Evidence for God from Science

I took out the unfair weight an idea like theft gives to an argument. If theft is nearly (or entirely) universally condemned, is there a reason other than doing what is right for that? If everyone stole from each other society couldn't exist, mutual survival makes theft punishable.

Echo, the answer to that is, so what? Who cares if society exist? Are you saying that the furtherance of society is objectively good? Doesn't that just bring you right back?

If there is indeed an objective standard then everyone who has a preference that is different knows they are wrong.

Not sure I follow your wording. Are you saying that if objective morality exists, then everyone would always know when they violate it? I would agree that there seem to be behaviors that we innately know are wrong. For example, if someone steals something from you, no one has to teach you this is wrong. We inherently know we've been wronged. But, we do have to teach children right from wrong all the time. A toddler may prefer to steal something not knowing that it is wrong. I see subjective societal preferences coming into play all the time. Just look at the caste system in India.

Morals cannot be truly subjective if they are objective

Does anyone else understand this?

Notice concepts like murder, torture, theft, etc. are all viewed as wrong, but they are also linked to basic social rules that need to be in place to promote the advancement of everyone. Take a idea like homosexuality or abortion, and the arguments for objective morality don't hold nearly as well.

Need to be? You see Echo, I think the reason Dom is getting frustrated is that your line of reasoning wants to deny one thing, while relying on that one thing at the same time. Anytime someone uses terms like, 'has to,' 'needs to,' and 'must,' they are smuggling in objective morality.
Regarding homosexuality. Oh contrare. There is ample objective evidence that it is unnatural. That means against nature, and thus inherently wrong. This even takes our moral reasoning out of it. You are simply talking about popular opinion. Do you really view the universal condemnation of theft as simply popular opinion? If you go home tonight and find your house has been cleaned out, are you going to say, "popular opinion has been violated!" Or, "this isn't good for the furtherance of society." Or, will you just know that you were wronged?

is there a reason other than doing what is right for that?

That's kind of my point. Do the 'other' (subjective) reasons negate there being an objective reason? I fail to see that you've proved that, yet it seems to be what you imply as you state that morals can not be subjective if they are objective.

Hence, they cannot hold a subjective preference, they can only say they do in order to further evil goals.

And...?? You say they cannot hold a subjective preference. And then say the CAN, in order to further evil goals. Either they can or they can't. You may not agree with the reasons, but that is a faulty appeal to consequences.

jlay wrote:Echo, the answer to that is, so what? Who cares if society exist? Are you saying that the furtherance of society is objectively good? Doesn't that just bring you right back?

No, I'm simply saying if there is a tendency of society's to outlaw things which are counterproductive to them, then those things aren't outlawed because they are objectively wrong, you just need them for society to flourish. Appealing to established society's rules as objective morality when there are other possible explanations doesn't prove OM.

If there is indeed an objective standard then everyone who has a preference that is different knows they are wrong.

jlay wrote:Not sure I follow your wording. Are you saying that if objective morality exists, then everyone would always know when they violate it? I would agree that there seem to be behaviors that we innately know are wrong. For example, if someone steals something from you, no one has to teach you this is wrong. We inherently know we've been wronged. But, we do have to teach children right from wrong all the time. A toddler may prefer to steal something not knowing that it is wrong. I see subjective societal preferences coming into play all the time. Just look at the caste system in India.

Do you believe if a toddler dies they go to hell? Do you have to be taught OM to be held accountable for it? Or is there an innate sense of what is right and wrong you can follow, even if you never hear the gospel?

jlay wrote:Need to be? You see Echo, I think the reason Dom is getting frustrated is that your line of reasoning wants to deny one thing, while relying on that one thing at the same time. Anytime someone uses terms like, 'has to,' 'needs to,' and 'must,' they are smuggling in objective morality.

