Evidence for God from Science

Columbo: "Just one more thing."

Butterfly wrote:So your concept of "perfect rationality" includes doing idiotic things for vain glory leading to death? That explains a lot about why I don't understand your posts. We apparently have very different concepts of "perfect rationality."

Seriously, though. This is the last thing I want to say. I don't like fighting.

What I'm saying is that in an atheistic world, rationality is hard to determine. I mean, it isn't like the universe or any of us have a purpose: purpose does not exist. We don't have any responsibility for our actions because we A) don't have free will and B) there is no such thing as intentionality. When we think about something, we don't actually think about it. A bunch of mechanisms just buzz in our brains and a chemical reaction makes us feel a certain way. Our thoughts are not intentional; they don't have any content whatsoever. What good, then, is self awareness? It's just a strange phenomenon with no meaning. The idea that we are aware is actually just an unbelievably complicated illusion, and we aren't responsible for our own thoughts and actions. Why should we care about what happens to us? Why should we work towards our own good? Good doesn't even exist. It's just a concept, not a reality. Preserving our own lives isn't doing us any good; "we" as we understand ourselves don't even exist. We're just going to die anyway, so why bother? Why seek out friends or thrills? Your emotions aren't real or valuable. Other people are just as fake as you are, just mechanical, intentionless sacks of flesh. How is it rational to want your own good when nothing is actually "good" for you, when nothing "good" could ever last, when your enjoyment of "good" things is just an illusion, when you yourself are only a trick played on your non-existent self by you brain. And if you want what is "good" for you anyway, why should you be obliged to care what others want? How does being "self-aware" make you suddenly able to act morally? It isn't as though you differ in kind from any other animal, or even a rock when you get right down to it. Self-love? It's an impossible concept. Neither the "self" nor "love" exist.

Icthus out.

I am not sure how to respond to your question my friend, I can't see how God would ask me to kill my own child or the child of another...I mean...I guess I can come up with "worse case scenarios" but I am pretty sure that since I was coming up with them, they would have some inherent bias to "justify" whatever my decision would be, so...

Well, if your morality would be objective, you would clearly know which one to choose. Since you are not sure what to respond, that says a lot...

It is very important to understand that, because we already do have a notion of "absolute morals", given to us by religion, we CAN ( at this point) have an "absolute moral" without God.

We do not have a notion of "absolute morals": that is something you achieve through education and societal law "forced" upon you. Practically you are being trained like a dog: if you do something bad, you will suffer the consequences (jail/lethal injection/life sentence).

If you didn't have human laws, police, jails and courts of law, well, morality (or anyways most if it) would disappear into thin air.

What I'm saying is that in an atheistic world, rationality is hard to determine. I mean, it isn't like the universe or any of us have a purpose: purpose does not exist. We don't have any responsibility for our actions because we A) don't have free will and B) there is no such thing as intentionality. When we think about something, we don't actually think about it. A bunch of mechanisms just buzz in our brains and a chemical reaction makes us feel a certain way. Our thoughts are not intentional; they don't have any content whatsoever. What good, then, is self awareness? It's just a strange phenomenon with no meaning. The idea that we are aware is actually just an unbelievably complicated illusion, and we aren't responsible for our own thoughts and actions. Why should we care about what happens to us? Why should we work towards our own good? Good doesn't even exist. It's just a concept, not a reality. Preserving our own lives isn't doing us any good; "we" as we understand ourselves don't even exist. We're just going to die anyway, so why bother? Why seek out friends or thrills? Your emotions aren't real or valuable. Other people are just as fake as you are, just mechanical, intentionless sacks of flesh. How is it rational to want your own good when nothing is actually "good" for you, when nothing "good" could ever last, when your enjoyment of "good" things is just an illusion, when you yourself are only a trick played on your non-existent self by you brain. And if you want what is "good" for you anyway, why should you be obliged to care what others want? How does being "self-aware" make you suddenly able to act morally? It isn't as though you differ in kind from any other animal, or even a rock when you get right down to it. Self-love? It's an impossible concept. Neither the "self" nor "love" exist.

