Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: That is what I said, you are that yardstick. If doesn't matter what anyone else believes, your moral views of what is right/wrong is above everyone elses views.


This has been in fact answers multiply. The measure of what is right/wrong is found within us, because, for anyone with a properly functioning heart, God has written it within us.

You see, my answer isn't much different from yours in a practical way. Yet, the difference, is that logically beyond yourself, views can't REALLY be more or less truer than anyone elses. You're in quite a logical pickle there.

It's what and why you continue having these types of moral discussions with people at this board. You have no ontological grounding for your moral views making them logically much like you like chocolate whereas a rapist likes strawberry.

Okay; let me ask you another way; Do you believe right/wrong, good/evil has an actual existence by itself?

Ken

In a similar way to how sunrays exist, I believe goodness exists in our world. Remove the source however, which is the Sun, and there would be no sunrays / no sense of goodness within either of us.

Sunrays have a physical existence. Do you believe good and evil have a physical existence as well?

Not every question has a point, and there is none I see to that. You've missed the point entirely. Bye old man.

But my questions did have a point. However, if you are done answering questions; that's find. I've enjoyed discussing with you my friend!

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:Kenny still isn't grasping the basic logical reasoning that one can NOT have the subjective without the objective.

Why? Why can’t there be a subjective without the objective? Please explain.

PaulSacramento wrote:I am not sure how one can NOT see the dangers of the subjective view.

What are the dangers of the subjective view?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Kenny still isn't grasping the basic logical reasoning that one can NOT have the subjective without the objective.

Why? Why can’t there be a subjective without the objective? Please explain.

PaulSacramento wrote:I am not sure how one can NOT see the dangers of the subjective view.

What are the dangers of the subjective view?

Ken

Why can't their be SUBjective without OBjective?
What is the subjective, subjective of Kenny?
Personal feelings and views, correct?
Here:
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ). 2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

So, to have a subjective view, you are expressing an individual, personal view of SOMETHING.
That something is the "objective something".
You can't have a personal view of something that doesn't exist, hence the objective thing exists apart of your subjective view of it.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Kenny still isn't grasping the basic logical reasoning that one can NOT have the subjective without the objective.

Why? Why can’t there be a subjective without the objective? Please explain.

PaulSacramento wrote:I am not sure how one can NOT see the dangers of the subjective view.

What are the dangers of the subjective view?

Ken

Why can't their be SUBjective without OBjective?
What is the subjective, subjective of Kenny?
Personal feelings and views, correct?
Here:
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ). 2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

So, to have a subjective view, you are expressing an individual, personal view of SOMETHING.
That something is the "objective something".
You can't have a personal view of something that doesn't exist, hence the objective thing exists apart of your subjective view of it.

In other words, ontology vs epistemology.

Yes, to a certain extent and I say that only because I doubt that Kenny believes in metaphysics.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Kenny still isn't grasping the basic logical reasoning that one can NOT have the subjective without the objective.

Why? Why can’t there be a subjective without the objective? Please explain.

PaulSacramento wrote:I am not sure how one can NOT see the dangers of the subjective view.

What are the dangers of the subjective view?

Ken

Why can't their be SUBjective without OBjective?
What is the subjective, subjective of Kenny?
Personal feelings and views, correct?
Here:
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ). 2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

So, to have a subjective view, you are expressing an individual, personal view of SOMETHING.
That something is the "objective something".
You can't have a personal view of something that doesn't exist, hence the objective thing exists apart of your subjective view of it.

So what did I say that gave you the impression that I don't understand that subjective views are usually applied to something objective?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Kenny still isn't grasping the basic logical reasoning that one can NOT have the subjective without the objective.

Why? Why can’t there be a subjective without the objective? Please explain.

PaulSacramento wrote:I am not sure how one can NOT see the dangers of the subjective view.

What are the dangers of the subjective view?

Ken

Why can't their be SUBjective without OBjective?
What is the subjective, subjective of Kenny?
Personal feelings and views, correct?
Here:
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ). 2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

So, to have a subjective view, you are expressing an individual, personal view of SOMETHING.
That something is the "objective something".
You can't have a personal view of something that doesn't exist, hence the objective thing exists apart of your subjective view of it.

So what did I say that gave you the impression that I don't understand that subjective views are usually applied to something objective?

Ken

What gave you the impression that PaulS meant "usually", as opposed to always?

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Kenny still isn't grasping the basic logical reasoning that one can NOT have the subjective without the objective.

Why? Why can’t there be a subjective without the objective? Please explain.

PaulSacramento wrote:I am not sure how one can NOT see the dangers of the subjective view.

What are the dangers of the subjective view?

Ken

Why can't their be SUBjective without OBjective?
What is the subjective, subjective of Kenny?
Personal feelings and views, correct?
Here:
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ). 2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

So, to have a subjective view, you are expressing an individual, personal view of SOMETHING.
That something is the "objective something".
You can't have a personal view of something that doesn't exist, hence the objective thing exists apart of your subjective view of it.

So what did I say that gave you the impression that I don't understand that subjective views are usually applied to something objective?

Ken

Rick is correct, it is not usually, it is always.
And you asking me this, gives me that "impression":

Why? Why can’t there be a subjective without the objective?

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Kenny still isn't grasping the basic logical reasoning that one can NOT have the subjective without the objective.

Why? Why can’t there be a subjective without the objective? Please explain.

PaulSacramento wrote:I am not sure how one can NOT see the dangers of the subjective view.

What are the dangers of the subjective view?

