Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:Kenny,

You screwed up the quotes in your post. Much of what you quoted Byblos as saying, I actually said.

I don't think Byblos wants my stupidity attributed to him.

Thanx for pointing that out for me. I fixed it]

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Kenny,

You screwed up the quotes in your post. Much of what you quoted Byblos as saying, I actually said.

I don't think Byblos wants my stupidity attributed to him.

Thanx for pointing that out for me. I fixed it]

Ken

There's a strange square bracket on the end of your sentence too!

Y'all please don't feel the trolls.

The epistemology v ontology issue is, of course, important. It's worth noting that nothing in my argument provides an attempt to offer an explanation of how we know whether this or that is wrong. But this is a really important thing for us to understand so that we see the real power of argument. Look at these sentences:

• Slavery is wrong.
  Slavery is not wrong.
  Ice cream is evil.
  Humility is good.
  Protecting the environment is good.
  Disagreeing with Jac is wicked.
  Agreeing with Kenny is righteous.

So all of these statements employ moral language of the A type. It is obvious that they all cannot be true. But that isn't the question my argument poses. My question is, is it possible that any even could be true? If so, then objective moral values exist. Why? Because in order to be true, we must meaningfully predicate moral language to acts themselves, and that presupposes objective moral value.

Put differently, if objective moral values do NOT exist, then all of those sentences are reduced to b2 type sentences. But if all of those are to be understood in that sense, then none of them are either true or false. That is, if there are no objective moral truths, then none of those sentences have any truth value, and as such, none of them are either true or false.

Thus, when someone asks, "Well, how do you know if X is really wrong then?" we respond, "First, you tell me if it is even possible for anything, including X, to be wrong." If so, then they have admitted that they are predicating moral language to acts, and therefore, they have admitted objective moral values exist, per the second premise of the argument. On the other hand, if someone asks, "Well, I don't think that X is wrong," then we ask, "Ok, then what is something you do think is wrong (or right, for that matter)?" Whatever they answer, "Well, I don't think that X is wrong, but I do think Y is," then they've again admitted to the argument from moral predication.

Again: the moment anyone states that anything is right or wrong, they have predicating moral language to acts and have therefore assumed that objective moral values exist. The argument about whether or not we are CORRECT in predicating moral language is entirely immaterial. It is only related in that if I mistakenly attribute moral language to something--for instance, if I think lying is permissible but it turns out upon further investigation that I was wrong--then I have, again, admitted to the existence of objective moral values.

--------------------------------------------

And Byblos, I don't think this argument can be used to prove just anything exists. It works with objective moral values because we think that our predication of moral values is meaningful. If we deny that such predication is meaningful, then we deny the thing in question is real. Take these sentences:

• Fleebistats are blue.
  Fleebistats are heavy.
  Fleebistats are not nice.

So we know what blue, heavy, and not nice all mean. But do these propositions mean anything? Of course not, because there is no such thing as a Fleebistat. That is, "blue" doesn't have a referent. It doesn't answer to anything whatsoever in reality. Put more philosophically, the accident "blue" doesn't inhere in anything, and therefore, the language is meaningless.

In my argument, the question is whether or not the sentence "Slavery is wrong" is meaningful. Note well: it doesn't matter whether the sentence is true. That's where trolls play. The question is whether or not it could even be true in principle. Perhaps we may study the issue and find out that it is true. Or perhaps we may study it and find out it is false. Both both the truthfulness and falseness of the proposition both presume that the proposition could possibly be true--that is, that it is the type of sentence that is meaningful. If the sentence, though, reduces to a b2 type sentence ("I prefer there be no slavery") then the proposition is neither true nor false, because the sentence has no truth value. That, of course, is why Kenny's idiotic attempts to say that his beliefs about something being right and wrong are enough to ground objective moral value are just that: idiotic. Either his belief is predicating moral language to the act itself (a b1 type statement), which is therefore reducible to an A type statement, and therefore objective moral values exist; or else his belief is employing moral language to convey his preferences (a b2 type statement), which therefore means that no objective moral values exist and, in fact, his statement that his opinion is that slavery is wrong is, strictly speaking, meaningless at best and false at worst.

-------------------------------------------

And K, the answer isn't to beat someone who thinks that slavery is okay. It's to enslave them. Once they are enslaved, ask them if they think it's okay.

But again, may I encourage you all . . .

Jac3510 wrote:And K, the answer isn't to beat someone who thinks that slavery is okay. It's to enslave them. Once they are enslaved, ask them if they think it's okay.