You forgot one thing: as random as we might look like without a God, we have the capacity to learn and become better. EXPERIENCE is one important aspect you seem to forget when talking about how you see the world without a god. Learning from your previous mistakes can make you moral and so it can help others as well. Moral laws are instituted at societal level and they are "forced" upon all members. Another thing you have to understand is that there are moral laws which are explicit and others that are implicit.

Explicit laws can't be broken. You will be punished officially. (eg: stealing, killing)
Implicit laws can be broken by choice. (having sex with multiple partners, being gay, bla bla)

Morality is not a very simple subject to discuss.

RickD wrote:
Without religion(God), what basis does one have for calling someone "good" or "evil"?


BryanH wrote:
Your questions basically says implies objective morality... If you don't take that into account, you can talk about good and evil without God.

Bryan, the point I was trying to make, is that without a basis for absolute morality(God), calling someone "good" or "evil" is just subjective.

BryanH wrote:
But regardless of that (let's say that God exists and we have objective morality) we have a mental disease called psychopathy. Those people are basically evil because they are ill.

Again, what do you base your statement, "Those people are basically evil because they are ill." on?

That statement is subjective. You see psychopaths as "basically evil because they are ill".

BryanH wrote:
Would you care to explain how God created such people?

Not here. It would derail this thread. Do a search for "free-will", if you want to see a discussion pertaining to this.

RickD wrote:

Butterfly wrote:
Murder is wrong, the same as slavery is wrong, because it violates the Golden Rule.

First, what is your definition of murder? There seems to be some confusion here, to what exactly constitutes murder.

My definition of murder is the same as what is meant in the 6th commandment. The sad thing is that throughout the Old Testament, Yahweh violates his own commandment over, and over again.

RickD wrote:Second,Butterfly, did you know that some American slaveowners used what could be understood as the golden rule to justify owning slaves?
One example is that defenders of slavery argued that the institution was divine, and that it brought Christianity to the heathen from across the ocean. Slavery was, according to this argument, a good thing for the enslaved.

I think your mistaken about American slave-owners using the Golden Rule to justify their enslaving of people, rather what they did use to justify their actions was the Bible, which not only condones slavery, but never once condemns it. Yikes!

These verses in Leviticus not only allow the Hebrews to take slaves of the heathen around them, but also the children of foreigner that live in their land, AND they can pass these slaves down as an inheritance FOREVER. Wow!

Lev.25:44-45 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

RickD wrote:

Butterfly wrote:
Having an outside source for morality does nothing but justify people who want to impose their religious doctrines upon others, by saying that morality comes from their God.

Butterfly, this statement breaks your "golden rule" that you claim to live by. You wouldn't want me to misrepresent your beliefs, would you? Well, you just misrepresented mine. I believe the basis for objective morals is God. Yet, I don't want to impose my "doctrines" upon you or anyone else. I may give you my opinion, or my reason for what I believe, but it's not my place to impose my beliefs on you. You are free to choose your own beliefs.

First off in this thread I have never "claimed" to live by the Golden Rule, even though in my life I do try to practice its principles. The whole point of my conversation in this thread is to show that principles like the Golden Rule, do not need a moral law giver in order to exist.

Secondly, where have I misrepresented your beliefs? I don't even know you. My statement about people who try and impose their religious doctrines on others, refers to people I have known, or read of, so if the shoe DOESN'T fit DON'T wear it.

I respect your belief that objective morals come from God, otherwise I wouldn't be having this conversation.

Butterfly, I will address your responses when I get a chance. In the meantime, please look over this article pertaining to slavery in the bible:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... bible.html

Butterfly,
I'm sure others will jump in and address the flaws in your statements. I'll point out a few things.

