Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Wed Jan 21, 2015 8:02 pm**

jlay wrote:
Kenny wrote: No. I’ve made it clear I don’t believe OM exist and I’ve also made it clear how I know something is right or wrong. You're just putting up a "smoke screen" in an effort to get outta answering my question.
Kenny, it's not a smoke screen. You didn't ask me a question. On 01/19/15 at 6:47pm you asked Rick a question. Check it out.
And no, you've not made it clear. You've simply said it's your opinion. Not "HOW" you know something is right or wrong.

I never said anything about the bible being the source, I said Jesus/God
You said, Jesus/God and the Bible. But, let's not pick nits. It doesn't change that how we come to know morality is different than how we know whether objective moral values and duties exist. You say you understand the distinctions, but if you did, you wouldn't make this statement. Yes, I believe that the God of the Bible is the same as the god of natural theology. But that is my conclusion, not what we are arguing for. For the umpteenth time, the argument isn't, "OM exist, therefore the Bible is true."
Why would I try to convince you the Bible is true if you reject theism and OM? It doesn't follow. So, it would be nice if you would stop repeating this error even after it is pointed out to you multiple times.

You care because that’s what you believe.
Tisk, tisk. I don't care because that's what I believe. Kenny, I care because what I believe (morals are objective) DEMANDS it. I am consistently following my belief (that OM exists) to its logical ends. Are you? No. My belief acknowledges OM, yours does not. Therefore, for you, it's all subjective. Really, really, subjective. Meaning no opinion on morality holds more weight than any other. To state otherwise is to smuggle in OM. Yet, you are saying that your opinion on morality is right and mine (that morality is objectively grounded) is wrong. Odd, because that is an objective truth claim concerning morality. You are entitled to your opinion, but opinions have consequences, and you have consistently dodged the implications of your opinions.

You are wrong and this has nothing to do with the question at hand
How am I wrong? Making bald assertions isn't an argument. It has plenty to do with the question at hand. Human value is interwoven with OM.

*No it’s not futile; we agreed if morality were objective, a source is required.
*We agreed you believe Jesus/God as described in the Bible is this source
and I simply asked what you would say to the guy who sees some other God as the source of morality. Now why is it so difficult to get a straight answer from you concerning this?
If you don’t have an answer, say so! If it is a matter of blind faith, say so! I can respect that.
Sam Harris rejects a transcendent source of OM, but accepts OM nontheless.
What I would say to some guy would be a completely different argument. There are a lot of things I would ask and say. If someone already assumes OM, then we can begin to analyze our particular positions to see if they line up. The point though is that we are at least starting on common ground. An argument for theism is different than arguing for Christianity or the veracity of the Bible.

What questions have you asked me that I haven’t answered?
Kenny, just within these latest responses you haven't answered. Perhaps you have answered these in the past.

I’ve answered this question hundred times already; I say it’s wrong recognizing I am expressing my subjective opinion
Kenny, nothing personal, but that's not an answer. Saying, "that's my opinion" is not an answer.
-I have a pet monkey who craps diamonds.
-No you don't.
-Well, that's my opinion.
You haven't explained your subjective morality, or owned the implications of it.

Jlay
You either:
conform, and agree that torturing puppies for fun is a good thing.

Ken
No
No? Why not?
Oh, let me guess, your opinion.

Yes I can say it’s wrong. I do this all the time! In the real world everybody complains about laws they don’t agree with
Sure. But then you MUST (if you are consistent) affirm the opposite. You can also say it's right. If you are employing SM you can't say that something is ALWAYS wrong, even for yourself. That is to again smuggle in OM.

Nothing wrong with that!
So good can be evil and evil good? In other words it's arbitrary. So, if someone calls you evil, you just shrug it off as meaningless?

The base is subjective.
So, it CAN be good and virtuous to torture puppies, forcibly rape someone, or pursue a career in human trafficking?

You are wrong. Objective morality is not defined that way. I say it is wrong to slaughter puppies/dogs, but it is okay to slaughter rats. If morality is objective, what do you say to the guy who says it is okay to slaughter puppies/dogs but wrong to slaughter rats? Are exterminators evil?
I'm wrong? No I'm not, I'm right. The person who denies OM, telling me "I'm wrong." Hilarious.
OK, define OM?
How do you define what you reject? This is really becoming ridiculous.