Not at all, "needs to" in this sense is referring to something that must be met by society for it to advance. I'm not making a moral claim.

jlay wrote:Regarding homosexuality. Oh contrare. There is ample objective evidence that it is unnatural. That means against nature, and thus inherently wrong. This even takes our moral reasoning out of it. You are simply talking about popular opinion. Do you really view the universal condemnation of theft as simply popular opinion? If you go home tonight and find your house has been cleaned out, are you going to say, "popular opinion has been violated!" Or, "this isn't good for the furtherance of society." Or, will you just know that you were wronged?

Against nature means inherently wrong? I'm not a fan of that argument at all. I'd like you to give me a backing for that without resorting to God, because otherwise it's just circular reasoning. You cannot presuppose God's OM as part of nature and then declare what is unnatural wrong. The moral argument derives God's existence from morality, not the other way around.

Hence, they cannot hold a subjective preference, they can only say they do in order to further evil goals.

jlay wrote:And...?? You say they cannot hold a subjective preference. And then say the CAN, in order to further evil goals. Either they can or they can't. You may not agree with the reasons, but that is a faulty appeal to consequences.

If OM exists, it's a logical fact. There is no other interpretation of 1+1 being anything other than 2.

When someone tries to justify something that goes against OM, they are being dishonest. I did not say that CAN hold a subjective preference, I said they can SAY they can. It's not that I don't agree with the reasons, it's the reasons are illogical from the start. They are simply wrong, and both parties would know it.

Echoside, all you needed to say was you believe humanism was the answer for morals instead of giving us the run around with epistemology for the past month. I have the complete answer to your humanism.

You are basically saying "whatever contributes to human flourishing is good"

The point we all are making here is that there is a stopping point on right on wrong. But humanism is very implausible in providing one.

Given atheism, why think that what is conductive to human flourishing is any more valuable than what is conductive to any other animal? Why think that inflicting harm on another member of our species is wrong? Why would it be wrong if atheism were true?

Human flourishing as morally special is arbitrary.

Why think that even these strange nonnatural properties of "good" and "wrong" even exist? Much less somehow attach themselves to various natural states of affairs? That is no reason or explanation that would determine or fix any moral properties of any situation.

You simply cannot do it. You need to explain it, and then on top of that, prove you just haven't made a "shopping list" of moral properties to simply do the job. Its impossible for you to do that.
it is completely inadequate for you to assert that human beings have intrinistic moral values without God.

Look at the contrast. There IS a stopping point. God is a natural stopping point as a foundation for objective moral values and duties. God, by definition, is the greatest conceivable being, and a being that is the ground and source for good is greater then one that shares in goodness.

You did a pretty good job hiding your view, but now its out here. You have the flip side of the coin on eastern philosophies. You're certainly better then them, but still stubborn.

domokunrox wrote: You are basically saying "whatever contributes to human flourishing is good"

That's a view held by atheists which is obviously false. I don't believe that.

domokunrox wrote:The point we all are making here is that there is a stopping point on right on wrong. But humanism is very implausible in providing one.

Agreed

domokunrox wrote:Given atheism, why think that what is conductive to human flourishing is any more valuable than what is conductive to any other animal? Why think that inflicting harm on another member of our species is wrong? Why would it be wrong if atheism were true?

It wouldn't, peter singer adresses this in his work in regards to animals. And nothing would be wrong if atheism was true.

domokunrox wrote:Human flourishing as morally special is arbitrary.

Which is exactly my point. If theft is the topic, we need to ask ourselves if theft is outlawed simply because it is wrong, or if other factors come in to play. Since human florishing and building up of society is morally neutral, and theft goes against this, then theft could be universally despised for other reasons.

Which is where topics like homosexuality/abortion come into play. When they do not threaten the social construct of society, they are not universally hated. It removes the other topics than morality which could influence the law.

domokunrox wrote:You did a pretty good job hiding your view, but now its out here. You have the flip side of the coin on eastern philosophies. You're certainly better then them, but still stubborn.

um....what? I've never made a claim that what was morally good came from society or human flourishing. The only possibility for an objective morality is God.

domokunrox wrote:

echoside wrote:You cannot just affirm it and then tell me I'm wrong, to say that objective moral values and logic are on the same level while offering no justification.