My definition of murder is the same as what is meant in the 6th commandment. The sad thing is that throughout the Old Testament, Yahweh violates his own commandment over, and over again.

this is fundementally flawed. It presumes that God isn't the moral law giver, but simply another human subjected to His own laws. God isn't merely someone who lives up to a standard. He is the standard, and the creator of all life. His giving and taking of life isn't arbitrary, and thus can never be murder. God isn't subject to man. What you are doing here is creating a God that you can judge. But you see, this isn't the God of the Bible.

I think your mistaken about American slave-owners using the Golden Rule to justify their enslaving of people, rather what they did use to justify their actions was the Bible, which not only condones slavery, but never once condemns it. Yikes!

Another very weak argument, and one that has been blown up many times on this forum. You conflate chattel slavery to the servitude and slavery addressed in the bible. Since you fail to rightly distinquish the terms you naturally arrive at wrong conclusions. That being the Bible condones or supports Chattel slavery. It doesn't, and I challenge you to quote the Bible contextually and do so. You can't.

Regarding Lev. 25:44,45
You fail to conextually consider what is going on. You abandon proper exegesis because you are searching for something to prove what you think the Bible says, instead of approaching the text in context and letting it explain itself. This only tells me that you aren't honestly approaching this.
The situation is dealing with those foriegners who are so poor that they can not provide for themselves. Now, maybe you assume that abandoning poor helpless people is a better way. But, I say, considering the times, there is no better way to deal with the homeless and poor. This is about people selling themselves into servanthood. Especially considering what was the cultural norm of the time. these are foriegn people, and it is amazing that a culture would give consideration at all. The norm would be to kill them, drive them from the land or worse. The bible deals with the harsh realities in the world. It is easy for us to look back in time, ignore cultural realities, idioms and such. I suggest a much more humble approach to the text, and to drop the presumptions you hold, since they don't hold up to the most basic rebuttal.

Butterfly wrote:
Having an outside source for morality does nothing but justify people who want to impose their religious doctrines upon others, by saying that morality comes from their God.

And what are you doing but wanting us to accept your definiation of morality or lack thereof? Self defeating.
Further, it does no such things. If there is no objective reality, then all reality is subjective, including the position of believing it is objective. and if that is the case, then on what grounds is imposing anything on anyone wrong. Are you saying it is objectively wrong to impose morality on anyone?

Icthus wrote:Columbo: "Just one more thing."

Butterfly wrote:So your concept of "perfect rationality" includes doing idiotic things for vain glory leading to death? That explains a lot about why I don't understand your posts. We apparently have very different concepts of "perfect rationality."

Seriously, though. This is the last thing I want to say. I don't like fighting.

What I'm saying is that in an atheistic world, rationality is hard to determine. I mean, it isn't like the universe or any of us have a purpose: purpose does not exist. We don't have any responsibility for our actions because we A) don't have free will and B) there is no such thing as intentionality. When we think about something, we don't actually think about it. A bunch of mechanisms just buzz in our brains and a chemical reaction makes us feel a certain way. Our thoughts are not intentional; they don't have any content whatsoever. What good, then, is self awareness? It's just a strange phenomenon with no meaning. The idea that we are aware is actually just an unbelievably complicated illusion, and we aren't responsible for our own thoughts and actions. Why should we care about what happens to us? Why should we work towards our own good? Good doesn't even exist. It's just a concept, not a reality. Preserving our own lives isn't doing us any good; "we" as we understand ourselves don't even exist. We're just going to die anyway, so why bother? Why seek out friends or thrills? Your emotions aren't real or valuable. Other people are just as fake as you are, just mechanical, intentionless sacks of flesh. How is it rational to want your own good when nothing is actually "good" for you, when nothing "good" could ever last, when your enjoyment of "good" things is just an illusion, when you yourself are only a trick played on your non-existent self by you brain. And if you want what is "good" for you anyway, why should you be obliged to care what others want? How does being "self-aware" make you suddenly able to act morally? It isn't as though you differ in kind from any other animal, or even a rock when you get right down to it. Self-love? It's an impossible concept. Neither the "self" nor "love" exist.

