I shared this with someone yesterday: Friedrich Nietzsche said, "You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, it does not exist." Richard Dawkins says, "...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." Why is it that honest atheists admit that, without God, objective moral values cannot exist? Because it is the logical result of taking atheistic philosophy to its natural conclusion. If there is such a thing as evil, you must assume there is such a thing as good. If you assume there's such a thing as good, you assume there's such a thing as an absolute and unchanging moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. If you assume there's such a thing as an absolute moral law, you must posit an absolute moral law giver, but that would be God - the one whom the atheist is trying to disprove. So now rewind: if there's not a moral law giver, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil. Which is just what Richard Dawkins admits to.
How much objectively are 10 apples divided by 2? For two monkeys that don't know math? Answer - according to their strength - the strong one takes as much as it wishes, while the weak one takes what is left, if any. Does by not knowing math, math just stop to existing, therefore there is no objective answer? Without God - the answer is the same as with not knowing math - whatever it fits you, for you are rebel against God. For people who know God however - there were ton of revelations in the Bible for most of the moral questions. Christians will still struggle with not so obvious moral questions and they pray to follow God's will, not their own, because we know how easy is to make mistakes without guidance. But we struggle with something quite objective.
He's not "admitting" there's no objective moral law; he's just stating it. God having a preference doesn't make that preference objective. Why would it?
@bigdavexx1 if you grant an all-powerful creator-God for the sake of argument, which it sounds you are, then it is the Creator who decides the moral law. If the universe had instead been made by the Blood God Khorne, would we have any standard outside of his absolute authority to question it? God is who he is, and the morality of His character is written onto our hearts. He made the laws, and the universe they bring about.
@@Bertoleyus , if I lived in a universe created by the Blood God Khorne, I would hope to resist his morality. Aligning my actions to the desires of the most powerful entity doesn't sound like objective morality. The reality is that we set our own moral standards based on what we personally value, and this can be scary, but the alternative is pretending the hard decisions are out of our control.
@@bigdavexx1 why should you hope to resist the anchor of your (hypothetical) universe's morality? It seems like you're valuing whatever morality you come up with over another, while admitting it's just your preference. It seems like you're speaking to the engineer of a car and saying "this should run on corn starch, not gas! The tires should be square!" Except you deny that there's an engineer at all. It's quite confusing. Are you saying your morality is good, full stop, nothing further, because it just is? If so, you can't justify it, but the Creator can, because He designed it to work that way. The most powerful entity IS the objective! It has the power to compel and enforce. The creator deems that hot stoves burn, and it is so. Saying that it seems wrong to you doesn't make sense. Moral facts are like "hot things burn skin". Saying "they ought be another way" doesn't make sense to me.
For those seeking clarity: We don’t “need God” to be moral or make moral actions. The assertion is, without God, on a purely naturalistic basis, we wouldn’t have an absolute standard for “good” and “evil”. Things would just be.
Well people could come together and create a standard, but then it would only be a matter of opinion and preferences, and chaos and confusion would rule the day, as we see now with those who reject the truth of Jesus.
We can make that standard. This has already been the case for other subjective areas of life, such as the taste of food, aesthetics, and even rules of games. Does this mean these standards are subject to change? Absolutely. A lot of people like ice cream now, but that might not be the case given say, 200 years. It isn't an objective standard, but it doesn't need to be objective to be actionable. It is not objectively the case that say, ice cream is good, but it's popular enough where you can build even a store around it. Not everyone prefers the same kinds of art as well, again, that's subjective, but enough people like certain forms of art enough to make it something you could sell.
Why not repent of God's gnosis of good and evil? Then iniquity won't be found in you so you won't be a worker of it and you won't be asked to depart into outer darkness.
But to me seems, that things "just are". An idea, that human life has some sort of objective meaning and dignity cannot serve as an argument for the existence of God, rather it could be a result of it. Social sciences with a little help from biology and chemstry explain well why people think and behave the way they do. Why the need to base a sense of morality in an external source?
Just subscribed. Love these videos. Gives me help when I try to convert some of my closest friends who are having difficulty believing. I want them in heaven with me. Thanks man
Morality is not complicated. Morality comes from the fact that we are social animals. We can see morality in one form or another in almost all social animals. Experiments have shown animals practicing altruism, even self-sacrifice, protecting the weak, showing a sense of fairness, displaying empathy, cooperating with strangers and punishing destructive behavior. No God required.
@@SandwedgeMon which terms are you confused about, I was pretty clear. I make no assumptions, we are social animals that is a fact. Morality is a product of our biological and cultural evolution. This genetic and cultural evolution has shaped our brains to care for others, react to those who try to harm us, and to create moral rules that help us to live together successfully
He's saying these things you describe, that are good such as altruism, caring for others etc, why ate that good and what does good mean? On a naturalistic perspective you have no grounds on which to base good and evil in the first place. So what you are saying is actually not taking the core point which is actually a layer deeper
Can't tell you how great and encouraging these vids are. Was married for 10 years, two little girls, and fast forward to now my ex-wife is remarried and claims to be an atheist. Because we have split custody over our girls, they're living in two opposite households. It's been a blessing to work through these vids because of what I know will be difficult conversations with the kiddos as they get older. Keep going Brandon.
HERE's the reality of God's hypocrisy on morality from a Bible expert. Watch it if your have the courage to see the truth ruclips.net/video/4pdYmIwxYTE/видео.html
Of course they will be difficult conversations when you will try to brainwash your kids with videos like this. Atheists do have a sense of good and evil and objective standards can be made. If you claim objective standards can't be made without God then objective standards can't be made with God either. You are the one accepting as an axiom that God is doing good by definition. That's an arbitrary standard which you accept because God is the strongest. People absolutely do have their own sense of morality. The overwhelming majority of people that I know and have known are either open atheists or they are only nominally christians and they don't believe in God nor they care about what the Bible says. I was an atheist for a good part of my life. To say that atheists don't have morality is objectively wrong. Also, anyone who abstains from doing evil just because God tells them to is not a good person. Further more, the countries which have the least amount of crime have the highest percentage of atheists (North European countries). Furthermore, the countries with the least crime have always been communist countries and they are very atheist.
So sorry about your situation - happened to a buddy of mine as well. Will pray for you and your family. This time you are spending with your girls will provide them with a great basis to live in this crazy world. I wish more Christians would interact with these ideas.
They are always the first to quote Bible verses whenever they feel wronged. Then they say, "you should not judge " or" aren' t you supposed to love your neighbor as yourself?"😂 They are very quick doing that.
Why even quote the Bible if you don’t believe it to be true? This always baffles me. “I’m using it against you!” 😂 No it doesn’t work like that…pick a side.
Hate to break it to you but the golden rule was said LOOOOOOOOOOONG before the Bible claimed that Jesus said it. So Jesus is soft quoting Lao Tzu or Zarathustra or many many many other great thinkers who existed centuries before Jesus and preached a message of seeing yourself in others and treat people how you want to be treated. Lao Tzu preached this message and he followed The Tao and not a deity. Weird how he came to that conclusion without needing Yahweh worshippers to tell him first
@@Daily_Dose_Of_WisdomTake the scales of Good and Evil off your eyes brother, and see! Then you can be reconciled with the father. Are you up to the standards you're judging the world with? Jesus Will judge you by that measure. That's called grace. Jesus Cuts Hypocrites in half and throws them into the fire. That's called justice. This is the knowledge of the truth: that the knowledge of Good and Evil is death. Not life. Therefore repent or you're not going to eat from the Tree of Life
@@MichaelMcDonald-my2npim confused. It sounds like you’re saying we aren’t reconciled to The Father unless we pretend to not know what good and evil is. Is this correct?
My brother what in the world are you saying? No one is judging anyone but in any case have you heard of righteous judgement? I think this was a great discussion especially if you are into apologetics, all Christians should prepare themselves to defend our faith. 1 Peter 3:15
@@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom So, you only respond to comments that have alot of nice smilies? Maybe you should try an adress the comments with genuine objections to your content.
Hey Brandon, you know I've been watching your videos for a while now and I really enjoy them. Your videos have helped me answer a lot of questions I have, and I'm sure there are many more that will be answered in the future. My spiritual journey has only just begun, but I just wanted to say one thing: thank you for making these videos. Thank you for putting in the work for this. You've helped bring me closer to God and likely many others too. That's no small feat, so thank you. 🙏
@@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom Morality is not complicated. Morality comes from the fact that we are social animals. We can see morality in one form or another in almost all social animals. Experiments have shown animals practicing altruism, even self-sacrifice, protecting the weak, showing a sense of fairness, displaying empathy, cooperating with strangers, and punishing destructive behavior. No God required.
Amos 8:11 “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:” King James Version (KJV)
@kos-mos1127 "Proverbs 18:2 (NKJV): 2 A fool has no delight in understanding, But in expressing his own heart." It seems you helped fulfill that one . Good day to you sir.
You can either rebel and ignore God's Grace, wisdom, Commands and ways, or develop them. By ignoring them - you will almost certainly grow in self righteousness, deny God, grow in sin, grow in hedonism, hurt others and yourself on the way and so on. Let's say commit adultery, do drugs, steal, lie, talk bad, hurt others, even kill. The deeper you go with those sins - the less you will feel the need to be accountable for them, and you will grow to even ask - "Who say this is wrong?" How many thieves or lairs have you seen to confess? Have you seen a corrupt po1i4ician? The crooked they become, the more patholog1cal they become in their deny of their sinful deeds. And that's all normal and known. Our flesh is fallen and it is seeking to sway the soul in this rebellion against the God. Your heart will become stone, your vision of the light will be completely veiled. Yet, there is escape - repentance, establishment the connection with God. In fact, He will give messages, warnings, signs - that we are wrong. But the further we are away from Him - the less we will care to hear and introspect them. And if repentance happens - It will hurt, you will cry, it will be full of new regressions. But nothing comparable with what Jesus did for us. He pay, so through Him you and I can seek salvation and repentance. And if you once re-connect with God, forgive, repent from your sin, acknowledge His commands - you will know that to commit adultery, do drugs, steal, lie, talk bad, hurt others, kill and so on is indeed wrong. Is this the end? Well, no. Regressions will again rise, but this time you know better. It is a struggle, it is as Matthew said - yoke, but the reward is walking closer to God, so it is also restful for the soul. Matthew 11:28-30 28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
This reminds me of the critic of air analogy. "Hey I don't need to believe in air to breathe. Afterall, I dont even believe in air, and I breathe just fine" Morality, naturally, points to a Moral Lawgiver. It is an effect to cause argument.
Morality is not complicated. Morality comes from the fact that we are social animals. We can see morality in one form or another in almost all social animals. Experiments have shown animals practicing altruism, even self-sacrifice, protecting the weak, showing a sense of fairness, displaying empathy, cooperating with strangers, and punishing destructive behavior. No God required. If you've read the Bible you would realize that the God of the Bible is in fact evil. Christianity is about blind obedience to a jealous authoritarian entity that requires its servants (slaves) to both fear and love it or be tortured for eternity. This god might test his slave's blind loyalty from time to time like Abraham and Job. Poor Job was tortured and his family killed just so God could prove to Satan that he would remain loyal.
@@HelgaBelga-yv7yn LMAO..... Christians claim an invisible, non-demonstrable man in the sky is the source of morality WITH NO EVIDENCE, LOGIC OR REASON then tells not to just assert scientific evidence of morality in social animals.....just insane
Morality is not complicated. Morality comes from the fact that we are social animals. We can see morality in one form or another in almost all social animals. Experiments have shown animals practicing altruism, even self-sacrifice, protecting the weak, showing a sense of fairness, displaying empathy, cooperating with strangers and punishing destructive behavior. No God required.
@@lukeism2it all stems from the first moral decision ever made. It turns out existence is good, and so it happened, all other morality is derived from that origin 🙏😇🔥
You need God for everything! Because God is everything. For those who don’t know what I’m talking about? Reads the Bible and get to know God and his son our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Do you mean the bible where Sky Daddy orders genocide on multiple occasions, slavery, kidnapping and forcing virgins of the enemy into 'marriage', selling one's daughters, ... ?
Not so but you have the freedom to believe whatever you wish Freedom Of Freedom From there is no morality in nature biological life is survival of the fittest
My biggest issue here is accepting the world's timeline of billions of years, rather than standing firmly on God's Word, starting in the first chapter. Too many compromises must be made. Death and suffering aren't the result of sin, if there were millions of years of death before man existed. If evolution, then we were not made in God's image. We resulted, eventually, from His creation. The list goes on.
4:07 he hit it right on the nail there. How do you get from an is to an ought? This is the core issue with morality as it regards God. How do you get from God is moral, to we ought to do moral things?
An appraisal of all the evidence and reasons that rationally infer God’s omni aspects (eg that He’s perfect goodness and truth personified) is enough for Christianity’s claims to be rightly considered as reasonable and justified.
@@displacegamer1379 I am justified to claim that I think the reason why you’re asking me your 1st question is because your defiantly faithful atheistic religious beliefs, cause you to smugly ask disingenuous questions.
Just like the last twenty generations being wrong about when the end of the world would happen. Don’t forget to thank God they were wrong. Every cruel or considerate deed is the absolute result of a wrong belief. Let’s give thanks!
@@jimmyfuentes3914 Still, we would be nothing, if God had honored their belief, rather than giving us an opportunity to live. To do good things for the world. Don’t forget to add that to your prayers. What would you think of you had to come back, in like four generations, and find the validation for a true and correct belief, hasn’t been fulfilled? How would you address your lineage? Explain how your faith meant more to you, than the faith that they will exist? Be a little uncomfortable, don’t you think?
HERE's the reality of God's hypocrisy on morality from a Bible expert. Watch it if your have the courage to see the truth ruclips.net/video/4pdYmIwxYTE/видео.html
HERE's the reality of God's hypocrisy on morality from a Bible expert. Watch it if your have the courage to see the truth ruclips.net/video/4pdYmIwxYTE/видео.html
Moral standards and legal systems have continuously evolved and adapted throughout human history, reflecting the changing needs and values of societies. This dynamic process of moral evolution has been a fundamental aspect of human development, long predating the emergence of specific religious codes. For instance, the Code of Ur-Nammu, one of the earliest known sets of laws, was established centuries before the Mosaic Law. The progression of moral and legal thought has shaped civilizations from ancient times and will likely continue to do so, illustrating the ongoing journey of humanity in defining and redefining concepts of right and wrong, justice, and ethics.
People always underestimate the love of God....... that's the problem,There is no greater love than the love of Jesus Christ......Son of the living God......The source of everlasting love,truth,and life.
Good evening Man! Again a very good video. God is basically the thing that distinct us from animals. Because we of free will. The consequence is allowing evil to exist. But only so can we proof our goodness so to speak and make it clear that we choose good (God) over evil (Satan). God bless you, have a nice week!🙏❤
HERE's the reality of God's hypocrisy on morality from a Bible expert. Watch it if your have the courage to see the truth ruclips.net/video/4pdYmIwxYTE/видео.html
Math is not like objective morals.... You can demonstrate that if you have 2 group of 2 objects, put them together you have 4.... But how do you demonstrate that objective morals are real?
@@hasone1848in my opinion as an atheist and skeptic-you don’t. Because morality is actually subjective, and theists would simply PREFER it were objective, regardless of the facts.
@@hasone1848the fact that another person "should" never punch you in the face just because they have a sadistic personality trait is the demonstration. That individual "should not" punch you in the face just because they feel like it. I claim that is true and that it is a self-evident and transcendent truth. Others can and do claim otherwise. I disagree with those others. Some say 2+2=5, some say 11, some say 1,264,345,967. I disagree with those. 🤷
@@ryngrd1 You have to demonstrate that your "truth" is the truth.... Until then you have nothing to stand on.... I'm mocking bad ideas and logical fallacies that you and most Christians are engaged in.
I have lain awake many nights trying to figure out how there could be morality without God. No matter how you figure it out, without God, morality becomes just the consensus of maiority!
Atheists and Christians never stop arguing and debating about God and Gods, "Sins", the Bible, Jesus Christ, Satan the Devil and never stop complaining too about sufferings, evil, wars, cancers, and deaths but do Atheists, Christians and fanatic members of all kinds of Religions respect and obey GOD and Jesus Christ? ANSWER - No, all Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and fanatic members of all kinds of Religions in the world KNOW and are fully aware that they all unitedly, openly, and deliberately rejected GOD's Sovereignty and the BIBLICAL authority and teachings of Jesus Christ about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" as worthless and useless, no value whatsoever in their lives and existence. Who are the Followers of Jesus Christ? ANSWER - Jesus Christ KNOWS that all persons on earth who willingly honor and obey him as the One given by GOD all authority in heaven and on earth and put their faith and hope in his teachings about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" as written in Matthew 28: 18, Luke 4: 43, and John 11: 25, 26 are his loving, kind, and respectful Followers on earth who can be trusted with anything and are not worthy and deserving of humiliations, degradations, insults, mockeries, sufferings, pains, and death but worthy and deserving of the loving, kind, and merciful GOD's favor and reward of ETERNAL LIFE and EXISTENCE without sufferings, pains, griefs, sickness, and death on a safe and peaceful earth without LIARS, slanderers, perverts, traitors, and murderers as written in Revelation 21: 3, 4, 8. How will Followers of Jesus Christ live and exist on earth forever if they just become worthless and useless dusts on earth after their deaths? ANSWER - GOD KNOWS that all human beings will just become worthless and useless dusts on earth after their deaths just like the animals as written in Ecclesiastes 3: 19, 20 ; 9: 5, 6 but he knows too that he will not let all the Followers of Jesus Christ and loving, kind, submissive, and respectful persons on earth who died recently and thousands of years ago like Abel, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Job, Naomi, Ruth, King David, Daniel, and many others to remain as worthless and useless dusts on earth forever, instead, in the right and proper time, he will let Jesus Christ RESURRECT them back to life so they can all happily and abundantly live and exist on earth forever as submissive and obedient subjects of the "KINGDOM of GOD" or His Kingdom and fully enjoy his and his Christ's eternal love, kindness, goodness, generosities, compassions, favors, and blessings for eternity under the loving and kind rulership, guidance, and protection of Jesus Christ as his Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth as written in Revelation 11: 15.
