Objections to Objective Morality

By Cole James

I took a philosophy class while I was in college. The topic of this class was on contemporary moral issues, so you know we got into some heated topics. I heard every objection under the sun to objective morality. Everything from it was not very “tolerant,” to different cultures act differently so therefore there cannot be objective morality. I was the minority in this class to say the least!

Objections Objective Morality

Objective morality means that moral statements like “murder is bad” is independent of the person saying it. Objective morality means that there is a standard of morality that transcends human opinions and judgements. Morals are not invented, they are discovered. Now that our society has seemingly transformed into a “post-truth” society, objective morals have come under attack. A “post-truth” society is a society which is not concerned with objective facts, but rather, right and wrong are based on personal subjective feelings, tastes, and personal belief.

As Christians, one of the best arguments we have for God is the moral argument. Of all the attacks on Christianity and God, a Christian will most likely hear the most attacks on this subject. Why? Because everyone can relate to this topic. Each one of us every day makes moral judgements and decisions every day, ranging from opening the door for someone to helping someone who just got in a car wreck. Just so we can have a basis for what the argument actually is, it goes as follows:

Premise 1: If objective moral values and duties exist then God exists
Premise 2: Objective morals values and duties do exist
Conclusion: Therefore, God exits

With the argument in mind, consider four objections:

  1. There are so many different cultures with different values, there can’t be objective morals! Look how different we are!

Off the bat, I agree with this objection. There are many different cultures appearing to be morally different on the surface. However, as one reads between the lines it becomes apparent that these different cultures are not really that different. It is important as we read between the lines to keep in mind that when looking at cultural diversity we need to determine whether differences are really about core morals or instead about application of that core moral truth. For example, what constitutes murder?

What my classmates did not realize is that these difference were in how morals were applied, not a difference in morals. Peter Kreeft says this,

“No culture has ever existed which believed and taught what Nietzsche called for: a transvaluation of all values. There have been differences in emphasis, for instance, our ancestors valued courage more than we do, while we value compassion more than they did. But there has never been anything like the relativism of opinions about values that the relativist teaches as factual history. Just imagine what that would be like. Try to imagine a society where justice, honesty, courage, wisdom, hope, and self-control were deemed morally evil. And unrestricted selfishness, cowardice, lying, betrayal, addiction, and despair were deemed morally good. Such a society is never found on Earth. If it exists anywhere, it is only in Hell and its colonies. Only Satan and his worshippers say ‘evil be thou my good.’”

It really comes down to a case-by-case basis. For instance, in the Hindu religion, they believe in reincarnation. Some of these people will starve themselves because they will not eat a cow. Why? Because they believe their great uncle died and reincarnated into a cow. Looking on the surface at this, it may look like there are differences in morals, but we need to read between the lines. As we read between the lines we see that the morals of our culture and their culture are the same. They think it is wrong to eat the cow because they believe that is their great uncle, we also believe it is wrong to eat our great uncle. As we can see, this really is not an objection, it is just a matter of not digging deeper.

 

  1. Objective morality is not very tolerant! Relativism is much more tolerant of people’s opinions and beliefs.

This objection is entirely problematic. First, it is a self-refuting statement! By someone telling a person that his/her beliefs are not very tolerant, they in turn are being intolerant of the other person’s views. Moreover, this objection assumes that tolerance is really objectively good.

A second answer to this objection is, if relativism were true, why not be intolerant? Why should I be tolerant? Do you see where I am going with this?

Relativism is the view that morality is culturally based, therefore being subject to a person’s individual choice. With this view, there is no objective standard that a relativist can point to, to say that someone should be tolerant.

At root, this is merely an emotional objection. The person who puts out this objection probably does not want objective morality to be true because it will change their lifestyle. So called, “tolerance” feels better to them, and indeed it is a good quality (Paul thought so), but again, just because it feels good does not mean I ought to be that way.

  1. There are so many different understanding of morals, there cannot be objective morality.

Just because there is widespread disagreement about a particular moral issue, does not mean that truth does not exist. Think of it this way, just because eight students have different answers to a math problem does not mean that a right answer does not exist. Philosopher Dave DeSonier says it best,

“Finally, even if one believes that morals (not just facts or practices) do actually differ between cultures, it does not logically follow that there must be no absolute, objective moral standards that transcend cultures. Just because five independent observers of an automobile accident give very different accounts of the event, it would be false to conclude that there is not an accurate, objective, and true description of what actually occurred.”

 

Even the skeptic David Hume understood this much. He points out,

“the fact that different cultures have different practices no more refutes ethical objectivism than the fact that water flows in different directions in different places refutes the law of gravity.”

 

So we can see, that even though common objective morals might sometimes be hard to find or discover, it does not logically follow that therefore, there are no common objective moral values and duties.

  1. I do not believe in God and I am a moral person. So you are saying that atheists cannot be moral people?

This is NOT at all what objective morality means! Of course, an atheist can be a good moral person. What’s ironic is that I know some atheists who are actually more moral than many Christians! A person does not have to believe in God to be a good person. This is more of an objection of epistemology, or how we know something. The atheist can know morality, but they cannot justify or provide logical grounds for it.

From the Christian worldview, we believe God fabricated a moral code into our DNA (Romans 2:15), other people think we know morality because of evolution. Again, this is a question of how we know something, notwhy I ought to do something. This objection confuses ontology (is there a moral reality) with epistemology (how do we know morality). On the naturalistic atheist worldview, they cannot justify why someone ought to be moral. There is no objective standard for the naturalistic atheist to point to. This objection is just a common misunderstanding of the argument. A simple clarification of what you mean by the moral argument will handle this objection.