I think the exterminator question is a good one. But again, this isn't an ontological question. It's a dilemma. If OM don't exist then there is no dilemma. Kill dogs, cats, people, rats. It's all the same.
What's the difference in spraying an ant hill and Hitler gassing thousands of Jews? Opinion?
If someone kills any living thing for pleasure then it's sadistic. And that is objectively wrong.

Because you cannot demonstrate that it is wrong. Can you explain why it is okay to kill cockroaches and rats but not okay to kill dogs and cats?
I just did demonstrate it, unless of course that you can show me that torturing puppies for pleasure is a good thing. If morality is only subjective, then you should be able to demonstrate (clearly, not just state "it's an opinion.") that torturing puppies for pleasure CAN be virtuous.

Jlay
Kenny, it's not a smoke screen. You didn't ask me a question. On 01/19/15 at 6:47pm you asked Rick a question. Check it out.
And no, you've not made it clear. You've simply said it's your opinion. Not "HOW" you know something is right or wrong.

Ken
How I know something is right or wrong is decided on a case by case basis. As far as the question I asked; I was directing it to both you and Rick because both of you guys responded to what I initially said and you quoted my question in your response. I thought my directing was clear; evidently it was not. If you don’t mind; would you mind giving a response to the question I asked?

Jlay
You said, Jesus/God and the Bible. But, let's not pick nits. It doesn't change that how we come to know morality is different than how we know whether objective moral values and duties exist. You say you understand the distinctions, but if you did, you wouldn't make this statement

Ken
Actually I said Jesus/God OF the bible because I didn’t want it confused with God/Jesus of the Koran, or some other religious book God/Jesus might be a part of.
As far as how we know morality exists, I believe morality is simply judgment calls people make on human actions. When somebody says “that is wrong, that is evil” etc. wrong or evil has no more of an existence than stupid, funny, or wisdom. These judgment calls only exist in our heads; they don’t exist on their own. So yes morality does exist, but it only exist in our heads; that’s why I say morality is subjective; because subjective is based on interpretation, and about what goes on in your head
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjective?s=t

Jlay
Tisk, tisk. I don't care because that's what I believe. Kenny, I care because what I believe (morals are objective) DEMANDS it. I am consistently following my belief (that OM exists) to its logical ends. Are you? No. My belief acknowledges OM, yours does not. Therefore, for you, it's all subjective. Really, really, subjective. Meaning no opinion on morality holds more weight than any other.

Ken
Since you believe otherwise, who decides which opinion on morality holds more weight?

Jlay
Sam Harris rejects a transcendent source of OM, but accepts OM nontheless.
What I would say to some guy would be a completely different argument. There are a lot of things I would ask and say. If someone already assumes OM, then we can begin to analyze our particular positions to see if they line up. The point though is that we are at least starting on common ground. An argument for theism is different than arguing for Christianity or the veracity of the Bible.

Ken
Who is Sam Harris, and why are you bringing him up? As far as what you say to the Guy of another religion, OM has nothing to do with it. The question is, how do you prove your moral source is authentic and his is not?

Jlay
Kenny, nothing personal, but that's not an answer. Saying, "that's my opinion" is not an answer.
-I have a pet monkey who craps diamonds.
-No you don't.
-Well, that's my opinion.
You haven't explained your subjective morality, or owned the implications of it.

Ken
Again; I believe morality only exists in our heads; they do not have an actual existence outside human thought. Because subjective is defined as pertaining to human thought/interpretation; I believe morality is subjective.

Jlay
So good can be evil and evil good? In other words it's arbitrary. So, if someone calls you evil, you just shrug it off as meaningless?

Ken
What can I do? Evil are just judgment calls people make about actions. If somebody called you evil; how would you prove you are not?

Jlay
I think the exterminator question is a good one. But again, this isn't an ontological question. It's a dilemma. If OM don't exist then there is no dilemma. Kill dogs, cats, people, rats. It's all the same.

