Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:Kenny,

Is this the post you are referring to?

Okay I see, and this is one of the reasons I find the belief that morality as objective; frightening. To believe morality is based upon the word of a Deity, God, another being, etc prevents discourse on the specific moral issue. If right and wrong, is determined by what this person says, what happens when this person says something you believe is wrong? Is there a system in place to state your case? I have always believed the truth should always be up for question. But if God’s word is seen as the ultimate truth, then there will be no questions allowed!

To use Slavery as an example, if your God Yahweh says slavery is wrong, that’s fine as long as you agree slavery is wrong; but what happens if someone says his God Ahura Mazda says slavery is good? Sure you can yell till you’re blue in the face and say Ahura Mazda is a false God, and he will yell till he is blue in the face that Yahweh is a false God, and neither of you will get anywhere because the same faith that you have that Yahweh is the moral base is the exact same faith that he uses to determine Ahura Mazda is. And as I’ve said before, the problem with faith is there is no means of establishing the truth!

Objective morality doesn’t solve moral problems, it only kicks the can one step further down the road and prevents discourse on moral issues by saying God said it, I believe it, and that settles it! And that is a frightening attitude to have IMO

Ken

If it is, I have one response. Ontology vs. epistemology. Know the difference, then you'll begin to understand your error on this.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Kenny,

Is this the post you are referring to?

Okay I see, and this is one of the reasons I find the belief that morality as objective; frightening. To believe morality is based upon the word of a Deity, God, another being, etc prevents discourse on the specific moral issue. If right and wrong, is determined by what this person says, what happens when this person says something you believe is wrong? Is there a system in place to state your case? I have always believed the truth should always be up for question. But if God’s word is seen as the ultimate truth, then there will be no questions allowed!

To use Slavery as an example, if your God Yahweh says slavery is wrong, that’s fine as long as you agree slavery is wrong; but what happens if someone says his God Ahura Mazda says slavery is good? Sure you can yell till you’re blue in the face and say Ahura Mazda is a false God, and he will yell till he is blue in the face that Yahweh is a false God, and neither of you will get anywhere because the same faith that you have that Yahweh is the moral base is the exact same faith that he uses to determine Ahura Mazda is. And as I’ve said before, the problem with faith is there is no means of establishing the truth!

Objective morality doesn’t solve moral problems, it only kicks the can one step further down the road and prevents discourse on moral issues by saying God said it, I believe it, and that settles it! And that is a frightening attitude to have IMO

Ken

If it is, I have one response. Ontology vs. epistemology. Know the difference, then you'll begin to understand your error on this.

Ontology vs epistemology has nothing to do with the problems I mentioned.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Kenny,

Is this the post you are referring to?

Okay I see, and this is one of the reasons I find the belief that morality as objective; frightening. To believe morality is based upon the word of a Deity, God, another being, etc prevents discourse on the specific moral issue. If right and wrong, is determined by what this person says, what happens when this person says something you believe is wrong? Is there a system in place to state your case? I have always believed the truth should always be up for question. But if God’s word is seen as the ultimate truth, then there will be no questions allowed!

To use Slavery as an example, if your God Yahweh says slavery is wrong, that’s fine as long as you agree slavery is wrong; but what happens if someone says his God Ahura Mazda says slavery is good? Sure you can yell till you’re blue in the face and say Ahura Mazda is a false God, and he will yell till he is blue in the face that Yahweh is a false God, and neither of you will get anywhere because the same faith that you have that Yahweh is the moral base is the exact same faith that he uses to determine Ahura Mazda is. And as I’ve said before, the problem with faith is there is no means of establishing the truth!

Objective morality doesn’t solve moral problems, it only kicks the can one step further down the road and prevents discourse on moral issues by saying God said it, I believe it, and that settles it! And that is a frightening attitude to have IMO

Ken

If it is, I have one response. Ontology vs. epistemology. Know the difference, then you'll begin to understand your error on this.

Ontology vs epistemology has nothing to do with the problems I mentioned.

Of course it does. Specifically the underlined. If you understood the difference between ontology and epistemology, you wouldn't say that. But that's what's so frustrating Kenny. It's really not that difficult to understand, if you make an effort to understand.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Kenny,

Is this the post you are referring to?