But, but, what if they still think it ok?

If, as some think, people disagreeing over some moral belief means morality is subjective, then lets kill any dissenters so that moral beliefs are now objective.

That follows doesn't it?

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:To use your example of slavery; to say it is objectively wrong would imply your claim as a fact. If it is a fact that slavery is wrong, how do you demonstrate this fact as true to a person who believe there is nothing wrong with slavery?

Ken

Ontology versus epistemology. High time you learn the difference.

Still on the Ontology vs Epistemology thing huh? In the context of the analogy;

Ontology: “what is slavery”? Answer; ownership of another human being
Epistemology: How do you know slavery is wrong? So what is your answer?

Ken

This won't be very helpful probably but - having tried to familiarise myself with those terms last night I think they were referring to morality rather than the example of slavery - the existence of objective moral values versus knowledge of them.

Nicki wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:To use your example of slavery; to say it is objectively wrong would imply your claim as a fact. If it is a fact that slavery is wrong, how do you demonstrate this fact as true to a person who believe there is nothing wrong with slavery?

Ken

Ontology versus epistemology. High time you learn the difference.

Still on the Ontology vs Epistemology thing huh? In the context of the analogy;

Ontology: “what is slavery”? Answer; ownership of another human being
Epistemology: How do you know slavery is wrong? So what is your answer?

Ken

This won't be very helpful probably but - having tried to familiarise myself with those terms last night I think they were referring to morality rather than the example of slavery - the existence of objective moral values versus knowledge of them.

Actually your words are very helpful; thank-you.
The problem is; I do not believe in the existence of Objective Moral values thus I don't believe there is any such knowledge of them. I believe all moral values are subjective.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Nicki wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:To use your example of slavery; to say it is objectively wrong would imply your claim as a fact. If it is a fact that slavery is wrong, how do you demonstrate this fact as true to a person who believe there is nothing wrong with slavery?

Ken

Ontology versus epistemology. High time you learn the difference.

Still on the Ontology vs Epistemology thing huh? In the context of the analogy;

Ontology: “what is slavery”? Answer; ownership of another human being
Epistemology: How do you know slavery is wrong? So what is your answer?

Ken

This won't be very helpful probably but - having tried to familiarise myself with those terms last night I think they were referring to morality rather than the example of slavery - the existence of objective moral values versus knowledge of them.

Actually your words are very helpful; thank-you.
The problem is; I do not believe in the existence of Objective Moral values thus I don't believe there is any such knowledge of them. I believe all moral values are subjective.

Do you have any evidence for believing them to be subjective? Serious Q.

Jac3510 wrote:Y'all please don't feel the trolls.

The epistemology v ontology issue is, of course, important. It's worth noting that nothing in my argument provides an attempt to offer an explanation of how we know whether this or that is wrong. But this is a really important thing for us to understand so that we see the real power of argument. Look at these sentences:

• Slavery is wrong.
  Slavery is not wrong.
  Ice cream is evil.
  Humility is good.
  Protecting the environment is good.
  Disagreeing with Jac is wicked.
  Agreeing with Kenny is righteous.

So all of these statements employ moral language of the A type. It is obvious that they all cannot be true. But that isn't the question my argument poses. My question is, is it possible that any even could be true? If so, then objective moral values exist. Why? Because in order to be true, we must meaningfully predicate moral language to acts themselves, and that presupposes objective moral value.

Put differently, if objective moral values do NOT exist, then all of those sentences are reduced to b2 type sentences. But if all of those are to be understood in that sense, then none of them are either true or false. That is, if there are no objective moral truths, then none of those sentences have any truth value, and as such, none of them are either true or false.

Thus, when someone asks, "Well, how do you know if X is really wrong then?" we respond, "First, you tell me if it is even possible for anything, including X, to be wrong." If so, then they have admitted that they are predicating moral language to acts, and therefore, they have admitted objective moral values exist, per the second premise of the argument. On the other hand, if someone asks, "Well, I don't think that X is wrong," then we ask, "Ok, then what is something you do think is wrong (or right, for that matter)?" Whatever they answer, "Well, I don't think that X is wrong, but I do think Y is," then they've again admitted to the argument from moral predication.

Again: the moment anyone states that anything is right or wrong, they have predicating moral language to acts and have therefore assumed that objective moral values exist. The argument about whether or not we are CORRECT in predicating moral language is entirely immaterial. It is only related in that if I mistakenly attribute moral language to something--for instance, if I think lying is permissible but it turns out upon further investigation that I was wrong--then I have, again, admitted to the existence of objective moral values.