_"morality becomes just the consensus of maiority!"_ It's not as simple that that but let's say simplistically that that's case. That isn't an argument against it.
I get that it can be baffling and even disturbing at times, but intellectually speaking - that is, taken as a whole and not zeroing in on specifics - it isn't difficult stuff IMO. To put it another way, it goes without saying that the morality you ascribe to because those around you do and it is familiar gives you no pause, but others may not perceive it that way, just like you may not perceive another group's morality to be good or viable. This is a big element of what we call "culture shock". Daniel Dennett spoke of this in one of his books.
@@lukeism2 Why would it be wrong for me to kill or rob someone, if it would benefit myself or my offspring? Would that not just be the survival of the fittest? Why should I not lie, if that lie helps me? What is wrong with me doing anything to survive and thrive?
Another argument for morality being derived from God is when looking at the attempts at programming AI with mmorality. If we truly just dance to the music of our DNA, then why are we incapable of programming morality?
Absolutely love your channel. I'm something of a pantheist and so all my special pleading aside, I think that you should check out Denis Noble. Specifically DEnis Noble vs Richard Dawkins. Ive noticed a few times now a few digs at Darwin, but I think once you understand what Darwin really believed< youll think differently about his conception of evolution.
@@paulburns6110 _"Who or what says we are morally obliged to care about society (and why)?"_ People. People overwhelmingly want to live in safe societies. People overwhelmingly want to be happy, safe, free, healthy etc. Do you like misery and suffering?
You don’t. That’s what laws are for. To incentivize people to do good. You CANT stop people from doing bad. You can only attempt to dissuade and prevent it. Sorry. Does that obvious true example not suffice for you? It just so happens to be the current model.
@@markh1011 thank you. As It’s clear that people also disagree about right and wrong because we see the despicable acts of violence towards unborn humans, it’s clear that “people” are screwing things up. So while I want to avoid the misery of suffering, if there’s no God, then what rational basis exists that demonstrates that rape, slavery, murder and fraud are truly wrong? I.e what obligation does anyone have to even respect society in the first place? Thanks and God bless.
It is a thing because we are 1) geared towards survival*, and 2) sentient beings who can't help but judge things we encounter in various ways, some of which find their way into normative frameworks because such frameworks are both natural and necessary for us, a social species. * whether that means anything in addition is an open question
Nope. You don’t. Morality is not derived from god it’s derived from society’s shared goal of survival. God didn’t create morality. Humans did. Just like we created god.
Morality...... following ethics is a choice given to us via the gift of free will which no other creatures on this planet doesn't have except human beings....totally optional otherwise we wouldn't be free.....when we follow the moral laws we stand with God,when we don't we are against him.....God is great
I think a big problem I have with theists, especially Christians, is that, like flat earthers with science, they use philosophy as a tool with an end result in mind, and aren't really interested in any of the consequences of following the principles they use in a consistent way. Like, one very obvious example here, is that you're pointing to people's moral intuitions as some sort of evidence that they have god's morality baked inside of them, and, sure, cool thought, but, what does that mean for people who have conflicting moral intuitions? What does it mean for people who have moral intuitions that disagree with the bible? I, for example, have a strong moral intuition that the slavery depicted in Exodus is deeply wrong. So is that god's morality inside of me, condemning god's morality? How does that work? At any rate, as an theist, I believe in objective moral values. I just don't believe that they do or can come from a god. God can't decide what is and isn't moral any more than he can decide how many sides a triangle has.
@@truthbebold4009 Correct. Exodus 21, among other things. I don't, like, approve of the Egyptians enslaving anyone either, but the old testament obviously didn't either, so no real conflict there.
@@Fancy_Creb Have you listened to any of the Bible Project podcast? Or watched through their videos? I don't 💯 agree with everything they put out but really enjoyed the way they examine the scriptures.
@@truthbebold4009 I haven't, though I've heard many many arguments defending the slavery in Exodus and I, uh, don't find any of them very compelling. I think that owning people as property is wrong, period, and I don't believe that an all-good god could tolerate such a thing.
@@Fancy_Creb That's a valid position and the God I worship is not the God of slavery, yet I consider the Bible the word of God. God isn't the God of divorce either, yet Jesus explains why divorce was allowed. The Bible Project goes deep into the wisdom literature that is throughout the OT. God's desire is to bring forth a people who will reflect the image of Christ. A people with a spotless character. A holy nation. He desires to produce people like Desmond Doss; a man who stood fearless in the pit of hell on earth. You can reject the Bible or you can be among those who diligently search for Truth and live a life that is humanly impossible. During the 1905 Welsh revival crime, drunkenness, etc was almost non-existent. It was the word of God that accomplished this. Those that were influenced by this revival believed upon the word of God.
Saying God is what gives humans dignity is just as arbitrary as saying humans give themselves dignity. What gives God dignity? How come just declaring God as having dignity isn't an issue, but it's an issue for humans? All your doing is kicking the can down the road. Why can't we know right and wrong without God? Morality isn't something you are, it's a concept you follow. Everyone knows what Morality means, whether they choose to be moral or not. It isn't rocket science. It's funny how offended some Christians get if you suggest to them humans are just animals, but then they also argue that without supernatural intervention we wouldn't be able to figure out acts like murder, rape, and stealing are wrong. If God is real, why ought we follow his moral laws? Is it to avoid hell or to get into heaven? That sounds like you're saying it's in the best interest of my personal well-being to follow God's morality. Is it because a society that follows God's moral laws is a better/healthier society? That sounds like you're saying following God's morality will increase human flourishing. Hmm, I feel like I've heard that before? It's almost like Christians and Atheists agree on what morality means, but just disagree on how to best achieve it.
Dude it makes no sense. You're saying that morality is a concept you follow, putting in better words, morality is something that you believe. then later on you say "murder, rape, and stealing are wrong." so now you're defining moral's. So is moral so subjective? Well, to the Spartans killing babies if they were born weak, sick or deformed, it was ok so is not nowadays? I mean none of us are Spartans. So is moral a unchangeable, not sticking to any kind of culture or time concept? Or does it depend from where and when in time you're born? Talking about moral is hard, or perhaps worthless. I believe that ours moral depend a lot from what we are taught in childhood and in society, but it aint the final word to the morality we have. Also as we grow and in life, isn't it weird to say that generally all people grow the same kind of moral? Even as just animals (as you states) it shouldn't be something to concern when you do something to you be better, even if other's suffer to your desire be fulfilled. I also do believe that God put in us, humans, his laws as were made up in his image and to me this is makes worth to this debate. Or we are just stardust, a result of natural process, pointless be living of not, just existing or not makes no difference to the current state of the world and the universe. Or we are a plan of a loving God that made us and want the best for us even though we don't deserve it. God bless you.
@@p1r4tagames49 What is confusing about defining what you believe? No, it wasn't ok then and it's not ok now. The Spartans were morally wrong. You're mixing up truth with knowledge. Just because something has truth it doesn't mean we have knowledge of that truth. People use to believe the earth was flat. It doesn't matter that they believed the earth was flat, they were wrong. Things that are considered moral/immoral have changed. Not because the definition of Morality has changed, but because our understanding of it has. It's not weird that we generally all agree on the big things when it comes to morality (murder, rape, theft). It would be weird to image a tribe of early humans surviving if they thought those things were ok. I think it's weird to imagine God wrote morality on our hearts, yet we disagree on so many moral/amoral issues (homosexuality, abortion, immigration).
"Saying God is what gives humans dignity is just as arbitrary as saying humans give themselves dignity" God by definition is the Creator! The creator forms an attribute of what/who is created. I make a round dish but dish cannot make it round by itself!
@@spacemoose4726 Answering the first question, it is confusing cuz morality really depends of the kind of person you're. Using a contemporary topic, Drugs. I'm talking about the mafia the guy's on the top, most of them are untouchable. Their job that is produce and sell drugs, they dont care if the someone gets addicted to it, actually they would love it, cuz they will get more money. They dont care if in their way to get more money it creates a blood's path. Their actions are not bad in their minds. so are their moral's makes them someone from ages ago? Are they retrogrades? No. If we are just animals, in a natural logic way, these guys are not wrong. Like when a lion kills the puppies of the other's lion, the lion aint caring about killing puppies being bad, it just do it. As so they making money in this dark market, in natural logic they are just making sure they have power to hold their positions as privileged in world. So does it make God putting his law on ours mind absurd? I dont think so. It just shows how apart from God the human depraved nature can go.
We can sense or observe or discover moral laws because they exist and God created them and God created us to be able to perceive them, so just as we learn more about creation in the physical realm by our perception and study, we can also study the moral (metaphysical) realm. All of creation points to our Creator, God!
HERE's the reality of God's hypocrisy on morality from a Bible expert. Watch it if your have the courage to see the truth ruclips.net/video/4pdYmIwxYTE/видео.html
Even if we believe that God exists, it does not follow that he is moral. Additionally, the biblical portrayal of God describes an entity that is highly immoral, and who does not hesitate to kill innocent men, women , and children. So, if the theists persists in saying our morality comes from God, are they referring to the biblical God?
I’ve yet to see any argument that definitively proves that the biblical God is (even probably) immoral. Moreover as interpreting biblical passages (in the way that you personally have) is not a prerequisite to rightfully identify as a Christian, a Christian can justifiably claim that objective morality is indeed grounded in the one and only True transcendent God. Moreover as God is the creator of all life, I would feel a logically justified sense of cognitive dissonance if I were to get morally indignant at God, if and whenever He decides to withdraw His free (and unwarranted) gift of life. Moreover when God does withdraw temporal earthly life from someone (even killing them), we have good reason to believe that God is also a perfectly just judge in regards to that person’s eternal destination. Hence I grant such a creator’s right to do with His creation as He sees fair and just. Peace and God bless.
@@paulburns6110 The God of the Bible seems to have lots of opinions on fabric and shellfish...but can't bring himself to say: You shall not own other humans as prioperty. To the contrary, in the Bible this God character gives explicit instructions on how to get and treat slaves. If that is not immoral to you....than it rigs once again true that: Religion poisens everything
@@paulburns6110 " a Christian can justifiably claim that objective morality is indeed grounded in the one and only True transcendent God." How is this a justified claim when this God fails to live up to the standards we ususall use for everthing we pin the label "existent" on? How is this a justified claim when, looking back at morality in a historical context....it is has never been consistent. "Moreover as God is the creator of all life" and here we have one more claim lacking any demonstrable correaltion with reality.
@@derhafi I thank you for expressing your peculiar perspectives. However as your own unproven faithful religious beliefs are not universally shared and your unproven allegation (that Religion poisons everything) fails to honestly account for reality I will politely and logically reject your claims because they’ve failed to satisfy their own burdens of proof. Peace and God bless.
@@paulburns6110 I believe you've just proven my point. Your argument suggests that morality within the context of God differs from human morality, asserting that God can take lives at will as the Creator. Consequently, discussing morality in relation to God becomes problematic since humans and God are not held to the same moral standards. Therefore, claiming that God is the objective standard for our morality is unreasonable, given that God gets a pass for actions such as the mass killing of men, women, and children during the time of Noah. Most of humanity would likely deem such actions immoral if carried out by a human.
If there is no Moral Standard, people will create their own Moral Standards and this becomes relativistic where individuals decide what is moral and acceptable. This has led to people believing that children have rational consent to self mutation and this will lead to people believing that they can consent to sex. Just as people now believe that you are not human until you are an independent and self sustaining being allowing for abortion and assisted suicide.
As I come to God I fo realize that having our "own morality" is literally evil. Hedonism always comes from deciding our own rules... We can SOMETIMES do the right thing even when it's hard and not beneficial to us (selfless) and even is we believe in God and his laws it doesn't mean we are really necessarily any better at it (yay sin!😅) But we at least have grounding and motivation and all aim towards the same agreed upon laws which is Def better for humanity than arguing over all of our feelings
@@user-dv8bs7tb5cThat is a straw man argument. Only wealthy people use hedonism as their moral standard because they have the resources to do so. Working class people would be more conservative
@@LyubomirIko I think you mean poverty. Anyways I said working class people are more conservative not the poor. An upper middle class person is still part of the working class.
@@kos-mos1127 Random sex, drug use, all sorts of entertainment addictions and sins are present in any type of economical condition of living. It can present in different ways, it can happens by different terms, whatever. It happens all across society - from king to a poor unemployed.
@@jasonthomspon7829that’s called an ethical dilemma. Like do I switch the train tracks to kill one person or let the train go off the tracks. Tough ethical questions aren’t how we gauge morality. They’re TESTS of morality and purely hypothetical. Edit: that can read strange. But I think you get the point. Ethical dilemmas are hypothetical tests.
The real issue is that theists don't get to claim objective morality if you cannot demonstrate that god exists. And they can't. Until such a time, morals as described in the bible are invented by men of the time and culture. Even granting the existence of god, objectivity by definition is independent of mind. If morals come from a god then they are, by definition, subjective.
@@josephpchajek2685 You can demonstrate a dubious book and what a lot of people think. What you can't demonstrate is the truth of it. And that's the problem. There are many religions, many holy artefacts and many people believing all sorts of things that simply aren't true. If your god existed he could make himself directly known to all...and yet somehow he cannot do so. Something is very off.
Um that’s sort of the whole point of the Bible. He DID make himself known. But let’s be real, many atheists have stated that God could show up to them directly and speak audibly and they’d sooner believe it’s a hallucination. So it’s not really about personal revelation.
@@kielhawkins9529 The bible? Events that don't comport with reality and didn't happen (Genesis, flood, babel, exodus etc). And extremely dubious gospels that are anonymous, differ from each other, have been doctored and are hearsay and claims, not evidence. And this business about atheists not believing if he did show up...they'd at least have the proper freewill to make that decision at that moment. And god would know how to make himself completely and directly obviously existing to them. Many would convert in that instance. At the moment there's nothing. Just hearsay, tampered ancient stories and claims.
@@kielhawkins9529 The bible? Events that don't comport with reality and didn't happen (Genesis, flood, babel, exodus etc). And extremely dubious gospels that are anonymous, differ from each other, have been doctored and are hearsay and claims, not evidence. Many, many atheists would convert if God made himself known to them but where is he? Completely absent.
I was clickbaited by the title. Apologies. 0:48 - many academics believe morality is subjective, which does not need grounding. At least acknowledge other relevant beliefs. 1:17 - “How does value emerge out of valuelessness?” Evolution can create complexity, which can produce emergent properties. Disagree, but do not ignore. 4:15 - Duck You. 5:27 - Skip. 7:36 - “Isn’t it interesting that we have somehow evolved to the point, where we have these moral sensibilities, these moral intuitions?” YES!!! Then, 7:44 “We have a firm grasp on objective morality;” And there drops the poison into the well. So close, so far. 8:42, 9:36, 9:58, 10:29, 12:12, 12:31 - All Skip, sadly. 12:42 - “Maybe survival of the fittest is a really, really bad thing for a lot of people.” Good thing Evolution is actually anything just good or lucky enough to get by, UP TO survival of the fittest. 13:10 - “Do you see how, viewing things in a pure utilitarian, for the greatest good, can lead to literally the Holocaust?…” Pure Utilitarianism refers to all humanity. Fairly certain the Nazis did not do this. Princess Bride moment here, ‘I do not think it means what you think it means.’ Or memes.
The game of life is set, it has rules. Eat healthy, exercise, and there are rewards, be sloppy, do dumb things and there are consequences. You pick your path in life, it's your choice. Toxic or paradise.
I respectfully disagree. You have to understand the atheist point of view first before you can debunk it. This video showed a lack of understanding. I don’t know of any atheists who will be convinced by this. It was basically a video intended for Christians to confirm and echo what Christians believe about atheism.
@@ArchibaldRoontheism is not believing any gods exist. Thats it. Thats all it does. Theism is believing at least one god exists. That’s all it does. Both need more, things like world views, philosophies and concepts to use
@@therick363 I agree. My point was that whatever they are trying to debunk is not the worldview of any Atheist that I know. I do think Atheism leads to a different worldview compared to a worldview where the starting point is believing there was a creator. Make sense?
All the billions of people on earth. This does mean morality is subjective to change, but that's workable. Subjective morals don't mean morals don't exist, it means lorals are subjective. A lot of Christians act like subjective morality means morals are not real, but this sounds like saying that judt because our preferences on art is subjective, that therefore you can't say any kind of art is good. Technically, you can't, but that's not stopped anyone from doing it anyway. Things don't need to be objective to be actionable.
@@Eliza-rg4vwsince all the things you just said are subjective and applicable only to you, I'm sure you'll forgive those who disregard it completely and live some other way. 👍
@@Eliza-rg4vwif morality is subjective, then if someone steals your wallet, you would have no right to be upset. The thief thought it was morally acceptable. It would be your choice to have your wallet against his choice to have it. Who is right, you or him? You can’t say you’re right because the law. That would mean society decides the moral standards. That would mean that if Hitler won WWII, concentration camps and genocide would be morally acceptable today. (All in the name of Dawinism btw) Taking subjective morality to its logical conclusion is a horrendous thought.
@@truthbebold4009*The fact is Amos **8:11** was fulfilled and no bible on Earth is still Holy. But Jesus will explain it to all you tares before sending you on your way.*
"If you need religion to teach you how to be a good person, then you aren't a good person." A statement that sounds more irrational the more I hear it. It presumes we are good people to begin with. If that were the case, then Jesus died for nothing. It's because God loved the world that he sent his son to die for us because we can never be good enough for God on our own.
You can bypass this silliness by simply acknowledging some people are good, some people are bad, and most people inhabit a huge in-between gray area of many hues.
A completely rational statement. Countries that have the least amount of crime are countries with the highest percentage of atheists. The more Christians there are the more crime there is, not vice vers.
For right and wrong to be so, there must be one who is apart from the rightness or wrongness of a thing OR one who authored such a thing. Anything else is pure preference...no matter how rationally appealing it may be.
HERE's the reality of God's hypocrisy on morality from a Bible expert. Watch it if your have the courage to see the truth ruclips.net/video/4pdYmIwxYTE/видео.html
@@DM-dk7js You made allusions as to what his argument was about without substantiating any of your own "preferences, hopes and feels" (in your own words) that would invalidate them. Please elaborate.