Okay I see, and this is one of the reasons I find the belief that morality as objective; frightening. To believe morality is based upon the word of a Deity, God, another being, etc prevents discourse on the specific moral issue. If right and wrong, is determined by what this person says, what happens when this person says something you believe is wrong? Is there a system in place to state your case? I have always believed the truth should always be up for question. But if God’s word is seen as the ultimate truth, then there will be no questions allowed!

To use Slavery as an example, if your God Yahweh says slavery is wrong, that’s fine as long as you agree slavery is wrong; but what happens if someone says his God Ahura Mazda says slavery is good? Sure you can yell till you’re blue in the face and say Ahura Mazda is a false God, and he will yell till he is blue in the face that Yahweh is a false God, and neither of you will get anywhere because the same faith that you have that Yahweh is the moral base is the exact same faith that he uses to determine Ahura Mazda is. And as I’ve said before, the problem with faith is there is no means of establishing the truth!

Objective morality doesn’t solve moral problems, it only kicks the can one step further down the road and prevents discourse on moral issues by saying God said it, I believe it, and that settles it! And that is a frightening attitude to have IMO

Ken

If it is, I have one response. Ontology vs. epistemology. Know the difference, then you'll begin to understand your error on this.

Ontology vs epistemology has nothing to do with the problems I mentioned.

Of course it does. Specifically the underlined. If you understood the difference between ontology and epistemology, you wouldn't say that. But that's what's so frustrating Kenny. It's really not that difficult to understand, if you make an effort to understand.

I know the difference between Ontology and epistemology, but I don't see what this has to do with the underlined. Please explain.

Ken

The difference between epistemology and ontology in part is the subject that is being studied by each. In ontology, the study of being or existence and questions of what kinds of entities exist are studied. In epistemology, the study of knowing and how we come to know and questions about what knowledge is and how knowledge is possible are studied.

RickD wrote: Ok. Here's a brief explanation of the differences for others following along:

The difference between epistemology and ontology in part is the subject that is being studied by each. In ontology, the study of being or existence and questions of what kinds of entities exist are studied. In epistemology, the study of knowing and how we come to know and questions about what knowledge is and how knowledge is possible are studied.

From:http://www.ask.com/world-view/differenc ... 101c043920
So, with that explained, OM in no way prevents discussion about what is objectively right or wrong. The discussion of epistemology regarding OM, "allows" us to discuss what may be objectively right or wrong.

I hope I did justice explaining it, and I hope that helps.

PaulSacramento wrote:It is very simple and I don't why why people STILL continue to argue this.
Morals are objective:
The notion of right and wrong, good and bad is universal to ALL people and ALL culture through recorded history.
The only thing that IS subjective is WHAT is viewed as right and wrong BUt the notion, the understanding of there BEING a RIGHT and a WRONG is absolute and objective as recorded history shows us.
If you disagree, please show evidence of any culture or group that believed that ANYTHING is permissible and that there is no good or bad at all.
Not theoretical evidence ( hearsay) but concrete evidence.

Kenny wrote:To believe morality is based upon the word of a Deity, God, another being, etc prevents discourse on the specific moral issue. If right and wrong, is determined by what this person says, what happens when this person says something you believe is wrong?

plouiswork wrote:What's stopping us from questioning what God says? If you present god A, and I present god B, and god B is shown to be immoral, doesn't that mean we've ruled out god B?

EDIT - oops, I think I just hit the same thing Rick already pointed out.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: Ok. Here's a brief explanation of the differences for others following along:

The difference between epistemology and ontology in part is the subject that is being studied by each. In ontology, the study of being or existence and questions of what kinds of entities exist are studied. In epistemology, the study of knowing and how we come to know and questions about what knowledge is and how knowledge is possible are studied.

From:http://www.ask.com/world-view/differenc ... 101c043920
So, with that explained, OM in no way prevents discussion about what is objectively right or wrong. The discussion of epistemology regarding OM, "allows" us to discuss what may be objectively right or wrong.

I hope I did justice explaining it, and I hope that helps.

So are you saying when God says "X" is wrong, this is open for discussion? That you would be willing to entertain the possibility that God might be wrong?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

plouiswork wrote:What's stopping us from questioning what God says? If you present god A, and I present god B, and god B is shown to be immoral, doesn't that mean we've ruled out god B?

