Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

Storyteller wrote: Nope, I think it makes it harder. We have to ask ourselves some pretty difficult questions and examine ourselves a lot more closely. Far easier to say we are just instinctual animals. Why do we have a concience, for instance?

Don't cha think the answer "because God gave us a conscience when he created us" is an easier answer than some scientific mumbo-jumbo required without God as an answer?

Ken

For me, yes, but I believe in God.
How do you explain it without God?

Storyteller wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Storyteller wrote: Nope, I think it makes it harder. We have to ask ourselves some pretty difficult questions and examine ourselves a lot more closely. Far easier to say we are just instinctual animals. Why do we have a concience, for instance?

Don't cha think the answer "because God gave us a conscience when he created us" is an easier answer than some scientific mumbo-jumbo required without God as an answer?

Ken

For me, yes, but I believe in God.
How do you explain it without God?

I gotta deal with all that scientific mumbo-jumbo that is required when God is not an option

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Evil:
Full Definition of EVIL

1
a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse>
b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>
2
a archaic : inferior
b : causing discomfort or repulsion : offensive <an evil odor>
c : disagreeable <woke late and in an evil temper>
3
a : causing harm : pernicious <the evil institution of slavery>
b : marked by misfortune : unlucky

or:

adjective
1.
morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked:
evil deeds; an evil life.
2.
harmful; injurious:
evil laws.
3.
characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous:
to be fallen on evil days.
4.
due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character:
an evil reputation.
5.
marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.:
He is known for his evil disposition.
noun
6.
that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct:
to choose the lesser of two evils.
7.
the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
8.
the wicked or immoral part of someone or something:
The evil in his nature has destroyed the good.
9.
harm; mischief; misfortune:
to wish one evil.
10.
anything causing injury or harm:
Tobacco is considered by some to be an evil.
11.
a harmful aspect, effect, or consequence:
the evils of alcohol.
12.
a disease, as king's evil.

I don't think we can view the term "evil" as a subjective since it applies to something objective.
Evil, like dark as Rick pointed out, is used to describe or to define something that is negative.
If evil is subjective then so is good BUT if both good and evil are subjective then NEITHER actually mean anything at all.

See, if evil was subjective then there would be no need for an understanding of Good since, well, good and evil would be interchangeable depending on the POV or situation.
In short, Rape would be good depending on the situation.
Evil then would be saving the life of a child, depending on the situation.
And while one CAN argue those possibilities, the reality is that SHOULD you?
See, evil is doing what one KNOWS to be wrong because it IS wrong and DOING it anyways.

It can't be subjective because be it's very existences it makes the statement that there is a good and that means it is objective.

This does not make sense to me. This reminds me of people who claim if God didn't exist they would commit every atrocity imaginable. Subjective and Objective are just categories. How does identifying an act as subjective rather than objective make it any less important?