Yes I could! A contradiction is clear as day! Read your sentences very carefully. I keep telling you. STOP USING EPISTEMOLOGY! If you want to find truths, you need to do so without that nonsense!

domokunrox, what do you mean by, "Stop using epistemology"?

Echoside, again, I am on my phone, so excuse my ability to quote. You said,
"No, i'm simply saying if there is a tendency of society to outlaw things that are counterproductive to them, then those things aren't outlawed because they are objectively wrong, you just need them for society to flourish"

It boggles the mind, echoside. WHY do you "just need them"? Its not objective, and you just need them is a contradiction.

I think I understand what you have wrong.

Echoside, if not stealing is morally neutral, then tell me what is a virtue? I think you need to learn what opposites are. If stealing is bad, not stealing is neutral? That doesn't make sense. Are you saying that opposites do not exist? And if they do, they have no polar value? That's certainly a tough sell, Echoside. All science and physics disagree with you there.

Danny, what I mean by epistemology is his philosophical method.
Epistemology makes no claims to knowledge, and is a purely skeptic function. Worst of all, it cannot be used to find truth or facts in many different fields and their philosophical view narrows down to 1 particular word

HOW which leads to HOW DO YOU KNOW. This validly opens the door for regress and Infinitism.

Infinity does not exist. Not even potentially.

Metaphysical Infinity is very different, and epistemology cannot work in the field of metaphysics. We all know this, they keep trying. We keep pointing out contradictions, they refuse to give up. Brain cells die, nobody wins.

domokunrox wrote:Danny, what I mean by epistemology is his philosophical method.
Epistemology makes no claims to knowledge, and is a purely skeptic function. Worst of all, it cannot be used to find truth or facts in many different fields and their philosophical view narrows down to 1 particular word

HOW which leads to HOW DO YOU KNOW. This validly opens the door for regress and Infinitism.

Infinity does not exist. Not even potentially.

Metaphysical Infinity is very different, and epistemology cannot work in the field of metaphysics. We all know this, they keep trying. We keep pointing out contradictions, they refuse to give up. Brain cells die, nobody wins.

I disagree, dom. All word-views make metaphysical and epistemological claims. Also, metaphysics and epistemology presuppose one another. Take these two questions, one metaphysical the other epistemological:

(X) What is the nature of reality?

(Y) How do we know?

Y can not be answered without an assumed answer to X, and X can not be answered without an assumed answer to Y. So metaphysics and epistemology seem to depend on each other.

Aren’t you in danger here of throwing the infant out with the soapy-suds?

If you want to criticise all epistemologies apart from revelatory epistemology, then I’ll join you. But dismissing epistemology while relying upon it leaves you in no man’s land.

DannyM wrote:I disagree, dom. All word-views make metaphysical and epistemological claims. Also, metaphysics and epistemology presuppose one another. Take these two questions, one metaphysical the other epistemological:

(X) What is the nature of reality?

(Y) How do we know?

Y can not be answered without an assumed answer to X, and X can not be answered without an assumed answer to Y. So metaphysics and epistemology seem to depend on each other.

Aren’t you in danger here of throwing the infant out with the soapy-suds?

If you want to criticise all epistemologies apart from revelatory epistemology, then I’ll join you. But dismissing epistemology while relying upon it leaves you in no man’s land.

This idea is very false, Danny. Metaphysics does not depend on epistemology questions at all.

Your example of nature of reality is too broad of subject if the law of non-contradiction exists (it certainly does). Epistemology depends entirely on the existence of everything (not just metaphysics) including itself, and ultimately refutes itself.

The question of "How do you know?" will and does regress and could be justified in doing so for as long as the skeptic wants it to go on to stand on leg that because something can no longer explained, it is false. This is the destruction of all intelligence, and in my opinion has very little intellectual value. To continue this line of questioning TO BEGIN WITH, and refusal to make any POSITIVE claims of knowledge is the affirmation of an illusionary world being perceived.