Wrong. Your statement is an oxymoron. By the law of non-contradiction two opposing propositions cannot be true at the same time and in the same way. If morality is by definition subjective as you claim, then your original statement itself is subjective and untrue. Your problem is that you're asserting morality is subjective while requiring at least one objective moral standard to be true, namely your original statement. So sorry but morality is not subjective. Without objective standards of right and wrong, morality itself can't exist.
@@captainbladej52gaming I am applying the meaning of the words subjective and objective in this context! Unless you think you can rewrite the English language than you are talking bollocks!
Absolutely terrible argument. “Value can’t come from non-value” Where did money get its value? We decided it has value. It is just paper, plastic, and numbers on a screen. We gave it meaning. This is the same with morality, we decided it matters and so it does. I have empathy for others and I don’t want them to feel the pain that I and others have experienced. Together we stand a much better chance to avoid suffering. God is not necessary to explain that
How is it a terrible argument? You provided no reasoning for why it’s a bad argument other than we give things meaning or value, well if that’s the case, then how did we decide to value anything? How did we come to that reasoning? I don’t think your head is in the right place when thinking about these things. You just want to deny God at all cost. Your best guess after erasing God from the equation is I don’t know… why don’t you get to a place where you can know for sure. I pray that happens for you.
@@ryanclour8680 I don’t think you understand my argument or the spokesperson. He said that because value must come from value, you need a source beyond nature. I gave an example within nature, showing that specific argument doesn’t hold up. I’m not denying god at all cost, I’m denying fallacious reasoning. You say I’m denying, but I think you decided the conclusion before considering the reasoning. Morality has already been explained in the naturalistic world view, just because it isn’t objective doesn’t mean it isn’t true. And just because you claim some creature you can’t even show is possible made some objective morality, doesn’t mean that he is real. If god isn’t real, you don’t have objective morality. Can’t deny what doesn’t exist in that case
@@Gil_07 well I am sorry you feel that way but everything you’re saying is just opinion. We really don’t have the answers like you think we do, and it shouldn’t be frowned upon that I, and many others here, decide to follow God, because at the end of the day we’re both just going to so I don’t know, so that leaves room open to form an opinion and it shouldn’t be judged. I can think something is evidence but you can deny it, one day you won’t be able to deny it any longer, I’m afraid. I hope you see that before time is up. God bless.
God is necessary because without a Creator a creation doesn't exist. A painter is necessary for a painting to exist. Therefore God is necessary. If God wasn't necessary, that would mean the world was eternal, but the world is not eternal, it had a beginning, therefore God is necessary. Now God's existence is supernatural, miraculous. God is a miracle, without him nothing would have been made. God IS A MIRACLE THAT KEEPS ON GIVING. THANK YOU MY MIRACLE GOD. I LOVE YOU. EDIT: IF YOU BELIEVE IN MIRACLES, HIT ME A THUMPS UP PLEASE, DO IT FOR GOD AND MIRACLES.
this guy: "the atheist is assuming human dignity, but where did that dignity come from without god?" atheist: "okay, where did god come from?" this guy: "god doesn't need a cause! check mate!" atheist: "then why does human dignity need a cause? and why *your* god??" this guy: "because reasons!!" atheist: *sigh*
Hmmm...not quite. Try this instead: atheist: Humans, like all animals on earth, exist through evolution...therefore, no GOD realist: ok, evolution chose only humans, to develop 'morality'? Not the apes, elephants, tigers, bears, dear, lizards, sharks, whales, fish, birds, etc., only humans? atheist:....uhhhhh, yeah realist: can you please explain why every other species has no 'morality' and only humans evolved this characterist ahteist; there is no GOD, ok!!
@@elgar6743 _"Not the apes, elephants, tigers, bears, dear, lizards, sharks, whales, fish, birds, etc., only humans?"_ Animals show morality. It's different to ours. What does this have anything to do with a god?
This is Non Sense! There is no debunking here! The subjective terms of morality, values, right and wrong ALL come from the society norms we were brought up in! There is no mystery!! If you want to go back further values and customs and morality have evolved in various human societies through time.
Incorrect. If morality is subjective to the person or relative to the society as you claim, then your original claims themselves would either be subjective or relative and thus untrue. The problem in claiming morality is relative or subjective is that it requires one objective truth that is not relative or subjective in order to function, namely the original claim itself. By the logic you're using here, let's suppose you have two societies that encounter one another. One believes in slavery and you can kidnap a prospective mate to make them yours, the second society says slavery and kidnapping are wrong. Which of the two societies is correct? Without an objective standard you have no way or ability to make a moral claim.
@@captainbladej52gaming Incorrect! Neither are right or wrong!! They are only applying their own set of rules to the scenario. Thats what subjective means!!
@@twosheds1749 incorrect again. First there is a correct answer to what I posted above, namely that society 2 that doesn't promote slavery and kidnapping are correct. Let me pose this to you then. Let's suppose a human trafficker goes out and kidnaps a woman and keeps her for a slave. Down the road he is caught and the woman freed. Strictly speaking in moral terms and not legal, should he be prosecuted? Yea/nay and why? If you wish to be logically consistent and not contradict yourself, then morally he can't be prosecuted since he believes he did no wrong and he applied his own set of rules to the scenario. If you believe he should be prosecuted, then you would be contradicting yourself since you believe your standards of right and wrong should override his. Overall if morality is subjective as you're claiming here, then your own statement is itself subjective therefore untrue. By the law of non-contradiction two opposing propositions can't be true at the same time and same way. Such as having red paint on a car but not having it at the same time. By your logic of morality being subjective your moral claim would only apply to you and not me. By your logic again I believe I am right, therefore I am and you have no grounds to say I'm wrong. So why make the claim at all since it doesn't apply to me? Since you claim I am wrong you obviously believe your moral claim is valid against me, thus do not truly subscribe to subjective morality like you claim to. For you to be correct assumes the existence of an objective truth that both of us would be subject to and not up for debate, namely the original claim of morality being subjective.
@@captainbladej52gaming Wrong. If morality is subjective then none of his claims are false and you know that. The morality doesn't need an objective truth in order to function. Countries with the highest percentage of atheists (North European countries and communist countries) have the lowest amount of crime. The more Christians you have in a country the more crime you have in the said country. Furthermore, God is NOT the objective moral giver. The fact that God has the most power to enforce His will does not make Him the objective moral giver.
@@DM-dk7js laws of men cannot stop an evil person. If laws are effective why some parts of the world have sky high crime rates.. Even lawmakers are law breakers..
@DM-dk7js if laws are in place to prevent him from actually doing what he wants then morality is objective. Who are you to tell him what he can and can not do in an unguided meaningless universe? Who is society to tell him what he can and cannot do in a meaningless universe?
Why do you make this so hard? All foundations for morality are subjective. Whether you pick God as your foundation or something else. Picking God as your foundation does not make morality objective. By the way, picking the God foundation is very problematic.
wats mor problematic is tht u actually believe morality is subjective. but i get it. this is wat a godless worldview will make u say. ur worldview forces u to conclude tht slavery is just a matter of opinion, pedophilia is a difference in perspective nd rape is no different than love making in marriage. and ur not embarrassed of ur assertion ? be honest wit ur self friend.
Wrong. Your statement is an oxymoron. By the law of non-contradiction two opposing propositions cannot be true at the same time in the same way. If all foundations of morality are subjective as you claim, then your own moral foundation you base your claim on is also subjective and therefore your original statement itself is subjective. In order for your statement to be true it presupposes a required objective truth which would be that morality is subjective. Without objective standards by which to differentiate right and wrong, morality itself cannot exist. To know that something is right or wrong you must have a standard to judge by, to have that standard you must have a moral law giver that is objective and true. You're not going to get that with corrupted mankind.
@DEX-SAMA Yes. All morality is subjective. My morality is based on the well-being of all humans. Slavery and pedophilia violate well-being. How hard is that? What is your morality based on?
@captainbladej52gaming You are horribly confused and confusing. The law of non-contradiction is a logical law that states that something is what it is and not what it is not at the same time in the same way . If I had said that the foundation of morality is subjective and not subjective, then it would be a violation of the law of non-contradiction. I didn't say that. I said all foundations of morality are subjective. And yes, my foundation for morality is subjective. And so is yours. What foundation did you pick? I assume it is God? Congrats. You picked your foundation. And I picked mine. We both have subjective foundations. And I agree, like you said, in order to know right and wrong, you have to have a standard (foundation). You picked God. I picked well-being. Even if you say God is the "law giver," all you have done is substituted God's opinion for your opinion. Still subjective.
@@Rotten9 Except that's not how that works. The law of non-contradiction states you cannot have two opposing propositions be true at the same time and same way. Otherwise it's incoherent. So tell me dude, if as you say morality is relative or subjective, do those who abuse children do wrong since they believe they have a right to do so? Did funny moustache man in Germany do wrong with the Holocaust? Because if you're going to say everything is subjective then you would have to defend those actions. So which is it?
@@les2997yeah and that’s not a problem for the atheist either. I don’t mean to shift the topic from my morality to yours, I’m happy to defend mine-but you have a false view of morality to begin with yourself that’s a massive problem to contend with. That false view of course is the assertion that “god says X is or isn’t moral, so X is or isn’t moral” is the furthest thing from objective imaginable. What you claim is objectively determined morality from god is purely subjective.
@@les2997society collectively decides through laws and norms. There is no objective standard to dictate what is and isn’t wrong. We as humans have to determine that.
@@DM-dk7js Clearly, there are objective standards. Laws and norms are often subjective and influenced by power dynamics, historical biases and cultural assumptions.
As many have already started, you don't need God to explain morality... But you absolutely need God for the existence of morality (and as we're finding out we need God to explain the existence of basically everything). If God doesn't exist then, might makes right, and the ramifications of that are absolutely dystopian hell on earth.
Most Christian apologetics that argue philosophically for a godgiven moral standard at the same time also argue theologically that the godgiven moral standard in the Bible, the Ten Commandments, have been abolished and are not binding any more. Do I see a contradiction here?
There are zero morals without God except what you decide is good or bad and someone else mat think differnt and then you are both right without someone srtting morals and rules. God is awsome and by his grace I am saved!
There’s often moral disagreements between different sects of Christianity. How do we settle those disputes on morality? Both believe in the same God setting an objective moral standard and both are making their claims based on their interpretation of the same texts and sources? So even in a universe where God sets moral standards, is human morality not subjective? Obviously if Christianity is true there is some objective answer as to right and wrong, but can we as humans be certain our interpretation of the texts are accurate?
Wrong. Atheists do have a sense of good and evil and objective standards can be made. If you claim objective standards can't be made without God then objective standards can't be made with God either. You are the one accepting as an axiom that God is doing good by definition. That's an arbitrary standard which you accept because God is the strongest. People absolutely do have their own sense of morality. The overwhelming majority of people that I know and have known are either open atheists or they are only nominally christians and they don't believe in God nor they care about what the Bible says. I was an atheist for a good part of my life. To say that atheists don't have morality is objectively wrong. Also, anyone who abstains from doing evil just because God tells them to is not a good person. Further more, the countries which have the least amount of crime have the highest percentage of atheists (North European countries). Furthermore, the countries with the least crime have always been communist countries and they are very atheist.
The idea that there must be something to which the word ‘morality’ refers is a classic instance of what I call the referential fallacy; this fallacy occurs when someone assumes that the existence of a word necessarily implies the existence of something to which it refers. What’s interesting about this particular instance of the fallacy is that not only is the thing being posited, but it is assumed to have an objective existence as well. We are saying ‘there is the word ‘morality’, and along with apparently related words such as ‘good’ and ‘evil’ it must have an objective existence distinct from the use of these terms”. We are not entitled to say this, and our argument fails. Meanwhile the philosophical sub-field of meta-ethics, which is the study of the meaning/s of moral language, has shown us that not only are we not agreed on what words like ‘good’ and ‘evil’ mean, we end up being forced to accept relativism if we are serious enough about wanting to know what moral language means. Even if *is* some kind of god-entity we would still be in the dark as to the meaning of these words. God doesn’t help; he just adds a new set of problems onto the old ones.
I think he gave it away when he said "when you are properly functioning". Certain moral questions have easy answers, it's the many moral questions that don't have a straight forward answers that requires a thinking agent to figure out the moral solution. It's easy to say God hardwired people to be moral however when humans hard wire things, there is very little variations in the hard wire products, meaning it requires a thinking agent to be make moral decisions and if morality is hardwired and dependent upon intelligence, why is there such variations in intelligence between humans? If the morality is supposedly hardwired, so should our intelligence be hardwired but instead of relatively close intelligence that would be expected from hard wiring, we get wild variations in intelligence that would be more conducive to natural selection and genes passed down. Add in emotions and we have plenty of irrationality to go around. So when he says "properly functioning", when you factor in biological factors and human emotions, properly functioning can have a totally different look than what he imagines. You do not need God to explain morality, rather theists are looking for anything they can find to necessitate a reason God must exist. Regardless of whether a God exists or not, there is nothing good that clearly demonstrates that existence where theists attempt to offer evidence and reasoning for their belief but there are often natural explanations, as well as natural demonstrations, such as the wide range of intelligence that humans possess that are a closer match to natural causes than intelligent causes.
One way you can become a theist is by reading LORD OF THE FLIES and understand what the story actually meant. Atheist have this argument that you can do good without GOD very well you can do good without law too, so should the purge begin?
Moral realism isn't true in the first place. We can account for morality by appealing to the relevant empirical descriptions of phenomena that fall within its ambit, e.g., facts about human psychology.
You don't need to stick the god of the gaps in front of morality to explain morality. The assertion a god did it doesn't really add much of anything to the discussion, No matter what the topic is.
Thank you so much for this discussion, expanding on the C S Lewis explanation of morality. I especially appreciate your inclusion of Hitler and his beliefs and rationale for "perfecting" the human race. It is painful to see the lack of historical education for the current generation...so close to Hitler and WWII...and so distanced from the experience of what happened in those terrible years. Life is beautiful! Can we "perfect life" by destroying the infant in the womb? This leads forward to future shows you might do on the AI design of "perfect human" embryos to be implanted in the womb. Thanks for all of your work to shine light on the truths God reveals through Christ and the Bible!
The Bible is just interpret ( on a physical level) it is spiritual. The words go deeper than our own eyes of today. Using the Strongest Strong’s exhaustive concordance published by Zondervan because it has the little words of God. Like,say,said,saidst, if, at, all use the first time used rule,and the verses associated with them. And the ROOT WORD OF EACH WORD. You can do any of the verses the same way, by taking the names of people,places,events and actions and the Root Word. God is Life, Good, True, only: anything else is not his character. The little words, little things the details. All that come to his light will Live.
HERE's the reality of God's hypocrisy on morality from a Bible expert. Watch it if your have the courage to see the truth ruclips.net/video/4pdYmIwxYTE/видео.html
So how do I make the conscience decision that what God wants is good and what the devil wants is evil? Somehow….outside of god I am able to and need to use human reason and judgment and logic and make that determination. Therefore what objective nature does god have then ? As I need to somehow assess and decide if god is good outside of his “objective stance” on what’s good. Any time information is received we as humans need to make a decision. Saying god has true objective morality is a paradox or possibly objective morality by definition may not really exist (which is viewed by some to not exist). At minimum you are creating God as an axiom that is an “understood” truth which if he is not seen as, your stance crumbles to the paradox.
What do you guys think about such kind of argumentation: "Morality is just some sort of "skill" which formed for better surviving and reproduction of human species. Like not killing each other. We can see similar behavior among animals. So humans behavior is not unique, and we don't need any ideas except of evolutionary to explain such things"
I would respond to the questioner differently: So you would not like someone to kill someone you love. Ok, but then why extend that to someone else? There is a skip in logic here. Why not just prevent people from doing something you would not like; why extend that favour to another person? Why not just look out for #1 and not worry about all the rest? This eventually leads to the question of why do good for another at no gain to one's self? From a materialist perspective, this only makes sense from the "selfish gene" perspective with the rejection of personal free will. Then you've rejected morality altogether.
I just wish something you said was an actual reasonable point instead of word play and special framing. Morality is part of evolution. As we became more and more aware of ourselves and more dependent on social structures to survive, morality developed as a means of survival of the group. It likely started off as simple as the need to cooperate. We needed others to be safe and healthy so we could benefit from them (this already sounds pretty on point to how rich people treat good normal people). Over generations, emotions evolved that benefitted the group. We’ve seen it in our life times with racism and homophobia. We reached a point where we no longer thought owning people as property was “good”. Before that… it was thought white people were morally and intellectually superior. That was a real belief people had… there morality was not what we have today. It evolved. It’s not perfect… but it’s considerably better. Same for LGBTQ. 25-30 years ago, gay kids were regularly tormented and it was encouraged by our fathers and other older figures. Today, they are allowed to live peacefully… well except maybe in when in front of religious people stuffing their fat faces with shellfish, while showing off their tattoos, and wearing blended fabrics. So yeah… morality has already proven to be improved (evolved) upon as recently as the last quarter century.
Christ founded schools and hospitals. Islam flies man into buildings. Christ forgives its enemies and turns its cheeks. Christ was the only man in history that was truly good. Jesus is my King and Lord.
Just to give an example how people act without God. God lifts his hand of protection in Seattle. Just 1 example how people act in Godlessness: After weeks of several high-profile incidents, Durkan finally ordered the police to shut down CHAZ, allowing local owners to return to their properties. But, by then, the damage was done. Homes and businesses were damaged while police had refused to help owners access and secure their properties.
No Christian argues we need God to do good things, but we do need God if we argue we ought to do good. Without God we can do good things out of personal preference, but there would be no moral obligation to do them. Morality would just be relative, and all personal preferance and subjective opinion.
7:30 Moral objectivity is only possible if there is a God that provides an external source for moral principles. Moral sensitivity comes from societal agreements, and that, as moral intuition, may be wrong, as human are fallen creatures that are not stranger to sin. That’s why in this society we have moral standards like abortion or no faulty divorce that will shock to the core the societies of just a century ago.
