Keith

First I'll answer your question. Yes, it can be said that the morality of God is NOT subjective. And without an absolute reference point for morality, your morality will be subjective.

If a human being hasn't always existed, why is human life suddenly the "ultimate value" once a person is born? Is this equally true for dogs and cats? Why is it morally wrong to deprive an individual of life--and thus all values? How do you know that all humans are bound by this standard?

Keith

Are the American people, who have "beat out" scores of individual rights, superior in some way to, say, the North Korean people, who have not "beat out" very many individual rights?

Keith

Keith

No, actually I don't. I know that human life is worth more than fungus life because God has told us through his written word that we were made in his image, and that we are to have dominion over the plants, animals and the whole earth.

What is it that tells you axiomatically that human life is worth more than fungi?

Keith

Keith Russell

Keith:

I accept it as axiomatic that I, as a human being, would (and should) value human life more than fungal life.

I also accept it as axiomatic that, if fungi could value, they would value their own kind, more than they would (or should) value my kind.

Do you see any need to take this any further than the above?

Keith.

Keith

I can. God has made his personal qualities (such as justice) clearly known through his written word. On your worldview, how is it possible for anyone to know what is just/unjust? If Saddam wants to gas his Kurdish population away, how can anyone say (objectively) that this would be unjust?

Keith

Keith Russell

Keith:

As far as 'God has told us through his written work', that's quite an assumption.

You've been told that the Bible is the written word of 'God', but I sincerely doubt that the claim has been supported by much valid evidence--

--let alone, of course, anything resembling proof.

Keith Russell.

Keith

Yes, there is a very urgent and practical reason to take this further. What if an animal-rights terrorist group organized for the purpose of killing as many human beings as possible. The animal-rights terror group wishes to protect animals, plants, and the earth itself from human manipulation and contamination. Under this scenario, how can you say that the animal-rights terrorists are morally wrong if they manage to kill your whole family?

Keith

Keith

Your assumption is that we can't know that the bible is actually God's word. That, itself, is quite an assumption.

You have your evidence and I have mine. Now we need to figure out who's interpretation of the evidence is most sensible. But we can't can we? The reason we can't decide who's interpretation of the evidence is most sensible is because we are both evaluating the evidence from opposing worldviews. Our objectivity is not very reliable. We each know IN ADVANCE what we will believe the evidence is telling us.

The way I can demonstrate that my worldview can be trusted is to show you that on your own assumptions, nothing makes sense--reality is completely arbitrary and meaningless.

Keith

Keith Russell

Keith:

If the reality that your 'God' made is arbitrary and meaningless unless one believes in your view of 'God', how does adding such a belief in God change the observable nature of reality into something purposeful and meaningful?

Or, do you truly believe that you and I are really observing two vastly different realities--one which your 'God' made purposeful, and the other which truly is arbitrary?

Or do you really believe that 'God' is nothing but an opinion, a 'worldview', as you put it?

Keith Russell.

Philosoft

Certainly, God may have done this. It might be true that the Bible is partially, or entirely, the objective word of God. But you have no way to demonstrate this.
I've already said I don't believe morality is objective. Therefore, I make just/unjust judgements based on my subjective moral framework, to the extent that I can provide a good reason why the Kurds shouldn't be gassed.

You continue to call your theistic morality "objective" but you have yet to explain how it is so. Are you not subject to the moral decisions made by God? Is it not possible God might have made moral standards different from what they are?