Gods law of love can be tried, tested and proven to be a ‘natural’ law built into the fabric of life, equal to the laws of physics. Deny love and life diminishes, even to extinction, give love and life is enhanced, even to longevity. Gods law of love, which demands self-sacrificial giving of oneself for the good of others for survival, flies in the face of evolution, which requires ‘survival of the fittest’, dog eat dog, kill or be killed for survival.
@@trumpbellend6717 Either there is a natural moral law which life is designed to function by and with natural consequences for deviation, or, morality is the result of random atoms bouncing off one another in everyone’s head and immorality has equal random atom value.
@@trumpbellend6717 "Would you disagree ? What outcome do YOU think we are striving for when we use the the terms "good" or "evil" if not human wellbeing ??" That's what I think is the pertinent question. I think morality is objective...but it is always contextual. There are objectively better ways vs worse ways to have a surviving and thriving society where everyone has the ost rights and no one's rights are unjustifiably infringed. It's not that in every case it is obvious what to do, but in every case there are obviously better ways to do things to achieve that goal.
@@trumpbellend6717 "My morality tells me that "Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you" Is not nor ever was a "moral" instruction and certainly not a moral reference standard that anyone should adhere or aspire to. Do you agree YES or NO ??" Do I agree that that is what your morality tells you? Yes. Or do I agree that taking slaves is not a moral instruction. No. It was a moral instruction the Hebrews had. But I think it is not a moral standard anyone should adhere to.
@@trumpbellend6717 "Lol so you think it was moral for "the hebrews" to have slaves " No, I don't, but the Hebrews did...think it was moral. I think they were wrong.
How about if we instead ask, does pain exist? And then ask, "Is pain good or bad?" Masochists might say that it's good but, I guarantee if I stuck them from behind with a needle without their knowledge, they would scream or at the least jump away from the source and tell me to stop. Therefore, pain establishes whether something is good or bad hence defines morality. An act that causes or has the potential to cause pain is not moral...period. Is pain the result of evolution? The Creation Worldview supports an overwhelming convincing model to counter that...period.
[doc]: "Is pain the result of evolution?" Yes. Evolution is all about survival. Biological organisms are adapted to the environment, and one of those adaptations is that pain tells the organism what is potentially threatening to survival, and what isn't. That metric isn't perfect, but it's certainly good enough to affect the reproductive success (birth-death ratio) of the organism in favor of experiences that are not painful. [doc]: "The Creation Worldview supports an overwhelming convincing model to counter that...period." Okay. But, since the naturalistic explanation is entirely sufficient, then complicating it by adding God to the situation simply isn't necessary.
I like the morality argument for God. On its own it doesn't completely prove God but when you combine it with other arguments and evidence, it is undeniable. There is a God.
Hey, yeah it’s definitely a very good argument. Paul uses it in Roman’s 1:20 though as a proof for God’s existence. He says that because God’s invisible attributes such as love, joy, peace, justice etc exist, and because everyone clearly perceives those things, then no one has an excuse for denying God and not knowing the truth about His existence. It’s a proof for God’s existence, and as you said, a very good one at that!
@@II_Timothy Romans 1 is about Jews although even back then they rejected a young earth creation, they have always believed in evolution going far back as their captivity in Babylon. Jesus even acknowledged their rejection of a young earth creation in John 5:46-47 So many examples of Romans 1 being of that group but here is one Romans 1:21 "..when they knew God, they glorified him not as God.. They were always rebelling and rejecting the Lord Jeremiah 44:8 Ezekiel 8:17 on and on even Moses said they would be evil in these end times Deuteronomy 31:29
@@Daniel90210 somehow you managed to turn Romans 1 into an anti young earth creation verse. That would be called incorrectly handling the word of truth.
@@Daniel90210 and as far as John 5 goes ...... (verses 46,47) For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?" It's actually the old earth creationism people and even moreso the theistic evolutionists who deny what Moses taught. Simply because they don't want to take what he wrote literally. Seeing as Genesis through Deuteronomy was written by Moses and many of you want to call his writings "mythohistory."
I have met atheistic evolutionists who would say "yes morality is of course subjective … so what?? the universe doesn't care whether we are comfortable with that or not... so how does that get us any closer to proof a god exists??" One of the best retorts we can give is that though they may have a morality or live moral lives to an extent they have NO objective basis on which to justify ANY of their moral claims or stances AND we can look at their life and see the utter ironic absurdity of asserting that there is NO absolute objective morality while in some ways living like there is.
If there's no purpose to life or the universe (as atheism->evolution claims), then it actually wouldn't matter whether we all survive or go extinct tomorrow. It wouldn't matter what our choices were, so even subjective morality would be pointless. May as well go fully lawless, it'd make no difference ultimately. If atheists truly fully believed what they preach they'd be running riot ignoring every law they felt to - some accountability niggle in the back of the mind must be holding them back.
Why is an objective basis necessary? Morality is an incredibly complex topic that presents new dilemmas as humanity progresses - it cannot be built upon a static system. We see this every single day as new laws are proposed or written into legislation, and old laws are sent to pasture. Christians can't even agree on what moral code the Bible proposes, yet you claim there is an objective moral truth? Who is correct? The Catholics? The Protestants? "we can look at their life and see the utter ironic absurdity of asserting that there is NO absolute objective morality while in some ways living like there is." - this is nonsensical. Can you provide a single example of an atheist adhering to an objective moral truth whilst claiming there is no such thing? No, of course you can't because there is no 'objective moral law' that could not have been derived subjectively.