The LIARS, DECEIVERS and MURDERERS of HUMAN BEINGS Atheists, Evolutionists, Mormons, SDAs, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Born Again Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and fanatic members of all kinds of Religions who trick and deceive their own families and neighbors to join them in mocking, insulting, and degrading Jesus Christ as worthless, useless, and undeserving to be honored and respected as the Most High and Sovereign God's Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth are not ignorant and unaware but KNOW and fully aware that the lives, dignities, and existence of their own families, neighbors, and all human beings are of no value and importance to them.... KNOW and fully aware that they're unbothered and just don't care even if their Satanic hatred, arrogance, hypocrisies, cruelties, insults, lies, deceits, and false teachings about "Trinity", "heaven and hellfire", "Armageddon", "rapture", and "reincarnation" offend, hurt, insult, humiliate, and degrade the lives, dignities, and existence of their own families, neighbors, all human beings and cause their humiliations, degradations, sufferings, pains, griefs, sickness, and DEATHS. JESUS CHRIST VS.SATANIC ARROGANCE and FOOLISHNESS All arrogant, cruel, merciless, and deceitful Atheists, Evolutionists, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions in the world are not ignorant and unaware but KNOW and fully aware that their Satanic arrogance and foolishness in raising, glorifying, and exalting themselves as greater, glorious, powerful, higher and superior than Jesus Christ and all their co-human beings will definitely result in their own dishonor, disgrace, shame and cause their own downfall and ETERNAL DEATHS, just worthless and useless dusts on earth forever like Adam and Eve, the first humans who were lied to, deceived, and murdered by Satan the Devil, exposed by Jesus Christ as the Father of Lies and Murderer of human beings as written in John 8: 44. GOD'S FAVOR and REWARD for KINDNESS, SUBMISSIVENESS and OBEDIENCE Jesus Christ KNOWS that the SUBMISSIVENESS and OBEDIENCE of lowly, ordinary, kind, and respectful persons on earth to his authority and teachings about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" as written in Matthew 28: 18, Luke 4: 43, and John 11: 25, 26 will definitely bring them honor and the loving, kind, and merciful GOD's favor and reward of ETERNAL LIFE and EXISTENCE on earth without sufferings, pains, griefs, sickness, and death as written in Revelation 21: 3, 4. The Most High and Sovereign GOD KNOWS that all human beings will just become worthless and useless dusts on earth after their deaths just like the animals as written in Ecclesiastes 3: 19, 20 ; 9: 5, 6 but he knows too that he will not let loving, kind, and respectful persons on earth who died recently and thousands of years ago like Abel, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Job, Naomi, Ruth, King David, Daniel, Jesus Christ's followers and many others to remain as worthless and useless dusts on earth forever, instead, in the right and proper time, he will let Jesus Christ RESURRECT them back to life so they can all happily and abundantly live and exist on earth forever as submissive and obedient subjects of the "KINGDOM of GOD" or His Kingdom and fully enjoy his and his Christ's eternal love, kindness, goodness, generosities, compassions, favors, and blessings for eternity under the loving and kind rulership, guidance, and protection of Jesus Christ as his Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth as written in Revelation 11: 15.
If our thoughts are random chemical processes, how can we trust the judgment of ourselves or the people around us? How do we know we're not just making selfish decisions to survive as an individual and for our children?
What do you mean by "...trust the judgment..."? People can make selfish decisions all day long, or not. The reasoning for their decisions is not something I'm seeing as totally relevant to whether or not our thoughts are chemical.
@AndrewsArt78 The science behind how humans think is mostly irrelevant to the outcome of your thoughts, feelings, beliefs and actions. As a human being who wakes up in the morning and goes to sleep at night, I don’t give one boo about how the brain processes information. To me, it just does. So how can you trust the judgment of yourself and the people around you? You can’t. Nor should you. Should you trust your own instincts? Absolutely! In the absence of outside influences, that’s how humans survive. Should you trust the people around you? Well, that depends. Does their influence and interests align with your selfish desires to survive as an individual and to protect your family? Can you, based on your own desires to thrive as a person, trust the opinions of others who, while in your circle of influence, maintain their own selfish interests and desires to survive and thrive? To borrow from Descartes, “I think, therefore I am.” We all make selfish decisions, even if woefully uninformed, misinformed or even if based upon straight up lies. It is up to us as humans to realize that a healthy skepticism of all claims, is the key to survival. That includes not assuming that someone with a RUclips channel that claims to have a daily dose of wisdom, can actually fulfill the promise of actual wisdom. Do not be afraid of making selfish decisions. It will free you from being victimized by cons and cults.
@@TenMinuteTripswhat i read is that we feel most meaning when we can help others. Love our neighbor. Thats makes us feel good. How is that? Why did doctors and nurses risk their lifes under covid pandemic and some died for the cause to help? People that were not in our tribe so to speak. That goes against strongest does survive and do not help our genes..
I would say so. But before that, what is rational? what is irrational? Morality, free will, punishments ... Morality only applies to humans, right? Not cats or dogs but don't they have wills? Dogs may too stupid but cats certainly do whatever they want. But they're not punished because there's no morality or morality doesn't apply to them or something. So what's connect morality, free will and accountability?
@@tTtt-ho3tq That's a good point Animals don't have morality only human beings do, so if morality is an emergent property why is it that it only applies to human beings alone? I wonder how atheist would answer that
@@airgo24dlamini37 _" That's a good point Animals don't have morality only human beings do"_ Animals have morality but not to the depth that we do. Our brains and consciousness are quite different to that of the animal kingdom. _"'How does the rational come from the Irrational?"_ What do you mean by irrational here?
@@markh1011 By Rational I mean for example Reality has a reasonable logical structure, the Irrational would be that, Reality doesn't have a logical structure to it thus we could not understand it, so in other words non sense cannot produce sense
@@airgo24dlamini37 _" Reality has a reasonable logical structure"_ How do you judge reasonable there? Subjectively? _" the Irrational would be that,"_ You talked of what was reasonable and said it was irrational. That is almost contradictory. _"Reality doesn't have a logical structure to it "_ If that were the case it would work against the idea of an omniscient mind being behind it.
The question is whether our desire to treat each well evolved through communal living or was it written onto our heart from the beginning. I can't find a reasoned approach where it isn't imprinted on our hearts. Of course the atheist has the advantage to claim morality comes from them alone when it was actually cast onto their heart.
Christians cringe at the notion of determinism, but how would a set of attitudes and behaviors "written on our hearts" not be exactly that? It just sounds like a more poetic, less reductionist treatment of our natures as certain sorts of organisms.
@@wet-read The moral code is written into our hearts, but we also have free will so we can go against what we inherently know is right. There is nothing deterministic about it. “The line between good and evil runs not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either - but right through every human heart.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
@@DM-dk7js I'll admit it took me a long time to come to this conclusion. But through years of thought (I'm getting older now...), I just can't find a reasoned way that it can be any other way than a moral lawgiver created us knowing right from wrong inherently. If it weren't that way, it is survival of the fittest - simple Darwinism - blind, pitiless indifference. And that goes to a very dark place rapidly.
It appears that humanity existed long before Christianity, indeed long before religion, and even language. Our ancestors appear to have managed without an "objective grounding" for their behaviors.
FANTASTIC videos Brandon.. This one: PERFECT timing after discussing the Hitchens/Lennox debate on ‘Give me an action a Christian could do that an atheist couldn’t..’ with an atheist friend of mine… Love your work Cobber..😆🤭
HERE's the reality of God's hypocrisy on morality from a Bible expert. Watch it if your have the courage to see the truth ruclips.net/video/4pdYmIwxYTE/видео.html
He avoided addressing the comment by introducing value and bringing in blind natural progresses. The comment was do not do on to others as you would not want done unto you.
I would address the comment for you, if you don't mind. We can naturally think that we should not do on to others as we would not want done unto us... however, we are also naturally inclined to doing bad things (as the Bible tells us at Genesis 6:5). So even though we may think that we aren't going to murder or assault anyone and that makes us morally clean, our natural inclinations are going to entice us into doing something more subtle that would progressively affect our minds, or someone else's into sin and corruption. Take for example... a guy might not assault a woman, but he may start to become fixated with and objectify them. He may then rationalize that he can start drawing pictures of them since it's not hurting anyone, but another guy might become obsessed with his drawings and then he may commit the act. Many of mankind's actions affect others and can even lead themselves to sin over time too. God knows what's best for us, that's why we need the Bible to know how to be be morally clean.
@@colinpierre3441 Our natural inclination does not entice us to do something wrong. Our inclinations are a result of nurture and environmental factors. There is non such thing as the evil gene. Moral standards have evolved over time and vary by culture. There is no need to invoke God.
@@colinpierre3441 as a life member of the “wretched Catholic sinners’ guild”, your comment has given me a fresh and deeper insight as to how we can scandalise others and why we all have an obligation to resist that temptation. Thanks and God bless.
@@kos-mos1127 Why are our moral standards becoming worst in every culture as we 'evolve' though? And why is it all unfolding just as the Bible has prophesied?
@@colinpierre3441 Bible prophesies are vague and can be applied to anything. The reason society moral standard change is because of massive cultural shifts. Christians complain about the societal shift but eventually claim that it is the in line with God’s moral standard.
@@TimothyWhimp you’re subjective morals are bound to change with the evolution of society. If all of society believed abusing children sexually wasn’t wrong you’d go along with the herd because your morality is subjective and based on societal norms. Hence no true objective backbone
I can't even picture what free will would look like if it existed. It's like saying if i were you i would have done something different. To me that's impossible.
God doesn’t actually prevent evil or anything tho. So everything is currently permitted. He didn’t stop Hitler after all. Everything is already permitted.
There are many contradictions, errors, and inconsistencies in the Bible, which is supposed to be the inspired word of God There are many moral and ethical problems with the Christian doctrine, such as the problem of evil, the concept of original sin, the doctrine of hell, and the exclusivity of salvation Islam Ahmadyyia is true religon
Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel? God did (2 Samuel 24:1) or Satan did (1 Chronicles 21:1)12. How many fighting men were found in Judah? Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9) or four hundred and seventy thousand (1 Chronicles 21:5)12. How many stalls for horses did Solomon have? Forty thousand (1 Kings 4:26) or four thousand (2 Chronicles 9:25)12. How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark? Two (Genesis 6:19-20) or seven (Genesis 7:2)12. Did the women who discovered the empty tomb of Jesus tell the disciples or not? They did (Matthew 28:8, Luke 24:9) or they did not (Mark 16:8) I can also give Biblical verses that show clearly that Jesus was not God and atonement is false.
The word gospel means “good news,” which is the message of forgiveness for sin through the atoning work of Jesus Christ. It is essentially God’s rescue plan of redemption for those who will trust in His divine Son in order to be reconciled to a just and holy God. The essential content of this saving message is clearly laid out for us in the Bible. In the apostle Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, he lays out the content of the gospel message, “Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). In this passage, we see three essential elements of the gospel message. First, the phrase “died for our sins” is very important. As Romans 3:23 tells us, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” The reality of sin needs to be acknowledged by all who approach the throne of God for salvation. A sinner must acknowledge the hopelessness of his guilt before God in order for forgiveness to take place, and he must understand that the “wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). Without this foundational truth, no gospel presentation is complete. Second, the person and work of Christ are indispensable components of the gospel. Jesus is both God (Colossians 2:9) and man (John 1:14). Jesus lived the sinless life that we could never live (1 Peter 2:22), and, because of that, He is the only one who could die a substitutionary death for the sinner. Sin against an infinite God requires an infinite sacrifice. Therefore, either man, who is finite, must pay the penalty for an infinite length of time in hell, or the infinite Christ must pay for it once. Jesus went to the cross to pay the debt we owe to God for our sin, and those who are covered by His sacrifice will inherit the kingdom of God as children of the king (John 1:12). Third, the resurrection of Christ is an essential element of the gospel. The resurrection is the proof of the power of God. Only He who created life can resurrect it after death, only He can reverse the hideousness that is death itself, and only He can remove the sting that is death and the victory that is the grave’s (1 Corinthians 15:54-55). Further, unlike all other religions, Christianity alone possesses a Founder who transcends death and who promises that His followers will do the same. All other religions were founded by men and prophets whose end was the grave. Finally, Christ offers His salvation as a free gift (Romans 5:15; 6:23), that can only be received by faith, apart from any works or merit on our part (Ephesians 2:8-9). As the apostle Paul tells us, the gospel is “the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile” (Romans 1:16). The same inspired author tells us, “If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9). These, then, are the essential elements of the gospel: the sin of all men, the death of Christ on the cross to pay for those sins, the resurrection of Christ to provide life everlasting for those who follow Him, and the offer of the free gift of salvation to all.
@@student1754 The “contradictions” of the different numbers don’t contradict the fact that the event still happened, they’re just different accounts of the same event. Also please let me know which verses you are talking about where it says Jesus is not God
@@Arecross1 And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died. DEUTERONOMY 34:7 REVELATIONS OF MOSES’ DEATH REVEALED TO MOSES BUT HE DIED. So Moses, the servant of God died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of God. And they buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth-por. DEUTERONOMY 34.5 PAUL’S CLAIM TO APOSTLESHIP: And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. ACTS 9.7 ____________ THE BOOK OF PSALMS: My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me. 22.1 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done. MATHEW 26:42 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offering. HOSEA 6.6 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice. MATTHEW 9.13 Hear 0 Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord. DEUTERONOMY 6:4 Thou, even thou, are Lord alone. NEHEMIAH 9:6
Everybody who came to GOD did not believe that he was real. Everybody had doubts but because that didn't stop them on trying. They were able to litteraly get an encounter with GOD himself. This is where all our believe comes from because I know for sure if I never had my encounter with GOD HIMSELF I would of never believed either and so I couldn't tell anybody about him because I dont know my self.
I shared this with someone yesterday:
Friedrich Nietzsche said, "You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, it does not exist."
Richard Dawkins says, "...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."
Why is it that honest atheists admit that, without God, objective moral values cannot exist? Because it is the logical result of taking atheistic philosophy to its natural conclusion. If there is such a thing as evil, you must assume there is such a thing as good. If you assume there's such a thing as good, you assume there's such a thing as an absolute and unchanging moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. If you assume there's such a thing as an absolute moral law, you must posit an absolute moral law giver, but that would be God - the one whom the atheist is trying to disprove. So now rewind: if there's not a moral law giver, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil. Which is just what Richard Dawkins admits to.
How much objectively are 10 apples divided by 2? For two monkeys that don't know math? Answer - according to their strength - the strong one takes as much as it wishes, while the weak one takes what is left, if any. Does by not knowing math, math just stop to existing, therefore there is no objective answer?
Without God - the answer is the same as with not knowing math - whatever it fits you, for you are rebel against God. For people who know God however - there were ton of revelations in the Bible for most of the moral questions. Christians will still struggle with not so obvious moral questions and they pray to follow God's will, not their own, because we know how easy is to make mistakes without guidance. But we struggle with something quite objective.
He's not "admitting" there's no objective moral law; he's just stating it.
God having a preference doesn't make that preference objective. Why would it?
@bigdavexx1 if you grant an all-powerful creator-God for the sake of argument, which it sounds you are, then it is the Creator who decides the moral law. If the universe had instead been made by the Blood God Khorne, would we have any standard outside of his absolute authority to question it?
God is who he is, and the morality of His character is written onto our hearts. He made the laws, and the universe they bring about.
@@Bertoleyus , if I lived in a universe created by the Blood God Khorne, I would hope to resist his morality. Aligning my actions to the desires of the most powerful entity doesn't sound like objective morality.
The reality is that we set our own moral standards based on what we personally value, and this can be scary, but the alternative is pretending the hard decisions are out of our control.
@@bigdavexx1 why should you hope to resist the anchor of your (hypothetical) universe's morality? It seems like you're valuing whatever morality you come up with over another, while admitting it's just your preference. It seems like you're speaking to the engineer of a car and saying "this should run on corn starch, not gas! The tires should be square!" Except you deny that there's an engineer at all. It's quite confusing.
Are you saying your morality is good, full stop, nothing further, because it just is? If so, you can't justify it, but the Creator can, because He designed it to work that way. The most powerful entity IS the objective! It has the power to compel and enforce. The creator deems that hot stoves burn, and it is so. Saying that it seems wrong to you doesn't make sense. Moral facts are like "hot things burn skin". Saying "they ought be another way" doesn't make sense to me.
Enjoying your channel. Happy to have found you. 🙏🏻
Thanks so much! Thanks for following along and for the encouragement!
@@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom Congrats on 500,000
For those seeking clarity: We don’t “need God” to be moral or make moral actions. The assertion is, without God, on a purely naturalistic basis, we wouldn’t have an absolute standard for “good” and “evil”. Things would just be.
Well people could come together and create a standard, but then it would only be a matter of opinion and preferences, and chaos and confusion would rule the day, as we see now with those who reject the truth of Jesus.
Some don't know the difference between subjective and objective. One is an opinion and the other is a standard.
We can make that standard. This has already been the case for other subjective areas of life, such as the taste of food, aesthetics, and even rules of games.
Does this mean these standards are subject to change? Absolutely. A lot of people like ice cream now, but that might not be the case given say, 200 years.
It isn't an objective standard, but it doesn't need to be objective to be actionable. It is not objectively the case that say, ice cream is good, but it's popular enough where you can build even a store around it. Not everyone prefers the same kinds of art as well, again, that's subjective, but enough people like certain forms of art enough to make it something you could sell.
Why not repent of God's gnosis of good and evil? Then iniquity won't be found in you so you won't be a worker of it and you won't be asked to depart into outer darkness.
But to me seems, that things "just are". An idea, that human life has some sort of objective meaning and dignity cannot serve as an argument for the existence of God, rather it could be a result of it. Social sciences with a little help from biology and chemstry explain well why people think and behave the way they do. Why the need to base a sense of morality in an external source?
Just subscribed. Love these videos. Gives me help when I try to convert some of my closest friends who are having difficulty believing. I want them in heaven with me. Thanks man
Morality is not complicated. Morality comes from the fact that we are social animals. We can see morality in one form or another in almost all social animals. Experiments have shown animals practicing altruism, even self-sacrifice, protecting the weak, showing a sense of fairness, displaying empathy, cooperating with strangers and punishing destructive behavior. No God required.