Icthus out.

I don't like fighting either...so we agree on something.

I think you are mistaken about whether or not people who are atheists can have purpose and meaning in their lives. I have been on both sides of the fence (believer, nonbeliever), and I can say with absolute certainty that my life has ever bit as much, or more purpose and meaning now, then it did when I was a believer. Before and while I was a Christian I tried to live my life by the Golden Rule, and now as a unbeliever I still try and live my life by the Golden Rule.

You asked "How does being "self-aware" make you suddenly able to act morally?" It doesn't! I explained in my first post and others that followed, how I thought moral principles arose from the condition of being self-aware, without the need of God. I did not say that being self-aware makes you act morally.

Nice chatting with you Icthus,
Butterfly

BryanH wrote:

I am not sure how to respond to your question my friend, I can't see how God would ask me to kill my own child or the child of another...I mean...I guess I can come up with "worse case scenarios" but I am pretty sure that since I was coming up with them, they would have some inherent bias to "justify" whatever my decision would be, so...

Well, if your morality would be objective, you would clearly know which one to choose. Since you are not sure what to respond, that says a lot...

It is very important to understand that, because we already do have a notion of "absolute morals", given to us by religion, we CAN ( at this point) have an "absolute moral" without God.

We do not have a notion of "absolute morals": that is something you achieve through education and societal law "forced" upon you. Practically you are being trained like a dog: if you do something bad, you will suffer the consequences (jail/lethal injection/life sentence).

If you didn't have human laws, police, jails and courts of law, well, morality (or anyways most if it) would disappear into thin air.

I don't think you read my response correctly....sorry.
You asked me for a general scenario with no specifics.
Please enlighten me.

As for:
We do not have a notion of "absolute morals": that is something you achieve through education and societal law "forced" upon you. Practically you are being trained like a dog: if you do something bad, you will suffer the consequences (jail/lethal injection/life sentence).

Long before we had education and laws we had morals, Laws were based on them, not the other way around.
Stealing is wrong NOT because we made a law about it, but because we KNOW it to be wrong.
HOW we know? the earliest influences are religion.
As for being trained as a dog, the fact that we are having this discussion shows that is nOT the case for either of us.
Honestly, I don't think I care for your tone dude.
Look at your posts:
Since you are not sure what to respond, that says a lot...
Practically you are being trained like a dog:

Sounds like there are some deep rooted issues there...

Butterfly wrote:

RickD wrote:

Butterfly wrote:
Having an outside source for morality does nothing but justify people who want to impose their religious doctrines upon others, by saying that morality comes from their God.

Butterfly, this statement breaks your "golden rule" that you claim to live by. You wouldn't want me to misrepresent your beliefs, would you? Well, you just misrepresented mine. I believe the basis for objective morals is God. Yet, I don't want to impose my "doctrines" upon you or anyone else. I may give you my opinion, or my reason for what I believe, but it's not my place to impose my beliefs on you. You are free to choose your own beliefs.

First off in this thread I have never "claimed" to live by the Golden Rule, even though in my life I do try to practice its principles. The whole point of my conversation in this thread is to show that principles like the Golden Rule, do not need a moral law giver in order to exist.

Secondly, where have I misrepresented your beliefs? I don't even know you. My statement about people who try and impose their religious doctrines on others, refers to people I have known, or read of, so if the shoe DOESN'T fit DON'T wear it.

I respect your belief that objective morals come from God, otherwise I wouldn't be having this conversation.

Butterfly, you made the very broad statement, "Having an outside source for morality does nothing but justify people who want to impose their religious doctrines upon others, by saying that morality comes from their God."
How else am I supposed to interpret what you said? My outside source for morality(God) does not justify my wanting to impose my "religious doctrines upon others", because I don't impose my doctrines upon others. If something "does nothing but", aren't you saying that the only reason for having morality outside ourselves is to impose our doctrines upon others?

