If everything has a purpose then evil doesn't exist

[R-Farmer]

Noah did not gather anything God delivered it to him.

That's what I just said.

Or the animals came and left eggs..

Another ad hoc detail to insert your ideas into the Biblical story. The Bible is easy to believe when you can just make up additions to the stories so they'll make sense, huh?

are you saying durning the time on the ark there were no eggs at all?
Some chickens can put out 2 to 300 eggs per year. do you think there were no chickens? 

So.. let's say god sent Noah live birds and or reptiles.. and 1 chicken lays a few dozen eggs.. Noah sees this chicken that takes up/Needs say 2 cubic feet to live... but the dozen or so eggs it laid in the last week early takes up 1/2 a cubic foot. which one do you think someone responsible for getting 7 pairs of clean animals and 2 pairs of unclean animals on a limited food and space hand built wooden ship?

Not not say every animal needed to be an egg or baby. just the big ones, the dangerous ones or the ones who eat non stop. Why wouldn't someone do this? If Elon makes it to mars and the goal is to colonize the planet do you think he is sending live chickens who need a whole host od support to keep live? or a few dozen trays of fertile eggs in stasis where He could choose the time and place to incubate the eggs?

If a 4 year old could make this call (as to which passenger chicken or egg is more efficient to transport) Why is it your opinion the man who built a boat big enough to save creation would be too stew-pid to have the spacial reasoning of a current 4 year old?

[R-Farmer]

Why is the Bible even such a big deal. I think it can be helpful but by no means is it "important" to read. You can live without it.

for the same reason it is good to have good credit.

You can live without good credit. you can even live well having never once used credit to buy anything.

However life with good credit is made a whole lot easier if, like the Bible is used responsibly.

As Being given direct one on one access to God makes life easier. or at least this is the case for me.

[R-Farmer]

You do understand the purpose of miracles and healing right?

The primary purpose of healing was to establish that the one doing the healing had the endorsement of God, So that when He delivered God's message to the leadership or people they knew He spoke with the direct authority of God, and could amend change or redirect the law or the people themselves. (present them with God's will)

Biblically speaking Miracles were never once used as a form of physical maintenance on the body, or meant as a prescribed way to reliably "fix" broken people. So then why would you expect us to use a one off ability, to maintain a healthy life? 

As, Once the Church was established there was no need for the miracles to continue. as god's work and final plan was complete.

And the answer was 4 1 allergy, 1 blood pressure, was taking one for cholesterol and one for heart rate but the new Dr took me off of those two. after I quit drinking all coffee tea and sodas. (only drink water now.)

Why are you taking scientific life extending drugs when god clearly doesn’t want you to continue living?

What makes you think God does not want me to live any longer?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That's what I just said.


Another ad hoc detail to insert your ideas into the Biblical story. The Bible is easy to believe when you can just make up additions to the stories so they'll make sense, huh?

are you saying durning the time on the ark there were no eggs at all?
Some chickens can put out 2 to 300 eggs per year. do you think there were no chickens? 

So.. let's say god sent Noah live birds and or reptiles.. and 1 chicken lays a few dozen eggs.. Noah sees this chicken that takes up/Needs say 2 cubic feet to live... but the dozen or so eggs it laid in the last week early takes up 1/2 a cubic foot. which one do you think someone responsible for getting 7 pairs of clean animals and 2 pairs of unclean animals on a limited food and space hand built wooden ship?

Not not say every animal needed to be an egg or baby. just the big ones, the dangerous ones or the ones who eat non stop. Why wouldn't someone do this? If Elon makes it to mars and the goal is to colonize the planet do you think he is sending live chickens who need a whole host od support to keep live? or a few dozen trays of fertile eggs in stasis where He could choose the time and place to incubate the eggs?

If a 4 year old could make this call (as to which passenger chicken or egg is more efficient to transport) Why is it your opinion the man who built a boat big enough to save creation would be too stew-pid to have the spacial reasoning of a current 4 year old?

It seems that if you're going to take the Ark story as literal truth, then you are constrained to follow a literal reading of that story:

13 On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. 14 They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. 15 Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. 16 The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the Lord shut him in.

It says the creatures entered the Ark. It doesn't say that Noah put embryos into the Ark, or that he built incubators. Not a word about eggs.

As an aside, it says a pair of 'everything with wings'. Nearly two million insects on a boat that size would have make the Ark unlivable.

Boru

[R-Farmer]

That's unusual, most people I know have a great deal of control over whether someone finds what they say offensive.

I said I have no control over someone else's decision to be offended. Not the same thing.

Perhaps you are deficient in some way.

I am in fact deficient in many ways, not just in some ways.

You certainly seem deficient in understanding what people post.

this is true. but at the same time if I thought the same way you did would it not be logical to assume we would come to the same conclusions?

But maybe it's me. To me it's crystal clear that Nudger was stating his morality is objective, and therefore asking him how his morality would change if his country's did is a non sequitur. But perhaps I missed the post where Nudger said his morality would change depending on what's popular.

Ah, you seemed to have missed my effort that dispelled the popular belief that his objective morality was not in fact 'intrinsic morality' but a generational form of relative morality.

