How is the validity of this?

[tavarish]

A-context is a mix of definition and connotation- so yes the context does change, thus meaning changes. My point on A was that a conceptual morale absolute gives us a working platform to try to achieve with our everchanging subjective moral values.

You original question had to do with words being more useful as they change in time. My only point was that they are made to describe our surroundings to the point where we acknowledge and digest the concept. I really don't get how a moral absolute, if there can be such a thing, would work, since I don't think it's a ladder, it's just an everlasting set of changes that simply follow its environment.

B-I agree society doesn't operate under absolutes, and that we're adapting to our enviornment. Our enviornment moves towards entropy ( a constant) as does our operandi. Is it that hard to see that processes work from a variable to an ideal. Science tries to eliminate/control all variables for a sound solution that is consistantly constant. I'm just applying the same principles to moral development as a society.

I don't agree that morals are working towards and ideal, as they are wholly dependent on the society administering them, and this is largely based on economic, social, and political influence, not to mention region.

In order to work towards something, you have to first recognize what "it" is. I don't think that we can work towards an absolute because absolute morality would pressupose absolute knowledge, as if you have a set of laws that are absolute, you'd have to know every situation in which they'd apply. I don't think that's possible, and what we're only moving towards is a better understanding of how our own society functions more efficiently, not necessarily an absolute.

By the way, consensus on morals do not make them absolute.

C-If you can't see the breaking of probability in the RL events depicted then I don't think even God smacking you in the face, would convince you that he existed, and that is the definition of stubborn, closed-minded, unquestioning belief in your self-beliefs.

I disagree. You can use rationalization all you want, but if it's not independently verifiable and subject to the same skepticism as any other claim in the world, then it has no stake in being considered valid.

I can say "My invisible dragon let you have food that day". What makes me wrong and you right?

1-I don't

So how can you make that assertion? Is a coincidence like this impossible?

2-There were no people in line without food. If there were it would be evidenced that God allows some to suffer or perhaps allows them different avenues to fufill their needs.

I'm not talking about people in your church. I'm talking about the people across the world who are starving, and would give their right arm for a kiwi, even if they were allergic to it. What does that say about God's existence? What does that say about his character?

It's easy to say that we're blessed because we live in a country that has an abundance of food, but it's not evidence that a God exists, as there are many more countries with a severe shortage of food and water.

D-Since his existence would rest outside our possible perspective it is a gray area.

No, the existence of God is not a gray area anymore than your existence is. The only difference is that we do not have evidence to support such a claim, so it is a null argument. You can't make the call either way, and to do so definitively would be foolish.

It also doesn't rest outside our possible perspective, as you don't know what could be possible in the future. Just because we havent found evidence to prove of disprove this, doesn't mean we don't unknowingly have the tools to make an objective observation and draw concrete facts from it.

E-And after humans are gone the concept of God will cease to be, and if he objectively exists and I can share his perspective after my death, I'd like to. The practicality of the now is that religion, morality and science all have avalue if used wisely.

Science has no stance on morality. It only strives to describe our universe in the most accurate way possible.
Religion imposes absolute morality. It strives to describe our universe, but has no methods of fact checking or verifying truth claims. Most monotheistic religions believe in an all encompassing creator, who created the Universe. End of story. Intellectual stagnation.

It is my personal opinion that religion is coming to the end of its rope. I think within the next 200 years, we'll see a drastic decrease in the amount of religiosity in the world.

God creates, science creates, man uses the best he knows how both of theese things.

Name ONE thing that has increased our understanding of the world that was only possible through belief in God.

There have been far more abuses of science than of nature against our fellow man.

I don't understand this. What's an abuse of nature against our fellow man?