Evidence for God from Science

neo-x wrote:Actually beany, I agree with you, just saying that we can not prove legally that the two entities involved were physically harmed in the act, as you implied earlier.

The harm is not always physical, sorry if I implied that. Demonstrating harm can be difficult sometimes, especially when it's psychological. At the very least, we can say that a body, upon death, becomes the property of the state and the state denies consent to other people to have sex with its property. Kind of a stretch, but it's a little amorphous here. A fring case.

neo-x wrote:No I do not think so, since if we are going to appeal to nature to justify homosexuality than why don't we take the rest of the morals as well from there as well. I mean this is valid point IMO.

I'm not actually appealing to nature to justify homosexuality. I am saying whether or not it's natural is irrelevant. If the two parties involved have fully informed consent and it doesn't cause any harm, I say it's fine.

I personally don't like the "animals do it with the same sex" argument myself, because animals also routinely commit rape and murder as well. I just think that bestiality isn't ok because you can't impose "consent" on something that has no understanding of what "morals" are. Just like a child, animals can't give consent to something they do not understand on an adult human level.

The harm is not always physical, sorry if I implied that. Demonstrating harm can be difficult sometimes, especially when it's psychological. At the very least, we can say that a body, upon death, becomes the property of the state and the state denies consent to other people to have sex with its property. Kind of a stretch, but it's a little amorphous here. A fring case.

You do realize that we are saying the same thing here. The state restricts this act on a moral or ethical base, not a legal one per say, since as you put it rightly, no one is there to sign the consent of the deceased.

I'm not actually appealing to nature to justify homosexuality. I am saying whether or not it's natural is irrelevant. If the two parties involved have fully informed consent and it doesn't cause any harm, I say it's fine.

Ah, ok.. I think I read something like that some pages behind but that probably wasn't you, sorry. It does however pushes things into a subjective Gray area. No disrespect intended, just saying.

neo-x wrote:Ah, ok.. I think I read something like that some pages behind but that probably wasn't you, sorry. It does however pushes things into a subjective Gray area. No disrespect intended, just saying.

I'm not sure how subjective that is. Is it subjective to say that murder causes harm?

Ivellious » Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:36 am

I personally don't like the "animals do it with the same sex" argument myself, because animals also routinely commit rape and murder as well. I just think that bestiality isn't ok because you can't impose "consent" on something that has no understanding of what "morals" are. Just like a child, animals can't give consent to something they do not understand on an adult human level.

Actually Ivel, justifying morals from wild nature can lead to serious problems, it becomes a cherry picking contest. So I agree with you on this one.

But this leads us elsewhere, if nature can not give us a yardstick to measure up against, how do we define our morality, surely knowledge can not guarantee morality, look at the nazi's in WW2? Your thoughts?

I think this leads to subjectivity and that leads to further problems.

What is consent and is there a criteria to justify our consents? This is an interesting question, if you guys would like to share your thoughts on this.

As beany said, if two parties give their consent, does that make their act (whatever that may be) moral? For instance, if two people start an affair outside of their marriage, and their live in partners have no objections, does that make their extra marital affairs, moral? I mean they have full consent and there is no physical or psychological harm being done?

Beanybag » Wed Jun 27, 2012 2:45 am

neo-x wrote:
Ah, ok.. I think I read something like that some pages behind but that probably wasn't you, sorry. It does however pushes things into a subjective Gray area. No disrespect intended, just saying.


I'm not sure how subjective that is. Is it subjective to say that murder causes harm?

Beany, sorry I didn't get what your trying to ask?

I think its I pretty much subjective to define morality as something fine as long as people have consent and there is no harm done.

e.g

As beany said, if two parties give their consent, does that make their act (whatever that may be) moral? For instance, if two people start an affair outside of their marriage, and their live in partners have no objections, does that make their extra marital affairs, moral? I mean they have full consent and there is no physical or psychological harm being done?

Actually, I do not see anyway out of it except to agree that at least it makes morality, relative.

neo-x wrote:What is consent and is there a criteria to justify our consents? This is an interesting question, if you guys would like to share your thoughts on this.

