Evidence for God from Science

B. W. wrote:

Kenny wrote:...How 'bout if you define the laws, then explain how someone would be destroyed if they choose not to follow them.

Ken

The laws of historic materialism and dialectics are too many to list. Suggest you research these...

Dialectical materialism is both Marxist and Hegelian and used by the modern progressive left. It is a method of studying and apprehending phenomena of nature and using that to buttress political materialist/Marxist/Progressive theory on governing by conflict. Laws of nature is one of struggle. Lower classes struggle to take from those that have. Laws come into to play to ensure this by means of dialectics.

Dialectics is the process discourse between two or more parties holding different points of view about a subject. You begin with a thesis, invoking an antithesis, creating conflict between the two be resolved by means of a Compromise. So by compromise you weaken the stronger party and win it over. Basically is it how an truly insane person think in order to justify insanity.

This method is not debate, it is the means to skirt around debate by force of compromise.

Historical materialism is based upon the principles of dialectical materialism. However, it concerns applying its principles of dialectical materialism to the study of life of nations history, society, culture, government, laws of a social order.

Both are used in science, law, juridical courts system and government to enact laws to reach the goals of socialist agenda of One World Government. It makes crisis and uses crisis for that goal so that people surrender their will by means of compromise. The laws of Global warming and the compromise solutions are examples of such laws. No debate on that topic is allowed nor is allowed the evidence that refutes Global Warming.

In others words, there is a dialectical narrative that guides and perverts truth and will not allow truth to be told to establish the truth of a matter guided by any form of reasoned arguments.

the narrative is simple: Create from the material seen a theses for change, provoke a response the antithesis from opponents, uses opponents words against themselves to force compromise. By slow compromise you force change to the Marxist/Progressive/Social materialist based dialectic agenda-thesis. Truth, facts, do no matter and any debate to establish truth must be squelched.

That is the simplest definition I can think of. It is better that you research these things on your own.

Thanks for the answer. So if I understand you correctly, the law of Dialectics Materialist has nothing to do with Materialism (the belief that all things consist of matter) and is more of a distorted view perhaps created by someone who just so happens to be a materialist. An analogy would might to point to someone who was a spiritualist who created an evil idea and called those ideas “the laws of spiritualism”

B. W. wrote:Political Correct thinking and use of ridicule to enforce its goals is an example of such materialist laws in play in order to create conflict in human nature to submit to the goal/narrative/ agenda of the left.

Laws of nature is based on conflict and survival, thus, the materialist world is one of conflict unless all submit to socialist thought. Yet, even the socialist idea must collapse on itself if all material world is based on conflict. In other words, socialism must overthrow itself to prove their thesis correct.

As human beings, we live in a mortal and material world. However, we are not material. We are reasoning beings how seek dominion, purpose, significance in our lives. Following materialism creates a tension for ones do-gooding because one derives a sense of dominion, purpose, significance in doing good to feel materialistic good. However, when one dies, all do-good deeds are actually worthless and have no values at all,

I disagree. When one does good, his good work often continues long after the person is dead and gone. History is full of examples of this happening.

B. W. wrote:CS Lewis points that out in his works which I can summarize his points against materialist/modernist mindsets as this:

To materialist it is all about the Big ME and no one else as the Great I determines right and wrong. Then I die and I am forgotten but die smugly fooling the Great Myself that I was able to do some good that made ME feel really good.

It seems you are confusing “the laws of Materialism” (as you described them) with being an actual materialist. Judging from your description, the laws of Materialism has nothing to do with being a materialist despite the similar name

B. W. wrote:What is good?

Good is a positive judgment call people make about the actions they experience.

B. W. wrote:Can goodness be defined by subjectivism?

Yes

B. W. wrote:Or is Good defined by objectivism?

No.

B. W. wrote:In materialism, there is only the subjective ways to define goodness. Objective truth cannot define goodness.

I disagree; even a materialist could get this one wrong; in theory a materialist could make the mistake of believing “good/bad” is objective rather than subjective. Just because a materialist is correct on one thing doesn't mean he will be right on everything else.

