Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

[seer]

So it follows, then, that my lack of capacity is god's responsibility. I can do squat until god decides to do something.

No not all, according to Scripture the work of Holy Spirit is universal, as is the law of God written on our hearts. But we can reject these promptings - as you have done, at least so far. But there is always hope...

But yet there is a strong theme of "if you require evidence, you lack faith," is there not. The entire Thomas story conveys exactly that message, does it not? As I noted, theism does not abandon reason, it circumscribes it to what is acceptable - and requiring evidence for beliefs is considered a "lesser" form of faith, encouraging, at least to some degree, "blind" faith.

Well I don't know about that since I believe that all men intuitively know God (Rom.1) and what one considers "evidence" or the weight one gives to evidence - I have found to be quite subjective and varied. As far as Biblical faith Carp - what can a man give a God who has everything but his trust? Himself?

So we come back again to, God has to do something. Apparently, I will "lack capacity" until that happens. Do you see how convenient it is for a religion to put forward this position. It immediately identifies all of those outside of the faith as "other," and "other" very quickly becomes "lesser." Indeed, defining individuals as "other" is the first step on the path to some pretty ugly things.

That doesn't follow Carp. If a man understands Scripture he realizes that we are all in the same boat - sinners. I am no better than you, as a matter of fact, you may be a more moral man than me. I know atheists who are. The only difference between you and me is that I took hold of the life line of the Gospel. Something that is also offered to you.

No. Your beliefs are your business. I am merely pointing out their inconsistency. It was those inconsistencies that eventually led me away from Catholicism, Christianity, and ultimately theism. When I had an experience that taught me how easily we can be self-deceived, I set out (as I think I mentioned) to root out those deceptions, believing them to be a possible obstacle in my relationship with god. Eventually, I began to see and pay attention to inconsistencies like the one we have been discussing. It was in exploring those inconsistencies that I uncovered more and more of them, and began to see a pattern. That pattern eventually led me away from those beliefs to the ones I hold now. It was not an easy journey. It was one I often found myself feeling regret about. 30 years later, I think I probaably feel the same way about my beliefs that you do: comfortable and at peace. I do not stop questioning/challenging, and I do not stop listening to people who hold different beliefs. But I am certainly not the "angry atheist" I was when I first realized I was one.

Carp I think you are pretty set in your beliefs, beliefs that I held most of my adult life. And where exactly was I inconsistent?

[carpedm9587]

No not all, according to Scripture the work of Holy Spirit is universal, as is the law of God written on our hearts. But we can reject these promptings - as you have done, at least so far. But there is always hope...

So I need to let go of my need for adequate evidence, and then I'll be open to this god?

Well I don't know about that since I believe that all men intuitively know God (Rom.1) and what one considers "evidence" or the weight one gives to evidence - I have found to be quite subjective and varied. As far as Biblical faith Carp - what can a man give a God who has everything but his trust? Himself?

I do not think of it in terms of "giving" anything. I think of it in terms of what I do and do not require to accept an idea or proposition as "true" in my worldview. I am not "closed" to the idea of god, so perhaps, by your rules, I am actually capable of understanding. However, because I have not encountered compelling evidence to show such a being exists, and I HAVE encountered compelling evidence that such a being is a creation of human imagination, I currently do not believe there is such a god. As I said, I continually question. If/when that situation changes, my beliefs will change as well.

That doesn't follow Carp. If a man understands Scripture he realizes that we are all in the same boat - sinners. I am no better than you, as a matter of fact, you may be a more moral man than me. I know atheists who are. The only difference between you and me is that I took hold of the life line of the Gospel. Something that is also offered to you.

You begin with a premises I do not share, Seer. For you, Scripture is the source of truth (I think?). For me it is a book written by men telling the story of the development of a religion, from the perspective of those within the religion, over a period of some 1,600 years. It has no more "authority" for me than the Quran, the Vedas, the Tripitaka, or any other religion's holy book. Until I have cause to believe I should think of it differently, that is not likely to change.

Carp I think you are pretty set in your beliefs, beliefs that I held most of my adult life. And where exactly was I inconsistent?

We have actually seen a few places, Seer. We saw it in our discussion of ethics, where you continually challenged subjective moral codes as "unreal," (and I don't think you meant they had no existence, I think you meant they lacked, I am struggling for a word here, import? value? It's hard to know what word to use because your statement was essentially a tautology), but then trwated other subjective things in your life as if they were very much real/important/valuable. The one we are looking at here is the ideas you hold that someone like me is "blind" and lacks the capacity to understand, yet you continue to discuss your god with me, explain your beliefs, outline concepts rooted in your god, as if I actually COULD understand. Why are you doing this?