I explained that what 'we' think is objective morality isn't truly objective at all in that objective morality says if a thing is wrong in 1492 it is wrong in 1992. I posited that slavery in 1492 was in fact a moral act. but murdering babies in 1492 was wrong.. but in 1992 owning slaves was an immoral act but by then abortion was not only a woman's right to choose it was a basic human right. IE it was immoral to even protest abortion.

Which avails us to conclude 'objective morality' Is not a morality based on the intrinsic value of a given act (meaning we don't think slavery is wrong because that act itself is and has always been wrong) But rather, Objective morality says a given act is wrong because your father, and his father and his father's father said it was wrong. There is a generational chain of condemning a given act as being immoral.

This means immoral acts fade in and out of popularity as societies change.

So me identifying objective morality as 'generational' morality demonstrates that this form of moral classification is still relative. Relative meaning subject to change over time. I was asking nudger if one of these long standing moral absolutes changed in his life time, would he adopt said change or resist it.

Do you know what you call someone who's not a moral relativist? A moral objectivist.

unless you understand that objective morality is simply generational morality and still subject to change.
That is assuming the man is Not a moral absolutist who aligns Himself with God's righteousness.

And by the by, I am also a moral objectivist and never said anything that could reasonably be construed as indicating I'm not. You just assumed it.

If your system of right and wrong is based on any form of morality not decreed by god. Then at some point the acts you deem as moral or immoral have changed.

If you don't think this is the case, then provide an example.

Example that have already been discussed in this thread and disproven are: Rape, Murder, Child murder/abortion, Child sex, slavery. All immoral now, but at one time where considered moral acts by the societies in power.

[no one]

Stupid doing, don't make stupid right.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Everything has a purpose? Evil has the purpose of being an asshole.

[HappySkeptic]

Moral Objectivism has been dealt with by Sam Harris.  Here is a summary of his book "The Moral Landscape".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3501430/


Sean Carroll does not agree with Sam:

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blo...landscape/

nor with Richard Carrier's "Sense and Goodness Without God"

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blo...l-realism/


My takeaway is that morality CAN be discussed in an objective way, but only when we have agreed on the criteria for determining morality. 

If it is just cultural norms, then the criteria are "what society likes".  That seems like a pretty bad way to determine morality.  Yes, crowd-sourcing morality may tend to reduce harm to the societal structure, and to some extent individuals, but it comes with a lot of arguably bad morals.

I see morality as coming in two parts:

1. Actions that maximize happiness and reduce pain of oneself and others.
   
2. A structure that allows society to function, so that the individuals are likely to engage in 1.
   

Unfortunately these two parts can be at odds.  Even 1. can be a problem if we try to answer questions about short-term pain for long-term gain, or conflicting happiness of different individuals, or rights vs. responsibilities.

I think that an "objectively" better morality emerges when we can, in hindsight realize that a morality framework does indeed lead to increased happiness and less pain.  Better moral systems are difficult to know in advance, but they can be judged on their effects. They can also be societal-dependent (I mean rules have to match the survival conditions of the times). That means that morality can be discussed objectively, but a morality isn't "for all time".

[The Grand Nudger]

It’s gettin unwieldy to correct you point by point, on account of how you can’t seem to get anything right.

I’ll give you a quick and dirty primer on metaethical positions. It’s nothing I haven’t already explained, but maybe you’ll take the time to listen…and then genuinely reflect on how much of a flaming ass you’ve made of yourself.

Within the set of cognitive metaethical theories there are three broad positions. Subjectivism, relativism, and objectivism. Metaethical subjectivism posits that things are right or wrong insomuch as you, a, god, or a house cat thinks so. Metaethical relativism posits that things are right or wrong insomuch as your family, your tribe, our your culture says so. Metaethical objectivism posits that things are right or wrong insomuch as those things possess right or wrong making properties.

They’re called cognitivist positions because they describe facts. Facts about you, our your group, or the thing itself. There are other positions. Non cognitive..where bad would be more accurately understood as “yuck” - and then…ofc, there’s error theory. Which isn’t so much a position on morality as a position on moral systems. That for whatever reason or no reason, regardless of whether there are moral facts, they can’t be gotten right.

I’ve already discussed the many ways my very Christian and constantly changing society fucks the pooch- so there’s no charitable explanation for why you continue to yammer on about moral relativism with me. I think moral relativism is wrong. There’s no point in asking me whether things are only wrong on tuesdays, or at any point in past or future. Slavery is wrong now, and it was wrong when Christendom enslaved whole continents. It’s pointless to ask me if abortion is bad, because I use a harm standard. OFC it is, yet another way that my very Christian society has been fucking up. Who do you think is bortin all the babbies?

Change is fine. If I’m doing something morally incorrect because I don’t have some relevant fact…I’d want to change that. If I thought left hand turns were bad because every time someone turned left it killed a puppy, and you showed me that it didn’t…then my moral conclusion would change. Not because it’s relative, but because I was wrong. Same as getting a math problem wrong.

Let’s see if you can do any better going forward, shall we?

[h4ym4n]

Why are you taking scientific life extending drugs when god clearly doesn’t want you to continue living?

What makes you think God does not want me to live any longer?

What makes you believe god wants you to live longer? 

You just don’t want the long dirt nap waiting for jesus to set you free of the grave. 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

Why are you taking scientific drugs going against gods will?

I’ll bet you’ve had scientific surgery to save your life at least one time in life.

#Hypocrite