As I mentioned earlier, in our “post-truth” society it is inevitable that a Christian will run into one of these objections. As Christians, we have to be prepared to answer these objections and to show that belief in God is rational and reasoned (1 Peter 3:15). What I have seen in dealing with the students in my class who opposed objective morality is that it is more of an emotional problem. As I mentioned in objection three, the students in my class did not want objective morality to exist because it would have to demand a change in their way if living. Hopefully, after reading this, you will be prepared to give a defense of one of the most relatable and fundamental arguments for the existence of God.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2tLqhF5

 


 

Free CrossExamined.org Resource

Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.

Powered by ConvertKit
56 replies
  1. Andy Ryan says:

    “Premise 1: If objective moral values and duties exist then God exists”
    That’s a non sequitur. What’s the connection between objective morality existing and Gid existing?
    Second, never mind swatting objections, where’s your evidence that OM actually exists?

    “Therefore, God exits”
    That’s a funny typo!

    Reply
    • jcb says:

      It looks like 6 days have passed and no one has even tried to give evidence that Objective Morality actually exists. Telling. Andy, your points are usually pretty good. Again you have gotten to the heart of the matter quickly. There seems to be no evidence for objective morality in the the sense needed to prove that god exists.

      Reply
      • Tracey. says:

        …..seems to be no evidence, Exactly.
        Just because you can’t see the air doesn’t mean your not breathing any.
        Seems to be…..uncertainty.
        Morals and God, God and morals, same, same.
        Leave man to he is own devices and, one gets, greed.

        Reply
        • Andy Ryan says:

          “Just because you can’t see the air doesn’t mean your not breathing any”
          Tracey, we can perform many experiments to demonstrate the existence of air. Blow up a balloon. Blow bubbles in water. Can you tell me what experiments demonstrate the existence of objective morality?

          Reply
    • Butch says:

      The connection is simple and it’s a shame you’re blinded to not see it. Without God it’s just your opinion. With God, now you have grounded the morals in something outside yourself. That’s the connection.

      As for your other question; Why is it only relatively wrong to torture babies for fun? I think any honest person knows it’s objectively wrong. Not relatively wrong.

      If you hold it’s only relatively wrong then you have a serious problem that needs checked out! And can’t say anything is wrong. Including raping your daughter and torturing her. You can’t claim anything is evil. Including the God you seem to not believe in.

      Reply
      • Andy Ryan says:

        “The connection is simple and it’s a shame you’re blinded to not see it”
        If you had true confidence in your answer you wouldn’t need to throw in insults about the other person being ‘blinded’.
        “With God, now you have grounded the morals in something outside yourself”
        That torture causes suffering is a fact that is outside myself.
        “If you hold it’s only relatively wrong then you have a serious problem that needs checked out!”
        You’re the one saying that if there’s no God then there’s nothing wrong with torturing a baby for fun. Does that mean you have a serious problem that needs checking out? Can you tell me what measures you have taken to address what you yourself consider to be a ‘serious problem’?
        “As for your other question; Why is it only relatively wrong to torture babies for fun?”
        I didn’t ask that question. I asked “where’s your evidence that OM actually exists?”. Please go ahead and provide evidence that doesn’t amount to suggesting people who deny it exists have a ‘serious problem’.

        Reply
        • Terry Lewis says:

          Hey Andy!

          Thinking someone blinded is not an insult; it’s an assessment of their abilities. Or do you think there’s something insulting about being blind?

          “That torture causes suffering is a fact that is outside myself.”

          True enough… but this is not a moral statement. It says nothing about whether such suffering should or should not be inflicted on another person. What say you about that?

          Reply
  2. Andy Ryan says:

    I made a typo myself! Reminds me a joke I once wrote:
    [In Heaven]
    Me: I can’t believe how much stuff the Bible got wrong
    Gid: You idiots couldn’t even get my Giddamn name right

    Reply
  3. KR says:

    Premise 2 is of course equally problematic. If there are objective moral values, they should be demonstrable facts – yet I’ve never seen such a demonstration. The question I keep asking but never get an answer to is: when people disagree on a moral issue, how do we determine who’s objectively correct?

    Reply
    • Tracey. says:

      You’ve had the answer consistently, but you dedicatedly, choose not to, ‘see,’ for what ever, empirical reason you choose to not, see. Reads, like you want to hand over the responsibility for your, ‘seeing,’ or not, to others. Why?

      Reply
          • KR says:

            I know what my question is, I was asking what answer you were referring to since I can’t remember seeing one.

          • KR says:

            I don’t know about you but I ask questions in order to get answers. I’m funny that way. Now that we have that settled, did you actually have an answer to my question or were you just making small talk?

          • Andy Ryan says:

            Tracey, KR asked a question, you told him it had been answered already, ‘consistently’.
            KR then asked what the answer was and rather than telling him, you said: “the same question you post”.
            KR pointed out that he wanted the ANSWER, not the question. Your response to that was a snarky ‘Oh, so you know the question’.
            This is a rude and unhelpful way of conducting a conversation, and it’s wasting everyone’s time. If you have an answer to the question, give it. If not, admit you don’t.

  4. Bryan says:

    2 Kings 2:23-24New International Version (NIV)

    23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.
    ———————————————————–
    Since the author of “objective morality” sent bears to brutally kill 42 children for teasing a bald guy, then we can conclude that killing people who insult religious leaders (9/11 style if need be) is objectively moral.

