A concept of objective morality is not necessarily a good thing. It can be harmful.

[Carrikature]

My own moral position about what? Please be specific Carrikature because honestly you lost me.

This:

No I haven't avoided the chimps - I said I had no opinion on that, and in my last post I said this: And as far as the chimps, I have not personally worked through animal violence/suffering from a Christian perspective.

[Carrikature]

Thanks for your patience both to you and Teallaura.

You are correct - "Terminology is kind of important, and it's easily glossed over, ... "Absolute objective morality" is two things."

So your quibbles are important.

I do get annoyed then people try to kid me that their moral evaluations are from God and hence their assertions should be taken on face value, all the while they avoid questions, goof up on concepts, argue from ignorance, and make lots of mistakes.

This is one of the messy aspects of these discussions, and apologetics in general. You can't assert that the position is false merely because of its proponents, but it's hard to take the position seriously when its proponents behave in a certain way. A God-given objective morality could very well exist. The standard claim would be that humans remain fallible and unable to fully grasp it, let alone embody it. How then to assess the existence of the morality? One could argue towards a general principle, but the non-theist can do the same using a sort of virtue ethics with naturalism. Another could argue that such a morality requires an authority, but then we have to assess the existence of the authority and/or its nature. I'm satisfied to say we can't know, but then I've no need to worry about eternal consequences for my actions. Were I a theist, not knowing would not be good enough. In fact, that's how I got to where I am now.

[seer]

This:

Well yes I had no moral opinion on what the chimps did, but I did have an opinion on what the Europeans did. Whether I label what the chimpanzees did as amoral or immoral does not undermine my position, nor does it help yours. The question still remains the same for the atheist: why call one natural act immoral and not the other natural act? Apart from an arbitrary designation.

[seer]

You stated your assumption thus: The bible is God's revealed word.

As you are no doubt aware, many people who accept that very same assumption disagree with you about what the Bible teaches about many things, including morality. Can you show me, without making any additional assumptions, why I should think your understanding of the Bible is the correct understanding?

Well no, nor do I need to. You said a "single assumption never has any consequences." And that is not correct.

[rwatts]

Our value does depend on the whims of men.

It depends on the whim of God and what fallible humans decide about the whims of God.

What are you talking about - I don't believe that Mao or Stalin were doing God's will.

I'm not interested in your opinions about God here. How do you know they were not doing God's will?

God's moral will is reflected in the teaching of Christ and the New Testament in general. These men were not following these principles.

But you claimed that no matter what God does, if he does it then it is good and just. So how can you decide that Mao and Stalin were not following God's will. By your reasoning it is good no matter what.

Besides, surely God's will is defined by more than just the NT.

Again, I will try one more time. In my world there are objectively correct ethical answers, even if we don't always understand them correctly. In your world there can be no objectively correct ethical answers - only personal or collective opinion, which can never be more correct or valid than its opposite.

All I get is opinion from you seer, which you simply assert comes from God.

Well your assertion is wrong.

Besides, your claims illustrate the point of the OP title. If every thing you do is God's will, then all the bad things you do are God's will. That is, your objective morality can indeed be harmful. It's just that you label it "God's will" and to bad those who suffer for it.

[Carrikature]

Well yes I had no moral opinion on what the chimps did, but I did have an opinion on what the Europeans did. Whether I label what the chimpanzees did as amoral or immoral does not undermine my position, nor does it help yours. The question still remains the same for the atheist: why call one natural act immoral and not the other natural act? Apart from an arbitrary designation.

It does undermine your position, actually. You approach the question from a presumption of moral superiority, claiming that yours can distinguish where mine cannot. To then stipulate that you have yet to make a distinction dissolves your presumed position of superiority. You then compound the error by insisting on making the same claims again and again.

[seer]

It does undermine your position, actually. You approach the question from a presumption of moral superiority, claiming that yours can distinguish where mine cannot. To then stipulate that you have yet to make a distinction dissolves your presumed position of superiority. You then compound the error by insisting on making the same claims again and again.

