Evidence for God from Science

Romans 2:12-15

Ken: I disagree. A naturalist will still label something he finds favorable as good, and something he finds harmful as bad.

Philip wrote: Of course, but that would only be HIS opinion - an opinion no better or worse - if there is only naturalism.

And how does the existence of spiritualism change that? People would still label things according to if they find them favorable or harmful; so how would things be different?

Philip wrote: Murder - only the assessment of certain species - and mostly of men - that is, MOST men. Assigning ANY moral values to any act or activity is only subjective - if there is NO rules or Ruler that says otherwise.

How can you call someone a ruler if they don’t enforce any rules? The only one I see enforcing rules is the rule of law; manmade laws.

Philip wrote: A man who is a serial killer - any better than the lion who just killed all the offspring of the pride's previous dominate male he was able to dispatch? Both activities are predatory in nature, where there is a successful outcome sought and accomplished by one life form, and for the other one - not so much.

And how does spiritualism prevent this from happening?

Ken: He would ask the question because he has an opinion of what is good and what is bad. A belief in the spiritual world isn’t necessary for this

Philip wrote: Again - an artificial subjective opinion - that other people may or may not share.

And how would it be different if it were an objective opinion that other people may or may not share? BTW; what does it mean to have an artificial opinion?

Philip wrote: There is no right or wrong without some standard that is over all.

Again; you’re confusing ethical subjectivism with ethical nihilism. C’mon we’ve been over this already.

Philip wrote: Naturalism says there is only the survival of the fittess -

Naturalism doesn't say that. If you disagree, provide a definition of "naturalism" that supports your claim

Philip wrote: it doesn't qualify HOW that survival is achieved. And we know that ALL don't agree with any particular standard - although, nonetheless, we all still, for the most part, clearly share a common morality. Why? And why would it matter, from a purely naturalist view? It wouldn't!

Perhaps for the same reason it would matter from a purely spiritualist view.

Ken: It seems you and some of the other “Objective moralist” seem to take the position that there is such a thing as right and wrong, and because we are flawed, it isn’t something that can be determined by mankind; but someone beyond mankind who isn’t flawed. Is this correct? If not, tell me where I went wrong;

Philip wrote: Partly - just because we are flawed doesn't mean we can't objectively know, and subjectively agree, that there IS a such thing as right and wrong. But only a God Who has power and authority over all can rightly use Himself and His standards as standards for us as well.

And what’s to stop anyone else from using their standards as standards for all?

Ken: How do you know whoever it is that is beyond mankind isn’t flawed? Is it just a matter of faith? If not, what method do you use to verify who you have determined is flawless and is qualified to determine right from wrong, is flawless and is qualified to do so?

Philip wrote: It IS, to a great degree, that we believe God to be perfect - based upon what He says about Himself. A God who can construct a univere, says He loves me, and came to DIE for my imperfections, as only perfection can stand in His presence - absorbing all He truly is - well, then I not only trust IN Him, but also what He says about Himself. But if such a God exists, one must admit that surely HE is the standard of right and wrong. That created beings could have more understanding about such things than the One Who created them - how ridiculous!

[/quote]
So if I understand you correctly, you have no way to verify God is flawless, you take it on faith because he said he was perfect and flawless. Is this correct?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: Welcome to 20th century Germany, USSR, Cambodia, China, Romania, etc, etc, etc...

Is there a point here?

K

Yes, there is.
Can't you see it?

No I do not. Please explain.

K

Everything that happened in those places, happened because some people found them favorable and necessary which, according to your subjective view, makes them "good" and "valuable".

Not according to MY subjective view, it was good and valuable according to THEIR subjective view.
Now; if those things done were good and valuable according to their objective view, how would things be different?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote: Is there a point here?

K

Yes, there is.
Can't you see it?

No I do not. Please explain.

K

Everything that happened in those places, happened because some people found them favorable and necessary which, according to your subjective view, makes them "good" and "valuable".

Not according to MY subjective view, it was good and valuable according to THEIR subjective view.
Now; if those things done were good and valuable according to their objective view, how would things be different?