    Reply
    • Susan says:

      There were a lot of things you could have taken away from that passage that you didn’t.

      Like words having power.

      Like God having control over nature.

      Like the youths nature being out of order with God’s or they would never have mocked the prophet showing disrespect to God along with the prophet since the prophet is God’s representative on Earth.

      Notice the animals act in accordance with the will of God.

      But a lot of people don’t.

      Do you ever set a cat or a dog objecting to what God says to do?

      Nope. They could be in perfect accord with God’s will but most people aren’t living in perfect accordance with God’s will. Read Genesis. Animals have souls contrary to what some peoole assume.

      In the society of those kids day they should have never said one ill word to a prophet. They were living in a theocracy. Israel made a covenant to obey God so why are some of the Israelites descendants mocking God’s prophet? Weren’t they raised right or were they just rebellious? Why did they feel the need to say anything at all? Did they lack self control or good judgment and if they did why weren’t they perfect and perfectly mannered?

      If you’re not living in accordance with God’s will and God expressed His will mostly through the law in OT times then how are you even peaceful enough in your own mind to even be truly rational? People give into their baser impulses all the time like those youths did.

      Prove these youths weren’t crazy psychopaths.

      Spiritual is higher than rational in my opinion. With a belief in Jesus comes the peace that passes understanding.

      With no personal peace people can get crazy enough to rebel against God. Their own demons can start to control them and they are no longer responsible for their own actions are they?

      Prove these youths didn’t have demons!

      I am sure a more rational person in Elisha’s day would know better than to jeer at a prophet but quite a bit of Israel lacked the gift of the Holy Spirit. That gift wasn’t to come until after the Resurrection.

      Prove that alll the rationality in this world today isn’t of God’s making.

      Prove that all the irrationality in the world today isn’t Satan’s doing.

      Prove that the spiritual doesn’t exist if you can.

      Some atheists don’t reason all that logically. Sam Harris while he derides all religion practices some Buddhism and claims it isn’t even a religiion contrary to the millions of claims of Buddhist practitioners around the world today.

      So who is right? Sam because he wants to practice Buddhism while he hates on religion and claims Buddhism isn’t a religion or the millions of Buddhists who say it is a religion. Some of the Buddhists do have god( s). I found that out recently after being around a group of atheistis who erroneously assumed Buddhism is purely atheistic.

      But it isn’t and a lot of people today are finding flaws in Sam Harris’ logic.
      Apparently he twists logic to suit his own preferences.

      If demons exist or existed then it means some people’s wills are subject sometimes to another’s and that is not God’s or even their own.

      Like I said above prove the evil boys verbally assaulting a prophet were acting out of their own free wills.

      Because if you read the Bible a lot of people operate from evil heart motives and if you think a holy God is obliged to respect people with evil heart motives that He can read then that doesn’t compute.

      Plenty of people don’t respect other people who display evil motives so why would God?

      Where do you draw the line in the world if words have power.

      You can destroy some people’s self esteem if you verbally abuse them regularly so words do have power as do actions.

      Of course, some people draw their self worth from God so you can abuse them repeatedly like Paul was abused in the New Testament and it never stopped him from believing in God. They had to cut his head off to stop him from prophesizing and preaching.

      Reply
        • Susan Tan says:

          I don’t have to. There are still deliverance ministries around today.

          Besides Jesus cast demons out of people.

          I may even have encountered one myself once or twice.

          I saw a woman snap once for a petty offense that she self aggrandized in her own mind and attack another woman almost choking the life out of her. I couldn’t even get her attention or tug her off the woman. It took two full grown men in their prime to do it.

          Isn’t that supernatural strength displayed by the crazed woman?

          Now prove that crazy woman who got triggered into an insanely dangerous act against another person didn’t have a demon.

          Psychiatrists medicate people who could have demons today. The symptoms are treated. The underlying cause is not removed and we just write people off as crazy or as sociopaths or psychopaths or paranoid or schizophrenic.

          Reply
        • Susan says:

          I am just going to pray for you. I am sure most atheists agree that they can love but they just can’t connect that experience to God but God is love.

          When you finally admit you don’t know everything and come to and end of yourself and learn to take direction from God then you will be just fine. See Proverbs 3.

          Reply
          • Andy Ryan says:

            “Where do you think the, Law, Courts, Jury, etc, come from?”
            America took most if not all of that from English common law. Various extra laws about juries have been added since over the centuries, each much debated. But what of it? My point stands regarding blaming things on demons and bad spirits.
            “Logically no you, you being the, ‘me.’ A done deal.”
            No, logically you, you being the you who is answering me and not getting the joke.

          • Susan says:

            Yes, Tracey, some law came from common law and some of it comes from Roman law but some people claim some of the Lost Tribes settled in Europe and made their way all the way to the British Isles.

            There are certain kings that came from Britain that were enslaved at the same time Paul was in Rome and they were Christians so the Church of Rome wasn’t the first church like the popes like to claim or responsible for bringing Christianity to Britain like people assume though some how Rome got in control later. I don’t know all the details of that.

            A very interesting work to read is at giveshare.org called “Judah’s Sceptre and Joseph’s Birthright” by J. H. Allen.

            Also there is a fascinating work called “The U.S. in Biblical Prophecy” by Steven M. Collins.

            Most people don’t know the U.S is in the Bible but it is. Collins shows the symbology on it so have a look. It’s incredible to read it and it is online for free.

            Collins writes a lot on the Lost Tribes of israel.

