Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

Nils wrote:
But then Rick writes
"Why would you assume that people aren't qualified to determine right from wrong?"

I agree with Rick. Even if there is no authority we can refer to we all have an intuition of what is right and wrong.

FYI Nils,

I wasn't saying that there is no authority.

Rick, I know, it wasn't my intension to give the impression that you did.
Nils

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:If you understood, you wouldn't have said what you said.

In your opinion, is it possible to disagree with you on this issue and still understand?

Ken

Is it possible that you are conflating ontology and epistemology?

No.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:If you understood, you wouldn't have said what you said.

In your opinion, is it possible to disagree with you on this issue and still understand?

Ken

Is it possible that you are conflating ontology and epistemology?

No.

Then could you explain the difference between ontology and epistemology, as they pertain to morality?

Nils wrote:

RickD wrote:

Nils wrote:
But then Rick writes
"Why would you assume that people aren't qualified to determine right from wrong?"

I agree with Rick. Even if there is no authority we can refer to we all have an intuition of what is right and wrong.

FYI Nils,

I wasn't saying that there is no authority.

Rick, I know, it wasn't my intension to give the impression that you did.
Nils

Thanks for the clarification.

Regarding what you call an intuition of what is right and wrong, how is "wrongness" measured? In other words, as we can measure darkness by an absence of light, would you measure how wrong something is, by an absence of good? And if yes, then what is absolutely good, that we would compare other things to, in order to determine how wrong they are?

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:If you understood, you wouldn't have said what you said.

In your opinion, is it possible to disagree with you on this issue and still understand?

Ken

Is it possible that you are conflating ontology and epistemology?

No.

Then could you explain the difference between ontology and epistemology, as they pertain to morality?

Again? Really??
The Ontological question would be; What is morality? What is the nature of morality?
The Epistemological question would be; how do we know what is moral. IOW what system do we employ to determine good or bad.
Would you mind telling me what did I say that gave you the impression that I was actually conflating those two terms?

RickD wrote: Regarding what you call an intuition of what is right and wrong, how is "wrongness" measured? In other words, as we can measure darkness by an absence of light, would you measure how wrong something is, by an absence of good? And if yes, then what is absolutely good, that we would compare other things to, in order to determine how wrong they are?

I haven't thought about the measurement issue but I think that it is the same as with other mental processes; the easiest way is just to ask the person. Another way is to do some psychological experiment. There are lots of experiments done to find out how persons react to different moral scenarios. How do you measure the red/green blindness of a person? You ask or do an experiment. (Perhaps not the best example).

But it seems that you are asking something else but I am not sure what. You are talking about absolutely good and that is an expression I don't use or understand (in a secular context).

Nils

Interesting short humorous video and notice the morality being presented...especially is the last segment...



Is any of that okay? Why - why not?
-
-
-

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote: In your opinion, is it possible to disagree with you on this issue and still understand?

Ken

Is it possible that you are conflating ontology and epistemology?

No.

Then could you explain the difference between ontology and epistemology, as they pertain to morality?

Again? Really??
The Ontological question would be; What is morality? What is the nature of morality?
The Epistemological question would be; how do we know what is moral. IOW what system do we employ to determine good or bad.
Would you mind telling me what did I say that gave you the impression that I was actually conflating those two terms?

You are not addressing the nature of morality. You're only arguing the epistemological part of the issue. This has been consistent throughout all of the threads that you have posted in on this subject.

When I asked you a while ago if there is any situation where raping a 5 year old is not wrong, you said no. You agreed that it's always wrong. Yet, you cannot give a basis for that always being wrong. The obvious answer is that it's objectively wrong, but you refuse to see that.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: Is it possible that you are conflating ontology and epistemology?

No.

Then could you explain the difference between ontology and epistemology, as they pertain to morality?

Again? Really??
The Ontological question would be; What is morality? What is the nature of morality?
The Epistemological question would be; how do we know what is moral. IOW what system do we employ to determine good or bad.
Would you mind telling me what did I say that gave you the impression that I was actually conflating those two terms?

RickD wrote: You are not addressing the nature of morality. You're only arguing the epistemological part of the issue. This has been consistent throughout all of the threads that you have posted in on this subject.

