Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote: It's interesting that I can still discuss if something is right or wrong, even though I believe in OM.

Are you able to discuss the possibility that God (moral base) might be wrong? That's the point I was making.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

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?

If you agree morality is subjective, you are open to discussing it, and that is at least a start!

Ken

If morality itself is subjective, why would I be open to discussing it? How can my morality be wrong if morality itself is subjective? What I am saying is my conception, your conception, everyone's conception of morality is subjective. It is only because my conception could be wrong that I would be open to discussing it.

Personally, I do have problems with saying something is right simply because God says it is. Even the Bible cautions against this:

Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge. (2 Peter 1:5)

My problem with your position is you seem to be taking the fallibility of some Theists (arguing that their conception of God is right without question) and using that as an argument against Theism. I really wouldn't have a problem with this (for the purposes of morality specifically), except I fail to see how your position even solves the problem you're concerned about here.

For example,

Kenny wrote: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.

People with subjective morality seem to operate this way too! They seem reasonable enough on most basic matters, but when it comes to more difficult issues they start from the position that their morality is right for them no matter what! And if someone else tells them it appears act "X" is wrong, they will just argue that it seems perfectly fine to them. It's the exact same problem, only there's nothing more this position even allows you to say.

I'm not even parroting back your own words to make a point. This is exactly why I initially didn't argue in favor of morality at all when I initially posted in this thread. How does claiming that all morality is subjective help to explain why people did away with slavery?

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: It's interesting that I can still discuss if something is right or wrong, even though I believe in OM.

Are you able to discuss the possibility that God (moral base) might be wrong? That's the point I was making.

Ken

I was certainly willing to discuss why it's not possible for God to be wrong. Which we've already done. And as usual, you don't get it.

Kenny wrote: 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

This is a false dichotomy. Here you are arguing against a very feeble divine command theory where morals are the arbitrary whim of an imperfect, capricious deity. You would need to establish that your view and this one are the only options. (They aren't BTW)
Further, an outcome scaring you has nothing to do with whether it's right or wrong.

plouiswork wrote:

Kenny wrote:

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?

If you agree morality is subjective, you are open to discussing it, and that is at least a start!

Ken

If morality itself is subjective, why would I be open to discussing it? How can my morality be wrong if morality itself is subjective? What I am saying is my conception, your conception, everyone's conception of morality is subjective. It is only because my conception could be wrong that I would be open to discussing it.

Personally, I do have problems with saying something is right simply because God says it is. Even the Bible cautions against this:

Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge. (2 Peter 1:5)

My problem with your position is you seem to be taking the fallibility of some Theists (arguing that their conception of God is right without question) and using that as an argument against Theism. I really wouldn't have a problem with this (for the purposes of morality specifically), except I fail to see how your position even solves the problem you're concerned about here.

For example,

Kenny wrote: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.

People with subjective morality seem to operate this way too! They seem reasonable enough on most basic matters, but when it comes to more difficult issues they start from the position that their morality is right for them no matter what! And if someone else tells them it appears act "X" is wrong, they will just argue that it seems perfectly fine to them. It's the exact same problem, only there's nothing more this position even allows you to say.

I'm not even parroting back your own words to make a point. This is exactly why I initially didn't argue in favor of morality at all when I initially posted in this thread. How does claiming that all morality is subjective help to explain why people did away with slavery?

plouiswork
If morality itself is subjective, why would I be open to discussing it? How can my morality be wrong if morality itself is subjective?

Ken
Subjective morality simply means the moral act is up to interpretation, and that extenuating circumstances are taken into consideration when deciding the moral issue. If you are willing to admit you are imperfect, to the possibility that you could make a mistake, that is the same as admitting you could be wrong. This would allow me the opportunity to discuss interpretation and extenuating circumstances concerning the issue in an effort to change your mind, and you can do the same for me.


plouiswork
What I am saying is my conception, your conception, everyone's conception of morality is subjective. It is only because my conception could be wrong that I would be open to discussing it.

Ken
How is this different than claiming the moral act is subjective?


plouiswork
My problem with your position is you seem to be taking the fallibility of some Theists (arguing that their conception of God is right without question) and using that as an argument against Theism.

Ken
No; my argument is against the claim of Objective morality.


plouiswork
I really wouldn't have a problem with this (for the purposes of morality specifically), except I fail to see how your position even solves the problem you're concerned about here.