[seer]

So I need to let go of my need for adequate evidence, and then I'll be open to this god?

Well first, like I said, what we consider evidence is often rather subjective and not applied uniformly. Second, like I also said, it is not an evidential problem but a moral and spiritual problem. As the saying goes: "No gods no masters..."

I do not think of it in terms of "giving" anything. I think of it in terms of what I do and do not require to accept an idea or proposition as "true" in my worldview. I am not "closed" to the idea of god, so perhaps, by your rules, I am actually capable of understanding. However, because I have not encountered compelling evidence to show such a being exists, and I HAVE encountered compelling evidence that such a being is a creation of human imagination, I currently do not believe there is such a god.

As I said, I continually question. If/when that situation changes, my beliefs will change as well

.

As long as you have breath there is hope...

You begin with a premises I do not share, Seer. For you, Scripture is the source of truth (I think?). For me it is a book written by men telling the story of the development of a religion, from the perspective of those within the religion, over a period of some 1,600 years. It has no more "authority" for me than the Quran, the Vedas, the Tripitaka, or any other religion's holy book. Until I have cause to believe I should think of it differently, that is not likely to change.

Right and Jesus came back from the grave to confirm His claims... Did you ever ask yourself Carp how a backwater carpenter, with a handful of followers, with a mere three years in the public eye, became arguably the most important man of human history?

We have actually seen a few places, Seer. We saw it in our discussion of ethics, where you continually challenged subjective moral codes as "unreal," (and I don't think you meant they had no existence, I think you meant they lacked, I am struggling for a word here, import? value? It's hard to know what word to use because your statement was essentially a tautology), but then trwated other subjective things in your life as if they were very much real/important/valuable. The one we are looking at here is the ideas you hold that someone like me is "blind" and lacks the capacity to understand, yet you continue to discuss your god with me, explain your beliefs, outline concepts rooted in your god, as if I actually COULD understand. Why are you doing this?

No, this is about my religious beliefs, which you were referencing. Where exactly was I inconsistent there? And remember Carp, you and me and not the only ones watching this thread.

[carpedm9587]

Well first, like I said, what we consider evidence is often rather subjective and not applied uniformly. Second, like I also said, it is not an evidential problem but a moral and spiritual problem. As the saying goes: "No gods no masters..."

I am always open to someone pointing out when my evidentiary criteria shifts without justification. I cannot claim I am immune to the effect, but I can claim I am always on the lookout for it. So hopefully, it is at a minimum. Unfortunately, we disagree on the later point; I am not going to adopt a belief for which the evidence is inadequate or, worse yet, runs counter to the belief. IMO, such a way of accepting/rejecting beliefs makes no sense. I have no idea what that quote means.

As long as you have breath there is hope...

And you've just identified one of the many inconsistencies I find in Christianity...

Right and Jesus came back from the grave to confirm His claims... Did you ever ask yourself Carp how a backwater carpenter, with a handful of followers, with a mere three years in the public eye, became arguably the most important man of human history?

Many times. I think you will probably not like what I have concluded.

No, this is about my religious beliefs, which you were referencing. Where exactly was I inconsistent there?

I just gave you the two places where I have noted "inconsistency" in our discussion thus far, Seer. I am not aware of noting or commenting on others (yet).

And remember Carp, you and me and not the only ones watching this thread.

Oh I am fairly sure there are some lurkers out there.

I'm frankly amazed they have not jumped in.

[JimL]

No Jim, just because His moral Character can not change does not mean that He can't act in various way. I mean would you prefer it if He could and did lie at will?

No, not according to your definition, nothing about your god can change, he's eternally omniscient and immutable, has knowledge of all of time, from alpha to omega. What could possibly change? Not a single thing.

[Tassman]

How do I know that you really don't hate her and that you have ulterior motives for feigning love? We don't - we have to take your word for it. So your definition of evidence fails.

Nothing was cherry picked Tass and you know it. Any one can read him in context.

You are notorious for cherry-picking scientific evidence that (you think) validates your religious viewpoint. As well, your example was irrelevant. There are several evidence-based hypotheses as to whether the universe is past eternal or otherwise. Vilenkin's opinion is but one of several.