Ken
Not quite; if OM exist, either you kill all of them; rats, dogs, cats, people etc. or you kill NONE. The fact that people pick and choose what is okay to slaughter and what is not okay should tell you something.

Jlay
I just did demonstrate it, unless of course that you can show me that torturing puppies for pleasure is a good thing. If morality is only subjective, then you should be able to demonstrate (clearly, not just state "it's an opinion.") that torturing puppies for pleasure CAN be virtuous

Ken
Subjective morality does not mean torturing puppies could be a virtuous thing; it means there could be people who believe it to be a virtuous thing.
In theory, do you believe it is possible that someone could believe torturing puppies to be a virtuous thing?

Ken

Posted: **Thu Jan 22, 2015 7:23 am**

Jac3510 wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:
Kenny wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote: Kenny, to state that morals are subjective is to state that the notion of right and wrong is subjective.
That means that there is no right or wrong OTHER than what any given person things to be right or wrong IN SPECIFIC ( and act for example).

What I am saying is that morals ARE Objective /Absolute because the NOTION of right and wrong ( that there is a right and a wrong) does indeed exist for EVERYONE.
Now, people and cultures may vary as to WHAT is right and wrong BUT not THAT THERE IS right and wrong.

Understand what I mean?
I understand what you are saying. Do you believe everybody knows what right and wrong are in every situation? Or do you believe this variety in moral beliefs is the result of people pretending something is right when they know deep down that it is not?

Ken
It isn't a matter of knowing WHAT is right or wrong, that would make things subjective. It is a matter of knowing that there IS A right and a wrong.

See, people can bend common sense to justify almost anything to be, if not right, at least "not wrong", but what they can't justify ever is that there is no such thing as right and wrong because everyone has at least one thing ( usually far more than one) that they will say, unreservedly, "that is not right" or "that is wrong".
I admire your persistence but dude...

Well played sir, well played.

Posted: **Thu Jan 22, 2015 7:25 am**

Kenny wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote: It isn't a matter of knowing WHAT is right or wrong, that would make things subjective. It is a matter of knowing that there IS A right and a wrong.
I’ve never claimed right and wrong does not exist, I say it only exist in our heads. Right and wrong does not have an actual existence; they are just judgment calls people make about human actions. As I said before, where there are no humans, there is no morality.

PaulSacramento wrote:See, people can bend common sense to justify almost anything to be, if not right, at least "not wrong", but what they can't justify ever is that there is no such thing as right and wrong because everyone has at least one thing ( usually far more than one) that they will say, unreservedly, "that is not right" or "that is wrong".
I’m not talking about dishonesty, I’m talking about people who sincere. In other words; is it possible for group 1 to believe “X” is right and group 2 believe “X” is wrong without one of the groups being dishonest?

Ken

Kenny:

As I said before, where there are no humans, there is no morality.

You, of course, have proof of that most absolute of statements, yes?

That is almost like saying that if there exists no triangles then triangularity doesn't exist.

Posted: **Thu Jan 22, 2015 8:19 am**

Kenny wrote: How I know something is right or wrong is decided on a case by case basis. As far as the question I asked; I was directing it to both you and Rick because both of you guys responded to what I initially said and you quoted my question in your response. I thought my directing was clear; evidently it was not. If you don’t mind; would you mind giving a response to the question I asked?

Kenny, eventually you get to the point where all you can do is face palm.

Actually I said Jesus/God OF the bible because I didn’t want it confused with God/Jesus of the Koran, or some other religious book God/Jesus might be a part of.
As far as how we know morality exists, I believe morality is simply judgment calls people make on human actions. When somebody says “that is wrong, that is evil” etc. wrong or evil has no more of an existence than stupid, funny, or wisdom. These judgment calls only exist in our heads; they don’t exist on their own. So yes morality does exist, but it only exist in our heads; that’s why I say morality is subjective; because subjective is based on interpretation, and about what goes on in your head
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subjective?s=t

And Kenny, all we are asking you do to is embrace your position and its implications. You haven't.

Since you believe otherwise, who decides which opinion on morality holds more weight?

That is the question YOU need to be answering.