@@bipslone8880 Your assumptions and statements still doesn’t explain the foundations for most of the terms you used. Please explain further
@@SandwedgeMon which terms are you confused about, I was pretty clear. I make no assumptions, we are social animals that is a fact. Morality is a product of our biological and cultural evolution. This genetic and cultural evolution has shaped our brains to care for others, react to those who try to harm us, and to create moral rules that help us to live together successfully
He's saying these things you describe, that are good such as altruism, caring for others etc, why ate that good and what does good mean? On a naturalistic perspective you have no grounds on which to base good and evil in the first place. So what you are saying is actually not taking the core point which is actually a layer deeper
Can't tell you how great and encouraging these vids are. Was married for 10 years, two little girls, and fast forward to now my ex-wife is remarried and claims to be an atheist. Because we have split custody over our girls, they're living in two opposite households. It's been a blessing to work through these vids because of what I know will be difficult conversations with the kiddos as they get older. Keep going Brandon.
Thank you so much for sharing this! I am encouraged & will pray for your family today ❤
Really sorry to hear that Bro… 💙🫂🫂
HERE's the reality of God's hypocrisy on morality from a Bible expert. Watch it if your have the courage to see the truth ruclips.net/video/4pdYmIwxYTE/видео.html
Of course they will be difficult conversations when you will try to brainwash your kids with videos like this. Atheists do have a sense of good and evil and objective standards can be made. If you claim objective standards can't be made without God then objective standards can't be made with God either. You are the one accepting as an axiom that God is doing good by definition. That's an arbitrary standard which you accept because God is the strongest.
People absolutely do have their own sense of morality. The overwhelming majority of people that I know and have known are either open atheists or they are only nominally christians and they don't believe in God nor they care about what the Bible says. I was an atheist for a good part of my life. To say that atheists don't have morality is objectively wrong. Also, anyone who abstains from doing evil just because God tells them to is not a good person. Further more, the countries which have the least amount of crime have the highest percentage of atheists (North European countries). Furthermore, the countries with the least crime have always been communist countries and they are very atheist.
So sorry about your situation - happened to a buddy of mine as well. Will pray for you and your family. This time you are spending with your girls will provide them with a great basis to live in this crazy world. I wish more Christians would interact with these ideas.
Congrats on almost a half million subscribers❤🎉
Thank you! Glory to God!
The fact that they soft quote Jesus from Matthew 7:12 and 25:40 while trying to disprove the need for Jesus is just the highest level of irony.
They are always the first to quote Bible verses whenever they feel wronged. Then they say, "you should not judge " or" aren' t you supposed to love your neighbor as yourself?"😂 They are very quick doing that.
Why even quote the Bible if you don’t believe it to be true? This always baffles me. “I’m using it against you!” 😂 No it doesn’t work like that…pick a side.
Hate to break it to you but the golden rule was said LOOOOOOOOOOONG before the Bible claimed that Jesus said it.
So Jesus is soft quoting Lao Tzu or Zarathustra or many many many other great thinkers who existed centuries before Jesus and preached a message of seeing yourself in others and treat people how you want to be treated.
Lao Tzu preached this message and he followed The Tao and not a deity. Weird how he came to that conclusion without needing Yahweh worshippers to tell him first
keep spreading the word brother!
Thanks brother!
@@Daily_Dose_Of_WisdomTake the scales of Good and Evil off your eyes brother, and see! Then you can be reconciled with the father. Are you up to the standards you're judging the world with? Jesus Will judge you by that measure. That's called grace. Jesus Cuts Hypocrites in half and throws them into the fire. That's called justice. This is the knowledge of the truth: that the knowledge of Good and Evil is death. Not life. Therefore repent or you're not going to eat from the Tree of Life
@@MichaelMcDonald-my2npim confused. It sounds like you’re saying we aren’t reconciled to The Father unless we pretend to not know what good and evil is. Is this correct?
@@codyb4016 just because you know something doesn't mean you have to use it. What's tempting about that knowledge? is it the way to life.... or death?
My brother what in the world are you saying? No one is judging anyone but in any case have you heard of righteous judgement? I think this was a great discussion especially if you are into apologetics, all Christians should prepare themselves to defend our faith. 1 Peter 3:15
Love your videos, Brandon!!! ❤❤❤ Saving em all to my Jesus playlist! 😊 it's like everything you talk about is what I'm thinking 😄
Yay! Thanks so much!
@@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom So, you only respond to comments that have alot of nice smilies?
Maybe you should try an adress the comments with genuine objections to your content.
Hey Brandon, you know I've been watching your videos for a while now and I really enjoy them. Your videos have helped me answer a lot of questions I have, and I'm sure there are many more that will be answered in the future. My spiritual journey has only just begun, but I just wanted to say one thing: thank you for making these videos. Thank you for putting in the work for this. You've helped bring me closer to God and likely many others too. That's no small feat, so thank you. 🙏
Thanks so much for this encouragement! I really appreciate it!
@@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom Morality is not complicated. Morality comes from the fact that we are social animals. We can see morality in one form or another in almost all social animals. Experiments have shown animals practicing altruism, even self-sacrifice, protecting the weak, showing a sense of fairness, displaying empathy, cooperating with strangers, and punishing destructive behavior. No God required.
Amos 8:11
“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:”
King James Version (KJV)
So when is this going to happen? Or is it like all the other "prophecies" in the bible that never come to fruition?
@@hasone1848 Its now
It’s not going to happen.
@kos-mos1127 "Proverbs 18:2 (NKJV): 2 A fool has no delight in understanding,
But in expressing his own heart." It seems you helped fulfill that one . Good day to you sir.
You can either rebel and ignore God's Grace, wisdom, Commands and ways, or develop them.
By ignoring them - you will almost certainly grow in self righteousness, deny God, grow in sin, grow in hedonism, hurt others and yourself on the way and so on.
Let's say commit adultery, do drugs, steal, lie, talk bad, hurt others, even kill. The deeper you go with those sins - the less you will feel the need to be accountable for them, and you will grow to even ask - "Who say this is wrong?" How many thieves or lairs have you seen to confess? Have you seen a corrupt po1i4ician? The crooked they become, the more patholog1cal they become in their deny of their sinful deeds.
And that's all normal and known. Our flesh is fallen and it is seeking to sway the soul in this rebellion against the God. Your heart will become stone, your vision of the light will be completely veiled. Yet, there is escape - repentance, establishment the connection with God. In fact, He will give messages, warnings, signs - that we are wrong. But the further we are away from Him - the less we will care to hear and introspect them.
And if repentance happens - It will hurt, you will cry, it will be full of new regressions. But nothing comparable with what Jesus did for us. He pay, so through Him you and I can seek salvation and repentance.
And if you once re-connect with God, forgive, repent from your sin, acknowledge His commands - you will know that to commit adultery, do drugs, steal, lie, talk bad, hurt others, kill and so on is indeed wrong.
Is this the end? Well, no. Regressions will again rise, but this time you know better. It is a struggle, it is as Matthew said - yoke, but the reward is walking closer to God, so it is also restful for the soul.
Matthew 11:28-30
28 “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
This reminds me of the critic of air analogy.
"Hey I don't need to believe in air to breathe. Afterall, I dont even believe in air, and I breathe just fine"
Morality, naturally, points to a Moral Lawgiver. It is an effect to cause argument.
Naturally it does not. Demonstrate such. Don’t just assert so.
Morality is not complicated. Morality comes from the fact that we are social animals. We can see morality in one form or another in almost all social animals. Experiments have shown animals practicing altruism, even self-sacrifice, protecting the weak, showing a sense of fairness, displaying empathy, cooperating with strangers, and punishing destructive behavior. No God required.
If you've read the Bible you would realize that the God of the Bible is in fact evil. Christianity is about blind obedience to a jealous authoritarian entity that requires its servants (slaves) to both fear and love it or be tortured for eternity. This god might test his slave's blind loyalty from time to time like Abraham and Job. Poor Job was tortured and his family killed just so God could prove to Satan that he would remain loyal.
@DM, @bipslone and @student99 prove them, we'll be waiting. Don’t just assert it too.
@@HelgaBelga-yv7yn LMAO..... Christians claim an invisible, non-demonstrable man in the sky is the source of morality WITH NO EVIDENCE, LOGIC OR REASON then tells not to just assert scientific evidence of morality in social animals.....just insane
@@student99bg these people are insane .... this is what indoctrination does to the brain
Thank you 😊
So thought-provoking… I loved that! It was great.
Morality is not complicated. Morality comes from the fact that we are social animals. We can see morality in one form or another in almost all social animals. Experiments have shown animals practicing altruism, even self-sacrifice, protecting the weak, showing a sense of fairness, displaying empathy, cooperating with strangers and punishing destructive behavior. No God required.
I need a dose of wisdom regarding hats. Where does bro get his hats? Bro has great hats. Has this been dealt with on the channel?
🔥Just as with mathematical truth there is only one moral truth, its foundation is cemented in the beginning of creation. amen. 🔥🙏💪😇
Trolley problem
What’s a moral truth and how do you know?
@@lukeism2it all stems from the first moral decision ever made. It turns out existence is good, and so it happened, all other morality is derived from that origin 🙏😇🔥
@@ryngrd1what?!
@@DM-dk7js why so surprised?! Truth is real, truth exists! Amen 🔥🙏😇
Got bless you sir. Hope you reach out to the crucible and try to get more followers and create a better defense for these lost people
That was a poor defense.
You need God for everything! Because God is everything. For those who don’t know what I’m talking about? Reads the Bible and get to know God and his son our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Do you mean the bible where Sky Daddy orders genocide on multiple occasions, slavery, kidnapping and forcing virgins of the enemy into 'marriage', selling one's daughters, ... ?
Not so but you have the freedom to believe whatever you wish Freedom Of Freedom From there is no morality in nature biological life is survival of the fittest
My biggest issue here is accepting the world's timeline of billions of years, rather than standing firmly on God's Word, starting in the first chapter. Too many compromises must be made.
Death and suffering aren't the result of sin, if there were millions of years of death before man existed.
If evolution, then we were not made in God's image. We resulted, eventually, from His creation.
The list goes on.
4:07 he hit it right on the nail there. How do you get from an is to an ought? This is the core issue with morality as it regards God. How do you get from God is moral, to we ought to do moral things?
That's a very good point. And I'd add the question: how you even know God is moral?
An appraisal of all the evidence and reasons that rationally infer God’s omni aspects (eg that He’s perfect goodness and truth personified) is enough for Christianity’s claims to be rightly considered as reasonable and justified.
@@paulburns6110 do you know what circular reasoning is? Why do you think I'm asking that question?
@@paulburns6110 also what is your comment have to do with the original comment?
@@displacegamer1379 I am justified to claim that I think the reason why you’re asking me your 1st question is because your defiantly faithful atheistic religious beliefs, cause you to smugly ask disingenuous questions.
You don’t need to believe in God to know right from wrong, you need to be made by God to know right from wrong. Amen.
Just like the last twenty generations being wrong about when the end of the world would happen.
Don’t forget to thank God they were wrong.
Every cruel or considerate deed is the absolute result of a wrong belief.
Let’s give thanks!
@@elmercoblentz9432 “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”
@@jimmyfuentes3914
Still, we would be nothing, if God had honored their belief, rather than giving us an opportunity to live. To do good things for the world.
Don’t forget to add that to your prayers.
What would you think of you had to come back, in like four generations, and find the validation for a true and correct belief, hasn’t been fulfilled?
How would you address your lineage? Explain how your faith meant more to you, than the faith that they will exist? Be a little uncomfortable, don’t you think?
HERE's the reality of God's hypocrisy on morality from a Bible expert. Watch it if your have the courage to see the truth ruclips.net/video/4pdYmIwxYTE/видео.html
@@elmercoblentz9432 your entire monologue was confusing. Pick a point and stick with it.
Brandon is truly a gem . CHRIST is King!✝️🙏
HERE's the reality of God's hypocrisy on morality from a Bible expert. Watch it if your have the courage to see the truth ruclips.net/video/4pdYmIwxYTE/видео.html
Moral standards and legal systems have continuously evolved and adapted throughout human history, reflecting the changing needs and values of societies. This dynamic process of moral evolution has been a fundamental aspect of human development, long predating the emergence of specific religious codes. For instance, the Code of Ur-Nammu, one of the earliest known sets of laws, was established centuries before the Mosaic Law. The progression of moral and legal thought has shaped civilizations from ancient times and will likely continue to do so, illustrating the ongoing journey of humanity in defining and redefining concepts of right and wrong, justice, and ethics.
@@anfiach certainly
You missed the point of the exchange here
People always underestimate the love of God....... that's the problem,There is no greater love than the love of Jesus Christ......Son of the living God......The source of everlasting love,truth,and life.
Ayyye brother keep it up ❤❤❤
Good evening Man! Again a very good video. God is basically the thing that distinct us from animals. Because we of free will. The consequence is allowing evil to exist. But only so can we proof our goodness so to speak and make it clear that we choose good (God) over evil (Satan). God bless you, have a nice week!🙏❤
Satan is made up to make you obey through fear!
Humans are animals, humans are apes. there is nothing that sets us apart.
HERE's the reality of God's hypocrisy on morality from a Bible expert. Watch it if your have the courage to see the truth ruclips.net/video/4pdYmIwxYTE/видео.html
That sounds made up.
If god made us good to begin with, why does the toy need to prove to the toymaker it is good?
2+2 either equals whatever each individual decides it equals - or the answer is 4.
Math is not like objective morals.... You can demonstrate that if you have 2 group of 2 objects, put them together you have 4.... But how do you demonstrate that objective morals are real?
@@hasone1848in my opinion as an atheist and skeptic-you don’t. Because morality is actually subjective, and theists would simply PREFER it were objective, regardless of the facts.
@@hasone1848the fact that another person "should" never punch you in the face just because they have a sadistic personality trait is the demonstration. That individual "should not" punch you in the face just because they feel like it.
I claim that is true and that it is a self-evident and transcendent truth. Others can and do claim otherwise. I disagree with those others. Some say 2+2=5, some say 11, some say 1,264,345,967. I disagree with those. 🤷
The answer 4 is God's Truth. There is only one Truth. Every other answer is a mockery belonging the wicked one, the deceiver. Amen 🙏🔥😇
@@ryngrd1 You have to demonstrate that your "truth" is the truth.... Until then you have nothing to stand on.... I'm mocking bad ideas and logical fallacies that you and most Christians are engaged in.
I have lain awake many nights trying to figure out how there could be morality without God. No matter how you figure it out, without God, morality becomes just the consensus of maiority!
Atheists and Christians never stop arguing and debating about God and Gods, "Sins", the Bible, Jesus Christ, Satan the Devil
and
never stop complaining too about sufferings, evil, wars, cancers, and deaths
but
do Atheists, Christians and fanatic members of all kinds of Religions respect and obey GOD and Jesus Christ?
ANSWER -
No,
all Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and fanatic members of all kinds of Religions in the world
KNOW
and are fully aware that they all unitedly, openly, and deliberately rejected GOD's Sovereignty and the BIBLICAL authority and teachings of Jesus Christ about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" as worthless and useless, no value whatsoever in their lives and existence.
Who are the Followers of Jesus Christ?
ANSWER -
Jesus Christ KNOWS
that all persons on earth who willingly honor and obey him as the One given by GOD all authority in heaven and on earth and put their faith and hope in his teachings about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead"
as written in Matthew 28: 18, Luke 4: 43, and John 11: 25, 26
are
his loving, kind, and respectful Followers on earth
who
can be trusted with anything and are not worthy and deserving of humiliations, degradations, insults, mockeries, sufferings, pains, and death
but
worthy and deserving of the loving, kind, and merciful GOD's favor and reward of ETERNAL LIFE and EXISTENCE without sufferings, pains, griefs, sickness, and death on a safe and peaceful earth without LIARS, slanderers, perverts, traitors, and murderers
as written in Revelation 21: 3, 4, 8.
How will Followers of Jesus Christ live and exist on earth forever if they just become worthless and useless dusts on earth after their deaths?
ANSWER -
GOD KNOWS
that all human beings will just become worthless and useless dusts on earth after their deaths just like the animals
as written in Ecclesiastes 3: 19, 20 ; 9: 5, 6
but
he knows too that he will not let all the Followers of Jesus Christ and loving, kind, submissive, and respectful persons on earth who died recently and thousands of years ago like Abel, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Job, Naomi, Ruth, King David, Daniel, and many others to remain as worthless and useless dusts on earth forever,
instead,
in the right and proper time,
he will let Jesus Christ RESURRECT them back to life so they can all happily and abundantly live and exist on earth forever as submissive and obedient subjects of the "KINGDOM of GOD" or His Kingdom
and
fully enjoy his and his Christ's eternal love, kindness, goodness, generosities, compassions, favors, and blessings for eternity under the loving and kind rulership, guidance, and protection of Jesus Christ as his Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth
as written in Revelation 11: 15.
What do you think about?
_"morality becomes just the consensus of maiority!"_
It's not as simple that that but let's say simplistically that that's case.
That isn't an argument against it.
I get that it can be baffling and even disturbing at times, but intellectually speaking - that is, taken as a whole and not zeroing in on specifics - it isn't difficult stuff IMO. To put it another way, it goes without saying that the morality you ascribe to because those around you do and it is familiar gives you no pause, but others may not perceive it that way, just like you may not perceive another group's morality to be good or viable. This is a big element of what we call "culture shock". Daniel Dennett spoke of this in one of his books.
@@lukeism2 Why would it be wrong for me to kill or rob someone, if it would benefit myself or my offspring? Would that not just be the survival of the fittest? Why should I not lie, if that lie helps me? What is wrong with me doing anything to survive and thrive?
Another argument for morality being derived from God is when looking at the attempts at programming AI with mmorality.
If we truly just dance to the music of our DNA, then why are we incapable of programming morality?
Absolutely love your channel. I'm something of a pantheist and so all my special pleading aside, I think that you should check out Denis Noble. Specifically DEnis Noble vs Richard Dawkins. Ive noticed a few times now a few digs at Darwin, but I think once you understand what Darwin really believed< youll think differently about his conception of evolution.
For the atheist who commented the golden rule "do not do unto others what you do not want them to do to you", who said I have follow that rule?
Don’t follow it if you like but no one will like you
I agree. If there’s no God, then Who or what says we are morally obliged to care about society (and why)?
@@paulburns6110
_"Who or what says we are morally obliged to care about society (and why)?"_
People.
People overwhelmingly want to live in safe societies. People overwhelmingly want to be happy, safe, free, healthy etc.
Do you like misery and suffering?
