Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote:

How quickly (and very discreetly) objectivity is snuck back in.

And so there we have it: "Logic" by Ken!

(LOL) But I think you spoke a little too soon.

RickD wrote:
How can you define "good"?

Ken wrote:
From my perspective, me and my race (human race) are the only ones in existence who are qualified to judge right and wrong behavior. Unless you can understand that, nothing I say will make any sense to you.

RickD wrote:
And why should I believe that your "good" has any more meaning than a preference of chocolate ice cream over vanilla?

Ken wrote:
Thats where the discussion comes in. BTW, that script can be flipped to be used against your logic as well. One could just as easily ask "why should I believe what you claim God says is good, has any more meaning than a preference of chocolate ice cream over vanilla?"

Kenny,

You're still not getting it. I'm not making an argument about what is good and what isn't. I'm arguing that in order for you or I to decide what we think is good, some objective kind of good must exist, to be that "measuring stick" by which we can decide if something is good.

Without the measuring stick, goodness itself, good and bad are just ultimately no more meaningful than one's opinion about the flavor of ice cream.

RickD wrote:RickD wrote:
How can you define "good"?

Ken wrote:
From my perspective, me and my race (human race) are the only ones in existence who are qualified to judge right and wrong behavior. Unless you can understand that, nothing I say will make any sense to you.

RickD wrote:
And why should I believe that your "good" has any more meaning than a preference of chocolate ice cream over vanilla?

Ken wrote:
Thats where the discussion comes in. BTW, that script can be flipped to be used against your logic as well. One could just as easily ask "why should I believe what you claim God says is good, has any more meaning than a preference of chocolate ice cream over vanilla?"

Kenny,

You're still not getting it. I'm not making an argument about what is good and what isn't. I'm arguing that in order for you or I to decide what we think is good, some objective kind of good must exist, to be that "measuring stick" by which we can decide if something is good.

Without the measuring stick, goodness itself, good and bad are just ultimately no more meaningful than one's opinion about the flavor of ice cream.

I understand. Where we disagree is you insist on a single measuring stick (God) and I insist a measuring stick exists within each of us; everybody has their own measuring stick. And because each person has their own slightly different measuring stick, that is where the subjectivity lies.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:RickD wrote:
How can you define "good"?

Ken wrote:
From my perspective, me and my race (human race) are the only ones in existence who are qualified to judge right and wrong behavior. Unless you can understand that, nothing I say will make any sense to you.

RickD wrote:
And why should I believe that your "good" has any more meaning than a preference of chocolate ice cream over vanilla?

Ken wrote:
Thats where the discussion comes in. BTW, that script can be flipped to be used against your logic as well. One could just as easily ask "why should I believe what you claim God says is good, has any more meaning than a preference of chocolate ice cream over vanilla?"

Kenny,

You're still not getting it. I'm not making an argument about what is good and what isn't. I'm arguing that in order for you or I to decide what we think is good, some objective kind of good must exist, to be that "measuring stick" by which we can decide if something is good.

Without the measuring stick, goodness itself, good and bad are just ultimately no more meaningful than one's opinion about the flavor of ice cream.

I understand. Where we disagree is you insist on a single measuring stick (God) and I insist a measuring stick exists within each of us; everybody has their own measuring stick. And because each person has their own slightly different measuring stick, that is where the subjectivity lies.

You still haven't shown how your measure of what is good, means anything more than your preference for one flavor of ice cream over another.

objective kind of good must exist, to be that "measuring stick" by which we can decide if something is good.

Without the measuring stick, goodness itself, good and bad are just ultimately no more meaningful than one's opinion about the flavor of ice cream.

Hey, maybe he mean it's a matter of a subjective/objective? LOL Except that language has lost all of it's ability to be specific. Course, lawyers love to insist that objective meanings of language are all subjective.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:RickD wrote:
How can you define "good"?

Ken wrote:
From my perspective, me and my race (human race) are the only ones in existence who are qualified to judge right and wrong behavior. Unless you can understand that, nothing I say will make any sense to you.

RickD wrote:
And why should I believe that your "good" has any more meaning than a preference of chocolate ice cream over vanilla?

Ken wrote:
Thats where the discussion comes in. BTW, that script can be flipped to be used against your logic as well. One could just as easily ask "why should I believe what you claim God says is good, has any more meaning than a preference of chocolate ice cream over vanilla?"

Kenny,

You're still not getting it. I'm not making an argument about what is good and what isn't. I'm arguing that in order for you or I to decide what we think is good, some objective kind of good must exist, to be that "measuring stick" by which we can decide if something is good.

Without the measuring stick, goodness itself, good and bad are just ultimately no more meaningful than one's opinion about the flavor of ice cream.

I understand. Where we disagree is you insist on a single measuring stick (God) and I insist a measuring stick exists within each of us; everybody has their own measuring stick. And because each person has their own slightly different measuring stick, that is where the subjectivity lies.

