Evidence for God from Science

Neo-X
By this morals are strictly subjective. If its a human construct how can it be objective?


Ken
Because the human who considers it an objective moral will not change his mind on the issue no matter what happens. Now if you are defining OM as a moral that everybody will agree on, something that is as obvious as looking at a tree, then I will say OM does not exist. Morals do not work that way.


Neo-x
Say humans are wiped out and few billion years down the road another species of intelligent creatures with conscience like humans rise up and they produce their morals, then it will sill be subjective. Its subjective to time, place and a lot of different other factors.


Ken
Not only that, it can be subjective to the guy standing next to you.


Neo-X
I had a very nice conversation once with an atheist (who held to SM) on this topic, I asked him, is stealing wrong? He said "define stealing". I replied "taking something you don't own". And to that he said, well lets define ownership?

I asked him, would this hold up in a court?

The answer was, silence.

Can you see the problem?


Ken
Yes that is a very stupid atheist.

Its an inherent idea of fairness that rules the difference between subjective and objective morality, anywhere, anyplace. For instance, lets say I don't belong to earth and I came from a far distant planet (the concept is I am not aware of morality on earth) and in conversation I tell you that I can say that its alright to torture disabled people for fun.

Now, how would you analyze the SM/OM situation here? According to you, am I right/wrong?


Ken
Torture is something I would never approve of; so to me it is an objective situation. The person next to me may consider it subjective, but that doesn’t change the fact that to me it is objective.

Kenny,

It is obvious to all you are still developing your beliefs which I base upon your developing "objective" morality discussion, and your own responses to me here.

To re-visit your initial response to some of my questions (as you've done a circle or backtracked somewhat).

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Atheists often say that God would be morally wrong to allow pain and suffering in the world if He is all-powerful and all-benevolent (or say "send people to hell"). Yet, the reality of concepts are not physically sensed--including objective moral concepts that some things really are wrong while other things really are bad regardless of what anyone thinks. Such wreaks of Theism.

You see it as theism, I just see it as common sense.

It is clear based on your responses that you do not embrace an objective morality, only a subjective and relative at that.

So your "common sense" morality is just yours, and another theirs. You are no better or worse than Hitler just like Mother Teresa. And so, if you call some wrong in some REAL sense, then you contradict your own beliefs. Because there is nothing real about morality besides your construct, or my construct or Hilter's construct, or Stalin's or Kim Jong-un's.

And so, my claim of Atheists here remains true in your instance. You talk of some "real" morality which you have no basis for in your own beliefs, and then retreat to plant your feet in the mid-air of subjectivism/relativism. So you have no logical basis on which to be morally repulsed by God's allowance of pain and suffering in your life or the world.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Atheists often claim to be free thinkers, while embracing that we're the product of entirely physical processes and could not be other than what we are (Determinism).

Can you prove we are anything other than?

My response to this received nothing back, and was purposefully insulting to try and raise a point which I suppose is now mute.

Nonetheless, it seems obvious that you believe we all have beliefs. You believe Theists are somewhat responsible for their beliefs in God/"gods". Persons are humans according to you (while I don't see why you seem to limit "person" to "human" rather than define it more openly) -- but it seems clear in your concept of "person" that there is a very real "you" and a very real "me" such that we are to some degree accountable for our beliefs and actions.

And as such, you disagree with Determinism and that is something that makes you logically inconsistent with your Physicalism.

You, as an Atheist who'd embrace all that really exists is physical, such is inconsistent with "your lack of a belief in God" because the "you" in "your" doesn't really exist. Therefore "you" don't really believe anything. The physical processes usurp the "you" in determining whatever your inexplicable mysterious consciousness appears to believe or think of itself.

That is a complex introductory thought, so try to think on it a little if at first you don't understand what I'm saying.