          • Tracey. says:

            Yes Susan. I know of what you have written. But the Law, is not from England Common Law, or the Jurors-witnesses from there either.
            Andy Ryan.I understand you driving need to be right, regardless of he mis-information, you’ve stated.
            It becomes patently obvious by the emphasis within your word, that your reactionary replies; reading between the lines-parable analysis is how one begins to know the other. So I do not engage in tantrums rhetoric, it’s not an interest and/or appeasing regard.
            The author of this interesting piece, I agree, as Christians we do have to prepare to answer these, curious lopsided excuses, why God doesn’t exist, and morales are just what some have regardless.

      • Bryan says:

        “Do you ever set a cat or a dog objecting to what God says to do?

        Nope.”
        ————————————
        “NIAGARA FALLS, N.Y. (WIVBJune 8, 2017) – A seven-year-old child is being treated after he was attacked by two 150-lbs. Rottweilers in Niagara Falls on Wednesday afternoon.”

        Just doing “God’s” will.

        Reply
        • Susan says:

          Bad example Bryan. Dogs can be trained to attack plus dogs are territorial by nature.

          Also how do you know the child didn’t innocently provoke them or the dogs have rabies?

          Rottweilers aren’t naturally mean. Any more than pit bulls are.

          Reply
          • toby says:

            God allows these things to happen the same way he allows tornadoes to kill a bunch of kids in their elementary school.

  5. Susan says:

    There you go. Sounding off with another tainted source.

    They weren’t children. They were youths old enough to serve in the Army which would be the equivalence of a street gang today and what are they doing verbally assualting God’s prophet?

    A lot of God’s prophets were stoned, sawn in half, etc.

    How do you know what violence they planned for this prophet? Do you have supernatural powers like God to read this street gang’s motives?

    Try getting a good Bible education and stop quoting from tainted sources that validate your own opinions.

    If you can’t see everything that God sees and knows then stop bringing charges against Him.

    How do you know those people weren’t like the Gestapo?

    You don’t. You assume from a superficial reading of the text.

    What are you consulting the atheist rebellion textbook?

    Reply
    • Bryan says:

      I totally agree with you that the Bible is a tainted source.

      I was told by at least two very devoted fundamentalist Christian ministers that the King James version of the Bible is “the only one authorized by God”. So here is what “God” said:
      “And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.” Now when “God” said little children what he really meant was young men ages 18-30. Gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up.

      “If you can’t see everything that God sees and knows…….”

      Yet you claim to know the mind and will of “God”.
       
      “What are you consulting the atheist rebellion textbook?”

      Yes. It’s offical name is “Satan Dawkins Book of Atheist Lies and Deception “.

      Reply
      • Susan Tan says:

        Well we have the scriptures Bryan telling us of God’s intent to save the world.

        I am not a King James Onlyist so I am not going to argue the authority of one version of the Bible over others. Though my opinion could change in the future. One can always change with more information or revelation.

        I would research bible commentaries on it. I came across one interpretation as this:

        Ne’arim often does mean “boys” – it can also refer to youths, & even to adults. As for “little”, qatan also means “insignificant”. So they could have been “insignificant youths”.

        Also was this passage during the time when Elijah was confronting the priests of Baal?

        Baal worshippers were the pagans in the Bible who used to sacrifice children in a fire to their god Baal and some people say Baal was another name for Beezlebub.

        Google:
        Baalbek Temple and Human Sacrifice worship to Baal

        Then go read Jeremiah 19 where God says it was never in His mind for people to sacrifice children in a fire.

        God could have quite a lot of reason for being angry if it turns out these youths were also Baal worshippers.

        It would never occur to me to be suspicious of God’s character so I would be careful of taking up other people’s allegations against God. Especially if they lack ancient language skills and tend to extrapolate out of context.

        Some people really try to understand God and some people don’t want to understand Him.

        Don’t be a victim of people who don’t want to know God’s point of view as accurately as possible.

        Reply
      • Tracey. says:

        Bryan, you will need to cross-reference this, passage, to accumulate the rest of the understanding, ‘nitpicking,’ bit’n’bobs, is, concerning, tactic.
        Bible interprets Bible, the primary author of the Bible, was Tyndale, whom the R.C. slaughter to death, so, question what actually, is a Christian, the book you have quoted form, evenasmuchas, lack clarity, is within the Law-time. So when extracting from the Bible, use, reference so the reader can easily, garner the meaning you wish to convey.
        KJB, Luke, 6:38, “Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.”
        ………..

        Reply
      • Susan says:

        Thanks Tracey, but in all fairness to the atheists I think they have been bigger victims of false prophets and Mystery Babylon than most Christians have been.

        Some of them have such logical minds that all the strange admixture of politics and religions is just too overwhelming for them to comprehend.

        They have a point.. Things don’t add up sometimes when people inspect religion and politics and history so they opt for logic and science which makes more sense to them and allows more of a sense of personal control but I never met anyone yet who had control over all circumstances except the God of the Bible so that control over circumstances is an illusion. History is full of examples of people who were surprised by life. A war or famine can pop up overnight and wipe everyone out even the intellectuals. So control is an illusion. The insurance companies make billions off of people trying to control events but that is an illusion to because they can write exclusions into policies and invent reasons to deny claims.

        Quite a few atheists could be left brain dominant thinkers who tend to over rely on facts and figures to make decisions unlike religious people who are most likely right brained and holistic thinkers.

        So if they don’t get the necessary corrections and instructions they are left in spiritual darkness.

        What they really need is an extraordinarily good Christian education but locating that can be hard or expensive these days especially with other commitments.

