Evidence for God from Science

Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue

Hey, thanks for the new sig. Love it when foolishness is put so plainly.

whether the ice cream is chocolate or the slaves are brown the suffering is still a very real issue. You still don't seem to able to take this on board. Your OP shows a complete disregard for suffering which I can understand but I've pointed it out and you still really couldn't care less, it's a shame.

You aren't hearing me. Of COURSE suffering is a real issue. I am trying to get you to see that the very fact that you attribute evil or wrongness to slavery necessarily entails that morality is objective. It is YOUR DENIAL of objective morality that necessarily entails that slavery is not evil.

But what ought I expect from you. You think our preference for ice cream is a moral issue.

And it's not radical monism, it's dual monism.

There is no such thing as dual monism. You're making things up because you don't understand what you are talking about.

Proinsias wrote:

Jac3510 wrote: a. Slavery is wrong
b. I think of slavery as wrong

In the first, moral language (the word "wrong") is attributed to the actual act of slavery. In the second, moral language is predicated to my opinion. What I am arguing is that, if objective moral values do not exist, then sentences of the first type are meaningless. The reason is that if there is no objective moral reality, then moral language doesn't refer to any existent thing.

There appears to be confusion here. As I can read it the first is you expressing an opinion on slavery as is the second, your reading is injecting interpretation which isn't there and you're coming up with something like:

a. Slavery is objectively wrong
b. Slavery is wrong

Where 'b' is me giving you an opinion, as in 'unicorns are pretty' and 'a' is an attempt to beef up my opinion to the point where any disagreement with it will be met with cries of 'troll' or trotting out Avicenna's beating and burning.

Could you be right? yeah, it's possible. Could unicorns be pretty? yeah it's possible.

Yes, there's some confusion here. I can't pick all that apart. Too many mistakes in that post. Let me just ask you as series of very easy questions. Try not to jump ahead. I don't want you talking about the morality of ice cream again . . .

Riddle me this: do triangles have three sides?

Jlay
This is the same question you seem stuck on. I've already given reason why consensus can't be found. The burden is on you. you've made a claim as to why consensus is required. Claims require supportive arguments. You haven't provided one.

Ken
How many times must I answer only to say I did not? Again; When something is an objective truth, it can be demonstrated as true. When something can be demonstrated as true, there is a consensus of agreement.

Jlay
Ken, you do realize that there was a time prior to those equations becoming understood or identified. Did they suddenly become objective?

Ken
Yes! When Math was invented along with the rules thereof, it suddenly became objective.

Jlay
Simple, I take a club and beat you about the head. When you object, I simply tell you that you just stated that it doesn't matter how we treat each other. If you object, then you prove that it does matter. Any other ridiculous positions you'd like to advocate??

Ken
That would demonstrate nothing because I could just as easily agree with you and your assault against me. Again; demonstrate why it matters how we treat people.

Jlay
Ken, it's "whether" not weather. This about the 2nd or 3rd time i've seen this.
-Again, bald assertion. You keep claiming this, but it doesn't make it correct. Something isn't objective because it's demonstrable. Either support this or quit making the claim.

Ken
Objective means to be based upon facts. Facts can be demonstrated.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Object ... Subjective
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

Jlay
Prove? Kenny, I'm not trying to prove the source. That is a different argument.

Ken
No it isn’t! If you can’t prove or at least point to the source, you have no business claiming it exists! And for the record; the law of gravity has been proven not only by science but by anybody paying attention.

Jlay
Rape is wrong regardless of opinion. Let's say we stumbled upon a culture that promoted the rape of children as a virtuous thing. If we can't demonstrate it's wrong, and we assume therefore that it is strictly their preference, then we would have no reason to try and force our opinion upon them.

Ken
Then demonstrate it’s wrong! You keep saying it can be demonstrated as wrong, but you have yet to provide a demonstration!

Ken

Uh, you should really read the second part of the link you provided. The one about objective and subjective realityrealityreality.

jlay wrote:Uh, you should really read the second part of the link you provided. The one about objective and subjective realityrealityreality.

I read it. How does that part of the link disprove my claim that which is objective can be demonstrated?