Regarding an Atheist belief-set, I think it becomes obvious that certain presuppositions exist in even the most base "Atheism" definition. There are several embedded beliefs even in your own definition of an Atheist. Someone else might question why you now see "humans" as "persons" and what it is you see as "human", etc... which starts adding an even more complex set of beliefs to your Atheism...

So I'll end here. It appears that you really don't know, and haven't full thought through your beliefs but I wish you well on your journey and pray you find the Way.

Jac3510
Anyway, the idea you are promoting is called moral subjectivism, or, again, moral anti-realism. It has real consequences, and I just don't think that you believe what you pretend to believe.

Ken
What are the consequences and why do you think I am pretending to believe something I really don’t?

Jac3510
So you also adhere to scientism. More self-refuting nonsense, where by "nonsense," I mean that which cannot logically be true because it refutes itself.

Ken
Why is my claim of no physical proof that God exists, self-refuting and logically untrue?

Jac3510
For the record, you are wrong that there is no physical evidence of God's existence. Your keyboard is such evidence. You just don't know how to make the proper deductions from that, and you don't know how to do that because your scientism is keeping you from being rational.

Ken
Can you provide proof that your idea of God does exist? If so please show me. The greatest minds the world has ever known has been trying to prove the existence of God for thousands of years and have yet to succeed. If you were able to do it, you would be world famous. You are not thus I suspect your claims are empty.

Jac3510
You aren't allowed to say you "agree" or "disagree" with anything society enforces as moral. To agree is to say something is right or correct. To disagree is to say it is wrong or incorrect. Such is meaningless, however, when applied to morality if morals aren't real.

Ken
I never said morals aren’t real, I said they do not have a physical existence; they exist the same way math exists. Just as I can point our inaccurate math equations, I can point out immoral behaviours and actions.

Jac3510
Suppose you say, "Chocolate ice cream is the best," and I say, "I agree!" We're not really saying anything about chocolate ice cream at all. We're both talking about our selves--you asserting that chocolate ice cream is preferable to all other flavors, and me saying that I hold to the same view. But if neo-x comes along as says, "I disagree; vanilla is the best!" neither of us would turn around and try to argue that he is wrong. In fact, very soon we would all drop our language about "best" and just come out and say that there is no "best" ice cream, objectively speaking.

So we go back to what I said before. If a society says something is right or wrong, you don't really "agree" or "disagree." At best, you hold a similar personal preference. But you have no basis on which to say society is "right" or "wrong." Press you're ideas--your language here--and you'll have to admit (if you are at all willing to be intellectually honest) that there's no agreement. There's just similarity and dissimilarity of opinions. The racist, bigot, murderer, and rapist are not wrong or immoral after all, anymore than neo-x is wrong or immoral for preferring vanilla to chocolate.

Ken
Here is how I see it, I am sure you will disagree so when I am done point out where I went wrong; okay?

Humans are social creatures. That means we like being around other humans. One of the most effective means of torture is to keep us away from each other. I remember a story of a prisoner of war in Vietnam who was tortured by solitary confinement for several years. He nearly went crazy because he was not able to see, hear, or touch another human being, so humans require human contact.

When humans gather in groups we form a society and we require rules for the society which must be agreed upon by those who choose to live in the society. If you and I are a part of this society and we like chocolate Ice cream, we will have no problem with neo-x coming along preferring vanilla because nobody is harmed by his preference. However, if neo-x prefers stealing from others, we will have a problem with that because stealing causes harm; thus neo-x has a choice; he can either leave the group (which would be a form of punishment because even though neo-x likes to steal, he is still a social creature and requires human contact; something he will not get if he is banned from society) or he can choose to refrain from stealing.

Even though members of society may agree with most of the rules of society, each individual member will find something they will disagree with but will put it aside for the greater good which is the ability to be a part of the society; and they usually will have a say so in changing the rules if they can get the others in society to agree.

The reason you Ice cream analogy doesn’t work is because ice cream preference doesn’t harm anybody; stealing does thus society considers it a moral issue.