EDIT - oops, I think I just hit the same thing Rick already pointed out.

Theists don't seem to operate that way. They start from the position that God A is right no matter what! And if God A says act "X" is right when it appears act "X" is wrong, they will assume there is something wrong with how they are perceiving act "X" and will defend God A's word at all cost.

Ken

edwardmurphy wrote:I don't think that objective morality can exist without some power in the background to enforce the rules (i.e. gods). Since gods don't exist there is no such thing as objective morality. I'm not sure why that's a problem.

It's pretty simple to identify which kinds of behavior will lead to a safe, prosperous, stable society and which won't, and it's equally simple to establish that the vast majority of people in the history of the world prefer safety, prosperity, and stability to danger, destitution, and chaos. From there it seems reasonable to generally categorize the socially adaptive behaviors as "moral" and the "maladaptive ones as "immoral."

That's good enough for me.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: Ok. Here's a brief explanation of the differences for others following along:

The difference between epistemology and ontology in part is the subject that is being studied by each. In ontology, the study of being or existence and questions of what kinds of entities exist are studied. In epistemology, the study of knowing and how we come to know and questions about what knowledge is and how knowledge is possible are studied.

From:http://www.ask.com/world-view/differenc ... 101c043920
So, with that explained, OM in no way prevents discussion about what is objectively right or wrong. The discussion of epistemology regarding OM, "allows" us to discuss what may be objectively right or wrong.

I hope I did justice explaining it, and I hope that helps.

So are you saying when God says "X" is wrong, this is open for discussion? That you would be willing to entertain the possibility that God might be wrong?

Ken

Kenny,

What is objectively wrong, is a good discussion. But you're looking at it the wrong way. It's not that we are entertaining the possibility that God may be wrong. We are entertaining the possibility that our understanding may be wrong.
You still aren't getting the concept of "God". If God exists, He is perfect in all His ways. Anything less, and we're describing something other than God.

Kenny wrote:

plouiswork wrote:What's stopping us from questioning what God says? If you present god A, and I present god B, and god B is shown to be immoral, doesn't that mean we've ruled out god B?

EDIT - oops, I think I just hit the same thing Rick already pointed out.

Theists don't seem to operate that way. They start from the position that God A is right no matter what! And if God A says act "X" is right when it appears act "X" is wrong, they will assume there is something wrong with how they are perceiving act "X" and will defend God A's word at all cost.

Ken

plouiswork wrote:That is a valid concern: many Theists do appear to harbor the belief that the morals ought to confirm to the mythos of God rather than the reverse. However, this isn't evidence against Theism but evidence against that god.

plouiswork wrote:Additionally, the concern I believe Theists have in turn is how can we agree what is or isn't moral? What happens if I feel aborting embryos is okay and someone else feels it's murder? On what basis do we decide which is right?

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: Ok. Here's a brief explanation of the differences for others following along:

The difference between epistemology and ontology in part is the subject that is being studied by each. In ontology, the study of being or existence and questions of what kinds of entities exist are studied. In epistemology, the study of knowing and how we come to know and questions about what knowledge is and how knowledge is possible are studied.

From:http://www.ask.com/world-view/differenc ... 101c043920
So, with that explained, OM in no way prevents discussion about what is objectively right or wrong. The discussion of epistemology regarding OM, "allows" us to discuss what may be objectively right or wrong.

I hope I did justice explaining it, and I hope that helps.

So are you saying when God says "X" is wrong, this is open for discussion? That you would be willing to entertain the possibility that God might be wrong?

Ken

Kenny,

What is objectively wrong, is a good discussion. But you're looking at it the wrong way. It's not that we are entertaining the possibility that God may be wrong. We are entertaining the possibility that our understanding may be wrong.
You still aren't getting the concept of "God". If God exists, He is perfect in all His ways. Anything less, and we're describing something other than God.

You’ve just proved my point! If we go back to the scenario about slavery, the Guy who claimed Ahura Mazda said slavery is good will claim your understanding of slavery is wrong, and would defend that claim to the end because he will not be open to the possibility that Ahura Mazda might be wrong. At least if he believed morality were subjective, we could have a discussion about the golden rule, empathy for others, etc. but because he believes morality is objective, there is nothing to discuss! This is what I find frightening about those who claim Objective morality.


Ken