Ken

Kenny wrote:Jlay
This is the same question you seem stuck on. I've already given reason why consensus can't be found. The burden is on you. you've made a claim as to why consensus is required. Claims require supportive arguments. You haven't provided one.

Ken
How many times must I answer only to say I did not? Again; When something is an objective truth, it can be demonstrated as true. When something can be demonstrated as true, there is a consensus of agreement.

You realize that this means that something has to be true is true in and of itself, even if people do not know it to be true, right? It would have to be true in and of itself before people can find it, let alone form a consensus!

Kenny wrote:Jlay
Ken, you do realize that there was a time prior to those equations becoming understood or identified. Did they suddenly become objective?

Ken
Yes! When Math was invented along with the rules thereof, it suddenly became objective.

This contradicts what you said earlier, which is that if something is objectively true, that it can be demonstrated. A claim which assumes that something is true in and of itself before it can be demonstrated. Also, was mathematics really a human invention? Or were mathematical concepts in existence within nature itself, before humankind developed systematic methods of making calculations? The thing is, mathematics expresses concepts grounded in reality. It deals with quantities of real world objects. In order for anyone to form a consensus on mathematics, Mathematics would have to have already existed!

Kenny wrote:Jlay
Simple, I take a club and beat you about the head. When you object, I simply tell you that you just stated that it doesn't matter how we treat each other. If you object, then you prove that it does matter. Any other ridiculous positions you'd like to advocate??

Ken
That would demonstrate nothing because I could just as easily agree with you and your assault against me. Again; demonstrate why it matters how we treat people.

The question isn't if you could agree with him in assaulting you. The question is if you would agree with him. Quite frankly, no matter how many times Jlay or Jac would try to demonstrate why it matters, you're just going to mindlessly handwave it. You can't even grasp the simple concept of objective truth!

Kenny wrote:Jlay
Ken, it's "whether" not weather. This about the 2nd or 3rd time i've seen this.
-Again, bald assertion. You keep claiming this, but it doesn't make it correct. Something isn't objective because it's demonstrable. Either support this or quit making the claim.

Ken
Objective means to be based upon facts. Facts can be demonstrated.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Object ... Subjective
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

I hate to break it to you, but those definitions probably do not agree with your notion of objectivity. Yes, objectivity is based on facts and facts can be demonstrated. BUT! In order for something to be demonstrated to be true, it would first have to be true in and of itself, before the demonstration ever took place! That's the point! Truth has to be rooted in reality, and proof reveals truth. Proof does NOT create truth.

Kenny wrote:Jlay
Prove? Kenny, I'm not trying to prove the source. That is a different argument.

Ken
No it isn’t! If you can’t prove or at least point to the source, you have no business claiming it exists! And for the record; the law of gravity has been proven not only by science but by anybody paying attention.

As if no one on the forum has tried to make a point on the source of morality! Ohwait!

Kenny wrote:Jlay
Rape is wrong regardless of opinion. Let's say we stumbled upon a culture that promoted the rape of children as a virtuous thing. If we can't demonstrate it's wrong, and we assume therefore that it is strictly their preference, then we would have no reason to try and force our opinion upon them.

Ken
Then demonstrate it’s wrong! You keep saying it can be demonstrated as wrong, but you have yet to provide a demonstration!

Ken

No comment.

Kenny wrote:

jlay wrote:Uh, you should really read the second part of the link you provided. The one about objective and subjective realityrealityreality.

I read it. How does that part of the link disprove my claim that which is objective can be demonstrated?

Ken

Ummm, really? Tree falling in Forrest both falls and makes sound if it isn't demonstrated or anyone to observe.

jlay wrote:

Kenny wrote:

jlay wrote:Uh, you should really read the second part of the link you provided. The one about objective and subjective realityrealityreality.

I read it. How does that part of the link disprove my claim that which is objective can be demonstrated?

Ken

Ummm, really? Tree falling in Forrest both falls and makes sound if it isn't demonstrated or anyone to observe.

The fact that nobody is around is irrelevant; it can still be demonstrated.

Ken

Kenny wrote:Jlay
This is the same question you seem stuck on. I've already given reason why consensus can't be found. The burden is on you. you've made a claim as to why consensus is required. Claims require supportive arguments. You haven't provided one.