Jac3510
Of course it isn't your view--not intentionally. But it is the necessary consequences of your view. That you, like everyone who holds to your absurd position, commits the taxi cab fallacy is your problem, not mine. Your failure to be intellectually consistent only points to your own ignorance on one had or cowardice on the other. Either way, it's hardly respectable, and either way, your problem points well back to the OP. Your atheism, and your ethical subjectivism, it turns out, cannot stand on its own two feet. You avoid the logical and necessary consequences of your beliefs by simply ignoring them and adopting conclusions that completely do not follow, conclusions that undermine your premise, conclusions that require a belief in God.

Ken
Wow! You said a lot there, but you didn’t back anything up! Can you back up your claim that I avoid the consequences of my beliefs, and adopt conclusions that require a belief in your idea of God?
Now remember; when I said Objective morality as applied to me, I define it as a morality that I don’t change my opinion on thus if I disagreed with Gay marriage in the beginning, it wouldn’t matter what society around me says, I will still be against Gay marriage if I consider gay marriage an objective moral issue. Now the guy next to me who may see it as a subjective issue thus he may disagree with gay marriage today but after talking to someone he changes his mind and will agree with it tomorrow.

Jac3510
Yes, I know. As I said before--self-refuting scientism, which is something else that I doubt you see.

Ken
Are you saying morals exist outside the human mind? Do you have any sources to back this claim up? Or is this just your opinion.


Jac3510
You have much to learn, Kenny.

Ken
We both do.

Kurieuo wrote: It is clear based on your responses that you do not embrace an objective morality, only a subjective and relative at that.

I embrace my definition of Objective morality; not yours.

Kuieuo wrote:So your "common sense" morality is just yours, and another theirs. You are no better or worse than Hitler just like Mother Teresa. And so, if you call some wrong in some REAL sense, then you contradict your own beliefs. Because there is nothing real about morality besides your construct, or my construct or Hilter's construct, or Stalin's or Kim Jong-un's.

And so, my claim of Atheists here remains true in your instance. You talk of some "real" morality which you have no basis for in your own beliefs

You do the same thing I do, the only difference is you point to your imaginary friend in the sky as your source and that is supposed to somehow make you morally superior to me? I don't think so!

Ken

Ken,

You seem to be confusing the ontology of morality with its epistemology.

The discussion re: morality by other Christians with yourself is not concerned with justifying how we know what morality is (epistemology), but rather that morality does exist in reality (ontology).

Believing morality to be ontologically grounded in God makes no claim over whether such is in fact the case. But rather, provides an ontological basis for its reality.

If that is not true, then the best we have is what we define it to be -- which is a matter of taste really.

However, I'd wager lots that your life would be quite inconsistent if you truly believed right and wrong had no real grounding. I don't believe you believe this. For I've run into very many moral Atheists with strong convictions. Despite whatever they say about morality only being subjective and relative -- they truly say things, act and behave as though morality is true. Wrong and right conduct, fairness, justice, etc seem deeply grounded in our very nature.

These friends of mine have believed that some things really are wrong regardless of what I or anyone else thinks. For example, that it is wrong to persecute and kill someone for being Atheist as happens in some very Islamic regions, that Christians committed moral atrocities during the crusades, that priests really are moral monsters when they molest children, etc, etc.

And yet... they have no ontological grounding for this. No objective grounding outside or themselves, social constructs, humanity. And yet, even if everyone believed it was alright to kill children for fun, it would still be the case it would be wrong. And I'd find favour for this from many Atheists, even if they don't get they have no non-subjective or absolute grounding for such beliefs.

It is simply an inconsistency that I guess they either live with or just ignore.

Because the human who considers it an objective moral will not change his mind on the issue no matter what happens. Now if you are defining OM as a moral that everybody will agree on, something that is as obvious as looking at a tree, then I will say OM does not exist. Morals do not work that way.

But that is exactly what I see as the beauty of OM, not everyone has to agree on it...it stands true regardless of how much support or opposition it has.