You missed my point Carrikature, it wasn't that you couldn't distinguish between the two events, but that there was no rational reason to do so. What the chimpanzees did was amoral in my worldview, they are not morally responsible beings created in the image of God. When I said I have no opinion on their behavior that has to do with animal suffering /violence in general. Was animal suffering due to an demonic influence that twisted nature early on, or was it the way God created nature, with temporal suffering leading to a good end? So when rwatts asked if what the chimps did was a good or bad thing, was it God's will - on that I have no answer. I have never, ever seen animals as morally responsible beings.

[Doug Shaver]

And that is not correct.

You say so.

Can you show me, without making any additional assumptions, why I should think your understanding of the Bible is the correct understanding?

Well no, nor do I need to.

Why not? Am I supposed to believe it just because you say so?

[seer]

You say so.

What? If the bible is the word of God how doesn't a myriad of things follow? That God exists, what is the nature of man, objective moral law, the fate of humanity, non-subjective purpose and meaning for our existence, the reality of sin, the avenue for redemption, the possibility for everlasting life, the possibility of hell, etc... These all flow from my initial assumption.

Why not? Am I supposed to believe it just because you say so?

No, here I'm just answering your claim that only one thing can flow from my presupposition. That is not correct.

[Doug Shaver]

What? If the bible is the word of God how doesn't a myriad of things follow?

Because what follows from that assumption depends on one's method of interpretation, and the assumption does not state which method is to be used.

I'm just answering your claim that only one thing can flow from my presupposition.

I never made that claim.

[seer]

Because what follows from that assumption depends on one's method of interpretation, and the assumption does not state which method is to be used.

And again, it is not necessary. For instance, if my if my initial presupposition is true then it logically follows that God exists. Disagreements on specific interpretations would not change that. But for this argument I'm not going to get into hermeneutics.

I never made that claim.

Yes, I misread you, you said:A single assumption never has any consequences.

I still disagree, my single assumption certainly would have consequences.

[Doug Shaver]

if my initial presupposition is true then it logically follows that God exists.

No, your presupposition asserts God's existence. You cannot affirm that the Bible is God's word without at the same time affirming that God exists.

Yes, you can argue, "The Bible is God's word, therefore God exists." But it would be otiose to argue, "The Bible is God's word, and the Bible says God exists, therefore God exists."

Disagreements on specific interpretations would not change that. But for this argument I'm not going to get into hermeneutics.

This argument is not about God's existence. It is about morality. You cannot tell me what the Bible says about morality without assuming some hermeneutical method.

[Carrikature]

You missed my point Carrikature, it wasn't that you couldn't distinguish between the two events, but that there was no rational reason to do so.

However much you insist otherwise, this claim has been shown false time and again. There are plenty of rational reasons to do so.

[rwatts]

However much you insist otherwise, this claim has been shown false time and again. There are plenty of rational reasons to do so.

Indeed.

Event 1
Doug Shaver wrote a post.

Event 2
You wrote a post.

My rational reason for distinguishing the two events is that I can read "Doug Shaver" at the top of one post and "Carrikature" at the top of the other post.

Seer appears not to think my reasoning is rational.

The assertion of an objective basis for reasoning seems to make some folk irrational.

[Tassman]

But you are the one demanding "evidence" Tass. So until you offer a non-arbitrary definition of "evidence" we can't even get off the ground. I'll be waiting...

YOU1. Human beings are not biological accidents. We have inherent value.

2. Our best moral sense is not merely a quirk of biology, but actually ties into something eternal and permanent.

3. The universe we live in is not ultimately unjust and amoral.

Why would anyone believe these assertions just on your say so?

What are you taking about Carrikature? I said what the Europeans did was clearly morally wrong. Violating of the teachings of Christ and the NT in general. And from the atheistic point of view you certainly can assert that what the Europeans did was wrong from your relative cultural position but in the evolutionary sense it was no different in kind from what the chimps did. So now we come along and overlay a moral judgement on the Europeans but not what the chimpanzees did - when in both cases its just animals doing what animals do.

Not quite. The chimpanzees are doing what chimpanzees do whereas the human animal, because of its higher intelligence, has been able to develop a more nuanced moral code better suited for its survival.