Ken
How many times must I answer only to say I did not? Again; When something is an objective truth, it can be demonstrated as true. When something can be demonstrated as true, there is a consensus of agreement.

FlawedIntellect
You realize that this means that something has to be true is true in and of itself, even if people do not know it to be true, right? It would have to be true in and of itself before people can find it, let alone form a consensus!

Yes and no; it does have to be true, but it doesn’t have to be true BEFORE someone gets around to demonstrating it.
I’ve listed plenty of examples of “objective truths” morality just isn’t one of them.

Kenny wrote:Jlay
Ken, you do realize that there was a time prior to those equations becoming understood or identified. Did they suddenly become objective?

Ken
Yes! When Math was invented along with the rules thereof, it suddenly became objective.
FlawedIntellect
This contradicts what you said earlier, which is that if something is objectively true, that it can be demonstrated. A claim which assumes that something is true in and of itself before it can be demonstrated

No, the claim does not assume something is true BEFORE it can be demonstrated

FlawedIntellect wrote:Also, was mathematics really a human invention? Or were mathematical concepts in existence within nature itself, before humankind developed systematic methods of making calculations?

Math is strictly a human invention

FlawedIntellect wrote:The thing is, mathematics expresses concepts grounded in reality. It deals with quantities of real world objects. In order for anyone to form a consensus on mathematics, Mathematics would have to have already existed!

No; when humans invented Math, they made it demonstrable/objective.

Kenny wrote:Jlay
Simple, I take a club and beat you about the head. When you object, I simply tell you that you just stated that it doesn't matter how we treat each other. If you object, then you prove that it does matter. Any other ridiculous positions you'd like to advocate??

Ken
That would demonstrate nothing because I could just as easily agree with you and your assault against me. Again; demonstrate why it matters how we treat people.

FlawedIntellect
The question isn't if you could agree with him in assaulting you. The question is if you would agree with him.

So if I agreed with him it becomes morally right?

Kenny wrote:Jlay
Ken, it's "whether" not weather. This about the 2nd or 3rd time i've seen this.
-Again, bald assertion. You keep claiming this, but it doesn't make it correct. Something isn't objective because it's demonstrable. Either support this or quit making the claim.

Ken
Objective means to be based upon facts. Facts can be demonstrated.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Object ... Subjective
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective
FlawedIntellect
I hate to break it to you, but those definitions probably do not agree with your notion of objectivity. Yes, objectivity is based on facts and facts can be demonstrated. BUT! In order for something to be demonstrated to be true, it would first have to be true in and of itself, before the demonstration ever took place! That's the point!

Explain why facts cannot become true and demonstrable at the same time.

Kenny wrote:Jlay
Prove? Kenny, I'm not trying to prove the source. That is a different argument.

Ken
No it isn’t! If you can’t prove or at least point to the source, you have no business claiming it exists! And for the record; the law of gravity has been proven not only by science but by anybody paying attention.
FlawedIntellect
As if no one on the forum has tried to make a point on the source of morality! Ohwait!

[/quote]
I wasn't talking to “no one on this forum” I was talking to a specific person. However if you wish to answer the question; I would like to hear your answer; I get a feeling I won’t be getting an answer from him.


Ken

Kenny wrote: FlawedIntellect
You realize that this means that something has to be true is true in and of itself, even if people do not know it to be true, right? It would have to be true in and of itself before people can find it, let alone form a consensus!

Yes and no; it does have to be true, but it doesn’t have to be true BEFORE someone gets around to demonstrating it.
I’ve listed plenty of examples of “objective truths” morality just isn’t one of them.

What examples? Where? Also, how can it be demonstrated to be true if it isn't true to begin with? That's a contradiction! Man can only discover truth, NOT create truth.

Kenny wrote:Jlay
Ken, you do realize that there was a time prior to those equations becoming understood or identified. Did they suddenly become objective?

Ken
Yes! When Math was invented along with the rules thereof, it suddenly became objective.
FlawedIntellect
This contradicts what you said earlier, which is that if something is objectively true, that it can be demonstrated. A claim which assumes that something is true in and of itself before it can be demonstrated!

