Evidence for God from Science

Echoside, my mistake. I have edited my previous post with the corrections underlined.

echoside wrote:No, it is not a contradiction. Objective truths exist, does that mean everything has an objective answer? Are you advocating that the best tasting ice cream can only ever be chocolate and not vanilla? That red is the better color over blue?

No, I'm saying objective moral values and duties exist or they do not exist. Law of non-contradiction.

echoside wrote:If not, then nothing I have said is a contradiction. How is an objective truth like the law of non contradiction automatically tied to objective moral values?

Its not automatically tied to anything specific. It applies to everything.

echoside wrote:You cannot just affirm it and then tell me I'm wrong, to say that objective moral values and logic are on the same level while offering no justification.

Yes I could! A contradiction is clear as day! Read your sentences very carefully. I keep telling you. STOP USING EPISTEMOLOGY! If you want to find truths, you need to do so without that nonsense! Its like you're trying to get off the ground and fly a plane by nosediving! Its insane and I have to keep yelling at you to pull up.

echoside wrote:Yes, because objective truths can be overridden by everyone thinking the opposite, right?

NO THEY CANNOT! Oh my God! Do you know what objective means? INDEPENDENT! If people "override" it, then it really isn't objective, now is it? Get the plane off the ground, echoside.

echoside wrote:I would love to see the proof you have to offer that the billions of people on the planet all agree that theft is morally wrong. Not just wrong because they don't like being stolen from, or because it's the easiest way to build up a society, but because it is objectively wrong.

What kind of proof would you like? I have given you EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that some morals are objectively wrong. It doesn't get any better then that. Unless you can show me where, on this planet, with any group, that theft is socially acceptable, then it is valid. You don't like it, then thats tough.

echoside wrote:And even if you did, that does not make the statement objectively true, it merely says that everyone thinks it is true.

Moral experience reveals that objective moral values and duties exist. Everyone will eventually have a moral experience with theft and discover that it is objectively wrong. You don't like the answer? You need to prove it is wrong.

domokunrox wrote: No, I'm saying objective moral values and duties exist or they do not exist. Law of non-contradiction.

Where have I disagreed with this?

echoside wrote:Yes, because objective truths can be overridden by everyone thinking the opposite, right?

domokunrox wrote:NO THEY CANNOT! Oh my God! Do you know what objective means? INDEPENDENT! If people "override" it, then it really isn't objective, now is it? Get the plane off the ground, echoside.

Perhaps you missed the sarcasm. That statement was a response to YOUR claim that

domokunrox wrote:It isn't an ad populum fallacy if EVERYONE AGREES. You get this, right?

I don't care who agrees: that's not conclusive evidence. You brought this up , not me.

domokunrox wrote:What kind of proof would you like? I have given you EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that some morals are objectively wrong. It doesn't get any better then that. Unless you can show me where, on this planet, with any group, that theft is socially acceptable, then it is valid. You don't like it, then thats tough.

How do you divide the notions that these feelings of being wronged by theft are in fact objective and not a widely held subjective preference? I don't have to show you a place where theft is socially acceptable, that does not make your position valid, it just makes it not necessarily proven invalid. A state where theft was accepted would probably collapse into anarchy, the fact that people work together in communities does not prove people don't thieve because it is immoral.

domokunrox wrote: Moral experience reveals that objective moral values and duties exist. Everyone will eventually have a moral experience with theft and discover that it is objectively wrong. You don't like the answer? You need to prove it is wrong.

And if it can't be proven either way? Your claims of what people experience cannot simply be labeled as objective, what rules out the subjective?

spartanII wrote:Your being too harsh on echo, domo. Calm down. He's being civil. Anyways, it is objective in the sense that since God knows everything (concretely) what He says is moral is objective and concrete. He knows the way we should live and what is right/wrong. That's way shorter than what everybody else has wrote but that's my take on it.

I think the conversation is looking at it the other way around, if we don't assume the existence of an objective moral God can we derive his existence from morality.

domokunrox, I have to agree with Echo. I don't see collective agreement in human societies somehow making objective moral truth obvious.

The law of non-contradiction
Opposite ideas cannot be true at the same time and same sense (The Earth is round and not round)

I'm fine with both descriptions, round and not round, do you have a preference for one description over the other?

This is a contradiction. Objective truths either exist, or they do not. Existence is all or nothing.

Is there no room for human ideas of truth, subjective, objective and existence being rather inadequate terms for framing our world? Simply stating existence is all or nothing does not make it so.

You guys are going to have to deal with my lack of ability to quote text for this reply. I am typing from my smartphone and not from my computer.

First, echoside.

You have broken the law of non contradiction in regards to objective moral values existence. I will point it out when I get home from work.

In your next comment, here is what you are essentially saying.

"All people can and will discover from moral experience that theft is wrong, but that is not conclusive evidence that theft is objective morally wrong"

That answers your next question, echoside. You're asking. How is it not just a widely held subjective preference. Because ALL people will discover that it is wrong. And yes, in order for you to prove that theft is a morally subjective decision, then you need to show me how it isn't 100 percent wrong. You have burden of proof to show us here that theft is in fact NOT 100 percent wrong. If you can even show is here a tiny slice of the pie is not wrong, then you have then proven that it is a subjective moral.

You see how different my goal posts are from yours? It is 100 percent for me. You need to prove even just a tiny bit that theft is not wrong. The proof is that objective moral values and duties greatly outweighs the proof for subjective morals. The scales tips greatly to my side, while your epistemology has put absolutely nothing on your side to prove your view.

Echoside wrote:if I am speaking of morality specifically it could still be subjective while objective truths exist. Hence my previous ice cream example, even though it is a subjective preference objectivity can, and does exist in other forms. 1+1=2 regardless of whether morality, ice cream preference, or whatever turns out to be subjective.

Here it is. And while, I haven't fully addressed it, yet. I will address it now. You have broken the law of non-contradiction here. Despite your reasoning for it. Notice how you say, "could still be".

It either is, or isn't. If it is, then it is objective that morals are subjective (Hence, actually objective). If it isn't, then it just is flat out objective because it isn't subjective. Objective and subjective cannot exist in the same time and same sense.

Again, the epistemology you start off will always kill your idea before you even get it off the ground.

But again, when we talk about a subject like morals. You want to actually talk about it, and not just use epistemology to discover nothing. The moral dilemmas we face, and starting with a positive claim if they are wrong and right is absolutely needed in order to figure it out. I cannot think of any example of theft being acceptable. Hell, the punishment for theft used to cost your hand (literally) in history. Thats a pretty harsh punishment for what you are claiming is "subjective". Thats the equivalent of a women cutting off her husbands package for cheating on her in this day and age. I am STILL getting a big laugh out of it right now that you're sticking REALLY HARD to your guns that theft isn't objectively wrong. I put in the claim that theft is 100 percent wrong everywhere, and I don't need you to confirm it, really. You're being extremely stubborn if your response is that it is an Ad populum fallacy. The ad populum fallacy is a MOST people, not ALL people.

How about raping children? Do you think that is morally subjective as well? Try telling someone who was raped as a child that what they experienced wasn't wrong. I have never met a rape victim who believes that. Child rapists are killed by other prisoners in ALL prisons in the world if you are discovered. So, yes, even these lowly prisoners have a moral law that child raping is objectively wrong.

Proinsias wrote:domokunrox, I have to agree with Echo. I don't see collective agreement in human societies somehow making objective moral truth obvious.

So, are you saying that IF theft was not against the law somewhere, then you would feel that theft is ok? I really would like to hear an answer. Would you be committing theft? Would you view the theft of your property as just an every day normal thing?

You know, just because the "wild west" existed and there was outlaws, doesn't really help your position. The wild west didn't have laws, but you can be sure that there was swift justice. You ever heard the expression, "You run with the outlaw, you die with the outlaw"? Death by hanging or firing squad was common. Its a pretty harsh punishment for something morally "subjective" don't you think?

Proinsias wrote:I'm fine with both descriptions, round and not round, do you have a preference for one description over the other?/

No, I do not. The earth is round because that is the reality. Its not my preference, and its not up to me. In fact, the fact that the world is round is very common held fact by basically everyone, but has anyone ever been to outer space to see the earth? Its amazing that we take it as fact but never seen it for ourselves, yet people have problems with believing the gospel.

Proinsias wrote:Is there no room for human ideas of truth, subjective, objective and existence being rather inadequate terms for framing our world? Simply stating existence is all or nothing does not make it so.

You are absolutely wrong in this regard. For example, the planet we call earth exists. It does not exist sometimes. Existence ALL or NOTHING. Another example, do you exist? Yes, right? Unless you believe in illusions or something like that. I wouldn't like to need to give examples to people where they recognize their existence by punching them in the arm to feel pain. Unless you believe pain is an illusion too, in which case I can't help you further since you're not human anymore.

I'm saying that humans creating laws, no matter how common they are within societies, does not necessarily point to objective truth or the existence of it. I've had possessions stolen from me, I've been beaten and robbed, I've also stolen threatening objects from would be attackers. Is theft objectively wrong? I don't know, I'm not God. Are there times when theft can be justified to my satisfaction? yes

The wild west was to some extent the transition between the land being somewhere the indigenous peoples lived to the current state of foreigners 'owning it', or fighting for ownerships of land and goods. When one party decides to take over land where other people live things often become a little more chaotic than usual. I'm not a supporter of the death penalty but I can see some cases where it could be justified, not on the basis of objective morality but more on an 'eye for an eye' basis or that someone is proven time and time again to be incapable of not leaving misery and destruction in their wake. I do see some irony in the state trying someone for murder and then murdering them, Diamanda Galas' Iron Lady captures it better than I can manage.

The earth isn't round, that's a gross generalisation. It's got plenty sharp corners and pointy bits. If the earth was round we wouldn't have Mt. Everest, the Grand Canyon or that nice tilled effect I have on the soil in my garden. Much like we can give figures for the circumference of the earth but the more accurate we try to make the measurements the more it leans towards infinity.

I would venture what we call the earth does exist sometimes, there have been times when it didn't exist and there will probably be times when it doesn't exists. Thus in my reckoning it would exist sometimes. I would also say the existence of the earth isn't an all or nothing, if there was a point it didn't exist and then a point where it did there would likely have been some sort of transitional phase between the two states.

Do I exist? That's a toughie. I've not quite defined what I mean by I or existence so I'll have to pass on that for the time being.

It does make me smile that any time I get into this sort of discussion those who believe in objective morality are always quick to offer violence as a solution.

The earth isn't round, that's a gross generalization. It's got plenty sharp corners and pointy bits.

Come on Pros, you are picking nits here. The earth is round in its general shape. It isn't square. When you make comments like that, it comes across as stubborn, and it brings up our past discussions.

I would venture what we call the earth does exist sometimes, there have been times when it didn't exist and there will probably be times when it doesn't exists. Thus in my reckoning it would exist sometimes.

This again is being unreasonable. The earth doesn't exist, then not exist, and then exist again. The earth objectively exists. If it exists now, then it will have always existed now, even if the planet were to be obliterated in the future.

It does make me smile that any time I get into this sort of discussion those who believe in objective morality are always quick to offer violence as a solution.

I've had that same discussion with you. You stubbornly refuse to see what point is being made here. No one is literally suggesting violence.

Regarding theft. You can always search for some caveat. The bottom line, if someone were attacking you with a gun, and you 'stole' the gun from them, does that qualify as theft. No, certainly not in the context that Dom is using it. You are looking for loopholes and contradictions to avoid making a concession.

I do see some irony in the state trying someone for murder and then murdering them, Diamanda Galas' Iron Lady captures it better than I can manage.

That fails to rightly define murder.

I'm not a supporter of the death penalty but I can see some cases where it could be justified, not on the basis of objective morality but more on an 'eye for an eye' basis or that someone is proven time and time again to be incapable of not leaving misery and destruction in their wake.

Pros, that's just moving the goal post. You overlook that there has to be a foundation upon which to rest an 'eye for an eye.' Otherwise, what do you mean by justification? Justified according to what?

jlay, I don't think I'm being overly stubborn. If one wants to describe the earth as round I'm fine with that, if one starts stating this is absolute objective truth, I'm going to call them on it - as far as I can see even by looking out the window, it's not. I have no idea what shape the earth is from an objective point of view as I don't have one, neither do you or anyone else posting here. The earth being round in it's general shape is tantamount to saying the shape of the earth is not round. Murder and theft being generally bad I can agree with, absolutely and objectively I can't.

If taking someone else's property against their will doesn't always count as theft and deliberately killing another human being doesn't always count as murder then we have an issue. You say that doesn't rightly define murder, I say it often does. You say abortion is rightly defined as murder, I say it often isn't. Who has the final say?

I did try to clarify what I class as justified, justified to my satisfaction. You seem to be tryung to justify things to God's satisfaction, I wish you the best and hope you get the right answer.

We could argue the "you need an objective source for your morality'' --- "no I don't" but it doesn't go very far.

You're pretty sure about the existence of objective morality, your certainty mystifies me. I will say that on my cobbled together morality you seem like a good guy, but maybe I'm tapping into objective truth there

domokunrox wrote: Here it is. And while, I haven't fully addressed it, yet. I will address it now. You have broken the law of non-contradiction here. Despite your reasoning for it. Notice how you say, "could still be".

It either is, or isn't. If it is, then it is objective that morals are subjective (Hence, actually objective). If it isn't, then it just is flat out objective because it isn't subjective. Objective and subjective cannot exist in the same time and same sense.

Again, the epistemology you start off will always kill your idea before you even get it off the ground.

Hopefully this is an honest mistake you are making, when you argue against something I haven't said.

MORALITY is objective or subjective. I have not said it could be both at the same time, you just like to cherry pick and not try to comprehend what I'm saying.
IF MORALITY was subjective, OBJECTIVE TRUTHS still exist. Regardless of whether or not killing is objectively wrong has no bearing on the fact that 1+1=2.

domokunrox wrote: I put in the claim that theft is 100 percent wrong everywhere, and I don't need you to confirm it, really. You're being extremely stubborn if your response is that it is an Ad populum fallacy. The ad populum fallacy is a MOST people, not ALL people.

So if all people believed the world to be flat it would nullify the fact that it is indeed round? Like I said in my last post, theft being legal has extremely negative implications to a society's continuation.

So let's try an example a little lessed biased in your favor shall we? Is abortion objectively wrong? Because I can think of many people who would say it isn't. Does that make it subjective?

You know what's interesting? I was thinking about this discussion, and I have honestly grown very tired of it. I am seriously starting to believe that echoside has a serious conprehesion problem where it is impossible to discuss intelligently with him. And its not a personal attack on him.

Its is interesting however that we got another skeptic in here.

Echoside is a classic example of a local skeptic. Believes things can be defined and exist, but has no ideas on how to define them or cannot be defined to his full satisfaction. Believes in the fallibility of the senses except for his own. Claims ignorance.

It is simply not lost on anyone that objective morals exist and revealed by moral experience, Echoside. If you do not believe that theft, murder, rape, etc is objectively wrong, then I question if you have any friends at all. That's not even an argument for my position by the way. That's just simply a comment you should just examine personally. See how that correlates with reality.

You abortion argument isn't going to go anywhere. Abortion is objectively wrong in the sense that you are terminating something that exists. It matters not if the brain is developed or any part of structure has not developed. That organism is human beyond any doubt. To suggest that it is anything else but that is just flat out ignorant.

The other person proinsias here is what we call a global skeptic. Where nothing can be defined, and how can we know it can be defined like that, etc,etc. Its an infinite regress.

The fact of the matter is. I think we have plenty of proof here that epistemology doesn't proof anything, doesn't desire any kind of intellectual inquiry, and completely unintelligent.

We have 2 good examples of skepticism here, and I have made it perfectly clear in just about every single post here that no one can doubt the existence of something unless you know something. It is a contradiction at its very core.


It is as much a contradiction as me saying that this discussion happened in my dreams

We could argue the "you need an objective source for your morality'' --- "no I don't" but it doesn't go very far.

Pros,
Objective morality is. The reality is that the individual can benefit from it and rely on it, and yet not acknowledge it,and even deny it. Like you. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

I could give you many examples of killing that is not murder, but honestly I think I'd be wasting my breath. If you honestly think that self-defense and the crimes of a serial killer are both murder, then we are wasting our time, and might as well go get pizza. I would challenge you to find a definition that agrees. But based on your last post, it seems that "your satisfaction" is the only standard you will consider objectively real. Pros, the only way you can say that murder and theft are only generally wrong is by infusing your ambiguous, self-serving definitions, and ignore the obvious.

So if all people believed the world to be flat it would nullify the fact that it is indeed round? Like I said in my last post, theft being legal has extremely negative implications to a society's continuation.

That's not what Dom is saying, at least I think. Echo, that's true regarding theft. But it doesn't negate that it is objectively wrong. I think we have an impasse here. Morals can and are subjective. Individuals and societies can and do have moral preferences that will vary. That does NOT negate objective morality in the least. And I'm sure that you or Dom have done a poor job communicating what you are trying to prove here. Each are making a lot of assumptions about the other, and in the end, you are both arriving at the wrong conclusion.

So let's try an example a little lessed biased in your favor shall we? Is abortion objectively wrong? Because I can think of many people who would say it isn't. Does that make it subjective?

Abortion is objectively wrong. The question here, is this what Dom is trying to prove with his theft example. Does his premise, mean that in all other situations people must agree on what is wrong. That is definately how you are taking it Echo. Dom, would you care to clarify. Don't assume everyone knows what you are talking about when you throw out terms like epistemology and ontology.
It is objectively true in every abortion that a human life is being destroyed. It can be compared to stealing. Because even though everyone knows it is wrong to be stolen from, we must not forget that there is a thief in every situation. A thief who has the subjective belief that their want outweighs the crime. However, that same thief will morally object if something is stolen from them. Unfortunately, the unborn have no way to object.

Questions for both of you:
Does subjective morality negate objective morality? Or vice versa.
Is objective morality's existence dependent on humans complying to it?
If all humans agree on the morality of an issue, does that 'make' it objectively true?

Subjective moral beings need to learn what is true morality is from an objective moral source.
-
-
-

jlay wrote:Questions for both of you:
Does subjective morality negate objective morality? Or vice versa.
Is objective morality's existence dependent on humans complying to it?
If all humans agree on the morality of an issue, does that 'make' it objectively true?

No, no and no. At first thought at least.

I vote for pizza now.

jlay wrote: That's not what Dom is saying, at least I think. Echo, that's true regarding theft. But it doesn't negate that it is objectively wrong. I think we have an impasse here. Morals can and are subjective. Individuals and societies can and do have moral preferences that will vary. That does NOT negate objective morality in the least. And I'm sure that you or Dom have done a poor job communicating what you are trying to prove here. Each are making a lot of assumptions about the other, and in the end, you are both arriving at the wrong conclusion.

Morals cannot be truly subjective if they are objective. If there is indeed an objective standard then everyone who has a preference that is different knows they are wrong. Hence, they cannot hold a subjective preference, they can only say they do in order to further evil goals. If people actually had a system of morality they really thought was correct, judging them after death would be immoral on God's part.

jlay wrote:Abortion is objectively wrong. The question here, is this what Dom is trying to prove with his theft example. Does his premise, mean that in all other situations people must agree on what is wrong. That is definately how you are taking it Echo.

I took out the unfair weight an idea like theft gives to an argument. If theft is nearly (or entirely) universally condemned, is there a reason other than doing what is right for that? If everyone stole from each other society couldn't exist, mutual survival makes theft punishable.

As for abortion, if you judge it by the same standards WITHOUT the concept of anarchy kicking in, you have a divided opinion from the general public. So the "everyone hates theft" argument is *possibily* exposed as incorrect. Notice concepts like murder, torture, theft, etc. are all viewed as wrong, but they are also linked to basic social rules that need to be in place to promote the advancement of everyone. Take a idea like homosexuality or abortion, and the arguments for objective morality don't hold nearly as well.

jlay wrote:Questions for both of you:
Does subjective morality negate objective morality? Or vice versa.
Is objective morality's existence dependent on humans complying to it?
If all humans agree on the morality of an issue, does that 'make' it objectively true?

1. Outside of an illusion that doesn't exist, subjective morality cannot ever really exist if we are all held to the same standard.
2. nope, but on some level they would have to recognize it, a esire to do evil simply supresses the notion.
3. no, only a being like God would be able to make the objective reality.