You seem to be confused between Epistemology and propositional logic. Epistemology is blind and pointless broad deductions from realities. While propositional logic remains careful of what to exclude in order to make valid and sound arguments.

You could sort of say Epistemology is like bringing in a wrecking ball to knock a wall down, while propositional logic is like a sledgehammer and power tools to do the job.

Very different, Danny.

domokunrox wrote:This idea is very false, Danny. Metaphysics does not depend on epistemology questions at all.
Your example of nature of reality is too broad of subject if the law of non-contradiction exists (it certainly does). Epistemology depends entirely on the existence of everything (not just metaphysics) including itself, and ultimately refutes itself.
The question of "How do you know?" will and does regress and could be justified in doing so for as long as the skeptic wants it to go on to stand on leg that because something can no longer explained, it is false. This is the destruction of all intelligence, and in my opinion has very little intellectual value. To continue this line of questioning TO BEGIN WITH, and refusal to make any POSITIVE claims of knowledge is the affirmation of an illusionary world being perceived.
You seem to be confused between Epistemology and propositional logic. Epistemology is blind and pointless broad deductions from realities. While propositional logic remains careful of what to exclude in order to make valid and sound arguments.
You could sort of say Epistemology is like bringing in a wrecking ball to knock a wall down, while propositional logic is like a sledgehammer and power tools to do the job.
Very different, Danny.

Not confused in the slightest, dom. If you were talking about so-called common sense realism, or rational realism, then I would agree, since common sense can never explain common sense, and this gets you nothing more than probability with respect to the position of a stated belief. That is why, in my opinion, this and all other non-Reformed epistemologies fall short.

Since rational realism has no epistemological structure to support the whys and wherefores of the whole knowledge conundrum, it can have no roots. And the same applies to you, dom. Your epistemology appears to be we need no epistemology, in which case you are even less rational than those irrational but affirmed epistemologies.

domokunrox wrote: It boggles the mind, echoside. WHY do you "just need them"? Its not objective, and you just need them is a contradiction.

Would you make the argument that a society can flourish if murder and thievery are fair game? You need in the sense that it is a requirement, like I need electricity to power my fan.

domokunrox wrote: If stealing is bad, not stealing is neutral?

Show me where I said this, and I'll put it into proper context.

domokunrox wrote:
If stealing is bad, not stealing is neutral?


Show me where I said this, and I'll put it into proper context.

Sorry Echo, I kind of feel a little confused now,

Which is exactly my point. If theft is the topic, we need to ask ourselves if theft is outlawed simply because it is wrong, or if other factors come in to play. Since human florishing and building up of society is morally neutral, and theft goes against this, then theft could be universally despised for other reasons.

I have a couple of questions to you above statement
1. Please explain, why human flourishing of society is morally neutral.
2. What other reasons could be used to UNIVERSALLY despise theft.
3. What did you mean by "It's not that I don't agree with the reasons, it's the reasons are illogical from the start. They are simply wrong, and both parties would know it."

4.

I'm simply saying if there is a tendency of society's to outlaw things which are counterproductive to them, then those things aren't outlawed because they are objectively wrong, you just need them for society to flourish. Appealing to established society's rules as objective morality when there are other possible explanations doesn't prove OM.

Then what does? if I say that God outlawed theft because it is counter-productive to society's growth, then it is a part of OM. Let the people say what they say. There is no other reason needed regardless of the fact that there may be other reasons and if there are, those would just add up to the case.

On a side note, Appealing to established society's rules as proof of OM is certainly wrong.

neo-x wrote:

I have a couple of questions to you above statement
1. Please explain, why human flourishing of society is morally neutral.
2. What other reasons could be used to UNIVERSALLY despise theft.
3. What did you mean by "It's not that I don't agree with the reasons, it's the reasons are illogical from the start. They are simply wrong, and both parties would know it."

4.