Ken
Objective morality requires a moral base. That base has to be right at all times; do you agree?
Subjective morality means all moral issues are left up to interpretation and the people judging the moral issues determine the right/wrong of the issue after examining the circumstances involved


plouiswork
People with subjective morality seem to operate this way too! They seem reasonable enough on most basic matters, but when it comes to more difficult issues they start from the position that their morality is right for them no matter what! And if someone else tells them it appears act "X" is wrong, they will just argue that it seems perfectly fine to them. It's the exact same problem, only there's nothing more this position even allows you to say.

Ken
That is the attitude of a stubborn person; subjective morality does nothing for stubbornness. But if the person were not stubborn, they have the option of listening to an opposing point of view. Under objective morality, any view that differs from the base is wrong.


plouiswork
I'm not even parroting back your own words to make a point. This is exactly why I initially didn't argue in favor of morality at all when I initially posted in this thread. How does claiming that all morality is subjective help to explain why people did away with slavery?

Ken
People did away with slavery because they were able to be convinced slavery was wrong. If morality were objective, the right/wrong of slavery would have been demonstrated years ago and proof would have been provided that slavery was wrong, so slavery would have never been an issue in the first place.

Ken

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: It's interesting that I can still discuss if something is right or wrong, even though I believe in OM.

Are you able to discuss the possibility that God (moral base) might be wrong? That's the point I was making.

Ken

I was certainly willing to discuss why it's not possible for God to be wrong. Which we've already done. And as usual, you don't get it.

Thanx for proving my point.

Ken

jlay wrote:

Kenny wrote: 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

This is a false dichotomy. Here you are arguing against a very feeble divine command theory where morals are the arbitrary whim of an imperfect, capricious deity. You would need to establish that your view and this one are the only options.

No; I would have to establish if morality were objective, there has to be a moral base. Do you agree that objective morality REQUIRES a moral base? Yes or no?

Ken

Kenny wrote: Objective morality requires a moral base. That base has to be right at all times; do you agree?

The base attempts to be right. The objective base we attempt to know is not necessarily the base we have access to. Nothing stops us from questioning the base. In fact, it is dangerous to not question.

Kenny wrote:plouiswork
What I am saying is my conception, your conception, everyone's conception of morality is subjective. It is only because my conception could be wrong that I would be open to discussing it.

Ken
How is this different than claiming the moral act is subjective?

Because there's a right answer. If morality is subjective, my subjective conception can't be wrong.

The same applies to truth. If truth is subjective, then my conception of truth can't be wrong. If it can, then which subjective view of truth is right? You reason out because the truth is objective. My conception, your conception, everyone's conception of truth is subjective. It is only because we know that truth is objective that we bother reasoning out and discussing it.

Kenny wrote:

jlay wrote:

Kenny wrote: 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

This is a false dichotomy. Here you are arguing against a very feeble divine command theory where morals are the arbitrary whim of an imperfect, capricious deity. You would need to establish that your view and this one are the only options.

No; I would have to establish if morality were objective, there has to be a moral base. Do you agree that objective morality REQUIRES a moral base? Yes or no?

Ken

Yes, but that's not the issue here. You offered a dichotomy, with the choices being a feeble straw man built around an emotional appeal contrasted with subjective morality.
One, I don't care that you're 'troubled' by a source for OM. That's not an argument. I'm less impressed when you limit that source to your incorrect concept of what that source is like.
To clarify , one who holds to OM is not forced to hold the position, God said it, I believe it, that settles it.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: Sorry. No can do. My dog doesn't like atheists agnostics skeptics.

All the more reason to kick some sense into him.

Ken

And again, you fail to grasp the concept. Kicking the dog, has nothing to do with punishing the dog, or knocking sense into the dog.

So do you have a perspective on the point's I made earlier at 6:21 am? PS doesn't seem to be responding.

Ken

Considering that you can't even begin to grasp the beginning of the argument, there is no reason for me the continue on with this with you.

Ken, did you watch Kurieuo's video? The lightbulb kind of went on for me. The idea is that objective morality is out there - people can disagree about what's right and wrong but it will always be that one side has it right (even if they're not entirely sure they're right) and the other has it wrong. The epistemology side of it is that many people have misleading ways of trying to find out what's right and wrong. The video probably says it better, anyway.