Creationism vs. Evolution

Then having total knowledge and either not acting or holding acrtions that are not fully understood against one who acts on limited knowledge is wrong

 

I'm only referring to human morality even though immoral humans do behave like animals.

Man's subjective responses to objective moral law do vary widely.

But the beneficial consequences of his subjective reactions are directly proportional to how accurately they agree with objective moral law.

That's not objectively moral. That's only what people subjectively think is moral. Whenever someone does what is genuinely right... everyone involved benefits.

 

Could you please clarify your idea? It sounds interesting. Perhaps a brief real life example would help.

 

IF there is an objective morality then it would not require or even suggest a god or be limited to humans

 

I see the truck coming at you when you don't and can stop you from getting hit, but I don't or I do then punish you for not having eyes in the back of your head.

 

You asked why God doesn't let people live longer and I answered that He does. It's your own free choice to do whatever you want with that fact. That has nothing to do with me because you're the one who gets the consequences of your own actions.

 

The real question should be "why would god let people die?"

 

Ah, you're referring to acting (or not acting) on prior knowledge. Acting on knowing is completely different from simply knowing. I was addressing omniscience alone... and not omnipotence.

 

Then god never acts in anyway on a human? No judgment? I'm ok with that.... impotence rather than omnipotence

 

Then why not simply let my comment go unresponded and continue your discussion with doc? No one has any power over your own free choice but you.

 

The premise embedded in your question is false.

There is no such thing as an "objectively moral" decision. Man can only make subjective moral decisions.

Given the situation of dealing with genuine evil... in my subjective opinion that was a good call because it saved tens of millions of lives by avoiding a prolonged armed ground assault and brought the war with Japan to an immediate end.

 

I bet the Japanese civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would disagree but they aren't Christians so they were screwed anyway I guess

 

Genuine Evil is a cop out. To call something evil dimisses understanding it.

 

"We" as in my fellow scientists. I don't work for NASA...but I have in the past, if you really must know. And for what it's worth, of the hundreds of my fellow Masters and PhD colleagues, less than ~5% believe in creationism.

What book, you ask? Well try any university level astronomy, physics, or cosmology book.

 

Just realize that I'm only offering my subjective opinion...

In my own personal experience I don't see God acting directly on me...

...however, by the same personal experience, I have seen many times that God does place moral guideposts along my path to help me to act in harmony with the flow of events so as to set into motion beneficial consequences. There's a beautiful phrase in the Bible...

"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path."

My own personal experience of this is not words, but rather a silent light that guides the course of my life as long as I choose to follow it.

We only pass judgment on ourselves by our own actions.

Rather than impotence... I see it as wisely choosing not to interfere with my freedom of choice.

 

BINGO! That implies that if god knows you are going to hell, he has created you for the purpose of suffering for eternity. That reflects an absence of logic and is imperfect, which means god is not perfect (fallible and contrary to biblical reference).

 

There's a reason for that.

Government funded employment is generally more attractive to secularists... whereas more religious folk generally prefer working in the private sector.

 

What a crock of shit