Ken

Kenny, do feel deeply within that some subjective views are better than others?

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:
Yes, there is.
Can't you see it?

No I do not. Please explain.

K

Everything that happened in those places, happened because some people found them favorable and necessary which, according to your subjective view, makes them "good" and "valuable".

Not according to MY subjective view, it was good and valuable according to THEIR subjective view.
Now; if those things done were good and valuable according to their objective view, how would things be different?

Ken

Kenny, do feel deeply within that some subjective views are better than others?

Of course some views are better than others.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote: No I do not. Please explain.

K

Everything that happened in those places, happened because some people found them favorable and necessary which, according to your subjective view, makes them "good" and "valuable".

Not according to MY subjective view, it was good and valuable according to THEIR subjective view.
Now; if those things done were good and valuable according to their objective view, how would things be different?

Ken

Kenny, do feel deeply within that some subjective views are better than others?

Of course some views are better than others.

Can we, or even a majority of people subscribing to a particular view they see as good or better, be wrong?

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:
Everything that happened in those places, happened because some people found them favorable and necessary which, according to your subjective view, makes them "good" and "valuable".

Not according to MY subjective view, it was good and valuable according to THEIR subjective view.
Now; if those things done were good and valuable according to their objective view, how would things be different?

Ken

Kenny, do feel deeply within that some subjective views are better than others?

Of course some views are better than others.

Can we, or even a majority of people subscribing to a particular view they see as good or better, be wrong?

Yes.

K

Ok, so the question I think that we both need answering (because I agree with you on both questions, as I expect many others would too), is: What is that yardstick by which views, irrespective of what anyone does or doesn't believe, can be more or less right?

Those who don't believe in God, if they answered like you did, ought to have an answer here. Just like those who believe in God need to have an answer. That is, to have satisfying worldview on the question to do with moral views which are more/less correct according to a certain unidentified yardstick.

Those who do believe in God, evidently believe that God's own values which have been imparted into His creation of humanity are like that yardstick we all intuitively acknowledge. Yet, such can become more or less distorted due to our sinfulness, selfish ambitions and desires.

For example, in Romans 2:14-15 Paul explains this yardstick is written into our hearts: "[Those] who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them."

What then say you, according to your own views, about what that yardstick might be?

Kurieuo wrote:Ok, so the question I think that we both need answering (because I agree with you on both questions, as I expect many others would too), is: What is that yardstick by which views, irrespective of what anyone does or doesn't believe, can be more or less right?

Those who don't believe in God, if they answered like you did, ought to have an answer here. Just like those who believe in God need to have an answer. That is, to have satisfying worldview on the question to do with moral views which are more/less correct according to a certain unidentified yardstick.

Those who do believe in God, evidently believe that God's own values which have been imparted into His creation of humanity are like that yardstick we all intuitively acknowledge. Yet, such can become more or less distorted due to our sinfulness, selfish ambitions and desires.

For example, in Romans 2:14-15 Paul explains this yardstick is written into our hearts: "[Those] who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them."

What then say you, according to your own views, about what that yardstick might be?

That “yardstick” that you speak of is within each of us; it is our ability to understand the difference between right and wrong. Each of us believe we understand the difference between what is right and what is wrong; if we go back to the point RickD made earlier, if someone asked if raping an 8 yr old girl were wrong, do you think anyone is going to need to consort with an outside source to find out? I think not; we would all say it is wrong because there is something inside of us that tells knows it is wrong.
Now a Theist might have his “yardstick” influenced by his religion, but I think this is just an influence; not the yardstick itself. I don’t think there is a (for example) Christian out there who would feel a need to go to the bible, or pray to God in order to see if rape is wrong or not.
Now the problem is, when it comes to easy issues like rape, it is easy for everyone to get a consistent message from their individual yardsticks, but when it comes to some of the more complicated issues like gay rights, drug laws, or illegal immigration; it seems each person will get a different message from their individual yardsticks.

Ken

What is "right" and what is "wrong"?

Kurieuo wrote:What is "right" and what is "wrong"?