As for this:

My definition of murder is the same as what is meant in the 6th commandment. The sad thing is that throughout the Old Testament, Yahweh violates his own commandment over, and over again.

and this:

I think your mistaken about American slave-owners using the Golden Rule to justify their enslaving of people, rather what they did use to justify their actions was the Bible, which not only condones slavery, but never once condemns it. Yikes!

I think the article I linked, and jlay's post hit the nail on the head.

And just to add, just because people use misinterpreted scripture to justify certain things, that doesn't mean the God of the bible is evil. it just means people will use whatever means they can to justify sin. And, we wouldn't know what sin is without an absolute guide that shows us we are all sinners in need of a savior.

The issue of murder is a tricky one because, even though some translate the 6th to say "thou shall not kill", it is more correct to translate it to "thou shall not murder" which means, or at the very least implies, an "unrighteous killing".
Killing one person to protect another would possibly not be considered murder, as would killing to save ones life ( unless another option was available).
When it comes to God, you are crossing into the metaphysical realm of an all-knowing being and if such a being exists, then by virtue of being GOD, even what can be PERCEIVED by humans as a "wrong" act must, by definition of God doing it, be Just and correct.

jlay wrote:Butterfly,
I'm sure others will jump in and address the flaws in your statements. I'll point out a few things.

My definition of murder is the same as what is meant in the 6th commandment. The sad thing is that throughout the Old Testament, Yahweh violates his own commandment over, and over again.

this is fundementally flawed. It presumes that God isn't the moral law giver, but simply another human subjected to His own laws. God isn't merely someone who lives up to a standard. He is the standard, and the creator of all life. His giving and taking of life isn't arbitrary, and thus can never be murder. God isn't subject to man. What you are doing here is creating a God that you can judge. But you see, this isn't the God of the Bible.

I can tell you right now the fundamental flaw in your argument is: you assert that God exists. That is the premise from which you build all of your statements about God being justified committing any immoral act he wants, and it's called "Begging the Question". One cannot assume the point that they are trying to argue...that is circular reasoning.

jlay wrote:

I think your mistaken about American slave-owners using the Golden Rule to justify their enslaving of people, rather what they did use to justify their actions was the Bible, which not only condones slavery, but never once condemns it. Yikes!

Another very weak argument, and one that has been blown up many times on this forum. You conflate chattel slavery to the servitude and slavery addressed in the bible. Since you fail to rightly distinquish the terms you naturally arrive at wrong conclusions. That being the Bible condones or supports Chattel slavery. It doesn't, and I challenge you to quote the Bible contextually and do so. You can't.

Regarding Lev. 25:44,45
You fail to conextually consider what is going on. You abandon proper exegesis because you are searching for something to prove what you think the Bible says, instead of approaching the text in context and letting it explain itself. This only tells me that you aren't honestly approaching this.
The situation is dealing with those foriegners who are so poor that they can not provide for themselves. Now, maybe you assume that abandoning poor helpless people is a better way. But, I say, considering the times, there is no better way to deal with the homeless and poor. This is about people selling themselves into servanthood. Especially considering what was the cultural norm of the time. these are foriegn people, and it is amazing that a culture would give consideration at all. The norm would be to kill them, drive them from the land or worse. The bible deals with the harsh realities in the world. It is easy for us to look back in time, ignore cultural realities, idioms and such. I suggest a much more humble approach to the text, and to drop the presumptions you hold, since they don't hold up to the most basic rebuttal.

The Bible absolutely condones "chattle" slavery as you call it (Def. Chattel slavery, so named because people are treated as the personal property, chattels, of an owner and are bought and sold as commodities), and I can give you verses in context to support it. First I will quote again Lev.25 where it specifically says that the Hebrews may buy as possessions the heathen and strangers to keep for themselves and give as an inheritance to their children.

Lev.25:44-45 33. Lev.25:44-45 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Secondly, I will quote from Exodus 21: where it specifically says that if a Hebrew servant is given a wife by his master, and the servant goes free then his wife and children shall remain with the master, because he owns them. Even the Hebrew servants child belongs to the master.