Morality can be explained by survival of the fittest. Members of the tribe who don't behave are expelled from the group and don't survive. So only who can learn the rules survived
This is a strawman argument. There is no connection between atheism and thinking that morals are subjective. I am an atheist and I understand that morals are objective. Only, they do not come from God. We know that because the same morals are found in non-Christian societies.
@@ricksimon9867 are you claiming you have an objective basis or justification for the morals you choose to follow? If so, what is it and how did you find it or come to that conclusion?
That's right, evolution does not explain morality. It also does not explain why the earth appears to orbit the sun, and it does not explain how gravity works, or color theory, or a million other things. That's because Darwin's theory of evolution by means of natural selection does one thing only. It offers an explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. That's it. That's all it does. It says nothing at all, anywhere, about the origin of life, or what the meaning of life is, or how we should live our lives, and it definitely says nothing at all about the "creation" of anything. It has no supernatural dimension. It has no application to other scientific theories, such as the Expansion Theory (the so-called "Big Bang"), or the theory of gravity, or the Heliocentric Theory, or anything other than the question of why there are so many species of beetles. Further, Darwin's theory, like all scientific theories, can only operate on physical evidence in the natural, physical world Science has no means of examining supernatural claims, and must thus remain silent on the subject. Thus, Darwin's theory cannot make any claims about the supernatural. These are all elementary facts about one of the most robust and well-studied of all scientific theories. If you'd bothered to read Darwin's book(s), or any of the many many books about his work, or if you'd merely received a decent science education, you would already know all of this.
The theory is now far too shabby... The fossil record is not adequate - it does not stand up at all - no matter how hard you guys want it to... Where are the missing millions of fossil skeletons caught midway in a stage of strange metamorphosis between one ancestral species of animal evolution and the next? I KNOW there are so many 'peer reviewed' scientists who argue that there is adequate fossil remains to demonstrate Darwin's case - but this is patently false to anyone thinking objectively... The proof is far too weak. (Look at Lucy!! Even when I was an atheist, I knew that was flagrantly an embarrassing farce - a suggested skeleton built around such a sketchy collection of ragtag fragments - trying to add 2 + 2 and make 10) ... No, the Darwinian theory of evolution offers an unsatisfactory explanation - even if at first sight it completes Aristotelian suggestions that make obvious sense. On further consideration, it is clearly wrong. Anyone who has been visited by God - and has daily communion with Him through Christ, of course, KNOWS that evolution is entirely wrong - because he/she is filled with the Holy Spirt and shown that the Bible is the only truth to human and all Earthly/Universal HIStory and future. How to convince you of this truth...? Impossible, clearly. You cannot prove to me anything of your childhood - but when I say it is therefore not true - that may work for me in my unknowing world - but for you, all you can do is shrug your shoulders and walk on, KNOWING full well the facts of your own childhood experience ... So be it. As Christ tells us - heaven is not for everyone. Some will choose it - through choosing Him - eternal light and beauty and joy ... But many others will choose 'chance', the 'inescapable extinction of all life', 'darkness', and 'pointlessness' - 'pitiless indifference to all existence'...! Sad for them - but then again, this vision of 'truth' is what they clearly want out of life... They all actively will it so. We have free will. Each to his own.
‘God is love" and "God is life’ therefore ‘love is life’. Every person who has ever lived knows what love, and the absence of love, is. Even those who have never heard of God can choose to love, or not love. Those who love have God in them, therefore they have life, and visa vera. God either created his law of love and exists outside of it, being under no obligation to obey it, or, his character and law ore one and the same therefore he cannot behave lawlessly. Most believe God created his law therefore he can judge, condemn and punish us in hell throughout all eternity, but if Gods law is his character, as revealed in Jesus, then he harms no one and has already forgiven all. If we need saving from the punishment of a lawless God then killing Jesus and offering his innocent human sacrifice blood as substitutionary payment for sin, might work. But if God is lawful then he is not against us and it would be our terminal sin condition alone we need saving from, therefore we could ask Jesus to heal us, changing our hearts and minds, the new birth, writing his law of love in us. So many different Gods to choose from.
What's your point? There is only one God who has made Himself known through Jesus Christ. People from all over the world have come to believe in Him. Atheists growing up in an atheist household have come to put faith in Christ. Hindus in India have rejected Hinduism and put faith in Him. Muslims raised in the Middle East in predominately Muslim lands have rejected Islam and put faith in Him. There are lies which some people believe, and then there is the Truth which some people believe. When confronted with truth, some people choose to cling to the lie. If some populations predominately reject Christ, this is not proof the claims about Him are not true. What are you going to do? You have heard the truth.
Yes, it's true that we are all influenced by the culture in which we were born. But have you noticed that all cultures are based around the family structure? And all cultures have a similar basic moral code, even if there are some different nuances? This is because we are all descended from the first family, and because God has made each of us in his own image and His moral law is written on our hearts. We all know that lying, stealing, cheating, and murder are morally wrong, The other thing to realized is that Christianity has penetrated virtually every culture around the glode - there are Christians in every nation - it has universal appeal to every culture, which is a testimony to its truthfulness. Unlike many other religions, Christianity is also based on historical facts - the eyewitness testimony of people who saw Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead, and those people were willing to die for that testimony. You may be willing to die for something that you believe is true (even though it may be false, such as false religions), but you won't be willing to die for something that you know is a lie. Jesus disciples who saw him alive after his resurrection died for their testimony rather than recant it.
What do you mean, like I'm African, my ancestors worshipped Ekpinon and Ndem, but today I'm a Christian worshipping the Lord Jesus a Man who was on this earth as a Middle Easterner but whose knowledge was brought to my people by European missionaries from Scotland!!!