Neo-x
Say humans are wiped out and few billion years down the road another species of intelligent creatures with conscience like humans rise up and they produce their morals, then it will sill be subjective. Its subjective to time, place and a lot of different other factors.

Ken
Not only that, it can be subjective to the guy standing next to you.

Precisely, and that is why OM is consistent where as SM is not.

Its an inherent idea of fairness that rules the difference between subjective and objective morality, anywhere, anyplace. For instance, lets say I don't belong to earth and I came from a far distant planet (the concept is I am not aware of morality on earth) and in conversation I tell you that I can say that its alright to torture disabled people for fun.

Now, how would you analyze the SM/OM situation here? According to you, am I right/wrong?

Ken
Torture is something I would never approve of; so to me it is an objective situation. The person next to me may consider it subjective, but that doesn’t change the fact that to me it is objective.

And it also doesn't change the fact that the person standing next to you can also claim that hurting others is objective to him. So what makes you special that you be allowed your objective definition and other can't?

It boils down to what you think is right, and you call it objectivity because to you its objective. But objectivity is not that. Objectivity is that Right and wrong are not matters of opinion or taste. Its not a matter of on which side the majority is. If all the world started lying, lying would still be wrong. In other words objectivity throws out your preference. That is how something becomes objective when its unchanged by all human influence.

Now you don't approve of torture as on objective rule, why? I can understand if you had said that you don't approve of torture based on your opinion, which is subjective. But you didn't say that, you said to you its objective...but that is meaningless. What does it have to do with you. Either torture is wrong or right. It is not right or wrong based on who is claiming it to be.

As K also wrote. You agree that murder and torture is wrong but you do it on your personal preference. And that is not equal to objectivity, period. This same preference in another human being is different, so why should he not consider his preference objective.

And if you both hold opposite objectives on a given situation than you are wrong because that a violation of the law of non-contradiction.

I say torture is right...I have my reasons.
You say torture is wrong...You have your reasons.

We both claim our reasons are objective. But two opposite things can't be true at the same time while also negating each other. That is unreal. And that is why both of us have subjectivity at the core of our reasons. For it to be truly objective it needs to stand on it own, our preference would not matter.

neo-x wrote:

Because the human who considers it an objective moral will not change his mind on the issue no matter what happens. Now if you are defining OM as a moral that everybody will agree on, something that is as obvious as looking at a tree, then I will say OM does not exist. Morals do not work that way.

But that is exactly what I see as the beauty of OM, not everyone has to agree on it...it stands true regardless of how much support or opposition it has.

Neo-x
Say humans are wiped out and few billion years down the road another species of intelligent creatures with conscience like humans rise up and they produce their morals, then it will sill be subjective. Its subjective to time, place and a lot of different other factors.

Ken
Not only that, it can be subjective to the guy standing next to you.

Precisely, and that is why OM is consistent where as SM is not.

Its an inherent idea of fairness that rules the difference between subjective and objective morality, anywhere, anyplace. For instance, lets say I don't belong to earth and I came from a far distant planet (the concept is I am not aware of morality on earth) and in conversation I tell you that I can say that its alright to torture disabled people for fun.

Now, how would you analyze the SM/OM situation here? According to you, am I right/wrong?

Ken
Torture is something I would never approve of; so to me it is an objective situation. The person next to me may consider it subjective, but that doesn’t change the fact that to me it is objective.

And it also doesn't change the fact that the person standing next to you can also claim that hurting others is objective to him. So what makes you special that you be allowed your objective definition and other can't?

It boils down to what you think is right, and you call it objectivity because to you its objective. But objectivity is not that. Objectivity is that Right and wrong are not matters of opinion or taste. Its not a matter of on which side the majority is. If all the world started lying, lying would still be wrong. In other words objectivity throws out your preference. That is how something becomes objective when its unchanged by all human influence.