Ken

A Hindu believing the eating of a nice juicy hamburger to be evil......the killing of a cow.
Intellectually the argument transends such religious idiocy. I do not mean that offensively. What this describes is an ethical value. Which are subjective. They are externally driven. They can be ethical principles within a workplace, religion, society ect. A clear set of rules that govern conduct that are established outside of ourselves. External. They can change with the ebb and flow of life depending on our personal situations.
Morality or 'good' is internal. It is not governed by external motivations. It can and does transend cultural 'norm'. It is a personal compass that convicts us of what is 'good' and 'evil'. That is why a Christian will say that in the eyes of God 'we are without excuse'. Every able minded adult is accountable under their own conscience. People can get very good at ignoring or not caring what their greater good convicts but that does not mean that 'goodness', 'love' or 'evil' are subjective what is subjective is their personal choice to excercise or ignore.
Evil does not equate to eating beef or pork. Or wearing this or that, or even breaking 'laws' written to govern society. I would steal to save a life, I would break professional ethical parameters to do what my conscience governed. It is a higher covenant, it transends ethics and it exists inside every one of us.
We have all heard the saying 'how do they sleep at night'. That is our understanding that certain ways and conduct are not acceptable. They may or may not be at times considered ethical within our 'norm', but something makes us understand that there is a higher level of conviction than 'law' and rules and religious observance governs. It is our own ability to live with our choices. That is subjective. Not the reality that that inner compass exists in the first place. Arguing that Bob did X and Billy did Y so therefore 'morality' or 'evil' is subjective depending on the person, situation ect is I believe a flawed argument. The only subjectivness is our choice to let our inner compass either convict us or to ignore what we know deep down on some level is simply not okay. People choose to ignore 'light' and 'goodness' over 'darkness' and 'evil' because they can then continue to live in a way that is selfish and self serving. They become so lost within in it that their personal compass becomes so corrupted that they are able to 'sleep at night' they ignore what their conscience convicts.
There is no court of law, society values, religious observance that transends what we know inside to be 'good' or 'right'. When we live in accordance to what are conscience convicts then we grow and learn exponentially. Every single time it will govern us to work for the greater good of others not ourselves. Selfishness and greed does not live there. That is why people ignore it and learn to live against it. It serves them better. A moral compass that is so corrupted by selfishness that it no longer directs them where their conscienc governs but instead their own selfishness.
Evil has nothing to do with breaking social 'norms' or our subjective ethics and everything to do with the treatment of others. When you are nasty and intentionally cold and callous. Abusive, violent and aggressive towards others for personal gain and satisfaction. Unforgiving and unkind. Greedy and controlling. Evil exists where there is absence of love. Where selfishness is more desirable than selflessness.
Our moral behaviour is determined by the choices we make, what we choose to ignore. This is mistaken for an objective morality but the code that governs those choices are not subjective but absolute. We know when we have done wrong, we don't need social ethics to determine that for us. We can let it make excuses and lighten the load of a heavy conscience but it remains either to inspire us to do better or further subjecting our moral compass to corruption. It is universal, it transends cultures and generations. That is why underneath the ethical laws that govern where many differences can be observed there lies an absolute code of 'goodness' where the expression of 'evil' goes against our very fabric of existence. We are made in the image of God. Even though we all struggle with the desire for selfishness, greed ect, something exists within us to overcome these desires. Evil cannot triumph when we listen to where our conscience leads. God has granted everyone a conscience, a moral compass, with our free will we choose to live by it or against it. Evil is going against the 'goodness' that convicts and lives within every person. No body is born evil. We allow ourselves to become evil. To the point where entire societies become corrupted. There are no excuses. They were born into that culture, therefore they knew no better is an excuse. We know better. Every single one of us. It is written in and on our hearts. We can ignore it but one day those choices will be exposed and we will all be held accountable under the only law that will matter.
The law of love. The love of God and the love of others.