This is a common argument that apologists use. To make it work, they rely on creating a verry contorted definition of "objective" that requires divine command. In reality objective (meaning independent of human mind) morality is almost certainly a product of evolutionary processes. This is the only type of objective morality that we have any real reason to think exists.
The difference between an atheist and a creationist? The creationist believe in 1 god…well and Jesus …so that makes 2…but their god tells them to only believe in one god…but dont get into that. So they believe in 1 god…and by doing dont believe in the other 4200 gods humans worship round the world. Sp they dont believe in 4199 gods An atheist believes in one got less…..in 4200. So creationist….proof to me…and over 6 Billion people that you are right?
Regarding the claim that atheists just believe in one less God that Christians do: → Are Christians ‘atheists’ with respect to other religions? - creation.com/christians-atheists-other-religions Regarding other religions-it's important to note that the claims of different religions are contradictory. In other words, they simply can't all be right. But that doesn't mean all religions are wrong! The question is, is there evidence that the Bible is the TRUE revelation from God? Absolutely! There are many reasons Christians claim this (a web search will provide plenty), but here is a sample: → 5 Reasons the Bible is the Only True Holy Book - ruclips.net/video/VIctOo6thEc/видео.html
@@trumpbellend6717 God is a maximally great being, therefore there can only be one God. Objective morality is defined by the character qualities of God. Virtually everyone recognizes objective morality. For example, tortuing babies for fun is always wrong, all the time. We can all agree that the holocaust, Stalin's purgres, and Mao's cultural revolution, all of which killed tens of millions of people were objectively wrong. We know this because teh the God created the universe and everything in it also created humanity in his own image (meaning a sentient, moral being) and his moral law is embedded in our consciences. Your question regarding how can we know which God is the true one is a good one. One could examine all the world's religions and see which one makes the most sense of reality. But we can save time by starting with the Judeo-Christian tradition, because it is one of the few religions which has God revealing himself to human beings down through history from the moment of creation, culminating in God appearing in human form in the person of Jesus Christ. These are eyewitness testimonies of God's revelation to humanity. Many religions do not have any tie to real history or events that can be placed in time. Ultimately, what validates the Christain faith is the person of Jesus Christ. You should seriously read the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) and ask yourself if what Jesus says about life, morality, God, and himself are true. In fact, if you really want to be objective, you should genuinely pray,, "God, if you exist, show me whether you really exist and if you really came to earth in the person of Jesus" If you aren't willing to do this, then you should ask the question, "Am I an atheist because I've really tested Chrstianity, or am I an atheist because I just don't want to believe in a God to whom I must answer?" If you are interested in the philosophical arguments for God's existence, start with William Lane Craig's short videos on the various arguments for God's existence (search youtube or go to reasonablefaith.org) and listen to his debates with all the major atheists.
Makes sense that a scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on this planet really would have nothing to do with morality. I hope you don't think that you've debunked the scientific theory of evolution which explains the diversity of life on this planet because it can't explain morality?
Completely wrong ! Morality is an evolutionary trait, which like all things, follow the laws of cause and effect. Humans like all social animals, live in social groups for the obvious benefits. Social living is a cause, morality is the effect, empathy is the mechanism. In other words, morality is an extract of empathy.
So murder is not really wrong, just socially unpopular? And torturing babies for fun is not really wrong, just a violation of social morays? And the holocaust was not really wrong, and if the Germans had won WW2 and wrote the history books afterwards, it would have been right? There is zero biological proof for your claims. Which human gene is the "empathy" gene? Humans have one thing that animals don't have - a spirit made in the image of their Creator. That's why every human being has a conscience, and that's why there is a common set of basic moral values that transcend culture - those moral values are given to each one of us as God's image bearers.
@@danmurphy4497 "So murder is not really wrong, just socially unpopular?' In a way that's exactly right. You underestimate the effect of society in controlling the behavior of individuals. In today's human societies, it is society that determines what is right/wrong and the influence of society at large on each individual...ie the reaction of the collective society to unpopular things becomes the authority and impetus by which right/wrong is enforced. Some things...like unjustified killing is so unpopular that society calls it wrong and makes laws that say people ought not do it. Then society collectively creates an system by which those laws are enforced, and those who break those laws are dealt with within that system. "And torturing babies for fun is not really wrong, just a violation of social morays? " Can you explain why torturing babies for fun would be wrong as long as there is no permanent damage? I agree it is wrong, but I see nothing in the Bible saying it's wrong, so what is your intuition based on? " And the holocaust was not really wrong, and if the Germans had won WW2 and wrote the history books afterwards, it would have been right? " You might be right...just like now Christians look back and justify the holocaust the god of the Old Testament ordered his people to inflict on their neighbors...they were wicked so they deserved it if the war had turned out differently the world might approve of Hitler ridding the world of these people who threatened peaceful society.. Other than what the society of the world at large thinks...the societal disapprobation you guffawed earlier, why was what Hitler did wrong? Explain it based on Biblical morality. And why shouldn't the holocaust be deemed right given it was executing enemies of the state? Isn't execution permitted by the God of the Bible? "There is zero biological proof for your claims. Which human gene is the "empathy" gene? Humans have one thing that animals don't have - a spirit made in the image of their Creator. " The evidence for that trait is that that trait exists. You say it's due to God others say it's due to evolution. Neither can be proven. It probably isn't one gene, but likely a combination of genes that leads to the behavior in humans.. What do you think keeps other animals from wantonly, randomly and constantly killing other members of their gene pool/local population? Why do other animal mothers care for their young and sometimes the young of others in their gene pool/tribe/pack? Wolf packs will care for orphaned young. Why does an elephant and many other animal mothers care for her baby to the point of defending it from attackers? In fact the entire herd of elephants will gather and encircle the young when predators are near. And you don't think other animals display empathy? "That's why every human being has a conscience, and that's why there is a common set of basic moral values that transcend culture - those moral values are given to each one of us as God's image bearers." It can't be proven, per se, but it would make sense that conscience would well be due to evolution resulting in humans having a 'need' to 'get along' such that when we do things that we don't think society approves of, many of us instinctively feel bad and stop doing it because of a built in instinct that evolved because without society, humans would not survive. IOW the gene pool only survives by producing individuals who will facilitate the next generation and for a social species, peaceful and productive interaction with others is key to gene pool surviving. And being susceptible to and in tune with societal expectations is part of keeping people in line.