Who is Sam Harris, and why are you bringing him up? As far as what you say to the Guy of another religion, OM has nothing to do with it. The question is, how do you prove your moral source is authentic and his is not?

There is this new thing called Google. Harris is a leading 'new atheist.'

Again; I believe morality only exists in our heads; they do not have an actual existence outside human thought. Because subjective is defined as pertaining to human thought/interpretation; I believe morality is subjective.

Of course people make subjective interpretations and claims about morality. You won't hear me disagree. But for the gazillionth time, how we come to discern right and wrong (subjective) is different than whether things are actually right or wrong.

What can I do? Evil are just judgment calls people make about actions. If somebody called you evil; how would you prove you are not?

Stop being wishy washy and embrace your subjective morality.
Whether I can 'prove' it or not isn't the question. The question is whether evil and good are objective standards. I find it nothing less than sad that you honestly can't make a definitive claim that torturing puppies for pleasure is wrong.

Not quite; if OM exist, either you kill all of them; rats, dogs, cats, people etc. or you kill NONE. The fact that people pick and choose what is okay to slaughter and what is not okay should tell you something.

It tells me that people have different methods for interpreting objective morality. Who are you to tell us that it's all or none? You're a subjectivist. Stop making objective claims about morality!!

Subjective morality does not mean torturing puppies could be a virtuous thing; it means there could be people who believe it to be a virtuous thing.

It absolutely means that. You are saying virtue is nothing more than a human construct. Then the terms (objective/subjective/evil/good/virtue) are meaningless as is this conversation. When you use the term wrong, you aren't using it as a subjective term. When you do you rob the word of any real meaning. You might as well say torturing puppies for pleasure is bitter.
We've already addressed that what someone CAN believe is different than what they should believe. You are trying to dodge the question and failing miserably. It's been posited to you, if morals are only subjective, then you should be able to show me where torturing puppies for pleasure CAN be a virtuous thing. Not simply that someone can believe it, but that by believing, it actually becomes virtuous.

In theory, do you believe it is possible that someone could believe torturing puppies to be a virtuous thing?

Yes, someone could believe that. This has no impact on my position, but it does on yours. Does believing it make it virtuous? If the collective society believed it virtuous, WHY would you resist or oppose? Because you know it is wrong. And, you'd be using the term 'wrong' in the objective sense. You are saying that morals are subjective, and that morals are ONLY a matter of opinion. So, you must be willing to follow this through. Subjective morality (at the exclusion of OM) dictates that not only could someone 'believe' it, but that it is.

Hitler believed that destroying the Jews was a good thing. So, if I reject OM, then I would have to admit that Hitler's ambitions weren't objectively wrong, but just his interpretation. And, that his interpretation is no more or less valid than any other. If no moral position is objectively right or wrong then they all deserve equal consideration. But, you don't equally consider this (exterminating jews) as a moral position do you? I'm not asking that YOU believe it, but whether you accept it as a viable moral position.

You say case by case basis, but pardon me if I don't buy this. As if you sit down and actually consider puppy torture for personal pleasure. "Hmmm, should I torture puppies for pleasure?" Essentially what you are saying here is "If" it gave you pleasure, then it would be a viable option and a good thing. But, since it doesn't give you pleasure then it's a bad thing (in your opinion of course). Let me warn you, that this case by case proposition you are making demonstrates sociopathic tendencies. I hope you would agree that simply because something brings us pleasure doesn't make it a good thing. So, once again we are back to the same question. How do you decide, on a case by case basis, whether something is right or wrong? Saying you decide on a case by case basis doesn't answer how you decide.

Posted: **Thu Jan 22, 2015 9:22 am**

Kenny wrote:
B. W. wrote:Kenny, what I am hearing you say in all this on the matter of Objective Morality (OM) and Objective Truth (ObjT) is that only you have OM based upon your own ObjT.

If that is the case, then, would not that mean that OM and ObjT is true?
I believe morality are judgment calls people make about human actions. Where there are no humans, there is no morality. Because judgment calls are simply thoughts, they only exist in our heads. Because subjectivity is about what goes on in our heads, I say morality is subjective; not objective.