In order for me to answer this question properly, you need to understand things from my perspective. When you ask “what is right or wrong” it seems as if you are presupposing that somewhere out there in the eather, there is something called morality that needs to be discovered that only a higher power knows of because mankind is flawed. This is not a position that I hold.
To me, what is right or what is wrong is another way of saying; what do I call right or wrong. As I said before, right and wrong are judgment calls I make about behaviors I find favorable or unfavorable.
So let me ask you the same question; if there IS a right and there IS a wrong, what is right and wrong?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:What is "right" and what is "wrong"?

In order for me to answer this question properly, you need to understand things from my perspective. When you ask “what is right or wrong” it seems as if you are presupposing that somewhere out there in the eather, there is something called morality that needs to be discovered that only a higher power knows of because mankind is flawed. This is not a position that I hold.
To me, what is right or what is wrong is another way of saying; what do I call right or wrong. As I said before, right and wrong are judgment calls I make about behaviors I find favorable or unfavorable. Does this make sense to you?

Ken

What if someone else disagrees with you about what is right and what is wrong. Who then is right?
If we go according to your view, there can be thousands of opinions out there on what is right and what is wrong.

When Kim Jong-un kills dissidents for the greater good of the country, is that right or wrong? Kim Jong-un and his supporters would say that it is right.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:What is "right" and what is "wrong"?

In order for me to answer this question properly, you need to understand things from my perspective. When you ask “what is right or wrong” it seems as if you are presupposing that somewhere out there in the eather, there is something called morality that needs to be discovered that only a higher power knows of because mankind is flawed. This is not a position that I hold.
To me, what is right or what is wrong is another way of saying; what do I call right or wrong. As I said before, right and wrong are judgment calls I make about behaviors I find favorable or unfavorable. Does this make sense to you?

Ken

Stu wrote: What if someone else disagrees with you about what is right and what is wrong.

Happens all the time

Stu wrote: Who then is right?

I say I am right

Stu wrote: If we go according to your view, there can be thousands of opinions out there on what is right and what is wrong.

Not just my view, this happens if we go by your view, or anybody else’s view who might believe morality is objective.

Stu wrote: When Kim Jong-un kills dissidents for the greater good of the country, is that right or wrong? Kim Jong-un and his supporters would say that it is right.

What difference does it make if I say he is wrong because it goes against my subjective morality vs if you say he is wrong because it goes against God’s objective morality? He is still going to disagree and do what he wants!

Ken

Looks like Kenny isn't the only one confusing ontology and epistemology.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:What is "right" and what is "wrong"?

In order for me to answer this question properly, you need to understand things from my perspective.

That is what my two previous questions attempted to do. It seems your perspective is confused, logically inconsistent.

You said, some views are wrong regardless of what anyone thinks. Understand, this means that views right/wrong independant of people, or what any one of us thinks. Therefore:

kenny wrote:somewhere out there in the eather, there is something called morality

The "yardstick" cannot be found within each us, unless you revise your two previous responses to me and make your views logically coherent and consistent. I'm not being mean here. You said that:
1) You believe some views are better than others.
2) You believe we, or the majority of people, can be wrong.

The conclusion therefore is that this "yardstick" by which our views ought to be measured, which results in our being wrong must exist outside of humanity (whether or not we can know that we are truly wrong is another question regarding knowledge).

The two propositions you affirmed above are incompatible with where you say: That “yardstick” that you speak of is within each of us; it is our ability to understand the difference between right and wrong.

As for what I believe that "yardstick" is, no need to ask me or try to strawman paint my views as being given by religion or whatnot. My earlier quite upfront response is sufficient and clear without your accidental (?) distortions made regarding what you think I believe the "yardstick" to be:

Kurieuo wrote:Those who do believe in God, evidently believe that God's own values which have been imparted into His creation of humanity are like that yardstick we all intuitively acknowledge. Yet, such can become more or less distorted due to our sinfulness, selfish ambitions and desires.

For example, in Romans 2:14-15 Paul explains this yardstick is written into our hearts: "[Those] who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them."