        They are quite right. They are expecting Christians to be perfect but it is more accurate to regard Christians as works in progress.
        The hurdles you have to overcome in this life to be a good Christian are not always easy to overcome but the relationship is worth it.

        Christians have both an internal enemy and external enemies to overcome so you definitely have to get into the right spiritual attitude to even attempt to be a Christian these days.

        Like I said the false proohets are everywhere and they especially like to meddle with Christian doctrine and texts and they know to change their appearance like chameleons to fit in while they do their damage to people’s thought lives.

        This is really the End Times and the perseverance of the saints will be mightily tested now. That anyone could make it through the gauntlet of lies, deception and gauntlet of false prophets these days is a testament to just how powerful God is.

        God never said it would be easy. He said just the opposite. We will be sifted like wheat and baptized by fire. So Christianity was never for the faint of heart though if the truth be told God can give us a whole new heart like David requested in Psalm 51 and I know of a couple of people who received whole new natures from God personally. I’ve heard the testimony of others claiming this happened to them, too and witnessed some examples of it from afar so I know God is able to do it. If you do a before and after examination of the lives of the apostles then you can see that acquaintance with Christ changed them, too and that is evidence. That is the kind of evidence that God likes to supply because he didn’t send His Son to prove He created the world. He sent His Son to forgive people so they can receive transformed lives.

        I am starting to think this whole Christian life is God’s spiritual boot camp and that is fine just as long as the good Shepherd brings me through it and Psalm 23 says he will.

        Not many people like the idea of going to bootcamp, do they?

        This world is going to be boot camp full of trials and tests for everyone. It’s just some people have a helper through it and some don’t. Others have only themselves and their human connections to rely on but both of those can fail.

        But God’s love will never fail. He says so in Psalm 118. He walks with us through the trial. He doesn’t remove us from them but he is there alongside us helping us in many ways that it can be hard to recognize. Sometimes he even provides the help before we recognized that we needed it.

        So don’t be too hard on the unbelievers. If you replace your spiritual instincts with a scientific bias then yes you are going to have an even tougher time understanding God than most but nothing is impossible with God. He can even save an obstinate unbeliever especially if the believer experiences a change in attitude towards Him.

        This world is certainly full of existential tests. Some tougher than others but if you can learn to follow the Sermon on the Mount and cast all your cares on Jesus Christ then your burden does miraculously seem lighter.

        Reply
  6. Tracey. says:

    Knowing Christians, who have little or no morals, really is saving they aren’t of the Jesus Christ, Christian, and so this put them into another camp, Jesus was quite clear in His, ways. He told Satan, to not put the Lord God to the test.
    Feet in each camp, is the mother of all confusions.

    Reply
    • Andy Ryan says:

      “Knowing Christians, who have little or no morals”
      I’d disagree with this – I’ve met some Christians who were quite moral, in their own way. Generally the more liberal Christians, of course.

      Reply
      • Tracey. says:

        Thats nice Andy, for you to identify the, ‘type,’ of Christian you will accept and/or tolerate, I suppose some is better than none; or not? hmmm bears thinking about
        But Jesus Christ of Nazareth, didn’t split hairs, hence why he came.

        Reply
        • Andy Ryan says:

          Tracey, it was you who said Christians have little or no morals, not me. I replied that I’ve met Christians who were quite moral. It’s odd that you take issue with me defending Christians from your attack on them.
          As for ‘types of Christian’ that I ‘will accept and/or tolerate’ – I never mentioned such a thing.

          Reply
    • Susan says:

      I consider Christians as people going through a spiritual change who are in a spiritual building process with Christ. Of course, you have the people who are nominal Christians who haven’t made a full fledged pledge to let Christ change them and a lot of people in the world are not fully conscious of the importance and need for a genuine repentance. Some “Christians” are people born into certain families that accept Jesus but they themselves might not have come to the point of a true heart felt repentance yet.

      Repentance is the gift of God and given in God’s timing and sometimes it precedes baptism and sometimes it follows it later.

      In any case a Christian is not required to justify the behavioral failures of nominal Christians who may or may not have repented.

      People have individual autonomy and we don’t control when other people repent we just let other people know it is a requirement of Christianity.

      Do I as a Christian control how well other people practice their faith? I can exhort them all day but in the end people have to decide whether or not they will follow Christ all the way for themselves.

      I believe a lot of Christians have been manipulated by the false doctrines of the Catholic church for a long time now. Chris Pinto shows how it happened in his youtube videos and Dr. Ernest L. Martin gives a scriptural explanation that in the early days of Christianity the Babylonians entered the church through Simon Magus and set up the church in Rome. That is why they wear such elaborate costumes and set up Mary to be venerated because it mimics Babylonian mother earth worship.

      That’s why a battle in Christianity between the Bible believing Christians and the Babylonian influenced Catholics goes all the way back to the early days of church history when they tried to assimilate paganism into Christianity.

      It is also when religious power married political power but why did the popes do that? Christ said my kingdom is not of this world. He could have easily set himself up as king of Israel. That is what the Israelites wanted. A ruler to throw off the worldly yoke of the Roman Empire but he didn’t instead he went to the Cross to die for the sin of the world and enable His people’s spiritual births.

      Other people’s blindness and finger pointing at the failure of unrepentant Christians has no bearing on the truth. It just means those people haven’t learned to reason critically from the scriptures.

      The carnal mind is enmity towards God and unfortunately for us today a lot of carnally minded people like to attach itself to the church to serve their own purposes.

      Read “Wicked Popes! ” by Henry Hallley. It is a catalog of the wrongs of the popes some of whom were not spiritual minded at all.