B. W. wrote:In this, how do you know what good is, how would you define what good is?
What I call good is judged on a case by case basis. I would define morally good as "understanding the consequences of actions and how they affect your neighbor. And it starts from the position that what is helpful for your neighbor is good, and what is harmful to your neighbor is bad".

B. W. wrote:Are you perfect, without any faults?

Have you ever exhibited any dysfunctional thoughts, actions?
I am far from perfect

B. W. wrote:Do you really want to discuss this further?
I would love to discuss this further

Ken

In regards what you stated above,' I say morality is subjective; not objective...'

...Are you absolutely sure about that?

Next, you have not defined what Good means to you as your response contains no clear definition. For your answer, one can surmise that it is a good for their neighbor that they cause them them grief because it is good for sadist to inflict sadistic pain and schemes for mere pleasure upon their neighbor as it would teach them to be good by teaching the neighbor to give whatever the sadist wants and when. How can you define that as good since good is subjective? So Ken, you have not defined what Good means at all so until you do, there is no reason to discuss further unless you define what the word good means.

Lastly, I asked if you are perfect and ever exhibited any dysfunctional thoughts and you answered that you are far from perfect. Therefore, would not being subjective be something that justifies your imperfections and dysfunction?

How can you know that you are far from being perfect since their is no standard by which to judge this?

Why do you say you are not perfect?
-
-
-

Posted: **Thu Jan 22, 2015 10:25 am**

Who wants to play the subjective morality game?

Let's see if we can decide, case by case, how we want to live our life. I say 'want' because there really isn't a right way or wrong way. There are just ways, and how we chose those ways doesn't really matter, because if we say that there is a method we OUGHT to imploy, then we have just defeated our own case.

Remember that in these scenarios, we must first presuppose that objecitve moral and duties do not exist. So, we have to erase even the most subtle reference to morals as having any objective basis.
For example, we need to emphasize that the terms right, wrong, evil, good, etc. don't have any objective meaning. They are arbitrary. Wrong then becomes a moral preference. Much like some people prefer vanilla and others chocolate. So, it would be acceptable to say, those who like vanilla are wrong, since wrong is a subjective term. In fact, if the majority of people dislike vanilla, it would be reasonable to outlaw vanilla ice cream and jail offenders.

Also, we can't appeal to something being 'better' for humanity. This implies that humanity has some intrinsic value. After all, it could be subjectively argued that humanity is a blight on the face of the earth, and the planet would better served by human extinction.

Here is our first moral choice.

Although there is no intrinsic value in 'raising' children, we have choices. I'd like to suggest this first disciplinary method.
-Putting out cigarettes on a child's arm is an acceptable form of correction.

I'm trying to make a case by case basis. What reasons should I consider? If there is no objective moral truth, wouldn't just flipping a coin suffice?

Feel free to share your own.

Posted: **Thu Jan 22, 2015 11:35 am**

Subjective morality is base don the view that no one knows better for me what is better for me than me.
It extends to the "morality of the majority" in which the majority agree that this is right and this is wrong and the minority must follow, or else.

Of course subjective morality is based on the ACTS that may be deemed right and wrong and NOT on right and wrong in of itself.

Posted: **Thu Jan 22, 2015 6:52 pm**

PaulSacramento wrote:
Kenny wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote: It isn't a matter of knowing WHAT is right or wrong, that would make things subjective. It is a matter of knowing that there IS A right and a wrong.
I’ve never claimed right and wrong does not exist, I say it only exist in our heads. Right and wrong does not have an actual existence; they are just judgment calls people make about human actions. As I said before, where there are no humans, there is no morality.

PaulSacramento wrote:See, people can bend common sense to justify almost anything to be, if not right, at least "not wrong", but what they can't justify ever is that there is no such thing as right and wrong because everyone has at least one thing ( usually far more than one) that they will say, unreservedly, "that is not right" or "that is wrong".
I’m not talking about dishonesty, I’m talking about people who sincere. In other words; is it possible for group 1 to believe “X” is right and group 2 believe “X” is wrong without one of the groups being dishonest?

Ken
Kenny:
As I said before, where there are no humans, there is no morality.
You, of course, have proof of that most absolute of statements, yes?