Biblical Revelation...

Why should we believe the made up nonsense about you loving your mother?

See above.

[seer]

I am always open to someone pointing out when my evidentiary criteria shifts without justification. I cannot claim I am immune to the effect, but I can claim I am always on the lookout for it. So hopefully, it is at a minimum. Unfortunately, we disagree on the later point; I am not going to adopt a belief for which the evidence is inadequate or, worse yet, runs counter to the belief. IMO, such a way of accepting/rejecting beliefs makes no sense. I have no idea what that quote means.

But I gave you clear evidence Carp: "The Heavens Declare The Glory Of God." If creation isn't evidence of a Creator what is it evidence of? You will say, I don't know.That being the case you can not claim that it isn't evidence for a Creator.

And you've just identified one of the many inconsistencies I find in Christianity...

You write too much Carp, can you point to one to start with. When you scatter shot claims it is difficult, at least for me, to focus on a response.

Many times. I think you will probably not like what I have concluded.

OK...

I just gave you the two places where I have noted "inconsistency" in our discussion thus far, Seer. I am not aware of noting or commenting on others (yet).

I have not seen logical inconsistencies, I have seen opinion. Can you repeat one or two?

[seer]

Again Tass we simply have to take your word that you have genuine affection for you mom, that you don't have ulterior motives for feigning love. Only YOU can know that. That is not objective evidence. Just as you can not prove what your favorite color is or your favorite food etc...

You are notorious for cherry-picking scientific evidence that (you think) validates your religious viewpoint. As well, your example was irrelevant. There are several evidence-based hypotheses as to whether the universe is past eternal or otherwise. Vilenkin's opinion is but one of several.

No Vilenkin is more than that, he is one of the fathers of inflation/multiverse theory. And if you read the link with an open mind you would see that there is no way to get to past eternal matter and energy. He deals with a number of present day theories. You just do not like what he says so you attempt to dismiss him.

Or you can go to Alan Guth:

Although inflation is generically eternal into the future, it is not eternal into the past: it can be proven under reasonable assumptions that the inflating region must be incomplete in past directions, so some physics other than inflation is needed to describe the past boundary of the inflating region. https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0702178

[seer]

No, not according to your definition, nothing about your god can change, he's eternally omniscient and immutable, has knowledge of all of time, from alpha to omega. What could possibly change? Not a single thing.

No Jim, I said His moral character was immutable, I never said that He couldn't act.

[carpedm9587]

But I gave you clear evidence Carp: "The Heavens Declare The Glory Of God." If creation isn't evidence of a Creator what is it evidence of? You will say, I don't know.That being the case you can not claim that it isn't evidence for a Creator.

I beleive it was you, Seer, who noted that we should not expect naturalistic evidence for a supernatural phenomenon, and I agreed with you. Now you want to point to the naturalistic universe as evidence for the existence of a god? I'm sorry, but I do not agree with you that the naturalistic universe is evidence that the Christian god (or any god) exists. As I noted before, you call it "creation," which leads you to "creator," but that is a linguistic slight of hand; you presuppose your conclusion. I look at the wonder of the universe, and I do not see anything about it that says, "there has to be a god."

You write too much Carp, can you point to one to start with. When you scatter shot claims it is difficult, at least for me, to focus on a response.

My response was specific to your "as long as you have breath, there is hope" comment.

OK...

I have not seen logical inconsistencies, I have seen opinion. Can you repeat one or two?

I have now answered this at least twice. It's not clear that answering it again is going to help if you did not see/understand the last responses.

[seer]

I beleive it was you, Seer, who noted that we should not expect naturalistic evidence for a supernatural phenomenon, and I agreed with you. Now you want to point to the naturalistic universe as evidence for the existence of a god? I'm sorry, but I do not agree with you that the naturalistic universe is evidence that the Christian god (or any god) exists. As I noted before, you call it "creation," which leads you to "creator," but that is a linguistic slight of hand; you presuppose your conclusion. I look at the wonder of the universe, and I do not see anything about it that says, "there has to be a god."

Carp, I never said that, at least not in the sense you mean it. And why call this universe naturalistic? That is an arbitrary definition. I could just as well call it a supernatural universe.

My response was specific to your "as long as you have breath, there is hope" comment.

???? And you said: And you've just identified one of the many inconsistencies I find in Christianity...


Where is the logical inconsistency?

I have now answered this at least twice. It's not clear that answering it again is going to help if you did not see/understand the last responses.