No, the claim does not assume something is true BEFORE it can be demonstrated

Uh, yes you did contradict what you said earlier. To quote you again...

Kenny wrote:How many times must I answer only to say I did not? Again; When something is an objective truth, it can be demonstrated as true. When something can be demonstrated as true, there is a consensus of agreement.

Again, how can you prove something to be true if it isn't true to begin with?

Kenny wrote:

FlawedIntellect wrote:Also, was mathematics really a human invention? Or were mathematical concepts in existence within nature itself, before humankind developed systematic methods of making calculations?

Math is strictly a human invention

You're missing the point.

Kenny wrote:

FlawedIntellect wrote:The thing is, mathematics expresses concepts grounded in reality. It deals with quantities of real world objects. In order for anyone to form a consensus on mathematics, Mathematics would have to have already existed!

No; when humans invented Math, they made it demonstrable/objective.

What part of "man can only discover objective truth and not create it" are you unable to comprehend?
Again, you're missing the point. Truth doesn't come from a vacuum. Truth simply is. Are you claiming that math wasn't true before man 'invented' it?

Kenny wrote:Jlay
Simple, I take a club and beat you about the head. When you object, I simply tell you that you just stated that it doesn't matter how we treat each other. If you object, then you prove that it does matter. Any other ridiculous positions you'd like to advocate??

Ken
That would demonstrate nothing because I could just as easily agree with you and your assault against me. Again; demonstrate why it matters how we treat people.

FlawedIntellect
The question isn't if you could agree with him in assaulting you. The question is if you would agree with him.

Ken
So if I agreed with him it becomes morally right?

No, it doesn't. But entertain the question anyway, and give a real answer of how you would actually feel if he were to assault you.

Kenny wrote:Jlay
Ken, it's "whether" not weather. This about the 2nd or 3rd time i've seen this.
-Again, bald assertion. You keep claiming this, but it doesn't make it correct. Something isn't objective because it's demonstrable. Either support this or quit making the claim.

Ken
Objective means to be based upon facts. Facts can be demonstrated.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Object ... Subjective
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective
FlawedIntellect
I hate to break it to you, but those definitions probably do not agree with your notion of objectivity. Yes, objectivity is based on facts and facts can be demonstrated. BUT! In order for something to be demonstrated to be true, it would first have to be true in and of itself, before the demonstration ever took place! That's the point!

Ken
Explain why facts cannot become true and demonstrable at the same time.

What does that even mean? That question doesn't make any sense.

Kenny wrote:Jlay
Prove? Kenny, I'm not trying to prove the source. That is a different argument.

Ken
No it isn’t! If you can’t prove or at least point to the source, you have no business claiming it exists! And for the record; the law of gravity has been proven not only by science but by anybody paying attention.
FlawedIntellect
As if no one on the forum has tried to make a point on the source of morality! Ohwait!

Ken
I wasn't talking to “no one on this forum” I was talking to a specific person. However if you wish to answer the question; I would like to hear your answer; I get a feeling I won’t be getting an answer from him.


Ken

The answer has probably been handed to you on a silver platter several times before. It's a waste of time repeating what's already been said. Your question has already been answered. You just haven't been paying attention.

Facts become true and demonstrable?

OK then.

FlawedIntellect wrote:

Kenny wrote: FlawedIntellect
You realize that this means that something has to be true is true in and of itself, even if people do not know it to be true, right? It would have to be true in and of itself before people can find it, let alone form a consensus!

Yes and no; it does have to be true, but it doesn’t have to be true BEFORE someone gets around to demonstrating it.
I’ve listed plenty of examples of “objective truths” morality just isn’t one of them.

What examples? Where? Also, how can it be demonstrated to be true if it isn't true to begin with? That's a contradiction! Man can only discover truth, NOT create truth.

Kenny wrote:Jlay
Ken, you do realize that there was a time prior to those equations becoming understood or identified. Did they suddenly become objective?

Ken
Yes! When Math was invented along with the rules thereof, it suddenly became objective.
FlawedIntellect
This contradicts what you said earlier, which is that if something is objectively true, that it can be demonstrated. A claim which assumes that something is true in and of itself before it can be demonstrated!

