Evidence for God from Science

jlay wrote:Needless suffering?

Hey, if torturing puppies brings you/me/them pleasure then how is it needless? Obviously you/me/them felt the 'need' to do satisfy the urge.

I am reminded by an old saying; "your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins" which means you do not have the right to do as you please to the detriment of someone else. The fact that torturing puppies brings joy is irrevelant in this case.

jlay wrote:Kenny, your answer is evasive but reveals that you view suffering (needless or otherwise) as evidence that things are NOT as they OUGHT to be. If things OUGHT to be one way rather than another, then bingo, morality is objective.

But the fact that in "theory" someone else could view it different, doesn't that make it subjective?

Ken

Kenny, your just being obtuse.

Kenny wrote:But the fact that in "theory" someone else could view it different, doesn't that make it subjective?

What you are saying is that how someone views puppy torture DETERMINES whether it is right or wrong.

People can view morality subjectively. That doesn't determine whether that is the case.
I can chose to believe that 2+2=5. that may be my subjective opinion, but it doesn't change what is objectively true. Our failure to get morality RIGHT only proves that OM exist. Even if the majority or the whole of the population believed that 2+2=5 it wouldn't make it so.

Kenny wrote:I am reminded by an old saying; "your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins" which means you do not have the right to do as you please to the detriment of someone else. The fact that torturing puppies brings joy is irrevelant in this case.

Kenny, i was addressing "need," or ,"needless," which you brought into the equation. Now, you seem to be saying that it is objectively the case, that doing something to the detriment of another is objectively wrong. Yes or no? You are all over the place.

Question of right and wrong are right before our eyes...

http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2014/04/11 ... en-square/

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-ha ... ndy-ranch/

http://freebeacon.com/issues/blm-ranger ... emergency/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ds-were-n/

It maybe the beginning...

No matter where you stand on the Nevada ranch issue at hand, the feds, if this was actually about grazing fee's could sent two officers and arrested Bundy quietly either at home or in town. No, the issue is deeper. This concerns right verse wrong on a objective scale because people may die wrongly for a fed government out of control and drunk with power. This happens in relativistic driven societies...
-
-
-

jlay wrote:Kenny, your just being obtuse.
What you are saying is that how someone views puppy torture DETERMINES whether it is right or wrong.

No! I did not say that. I said it determines subjective vs objective.

jlay wrote:People can view morality subjectively. That doesn't determine whether that is the case.
I can chose to believe that 2+2=5. that may be my subjective opinion, but it doesn't change what is objectively true. Our failure to get morality RIGHT only proves that OM exist. Even if the majority or the whole of the population believed that 2+2=5 it wouldn't make it so.

The reason math is objective is because eveybody agrees on the rules. You cannot agree on the rules of math (base 10) and conclude that 2+2=5; that is impossible. Morality has no such rules. Now if everybody agreed on say... The Golden Rule, or the Christian God as the rules that determines morality, then maybe a case could be made; but as it stands now; no such rule exists.

jlay wrote:Kenny, i was addressing "need," or ,"needless," which you brought into the equation. Now, you seem to be saying that it is objectively the case, that doing something to the detriment of another is objectively wrong. Yes or no? You are all over the place.

No. I did not say objectively wrong, just wrong.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

jlay wrote:Kenny, your just being obtuse.
What you are saying is that how someone views puppy torture DETERMINES whether it is right or wrong.

No! I did not say that. I said it determines subjective vs objective.

jlay wrote:People can view morality subjectively. That doesn't determine whether that is the case.
I can chose to believe that 2+2=5. that may be my subjective opinion, but it doesn't change what is objectively true. Our failure to get morality RIGHT only proves that OM exist. Even if the majority or the whole of the population believed that 2+2=5 it wouldn't make it so.

The reason math is objective is because eveybody agrees on the rules. You cannot agree on the rules of math (base 10) and conclude that 2+2=5; that is impossible. Morality has no such rules. Now if everybody agreed on say... The Golden Rule, or the Christian God as the rules that determines morality, then maybe a case could be made; but as it stands now; no such rule exists.

jlay wrote:Kenny, i was addressing "need," or ,"needless," which you brought into the equation. Now, you seem to be saying that it is objectively the case, that doing something to the detriment of another is objectively wrong. Yes or no? You are all over the place.

No. I did not say objectively wrong, just wrong.

Ken

As I said, obtuse.
Kenny, the agreement on the rules doesn't determine whether the rules are objective in the first place. Your explanation is self-defeating.
The correct statement is that everybody OUGHT to agree on the rules because they are based on objective reality.
Everyone OUGHT to agree that helping others is BETTER than hurting others.
Everyone OUGHT to agree that killing someone out of malice is wrong.
Everyone OUGHT to agree that stealing is wrong.
Everyone OUGHT to agree that human life has value.

Our subjective opinion OUGHT to conform to objective reality. Yes, there are people who violate those rules, and we can KNOW objectively that adhering to these rules is BETTER than not.