--------------------------------------------

And Byblos, I don't think this argument can be used to prove just anything exists. It works with objective moral values because we think that our predication of moral values is meaningful. If we deny that such predication is meaningful, then we deny the thing in question is real. Take these sentences:

• Fleebistats are blue.
  Fleebistats are heavy.
  Fleebistats are not nice.

So we know what blue, heavy, and not nice all mean. But do these propositions mean anything? Of course not, because there is no such thing as a Fleebistat. That is, "blue" doesn't have a referent. It doesn't answer to anything whatsoever in reality. Put more philosophically, the accident "blue" doesn't inhere in anything, and therefore, the language is meaningless.

In my argument, the question is whether or not the sentence "Slavery is wrong" is meaningful. Note well: it doesn't matter whether the sentence is true. That's where trolls play. The question is whether or not it could even be true in principle. Perhaps we may study the issue and find out that it is true. Or perhaps we may study it and find out it is false. Both both the truthfulness and falseness of the proposition both presume that the proposition could possibly be true--that is, that it is the type of sentence that is meaningful. If the sentence, though, reduces to a b2 type sentence ("I prefer there be no slavery") then the proposition is neither true nor false, because the sentence has no truth value. That, of course, is why Kenny's idiotic attempts to say that his beliefs about something being right and wrong are enough to ground objective moral value are just that: idiotic. Either his belief is predicating moral language to the act itself (a b1 type statement), which is therefore reducible to an A type statement, and therefore objective moral values exist; or else his belief is employing moral language to convey his preferences (a b2 type statement), which therefore means that no objective moral values exist and, in fact, his statement that his opinion is that slavery is wrong is, strictly speaking, meaningless at best and false at worst.

-------------------------------------------

And K, the answer isn't to beat someone who thinks that slavery is okay. It's to enslave them. Once they are enslaved, ask them if they think it's okay.

But again, may I encourage you all . . .

Why do you suppose what is perceived as right vs wrong today is different than it was centuries ago? And why do you suppose the perception of right and wrong centuries from now will be different than today?
If morality were objective, you would think with all the people who have attempted to define right vs wrong somebody would have gotten it right by now and this constant state of moral change mankind experiences would have come to an end already.
The only time right and wrong does not change is when in reference to math, measurements, or some system with an agreed upon base.
That’s why I keep insisting morality is subjective; in order for it to be objective there must be a base and let’s face it; when it comes to morality, mankind will never agree upon a moral base.

Ken

Nicki wrote: Do you have any evidence for believing them to be subjective? Serious Q.

In order for morality to be objective, there must be a moral base. Just as math is based upon the number 10 thus everybody agrees with math equations, math is objective; and can be demonstrated as objective. The fact that there is not an agreed upon base for morality tells me that morality is subjective.

As I was telling Jac, the fact that morality appears to be in a constant state of change is the result of morality being subjective; not objective. If it were objective we would have gotten it right by now; like math.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Nicki wrote: Do you have any evidence for believing them to be subjective? Serious Q.

In order for morality to be objective, there must be a moral base. Just as math is based upon the number 10 thus everybody agrees with math equations, math is objective; and can be demonstrated as objective. The fact that there is not an agreed upon base for morality tells me that morality is subjective.

As I was telling Jac, the fact that morality appears to be in a constant state of change is the result of morality being subjective; not objective. If it were objective we would have gotten it right by now; like math.

Ken

Objective morality doesn't require anyone's agreement.
That's kind of the point to it being "objective".

To know morality isn't objective, then you must know that the standard or morality doesn't exist outside of humanity.
So you claim Jac can't say morality is objective, but neither can you say it is subjective.
Both are positive assertions claiming something.

BUT, if we seriously claim something is really wrong, and feel that way regardless of what anyone thinks...
then we're being inconsistent in the next breath if we say morality is subjective because people all think differently.

Kenny wrote:

Nicki wrote: Do you have any evidence for believing them to be subjective? Serious Q.

In order for morality to be objective, there must be a moral base. Just as math is based upon the number 10 thus everybody agrees with math equations, math is objective; and can be demonstrated as objective. The fact that there is not an agreed upon base for morality tells me that morality is subjective.

As I was telling Jac, the fact that morality appears to be in a constant state of change is the result of morality being subjective; not objective. If it were objective we would have gotten it right by now; like math.