B. W. wrote:However there is objective good or else it cannot be defined as good at all.

Can you give an example of “good” that is not based upon interpretation, and perception?

B. W. wrote:The ancient Hebrew concept of Goodness is based upon was is not dysfunctional.
Goodness of the subjective materialist has to be based upon what is dysfunctional as it seeks to justify human dysfunction as good.

Wow! How did you make THIS leap???

B. W. wrote:Think about and read more of CS Lewis's works, Ken.
-

Forget CS Lewis, I’m having a good conversation with some of this stuff YOU are putting down! Looking foreword to some of your responses


Ken

Kenny, I think you are confusing or mixing up what IS good and bad ( subjective) with there BEING a Good and Bad ( Objective).

By the very definition of materialism, it can only address what is good an bad and as such, good and bad become totally subjective and as such, it is an inferior view.
One can, subjectively speaking, justify horrific events as good.

The objective view that there IS Good and Bad ( not addressing what is good or bad) is beyond materialism for obvious reasons.

if you believe, if you agree that there is such a thing as good and bad ( not what IS good or bad, but that there is a good and bad) then you can't be a materialist per se.

PaulSacramento wrote:Kenny, I think you are confusing or mixing up what IS good and bad ( subjective) with there BEING a Good and Bad ( Objective).

I don’t believe Good and Bad has an actual existence (objective) thus I only address what IS good or bad (subjective)

PaulSacramento wrote:By the very definition of materialism, it can only address what is good an bad and as such, good and bad become totally subjective and as such, it is an inferior view.
One can, subjectively speaking, justify horrific events as good.

Yes and that happens all the time. Now granted, most will not to see the event as justified, but that won’t stop some people from trying to justify it. These kinds of things happen all the time.

PaulSacramento wrote:The objective view that there IS Good and Bad ( not addressing what is good or bad) is beyond materialism for obvious reasons.

I agree. For the materialist who believe all things consist of matter, anything beyond material does not exist; thus the objective view of good and bad (beyond materialism) does not exist.

PaulSacramento wrote:if you believe, if you agree that there is such a thing as good and bad ( not what IS good or bad, but that there is a good and bad) then you can't be a materialist per se.

I agree. I believe this is one thing that separates your views from my own.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:CS Lewis points that out in his works which I can summarize his points against materialist/modernist mindsets as this:

To materialist it is all about the Big ME and no one else as the Great I determines right and wrong. Then I die and I am forgotten but die smugly fooling the Great Myself that I was able to do some good that made ME feel really good.

It seems you are confusing “the laws of Materialism” (as you described them) with being an actual materialist. Judging from your description, the laws of Materialism has nothing to do with being a materialist despite the similar name

You need to study the laws of materialism

Try here: http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/materialism.htm

C.S. Lewis mentions in his writings that God invented matter.

C. S. Lewis also stated that, "different beliefs about the universe lead to different behaviors"

Quoted in part from above link...

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:What is good?

Good is a positive judgment call people make about the actions they experience.

C. S. Lewis also stated that, "different beliefs about the universe lead to different behaviors"

touche

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:Can goodness be defined by subjectivism?

Yes

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:Or is Good defined by objectivism?

No.

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:In materialism, there is only the subjective ways to define goodness. Objective truth cannot define goodness.

I disagree; even a materialist could get this one wrong; in theory a materialist could make the mistake of believing “good/bad” is objective rather than subjective. Just because a materialist is correct on one thing doesn't mean he will be right on everything else.

Touche

So Lewis is correct... "different beliefs about the universe lead to different behaviors"

You also contradicted yourself as you said goodness can only be defined by subjectivesim and then said this: "a materialist is correct on one thing doesn't mean he will be right on everything else."

So are you absolutely certain that there is only the subjective ways to define goodness?

So you use an objective statement to prove subjectivism? Contradiction isn't it?

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:However there is objective good or else it cannot be defined as good at all.

Can you give an example of “good” that is not based upon interpretation, and perception?

One: God exists... Two: Having Kenny become Born Again is another ... Three: Righting all wrongs

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:The ancient Hebrew concept of Goodness is based upon was is not dysfunctional.
Goodness of the subjective materialist has to be based upon what is dysfunctional as it seeks to justify human dysfunction as good.