Exo.21:2-4 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

Thirdly, is the verse where it states that if a master beats his "servant" almost to the point of death, but the servant is able to get up and walk within a couple days then the master is not punished, because the servant is his money. This my friend is what slave-owners did with their slaves in this country and they used the Bible to condone their actions.

Exo.21:20-21 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

No matter how hard you try, there is no way around what these verses are saying, and there are many more like them. There is only one way to interpret words like, possession, buy, own, and inheritance. A person cannot pass something down as an inheritance unless it is owned by that person. The Bible never condemns the owning of people as slaves, even the New Testament says nothing about slavery except "slaves obey your masters", and "if you are called a slave don't freedom".

jlay wrote:

Butterfly wrote:
Having an outside source for morality does nothing but justify people who want to impose their religious doctrines upon others, by saying that morality comes from their God.

And what are you doing but wanting us to accept your definiation of morality or lack thereof? Self defeating.
Further, it does no such things. If there is no objective reality, then all reality is subjective, including the position of believing it is objective. and if that is the case, then on what grounds is imposing anything on anyone wrong. Are you saying it is objectively wrong to impose morality on anyone?

My posts do not contain my definition of morality, but rather I am giving my ideas of how morality could have risen in the thought process of self-conscious humans. What I am saying is that it is wrong to impose your religious dogmas on others. There are certain standards of morality contained in the Ten Commandments that are agreed upon by all rational people, like murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, bearing false witness against another is wrong, BUT there are others like keeping the Sabbath, worshiping other gods, making graven images, coveting, or even honoring your parents - that are not morally wrong.

Butterfly wrote:I can tell you right now the fundamental flaw in your argument is: you assert that God exists.

Granted, I am a presuppositional apologist. But, for the sake of discussion, you are criticizing the God of the bible. So, you ought to be consistent. afterall, it is perfectly reasonable to say, "If the god of the bible exist, then......"

Butterfly wrote:That is the premise from which you build all of your statements about God being justified committing any immoral act he wants, and it's called "Begging the Question". One cannot assume the point that they are trying to argue...that is circular reasoning.

All, and i repeat all worldviews will ultimately come to circular reasoning. it is a reality of logic that circular reasoning can be valid. I'm not suggesting that you except question begging, only pointing out the reality of ALL worldviews. I mean, are you abandoning your presuppositions? hardly.

Butterfly wrote:The Bible absolutely condones "chattle" slavery as you call it (Def. Chattel slavery, so named because people are treated as the personal property, chattels, of an owner and are bought and sold as commodities), and I can give you verses in context to support it. First I will quote again Lev.25 where it specifically says that the Hebrews may buy as possessions the heathen and strangers to keep for themselves and give as an inheritance to their children.

Sorry, you are totally wrong. Buy from who?
The bible has MUCH to say about servitude and slavery. If you really want to get into the deepest study, I recommend Paul Copan's, "is God a Moral Monster."

The Exodus 21 verses are clearly an example of endentured servitude. No one is saying that the cultural realities of 3k-4k years ago were ideal. God granted Israel a theocracy that was realistic not fantastic. I'm not trying to get away from what the verses are saying. The verese were written to deal with a specific people in a specific place at a specific time.

What I am saying is that it is wrong to impose your religious dogmas on others.

Wrong? Uhh, you are smuggling in objective morality. Or, perhaps you will go into some detail. Wrong...?..........
You can't have it both ways. You can't say your posts don't have a definition of morality, and then tell us what is "wrong."

Oh, and on what grounds to you criticize question begging? Is logic objectively true? if so, account for it.

Long before we had education and laws we had morals, Laws were based on them, not the other way around.
Stealing is wrong NOT because we made a law about it, but because we KNOW it to be wrong.

How can you prove that long before we had education and laws, we had morals?
I simply don't get it...

Stealing is wrong NOT because we made a law about it, but because we KNOW it to be wrong.