      This world still likes to attack and kill the most spiritual minded. It always has but that will change. We do have a one thousand year reign coming and hopefully soon.

      The Inquisition was the carnally minded people in the church’s weapon against those that opposed them or refused to acknowledge their authority and these people, the wolves in sheep clothing, are still around today but they have changed their tactics and instead of outright torture use more deceptive means to gain entry into Christian flocks. They have done a lot of damage too even though it may have backfired on them and instead of people rejoining Catholicism submitting to the pope they are further fracturing Christianity and setting up cults and engaging in progressive Christianity. That is the consequence of sowing a false doctrine among people.

      That’s why Wycliffe and Tyndale and Luther and other early church reformers all said the pope was the antichrist.

      So futuristic prophecy which the popes launched through a Jesuit named Ribera has now gotten sown into Protestant Christian circles through the work of John Nelson Darby in the 1800s but futurism actually goes back even further to Ribera in the 1500s.

      So we had the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation and the Counter-Reformation is still going on today. In the early days it was the Inquisition and Bloody Mary but it hasn’t stopped as people assume. The Babylonianish Catholic Church is still seeking worldwide dominance because “catholic” means universal. So the carnal Christians, the carnal Muslims and the carnal Jew are all still trying to dominate the world with their belief systems.

      So only a true seeker is going to figure this out especially now with all the propaganda around today. There are too many voices and opinions and camps….so in my opinion the only one who is going to find God’s truth today is the one who can turn all these worldly opinions off and go seek the truth for himself.

      Every person writing is doing so from his own heart motive and shouldn’t you be suspicious of the heart motives of people that you can’t validate or meet in person? Even if you meet them in person it is still hard to validate a heart motive.

      So be a true seeker which the Bible calls a Berean and then you can track down all the lies and start to suit from error.

      God is really the only one that isn’t infected by evil heart motives is He if we can judge by Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross.

      For God to have an evil heart motive as some atheists like to claim they have to make a false attribute to Him themselves. They never give Him the benefit of the doubt and that stems from their own heart motives, too.
      People project onto other people their own motives sometimes.

      A Christian doesn’t project evil heart motives onto God. We are the realists not the delusionists that atheism makes us out to be. We are fully aware that all the evil is going on down here because people do suffer from all kinds of motivational problems.

      So what is God’s solution to this motivational problem? He scraps our old nature and plants the seed of a whole new nature in us then lets us tend to it.

      Some people are better tenders than others though.

      Reply
  7. Susan says:

    TOBY
    August 4, 2017 at 8:35 am
    God allows these things to happen the same way he allows tornadoes to kill a bunch of kids in their elementary school.

    I can’t control the world and neither can you but I can trust God is in control and working out all things for my good and for everyone else’s.

    I don’t know why you want to be a blamer, complainer and a faultfinder.

    I am trying to learn to not be any of that but that is where you find yourself in apologetics. In the middle of people who are content to be blamers, complainers and faultfinders.

    Why don’t you give all that up and let Jesus build the mind of Christ in you.

    Jesus didn’t complain once while carrying the Cross after the world subjected him to a supernaturally hard beating.

    Read the Hebrews whining and complaining in the Wilderness in the Old Testament and contrast that with Jesus and the apostles after the day of Pentecost in Acts 2.

    That is a whole new nature for people to review and receive.

    But if you keep objecting and taking offense for imaginary affronts then how can you receive Jesus who delivers a new nature to people.

    Stop arguing and start studying. You can verify the Bible by comparing it to the current world and study the testimony of people before and after they received Jesus.

    God didn’t send Jesus to prove origins. He sent Jesus to save us and make a difference in us.

    If you want to be a blamer and faultfinding complainer go ahead but I never liked myself when I was like that. I would rather be more stoic and not take stuff out on people. It gives them issues when you do that and that is irresponsible.

    Children know it when you whine and complain and can copy you.

    Do you really think you should be teaching children to whine and complain?

    Reply
  8. toby says:

    Why don’t you give all that up and let Jesus build the mind of Christ in you.
    What are you talking about? “Let Jesus run your mind! You don’t need that free will he gave you!”
    Jesus didn’t complain once while carrying the Cross after the world subjected him to a supernaturally hard beating.
    “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
    Stop arguing and start studying.
    Do you really think that, I, a forty year old man, living in America, and comes here to discuss and debate apologetic arguments, haven’t studied any of this or heard nearly every facet of theistic claptrap? All you want is for nonbelievers like me to hit the reset button, give up all credulity and thought, and let the brainwashing sweep us away. You have given up your mind to mystic obfuscations. You want us to believe before we believe so that we can believe.
    Do you really think you should be teaching children to whine and complain?
    Insulting folks as being whiners and complainers does nothing to give your screeds credence. I’m sorry if you believe that thinking and questioning your beliefs is whining and complaining.

    Reply
    • Susan says:

      Mystic obfuscation. That is where the real thinking is done. Get into the scripture and really think until the obfuscation lifts.

      I don’t think Jesus was complaining. He didn’t curse God did he?

      Take that passage as a meditative exercise and think about who Jesus was and what it signifies.

      Don’t argue it. Meditate on it. You might even consider praying to God for enlightenment. Just turn it around in your mind like a rubex cube over and over and if you get frustrated call out to God.

      The Lord gives wisdom (sophia), from his face come knowledge (gnosis) and understanding (sunesis)”

      — Proverbs 2.6

      If you have all this time to devote to think up arguments that time is better applied in meditating on and digesting the scriptures.