I'm simply saying if there is a tendency of society's to outlaw things which are counterproductive to them, then those things aren't outlawed because they are objectively wrong, you just need them for society to flourish. Appealing to established society's rules as objective morality when there are other possible explanations doesn't prove OM.

Then what does? if I say that God outlawed theft because it is counter-productive to society's growth, then it is a part of OM. Let the people say what they say. There is no other reason needed regardless of the fact that there may be other reasons and if there are, those would just add up to the case.

On a side note, Appealing to established society's rules as proof of OM is certainly wrong.

1. Didn't mean this as an absolute, but as per naturalism or subjective morality it is. If OM exists then sure, this is probably a good thing.
2. Like I said, if you want to appeal to SOCIETYS for morality, and something is counterproductive to the advancement of society, then is this banned because it is immoral or because it halts society?
3. If OM exists then both people have the same moral compass, and as such trying to build a case for a different system is illogical/deceptive.
4. I don't think you can prove or disprove OM, you have to prove God first then the question is answered. (just one man's opinion)

In your example yes, that would make it part of OM. But you have to presuppose God to do so, which isn't what the argument from morality states. The conclusion of the argument contains "God exists", invoking it early is fallacious.

Here, were just going to end this. First off Echoside, you put this word, NEED and you still do not explain it. Yes, you indeed are speaking in absolute. If do not speak in absolute, you have NO TRUTH. Period. The problem is you don't want to commit the obvious fallacy skeptics often do. Which is between the IS and OUGHT. You do commit the fallacy, yet keep insisting you don't.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... eu2B3trgyA



I think he better way to explain OM is simply this. We are not good alone, and neither does our government alone give us our moral good. Rather that our objective morals MUST reflect our creator (who is the basis of all that is morally good) and our creator designed mankind to be informed of the moral law with moral experience to inform our conscience of right and wrong. These reflections often found universally in the written law as further proof of the objective moral lawgiver. Again, as there is no place where theft, murder, rape, etc is acceptable moral behavior. It is a vice, and not doing those actions are indeed a virtue regardless or not if you admit they are or not. They don't rely in you to validate them. Hence, the definition of objective.

I suggest you get out of your Ayn Rand phase. She didn't really support women's rights, and she contradicted herself many times.

domokunrox wrote:Here, were just going to end this.

You are free to exit the conversation at any time, but I still have questions to be discussed if anyone else cares to.

domokunrox wrote:First off Echoside, you put this word, NEED and you still do not explain it. Yes, you indeed are speaking in absolute. If do not speak in absolute, you have NO TRUTH. Period. The problem is you don't want to commit the obvious fallacy skeptics often do. Which is between the IS and OUGHT. You do commit the fallacy, yet keep insisting you don't.

When I say need, I'm assuming a belief system to be true. Either subjective or objective; as I'm not convinced either one is correct I don't offer up my statements as an objective truth or absolute, they are only hypothetically absolute.

domokunrox wrote:I think he better way to explain OM is simply this. We are not good alone, and neither does our government alone give us our moral good. Rather that our objective morals MUST reflect our creator (who is the basis of all that is morally good) and our creator designed mankind to be informed of the moral law with moral experience to inform our conscience of right and wrong.

You can say this, you can assert OM to be true and describe how it would be if it was true, but this doesn't prove anything past my initial challenge

"Is X REALLY bad?" and hardly defends your initial statement "the argument from morality is as strong as they come"

domokunrox wrote:Again, as there is no place where theft, murder, rape, etc is acceptable moral behavior. It is a vice, and not doing those actions are indeed a virtue regardless or not if you admit they are or not. They don't rely in you to validate them. Hence, the definition of objective.

I believe I've already responded to an alternative for rape, theft murder, etc. above. The fact that you avoid homosexuality and abortion is interesting

domokunrox wrote:I suggest you get out of your Ayn Rand phase. She didn't really support women's rights, and she contradicted herself many times.

Yea I'll remember that thanks for the advice