What? Where did you point out a logical inconsistency in my faith? Please in which post...

[carpedm9587]

Carp, I never said that, at least not in the sense you mean it. And why call this universe naturalistic? That is an arbitrary definition. I could just as well call it a supernatural universe.

That is what I took from "it is not an evidential problem but a moral and spiritual problem." Perhaps that is not what you meant? As for calling this universe "naturalistic," I realize now that my sentence was ambiguous, so I will explain. The universe is all that exists. I see it as being comprised of two things: things that operate according to principles (we call them "natural laws") that we know and understand. This is what I refer to as the "naturalistic universe." Then there are things about it we do not yet fully understand. I have no clean name for these things, because we cannot know and cannot prove (yet) whether they are naturalistic or due to some supernatural cause. But the trend, over time, is for things to move from this "don't know" bucket to the "naturalistic" bucket. In other words, we know more and more over time. We've only been at this discovery process for a couple millenia, on a planet that has existed for millions of millenia, but there is enough of a pattern there for me to be fairly sure that all of this is knowable given enough time to learn it. I see no basis for leaping to the conclusion "god did it."

Here is what I think is what the pattern of history strongly suggests. These two "buckets" have always existed, but at the dawn of man, everything was in the "don't know" bucket. We had no science or means for examining and learning. Early man looked at that vast bucket of "don't know" and concieved of gods to explain each element in it. There were gods of lightning, gods of thunder, gods of the sun, gods of wind, gods of trees and growing things, etc. Indeed, these pantheons had enormous similarities from region to region, and eventually solidified into the more structured Roman, Greek, and Eqyptian pantheons (in the west). Every religion I have ever encountered includes a creation story; that it is the first BIG "I don't know." Where did all this come from? It is still in the "I don't know bucket." Because the earliest man had religions for tens of thousands of years, religion became part of the fabric of humanity. There was always a "prime god" in the pantheons, but the idea that there was actually only ONE god was a fairly new concept that arose, as best we can tell, in the middle east in the second millenium BCE. It took root and expanded to form the core of the Judaic religion, and then was adopted by Christianity, which began as a Judaic sect.

Since then, the bucket of "Now we know" has grown considerably. The bucket of "I don't know" has not really shrunk a lot, because each discovery uncovers another set of mysteries to be untangled.

???? And you said: And you've just identified one of the many inconsistencies I find in Christianity...


Where is the logical inconsistency?

Your statement suggested that the clock runs out on my choice when I cease drawing breath. This is the common Christian view: once death arrives, the fate of the person is then sealed and judgment occurs on the basis of what happens in life. So we have an eternal judgment, no possibility of change, for events made in a very finite lifespan. Justice is about balance. This is highly unbalanced, ergo, it is inconsistent with the concept of a "just" god. There is a secondary, related problem, but it's probably better not to spin off two threads at the same time.

What? Where did you point out a logical inconsistency in my faith? Please in which post...

We discussed the "subjective" one in several posts. The second emerged shortly after your statement about my blindness. I identified them in several places, but the last paragraph in post 722 is probably the most concise.

[seer]

That is what I took from "it is not an evidential problem but a moral and spiritual problem." Perhaps that is not what you meant?

Right that is not what I meant, I meant that the evidence for a Creator is clear, but we objective on moral grounds. Like I said: No gods no masters. I said earlier that God has the right to define the limits for human sexuality for instance, which excludes certain behaviors like homosexuality - you don't care for that, and that is just one small example of the moral issue.

As for calling this universe "naturalistic," I realize now that my sentence was ambiguous, so I will explain. The universe is all that exists. I see it as being comprised of two things: things that operate according to principles (we call them "natural laws") that we know and understand. This is what I refer to as the "naturalistic universe." Then there are things about it we do not yet fully understand. I have no clean name for these things, because we cannot know and cannot prove (yet) whether they are naturalistic or due to some supernatural cause. But the trend, over time, is for things to move from this "don't know" bucket to the "naturalistic" bucket. In other words, we know more and more over time. We've only been at this discovery process for a couple millenia, on a planet that has existed for millions of millenia, but there is enough of a pattern there for me to be fairly sure that all of this is knowable given enough time to learn it. I see no basis for leaping to the conclusion "god did it."

But the universe, with its laws and order, is the very thing that needs to be explained. Why jump to the conclusion "nature did it?"