Now you don't approve of torture as on objective rule, why? I can understand if you had said that you don't approve of torture based on your opinion, which is subjective. But you didn't say that, you said to you its objective...but that is meaningless. What does it have to do with you. Either torture is wrong or right. It is not right or wrong based on who is claiming it to be.

As K also wrote. You agree that murder and torture is wrong but you do it on your personal preference. And that is not equal to objectivity, period. This same preference in another human being is different, so why should he not consider his preference objective.

And if you both hold opposite objectives on a given situation than you are wrong because that a violation of the law of non-contradiction.

I say torture is right...I have my reasons.
You say torture is wrong...You have your reasons.

We both claim our reasons are objective. But two opposite things can't be true at the same time while also negating each other. That is unreal. And that is why both of us have subjectivity at the core of our reasons. For it to be truly objective it needs to stand on it own, our preference would not matter.

Here is how I see our exchange going

Ken
My morals are objective because I say they are

Neo
But you are just a man. In order for it to be objective it must be grounded in something bigger than man. Hitler was a man; your words carry no more weight than his! I have my morals grounded in God.

Ken
But God doesn’t exist thus I am bigger than God! You are too you just don’t realize it.

You say no, I say yes, and we can go that way forever because God is not going to prove me wrong.
That is why I said before; the unenforced rule might as well not even exist! Human society enforces moral rules; Hitler, Mao, Amin and a host of others proved God does not.
I guess what it boils down to, if you are unable to prove your idea of God even exists; how are you supposed to prove that he has rules that exist?

Ken

Ken,

You are changing the definition of OM to fit your argument.

Ken wrote:
But God doesn’t exist thus I am bigger than God! You are too you just don’t realize it.

Kenny,
Please prove God doesn't exist. Can you?

Oops!

Kenny wrote:

neo-x wrote:

Because the human who considers it an objective moral will not change his mind on the issue no matter what happens. Now if you are defining OM as a moral that everybody will agree on, something that is as obvious as looking at a tree, then I will say OM does not exist. Morals do not work that way.

But that is exactly what I see as the beauty of OM, not everyone has to agree on it...it stands true regardless of how much support or opposition it has.

Neo-x
Say humans are wiped out and few billion years down the road another species of intelligent creatures with conscience like humans rise up and they produce their morals, then it will sill be subjective. Its subjective to time, place and a lot of different other factors.

Ken
Not only that, it can be subjective to the guy standing next to you.

Precisely, and that is why OM is consistent where as SM is not.

Its an inherent idea of fairness that rules the difference between subjective and objective morality, anywhere, anyplace. For instance, lets say I don't belong to earth and I came from a far distant planet (the concept is I am not aware of morality on earth) and in conversation I tell you that I can say that its alright to torture disabled people for fun.

Now, how would you analyze the SM/OM situation here? According to you, am I right/wrong?

Ken
Torture is something I would never approve of; so to me it is an objective situation. The person next to me may consider it subjective, but that doesn’t change the fact that to me it is objective.

And it also doesn't change the fact that the person standing next to you can also claim that hurting others is objective to him. So what makes you special that you be allowed your objective definition and other can't?

It boils down to what you think is right, and you call it objectivity because to you its objective. But objectivity is not that. Objectivity is that Right and wrong are not matters of opinion or taste. Its not a matter of on which side the majority is. If all the world started lying, lying would still be wrong. In other words objectivity throws out your preference. That is how something becomes objective when its unchanged by all human influence.

Now you don't approve of torture as on objective rule, why? I can understand if you had said that you don't approve of torture based on your opinion, which is subjective. But you didn't say that, you said to you its objective...but that is meaningless. What does it have to do with you. Either torture is wrong or right. It is not right or wrong based on who is claiming it to be.

As K also wrote. You agree that murder and torture is wrong but you do it on your personal preference. And that is not equal to objectivity, period. This same preference in another human being is different, so why should he not consider his preference objective.