Wow! How did you make THIS leap???

The ancient Hebrews viewed things as what is functional, how things tic, looks at the whole picture then sees how it all works in relation.

Example of Hebrew thought:

Functionally good - a good tree produces good fruit, and thus functionally promotes health in relation to the whole orchard.

Dysfunctional - a bad tree produces bad fruit that promotes disorder in relation with the whole orchard

Western idea is based on Forms - what looks pleasant, big, majestic, black and white thinking, Looks at steps-progression to arrive at the big picture.

Western idea

Good fruit Tree makes good fruit that you keep for self and sell to others you like...

Bad fruit tree makes bad fruit so sell it in the market place and make a buck...

Either way - both are good to me...

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:Think about and read more of CS Lewis's works, Ken.

Forget CS Lewis, I’m having a good conversation with some of this stuff YOU are putting down! Looking foreword to some of your responses

C. S. Lewis stated in the article linked to above: "different beliefs about the universe lead to different behaviors."

The western idea to determine if the material form of goodness is viewed as a benefit between good and bad fruit trees because the good of making money outweighs the selling of bad fruit to strangers in the market place.

Kenny wrote:Good is a positive judgment call people make about the actions they experience.

-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:CS Lewis points that out in his works which I can summarize his points against materialist/modernist mindsets as this:

To materialist it is all about the Big ME and no one else as the Great I determines right and wrong. Then I die and I am forgotten but die smugly fooling the Great Myself that I was able to do some good that made ME feel really good.

It seems you are confusing “the laws of Materialism” (as you described them) with being an actual materialist. Judging from your description, the laws of Materialism has nothing to do with being a materialist despite the similar name

You need to study the laws of materialism

Try here: http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/materialism.htm

Again, the laws of materialism as you defined them does not have anything to do with being a materialist. Your link does not support that position

B. W. wrote: C.S. Lewis mentions in his writings that God invented matter.

Christians believe God invented everything! Nothing new here.

B. W. wrote: C. S. Lewis also stated that, "different beliefs about the universe lead to different behaviors"

Quoted in part from above link...

I’ve already voiced my disagreement with that. Care to refute what I said?

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:What is good?

Good is a positive judgment call people make about the actions they experience.

C. S. Lewis also stated that, "different beliefs about the universe lead to different behaviors"

touche

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:Can goodness be defined by subjectivism?

Yes

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:Or is Good defined by objectivism?

No.

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:In materialism, there is only the subjective ways to define goodness. Objective truth cannot define goodness.

I disagree; even a materialist could get this one wrong; in theory a materialist could make the mistake of believing “good/bad” is objective rather than subjective. Just because a materialist is correct on one thing doesn't mean he will be right on everything else.

B. W. wrote:Touche

So Lewis is correct... "different beliefs about the universe lead to different behaviors"

B. W. wrote:You also contradicted yourself as you said goodness can only be defined by subjectivesim and then said this: "a materialist is correct on one thing doesn't mean he will be right on everything else."

So are you absolutely certain that there is only the subjective ways to define goodness?

Anything called “good” that is based on perception, and opinion is subjective. Now if you can come up with something that is labeled “good” that is based on fact, that would be different. I can’t think of anything labeled good that is based on fact; can you?

B. W. wrote:So you use an objective statement to prove subjectivism? Contradiction isn't it?

Using objective means to prove subjectivism is not a contradiction.

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:However there is objective good or else it cannot be defined as good at all.

Can you give an example of “good” that is not based upon interpretation, and perception?

B. W. wrote:One: God exists... Two: Having Kenny become Born Again is another ... Three: Righting all wrongs

Now if you can provide proof to back up the claims you made, those would be examples of objective good; otherwise you must admit those are subjective perceptions of good.

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:The ancient Hebrew concept of Goodness is based upon was is not dysfunctional.
Goodness of the subjective materialist has to be based upon what is dysfunctional as it seeks to justify human dysfunction as good.

Wow! How did you make THIS leap???

B. W. wrote:The ancient Hebrews viewed things as what is functional, how things tic, looks at the whole picture then sees how it all works in relation.