Ken

Why can't their be SUBjective without OBjective?
What is the subjective, subjective of Kenny?
Personal feelings and views, correct?
Here:
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ). 2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

So, to have a subjective view, you are expressing an individual, personal view of SOMETHING.
That something is the "objective something".
You can't have a personal view of something that doesn't exist, hence the objective thing exists apart of your subjective view of it.

So what did I say that gave you the impression that I don't understand that subjective views are usually applied to something objective?

Ken

What gave you the impression that PaulS meant "usually", as opposed to always?

I said usually because I am not going to agree it is the case 100% of the time. Suppose the subjective view is based upon the laws of some non existent Deity? Are you going to agree that this non existent Deity is objective? And why does it matter? if someone disagrees with me, voice your disagreement and we can have a discussion. I don't understand the point he was trying to make.

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Kenny still isn't grasping the basic logical reasoning that one can NOT have the subjective without the objective.

Why? Why can’t there be a subjective without the objective? Please explain.

PaulSacramento wrote:I am not sure how one can NOT see the dangers of the subjective view.

What are the dangers of the subjective view?

Ken

Why can't their be SUBjective without OBjective?
What is the subjective, subjective of Kenny?
Personal feelings and views, correct?
Here:
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ). 2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.

So, to have a subjective view, you are expressing an individual, personal view of SOMETHING.
That something is the "objective something".
You can't have a personal view of something that doesn't exist, hence the objective thing exists apart of your subjective view of it.

So what did I say that gave you the impression that I don't understand that subjective views are usually applied to something objective?

Ken

Rick is correct, it is not usually, it is always.
And you asking me this, gives me that "impression":

Why? Why can’t there be a subjective without the objective?

So what is the point you were trying to make? And what did I say that you disagreed with?

Ken

I said usually because I am not going to agree it is the case 100% of the time. Suppose the subjective view is based upon the laws of some non existent Deity? Are you going to agree that this non existent Deity is objective? And why does it matter? if someone disagrees with me, voice your disagreement and we can have a discussion. I don't understand the point he was trying to make.

Ken

This shows that you still don't understand the argument and I can't put it any plainer...sorry.

Recent YouTube video (perhaps the penny will drop some day ):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp9Nl6OUEJ0

Kurieuo wrote:Recent YouTube video (perhaps the penny will drop some day ):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp9Nl6OUEJ0

Kurieuo; I looked at the video, and though there is much I disagree with, I do understand the logic presented. At approx the 4 minute mark, he presents premix #4 which says “Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary rational source”.
My question is, if this rational source did not exist; that moral facts and duties were just grounded in flawed human beings, how do you imagine things would be different than they are now?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Recent YouTube video (perhaps the penny will drop some day ):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp9Nl6OUEJ0

Kurieuo; I looked at the video, and though there is much I disagree with, I do understand the logic presented. At approx the 4 minute mark, he presents premix #4 which says “Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary rational source”.
My question is, if this rational source did not exist; that moral facts and duties were just grounded in flawed human beings, how do you imagine things would be different than they are now?

I'll give you my answer, although I don't believe you'll understand or have all my reasons. We're just too polar opposite in our positions and views.

If the rational source didn't exist, then for me, the question isn't whether morality would exist for I believe none of us would exist. (the fundmental nature of the physical world we find ourselves within has contingent properties i.e., our world could be logically other than what it is. If something is contingent then it is founded upon something else that allows it to exist as it does. Eventually you get to a foundational something which provides grounding to everything else that exists and owes nothing to anything for its own existence.)

Understand, the fact anything exists, for me points to a rational self-existing eternal mind with the will and power to create upon which everything else is grounded. So then, if this rational source didn't exist, then absolutely nothing would exist in the strictest sense of nothingness. For every thing in existence ultimately depends upon such for its existence.

So then, to ask ME what then of "morality" without this "rational source"? Evidently, to me, it wouldn't exist. We wouldn't exist. Nothing would exist. To merely ask the question how things would be for us with morality if the source didn't exist, rests upon faulty assumptions that anything would exist. Therefore, is really isn't possible for me to properly contemplate or give a response to your question since such is an actual impossibility so far as I see.

If I put my reasoning aside and treat your question very hypothetically, or better yet, perhaps transform your question to say what if we were highly intelligent but this rational source didn't create us as moral creatures imparting an understanding of right and wrong? Well then, I think we'd be much like the rest of the animal kingdom, not understanding, innocent, not knowing wrong from right. Morality would not exist in our worlds at all for we could not apprehend any sort of thing -- no knowledge of what is good and similarly no knowledge of what is evil.

Kenny wrote:Kurieuo; I looked at the video, and though there is much I disagree with, I do understand the logic presented. At approx the 4 minute mark, he presents premix #4 which says “Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary rational source”.

Kenny, to also answer your question in direct reference to that moral argument video.

Note that Premise 4 ("Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary, rational source") is the result of accepting premises 1, 2 and 3. Therefore, if you dislike Premise 4, which is a logical a conclusion drawn from premises 1, 2 & 3, then you must work through which of its former premises is wrong.

Premises 1-3 are each elaborated upon within the video, but written as:

• Premise 1: Morality is a rational enterpreise.
  Premise 2: Moral Realism is true, meaning moral facts and duties exist.
  Premise 3: The moral problems and disagreements among humans are too much for us to assume moral facts and duties are grounded in a human source of rationality.

If we accept all these premises, then Premise 4 logically follows:

• Premise 4: Moral facts and duties are grounded in a necessary, rational source. (from premises 1, 2 & 3)

From there, I don't see many options for what this rational source would be, other than to assume this is what many would call God. Therefore, the final conclusion from premise 4 is:

• Conclusion: This source is what we call God. (from premise 4)