And if you both hold opposite objectives on a given situation than you are wrong because that a violation of the law of non-contradiction.

I say torture is right...I have my reasons.
You say torture is wrong...You have your reasons.

We both claim our reasons are objective. But two opposite things can't be true at the same time while also negating each other. That is unreal. And that is why both of us have subjectivity at the core of our reasons. For it to be truly objective it needs to stand on it own, our preference would not matter.

Here is how I see our exchange going

Ken
My morals are objective because I say they are

Neo
But you are just a man. In order for it to be objective it must be grounded in something bigger than man. Hitler was a man; your words carry no more weight than his! I have my morals grounded in God.

Ken
But God doesn’t exist thus I am bigger than God! You are too you just don’t realize it.

You say no, I say yes, and we can go that way forever because God is not going to prove me wrong.
That is why I said before; the unenforced rule might as well not even exist! Human society enforces moral rules; Hitler, Mao, Amin and a host of others proved God does not.
I guess what it boils down to, if you are unable to prove your idea of God even exists; how are you supposed to prove that he has rules that exist?

Ken

Ken, that is a red herring. I never said OM is grounded in God. I have not appealed to it. I am not morally superior to you. The question is which is consistent. OM is consistent, SM is not. I said anything man made is purely, subjective. And I challenge you to prove otherwise. Even If I concede there is no God (which I don't), your point still stands to be proven, how is your opinion objective?

Kenny wrote:Oops!

That's the most logical thing you've said so far!

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:Oops!

That's the most logical thing you've said so far!

My favorite is this gem:

Kenny wrote:My morals are objective because I say they are

And I'm making a 4-sided triangle and no one can stop me.

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:Oops!

That's the most logical thing you've said so far!

My favorite is this gem:

Kenny wrote:My morals are objective because I say they are

And I'm making a 4-sided triangle and no one can stop me.

I feel the same about Kenny. Making his own definitions...

RickD wrote:Ken,

You are changing the definition of OM to fit your argument.

I got my definition out of the dictionary

RickK wrote:Kenny,
Please prove God doesn't exist. Can you?

Assuming you are refering to the God discribed in the BIble, I am unable to prove your God does not exist.....but then I am unable to prove Santa Clause doesn't exist either! The fact that I am unable to prove a negetive, in no way authenticates it's existence.

Ken

Kurieuo wrote:Ken,

You seem to be confusing the ontology of morality with its epistemology.

The discussion re: morality by other Christians with yourself is not concerned with justifying how we know what morality is (epistemology), but rather that morality does exist in reality (ontology).

Believing morality to be ontologically grounded in God makes no claim over whether such is in fact the case. But rather, provides an ontological basis for its reality.

If that is not true, then the best we have is what we define it to be -- which is a matter of taste really.

However, I'd wager lots that your life would be quite inconsistent if you truly believed right and wrong had no real grounding. I don't believe you believe this. For I've run into very many moral Atheists with strong convictions. Despite whatever they say about morality only being subjective and relative -- they truly say things, act and behave as though morality is true. Wrong and right conduct, fairness, justice, etc seem deeply grounded in our very nature.

These friends of mine have believed that some things really are wrong regardless of what I or anyone else thinks. For example, that it is wrong to persecute and kill someone for being Atheist as happens in some very Islamic regions, that Christians committed moral atrocities during the crusades, that priests really are moral monsters when they molest children, etc, etc.

And yet... they have no ontological grounding for this. No objective grounding outside or themselves, social constructs, humanity. And yet, even if everyone believed it was alright to kill children for fun, it would still be the case it would be wrong. And I'd find favour for this from many Atheists, even if they don't get they have no non-subjective or absolute grounding for such beliefs.

It is simply an inconsistency that I guess they either live with or just ignore.

When you say morality exists, what do you mean? That it exists as I said like Math; in the human mind? Do you mean it has a physical existence? A spiritual existence? Or what? What do you mean when you say morality exists?

Ken