Example of Hebrew thought:

Functionally good - a good tree produces good fruit, and thus functionally promotes health in relation to the whole orchard.

Dysfunctional - a bad tree produces bad fruit that promotes disorder in relation with the whole orchard

Western idea is based on Forms - what looks pleasant, big, majestic, black and white thinking, Looks at steps-progression to arrive at the big picture.

Western idea

Good fruit Tree makes good fruit that you keep for self and sell to others you like...

Bad fruit tree makes bad fruit so sell it in the market place and make a buck...

Either way - both are good to me...

You said:
Goodness of the subjective materialist has to be based upon what is dysfunctional as it seeks to justify human dysfunction as good

None of the points you made proves materialists seek to justify human dysfunction as good; that is your opinion.

Ken

I don’t believe Good and Bad has an actual existence (objective) thus I only address what IS good or bad (subjective)

I do realize the issue you have just caused yourself right?
If there isn't a good or bad ( objective) then there is no grounds for ANY subjective view of good and bad.
And you know what that means, right?

PaulSacramento wrote:

I don’t believe Good and Bad has an actual existence (objective) thus I only address what IS good or bad (subjective)

I do realize the issue you have just caused yourself right?
If there isn't a good or bad ( objective) then there is no grounds for ANY subjective view of good and bad.
And you know what that means, right?

I disagree. There are grounds for a subjective view of good vs bad and it is based on the opinion of each person making the judgment call. The main stuff most will agree, but many of the smaller issues will vary from person to person, which is why we need laws; which are objective. If you will notice, that is the way things are in the real world.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

I don’t believe Good and Bad has an actual existence (objective) thus I only address what IS good or bad (subjective)

I do realize the issue you have just caused yourself right?
If there isn't a good or bad ( objective) then there is no grounds for ANY subjective view of good and bad.
And you know what that means, right?

I disagree. There are grounds for a subjective view of good vs bad and it is based on the opinion of each person making the judgment call. The main stuff most will agree, but many of the smaller issues will vary from person to person, which is why we need laws; which are objective. If you will notice, that is the way things are in the real world.

Ken

Are laws objective tho?

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

I don’t believe Good and Bad has an actual existence (objective) thus I only address what IS good or bad (subjective)

I do realize the issue you have just caused yourself right?
If there isn't a good or bad ( objective) then there is no grounds for ANY subjective view of good and bad.
And you know what that means, right?

I disagree. There are grounds for a subjective view of good vs bad and it is based on the opinion of each person making the judgment call. The main stuff most will agree, but many of the smaller issues will vary from person to person, which is why we need laws; which are objective. If you will notice, that is the way things are in the real world.

Ken

No Ken, is there is no such thing AS Good and Evil then there is NO subjective good and evil.

Nessa wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

I don’t believe Good and Bad has an actual existence (objective) thus I only address what IS good or bad (subjective)

I do realize the issue you have just caused yourself right?
If there isn't a good or bad ( objective) then there is no grounds for ANY subjective view of good and bad.
And you know what that means, right?

I disagree. There are grounds for a subjective view of good vs bad and it is based on the opinion of each person making the judgment call. The main stuff most will agree, but many of the smaller issues will vary from person to person, which is why we need laws; which are objective. If you will notice, that is the way things are in the real world.

Ken

Are laws objective tho?

Yes! Laws must be objective, if they are expected to be followed

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

I don’t believe Good and Bad has an actual existence (objective) thus I only address what IS good or bad (subjective)

I do realize the issue you have just caused yourself right?
If there isn't a good or bad ( objective) then there is no grounds for ANY subjective view of good and bad.
And you know what that means, right?

I disagree. There are grounds for a subjective view of good vs bad and it is based on the opinion of each person making the judgment call. The main stuff most will agree, but many of the smaller issues will vary from person to person, which is why we need laws; which are objective. If you will notice, that is the way things are in the real world.

Ken

No Ken, is there is no such thing AS Good and Evil then there is NO subjective good and evil.

