidence for objective morality. We have evidence for moral standards but they demonstrably differ to various extents from issue to issue. We see no evidence for an objective moral standard. Turek starts with "we have objective moral standards" when there is no good reason to.
His position is based on the belief/assumption that God exists. Again, no good evidence available for that position. However, even of God exists, it doesn't automatically follow that objective morality exists.
If objective morality exists it must surely apply to God as much as it does to us. If it's a case of "do as I say, not as I do" then it's an enforced moral code, not an objective one.
God kills babies during passover. He kills alomost the entirety of humanity in the flood. He sends most of humanity to hell for believing the wrong things. If he can dish out this death and destruction then so can we if we operate under an objective moral code. If God can do it but we can't, the laws are not objective.
So?
Nick Aduana II
so the argument that 'morality is objective therefore God exists' falls down pretty quickly.
No it surely must not apply to you as much as God and the reason behind that is because atheist can't say what is right or wrong without having God in the equation because without God you leave out objective morality and all you have left is subjective morality which never gives you a clear answer on weither or not murder is wrong and even if you were to come up with an answer it would only be an opion and with your opion I could just contradict you the whole time and say murder isn't wrong while you contradict me and say no murder is wrong and we wouldn't have no certainty on weither or not if it's wrong but with God you have an objective basis to say no murder is wrong it's against God's nature and your able to call it wrong and be considered right without contradiction is because Christianity uses objective Morality while the atheist can't use objective Morality and if they were to then they would have to accept that God exist because without God you can't have objective Morality
@@ChrisFineganTunes so you eaither believe in subjective Morality which suggests that we don't have a definitive answer on if stealing is wrong because there's no objective Morality to tell you what is wrong and what is right and if there were one then you would have to be gittng that from and outside source which would point towards God
@@ChrisFineganTunes or believe that objective Morality exist and that God exist because if objective mora didn't exist then God wouldn't exist