In the past, the vast majority of people thought that slavery was ok. Today we know that it is morally wrong. Christianity fully accepted slavery the entire time. We did not get the realisation that it is immoral from the Christian God. End. Of. Discussion.
If murder is wrong, killing of childen is wrong then the bible is also wrong. You cannot use the scripture as your moral compass. even if you did it would not make thos emorals objective. If God create the morals then by definition God is the subjective of those moral they are subjective.
Of course evolution can explain morality. All animals instinctively know what is good or bad for their group and individuals act accordingly. Parents love their children because those who do ensure group survival. Morality is the backbone of group survival, it is taught and exemplified from birth from past experience. Without some kind of group agreement how to behave no species would survive. And such agreements derive at first from instinct and then learning.
Two ways of looking at it. One, morals are absolute so it means there must be some sort of moral lawgiver who stands apart from and is totally separate from humans, such as the Biblical God or some other entity. Two, there are no absolute morals so there is no need for such an external entity. In the latter case, anything goes so human law is arbitrary as well as not absolute as one human can argue for example that rape is bad while another can argue it's not bad. This doesn't prove or disprove that God exists. Nothing can. It's all a matter of faith. Faith is not proof. As the Bible says, faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction [not proof] of things not seen.
@@trumpbellend6717 It's just your opinion because you can't prove it's true, just as I can't prove that my opinion is true. We can go around in circles forever if you like.
@@trumpbellend6717 That's right. We can't prove they believe that. They could be doing it for other reasons, such as people control, scam, etc.. People do lie you know.
@@trumpbellend6717 In any case that's not the original point. My point is one can't prove the existence of God/gods with physical evidence. It's a matter of faith.
Vanilla. Anyone can add whatever they want to vanilla to get their own preferred flavor. I hope you aren't driving and commenting on RUclips at the same time 🙂
@Obeytheroadrules then if that's your stance, I can't help you. But I will pray for you. It is written, the wisdom of man is foolishness unto the Lord. But even the Lord's foolishness is wisdom to man.
@globalcoupledances all such things entered this world, as result of the fall. God told both Adam and Eve, not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Yet, they ( man not God), by allowing Satan to temp them, then in disobedience to God, brought sin into the world.
LOL,...he is making arguments against his case. History even illustrates changing moral behavior which one could argue as "evolving" and that it stems from the humanity as a species dependent on culture.
The good God knows right and wrong. Therefore we can understand from Him, what is good and what is evil. God cannot lie. He changes His mind, because He's personal, and only when a prophet asks.
@@ricksimon9867 95% of humanity has never heard of jesus and his storybook. And they knew very well how to work together. Otherwise we wouldn't be here anymore.
@@trumpbellend6717 Sorry, could you please repeat "this basic question". There were are few questions scattered throughout your comment. Please state clearly what your question is.
Evolution has been observed in lab. Researchers from University of Montana and Georgia Institute of technology had let an unicell algae evolved into multicellular organism. In only 50 weeks (~750 generations). This is operational and repeatable science and prove significant evolutionary from unicellular to multicellular also being observable.This is therefore a scientifically and verifiable fact.
Gods law of love can be tried, tested and proven to be a ‘natural’ law built into the fabric of life, equal to the laws of physics. Deny love and life diminishes, even to extinction, give love and life is enhanced, even to longevity. Gods law of love, which demands self-sacrificial giving of oneself for the good of others for survival, flies in the face of evolution, which requires ‘survival of the fittest’, dog eat dog, kill or be killed for survival.
@@trumpbellend6717 Either there is a natural moral law which life is designed to function by and with natural consequences for deviation, or, morality is the result of random atoms bouncing off one another in everyone’s head and immorality has equal random atom value.
You Can't have Evil without Good and good without God.
And since humans have no basis for saying God is good there is no basis for calling anything good/evil.
@@trumpbellend6717 "Would you disagree ? What outcome do YOU think we are striving for when we use the the terms "good" or "evil" if not human wellbeing ??"
That's what I think is the pertinent question. I think morality is objective...but it is always contextual. There are objectively better ways vs worse ways to have a surviving and thriving society where everyone has the ost rights and no one's rights are unjustifiably infringed. It's not that in every case it is obvious what to do, but in every case there are obviously better ways to do things to achieve that goal.
@@trumpbellend6717 "My morality tells me that "Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you" Is not nor ever was a "moral" instruction and certainly not a moral reference standard that anyone should adhere or aspire to. Do you agree YES or NO ??"
Do I agree that that is what your morality tells you? Yes. Or do I agree that taking slaves is not a moral instruction. No. It was a moral instruction the Hebrews had. But I think it is not a moral standard anyone should adhere to.