      That is the way one starts to become a man approved by God.

      You have been spiritually fasting for too long so you may have atrophied your spiritual insight from lack of use.

      That is why you are substituting these worldly ideas in their place.

      You’re going to have to put yourself on a daily spiritual reading regimen if you hope to see any spiritual,results.

      Start listening to spiritual music while you are at it. Some of the best sermons and descriptions of existential problems and states are in songs.

      Prince said God lifted a spirit of heaviness off him when he put on the garment of praise.

      Are you really willing to deny Prince’s testimony to deny God?

      You might need God to lift a spirit of heaviness off you some day.

      Hope this helps!😊

      Reply
        • Susan says:

          Not a troll at all. I just tend to perceive arguments against God as complaints like in court cases where plaintiffs bring complaints.

          This whole world reminds me a lot of a court proceeding in process at times and God is the Final Judge so why are you arguing against the Judge? Isn’t that contempt of court?

          God loves everyone all the time. Including you.

          May His Grace Abound to You! And may you actually learn to deliberate and meditate in a godly manner as per Psalm 1.

          Reply
        • Susan says:

          You didn’t really expect to encounter people of the same persuasion as yourself on a Christian board did you?

          You’re the troll. This blog comments section isn’t dedicated to arguing even if Sean McDowell is an apologist.

          I enjoy interacting with Tracey and the other Christians for a change. If I wanted to engage an atheist I would pop over on one of forums and blogs like I have in the past.

          Reply
  9. Thomas says:

    I’m not sure if this post is being actively monitored but I feel I should leave a comment anyways. While the objections you listed may be the most common, you are correct in asserting there ineffectiveness in overturning the claim of objective morality. I have never met an atheist who would use these claims in an argument, and therefore find it personally hard to believe that these are the fundamental objections of atheists to objective morality.
    Allow me to posit a two pronged objection. The first goes something like this: since you have made the positive assertion that objective morality exists, the burden of proof lies on you to prove its existence. Essentially, the only evidence I have read is that morality “feels” objective. We all make moral claims as if we were appealing to some objective moral standard, and we would certainly all agree that what the Nazi’s did was wrong, whether or not they had won the war and spread there propaganda convincing us all of the there ideology, and killing and torturing babies is certainly wrong everywhere and all the time….. The possible list of examples is endless. However, you still have not provided any positive evidence. Just because something looks one way, feels one way, or behaves one way, does not necessarily mean that it is that way. An example may better clarify what I mean.
    The computer on which I am typing this out certainly looks solid, feels solid, and acts solid. If I were to bang my head against the keys (which I will refrain from as I rather like my computer), I would get a headache, as if this computer were entirely solid. However, physics has demonstrated that the vast majority of my computer, and in fact, all matter, is empty space. The distance between the nucleus and the orbiting electrons is rather large, and the vast majority of the entire atom is filled with nothing.
    Now, for the second prong of my objection. Biology, chemistry, and even physics have all converged to give us evidence of our human ancestry. It is now painfully scientifically obvious that humanity evolved from simpler forms. This evolution gave almost all of us working eyes, ears, hearts, lungs, and even a brain. I say almost all because there are a select few group of people who are born with underdeveloped or malfunctioning organs of some sort (blindness, arhythmic heart beats and the like). Isn’t it entirely possible that evolution also gave almost all of us a sense of morality? Perhaps this is why almost all of humanity can agree that genocide is bad, murder is wrong, killing and torturing babies unimaginably immoral. However, we would be able to expect that a certain number of people (as in the previous, organic cases) would have a defective sense of morality. And in fact we do see this in reality. Psychopaths, sociopaths, and an array of other mentally ill people can be seen (though not always) to be suffering from a defective sense of morality.
    Curious to hear any thoughts or answers to my objections, though I understand if the author has ceased monitoring this particular post .

    Reply
    • Susan says:

      While I won’t argue anything Thomas try googling “infanticide” on wikipedia. Infanticide was commonly practiced throughout the world until Judaism and later Christianity put a stop to it. So people didn’t agree killing babies was bad. The ancient Greeks were known to leave babies to die on hilltops and the Vikings practiced infanticide particularly gender selective infanticide. Even in recent times in China with a one child policy in effect and a traditional preference there for male children a lot of girl babies were aborted causing a shortage of women parters for tens of millions of young men in China.

      Look at those facts. It could change your assumptions.

      Reply
  10. Susan says:

    Objective! Subjective! Blah! Those are just words that define concepts but most people have built their lives around ideas that need to be deconstructed.

    That is what repentance is. True repentance is when you realize you have constructed a life on a pack of lies like a house of cards and that sooner or later that house will fall….

    So you repent. Take the whole house of cards out yourself and start over on God given foundational principles building a whole new life and house.

    Until you can do that you are just living in a playhouse. Most people live in play houses trying to escape this world but living a godly life is serious business.

    I don’t even know why anyone entertains an atheist’s ideas at all once they repent….A truly repentant Christian knows atheism, skepticism and unbelief is a pack of lies….

    But it takes time for repentance to set in on some people….Enough repentance for someone to know to re-dedicate themselves to core principles so they can have an actual relationship with God.

    I would take a consistent God over an inconsistent man any day and I have known a lot of inconsistent men who seemed to have been troubled by all sorts of evil spirits.

    But Christ. He wasn’t troubled. He took authority over trouble and everyone whomstayed with him knew they were hanging around perfect love, joy and peace and Christ told His followers to go out and share that with everybody.