You still haven't shown how your measure of what is good, means anything more than your preference for one flavor of ice cream over another.

Personally; my determination of good and bad are determined on a case by case basis. Now if you want to see if my measure means more than ice cream flavor, give me a moral scenario, I will judge it right or wrong, and you can decide if in your opinion my measure of what is good or bad in that scenario means anything more to you than a preference of ice cream flavor. Fair enough? Okay RickD; give me a scenario. Make it a good one!

Ken

Philip wrote:

objective kind of good must exist, to be that "measuring stick" by which we can decide if something is good.

Without the measuring stick, goodness itself, good and bad are just ultimately no more meaningful than one's opinion about the flavor of ice cream.

Hey, maybe he mean it's a matter of a subjective/objective? LOL Except that language has lost all of it's ability to be specific. Course, lawyers love to insist that objective meanings of language are all subjective.

How are you defining the terms Objective and Subjective? Because in the context of what these terms mean, what you just said doesn't seem to make any sense.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:RickD wrote:
How can you define "good"?

Ken wrote:
From my perspective, me and my race (human race) are the only ones in existence who are qualified to judge right and wrong behavior. Unless you can understand that, nothing I say will make any sense to you.

RickD wrote:
And why should I believe that your "good" has any more meaning than a preference of chocolate ice cream over vanilla?

Ken wrote:
Thats where the discussion comes in. BTW, that script can be flipped to be used against your logic as well. One could just as easily ask "why should I believe what you claim God says is good, has any more meaning than a preference of chocolate ice cream over vanilla?"

Kenny,

You're still not getting it. I'm not making an argument about what is good and what isn't. I'm arguing that in order for you or I to decide what we think is good, some objective kind of good must exist, to be that "measuring stick" by which we can decide if something is good.

Without the measuring stick, goodness itself, good and bad are just ultimately no more meaningful than one's opinion about the flavor of ice cream.

I understand. Where we disagree is you insist on a single measuring stick (God) and I insist a measuring stick exists within each of us; everybody has their own measuring stick. And because each person has their own slightly different measuring stick, that is where the subjectivity lies.

You still haven't shown how your measure of what is good, means anything more than your preference for one flavor of ice cream over another.

Personally; my determination of good and bad are determined on a case by case basis. Now if you want to see if my measure means more than ice cream flavor, give me a moral scenario, I will judge it right or wrong, and you can decide if in your opinion my measure of what is good or bad in that scenario means anything more to you than a preference of ice cream flavor. Fair enough? Okay RickD; give me a scenario. Make it a good one!

Ken

You are missing the crux of the issue.

If all we have to measure morality is our differing personal opinions, then there is no right or wrong! It's all just personal opinions like our taste for ice cream. Without an objective point of reference for morality, good is no better than bad, as vanilla is no better than chocolate.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:RickD wrote:
How can you define "good"?



RickD wrote:
And why should I believe that your "good" has any more meaning than a preference of chocolate ice cream over vanilla?


Kenny,

You're still not getting it. I'm not making an argument about what is good and what isn't. I'm arguing that in order for you or I to decide what we think is good, some objective kind of good must exist, to be that "measuring stick" by which we can decide if something is good.

Without the measuring stick, goodness itself, good and bad are just ultimately no more meaningful than one's opinion about the flavor of ice cream.

I understand. Where we disagree is you insist on a single measuring stick (God) and I insist a measuring stick exists within each of us; everybody has their own measuring stick. And because each person has their own slightly different measuring stick, that is where the subjectivity lies.

You still haven't shown how your measure of what is good, means anything more than your preference for one flavor of ice cream over another.

Personally; my determination of good and bad are determined on a case by case basis. Now if you want to see if my measure means more than ice cream flavor, give me a moral scenario, I will judge it right or wrong, and you can decide if in your opinion my measure of what is good or bad in that scenario means anything more to you than a preference of ice cream flavor. Fair enough? Okay RickD; give me a scenario. Make it a good one!

Ken

n
You are missing the crux of the issue.

If all we have to measure morality is our differing personal opinions, then there is no right or wrong! It's all just personal opinions like our taste for ice cream. Without an objective point of reference for morality, good is no better than bad, as vanilla is no better than chocolate.

Just because action “A and action “b are the result of personal opinion does not make them equal. If that were the case killing an ant and killing a person would be equal because they both result in ending life. See how ridiculous that sounds?

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:
I understand. Where we disagree is you insist on a single measuring stick (God) and I insist a measuring stick exists within each of us; everybody has their own measuring stick. And because each person has their own slightly different measuring stick, that is where the subjectivity lies.

You still haven't shown how your measure of what is good, means anything more than your preference for one flavor of ice cream over another.