Here is what I think is what the pattern of history strongly suggests. These two "buckets" have always existed, but at the dawn of man, everything was in the "don't know" bucket. We had no science or means for examining and learning. Early man looked at that vast bucket of "don't know" and concieved of gods to explain each element in it. There were gods of lightning, gods of thunder, gods of the sun, gods of wind, gods of trees and growing things, etc. Indeed, these pantheons had enormous similarities from region to region, and eventually solidified into the more structured Roman, Greek, and Eqyptian pantheons (in the west). Every religion I have ever encountered includes a creation story; that it is the first BIG "I don't know." Where did all this come from? It is still in the "I don't know bucket." Because the earliest man had religions for tens of thousands of years, religion became part of the fabric of humanity. There was always a "prime god" in the pantheons, but the idea that there was actually only ONE god was a fairly new concept that arose, as best we can tell, in the middle east in the second millenium BCE. It took root and expanded to form the core of the Judaic religion, and then was adopted by Christianity, which began as a Judaic sect.

If you really don't know then it is plausible that we do have an intuitive sense of the divine because the divine actually exists. And with most of the other ancient creations stories I remember the universe gives birth to the gods not the other way around. The Biblical account is quite different.

Since then, the bucket of "Now we know" has grown considerably. The bucket of "I don't know" has not really shrunk a lot, because each discovery uncovers another set of mysteries to be untangled.

Not really, the very universe, which is the whole ball of wax, still needs to be explained.

Your statement suggested that the clock runs out on my choice when I cease drawing breath. This is the common Christian view: once death arrives, the fate of the person is then sealed and judgment occurs on the basis of what happens in life. So we have an eternal judgment, no possibility of change, for events made in a very finite lifespan. Justice is about balance. This is highly unbalanced, ergo, it is inconsistent with the concept of a "just" god. There is a secondary, related problem, but it's probably better not to spin off two threads at the same time.

Personally I don't have a problem with second chances after death, but I don't generally proclaim that since I may be wrong. In either case it is not a logical inconsistency. And I'm not sure what you mean by justice. Are you just relying on your subjective view of justice? Why should any one give that credence? Is justice also out of balance when a Stalin murdered millions and dies a good old age with no recompense? But this is another moral issue.

We discussed the "subjective" one in several posts. The second emerged shortly after your statement about my blindness. I identified them in several places, but the last paragraph in post 722 is probably the most concise.

You said:

We have actually seen a few places, Seer. We saw it in our discussion of ethics, where you continually challenged subjective moral codes as "unreal," (and I don't think you meant they had no existence, I think you meant they lacked, I am struggling for a word here, import? value? It's hard to know what word to use because your statement was essentially a tautology), but then trwated other subjective things in your life as if they were very much real/important/valuable. The one we are looking at here is the ideas you hold that someone like me is "blind" and lacks the capacity to understand, yet you continue to discuss your god with me, explain your beliefs, outline concepts rooted in your god, as if I actually COULD understand. Why are you doing this?

There is nothing logically inconsistent here. First, even an atheist, like a nihilist, can believe that life is meaningless even as he sill attempts to survive or care for his family. Meaning is an abstract concept, and animals do just fine without any sense of meaning. So this is not necessarily a religious based objection. Second, just because you are blind now does not mean that you will remain that way. As Paul says, if you turn to the Lord the veil will be taken away. This requires humility though. Third, we are not the only ones watching this thread, I may be having a good effect on a lurker or two...

[carpedm9587]

Right that is not what I meant, I meant that the evidence for a Creator is clear, but we objective on moral grounds. Like I said: No gods no masters. I said earlier that God has the right to define the limits for human sexuality for instance, which excludes certain behaviors like homosexuality - you don't care for that, and that is just one small example of the moral issue.

You phrase this as "not caring for that" when I said nothing of the kind. I said it does not follow that I must subject my moral code to this being blindly, if it exists.

But the universe, with its laws and order, is the very thing that needs to be explained. Why jump to the conclusion "nature did it?"

I have not jumped to any conclusion. "Where it comes from" I noted is still one of the great mysteries. So what I say is, "I don't know." It would appear to me that you are the one jumping to the conclusion that a god did it.

If you really don't know then it is plausible that we do have an intuitive sense of the divine because the divine actually exists. And with most of the other ancient creations stories I remember the universe gives birth to the gods not the other way around. The Biblical account is quite different.