You don’t. That’s what laws are for. To incentivize people to do good. You CANT stop people from doing bad. You can only attempt to dissuade and prevent it.
Sorry. Does that obvious true example not suffice for you? It just so happens to be the current model.
@@markh1011 thank you. As It’s clear that people also disagree about right and wrong because we see the despicable acts of violence towards unborn humans, it’s clear that “people” are screwing things up. So while I want to avoid the misery of suffering, if there’s no God, then what rational basis exists that demonstrates that rape, slavery, murder and fraud are truly wrong? I.e what obligation does anyone have to even respect society in the first place? Thanks and God bless.
You don't need God to explain morality, you need God to explain why morality exists, why it is a thing. Not "what is right" but why there is a right.
Humans are making judgements.
It is a thing because we are 1) geared towards survival*, and 2) sentient beings who can't help but judge things we encounter in various ways, some of which find their way into normative frameworks because such frameworks are both natural and necessary for us, a social species.
* whether that means anything in addition is an open question
Why are we that way?@@wet-read
Nope. You don’t. Morality is not derived from god it’s derived from society’s shared goal of survival. God didn’t create morality. Humans did. Just like we created god.
Why did we "create" morality? Animals survive perfectly fine without an state or awareness of morality.@@DM-dk7js
Morality...... following ethics is a choice given to us via the gift of free will which no other creatures on this planet doesn't have except human beings....totally optional otherwise we wouldn't be free.....when we follow the moral laws we stand with God,when we don't we are against him.....God is great
God isn't needed to tell you something is wrong. That feeling you get inside when you feel it's wrong is God's morality coming through you.
I think a big problem I have with theists, especially Christians, is that, like flat earthers with science, they use philosophy as a tool with an end result in mind, and aren't really interested in any of the consequences of following the principles they use in a consistent way.
Like, one very obvious example here, is that you're pointing to people's moral intuitions as some sort of evidence that they have god's morality baked inside of them, and, sure, cool thought, but, what does that mean for people who have conflicting moral intuitions? What does it mean for people who have moral intuitions that disagree with the bible?
I, for example, have a strong moral intuition that the slavery depicted in Exodus is deeply wrong. So is that god's morality inside of me, condemning god's morality? How does that work?
At any rate, as an theist, I believe in objective moral values. I just don't believe that they do or can come from a god. God can't decide what is and isn't moral any more than he can decide how many sides a triangle has.
So I take it you aren't referring to the Hebrews being enslaved by the Egyptians but the condoning of slavery in the OT?
@@truthbebold4009 Correct. Exodus 21, among other things.
I don't, like, approve of the Egyptians enslaving anyone either, but the old testament obviously didn't either, so no real conflict there.
@@Fancy_Creb Have you listened to any of the Bible Project podcast? Or watched through their videos? I don't 💯 agree with everything they put out but really enjoyed the way they examine the scriptures.
@@truthbebold4009 I haven't, though I've heard many many arguments defending the slavery in Exodus and I, uh, don't find any of them very compelling.
I think that owning people as property is wrong, period, and I don't believe that an all-good god could tolerate such a thing.
@@Fancy_Creb That's a valid position and the God I worship is not the God of slavery, yet I consider the Bible the word of God. God isn't the God of divorce either, yet Jesus explains why divorce was allowed.
The Bible Project goes deep into the wisdom literature that is throughout the OT. God's desire is to bring forth a people who will reflect the image of Christ. A people with a spotless character. A holy nation. He desires to produce people like Desmond Doss; a man who stood fearless in the pit of hell on earth.
You can reject the Bible or you can be among those who diligently search for Truth and live a life that is humanly impossible. During the 1905 Welsh revival crime, drunkenness, etc was almost non-existent. It was the word of God that accomplished this. Those that were influenced by this revival believed upon the word of God.
Saying God is what gives humans dignity is just as arbitrary as saying humans give themselves dignity. What gives God dignity? How come just declaring God as having dignity isn't an issue, but it's an issue for humans? All your doing is kicking the can down the road.
Why can't we know right and wrong without God? Morality isn't something you are, it's a concept you follow. Everyone knows what Morality means, whether they choose to be moral or not. It isn't rocket science. It's funny how offended some Christians get if you suggest to them humans are just animals, but then they also argue that without supernatural intervention we wouldn't be able to figure out acts like murder, rape, and stealing are wrong.
If God is real, why ought we follow his moral laws? Is it to avoid hell or to get into heaven? That sounds like you're saying it's in the best interest of my personal well-being to follow God's morality. Is it because a society that follows God's moral laws is a better/healthier society? That sounds like you're saying following God's morality will increase human flourishing. Hmm, I feel like I've heard that before? It's almost like Christians and Atheists agree on what morality means, but just disagree on how to best achieve it.
Dude it makes no sense. You're saying that morality is a concept you follow, putting in better words, morality is something that you believe. then later on you say "murder, rape, and stealing are wrong." so now you're defining moral's. So is moral so subjective? Well, to the Spartans killing babies if they were born weak, sick or deformed, it was ok so is not nowadays? I mean none of us are Spartans.
So is moral a unchangeable, not sticking to any kind of culture or time concept? Or does it depend from where and when in time you're born?
Talking about moral is hard, or perhaps worthless. I believe that ours moral depend a lot from what we are taught in childhood and in society, but it aint the final word to the morality we have. Also as we grow and in life, isn't it weird to say that generally all people grow the same kind of moral? Even as just animals (as you states) it shouldn't be something to concern when you do something to you be better, even if other's suffer to your desire be fulfilled.
I also do believe that God put in us, humans, his laws as were made up in his image and to me this is makes worth to this debate. Or we are just stardust, a result of natural process, pointless be living of not, just existing or not makes no difference to the current state of the world and the universe. Or we are a plan of a loving God that made us and want the best for us even though we don't deserve it. God bless you.
@@p1r4tagames49 What is confusing about defining what you believe?
No, it wasn't ok then and it's not ok now. The Spartans were morally wrong. You're mixing up truth with knowledge. Just because something has truth it doesn't mean we have knowledge of that truth. People use to believe the earth was flat. It doesn't matter that they believed the earth was flat, they were wrong.
Things that are considered moral/immoral have changed. Not because the definition of Morality has changed, but because our understanding of it has.
It's not weird that we generally all agree on the big things when it comes to morality (murder, rape, theft). It would be weird to image a tribe of early humans surviving if they thought those things were ok. I think it's weird to imagine God wrote morality on our hearts, yet we disagree on so many moral/amoral issues (homosexuality, abortion, immigration).
"Saying God is what gives humans dignity is just as arbitrary as saying humans give themselves dignity" God by definition is the Creator! The creator forms an attribute of what/who is created. I make a round dish but dish cannot make it round by itself!
@@chuck-N-mz9gg Who formed God with dignity?
@@spacemoose4726 Answering the first question, it is confusing cuz morality really depends of the kind of person you're. Using a contemporary topic, Drugs. I'm talking about the mafia the guy's on the top, most of them are untouchable. Their job that is produce and sell drugs, they dont care if the someone gets addicted to it, actually they would love it, cuz they will get more money. They dont care if in their way to get more money it creates a blood's path. Their actions are not bad in their minds. so are their moral's makes them someone from ages ago? Are they retrogrades? No.
If we are just animals, in a natural logic way, these guys are not wrong. Like when a lion kills the puppies of the other's lion, the lion aint caring about killing puppies being bad, it just do it. As so they making money in this dark market, in natural logic they are just making sure they have power to hold their positions as privileged in world.
So does it make God putting his law on ours mind absurd? I dont think so. It just shows how apart from God the human depraved nature can go.
We can sense or observe or discover moral laws because they exist and God created them and God created us to be able to perceive them, so just as we learn more about creation in the physical realm by our perception and study, we can also study the moral (metaphysical) realm. All of creation points to our Creator, God!
HERE's the reality of God's hypocrisy on morality from a Bible expert. Watch it if your have the courage to see the truth ruclips.net/video/4pdYmIwxYTE/видео.html
How did chance and evolution find concrete moral statements or goals? Is the blind guiding the sight?
Even if we believe that God exists, it does not follow that he is moral. Additionally, the biblical portrayal of God describes an entity that is highly immoral, and who does not hesitate to kill innocent men, women , and children. So, if the theists persists in saying our morality comes from God, are they referring to the biblical God?
I’ve yet to see any argument that definitively proves that the biblical God is (even probably) immoral. Moreover as interpreting biblical passages (in the way that you personally have) is not a prerequisite to rightfully identify as a Christian, a Christian can justifiably claim that objective morality is indeed grounded in the one and only True transcendent God. Moreover as God is the creator of all life, I would feel a logically justified sense of cognitive dissonance if I were to get morally indignant at God, if and whenever He decides to withdraw His free (and unwarranted) gift of life. Moreover when God does withdraw temporal earthly life from someone (even killing them), we have good reason to believe that God is also a perfectly just judge in regards to that person’s eternal destination. Hence I grant such a creator’s right to do with His creation as He sees fair and just. Peace and God bless.
@@paulburns6110 The God of the Bible seems to have lots of opinions on fabric and shellfish...but can't bring himself to say: You shall not own other humans as prioperty.
To the contrary, in the Bible this God character gives explicit instructions on how to get and treat slaves.
If that is not immoral to you....than it rigs once again true that: Religion poisens everything
@@paulburns6110 " a Christian can justifiably claim that objective morality is indeed grounded in the one and only True transcendent God."
How is this a justified claim when this God fails to live up to the standards we ususall use for everthing we pin the label "existent" on?
How is this a justified claim when, looking back at morality in a historical context....it is has never been consistent.
"Moreover as God is the creator of all life" and here we have one more claim lacking any demonstrable correaltion with reality.
@@derhafi I thank you for expressing your peculiar perspectives. However as your own unproven faithful religious beliefs are not universally shared and your unproven allegation (that Religion poisons everything) fails to honestly account for reality I will politely and logically reject your claims because they’ve failed to satisfy their own burdens of proof. Peace and God bless.
@@paulburns6110 I believe you've just proven my point. Your argument suggests that morality within the context of God differs from human morality, asserting that God can take lives at will as the Creator. Consequently, discussing morality in relation to God becomes problematic since humans and God are not held to the same moral standards. Therefore, claiming that God is the objective standard for our morality is unreasonable, given that God gets a pass for actions such as the mass killing of men, women, and children during the time of Noah. Most of humanity would likely deem such actions immoral if carried out by a human.
If there is no Moral Standard, people will create their own Moral Standards and this becomes relativistic where individuals decide what is moral and acceptable. This has led to people believing that children have rational consent to self mutation and this will lead to people believing that they can consent to sex. Just as people now believe that you are not human until you are an independent and self sustaining being allowing for abortion and assisted suicide.
As I come to God I fo realize that having our "own morality" is literally evil. Hedonism always comes from deciding our own rules... We can SOMETIMES do the right thing even when it's hard and not beneficial to us (selfless) and even is we believe in God and his laws it doesn't mean we are really necessarily any better at it (yay sin!😅) But we at least have grounding and motivation and all aim towards the same agreed upon laws which is Def better for humanity than arguing over all of our feelings
@@user-dv8bs7tb5cThat is a straw man argument. Only wealthy people use hedonism as their moral standard because they have the resources to do so. Working class people would be more conservative
@@kos-mos1127 random sex, drug use and all sorts of entertainment addictions among the poor, what are you talking about?
@@LyubomirIko I think you mean poverty. Anyways I said working class people are more conservative not the poor. An upper middle class person is still part of the working class.
@@kos-mos1127 Random sex, drug use, all sorts of entertainment addictions and sins are present in any type of economical condition of living. It can present in different ways, it can happens by different terms, whatever. It happens all across society - from king to a poor unemployed.
Morality is about how we should treat each other and how to increase the well-being and decrease the suffering of everyone. Don't you agree?
Yes, I agree 100% and you don't need an objective standard to do this.
@@hasone1848right. An objective standard would be IDEAL. But that’s just wishful thinking. It can still be achieved.
Thanos wiped out half the universe which made things better for the other half. Did that make him wrong for doing so?
Why is it good to increase the well being of everyone?
@@jasonthomspon7829that’s called an ethical dilemma. Like do I switch the train tracks to kill one person or let the train go off the tracks.
Tough ethical questions aren’t how we gauge morality. They’re TESTS of morality and purely hypothetical.
Edit: that can read strange. But I think you get the point. Ethical dilemmas are hypothetical tests.
The real issue is that theists don't get to claim objective morality if you cannot demonstrate that god exists. And they can't. Until such a time, morals as described in the bible are invented by men of the time and culture. Even granting the existence of god, objectivity by definition is independent of mind. If morals come from a god then they are, by definition, subjective.
@@josephpchajek2685 No, they/you can't. The bible is a mess and the Christian god is completely missing in action, i.e. undetectable.
@@josephpchajek2685 You can demonstrate a dubious book and what a lot of people think. What you can't demonstrate is the truth of it. And that's the problem. There are many religions, many holy artefacts and many people believing all sorts of things that simply aren't true.
If your god existed he could make himself directly known to all...and yet somehow he cannot do so. Something is very off.
Um that’s sort of the whole point of the Bible. He DID make himself known.
But let’s be real, many atheists have stated that God could show up to them directly and speak audibly and they’d sooner believe it’s a hallucination. So it’s not really about personal revelation.
@@kielhawkins9529 The bible? Events that don't comport with reality and didn't happen (Genesis, flood, babel, exodus etc). And extremely dubious gospels that are anonymous, differ from each other, have been doctored and are hearsay and claims, not evidence.
And this business about atheists not believing if he did show up...they'd at least have the proper freewill to make that decision at that moment. And god would know how to make himself completely and directly obviously existing to them. Many would convert in that instance. At the moment there's nothing. Just hearsay, tampered ancient stories and claims.
@@kielhawkins9529 The bible? Events that don't comport with reality and didn't happen (Genesis, flood, babel, exodus etc). And extremely dubious gospels that are anonymous, differ from each other, have been doctored and are hearsay and claims, not evidence. Many, many atheists would convert if God made himself known to them but where is he? Completely absent.
I was clickbaited by the title. Apologies.
0:48 - many academics believe morality is subjective, which does not need grounding. At least acknowledge other relevant beliefs.
1:17 - “How does value emerge out of valuelessness?” Evolution can create complexity, which can produce emergent properties. Disagree, but do not ignore.
4:15 - Duck You.
5:27 - Skip.
7:36 - “Isn’t it interesting that we have somehow evolved to the point, where we have these moral sensibilities, these moral intuitions?” YES!!! Then, 7:44 “We have a firm grasp on objective morality;” And there drops the poison into the well. So close, so far.
8:42, 9:36, 9:58, 10:29, 12:12, 12:31 - All Skip, sadly.
12:42 - “Maybe survival of the fittest is a really, really bad thing for a lot of people.” Good thing Evolution is actually anything just good or lucky enough to get by, UP TO survival of the fittest.
13:10 - “Do you see how, viewing things in a pure utilitarian, for the greatest good, can lead to literally the Holocaust?…” Pure Utilitarianism refers to all humanity. Fairly certain the Nazis did not do this. Princess Bride moment here, ‘I do not think it means what you think it means.’ Or memes.
The game of life is set, it has rules. Eat healthy, exercise, and there are rewards, be sloppy, do dumb things and there are consequences. You pick your path in life, it's your choice. Toxic or paradise.
This was a great debunk of atheistic moral relativism worldview. Great video!
I respectfully disagree. You have to understand the atheist point of view first before you can debunk it. This video showed a lack of understanding. I don’t know of any atheists who will be convinced by this. It was basically a video intended for Christians to confirm and echo what Christians believe about atheism.
@@ArchibaldRoon what is atheism and what is it’s worldview?
@@ArchibaldRoontheism is not believing any gods exist. Thats it. Thats all it does.
Theism is believing at least one god exists. That’s all it does.
Both need more, things like world views, philosophies and concepts to use
@@therick363 I agree. My point was that whatever they are trying to debunk is not the worldview of any Atheist that I know.
I do think Atheism leads to a different worldview compared to a worldview where the starting point is believing there was a creator. Make sense?
@@gheorghebirca as per below. I can offer my worldview if that helps? Maybe not all of it but certainly regarding morality.
Question for ATHEISTS is that :- who will DECIDE the STANDARDS for MORALITY ?
Right? Are we going to vote on it? We see how well that's worked out for the world 😏
All the billions of people on earth. This does mean morality is subjective to change, but that's workable. Subjective morals don't mean morals don't exist, it means lorals are subjective. A lot of Christians act like subjective morality means morals are not real, but this sounds like saying that judt because our preferences on art is subjective, that therefore you can't say any kind of art is good.
Technically, you can't, but that's not stopped anyone from doing it anyway. Things don't need to be objective to be actionable.
@@Eliza-rg4vwsince all the things you just said are subjective and applicable only to you, I'm sure you'll forgive those who disregard it completely and live some other way. 👍
Question for THEISTS...which God should we appeal to for a standard of morality? Allah, Zeus, Thor, or any other deity?
@@Eliza-rg4vwif morality is subjective, then if someone steals your wallet, you would have no right to be upset. The thief thought it was morally acceptable. It would be your choice to have your wallet against his choice to have it. Who is right, you or him?
You can’t say you’re right because the law. That would mean society decides the moral standards. That would mean that if Hitler won WWII, concentration camps and genocide would be morally acceptable today. (All in the name of Dawinism btw) Taking subjective morality to its logical conclusion is a horrendous thought.
*Learn about the supernatural bible changes here or standing at the Gate crying, take your pick.*
Huh?
So either accept the Bible as God's word while there's a chance to, or be kept out of God's kingdom? I agree 👍
@@truthbebold4009*The fact is Amos **8:11** was fulfilled and no bible on Earth is still Holy. But Jesus will explain it to all you tares before sending you on your way.*
I do not agree.
@@truthbebold4009No, the bible is no longer God's word.
"If you need religion to teach you how to be a good person, then you aren't a good person." A statement that sounds more irrational the more I hear it. It presumes we are good people to begin with. If that were the case, then Jesus died for nothing. It's because God loved the world that he sent his son to die for us because we can never be good enough for God on our own.
That statement sounds rationale if you need religion to be a good person then you are not good. You are just trying to save your own skin.