Personally; my determination of good and bad are determined on a case by case basis. Now if you want to see if my measure means more than ice cream flavor, give me a moral scenario, I will judge it right or wrong, and you can decide if in your opinion my measure of what is good or bad in that scenario means anything more to you than a preference of ice cream flavor. Fair enough? Okay RickD; give me a scenario. Make it a good one!

Ken

n
You are missing the crux of the issue.

If all we have to measure morality is our differing personal opinions, then there is no right or wrong! It's all just personal opinions like our taste for ice cream. Without an objective point of reference for morality, good is no better than bad, as vanilla is no better than chocolate.

Just because action “A and action “b are the result of personal opinion does not make them equal. If that were the case killing an ant and killing a person would be equal because they both result in ending life. See how ridiculous that sounds?

And there you go sneaking objective morality back in.

Interesting how the very thing you keep denying, keeps being part of your argument. Why do you think that is Kenny?

And btw, no it's not ridiculous according to a subjective morality worldview. Subjective morality, by its very definition, means that killing a human may be worse for you, but killing an ant may be worse for someone else. Are you starting to catch on yet?

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: You still haven't shown how your measure of what is good, means anything more than your preference for one flavor of ice cream over another.

Personally; my determination of good and bad are determined on a case by case basis. Now if you want to see if my measure means more than ice cream flavor, give me a moral scenario, I will judge it right or wrong, and you can decide if in your opinion my measure of what is good or bad in that scenario means anything more to you than a preference of ice cream flavor. Fair enough? Okay RickD; give me a scenario. Make it a good one!

Ken

n
You are missing the crux of the issue.

If all we have to measure morality is our differing personal opinions, then there is no right or wrong! It's all just personal opinions like our taste for ice cream. Without an objective point of reference for morality, good is no better than bad, as vanilla is no better than chocolate.

Just because action “A and action “b are the result of personal opinion does not make them equal. If that were the case killing an ant and killing a person would be equal because they both result in ending life. See how ridiculous that sounds?

RickD wrote: And there you go sneaking objective morality back in.

That was not objective morality, that was an explanation of Subjective morality. I judge killing a human more harsh than killing an ant because I have an emotional connection to my fellow humans that I do not have with an ant. Now if you asked the ant whose life is more valuable, you will get a different answer.

RickD wrote: Interesting how the very thing you keep denying, keeps being part of your argument. Why do you think that is Kenny?

You see it that way because you are misunderstanding the points I am making

RickD wrote: And btw, no it's not ridiculous according to a subjective morality worldview. Subjective morality, by its very definition, means that killing a human may be worse for you, but killing an ant may be worse for someone else. Are you starting to catch on yet?

Not quite; all humans will consider human life more valuable than an insect or animal life, but if you ask the insect or the animal, they will value their life more than human life. If you don't believe me, go mess with a bear cub; and the mother bear will make it very clear that she values her cubs lives more than yours. Go mess with a bee hive, and a swarm of bees will make it very clear that they value the life of that hive more than they value your human life. This is subjective. That’s just the way things are; to deny it and pretend human life is objectively more valuable than animals and insects lives is to deny reality

ken wrote:
Not quite; all humans will consider human life more valuable than an insect or animal life...

You sure about that Kenny?

Ever heard of chattel slavery? Nazi extermination of Jews and others? What about the practice of murdering unborn humans for convenience?

RickD wrote:

ken wrote:
Not quite; all humans will consider human life more valuable than an insect or animal life...

You sure about that Kenny?

Ever heard of chattel slavery? Nazi extermination of Jews and others? What about the practice of murdering unborn humans for convenience?

I think you understand the point I was making.

K

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

ken wrote:
Not quite; all humans will consider human life more valuable than an insect or animal life...

You sure about that Kenny?

Ever heard of chattel slavery? Nazi extermination of Jews and others? What about the practice of murdering unborn humans for convenience?

I think you understand the point I was making.

K

Yes Kenny, I understand what you're saying. But I don't think you understand the consequences of what you're saying.

Without an objective source for morality, morality would only be subjective. And one person's subjective morality can't be any better than another person's. Without an objective source for morality, killing Jews, or killing an insubordinate slave, or killing unborn humans, is no worse than clubbing a baby seal, or killing a dog, or chopping the head off a snake.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

ken wrote:
Not quite; all humans will consider human life more valuable than an insect or animal life...

You sure about that Kenny?

Ever heard of chattel slavery? Nazi extermination of Jews and others? What about the practice of murdering unborn humans for convenience?

I think you understand the point I was making.

K

Yes Kenny, I understand what you're saying. But I don't think you understand the consequences of what you're saying.

Without an objective source for morality, morality would only be subjective. And one person's subjective morality can't be any better than another person's. Without an objective source for morality, killing Jews, or killing an insubordinate slave, or killing unborn humans, is no worse than clubbing a baby seal, or killing a dog, or chopping the head off a snake.

According to who? Not me! Who are these disturbing people who would conclude killing a person is equal to killing an animal if there were no single objective source for morality?