I've already explained why good and evil does not exist by themselves; that they are just subjective judgments calls we attach to human behavior (like funny, silly, stupid, etc.). Perhaps you can explain why you disagree with me.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

I don’t believe Good and Bad has an actual existence (objective) thus I only address what IS good or bad (subjective)

I do realize the issue you have just caused yourself right?
If there isn't a good or bad ( objective) then there is no grounds for ANY subjective view of good and bad.
And you know what that means, right?

I disagree. There are grounds for a subjective view of good vs bad and it is based on the opinion of each person making the judgment call. The main stuff most will agree, but many of the smaller issues will vary from person to person, which is why we need laws; which are objective. If you will notice, that is the way things are in the real world.

Ken

Are laws objective tho?

Yes! Laws must be objective, if they are expected to be followed

Ken

If there is no God, then where does true objectivity come from?

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:CS Lewis points that out in his works which I can summarize his points against materialist/modernist mindsets as this:

To materialist it is all about the Big ME and no one else as the Great I determines right and wrong. Then I die and I am forgotten but die smugly fooling the Great Myself that I was able to do some good that made ME feel really good.

It seems you are confusing “the laws of Materialism” (as you described them) with being an actual materialist. Judging from your description, the laws of Materialism has nothing to do with being a materialist despite the similar name

You need to study the laws of materialism

Try here: http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/materialism.htm

Again, the laws of materialism as you defined them does not have anything to do with being a materialist. Your link does not support that position

Yes they do, again you actually need to study these for yourself and see the influence of materialism has had...

Is honesty a virtue - is it good?

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote: C.S. Lewis mentions in his writings that God invented matter.

Christians believe God invented everything! Nothing new here.

B. W. wrote: C. S. Lewis also stated that, "different beliefs about the universe lead to different behaviors"

Quoted in part from above link...

I’ve already voiced my disagreement with that. Care to refute what I said?

Yes, God exist and so does matter and you exist as well.

Kenny, tell my why you personally exist...

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:In materialism, there is only the subjective ways to define goodness. Objective truth cannot define goodness.

I disagree; even a materialist could get this one wrong; in theory a materialist could make the mistake of believing “good/bad” is objective rather than subjective. Just because a materialist is correct on one thing doesn't mean he will be right on everything else.

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:You also contradicted yourself as you said goodness can only be defined by subjectivesim and then said this: "a materialist is correct on one thing doesn't mean he will be right on everything else."

So are you absolutely certain that there is only the subjective ways to define goodness?

Anything called “good” that is based on perception, and opinion is subjective. Now if you can come up with something that is labeled “good” that is based on fact, that would be different. I can’t think of anything labeled good that is based on fact; can you?

Forgiveness is it good?

Is rotten meat good to eat or not?

Do you like rotten eggs to eat or good eggs?

Goodness therefore is objective and not a matter of tasteful whim

Forgiveness good?

Healing a broken heart good?

Without God sending forth 10'c we would not know what is rotten from what is not.

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:So you use an objective statement to prove subjectivism? Contradiction isn't it?

Using objective means to prove subjectivism is not a contradiction.

Yes it is - a logical contradiction. Do you not know the law of non-contradiction?

Law of non-contradiction states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time - quoted from wikipedia

Subjectivsim does not believe in, nor does it admit that there are objective truths of good-right and bad-wrong, if it did, then it is no longer truly subjectivism is it?

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:One: God exists... Two: Having Kenny become Born Again is another ... Three: Righting all wrongs done

Now if you can provide proof to back up the claims you made, those would be examples of objective good; otherwise you must admit those are subjective perceptions of good.

God exist and you are here in material form...

Become born again Kenny and find out for yourself

How can righting of all wrongs you as an individual have done not be good?

Forgiveness

Mercy

Are these not Good?

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:The ancient Hebrew concept of Goodness is based upon was is not dysfunctional.
Goodness of the subjective materialist has to be based upon what is dysfunctional as it seeks to justify human dysfunction as good.

Wow! How did you make THIS leap???

Kenny wrote:

B. W. wrote:The ancient Hebrews viewed things as what is functional, how things tic, looks at the whole picture then sees how it all works in relation.