As beany said, if two parties give their consent, does that make their act (whatever that may be) moral? For instance, if two people start an affair outside of their marriage, and their live in partners have no objections, does that make their extra marital affairs, moral? I mean they have full consent and there is no physical or psychological harm being done?

Consent would be a measure of someone's personal freedom or privacy. It's their ability to make moral and informed choices. Consent has a rather unambiguous legal definition that is pretty applicable morally.

Further, I am simply trying to define what is immoral. Defining what is moral is a little different. We would prohibit what is immoral legally, in other words, and encourage what is moral. Some things are neither - it doesn't feel immoral or moral to say, scribble on a piece of paper. No one is hurt and no one is helped. In that respect, what is moral is that which progresses human health and happiness and what is immoral causes harm. Avoiding harm and promoting health and happiness would be what I see as loving each other. There are many different ways to do this.

As for relationships that involve more than two people, I am actually not morally opposed to it. If everyone involved has fully informed consent and all parties are knowledgeable, I don't actually see anything immoral about it. If the relationship is healthy and happy, I find the scenario to be moral. Some issues may arise with the introduction of children, however. Would a child thrive or suffer with the addition of other extramarital, er, parents? I find it interesting. It is hard to go about these types of relationships in honest, fair, and responsible ways, however, but that isn't actually damning of them.

I don't actually find that much ambiguity or subjectivity present here either. I'd say this line of thought, this ethics, is entirely defensible in a theological framework too.

neo-x wrote:Actually, I do not see anyway out of it except to agree that at least it makes morality, relative.

We are subjective beings interacting with subjective beings. There is a necessarily fuzzy and subjective aspect to this because of that. Does this make it subjective in principle? I don't think so. Harm can have an objective element even if harm may be different depending on the individuals and the scenarios. Anyone with an objective or authoritative and omniscient perspective would know what is harmful absolutely, but we can only be held accountable for what we know - our moral responsibility lies within our given knowledge. If something, by all empirical accounts, appears healthy and not harmful, we have no way to claim it as immoral. It might seem as if God has condemned it in scripture as immoral, and maybe he knows better, but if we are to love each other, we have to love each other as best as we know how. We must adapt our interpretation of scripture based on new knowledge if what we know conflicts, yes? In this case, it may have been harmful or unhealthy to civilizations of old to have homosexual relationships, but it doesn't seem to hold today. I think our knowledge of the health of homosexual relationships implores us to not condemn it but celebrate it for this reason, and we must learn to reinterpret scripture because of that.

We are taking the moral high road in regards to what WE define as abnormal and deviant sex BUT refuse to accept the moral high road if someone else choose to view homosexuality under those terms.
Can't have it both ways and that is my point, in the bible, the prohibition on Homosexuality is the same as all other "abnormal or deviant' sexual behaviour.
In short, any sex outside of man and woman is prohibited.
Consent can't be used as a measuring stick to what is acceptable because not all humans have the same capacity to rationalize consent.
Harm can't be used as the measuring stick for what is sexually acceptable because not all deviant sexual behaviour is harmful.

PaulSacramento wrote:We are taking the moral high road in regards to what WE define as abnormal and deviant sex BUT refuse to accept the moral high road if someone else choose to view homosexuality under those terms.
Can't have it both ways and that is my point, in the bible, the prohibition on Homosexuality is the same as all other "abnormal or deviant' sexual behaviour.
In short, any sex outside of man and woman is prohibited.
Consent can't be used as a measuring stick to what is acceptable because not all humans have the same capacity to rationalize consent.
Harm can't be used as the measuring stick for what is sexually acceptable because not all deviant sexual behaviour is harmful.

Exactly Paul. And who decided that adult consent is the demarcation line? Taking it a step further, why is harm or pain a bad thing to begin with? Who decided that? Many a great thing was brought about due to a harmful and painful situation: greater capacity for love, appreciation for life, extreme altruism, etc, etc. So why is it that consent and/or pain or even the capacity to rationalize ought to be the defining line with sexual behavior? Why is the capacity to rationalize any better than say skin pigmentation, or eye color, or the capacity to take in carbon dioxide and give out oxygen as opposed to the other way around? Why all the discrimination and who decided all that? Too many questions atheism would have to justify, only if it's able to justify why it would have to justify it in the first place.