You can bypass this silliness by simply acknowledging some people are good, some people are bad, and most people inhabit a huge in-between gray area of many hues.
A completely rational statement. Countries that have the least amount of crime are countries with the highest percentage of atheists. The more Christians there are the more crime there is, not vice vers.
Introducing the concept of Gods into a conversation about morality is unhelpful,
And I can explain why
For right and wrong to be so, there must be one who is apart from the rightness or wrongness of a thing OR one who authored such a thing. Anything else is pure preference...no matter how rationally appealing it may be.
That’s what you would PREFER and what you HOPE and FEEL is the case. In reality, it does not appear to be the case.
@@DM-dk7jsNice substantiation as to why your declarations have any validity when in fact they don’t.
@@HermesBlRDwhat bro?!
HERE's the reality of God's hypocrisy on morality from a Bible expert. Watch it if your have the courage to see the truth ruclips.net/video/4pdYmIwxYTE/видео.html
@@DM-dk7js You made allusions as to what his argument was about without substantiating any of your own "preferences, hopes and feels" (in your own words) that would invalidate them. Please elaborate.
Hello, morality is by definition subjective. This show is mistaking objective morality and Christian morality
Wrong. Your statement is an oxymoron. By the law of non-contradiction two opposing propositions cannot be true at the same time and in the same way. If morality is by definition subjective as you claim, then your original statement itself is subjective and untrue. Your problem is that you're asserting morality is subjective while requiring at least one objective moral standard to be true, namely your original statement. So sorry but morality is not subjective. Without objective standards of right and wrong, morality itself can't exist.
@@captainbladej52gaming Correct morality does not exist because it is subjective! Well done!!
@@twosheds1749 See other posts, if you truly believe that then your claim it's subjective is itself subjective and untrue.
@@captainbladej52gaming I am applying the meaning of the words subjective and objective in this context! Unless you think you can rewrite the English language than you are talking bollocks!
@@captainbladej52gamingThere is no such thing as the law of non contradiction.
Absolutely terrible argument. “Value can’t come from non-value” Where did money get its value? We decided it has value. It is just paper, plastic, and numbers on a screen. We gave it meaning. This is the same with morality, we decided it matters and so it does. I have empathy for others and I don’t want them to feel the pain that I and others have experienced. Together we stand a much better chance to avoid suffering. God is not necessary to explain that
I agree with you 100%. I like to use traffic rules, you have to stop at a red light, why red, because that is what humans agreed on a long time ago.
Money got its value from the economy that gives it a purpose you fool!
How is it a terrible argument? You provided no reasoning for why it’s a bad argument other than we give things meaning or value, well if that’s the case, then how did we decide to value anything? How did we come to that reasoning? I don’t think your head is in the right place when thinking about these things. You just want to deny God at all cost. Your best guess after erasing God from the equation is I don’t know… why don’t you get to a place where you can know for sure. I pray that happens for you.
@@ryanclour8680 I don’t think you understand my argument or the spokesperson. He said that because value must come from value, you need a source beyond nature. I gave an example within nature, showing that specific argument doesn’t hold up. I’m not denying god at all cost, I’m denying fallacious reasoning. You say I’m denying, but I think you decided the conclusion before considering the reasoning. Morality has already been explained in the naturalistic world view, just because it isn’t objective doesn’t mean it isn’t true. And just because you claim some creature you can’t even show is possible made some objective morality, doesn’t mean that he is real. If god isn’t real, you don’t have objective morality. Can’t deny what doesn’t exist in that case
@@Gil_07 well I am sorry you feel that way but everything you’re saying is just opinion. We really don’t have the answers like you think we do, and it shouldn’t be frowned upon that I, and many others here, decide to follow God, because at the end of the day we’re both just going to so I don’t know, so that leaves room open to form an opinion and it shouldn’t be judged. I can think something is evidence but you can deny it, one day you won’t be able to deny it any longer, I’m afraid. I hope you see that before time is up. God bless.
Morality developed despite religions.
I agree but without God how will you justify right or wrong? If there's no moral standard beyond us then it's just your opinion.
😂
God is necessary because without a Creator a creation doesn't exist. A painter is necessary for a painting to exist. Therefore God is necessary. If God wasn't necessary, that would mean the world was eternal, but the world is not eternal, it had a beginning, therefore God is necessary. Now God's existence is supernatural, miraculous. God is a miracle, without him nothing would have been made. God IS A MIRACLE THAT KEEPS ON GIVING. THANK YOU MY MIRACLE GOD. I LOVE YOU.
EDIT: IF YOU BELIEVE IN MIRACLES, HIT ME A THUMPS UP PLEASE, DO IT FOR GOD AND MIRACLES.
this guy: "the atheist is assuming human dignity, but where did that dignity come from without god?"
atheist: "okay, where did god come from?"
this guy: "god doesn't need a cause! check mate!"
atheist: "then why does human dignity need a cause? and why *your* god??"
this guy: "because reasons!!"
atheist: *sigh*
Hmmm...not quite. Try this instead:
atheist: Humans, like all animals on earth, exist through evolution...therefore, no GOD
realist: ok, evolution chose only humans, to develop 'morality'? Not the apes, elephants, tigers, bears, dear, lizards, sharks, whales, fish, birds, etc., only humans?
atheist:....uhhhhh, yeah
realist: can you please explain why every other species has no 'morality' and only humans evolved this characterist
ahteist; there is no GOD, ok!!
@@elgar6743
_"Not the apes, elephants, tigers, bears, dear, lizards, sharks, whales, fish, birds, etc., only humans?"_
Animals show morality.
It's different to ours.
What does this have anything to do with a god?
@@elgar6743I would also like to point out that not all atheists believe in evolution. Lol you don't even know what atheism means.
This is Non Sense! There is no debunking here! The subjective terms of morality, values, right and wrong ALL come from the society norms we were brought up in! There is no mystery!! If you want to go back further values and customs and morality have evolved in various human societies through time.
Incorrect. If morality is subjective to the person or relative to the society as you claim, then your original claims themselves would either be subjective or relative and thus untrue. The problem in claiming morality is relative or subjective is that it requires one objective truth that is not relative or subjective in order to function, namely the original claim itself. By the logic you're using here, let's suppose you have two societies that encounter one another. One believes in slavery and you can kidnap a prospective mate to make them yours, the second society says slavery and kidnapping are wrong. Which of the two societies is correct? Without an objective standard you have no way or ability to make a moral claim.
@@captainbladej52gaming Incorrect! Neither are right or wrong!! They are only applying their own set of rules to the scenario. Thats what subjective means!!
@@captainbladej52gaming By the way i did not make any claims!!
@@twosheds1749 incorrect again. First there is a correct answer to what I posted above, namely that society 2 that doesn't promote slavery and kidnapping are correct. Let me pose this to you then. Let's suppose a human trafficker goes out and kidnaps a woman and keeps her for a slave. Down the road he is caught and the woman freed. Strictly speaking in moral terms and not legal, should he be prosecuted? Yea/nay and why?
If you wish to be logically consistent and not contradict yourself, then morally he can't be prosecuted since he believes he did no wrong and he applied his own set of rules to the scenario. If you believe he should be prosecuted, then you would be contradicting yourself since you believe your standards of right and wrong should override his.
Overall if morality is subjective as you're claiming here, then your own statement is itself subjective therefore untrue. By the law of non-contradiction two opposing propositions can't be true at the same time and same way. Such as having red paint on a car but not having it at the same time. By your logic of morality being subjective your moral claim would only apply to you and not me. By your logic again I believe I am right, therefore I am and you have no grounds to say I'm wrong. So why make the claim at all since it doesn't apply to me? Since you claim I am wrong you obviously believe your moral claim is valid against me, thus do not truly subscribe to subjective morality like you claim to. For you to be correct assumes the existence of an objective truth that both of us would be subject to and not up for debate, namely the original claim of morality being subjective.
@@captainbladej52gaming Wrong. If morality is subjective then none of his claims are false and you know that. The morality doesn't need an objective truth in order to function. Countries with the highest percentage of atheists (North European countries and communist countries) have the lowest amount of crime. The more Christians you have in a country the more crime you have in the said country.
Furthermore, God is NOT the objective moral giver. The fact that God has the most power to enforce His will does not make Him the objective moral giver.
If there’s evidence of a program, then there’s evidence of a programmer.
If morality is subjective then i can do whatever i want because i can justify it..
True. You have free will to do harm. But we have laws and norms to prevent such. So that’s not actually true. Safeguards exist for that. So no.
@@DM-dk7js
laws of men cannot stop an evil person.
If laws are effective why some parts of the world have sky high crime rates..
Even lawmakers are law breakers..
@@fggarcia6010right. And neither can god. So what’s the difference you’re trying to illustrate here?
@DM-dk7js if laws are in place to prevent him from actually doing what he wants then morality is objective.
Who are you to tell him what he can and can not do in an unguided meaningless universe?
Who is society to tell him what he can and cannot do in a meaningless universe?
Why do you make this so hard? All foundations for morality are subjective. Whether you pick God as your foundation or something else. Picking God as your foundation does not make morality objective. By the way, picking the God foundation is very problematic.
wats mor problematic is tht u actually believe morality is subjective. but i get it. this is wat a godless worldview will make u say. ur worldview forces u to conclude tht slavery is just a matter of opinion, pedophilia is a difference in perspective nd rape is no different than love making in marriage. and ur not embarrassed of ur assertion ? be honest wit ur self friend.
Wrong. Your statement is an oxymoron. By the law of non-contradiction two opposing propositions cannot be true at the same time in the same way. If all foundations of morality are subjective as you claim, then your own moral foundation you base your claim on is also subjective and therefore your original statement itself is subjective. In order for your statement to be true it presupposes a required objective truth which would be that morality is subjective. Without objective standards by which to differentiate right and wrong, morality itself cannot exist. To know that something is right or wrong you must have a standard to judge by, to have that standard you must have a moral law giver that is objective and true. You're not going to get that with corrupted mankind.
@DEX-SAMA
Yes. All morality is subjective. My morality is based on the well-being of all humans. Slavery and pedophilia violate well-being. How hard is that?
What is your morality based on?
@captainbladej52gaming
You are horribly confused and confusing. The law of non-contradiction is a logical law that states that something is what it is and not what it is not at the same time in the same way . If I had said that the foundation of morality is subjective and not subjective, then it would be a violation of the law of non-contradiction. I didn't say that. I said all foundations of morality are subjective.
And yes, my foundation for morality is subjective. And so is yours. What foundation did you pick? I assume it is God? Congrats. You picked your foundation. And I picked mine. We both have subjective foundations.
And I agree, like you said, in order to know right and wrong, you have to have a standard (foundation). You picked God. I picked well-being. Even if you say God is the "law giver," all you have done is substituted God's opinion for your opinion. Still subjective.
@@Rotten9 Except that's not how that works. The law of non-contradiction states you cannot have two opposing propositions be true at the same time and same way. Otherwise it's incoherent.
So tell me dude, if as you say morality is relative or subjective, do those who abuse children do wrong since they believe they have a right to do so? Did funny moustache man in Germany do wrong with the Holocaust? Because if you're going to say everything is subjective then you would have to defend those actions. So which is it?
There is no moral action a theist can perform that an atheist cannot. Except for loving an imaginary being, which is questionable morality regardless.
This is not the point. The point is where you ground morality. Nobody says that atheists can't be moral.
@@les2997yeah and that’s not a problem for the atheist either.
I don’t mean to shift the topic from my morality to yours, I’m happy to defend mine-but you have a false view of morality to begin with yourself that’s a massive problem to contend with.
That false view of course is the assertion that “god says X is or isn’t moral, so X is or isn’t moral” is the furthest thing from objective imaginable. What you claim is objectively determined morality from god is purely subjective.
@@DM-dk7js Where the foundation for morality can come?
@@les2997society collectively decides through laws and norms. There is no objective standard to dictate what is and isn’t wrong. We as humans have to determine that.
@@DM-dk7js Clearly, there are objective standards. Laws and norms are often subjective and influenced by power dynamics, historical biases and cultural assumptions.
I think that most people that don't want to believe in God is because they judge God by what some of the worst people have done in His name.
As many have already started, you don't need God to explain morality... But you absolutely need God for the existence of morality (and as we're finding out we need God to explain the existence of basically everything). If God doesn't exist then, might makes right, and the ramifications of that are absolutely dystopian hell on earth.
Why would you need God for the existence of morality?
How do Christians derive objective morals from a subjective god?
Christians are not moral agents. If God tells them to commit genocide (Deuteronomy 12), then thou shall not kill goes out the window.
They can’t. God’s behavior and actions throughout the entire Bible show that his standard of morality is anything BUT consistent or objective.
Most Christian apologetics that argue philosophically for a godgiven moral standard at the same time also argue theologically that the godgiven moral standard in the Bible, the Ten Commandments, have been abolished and are not binding any more. Do I see a contradiction here?
There are zero morals without God except what you decide is good or bad and someone else mat think differnt and then you are both right without someone srtting morals and rules. God is awsome and by his grace I am saved!
So subjectivity in morality is bad?
There’s often moral disagreements between different sects of Christianity. How do we settle those disputes on morality? Both believe in the same God setting an objective moral standard and both are making their claims based on their interpretation of the same texts and sources? So even in a universe where God sets moral standards, is human morality not subjective?
Obviously if Christianity is true there is some objective answer as to right and wrong, but can we as humans be certain our interpretation of the texts are accurate?
Wrong. Atheists do have a sense of good and evil and objective standards can be made. If you claim objective standards can't be made without God then objective standards can't be made with God either. You are the one accepting as an axiom that God is doing good by definition. That's an arbitrary standard which you accept because God is the strongest.
People absolutely do have their own sense of morality. The overwhelming majority of people that I know and have known are either open atheists or they are only nominally christians and they don't believe in God nor they care about what the Bible says. I was an atheist for a good part of my life. To say that atheists don't have morality is objectively wrong. Also, anyone who abstains from doing evil just because God tells them to is not a good person. Further more, the countries which have the least amount of crime have the highest percentage of atheists (North European countries). Furthermore, the countries with the least crime have always been communist countries and they are very atheist.
Debunking starts at 17:14
The idea that there must be something to which the word ‘morality’ refers is a classic instance of what I call the referential fallacy; this fallacy occurs when someone assumes that the existence of a word necessarily implies the existence of something to which it refers. What’s interesting about this particular instance of the fallacy is that not only is the thing being posited, but it is assumed to have an objective existence as well. We are saying ‘there is the word ‘morality’, and along with apparently related words such as ‘good’ and ‘evil’ it must have an objective existence distinct from the use of these terms”. We are not entitled to say this, and our argument fails.
Meanwhile the philosophical sub-field of meta-ethics, which is the study of the meaning/s of moral language, has shown us that not only are we not agreed on what words like ‘good’ and ‘evil’ mean, we end up being forced to accept relativism if we are serious enough about wanting to know what moral language means.
Even if *is* some kind of god-entity we would still be in the dark as to the meaning of these words. God doesn’t help; he just adds a new set of problems onto the old ones.
Secular worldview’s ontology is based on subjective morals but wrestles with Epistemology because it can’t justify those morals.
I think he gave it away when he said "when you are properly functioning". Certain moral questions have easy answers, it's the many moral questions that don't have a straight forward answers that requires a thinking agent to figure out the moral solution. It's easy to say God hardwired people to be moral however when humans hard wire things, there is very little variations in the hard wire products, meaning it requires a thinking agent to be make moral decisions and if morality is hardwired and dependent upon intelligence, why is there such variations in intelligence between humans? If the morality is supposedly hardwired, so should our intelligence be hardwired but instead of relatively close intelligence that would be expected from hard wiring, we get wild variations in intelligence that would be more conducive to natural selection and genes passed down. Add in emotions and we have plenty of irrationality to go around. So when he says "properly functioning", when you factor in biological factors and human emotions, properly functioning can have a totally different look than what he imagines. You do not need God to explain morality, rather theists are looking for anything they can find to necessitate a reason God must exist. Regardless of whether a God exists or not, there is nothing good that clearly demonstrates that existence where theists attempt to offer evidence and reasoning for their belief but there are often natural explanations, as well as natural demonstrations, such as the wide range of intelligence that humans possess that are a closer match to natural causes than intelligent causes.
Behind the volitional reason to reject God's there is mostly a moral one in disguise.
One way you can become a theist is by reading LORD OF THE FLIES and understand what the story actually meant.
Atheist have this argument that you can do good without GOD very well you can do good without law too, so should the purge begin?
Moral realism isn't true in the first place. We can account for morality by appealing to the relevant empirical descriptions of phenomena that fall within its ambit, e.g., facts about human psychology.
You don't need to stick the god of the gaps in front of morality to explain morality.
The assertion a god did it doesn't really add much of anything to the discussion, No matter what the topic is.
Your "comment" is pure nonsense
Thank you so much for this discussion, expanding on the C S Lewis explanation of morality. I especially appreciate your inclusion of Hitler and his beliefs and rationale for "perfecting" the human race. It is painful to see the lack of historical education for the current generation...so close to Hitler and WWII...and so distanced from the experience of what happened in those terrible years. Life is beautiful! Can we "perfect life" by destroying the infant in the womb? This leads forward to future shows you might do on the AI design of "perfect human" embryos to be implanted in the womb. Thanks for all of your work to shine light on the truths God reveals through Christ and the Bible!
The Bible is just interpret ( on a physical level) it is spiritual. The words go deeper than our own eyes of today. Using the Strongest Strong’s exhaustive concordance published by Zondervan because it has the little words of God. Like,say,said,saidst, if, at, all use the first time used rule,and the verses associated with them. And the ROOT WORD OF EACH WORD. You can do any of the verses the same way, by taking the names of people,places,events and actions and the Root Word.
God is Life, Good, True, only: anything else is not his character. The little words, little things the details. All that come to his light will Live.
Learn English.
HERE's the reality of God's hypocrisy on morality from a Bible expert. Watch it if your have the courage to see the truth ruclips.net/video/4pdYmIwxYTE/видео.html
So how do I make the conscience decision that what God wants is good and what the devil wants is evil? Somehow….outside of god I am able to and need to use human reason and judgment and logic and make that determination. Therefore what objective nature does god have then ? As I need to somehow assess and decide if god is good outside of his “objective stance” on what’s good. Any time information is received we as humans need to make a decision. Saying god has true objective morality is a paradox or possibly objective morality by definition may not really exist (which is viewed by some to not exist). At minimum you are creating God as an axiom that is an “understood” truth which if he is not seen as, your stance crumbles to the paradox.