@@trumpbellend6717 "Lol so you think it was moral for "the hebrews" to have slaves "
No, I don't, but the Hebrews did...think it was moral. I think they were wrong.
@@trumpbellend6717 Now you explain to me on what basis slavery is objectively wrong. This should be entertaining.
Good to see you Keaton. Great video!
Great talk guys, thank you!
How about if we instead ask, does pain exist? And then ask, "Is pain good or bad?" Masochists might say that it's good but, I guarantee if I stuck them from behind with a needle without their knowledge, they would scream or at the least jump away from the source and tell me to stop. Therefore, pain establishes whether something is good or bad hence defines morality. An act that causes or has the potential to cause pain is not moral...period. Is pain the result of evolution? The Creation Worldview supports an overwhelming convincing model to counter that...period.
[doc]: "Is pain the result of evolution?"
Yes. Evolution is all about survival. Biological organisms are adapted to the environment, and one of those adaptations is that pain tells the organism what is potentially threatening to survival, and what isn't. That metric isn't perfect, but it's certainly good enough to affect the reproductive success (birth-death ratio) of the organism in favor of experiences that are not painful.
[doc]: "The Creation Worldview supports an overwhelming convincing model to counter that...period."
Okay. But, since the naturalistic explanation is entirely sufficient, then complicating it by adding God to the situation simply isn't necessary.
I tried to help a satanist, but she kept asking questions to get me off topic and then asked why I was not addressing the issue of morals.
You should have addressed the issue of morals, then.
@@wms72 I tried.
I like the morality argument for God. On its own it doesn't completely prove God but when you combine it with other arguments and evidence, it is undeniable. There is a God.
Hey, yeah it’s definitely a very good argument. Paul uses it in Roman’s 1:20 though as a proof for God’s existence. He says that because God’s invisible attributes such as love, joy, peace, justice etc exist, and because everyone clearly perceives those things, then no one has an excuse for denying God and not knowing the truth about His existence. It’s a proof for God’s existence, and as you said, a very good one at that!
@@II_Timothy oooh. Good scripture verse! Perfect scripture verse, actually.
@@II_Timothy Romans 1 is about Jews although even back then they rejected a young earth creation, they have always believed in evolution going far back as their captivity in Babylon. Jesus even acknowledged their rejection of a young earth creation in John 5:46-47
So many examples of Romans 1 being of that group but here is one Romans 1:21 "..when they knew God, they glorified him not as God..
They were always rebelling and rejecting the Lord Jeremiah 44:8 Ezekiel 8:17 on and on even Moses said they would be evil in these end times
Deuteronomy 31:29
@@Daniel90210 somehow you managed to turn Romans 1 into an anti young earth creation verse. That would be called incorrectly handling the word of truth.
@@Daniel90210 and as far as John 5 goes ...... (verses 46,47) For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?"
It's actually the old earth creationism people and even moreso the theistic evolutionists who deny what Moses taught. Simply because they don't want to take what he wrote literally. Seeing as Genesis through Deuteronomy was written by Moses and many of you want to call his writings "mythohistory."
I have met atheistic evolutionists who would say "yes morality is of course subjective … so what?? the universe doesn't care whether we are comfortable with that or not... so how does that get us any closer to proof a god exists??" One of the best retorts we can give is that though they may have a morality or live moral lives to an extent they have NO objective basis on which to justify ANY of their moral claims or stances AND we can look at their life and see the utter ironic absurdity of asserting that there is NO absolute objective morality while in some ways living like there is.
If there's no purpose to life or the universe (as atheism->evolution claims), then it actually wouldn't matter whether we all survive or go extinct tomorrow. It wouldn't matter what our choices were, so even subjective morality would be pointless. May as well go fully lawless, it'd make no difference ultimately. If atheists truly fully believed what they preach they'd be running riot ignoring every law they felt to - some accountability niggle in the back of the mind must be holding them back.
Why is an objective basis necessary? Morality is an incredibly complex topic that presents new dilemmas as humanity progresses - it cannot be built upon a static system. We see this every single day as new laws are proposed or written into legislation, and old laws are sent to pasture. Christians can't even agree on what moral code the Bible proposes, yet you claim there is an objective moral truth? Who is correct? The Catholics? The Protestants?
"we can look at their life and see the utter ironic absurdity of asserting that there is NO absolute objective morality while in some ways living like there is."
- this is nonsensical. Can you provide a single example of an atheist adhering to an objective moral truth whilst claiming there is no such thing? No, of course you can't because there is no 'objective moral law' that could not have been derived subjectively.
Morality can be explained by survival of the fittest. Members of the tribe who don't behave are expelled from the group and don't survive. So only who can learn the rules survived
This is a strawman argument. There is no connection between atheism and thinking that morals are subjective. I am an atheist and I understand that morals are objective. Only, they do not come from God. We know that because the same morals are found in non-Christian societies.
@@ricksimon9867 are you claiming you have an objective basis or justification for the morals you choose to follow? If so, what is it and how did you find it or come to that conclusion?
Pure No thing …… to….. Our Universe
That’s what got me looking and thinking…. Then Jesus found me…
Thank you Lord….
Like and comment, to engage the channel.
God bless you CMI 🙏✝️🕊️ thanks for all you do
Evolution explains morality in a social species better than it explains speciation.