Yes! Via reason and logic. Also, would you mind addressing the question I asked you on Wednesday Jan 21, 2015 @ 7:48 pm?

Ken

Posted: **Thu Jan 22, 2015 7:28 pm**

B. W. wrote:In regards what you stated above,' I say morality is subjective; not objective...'

...Are you absolutely sure about that?

You appear to be confusing my claim that morality is subjective with everything is subjective.

B. W. wrote:Next, you have not defined what Good means to you as your response contains no clear definition.

Good means to have desirable qualities.

B. W. wrote:For your answer, one can surmise that it is a good for their neighbor that they cause them them grief because it is good for sadist to inflict sadistic pain and schemes for mere pleasure upon their neighbor as it would teach them to be good by teaching the neighbor to give whatever the sadist wants and when.

Grief, pain, and torture is harmful by definition; even if it is to a sadist. I said what is harmful to the neighbor is bad; what is helpful is good. And that is what applies to me I didn’t say it applies to everybody.

B. W. wrote:How can you define that as good since good is subjective?

I am not a sadist; I do not define that as good.

B. W. wrote:Lastly, I asked if you are perfect and ever exhibited any dysfunctional thoughts and you answered that you are far from perfect. Therefore, would not being subjective be something that justifies your imperfections and dysfunction?

Subjective doesn’t justify anything

B. W. wrote:How can you know that you are far from being perfect since their is no standard by which to judge this?

There IS a standard; my standard.

B. W. wrote:Why do you say you are not perfect?
-
-
-

[/quote]
Because despite my best efforts, I still make mistakes.

Ken

Posted: **Thu Jan 22, 2015 7:34 pm**

PaulSacramento wrote:Subjective morality is base don the view that no one knows better for me what is better for me than me.
It extends to the "morality of the majority" in which the majority agree that this is right and this is wrong and the minority must follow, or else.

You are describing "laws". Laws are objective.

PaulSacramento wrote:Of course subjective morality is based on the ACTS that may be deemed right and wrong and NOT on right and wrong in of itself.

What's the difference?

Ken

Posted: **Thu Jan 22, 2015 8:08 pm**

Jlay
Kenny, eventually you get to the point where all you can do is face palm.

Ken
When a person “face palms” over such a simple question; it is usually because such a simple question can expose a flawed position for what it really is, and it isn’t a pretty sight.

Jlay
And Kenny, all we are asking you do to is embrace your position and its implications. You haven't.

Ken
What does that mean?

Jlay
That is the question YOU need to be answering.

Ken
I’ve already answered that question; I decide. But because you believe morality is objective; who do you say decides the moral base?

Jlay
how we come to discern right and wrong (subjective) is different than whether things are actually right or wrong.

Ken
What is the difference between what people perceive as right and wrong vs what is right and wrong?

Jlay
It absolutely means that. You are saying virtue is nothing more than a human construct. Then the terms (objective/subjective/evil/good/virtue) are meaningless as is this conversation.

Ken
You’ve contradicted yourself, anything that is a human construct has meaning to humans.

Jlayh
When you use the term wrong, you aren't using it as a subjective term. When you do you rob the word of any real meaning.

Ken
To label something subjective doesn’t take away from the meaning of the word.

Jlay
We've already addressed that what someone CAN believe is different than what they should believe.

Ken
Who decides what they should believe?

Jlay
You are trying to dodge the question and failing miserably. It's been posited to you,

Ken
I’ve answered every question you’ve asked me. You on the other hand have ignored and refused to answer plenty of my questions to you. (Pot meet Kettle)

Jlay
if morals are only subjective, then you should be able to show me where torturing puppies for pleasure CAN be a virtuous thing.

Ken
You’ve gotten it backwards my friend! Objective morality is about what can be demonstrated; not subjective. Subjective is about what goes on in your head.

Jlay
Not simply that someone can believe it, but that by believing, it actually becomes virtuous.

Ken
Virtuous to who? To me? You? or the person who believes it. Obviously it may be virtuous to the person who believes it, even though you and I will not agree.