Ken

Objective morality doesn't require anyone's agreement.
That's kind of the point to it being "objective".

Kenny wrote:

Nicki wrote: Do you have any evidence for believing them to be subjective? Serious Q.

In order for morality to be objective, there must be a moral base. Just as math is based upon the number 10 thus everybody agrees with math equations, math is objective; and can be demonstrated as objective. The fact that there is not an agreed upon base for morality tells me that morality is subjective.

As I was telling Jac, the fact that morality appears to be in a constant state of change is the result of morality being subjective; not objective. If it were objective we would have gotten it right by now; like math.

Ken

Kurieuo wrote: Objective morality doesn't require anyone's agreement.
That's kind of the point to it being "objective".

Can you give me an example of something objective whose base everybody does not agree on?
*Everyone agrees math is based upon the number 10.
*Everyone agrees 128 ounces equals a gallon.
*Everyone agrees 5280 feet equals a mile
Math, distance, & volume are examples of objective systems. Everybody agrees on them, if they did not the systems would not be effective.

Kurieuo wrote: To know morality isn't objective, then you must know that the standard or morality doesn't exist outside of humanity.

I disagree! In theory multiple things could be used as a standard; each outside humanity.

Kurieuo wrote: So you claim Jac can't say morality is objective, but neither can you say it is subjective.
Both are positive assertions claiming something.

We are both making positive claims, we explained our assertions; I just don’t agree with what he asserted

Kurieuo wrote: BUT, if we seriously claim something is really wrong, and feel that way regardless of what anyone thinks...
then we're being inconsistent in the next breath if we say morality is subjective because people all think differently.

How does one person believing something is wrong regardless of what anyone else thinks an example of Objective morality?
Question; Do you agree what humans perceive as moral is constantly changing? If so, why?


Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Nicki wrote: Do you have any evidence for believing them to be subjective? Serious Q.

In order for morality to be objective, there must be a moral base. Just as math is based upon the number 10 thus everybody agrees with math equations, math is objective; and can be demonstrated as objective. The fact that there is not an agreed upon base for morality tells me that morality is subjective.

As I was telling Jac, the fact that morality appears to be in a constant state of change is the result of morality being subjective; not objective. If it were objective we would have gotten it right by now; like math.

Ken

Kurieuo wrote: Objective morality doesn't require anyone's agreement.
That's kind of the point to it being "objective".

Can you give me an example of something objective whose base everybody does not agree on?
*Everyone agrees math is based upon the number 10.
*Everyone agrees 128 ounces equals a gallon.
*Everyone agrees 5280 feet equals a mile
Math, distance, & volume are examples of objective systems. Everybody agrees on them, if they did not the systems would not be effective.

The imperial gallon is a different volume to US.
I disagree that gallon and mile should be used. Rather litres and kilograms.
But regardless, math exists. You're right. And you validate my point.

You have a more clear view to see that math is in some way objective (it exists apart from what anyone else might say to you), even despite subjective differences in applications. This doesn't mean there aren't other things that objectively exist regardless of what anyone thinks.

If someone has lived underground all their life, and doesn't believe that the Sun exists, the Sun still exists even if such a person has not seen it.
If people believe the Earth is flat, then they're wrong, it's spherical. Similarly, if people believe that it is alright to hate other people and so gas them, or lynch a man due to the colour of his skin, then they're wrong. How do we know? Because every inch of our bodies say so.

There is a reason that bad endings and good endings exist in movies. It is because people can decipher "good" and "bad".

k wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: To know morality isn't objective, then you must know that the standard or morality doesn't exist outside of humanity.

I disagree! In theory multiple things could be used as a standard; each outside humanity.

Cool. Then you don't accept "subjectivism" if there are multiple objective standards.

Consider your math example. Metric vs Imperial measurements.
There are also other systems of math than Base-10 that we've been taught.
Despite these different "objective" methods if you will, and our subjective preference to some because it makes our measuring and calculating easier, it doesn't mean that math is subjective.

K wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: So you claim Jac can't say morality is objective, but neither can you say it is subjective.
Both are positive assertions claiming something.

We are both making positive claims, we explained our assertions; I just don’t agree with what he asserted

In which case you need to support yours.
You know if someone says to me that there are no trees in my backyard, then that's their positive claim.
If I am arguing that trees do in fact exist, then that's my positive claim.
If a judge has to decide, then the default position isn't going to be that no trees exist.
Both sides carry a burden of proof.