I love this video . Thanx ! Will share with friends
That's right, evolution does not explain morality. It also does not explain why the earth appears to orbit the sun, and it does not explain how gravity works, or color theory, or a million other things. That's because Darwin's theory of evolution by means of natural selection does one thing only. It offers an explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. That's it. That's all it does. It says nothing at all, anywhere, about the origin of life, or what the meaning of life is, or how we should live our lives, and it definitely says nothing at all about the "creation" of anything. It has no supernatural dimension. It has no application to other scientific theories, such as the Expansion Theory (the so-called "Big Bang"), or the theory of gravity, or the Heliocentric Theory, or anything other than the question of why there are so many species of beetles.
Further, Darwin's theory, like all scientific theories, can only operate on physical evidence in the natural, physical world Science has no means of examining supernatural claims, and must thus remain silent on the subject. Thus, Darwin's theory cannot make any claims about the supernatural.
These are all elementary facts about one of the most robust and well-studied of all scientific theories. If you'd bothered to read Darwin's book(s), or any of the many many books about his work, or if you'd merely received a decent science education, you would already know all of this.
Don't beat about the bush. The more you love the fantasy theory, the more you hate God. The evolution story has one goal "There is no God."
The theory is now far too shabby... The fossil record is not adequate - it does not stand up at all - no matter how hard you guys want it to... Where are the missing millions of fossil skeletons caught midway in a stage of strange metamorphosis between one ancestral species of animal evolution and the next? I KNOW there are so many 'peer reviewed' scientists who argue that there is adequate fossil remains to demonstrate Darwin's case - but this is patently false to anyone thinking objectively... The proof is far too weak. (Look at Lucy!! Even when I was an atheist, I knew that was flagrantly an embarrassing farce - a suggested skeleton built around such a sketchy collection of ragtag fragments - trying to add 2 + 2 and make 10) ... No, the Darwinian theory of evolution offers an unsatisfactory explanation - even if at first sight it completes Aristotelian suggestions that make obvious sense. On further consideration, it is clearly wrong.
Anyone who has been visited by God - and has daily communion with Him through Christ, of course, KNOWS that evolution is entirely wrong - because he/she is filled with the Holy Spirt and shown that the Bible is the only truth to human and all Earthly/Universal HIStory and future.
How to convince you of this truth...? Impossible, clearly. You cannot prove to me anything of your childhood - but when I say it is therefore not true - that may work for me in my unknowing world - but for you, all you can do is shrug your shoulders and walk on, KNOWING full well the facts of your own childhood experience ... So be it.
As Christ tells us - heaven is not for everyone.
Some will choose it - through choosing Him - eternal light and beauty and joy ...
But many others will choose 'chance', the 'inescapable extinction of all life', 'darkness', and 'pointlessness' - 'pitiless indifference to all existence'...!
Sad for them - but then again, this vision of 'truth' is what they clearly want out of life...
They all actively will it so.
We have free will. Each to his own.
Can creationist explain why being born in a sertain place in the world is of the biggest influence in what god you believe in?
‘God is love" and "God is life’ therefore ‘love is life’. Every person who has ever lived knows what love, and the absence of love, is. Even those who have never heard of God can choose to love, or not love. Those who love have God in them, therefore they have life, and visa vera.
God either created his law of love and exists outside of it, being under no obligation to obey it, or, his character and law ore one and the same therefore he cannot behave lawlessly. Most believe God created his law therefore he can judge, condemn and punish us in hell throughout all eternity, but if Gods law is his character, as revealed in Jesus, then he harms no one and has already forgiven all.
If we need saving from the punishment of a lawless God then killing Jesus and offering his innocent human sacrifice blood as substitutionary payment for sin, might work. But if God is lawful then he is not against us and it would be our terminal sin condition alone we need saving from, therefore we could ask Jesus to heal us, changing our hearts and minds, the new birth, writing his law of love in us. So many different Gods to choose from.
What's your point? There is only one God who has made Himself known through Jesus Christ. People from all over the world have come to believe in Him. Atheists growing up in an atheist household have come to put faith in Christ. Hindus in India have rejected Hinduism and put faith in Him. Muslims raised in the Middle East in predominately Muslim lands have rejected Islam and put faith in Him.
There are lies which some people believe, and then there is the Truth which some people believe. When confronted with truth, some people choose to cling to the lie. If some populations predominately reject Christ, this is not proof the claims about Him are not true.
What are you going to do? You have heard the truth.
Yes, no matter where you are born, you are being influenced.
Yes, it's true that we are all influenced by the culture in which we were born. But have you noticed that all cultures are based around the family structure? And all cultures have a similar basic moral code, even if there are some different nuances? This is because we are all descended from the first family, and because God has made each of us in his own image and His moral law is written on our hearts. We all know that lying, stealing, cheating, and murder are morally wrong,
The other thing to realized is that Christianity has penetrated virtually every culture around the glode - there are Christians in every nation - it has universal appeal to every culture, which is a testimony to its truthfulness. Unlike many other religions, Christianity is also based on historical facts - the eyewitness testimony of people who saw Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead, and those people were willing to die for that testimony. You may be willing to die for something that you believe is true (even though it may be false, such as false religions), but you won't be willing to die for something that you know is a lie. Jesus disciples who saw him alive after his resurrection died for their testimony rather than recant it.
What do you mean, like I'm African, my ancestors worshipped Ekpinon and Ndem, but today I'm a Christian worshipping the Lord Jesus a Man who was on this earth as a Middle Easterner but whose knowledge was brought to my people by European missionaries from Scotland!!!
This is a common argument that apologists use. To make it work, they rely on creating a verry contorted definition of "objective" that requires divine command. In reality objective (meaning independent of human mind) morality is almost certainly a product of evolutionary processes. This is the only type of objective morality that we have any real reason to think exists.