Ken

Posted: **Fri Jan 23, 2015 6:48 am**

Kenny wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:Subjective morality is base don the view that no one knows better for me what is better for me than me.
It extends to the "morality of the majority" in which the majority agree that this is right and this is wrong and the minority must follow, or else.
You are describing "laws". Laws are objective.

PaulSacramento wrote:Of course subjective morality is based on the ACTS that may be deemed right and wrong and NOT on right and wrong in of itself.
What's the difference?

Ken

I think that this post speaks volumes, at least to me.
It seems that you are not understanding the argument because you simply do NOT want to,
To ask what is the difference between ACTS of right and wrong that may be viewed as subjective and the the existence OF right and wrong which is absolute seems to imply that you don't understand or choose not to.
Since you don't seem to have any sort of intelligence problem ( understanding), then I can only assume you are choosing to NOT want to understand.
So...

Posted: **Fri Jan 23, 2015 8:07 am**

Okay. If we agree Objective morality would require a base; (or as Jlay would prefer “source”) allow me to present a scenario. In the scenario I am assuming you say the moral source is Jesus/God of the Bible. If this is incorrect please explain this source and I will adjust my scenario accordingly.

If you believe behavior “X” is immoral/wrong because according to the bible, Jesus/God (the moral source) says it is wrong, but the next guy says behavior “X” is moral/good because according to his Holy Text (a religious book you do not subscribe to) it says his moral source (some deity you do not subscribe to) says it is good, what right do you have to say your claim is credible and his is not? In other words; other than blind faith, what system do you use to verify that your moral source is authentic and his is not?

Ken, 'above is the question you say I haven't answered. Even though this wasn't addressed to me, I did in fact offer an answer. Please stop with the false accusations. by jlay » Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:48 am
Just because you don't like my answer doesn't mean it isn't one.

Let me clarify although I've made these exact comments to you before.
The Bible has variety of moral law. Some of that law is prescriptive, or covenantal law. It is ONLY for a certain people at a certain time in a certain place.
I used the example studying with my daughter last night. Randomly flipped open the bible to Deuteronomy and read one of the prescriptive laws. Is this law for us today? Laws regulating morality is not OM. You are again missing the ontology.
The veracity of the Bible is a well argued subject, but it isn't the same subject as OM. So, your question is a non-sequitur. You can keep making the same question over and over, but it doesn't make it a valid question. Our inability to answer an invalid question isn't our problem, it's yours.

Now, the bible also reveals objective moral truths. Remember, the law itself isn't OM. Otherwise, how would we ever argue that some laws are just while others are not? But there are things mentioned in the Bible that are right and wrong for all people in all times and all places. Murder (and this is a very specific term) is wrong in all times and all places. So you aren't confused, killing in self-defense isn't murder in this sense. Because, preserving oneself from murder, while using force to do so, is also appealing to the EXACT same objective moral standard; that it is wrong for someone to maliciously attempt to end my life.

Now listen closely. Murder isn't wrong because the Bible says so. The Bible says so, because it is wrong. Murder was wrong before the Bible was ever written. So, please, for all that is good, stop making these erroneous statements. For the umpteenth time, the case for OM does NOT exclude subjective moral interpretation. Please, please, please, stop implying this.

So again, the issue of how we come to know what is moral is different than whether moral values and duties exist. You made the comment that you understand the epistemological and ontological distinctions. If so, then it's time to start acting like it. W e both agree, if OM exist then there is a source. But you are extrapolating this inference too far and denying it prejudicially, not logically. You don't accept a creator, or OM. And since you have rightly concluded that OM denotes a source, you emotionally object. Well, too bad.

But you are cutting off your nose to spite your face, and looking rather silly while doing it. Whether the source of OM is a transcendent one is another hotly debated subject. But, it is a unique subject. You can't even get to this point because you have stubbornly refused to acknowledge the flaws and implications of your subjective morality. For the sake of the argument, the source of OM could be transcendent. That is why I mentioned Sam Harris. He believes in OM while rejecting a transcendent source.

I don't how to explain better than this. If you disagree, please don't waste your time asking how I know the Bible is better than the Koran. That has NOTHING to do with whether objective moral values and duties exist. If you want to continue with this, then you are being obtuse, and it's akin to cyber pouting. It's also arrogant to continue to make fallacious demands on this forum. If that is your response, fine, but perhaps this forum isn't the place for you. I'll leave that up to the mods.