So you want Jac's evidence. I think there is much evidence in the fact people everywhere believe in good and bad values regardless of how such is applied. What is your evidence?

wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: BUT, if we seriously claim something is really wrong, and feel that way regardless of what anyone thinks...
then we're being inconsistent in the next breath if we say morality is subjective because people all think differently.

How does one person believing something is wrong regardless of what anyone else thinks an example of Objective morality?
Question; Do you agree what humans perceive as moral is constantly changing? If so, why?

I don't think moral values have really changed at all.
How we've applied them has, but some people have more or less of moral deficit.
Just because someone performs an incorrect mathematical calculation doesn't mean math is now subjective.
Similarly just because people perform incorrect moral calculations doesn't mean morality is completely subjective.

Kurieuo wrote: The imperial gallon is a different volume to US.
I disagree that gallon and mile should be used. Rather litres and kilograms.
But regardless, math exists. You're right. And you validate my point.

You have a more clear view to see that math is in some way objective (it exists apart from what anyone else might say to you), even despite subjective differences in applications. This doesn't mean there aren't other things that objectively exist regardless of what anyone thinks.

If someone has lived underground all their life, and doesn't believe that the Sun exists, the Sun still exists even if such a person has not seen it.
If people believe the Earth is flat, then they're wrong, it's spherical. Similarly, if people believe that it is alright to hate other people and so gas them, or lynch a man due to the colour of his skin, then they're wrong. How do we know? Because every inch of our bodies say so.

There is a reason that bad endings and good endings exist in movies. It is because people can decipher "good" and "bad".

I would say the differences between the claims the Earth is spherical and the Sun exists, vs it is wrong to hate and kill people because of their skin color, is the shape of the Earth and the existence of the Sun can be demonstrated; the moral claim of hating and killing someone can’t.

I think one of the reasons you guys and I seem to be talking past each other is that I see Subjective truth as equal to Objective truth; where as you guys seem to see Subjective truth as equal to no truth at all.

Kurieuo wrote: Cool. Then you don't accept "subjectivism" if there are multiple objective standards.

Consider your math example. Metric vs Imperial measurements.
There are also other systems of math than Base-10 that we've been taught.
Despite these different "objective" methods if you will, and our subjective preference to some because it makes our measuring and calculating easier, it doesn't mean that math is subjective.

Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t claim something as subjective that can be demonstrated as true.

Kurieuo wrote:In which case you need to support yours.
You know if someone says to me that there are no trees in my backyard, then that's their positive claim.
If I am arguing that trees do in fact exist, then that's my positive claim.
If a judge has to decide, then the default position isn't going to be that no trees exist.
Both sides carry a burden of proof

.

I did support my claim; I’ve never claimed the default position.

Kurieuo wrote:So you want Jac's evidence. I think there is much evidence in the fact people everywhere believe in good and bad values regardless of how such is applied. What is your evidence?

My evidence is the fact that the good and bad values people everywhere believe in are in a constant state of change.

Kurieuo wrote:
I don't think moral values have really changed at all.
How we've applied them has,

What do you mean by that? Years ago sacrificing virgins to the Volcano God was perfectly morally acceptable, today it would be considered an atrocity. Then consider the idea of 30 yr old men marrying 12 yr old girls, Gay marriage, slavery, & racism, genocide during war; how are these values consistent with today just applied differently?

Kurieuo wrote:but some people have more or less of moral deficit.
Just because someone performs an incorrect mathematical calculation doesn't mean math is now subjective.
Similarly just because people perform incorrect moral calculations doesn't mean morality is completely subjective.

So why do you suppose mankind got the mathematical calculations right the first day, but it’s been over 10,000 years already, and we have yet to get the moral calculations right? and things ain’t looking too promising in the future?

Ken

Kenny wrote:What do you mean by that? Years ago sacrificing virgins to the Volcano God was perfectly morally acceptable, today it would be considered an atrocity. Then consider the idea of 30 yr old men marrying 12 yr old girls, Gay marriage, slavery, & racism, genocide during war; how are these values consistent with today just applied differently?

Let me start with two of your examples here.

1) Volcano God - why did people sacrifice virgins? What is it they believed this would do?
2) Racism - Why was it seen as alright to have black African slaves in America? Why did white people considers blacks "property" and not equals?

I'm kind of feeding you words, but it's perhaps unavoidable.
So, if you don't mind answering these questions...?