This is purely a subjective assertion.
@@douglasmcnay644 A sound argument.
The difference between an atheist and a creationist?
The creationist believe in 1 god…well and Jesus …so that makes 2…but their god tells them to only believe in one god…but dont get into that.
So they believe in 1 god…and by doing dont believe in the other 4200 gods humans worship round the world. Sp they dont believe in 4199 gods
An atheist believes in one got less…..in 4200.
So creationist….proof to me…and over 6 Billion people that you are right?
Regarding the claim that atheists just believe in one less God that Christians do:
→ Are Christians ‘atheists’ with respect to other religions? - creation.com/christians-atheists-other-religions
Regarding other religions-it's important to note that the claims of different religions are contradictory. In other words, they simply can't all be right. But that doesn't mean all religions are wrong! The question is, is there evidence that the Bible is the TRUE revelation from God? Absolutely! There are many reasons Christians claim this (a web search will provide plenty), but here is a sample:
→ 5 Reasons the Bible is the Only True Holy Book - ruclips.net/video/VIctOo6thEc/видео.html
@@trumpbellend6717 God is a maximally great being, therefore there can only be one God. Objective morality is defined by the character qualities of God. Virtually everyone recognizes objective morality. For example, tortuing babies for fun is always wrong, all the time. We can all agree that the holocaust, Stalin's purgres, and Mao's cultural revolution, all of which killed tens of millions of people were objectively wrong. We know this because teh the God created the universe and everything in it also created humanity in his own image (meaning a sentient, moral being) and his moral law is embedded in our consciences.
Your question regarding how can we know which God is the true one is a good one. One could examine all the world's religions and see which one makes the most sense of reality. But we can save time by starting with the Judeo-Christian tradition, because it is one of the few religions which has God revealing himself to human beings down through history from the moment of creation, culminating in God appearing in human form in the person of Jesus Christ. These are eyewitness testimonies of God's revelation to humanity. Many religions do not have any tie to real history or events that can be placed in time. Ultimately, what validates the Christain faith is the person of Jesus Christ. You should seriously read the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) and ask yourself if what Jesus says about life, morality, God, and himself are true. In fact, if you really want to be objective, you should genuinely pray,, "God, if you exist, show me whether you really exist and if you really came to earth in the person of Jesus" If you aren't willing to do this, then you should ask the question, "Am I an atheist because I've really tested Chrstianity, or am I an atheist because I just don't want to believe in a God to whom I must answer?"
If you are interested in the philosophical arguments for God's existence, start with William Lane Craig's short videos on the various arguments for God's existence (search youtube or go to reasonablefaith.org) and listen to his debates with all the major atheists.
Great!
What is evil without good?
And what is good without God?
That which is beneficial.
Makes sense that a scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on this planet really would have nothing to do with morality.
I hope you don't think that you've debunked the scientific theory of evolution which explains the diversity of life on this planet because it can't explain morality?
Oh , i'm sorry , but an evolved sense of morality seen in lots of social species, including ours, definitely can be absolutely explained.
Please explain it.
Still no explanation?
If you're going to say that there is an explanation then you need to provide it otherwise you'll rebuttal is moot point.
Completely wrong !
Morality is an evolutionary trait, which like all things, follow the laws of cause and effect. Humans like all social animals, live in social groups for the obvious benefits. Social living is a cause, morality is the effect, empathy is the mechanism. In other words, morality is an extract of empathy.
So murder is not really wrong, just socially unpopular? And torturing babies for fun is not really wrong, just a violation of social morays? And the holocaust was not really wrong, and if the Germans had won WW2 and wrote the history books afterwards, it would have been right? There is zero biological proof for your claims. Which human gene is the "empathy" gene? Humans have one thing that animals don't have - a spirit made in the image of their Creator. That's why every human being has a conscience, and that's why there is a common set of basic moral values that transcend culture - those moral values are given to each one of us as God's image bearers.
@@danmurphy4497 "So murder is not really wrong, just socially unpopular?'
In a way that's exactly right. You underestimate the effect of society in controlling the behavior of individuals.
In today's human societies, it is society that determines what is right/wrong and the influence of society at large on each individual...ie the reaction of the collective society to unpopular things becomes the authority and impetus by which right/wrong is enforced. Some things...like unjustified killing is so unpopular that society calls it wrong and makes laws that say people ought not do it. Then society collectively creates an system by which those laws are enforced, and those who break those laws are dealt with within that system.
"And torturing babies for fun is not really wrong, just a violation of social morays? "
Can you explain why torturing babies for fun would be wrong as long as there is no permanent damage? I agree it is wrong, but I see nothing in the Bible saying it's wrong, so what is your intuition based on?
" And the holocaust was not really wrong, and if the Germans had won WW2 and wrote the history books afterwards, it would have been right? "
You might be right...just like now Christians look back and justify the holocaust the god of the Old Testament ordered his people to inflict on their neighbors...they were wicked so they deserved it if the war had turned out differently the world might approve of Hitler ridding the world of these people who threatened peaceful society.. Other than what the society of the world at large thinks...the societal disapprobation you guffawed earlier, why was what Hitler did wrong? Explain it based on Biblical morality. And why shouldn't the holocaust be deemed right given it was executing enemies of the state? Isn't execution permitted by the God of the Bible?
"There is zero biological proof for your claims. Which human gene is the "empathy" gene? Humans have one thing that animals don't have - a spirit made in the image of their Creator. "
The evidence for that trait is that that trait exists. You say it's due to God others say it's due to evolution. Neither can be proven.