Your statement is false.

If you know a little bit of history, it's not hard to extrapolate that a a while ago (stone age), people didn't know what stealing was because you didn't actually have what to steal and this behavior didn't exist in its current form.

So can you explain me how people knew that stealing was wrong at the same time with not knowing what stealing is?

But even more interesting: although people know that stealing is wrong, look at how the world is organized today: some people die of hunger and some of have hundreds of billions. And besides the fact they know it's wrong, they want to make even more.

You are implying that people have a built-in sense of morality because they KNOW that stealing is wrong. I think the world of today proves how wrong you are...

I simply do not understand how you can argue for objective morality when it's pretty clear that moral law changes according to how a society moves one way or another.

And to be finished, we have a society based on MONEY and you are still arguing for moral objectivity.

God may be morally objective, but this world you live in has no objective morality what so ever.

I don't think you read my response correctly....sorry.
You asked me for a general scenario with no specifics.
Please enlighten me.

Maybe I made the scenario too hard for you. Let's make it easier?

God orders you to kill your 12 years old child because your child has gone the wrong way... Will you do it?

BryanH wrote:If you know a little bit of history, it's not hard to extrapolate that a a while ago (stone age), people didn't know what stealing was because you didn't actually have what to steal and this behavior didn't exist in its current form.

How do you know this? you don't. This is a form of chronological snobbery. It assumes past people are stupid.

are implying that people have a built-in sense of morality because they KNOW that stealing is wrong. I think the world of today proves how wrong you are...

Uhh, then why do we hold criminals responsible? People who steal, do so knowing it is wrong. Have you ever done something you knew in your conscience was wrong?
People have a built in capacity for morality. those who don't we call sociopaths. That means there is something wrong with their wiring, and they aren't able to discern any moral responsibility.
Just from reading your post, i don't think you are an expert on primitive cultures or on social behavior.

I simply do not understand how you can argue for objective morality when it's pretty clear that moral law changes according to how a society moves one way or another.

that isn't the argument. Of course morality is interpreted by people (moral beings) and often they get it wrong. But how could you say we EVER get it right if there is no standard outside of man? answer: you can't. People get math wrong all the time. that doens't mean the rules of math change arbitrarily.

And to be finished, we have a society based on MONEY and you are still arguing for moral objectivity

Gasp? Are you implying this is wrong? Based on?

God orders you to kill your 12 years old child because your child has gone the wrong way... Will you do it?

this is a loaded question. First, let's be clear. If the God of this universe clearly told you to do something, you absolutely should do it. The problem is this question presumes that God is arbitrary and He might just randomly ask someone to kill their child. We do know that in Israel's theocracy they were commanded by God to kill people (even young people) for certain acts of disobedience. That is a difficult dilema. Normally, killing someone would be wrong. But, disobeying God would be worse, even if we cannot comprehend. It is a chain of command issue. We also know that all killing is not murder. If someone attempts to harm your family and in defense you kill them, it is not murder. Obviously you see the punishement as fitting the crime. On the other hand, we may not understand why God would be so opposed to things we don't consider that serious, such as picking up sticks on the Sabbath. In other words, if I said, "all people who torture children for pleasure should be killed," I doubt you are going to get bent. You are appalled (at least I hope you are) at such a thing. But I doubt you would be concerned at someone picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Therefore the notion of someone being stoned to death for it doesn't jive. But, does your objection mean that God's standards and judgment are wrong? I've used this example before, and it is also a loaded question. Should people go to jail for not making their bed? Of course not.....unless,... the person is a private in the Marine Corp. The standards of the USMC are different than your own. It isn't that making one's bed is the 'moral' issue. It is a matter of authority. Could it be that God's standards matter?
Here you only lighting the fuse to blow up your own argument. You offer this question as an attempt to trip someone up. But all you are showing is that right and wrong exist, and they are objectively based. Afterall, the point of your question presumes that killing a child is objectively wrong. You have to smuggle in OM in an attempt to attack it.