No, the claim does not assume something is true BEFORE it can be demonstrated

Uh, yes you did contradict what you said earlier. To quote you again...

Kenny wrote:How many times must I answer only to say I did not? Again; When something is an objective truth, it can be demonstrated as true. When something can be demonstrated as true, there is a consensus of agreement.

Again, how can you prove something to be true if it isn't true to begin with?

Kenny wrote:

FlawedIntellect wrote:Also, was mathematics really a human invention? Or were mathematical concepts in existence within nature itself, before humankind developed systematic methods of making calculations?

Math is strictly a human invention

You're missing the point.

Kenny wrote:

FlawedIntellect wrote:The thing is, mathematics expresses concepts grounded in reality. It deals with quantities of real world objects. In order for anyone to form a consensus on mathematics, Mathematics would have to have already existed!

No; when humans invented Math, they made it demonstrable/objective.

What part of "man can only discover objective truth and not create it" are you unable to comprehend?
Again, you're missing the point. Truth doesn't come from a vacuum. Truth simply is. Are you claiming that math wasn't true before man 'invented' it?

Kenny wrote:Jlay
Simple, I take a club and beat you about the head. When you object, I simply tell you that you just stated that it doesn't matter how we treat each other. If you object, then you prove that it does matter. Any other ridiculous positions you'd like to advocate??

Ken
That would demonstrate nothing because I could just as easily agree with you and your assault against me. Again; demonstrate why it matters how we treat people.

FlawedIntellect
The question isn't if you could agree with him in assaulting you. The question is if you would agree with him.

Ken
So if I agreed with him it becomes morally right?

No, it doesn't. But entertain the question anyway, and give a real answer of how you would actually feel if he were to assault you.

Kenny wrote:Jlay
Ken, it's "whether" not weather. This about the 2nd or 3rd time i've seen this.
-Again, bald assertion. You keep claiming this, but it doesn't make it correct. Something isn't objective because it's demonstrable. Either support this or quit making the claim.

Ken
Objective means to be based upon facts. Facts can be demonstrated.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Object ... Subjective
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective
FlawedIntellect
I hate to break it to you, but those definitions probably do not agree with your notion of objectivity. Yes, objectivity is based on facts and facts can be demonstrated. BUT! In order for something to be demonstrated to be true, it would first have to be true in and of itself, before the demonstration ever took place! That's the point!

Ken
Explain why facts cannot become true and demonstrable at the same time.

What does that even mean? That question doesn't make any sense.

Kenny wrote:Jlay
Prove? Kenny, I'm not trying to prove the source. That is a different argument.

Ken
No it isn’t! If you can’t prove or at least point to the source, you have no business claiming it exists! And for the record; the law of gravity has been proven not only by science but by anybody paying attention.
FlawedIntellect
As if no one on the forum has tried to make a point on the source of morality! Ohwait!

Ken
I wasn't talking to “no one on this forum” I was talking to a specific person. However if you wish to answer the question; I would like to hear your answer; I get a feeling I won’t be getting an answer from him.


Ken

The answer has probably been handed to you on a silver platter several times before. It's a waste of time repeating what's already been said. Your question has already been answered. You just haven't been paying attention.

The claim 1+1=2 is a true statement. I think the reason we are talking past each other is because using “true” in that context gives the impression of it being morally true. It would be more accurate to say the statement is accurate less confusion is caused that way. So the examples of objective truth I was referring to (math, measurement, volume) should have been labeled accuracy

As far as morality, I just don’t see how it can be called objective. I know this is something we will never agree on; I suspect this may be something we will have to agree to disagree on.


Ken

I'll start by saying that I don't have an investment in maintaining moral relativity. I'll also say the argument as-is may prove effective in convincing nonbelievers. However, from my understanding it seems like there's an important step being missed here.

Jac3510 wrote:Of course, everyone thinks that slavery really is wrong, so what the skeptic has to do is fall back on his own beliefs or society's beliefs. The wrongness isn't in slavery itself, but in our own perceptions (just as language about unicorns don't refer to unicorns themselves, which don't exist, but our perceptions of unicorns). But strictly, that means that all A type sentences are actually reducible to B type sentences. There is nothing in slavery to which the "wrongness" answers; the referent--what the word refers to--is my opinion about the object. Here, we can deny objective morality exists, but look at the cost. There really is nothing objectively wrong with slavery. There's just my opinion, and all language about ANYTHING being right and wrong is really just sort hand for my personal preferences.