As I said before, I don't think morality (right and wrong) exist outside of human thought. What we call right and wrong are judgments we make about actions we experience. But these judgments are no more real than descriptions we experience; like funny, silly, or beautiful. Thoughts do not exist, they are not real; they are just figments of our imaginations.

RickD wrote: When I asked you a while ago if there is any situation where raping a 5 year old is not wrong, you said no. You agreed that it's always wrong. Yet, you cannot give a basis for that always being wrong. The obvious answer is that it's objectively wrong, but you refuse to see that.

The reason I said raping a 5 year girl is always wrong is because based on my personal feelings, perceptions, and biases, such an action goes against my subjective moral views; I call it wrong because it harms the girl and I consider such harm wrong. Now with that said; I can always come up with a scenario where raping such a girl would be the lesser of the two evils which would make it the right thing to do under such extenuating circumstances. But bar that; I call it wrong even though I cannot demonstrate why it is wrong other than using the standard which I apply to myself.

It pains me when people don't know enough history to see the REAL danger of subjective morality and the "ends justifies the means" mentality.

We could go around and round of the opposing viewpoints of what is moral and why, forever. Bottom line: "If" God exists (and ONLY "if") - the God of the Bible - then He IS the standard - as whatever He declares to be bad or evil is so. He Himself IS good, and can do no evil. If unbelievers don't agree that there is an objective morality based upon a God who sets the standards - then one will never convince them otherwise. But I think most people can agree on the terrible dangers posed by many whose only standard of morality is their own subjective view of it - those who don't even ponder the question or concern themselves beyond whatever they personally deem desirable actions for themselves, per their thoughts - whether they desire to murder for money or pursue bloodlust and genocide to acquire an empire.

Ken: Thoughts do not exist, they are not real; they are just figments of our imaginations.

The real questions are, where do the thoughts originate, and how do we respond to them? All of us, at various times, have hideous thoughts that come to mind - that we also have the ability to reject or further entertain until we allow them to inspire us to be acted upon with terrible actions. While the thoughts are in one's mind - we also have free will to do with them whatever we will. But terrible thoughts can powerfully produce horrific consequences, if followed as they are in our mind. But our thoughts, while not "real," physical things - they are received and processes within our brains - which are real. And while our thoughts are not compulsory, they nonetheless can be very powerful and exceptionally tempting - and when acted upon, can produce horrific harm and destruction. So another question is, what impacts our arbitration of whether to act upon what is, at first, only a terrible thought existing in one's mind? What influences impact our behaviors and responses to our thoughts?

Here is the rub:
It is very easy for those living in western civilization with its established moral codes and laws based on the antiquated view that there was such a thing as good and bad.
We can sit back an revel in our moral superiority that was instilled into us by people and society that came forth from the moral view that there is an objective and absolute good and somethings are wrong, period !
We can be as subjective and morally flexible as we want because we have no fear of the viking berserker raping and pillaging ( for him this was subjectively good, even though he would never have liked it done to himself) or have no fear of a ruler that allows for millions to die of hunger because he must keep the military feed, and on his side ( subjectively good...for him).

See, we don't need God anymore because we are using His rules and standards anyway AND, best of all, we can twist and pervert them to our will, as long as we don't "hurt" anyone ( whatever that means since hurt is subjective) or we are consenting adults ( whatever that means since age of consent and mental consent and responsibility are also subjective).

Ah,, good times indeed.

Of course, the world is NOT western civilization and even western civilization isn't what it used to be.

Ken: Thoughts do not exist, they are not real; they are just figments of our imaginations.

*cough* self-refuting argument *cough*

PaulSacramento wrote:It pains me when people don't know enough history to see the REAL danger of subjective morality and the "ends justifies the means" mentality.

If morality is objective, thus subjective morality is only a hypothetical; history would be full of examples of Objective morality, not Subjective morality. So how could someone look at history to see the dangers of this hypothetical Subjective morality where the "ends justifies the means" mentality?

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:

Ken: Thoughts do not exist, they are not real; they are just figments of our imaginations.

*cough* self-refuting argument *cough*

Right now I'm thinking about Santa Clause coming to town in about a week and a half. Are those thoughts real, or just a figment of my imagination?