Example of Hebrew thought:

Functionally good - a good tree produces good fruit, and thus functionally promotes health in relation to the whole orchard.

Dysfunctional - a bad tree produces bad fruit that promotes disorder in relation with the whole orchard

Western idea is based on Forms - what looks pleasant, big, majestic, black and white thinking, Looks at steps-progression to arrive at the big picture.

Western idea

Good fruit Tree makes good fruit that you keep for self and sell to others you like...

Bad fruit tree makes bad fruit so sell it in the market place and make a buck...

Either way - both are good to me...

You said:
Goodness of the subjective materialist has to be based upon what is dysfunctional as it seeks to justify human dysfunction as good

None of the points you made proves materialists seek to justify human dysfunction as good; that is your opinion.

Ken

Hebrew idea was that one bad fruit tree will eventually spreads its dysfunction to the good trees thus ruining what is healthy and good to eat. So the remedy was to cut down and destroy the bad fruit tree to spare the orchard from producing rancid fruit.

The Western Idea of Form and Materialism on the other hand defines good in this sense:

A Good fruit Tree makes good fruit that you keep for yourself, share freely with those close to you to appease conscience, and sell to others you like who do nice things for you.

The Bad fruit tree makes bad rancid fruit it is good to sell this fruit in the market place and make a buck...

Either way - both are good to me... even if the bad tree makes the orchard's entire harvest rancid - I can still sell the fruit in the market place and make a fortune, which is for my good.

Materialist of the left and atheist have no problem selling bad fruit.

How can that be good?

Is there such a things as rancid meat, fruit, food - you cannot eat it know matter one's perception of goodness, rancid food can kill you, or it can lame you, or make one very ill.

Therefore, Goodness is truly objective and measurable even of what is in the human heart in how it tries to wiggle its way to justify selling bad fruit and spoiling what is good.

Why do you desire to destroy goodness Ken?
-
-
-

Nessa wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: I do realize the issue you have just caused yourself right?
If there isn't a good or bad ( objective) then there is no grounds for ANY subjective view of good and bad.
And you know what that means, right?

I disagree. There are grounds for a subjective view of good vs bad and it is based on the opinion of each person making the judgment call. The main stuff most will agree, but many of the smaller issues will vary from person to person, which is why we need laws; which are objective. If you will notice, that is the way things are in the real world.

Ken

Are laws objective tho?

Yes! Laws must be objective, if they are expected to be followed

Ken

If there is no God, then where does true objectivity come from?

Okay; Subjective truth means a truth based on opinion, extenuating circumstances taken into consideration, or influenced by personal biases.

Objective truth means true no matter opinion, biases, or extenuating circumstances.

If you told me (for example) rape were wrong, in theory if I were a sick “#@*/!!” I could disagree with you and claim rape is good, and if you were the type who believes all human opinions are equal, you would have no way of proving your opinion is any better than mine; we’re just two people who disagree.

If you told me a jump off a 500 foot cliff will kill me, it doesn’t matter how much of a sick “#@*/!!” I am, how mentally inept, or stubborn I may be, if I jump off a 500 ft cliff, I will die; I have no say so in this situation.

The first scenario is an example of subjective truth, the second scenario is an example of objective truth. Objective truth can be demonstrated as true, subjective truth cannot.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

I don’t believe Good and Bad has an actual existence (objective) thus I only address what IS good or bad (subjective)

I do realize the issue you have just caused yourself right?
If there isn't a good or bad ( objective) then there is no grounds for ANY subjective view of good and bad.
And you know what that means, right?

I disagree. There are grounds for a subjective view of good vs bad and it is based on the opinion of each person making the judgment call. The main stuff most will agree, but many of the smaller issues will vary from person to person, which is why we need laws; which are objective. If you will notice, that is the way things are in the real world.

Ken

No Ken, is there is no such thing AS Good and Evil then there is NO subjective good and evil.

I've already explained why good and evil does not exist by themselves; that they are just subjective judgments calls we attach to human behavior (like funny, silly, stupid, etc.). Perhaps you can explain why you disagree with me.

Ken

You need me to explain to you the common understanding that if there is no objective to start with that there can't be any subjective ???