What do you guys think about such kind of argumentation: "Morality is just some sort of "skill" which formed for better surviving and reproduction of human species. Like not killing each other. We can see similar behavior among animals. So humans behavior is not unique, and we don't need any ideas except of evolutionary to explain such things"
I would respond to the questioner differently:
So you would not like someone to kill someone you love. Ok, but then why extend that to someone else? There is a skip in logic here. Why not just prevent people from doing something you would not like; why extend that favour to another person? Why not just look out for #1 and not worry about all the rest?
This eventually leads to the question of why do good for another at no gain to one's self? From a materialist perspective, this only makes sense from the "selfish gene" perspective with the rejection of personal free will. Then you've rejected morality altogether.
I just wish something you said was an actual reasonable point instead of word play and special framing. Morality is part of evolution. As we became more and more aware of ourselves and more dependent on social structures to survive, morality developed as a means of survival of the group. It likely started off as simple as the need to cooperate. We needed others to be safe and healthy so we could benefit from them (this already sounds pretty on point to how rich people treat good normal people). Over generations, emotions evolved that benefitted the group. We’ve seen it in our life times with racism and homophobia. We reached a point where we no longer thought owning people as property was “good”. Before that… it was thought white people were morally and intellectually superior. That was a real belief people had… there morality was not what we have today. It evolved. It’s not perfect… but it’s considerably better. Same for LGBTQ. 25-30 years ago, gay kids were regularly tormented and it was encouraged by our fathers and other older figures. Today, they are allowed to live peacefully… well except maybe in when in front of religious people stuffing their fat faces with shellfish, while showing off their tattoos, and wearing blended fabrics.
So yeah… morality has already proven to be improved (evolved) upon as recently as the last quarter century.
Look at countries without religion (China, Russia, N.Korea) and say that again
They are separate cultures.
I like the way you think
Christ founded schools and hospitals. Islam flies man into buildings. Christ forgives its enemies and turns its cheeks. Christ was the only man in history that was truly good. Jesus is my King and Lord.
Just to give an example how people act without God. God lifts his hand of protection in Seattle. Just 1 example how people act in Godlessness:
After weeks of several high-profile incidents, Durkan finally ordered the police to shut down CHAZ, allowing local owners to return to their properties. But, by then, the damage was done. Homes and businesses were damaged while police had refused to help owners access and secure their properties.
No Christian argues we need God to do good things, but we do need God if we argue we ought to do good. Without God we can do good things out of personal preference, but there would be no moral obligation to do them. Morality would just be relative, and all personal preferance and subjective opinion.
7:30 Moral objectivity is only possible if there is a God that provides an external source for moral principles. Moral sensitivity comes from societal agreements, and that, as moral intuition, may be wrong, as human are fallen creatures that are not stranger to sin. That’s why in this society we have moral standards like abortion or no faulty divorce that will shock to the core the societies of just a century ago.
The LIARS, DECEIVERS and MURDERERS of HUMAN BEINGS
Atheists, Evolutionists, Mormons, SDAs, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Born Again Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and fanatic members of all kinds of Religions
who
trick and deceive their own families and neighbors to join them in mocking, insulting, and degrading Jesus Christ as worthless, useless, and undeserving to be honored and respected as the Most High and Sovereign God's Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth
are not ignorant and unaware but KNOW and fully aware
that
the lives, dignities, and existence of their own families, neighbors, and all human beings are of no value and importance to them....
KNOW and fully aware that
they're unbothered and just don't care even if their Satanic hatred, arrogance, hypocrisies, cruelties, insults, lies, deceits, and false teachings about
"Trinity", "heaven and hellfire", "Armageddon", "rapture", and "reincarnation"
offend, hurt, insult, humiliate, and degrade the lives, dignities, and existence of their own families, neighbors, all human beings
and cause their humiliations, degradations, sufferings, pains, griefs, sickness, and DEATHS.
JESUS CHRIST VS.SATANIC ARROGANCE and FOOLISHNESS
All arrogant, cruel, merciless, and deceitful Atheists, Evolutionists, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions in the world
are
not ignorant and unaware but KNOW and fully aware
that
their Satanic arrogance and foolishness in raising, glorifying, and exalting themselves as greater, glorious, powerful, higher and superior than Jesus Christ and all their co-human beings
will
definitely result in their own dishonor, disgrace, shame and cause their own downfall and ETERNAL DEATHS, just worthless and useless dusts on earth forever like Adam and Eve, the first humans who were lied to, deceived, and murdered by Satan the Devil, exposed by Jesus Christ as the Father of Lies and Murderer of human beings as written in John 8: 44.
GOD'S FAVOR and REWARD for KINDNESS, SUBMISSIVENESS and OBEDIENCE
Jesus Christ KNOWS
that the SUBMISSIVENESS and OBEDIENCE of lowly, ordinary, kind, and respectful persons on earth to his authority and teachings about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead"
as written in Matthew 28: 18, Luke 4: 43, and John 11: 25, 26
will
definitely bring them honor and the loving, kind, and merciful GOD's favor and reward of ETERNAL LIFE and EXISTENCE on earth without sufferings, pains, griefs, sickness, and death
as written in Revelation 21: 3, 4.
The Most High and Sovereign GOD KNOWS
that all human beings will just become worthless and useless dusts on earth after their deaths just like the animals
as written in Ecclesiastes 3: 19, 20 ; 9: 5, 6
but
he knows too that he will not let loving, kind, and respectful persons on earth who died recently and thousands of years ago like Abel, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Job, Naomi, Ruth, King David, Daniel, Jesus Christ's followers and many others to remain as worthless and useless dusts on earth forever,
instead,
in the right and proper time,
he will let Jesus Christ RESURRECT them back to life so they can all happily and abundantly live and exist on earth forever as submissive and obedient subjects of the "KINGDOM of GOD" or His Kingdom
and
fully enjoy his and his Christ's eternal love, kindness, goodness, generosities, compassions, favors, and blessings for eternity under the loving and kind rulership, guidance, and protection of Jesus Christ as his Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth
as written in Revelation 11: 15.
Can God choose to commit an immoral act if he so desired?
If our thoughts are random chemical processes, how can we trust the judgment of ourselves or the people around us? How do we know we're not just making selfish decisions to survive as an individual and for our children?
What do you mean by "...trust the judgment..."?
People can make selfish decisions all day long, or not. The reasoning for their decisions is not something I'm seeing as totally relevant to whether or not our thoughts are chemical.
The same way you do now.
@AndrewsArt78 The science behind how humans think is mostly irrelevant to the outcome of your thoughts, feelings, beliefs and actions. As a human being who wakes up in the morning and goes to sleep at night, I don’t give one boo about how the brain processes information. To me, it just does.
So how can you trust the judgment of yourself and the people around you? You can’t. Nor should you. Should you trust your own instincts? Absolutely! In the absence of outside influences, that’s how humans survive. Should you trust the people around you? Well, that depends. Does their influence and interests align with your selfish desires to survive as an individual and to protect your family? Can you, based on your own desires to thrive as a person, trust the opinions of others who, while in your circle of influence, maintain their own selfish interests and desires to survive and thrive?
To borrow from Descartes, “I think, therefore I am.” We all make selfish decisions, even if woefully uninformed, misinformed or even if based upon straight up lies. It is up to us as humans to realize that a healthy skepticism of all claims, is the key to survival. That includes not assuming that someone with a RUclips channel that claims to have a daily dose of wisdom, can actually fulfill the promise of actual wisdom.
Do not be afraid of making selfish decisions. It will free you from being victimized by cons and cults.
@@TenMinuteTripswhat i read is that we feel most meaning when we can help others. Love our neighbor. Thats makes us feel good. How is that? Why did doctors and nurses risk their lifes under covid pandemic and some died for the cause to help? People that were not in our tribe so to speak. That goes against strongest does survive and do not help our genes..
Other people say Morality is an emergent property does that fall under the category of 'How does the rational come from the Irrational?
I would say so. But before that, what is rational? what is irrational?
Morality, free will, punishments ... Morality only applies to humans, right? Not cats or dogs but don't they have wills? Dogs may too stupid but cats certainly do whatever they want. But they're not punished because there's no morality or morality doesn't apply to them or something. So what's connect morality, free will and accountability?
@@tTtt-ho3tq That's a good point Animals don't have morality only human beings do, so if morality is an emergent property why is it that it only applies to human beings alone?
I wonder how atheist would answer that
@@airgo24dlamini37
_" That's a good point Animals don't have morality only human beings do"_
Animals have morality but not to the depth that we do. Our brains and consciousness are quite different to that of the animal kingdom.
_"'How does the rational come from the Irrational?"_
What do you mean by irrational here?
@@markh1011 By Rational I mean for example Reality has a reasonable logical structure, the Irrational would be that, Reality doesn't have a logical structure to it thus we could not understand it, so in other words non sense cannot produce sense
@@airgo24dlamini37
_" Reality has a reasonable logical structure"_
How do you judge reasonable there? Subjectively?
_" the Irrational would be that,"_
You talked of what was reasonable and said it was irrational. That is almost contradictory.
_"Reality doesn't have a logical structure to it "_
If that were the case it would work against the idea of an omniscient mind being behind it.
The question is whether our desire to treat each well evolved through communal living or was it written onto our heart from the beginning. I can't find a reasoned approach where it isn't imprinted on our hearts. Of course the atheist has the advantage to claim morality comes from them alone when it was actually cast onto their heart.
Morality is a set of behavioural traits, not cast on 'hearts'.
Christians cringe at the notion of determinism, but how would a set of attitudes and behaviors "written on our hearts" not be exactly that? It just sounds like a more poetic, less reductionist treatment of our natures as certain sorts of organisms.
@@wet-read The moral code is written into our hearts, but we also have free will so we can go against what we inherently know is right. There is nothing deterministic about it. “The line between good and evil runs not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either - but right through every human heart.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
I can’t find a reasoned approach to why it IS imprinted on our hearts. Youre parenting that’s a given.
@@DM-dk7js I'll admit it took me a long time to come to this conclusion. But through years of thought (I'm getting older now...), I just can't find a reasoned way that it can be any other way than a moral lawgiver created us knowing right from wrong inherently. If it weren't that way, it is survival of the fittest - simple Darwinism - blind, pitiless indifference. And that goes to a very dark place rapidly.
You don't need to use morality as your criteria to make a decision
@@bestill365 no
It appears that humanity existed long before Christianity, indeed long before religion, and even language. Our ancestors appear to have managed without an "objective grounding" for their behaviors.
FANTASTIC videos Brandon..
This one: PERFECT timing after discussing the Hitchens/Lennox debate on ‘Give me an action a Christian could do that an atheist couldn’t..’ with an atheist friend of mine…
Love your work Cobber..😆🤭
HERE's the reality of God's hypocrisy on morality from a Bible expert. Watch it if your have the courage to see the truth ruclips.net/video/4pdYmIwxYTE/видео.html
We don't need God to give us morality, all we have to do is [proceeds to quote Jesus]
He avoided addressing the comment by introducing value and bringing in blind natural progresses. The comment was do not do on to others as you would not want done unto you.
I would address the comment for you, if you don't mind. We can naturally think that we should not do on to others as we would not want done unto us... however, we are also naturally inclined to doing bad things (as the Bible tells us at Genesis 6:5). So even though we may think that we aren't going to murder or assault anyone and that makes us morally clean, our natural inclinations are going to entice us into doing something more subtle that would progressively affect our minds, or someone else's into sin and corruption. Take for example... a guy might not assault a woman, but he may start to become fixated with and objectify them. He may then rationalize that he can start drawing pictures of them since it's not hurting anyone, but another guy might become obsessed with his drawings and then he may commit the act. Many of mankind's actions affect others and can even lead themselves to sin over time too. God knows what's best for us, that's why we need the Bible to know how to be be morally clean.
@@colinpierre3441 Our natural inclination does not entice us to do something wrong. Our inclinations are a result of nurture and environmental factors. There is non such thing as the evil gene. Moral standards have evolved over time and vary by culture. There is no need to invoke God.
@@colinpierre3441 as a life member of the “wretched Catholic sinners’ guild”, your comment has given me a fresh and deeper insight as to how we can scandalise others and why we all have an obligation to resist that temptation. Thanks and God bless.
@@kos-mos1127 Why are our moral standards becoming worst in every culture as we 'evolve' though? And why is it all unfolding just as the Bible has prophesied?
@@colinpierre3441 Bible prophesies are vague and can be applied to anything. The reason society moral standard change is because of massive cultural shifts. Christians complain about the societal shift but eventually claim that it is the in line with God’s moral standard.
Morals are subjectively objective
Is stealing objectively wrong?
@@GodSoLoved.Yeshua if all conscious living creatures died , would stealing be bad?
I would like an answer to my question or I'm simply going to assume you're avoiding the obvious.
@@GodSoLoved.Yeshua no, stealing is not objectively wrong, that doesn’t mean I think it’s ok.
@@TimothyWhimp you’re subjective morals are bound to change with the evolution of society. If all of society believed abusing children sexually wasn’t wrong you’d go along with the herd because your morality is subjective and based on societal norms. Hence no true objective backbone
I can't even picture what free will would look like if it existed. It's like saying if i were you i would have done something different. To me that's impossible.
What??
morality comes from society go back 1000 years and see what you see
Japanese dont have God but they have moral than most of christian country
If God is dead, then everything is permitted.
God doesn’t actually prevent evil or anything tho. So everything is currently permitted.
He didn’t stop Hitler after all. Everything is already permitted.
@@DM-dk7js Hitler committed the exact same crime as the Christian God... what's the difference?
There are many contradictions, errors, and inconsistencies in the Bible, which is supposed to be the inspired word of God
There are many moral and ethical problems with the Christian doctrine, such as the problem of evil, the concept of original sin, the doctrine of hell, and the exclusivity of salvation
Islam Ahmadyyia is true religon
what are some of these contradictions, errors and inconsistencies?
Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel? God did (2 Samuel 24:1) or Satan did (1 Chronicles 21:1)12.
How many fighting men were found in Judah? Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9) or four hundred and seventy thousand (1 Chronicles 21:5)12.
How many stalls for horses did Solomon have? Forty thousand (1 Kings 4:26) or four thousand (2 Chronicles 9:25)12.
How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark? Two (Genesis 6:19-20) or seven (Genesis 7:2)12.
Did the women who discovered the empty tomb of Jesus tell the disciples or not? They did (Matthew 28:8, Luke 24:9) or they did not (Mark 16:8)
I can also give Biblical verses that show clearly that Jesus was not God and atonement is false.
The word gospel means “good news,” which is the message of forgiveness for sin through the atoning work of Jesus Christ. It is essentially God’s rescue plan of redemption for those who will trust in His divine Son in order to be reconciled to a just and holy God. The essential content of this saving message is clearly laid out for us in the Bible.
In the apostle Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, he lays out the content of the gospel message, “Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).
In this passage, we see three essential elements of the gospel message. First, the phrase “died for our sins” is very important. As Romans 3:23 tells us, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” The reality of sin needs to be acknowledged by all who approach the throne of God for salvation. A sinner must acknowledge the hopelessness of his guilt before God in order for forgiveness to take place, and he must understand that the “wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). Without this foundational truth, no gospel presentation is complete.
Second, the person and work of Christ are indispensable components of the gospel. Jesus is both God (Colossians 2:9) and man (John 1:14). Jesus lived the sinless life that we could never live (1 Peter 2:22), and, because of that, He is the only one who could die a substitutionary death for the sinner. Sin against an infinite God requires an infinite sacrifice. Therefore, either man, who is finite, must pay the penalty for an infinite length of time in hell, or the infinite Christ must pay for it once. Jesus went to the cross to pay the debt we owe to God for our sin, and those who are covered by His sacrifice will inherit the kingdom of God as children of the king (John 1:12).
Third, the resurrection of Christ is an essential element of the gospel. The resurrection is the proof of the power of God. Only He who created life can resurrect it after death, only He can reverse the hideousness that is death itself, and only He can remove the sting that is death and the victory that is the grave’s (1 Corinthians 15:54-55). Further, unlike all other religions, Christianity alone possesses a Founder who transcends death and who promises that His followers will do the same. All other religions were founded by men and prophets whose end was the grave.
Finally, Christ offers His salvation as a free gift (Romans 5:15; 6:23), that can only be received by faith, apart from any works or merit on our part (Ephesians 2:8-9). As the apostle Paul tells us, the gospel is “the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile” (Romans 1:16). The same inspired author tells us, “If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9).
These, then, are the essential elements of the gospel: the sin of all men, the death of Christ on the cross to pay for those sins, the resurrection of Christ to provide life everlasting for those who follow Him, and the offer of the free gift of salvation to all.
@@student1754 The “contradictions” of the different numbers don’t contradict the fact that the event still happened, they’re just different accounts of the same event. Also please let me know which verses you are talking about where it says Jesus is not God
@@Arecross1 And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died. DEUTERONOMY 34:7
REVELATIONS OF MOSES’ DEATH REVEALED TO MOSES BUT HE DIED.
So Moses, the servant of God died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of God. And they buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth-por. DEUTERONOMY 34.5
PAUL’S CLAIM TO APOSTLESHIP:
And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. ACTS 9.7
____________
THE BOOK OF PSALMS:
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me. 22.1
He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done. MATHEW 26:42
For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offering. HOSEA 6.6
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice. MATTHEW 9.13
Hear 0 Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord. DEUTERONOMY 6:4
Thou, even thou, are Lord alone. NEHEMIAH 9:6
Everybody who came to GOD did not believe that he was real. Everybody had doubts but because that didn't stop them on trying. They were able to litteraly get an encounter with GOD himself. This is where all our believe comes from because I know for sure if I never had my encounter with GOD HIMSELF I would of never believed either and so I couldn't tell anybody about him because I dont know my self.
Do I have the “free will” to never sin?
No. According to Christian’s God gave is free will to sin otherwise it would not be free will.
@@kos-mos1127how can omniscience and free will coexist?
@@RacoonLord-mt9hv Omniscience and free will cannot coexist.