It probably isn't one gene, but likely a combination of genes that leads to the behavior in humans.. What do you think keeps other animals from wantonly, randomly and constantly killing other members of their gene pool/local population? Why do other animal mothers care for their young and sometimes the young of others in their gene pool/tribe/pack? Wolf packs will care for orphaned young. Why does an elephant and many other animal mothers care for her baby to the point of defending it from attackers? In fact the entire herd of elephants will gather and encircle the young when predators are near. And you don't think other animals display empathy?
"That's why every human being has a conscience, and that's why there is a common set of basic moral values that transcend culture - those moral values are given to each one of us as God's image bearers."
It can't be proven, per se, but it would make sense that conscience would well be due to evolution resulting in humans having a 'need' to 'get along' such that when we do things that we don't think society approves of, many of us instinctively feel bad and stop doing it because of a built in instinct that evolved because without society, humans would not survive. IOW the gene pool only survives by producing individuals who will facilitate the next generation and for a social species, peaceful and productive interaction with others is key to gene pool surviving. And being susceptible to and in tune with societal expectations is part of keeping people in line.
In the past, the vast majority of people thought that slavery was ok. Today we know that it is morally wrong.
Christianity fully accepted slavery the entire time. We did not get the realisation that it is immoral from the Christian God.
End. Of. Discussion.
If murder is wrong, killing of childen is wrong then the bible is also wrong. You cannot use the scripture as your moral compass. even if you did it would not make thos emorals objective. If God create the morals then by definition God is the subjective of those moral they are subjective.
Of course evolution can explain morality. All animals instinctively know what is good or bad for their group and individuals act accordingly. Parents love their children because those who do ensure group survival. Morality is the backbone of group survival, it is taught and exemplified from birth from past experience. Without some kind of group agreement how to behave no species would survive. And such agreements derive at first from instinct and then learning.
Two ways of looking at it. One, morals are absolute so it means there must be some sort of moral lawgiver who stands apart from and is totally separate from humans, such as the Biblical God or some other entity. Two, there are no absolute morals so there is no need for such an external entity. In the latter case, anything goes so human law is arbitrary as well as not absolute as one human can argue for example that rape is bad while another can argue it's not bad. This doesn't prove or disprove that God exists. Nothing can. It's all a matter of faith. Faith is not proof. As the Bible says, faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction [not proof] of things not seen.
@@trumpbellend6717 That's just your opinion. My opinion is that faith in God is all one needs to know God exists without any need for physical proof.
@@trumpbellend6717 It's just your opinion because you can't prove it's true, just as I can't prove that my opinion is true. We can go around in circles forever if you like.
@@trumpbellend6717 That's right. We can't prove they believe that. They could be doing it for other reasons, such as people control, scam, etc.. People do lie you know.
@@trumpbellend6717 In any case that's not the original point. My point is one can't prove the existence of God/gods with physical evidence. It's a matter of faith.
@@trumpbellend6717 I don't answer your questions because they are irrelevant to the point I've made. Wake up!
So, what is the best ice cream flavor OBJECTIVELY? Let me know, I’m on the way to the grocery store.
Vanilla.
Anyone can add whatever they want to vanilla to get their own preferred flavor.
I hope you aren't driving and commenting on RUclips at the same time 🙂
@@MatthewPeeters-l7i no. But your answer implies vanilla isn’t a “pure” flavor. That is something that is added to “neutral” ice cream.
@@MatthewPeeters-l7i vanilla is a flavor that is added to the unflavored base. So which flavor is OBJECTIVELY best?
Butter Crunch by Blue Bell
@Obeytheroadrules then if that's your stance, I can't help you. But I will pray for you. It is written, the wisdom of man is foolishness unto the Lord. But even the Lord's foolishness is wisdom to man.
Can you explain why God allows slavery? Abolition is is a sin?
@globalcoupledances all such things entered this world, as result of the fall. God told both Adam and Eve, not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Yet, they ( man not God), by allowing Satan to temp them, then in disobedience to God, brought sin into the world.
@@timmattfishing So abolition is from Satan?
@globalcoupledances if what you mean to abolish is evil, which Satan is the father of evil, then no. But to try and abolish good, is evil.
@@timmattfishing Then why does God allow slavery. Abolition came from atheism
well done
LOL,...he is making arguments against his case. History even illustrates changing moral behavior which one could argue as "evolving" and that it stems from the humanity as a species dependent on culture.
Humor and laughing at reasoning means you don't know who God is.
The good God knows right and wrong. Therefore we can understand from Him, what is good and what is evil. God cannot lie. He changes His mind, because He's personal, and only when a prophet asks.
@@moroniholm87 How do you come up with that?
@@bohem5568 I know the Bible. I wish you did. God requires it of us.
@@moroniholm87 Really? When did God say, "know the Bible".
An argument from his own intuition, lol
Why should it?
Morality predates Christianity. Do you people understand how time works?
@@ricksimon9867 95% of humanity has never heard of jesus and his storybook. And they knew very well how to work together. Otherwise we wouldn't be here anymore.
An immoral creature like god?
By what standard do you decide that God is immoral?
@@trumpbellend6717 Sorry, could you please repeat "this basic question". There were are few questions scattered throughout your comment. Please state clearly what your question is.
Fairy Tale hoaxes like Evolution can't explain anything.
Evolution has been observed in lab. Researchers from University of Montana and Georgia Institute of technology had let an unicell algae evolved into multicellular organism. In only 50 weeks (~750 generations).
This is operational and repeatable science and prove significant evolutionary from unicellular to multicellular also being observable.This is therefore a scientifically and verifiable fact.