Possible. Does not appear to me to be probable. The pattern I pointed out seems far more plausible to me. And the lack of any evidence in my life that suggests a god, or any intrinsic need for me recognize one is further evidence to me. So too is the increasing trend towards secularization as we uncover more and more of "how things work" that does not require resorting to "god did it."

Not really, the very universe, which is the whole ball of wax, still needs to be explained.

I suspect knowledge about the universe is potentially infinite. The more we learn, the more we discover that there is much we do not know, and even more that we do not know we do not know. Will we ever understand it all? I doubt it. Certainly not in my lifetime. I'm OK with that.

Personally I don't have a problem with second chances after death, but I don't generally proclaim that since I may be wrong. In either case it is not a logical inconsistency. And I'm not sure what you mean by justice. Are you just relying on your subjective view of justice? Why should any one give that credence? Is justice also out of balance when a Stalin murdered millions and dies a good old age with no recompense? But this is another moral issue.

I am relying on the definition of justice as "deserved or appropriate int he circumstance." Balance.

And if you do not have a problem with "second chances after death," why did you say, "as long as you have breath, there is hope?"

You said:

There is nothing logically inconsistent here. First, even an atheist, like a nihilist, can believe that life is meaningless even as he sill attempts to survive or care for his family. Meaning is an abstract concept, and animals do just fine without any sense of meaning. So this is not necessarily a religious based objection. Second, just because you are blind now does not mean that you will remain that way. As Paul says, if you turn to the Lord the veil will be taken away. This requires humility though. Third, we are not the only ones watching this thread, I may be having a good effect on a lurker or two...

The nihilist who acts as you describe is actually being inconsistent: their behavior does not match their worldview. Likewise, the person who claims subjective ideas/assesments/beliefs/codes are "meaningless" is functioning inconsistently when they proceed through their life as if they actually have meaning.

As for blindness, you either chose a bad analogy, or your being inconsistent again. If a person lacks the capacity to understand, conversing with them is an inconsistent action. If they can gain capacity in the future through some action of this god - or some choice they might make, speak to them then. Speaking to them when they lack the capacity to understand is an exercise in futility. By definition, they cannot understand what you are saying, so what you are saying cannot give them that capacity. I don't see why this is confusing.

[seer]

You phrase this as "not caring for that" when I said nothing of the kind. I said it does not follow that I must subject my moral code to this being blindly, if it exists.

Well yes, you would need to believe that such a God would know better than you. That He has the right to define the limits of human sexuality. One more reason why this is, at bottom, a moral question.

I have not jumped to any conclusion. "Where it comes from" I noted is still one of the great mysteries. So what I say is, "I don't know." It would appear to me that you are the one jumping to the conclusion that a god did it.

But be honest Carp, you really do believe that nature did it, or at least you lean that way.

Possible. Does not appear to me to be probable. The pattern I pointed out seems far more plausible to me. And the lack of any evidence in my life that suggests a god, or any intrinsic need for me recognize one is further evidence to me. So too is the increasing trend towards secularization as we uncover more and more of "how things work" that does not require resorting to "god did it."

The way things work? So in the end an intelligible, ordered, precise universe where consciousness exists makes more sense having been created by non-rational, non-conscious force than by a conscious, rational being? OK, have it your way.

I am relying on the definition of justice as "deserved or appropriate int he circumstance." Balance.

Sill subjective. Now what?

And if you do not have a problem with "second chances after death," why did you say, "as long as you have breath, there is hope?"

Because I may be wrong, and I do not want to take that chance, after all I want you in heaven with us... Better to repent in this life.

The nihilist who acts as you describe is actually being inconsistent: their behavior does not match their worldview. Likewise, the person who claims subjective ideas/assesments/beliefs/codes are "meaningless" is functioning inconsistently when they proceed through their life as if they actually have meaning.

That does not follow Carp, animals who have no concept of meaning still attempt to survive and care for their young. A man does not have to find meaning to do the same.

As for blindness, you either chose a bad analogy, or your being inconsistent again. If a person lacks the capacity to understand, conversing with them is an inconsistent action. If they can gain capacity in the future through some action of this god - or some choice they might make, speak to them then. Speaking to them when they lack the capacity to understand is an exercise in futility. By definition, they cannot understand what you are saying, so what you are saying cannot give them that capacity. I don't see why this is confusing.

No, they can understand my words but until they humble themselves they will forever dismiss God. Their blindness is self induced, often around moral questions - they suppress the truth (Rom.1:18-22)...