Posted: **Fri Jan 23, 2015 8:28 am**

When a person “face palms” over such a simple question; it is usually because such a simple question can expose a flawed position for what it really is, and it isn’t a pretty sight.

Don't flatter yourself Ken. You aren't nearly as smart as you think you are. If you want to keep making yourself look foolish, we can't stop you. I assure you the face palm is long over due and is derived more from pity than frustration.

Jlay
And Kenny, all we are asking you do to is embrace your position and its implications. You haven't.

Ken
What does that mean?

Let's look at what you said to BW.
Ken: Grief, pain, and torture is harmful by definition; even if it is to a sadist. I said what is harmful to the neighbor is bad; what is helpful is good. And that is what applies to me I didn’t say it applies to everybody.

Here is your problem. Fine, but what you must accept, on your own moral basis, is that it is equally valid to state, 'what is harmful is good and what is helpful is bad.' All you are doing is kicking the proverbial moral can down the road.

What is the difference between what people perceive as right and wrong vs what is right and wrong?

Truth. That regardless of our opinion, there is a way we ought to behave. That honesty is intrinsically better than lying. That kindness is intrinsically better than hate. That pursuing truth is better than pursuing pleasure.
If someone breaks into your house and ties up your family and begins to torture them, what are you going to say??
I prefer you not do that?
The assailant, says, "So what? I prefer that i do? It's all relative."
No, you are going to say it's wrong. And you are going to use that term objectively. Not simply, "it's my opinion, although one of many moral opinions, which all are subjectively valid BTW." Ridiculous. Note: Here are the implications you won't accept. That being the inverse of what you consider moral is equally valid.

You’ve contradicted yourself, anything that is a human construct has meaning to humans.

You need to show how that is a contradiction. Absurd.

To label something subjective doesn’t take away from the meaning of the word.

Great, then stop using the terms that way. Saying that murdering can be equally good for one person and equally bad for another doesn't take away meaning from the word good? Sorry buddy, but this is an epic fail. So, murder is the same (morally speaking) as non-murder?

Who decides what they should believe?

People interpret reality. We agree on this. Stop pretending like this supports your position. It doesn't.
We've asked you how you decide, and you've yet to offer anything.

You’ve gotten it backwards my friend! Objective morality is about what can be demonstrated; not subjective. Subjective is about what goes on in your head.

I can assure there are a lot of people here wondering what exactly is going on in your head.

Virtuous to who? To me? You? or the person who believes it. Obviously it may be virtuous to the person who believes it, even though you and I will not agree.

So, we agree it can be perceived as virtuous to the one who believes it. So, is it? Or, better, is it an equally valid moral position? That's what I mean but the implications of your position.

Posted: **Fri Jan 23, 2015 1:00 pm**

PaulSacramento wrote:
Kenny wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:Subjective morality is base don the view that no one knows better for me what is better for me than me.
It extends to the "morality of the majority" in which the majority agree that this is right and this is wrong and the minority must follow, or else.
You are describing "laws". Laws are objective.

PaulSacramento wrote:Of course subjective morality is based on the ACTS that may be deemed right and wrong and NOT on right and wrong in of itself.
What's the difference?

Ken
I think that this post speaks volumes, at least to me.
It seems that you are not understanding the argument because you simply do NOT want to,
To ask what is the difference between ACTS of right and wrong that may be viewed as subjective and the the existence OF right and wrong which is absolute seems to imply that you don't understand or choose not to.
Since you don't seem to have any sort of intelligence problem ( understanding), then I can only assume you are choosing to NOT want to understand.
So...

The reason I asked the question is because I don't believe there is a difference. Right and wrong only comprises of judgment calls we make about "acts", which you conceded could be viewed as subjective. What you call right and wrong which is absolute, I do not believe even exists, That's why I asked you to describe the difference; I want to know where it is, what is it based upon, who has access to it, etc. I am looking for details.

Ken

Evidence for God from Science

How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?

Re: How can we know if we know we have absolute truth?