B. W. wrote:Question of right and wrong are right before our eyes...

http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2014/04/11 ... en-square/

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-ha ... ndy-ranch/

http://freebeacon.com/issues/blm-ranger ... emergency/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ds-were-n/

It maybe the beginning...

No matter where you stand on the Nevada ranch issue at hand, the feds, if this was actually about grazing fee's could sent two officers and arrested Bundy quietly either at home or in town. No, the issue is deeper. This concerns right verse wrong on a objective scale because people may die wrongly for a fed government out of control and drunk with power. This happens in relativistic driven societies...
-
-
-

jlay wrote:

Kenny wrote:

jlay wrote:Kenny, your just being obtuse.
What you are saying is that how someone views puppy torture DETERMINES whether it is right or wrong.

No! I did not say that. I said it determines subjective vs objective.

jlay wrote:People can view morality subjectively. That doesn't determine whether that is the case.
I can chose to believe that 2+2=5. that may be my subjective opinion, but it doesn't change what is objectively true. Our failure to get morality RIGHT only proves that OM exist. Even if the majority or the whole of the population believed that 2+2=5 it wouldn't make it so.

The reason math is objective is because eveybody agrees on the rules. You cannot agree on the rules of math (base 10) and conclude that 2+2=5; that is impossible. Morality has no such rules. Now if everybody agreed on say... The Golden Rule, or the Christian God as the rules that determines morality, then maybe a case could be made; but as it stands now; no such rule exists.

jlay wrote:Kenny, i was addressing "need," or ,"needless," which you brought into the equation. Now, you seem to be saying that it is objectively the case, that doing something to the detriment of another is objectively wrong. Yes or no? You are all over the place.

No. I did not say objectively wrong, just wrong.

Ken

As I said, obtuse.
Kenny, the agreement on the rules doesn't determine whether the rules are objective in the first place. Your explanation is self-defeating.
The correct statement is that everybody OUGHT to agree on the rules because they are based on objective reality.
Everyone OUGHT to agree that helping others is BETTER than hurting others.
Everyone OUGHT to agree that killing someone out of malice is wrong.
Everyone OUGHT to agree that stealing is wrong.
Everyone OUGHT to agree that human life has value.

Our subjective opinion OUGHT to conform to objective reality. Yes, there are people who violate those rules, and we can KNOW objectively that adhering to these rules is BETTER than not.

How 'bout these?
Everyone OUGHT to agree that Gay marriage should be legalized
Everyone OUGHT to agree that abortion should be outlawed
Everyone OUGHT to agree that sex outside of marriage is immoral
Everyone OUGHT to agree that marijuana should be legalized.

Do these subjective opinions conform to objective morality?
And how are you defining the defference between objective vs subjective morality?

Ken

RickD wrote:

B. W. wrote:Question of right and wrong are right before our eyes...

http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2014/04/11 ... en-square/

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-ha ... ndy-ranch/

http://freebeacon.com/issues/blm-ranger ... emergency/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ds-were-n/

It maybe the beginning...

No matter where you stand on the Nevada ranch issue at hand, the feds, if this was actually about grazing fee's could sent two officers and arrested Bundy quietly either at home or in town. No, the issue is deeper. This concerns right verse wrong on a objective scale because people may die wrongly for a fed government out of control and drunk with power. This happens in relativistic driven societies...

Off Topic

Well Kenny and Jlay are discussing rules; therefore, just because the governing body makes the rules does not make the rule right... The above links are but one example of subjective morality at work.

Next, Abortion is the rule of the land - does that make murder right just because the government rules that certain murder of the unborn 'a right not to be infringed?'

Point is, objective morality exist and none of us can live to that standard to the tee. Why, because the first part of the golden rule that makes the golden rule work is ignored and left out of the equation. The first part of the Golden Rule is -- is to Love God with all your heart, mind, and strength. Without this, the gold rule is not golden at all. Atheist leave this part out. Others change it to to mean loving subjectivism in the role of God, and still others make a god in there own image to earn approval from.

What does loving God really mean?

Once that is answered, reliance only upon self is slain and the golden rule becomes golden.

Next, as for math. Take one Rock in one hand and another rock in the other hand, how many rocks do you hold in your hand?

Math is very important.

Only in subjectively ruled countries is where math is not important so that its populace is kept ignorant, dumb, stupid, and easily pushed around and exploited - that to be sure is well - a common core

In countries where math is not important - dead people still vote and 35,000 multiple same person votes with same Social Security numbers voted...as in North Carolina.

Objective Morality is important and most importantly defined by God not us.

On an side note, I am thankful the Fed backed down today in Nevada when faced and out numbered by those bearing their second amendment rights as intended for a well educated and moral people to take action against a tyrannical overreach of Govt. I hope it last and a peaceful solution is found, if not things may heat up again. All this shows, is that subjective rules defining moral imperatives are easily manipulated in insidious ways to justify all kinds of travesty and injustice, even to the unborn...




-
-
-

Do you have a comment on the subject at hand?

Kenm