    But they had to,run into the skeptics, the philosophers, the false proohets, etc. Everyone of those people doubters who had to test and destroy thenlove, joy and peace before it was even tried out, tested or delivered to people.

    So keep your high minded philosophical ideas to yourself atheists. You know nothing because you never had the nerve to take God at His word and try Him out.

    Keep your vain philosophy and your bunk ideas, too.

    You don’t want to be spiritually reborn again but want to deconstruct my spiritual birth….You can all go to h-e-l-l….except I know you aren’t going there except you are already there in your own thinking and stinking ways.

    Christ came to set everybody staright but you refused him.

    So you get what you settled for….lack of love, joy and peace for philosophical games and banal carnality.

    I don’t play the games any more because I already constructed a better life patterned after Christ’s. Not nearly as perfectly as I would like with my overly perfectionistic tendencies but a life just the same….try denying I exist atheists.

    I am God’s proof….

    Try denying God’s proof now….to satisfy your angry, empty existential heads.

    If you could shut your own heads and hearts long enough to take direction from God you wouldn’t be so angry and empty but you have been running angry and empty so long now that you don’t reason so well.

    Thanks for reading you atheistic bellyachers…God hates whiners and complainers and we certainly have plenty of those people in the human race and more than our fair share of them hanging out in philosophy.

    They come to philosophy to fill themselves….but instead dine on vain, evil ideas.

    When God provides the sumptuous fare of the best life changing ideas….they protest…look for reasons to find fault with God. Are they even in their right minds when they do that?

    Examine youselves atheists….what crap ideas have you been mentally dining on and continuously entertaining in your own heads. Can you even recognize a weak substitute in your own head valuations any more?

    If you are going to doubt and make an idol out of doubt atheists then doubt yourselves and your own scale of weights in your head.

    If your heart motives are bad then the weights in your head may already be rigged in favor of skepticism so you can never weigh the evidence or the arguments fairly and objectively.

    Thanks for reading sinners. May God grace you with th gift of repentance so you will stop giving false readings and values to others and actually be able to start over with a clean slate in this lifetime.

    -Susan Tan

    Reply
  11. jcb says:

    Susan,
    Honestly, you write a lot, but say little in the way of responding to previous posts (like Thomas’), or in the way of giving evidence for the important, vital claims of these subjects (like evidence for Objective Morality).
    You didn’t respond at all to Thomas’ assertion, and his assertion still stands: there seems to be no evidence for an Objective Morality that has anything to do with god. You seem to suggest that if one considers infanticide that will help here, but it won’t. Nothing about infanticide proves god.
    You talk about repentance: none of what you say is evidence for the issues discussed here. None of it proves god. It’s like this: the atheists say: I don’t see the evidence for the claims of these theists! Susan says: Repent! That’s a pretty silly response on your part, and offers nothing in the way of evidence to show that the atheist is wrong, or that the theist is right.
    People entertain atheists because they (often) offer evidence. Why anyone would entertain your non-evidenced assertions is much more hard to fathom.
    Assertions that are prima facie false: “A truly repentant Christian knows atheism…is a pack of lies”. It’s childish to say “nuh uh!” to atheism, rather than maturely offer reasons and evidence for your assertions.
    If you wish to remain with a closed mind, that’s your business. Telling atheists to keep their ideas to themselves is not. If you don’t want to read those ideas, go elsewhere (or simply don’t read them).
    Atheists appear to know something when they offer evidence. You appear to know nothing when you offer no evidence.
    Did you really just say ‘atheists can go to hell?’ Trying to get on God’s good side, eh?
    Susan, you exist, but god does not. They aren’t the same. (Is this an indication that you have a god complex?) You are not god, nor are you evidence of god.
    You say that atheists don’t reason well. If only you would/could show it! A kind, loving (“Christian-ly”?) person would at least try.
    God hates nothing; god does not exist, remember?
    Yes, everyone: I don’t know why I bother. The Andy Ryan’s and such seem much wiser than me: they don’t even bother to reply to theists who say nothing in the way of evidence. That’s probably the wiser course.
    If anyone actually cares to give evidence, please do. As for the rest, don’t bother: you are just wasting time.

    Reply
    • Susan says:

      JCB I am sorry for having offended you but I am getting way too busy these days and could continue to be in the forseeable future for an indeterminate time. I may be able to return but maybe not as my computer wifi will be dismantled soon and I will be on the road.

      You’re on an evidentialist site so maybe you could write the moderators of the blog for evidence. I believe Sean McDowell’s father wrote a well know book on evidence for God called “Evidence that Demands A Verdict” but I haven’t read it.

      Like I said I used to locate evidence but locating it is not the problem. The problem is interpreting it. Since we are more than likely going tomargue over the interpretations and arguing me any more why not bring it up with someone interested in the question. I have already been there done that and I am increasingly interested in charity work these days. I already did the apologetics-gospel thing for a dozen year and I may be off either to work in some kind of mission charity if I don’t start a church.

      So peace be with you. I am really both an evidentialist and a presuppositionalist but I prefer presuppositionalism. I believe it is more in line with the scriptures. You can reason towards a belief in the scriptures using man’s reason with the evidence (evidentialism) or you can reason along with God in the scriptures and that is presuppositionalism. I am a bad and sloppy philosopher so I always preferred reasoning along with God whenever possible.

      A lot of cross fighting occurs because of these two reasoning methods.

      So have fun locating an evidentialist JCB. Have at it….enjoy your evidence. I would rather relax and enjoy the relationship with God. That is all the evidence I need.

      Peace Be With You!

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *