Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

1over137 wrote:What does it mean "senses working correctly" ?

In this particular case I would say; works in accordance with 99% of the population.

Ken

Go back some decades when there was slavery in USA for example. How many percent viewed it as something wrong?

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:I think objective is what can be proven or demonstrated; subjective is what is believed.

Here I thought we were making progress but I'm not despairing just yet.

By your definition above, does this mean that something that is not proven or demonstrated cannot be objective?

Correct. That would make it subjective.

K

Okay so let's take an example. Earlier you had agreed (I think) that torturing babies for fun is an objective moral wrong (i.e. regardless of anyone's opinion). Let's assume that in the entire history of humanity there has never, ever been an incident of torturing babies for pleasure. Now please demonstrate or prove, as per your definition above, that torturing babies for fun is objectively wrong.

Kenny wrote:

jlay wrote:

Kenny wrote: I think objective is what can be proven or demonstrated; subjective is what is believed.


Ken

Let's just say that everyone believed it was OK to torture puppies for fun. Would that make it so?

Torturing puppies is easy. How about if one person felt race mixing was okay but fornication was wrong. The other person felt that fornication was okay, but race mixing was wrong, and they both felt it was objective; if something like that can't be demonstrated; wouldn't that make it subjective?

Ken

Then let's stick with the easy stuff, shall we. We're having a hard time communicating as it is.

1over137 wrote:

Kenny wrote:

1over137 wrote:What does it mean "senses working correctly" ?

In this particular case I would say; works in accordance with 99% of the population.

Ken

Go back some decades when there was slavery in USA for example. How many percent viewed it as something wrong?

It would be a very small percentage. But in the above quote, when I said "in accordance with 99% of the population" I was refering to the 5 senses of taste, touch, hearing, smelling, and sight; All physical. I was not talking about morality; non physical.

Ken

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:I think objective is what can be proven or demonstrated; subjective is what is believed.

Here I thought we were making progress but I'm not despairing just yet.

By your definition above, does this mean that something that is not proven or demonstrated cannot be objective?

Correct. That would make it subjective.

K

Okay so let's take an example. Earlier you had agreed (I think) that torturing babies for fun is an objective moral wrong (i.e. regardless of anyone's opinion). Let's assume that in the entire history of humanity there has never, ever been an incident of torturing babies for pleasure. Now please demonstrate or prove, as per your definition above, that torturing babies for fun is objectively wrong.

I didn't agree that it was an objective moral wrong, I believe it is wrong; but subjective. I believe morality is subjective, not objective; which is why I started this thread; so I can hear from those who believe it is objective and understand why.

Ken

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

jlay wrote:

Kenny wrote: I think objective is what can be proven or demonstrated; subjective is what is believed.


Ken

Let's just say that everyone believed it was OK to torture puppies for fun. Would that make it so?

Torturing puppies is easy. How about if one person felt race mixing was okay but fornication was wrong. The other person felt that fornication was okay, but race mixing was wrong, and they both felt it was objective; if something like that can't be demonstrated; wouldn't that make it subjective?

Ken

Then let's stick with the easy stuff, shall we. We're having a hard time communicating as it is.

That's fine. When it comes to torturing puppies, I believe it is a subjective moral wrong.

Ken

I will limit myself to three questions to you, Kenny. I will keep all of my replies to you to less than a couple of sentences and only ask you questions that require a couple sentence response. I do that so that you won't need to spend very long responding me so that you make sure you respond fully to jlay and Byblos.

1. I want you to define "wrong," not so much by giving me a dictionary definition, but by restating the sentence, "Torturing puppies is wrong" . . . so you say, "Torturing puppies is _________________."

Thank you

Kenny wrote:

1over137 wrote:

Kenny wrote:

1over137 wrote:What does it mean "senses working correctly" ?

In this particular case I would say; works in accordance with 99% of the population.

Ken

Go back some decades when there was slavery in USA for example. How many percent viewed it as something wrong?

It would be a very small percentage. But in the above quote, when I said "in accordance with 99% of the population" I was refering to the 5 senses of taste, touch, hearing, smelling, and sight; All physical. I was not talking about morality; non physical.

Ken

Then maybe I could say that objective morality is something 99% of the population would agree on if their 'sixth sense' was working correcly.

Jac3510 wrote:I will limit myself to three questions to you, Kenny. I will keep all of my replies to you to less than a couple of sentences and only ask you questions that require a couple sentence response. I do that so that you won't need to spend very long responding me so that you make sure you respond fully to jlay and Byblos.

1. I want you to define "wrong," not so much by giving me a dictionary definition, but by restating the sentence, "Torturing puppies is wrong" . . . so you say, "Torturing puppies is _________________."

Thank you

I would say it is wrong because it causes needless suffering. I say it is subjective instead of objective because it is something I believe; not something I can proove or demonstrate to someone who believes it is good.

Ken

1over137 wrote:

Kenny wrote:

1over137 wrote:

Kenny wrote:

1over137 wrote:What does it mean "senses working correctly" ?

In this particular case I would say; works in accordance with 99% of the population.

Ken

Go back some decades when there was slavery in USA for example. How many percent viewed it as something wrong?

It would be a very small percentage. But in the above quote, when I said "in accordance with 99% of the population" I was refering to the 5 senses of taste, touch, hearing, smelling, and sight; All physical. I was not talking about morality; non physical.

Ken

Then maybe I could say that objective morality is something 99% of the population would agree on if their 'sixth sense' was working correcly.

Do you believe 99% of the population has a sixth sense?

Ken

I do believe that not 99% of the population has 'sixth sense' working correctly.

As the Bible says, people are corrupted.

And by 'sixth sense' I mean the ability to know what is right and wrong.

1over137 wrote:I do believe that not 99% of the population has 'sixth sense' working correctly.

As the Bible says, people are corrupted.

And by 'sixth sense' I mean the ability to know what is right and wrong.

So you believe 99% of people do not know right from wrong? Wouldn't that suggest subjective morality?

K

Kenny wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:I will limit myself to three questions to you, Kenny. I will keep all of my replies to you to less than a couple of sentences and only ask you questions that require a couple sentence response. I do that so that you won't need to spend very long responding me so that you make sure you respond fully to jlay and Byblos.

1. I want you to define "wrong," not so much by giving me a dictionary definition, but by restating the sentence, "Torturing puppies is wrong" . . . so you say, "Torturing puppies is _________________."

Thank you

I would say it is wrong because it causes needless suffering. I say it is subjective instead of objective because it is something I believe; not something I can proove or demonstrate to someone who believes it is good.

Ken

Ok, nevermind. If you aren't going to answer an extremely straightforward question, then I'll leave you to those who want to keep playing games with you.

Jac3510 wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:I will limit myself to three questions to you, Kenny. I will keep all of my replies to you to less than a couple of sentences and only ask you questions that require a couple sentence response. I do that so that you won't need to spend very long responding me so that you make sure you respond fully to jlay and Byblos.

1. I want you to define "wrong," not so much by giving me a dictionary definition, but by restating the sentence, "Torturing puppies is wrong" . . . so you say, "Torturing puppies is _________________."

Thank you

I would say it is wrong because it causes needless suffering. I say it is subjective instead of objective because it is something I believe; not something I can proove or demonstrate to someone who believes it is good.

Ken

Ok, nevermind. If you aren't going to answer an extremely straightforward question, then I'll leave you to those who want to keep playing games with you.

Your question was not very clear. I don't know what kind of answer you were looking for. If you were simply looking for a definition of "wrong" I would say there are lots of definitions; needless suffering is one of them.

Ken

Needless suffering?

Hey, if torturing puppies brings you/me/them pleasure then how is it needless? Obviously you/me/them felt the 'need' to do satisfy the urge.

Kenny, your answer is evasive but reveals that you view suffering (needless or otherwise) as evidence that things are NOT as they OUGHT to be. If things OUGHT to be one way rather than another, then bingo, morality is objective.