Byblos wrote:Exactly Paul. And who decided that adult consent is the demarcation line? Taking it a step further, why is harm or pain a bad thing to begin with? Who decided that? Many a great thing was brought about due to a harmful and painful situation: greater capacity for love, appreciation for life, extreme altruism, etc, etc. So why is it that consent and/or pain or even the capacity to rationalize ought to be the defining line with sexual behavior? Why is the capacity to rationalize any better than say skin pigmentation, or eye color, or the capacity to take in carbon dioxide and give out oxygen as opposed to the other way around? Why all the discrimination and who decided all that? Too many questions atheism would have to justify, only if it's able to justify why it would have to justify it in the first place.

Haha, and this is the problem with moral arguments for moral arguments. We're told we ought to recognize that two consenting adults have this or that right. But why ought we recognize that? Says who? BB? Why should I care what his opinions are? Because it's wrong to deny people rights? Says who? Again, BB? Society? Why should I care?

It's yet one more reason I'm a theist. I don't have to provide moral arguments for moral arguments. That's just an infinite regress that eventually lands you in shear personal opinion. As a theist, I provide rational arguments based on reality itself for my moral arguments. We ought to give the devil his dues, though . . . atheists preach their ideology just as well and with as much fervor as any televangelist I've ever seen. "Accept my opinion on what is right or wrong . . . because I say so!!!11!1"

Yes, the great "Sez Who" !

Plus, does the all-knowning God Who calls himself The Great I AM, who is both eternal and unchangeable, hate some behavior so badly that He calls it an "abomination," even destroying people and nations for it, then suddenly do a 180 and allows it? Even SUPPOSEDLY has created people born so as that they would "naturally" act out their sexuality per the homosexuality He supposedly has created? That makes no sense whatsoever. That would be a god of enormous contradictions.

A man cannot simply pick and choose amongst what God's Word calls sin and then it somehow transforms into acceptability to God Himself. The Scriptures against adultery and homosexuality are so numerous, so blatantly clear and undeniable, that to deny them while continuing in such a practice is to be an unrepentant rebel. And there ain't gonna be any rebels in Heaven, not even one!

The Scriptures against adultery and homosexuality are so numerous, so blatantly clear and undeniable

That's a great point, Philip. Usually in an adulterous, sexual relationship, both people are consenting, and in many cases, they also love each other. A sexual adulterous relationship is wrong, just like a sexual, homosexual relationship is wrong. Whether or not there is "love", or mutual consent, involved in either, is irrelevant.

Philip wrote:Plus, does the all-knowning God Who calls himself The Great I AM, who is both eternal and unchangeable, hate some behavior so badly that He calls it an "abomination," even destroying people and nations for it, then suddenly do a 180 and allows it? Even SUPPOSEDLY has created people born so as that they would "naturally" act out their sexuality per the homosexuality He supposedly has created? That makes no sense whatsoever. That would be a god of enormous contradictions.

A man cannot simply pick and choose amongst what God's Word calls sin and then it somehow transforms into acceptability to God Himself. The Scriptures against adultery and homosexuality are so numerous, so blatantly clear and undeniable, that to deny them while continuing in such a practice is to be an unrepentant rebel. And there ain't gonna be any rebels in Heaven, not even one!

I don't like using the term "abomination" or using the fact that the OT uses it to describe the sin of homosexuality either.
The OT writers liked to use "strong" terms a lot.
As for God "changing" His mind, well...the issue of divorce, food laws and such come to mind.
We need to remember that many of the Laws of the OT was accomodational and causal laws and that many are NOT applicable NOW.
That said, it is pretty clear that in regards to sexual behaviour and what is permitted, hasn't really changed.
Sexual acts that the bible views as unnatural - not the norm for procreation AND for male-female sexual relations- are prohibited.