The argument here seems to imply that if someone claims "Slavery isn't wrong (because nothing is objectively right or wrong)" they're also saying "I can't argue against a person's right to have slaves (because it's just my preference and my being "not okay" with it doesn't have bearing on anyone else)" Here are instead my views:

Slavery is one of many things that causes problems for our society. I don't just mean from a utilitarian standpoint of what children born into slavery can accomplish for society. I mean from a psychological perspective of what it does to all citizens, both would-be slave owners and those who are put under subjugation. It fosters the belief that a person is deserving of respect, not for their inner qualities or contributions to society, but for the status of their birth. More importantly, it curbs the development of empathy, limiting it only to those people who are "like me" on both sides of the divide. These psychological effects, of course, have corresponding manifestations in behavior.

One of the biggest dangers in today's society is the "us vs them" mentality. Small, dedicated groups (such as terrorists) have required our society to heighten security measures and breaches of privacy just to contain this real threat. Slavery would extend this threat to every household in which it's implemented, as slaves have been designated as outside of those with protection of basic rights. What motive do slaves have to cooperate with society if their basic rights are being overruled by the personal preferences of others? The only reliable motive I can see is through the use of force that slave owners have through their power over their slaves, and this behavior has further implications for the issues of domestic abuse and violence within families, to say nothing of the rising resentment of the oppressed.

I can add more to this, but this about sums my view and more on it may very well not be relevant to your argument. The lack of objective morality does not abolish the compulsion to implement and follow fair laws.

plouiswork wrote: Slavery is one of many things that causes problems for our society. I don't just mean from a utilitarian standpoint of what children born into slavery can accomplish for society. I mean from a psychological perspective of what it does to all citizens, both would-be slave owners and those who are put under subjugation. It fosters the belief that a person is deserving of respect, not for their inner qualities or contributions to society, but for the status of their birth. More importantly, it curbs the development of empathy, limiting it only to those people who are "like me" on both sides of the divide. These psychological effects, of course, have corresponding manifestations in behavior.

If we look at slavery as practiced in the USA during the 18th and 19th centuries, the society practicing slavery saw the primitive people they enslaved as inferior to themselves. They didn’t have the modern POV that all people are equally capable of contributing to society, they felt they were more capable of thinking and controlling, and those they enslaved were only good for working and taking orders. When you dehumanize an entire race of people that way, the psychological effects you spoke of isn’t going to apply to them.

plouiswork wrote: One of the biggest dangers in today's society is the "us vs them" mentality. Small, dedicated groups (such as terrorists) have required our society to heighten security measures and breaches of privacy just to contain this real threat. Slavery would extend this threat to every household in which it's implemented, as slaves have been designated as outside of those with protection of basic rights. What motive do slaves have to cooperate with society if their basic rights are being overruled by the personal preferences of others? The only reliable motive I can see is through the use of force that slave owners have through their power over their slaves, and this behavior has further implications for the issues of domestic abuse and violence within families, to say nothing of the rising resentment of the oppressed.

Again; if you were raised to believe the enslaved race is inferior to your race, to mistreat them would be akin to mistreating your dog.


Ken

Kenny wrote:Again; if you were raised to believe the enslaved race is inferior to your race, to mistreat them would be akin to mistreating your dog.

I don't agree, but it is enough for me to see why someone would believe objective morality is necessary to prevent things such as slavery in light of my argument. I am aware you yourself do not believe this, but the counterarguments amongst even those who do will likely be similar.

It is very simple and I don't why why people STILL continue to argue this.
Morals are objective:
The notion of right and wrong, good and bad is universal to ALL people and ALL culture through recorded history.
The only thing that IS subjective is WHAT is viewed as right and wrong BUt the notion, the understanding of there BEING a RIGHT and a WRONG is absolute and objective as recorded history shows us.
If you disagree, please show evidence of any culture or group that believed that ANYTHING is permissible and that there is no good or bad at all.
Not theoretical evidence ( hearsay) but concrete evidence.