melanie wrote:A Hindu believing the eating of a nice juicy hamburger to be evil......the killing of a cow.
Intellectually the argument transends such religious idiocy. I do not mean that offensively. What this describes is an ethical value. Which are subjective. They are externally driven. They can be ethical principles within a workplace, religion, society ect. A clear set of rules that govern conduct that are established outside of ourselves. External. They can change with the ebb and flow of life depending on our personal situations.
Morality or 'good' is internal. It is not governed by external motivations. It can and does transend cultural 'norm'. It is a personal compass that convicts us of what is 'good' and 'evil'. That is why a Christian will say that in the eyes of God 'we are without excuse'. Every able minded adult is accountable under their own conscience. People can get very good at ignoring or not caring what their greater good convicts but that does not mean that 'goodness', 'love' or 'evil' are subjective what is subjective is their personal choice to excercise or ignore.
Evil does not equate to eating beef or pork. Or wearing this or that, or even breaking 'laws' written to govern society. I would steal to save a life, I would break professional ethical parameters to do what my conscience governed. It is a higher covenant, it transends ethics and it exists inside every one of us.
We have all heard the saying 'how do they sleep at night'. That is our understanding that certain ways and conduct are not acceptable. They may or may not be at times considered ethical within our 'norm', but something makes us understand that there is a higher level of conviction than 'law' and rules and religious observance governs. It is our own ability to live with our choices. That is subjective. Not the reality that that inner compass exists in the first place. Arguing that Bob did X and Billy did Y so therefore 'morality' or 'evil' is subjective depending on the person, situation ect is I believe a flawed argument. The only subjectivness is our choice to let our inner compass either convict us or to ignore what we know deep down on some level is simply not okay. People choose to ignore 'light' and 'goodness' over 'darkness' and 'evil' because they can then continue to live in a way that is selfish and self serving. They become so lost within in it that their personal compass becomes so corrupted that they are able to 'sleep at night' they ignore what their conscience convicts.
There is no court of law, society values, religious observance that transends what we know inside to be 'good' or 'right'. When we live in accordance to what are conscience convicts then we grow and learn exponentially. Every single time it will govern us to work for the greater good of others not ourselves. Selfishness and greed does not live there. That is why people ignore it and learn to live against it. It serves them better. A moral compass that is so corrupted by selfishness that it no longer directs them where their conscienc governs but instead their own selfishness.
Evil has nothing to do with breaking social 'norms' or our subjective ethics and everything to do with the treatment of others. When you are nasty and intentionally cold and callous. Abusive, violent and aggressive towards others for personal gain and satisfaction. Unforgiving and unkind. Greedy and controlling. Evil exists where there is absence of love. Where selfishness is more desirable than selflessness.
Our moral behaviour is determined by the choices we make, what we choose to ignore. This is mistaken for an objective morality but the code that governs those choices are not subjective but absolute. We know when we have done wrong, we don't need social ethics to determine that for us. We can let it make excuses and lighten the load of a heavy conscience but it remains either to inspire us to do better or further subjecting our moral compass to corruption. It is universal, it transends cultures and generations. That is why underneath the ethical laws that govern where many differences can be observed there lies an absolute code of 'goodness' where the expression of 'evil' goes against our very fabric of existence. We are made in the image of God. Even though we all struggle with the desire for selfishness, greed ect, something exists within us to overcome these desires. Evil cannot triumph when we listen to where our conscience leads. God has granted everyone a conscience, a moral compass, with our free will we choose to live by it or against it. Evil is going against the 'goodness' that convicts and lives within every person. No body is born evil. We allow ourselves to become evil. To the point where entire societies become corrupted. There are no excuses. They were born into that culture, therefore they knew no better is an excuse. We know better. Every single one of us. It is written in and on our hearts. We can ignore it but one day those choices will be exposed and we will all be held accountable under the only law that will matter.
The law of love. The love of God and the love of others.

Are you saying no matter the point in history, no matter the society, if everybody looked inside and paid attention to what their conscience told them; everyone would agree on all moral issues? When it comes to issues like same sex, or interracial relationships, decisions during war, death with dignity, treatment of animals, and other issue people have argued over; the only reason people disagree is because they ignore what their conscience tells them? Is this what you are saying?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Storyteller wrote: Nope, I think it makes it harder. We have to ask ourselves some pretty difficult questions and examine ourselves a lot more closely. Far easier to say we are just instinctual animals. Why do we have a concience, for instance?

Don't cha think the answer "because God gave us a conscience when he created us" is an easier answer than some scientific mumbo-jumbo required without God as an answer?

Ken

For me, yes, but I believe in God.
How do you explain it without God?

I gotta deal with all that scientific mumbo-jumbo that is required when God is not an option

Ken

Why isn't God an option?

Storyteller wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Storyteller wrote: Nope, I think it makes it harder. We have to ask ourselves some pretty difficult questions and examine ourselves a lot more closely. Far easier to say we are just instinctual animals. Why do we have a concience, for instance?

Don't cha think the answer "because God gave us a conscience when he created us" is an easier answer than some scientific mumbo-jumbo required without God as an answer?

Ken

For me, yes, but I believe in God.
How do you explain it without God?

I gotta deal with all that scientific mumbo-jumbo that is required when God is not an option

Ken

Why isn't God an option?

Of all the versions of God I've heard; none of them sound credible.

K

Ken wrote:
Excellent point! I see light as a "noun" with darkness being the absence of this noun; but I only see evil as an adjective.

RickD wrote:With statements like that, it's really no wonder why others here have difficulty talking to you Kenny.

Ken wrote:
Storyteller seems to have no problem talking to me! Do you have a problem talking to people who do not share your point of view?

Kenny,
Evil in this context, is a noun. The fact that you are denying that (for whatever reason), makes it difficult to talk to you. You are denying reality. It's difficult, if not impossible, to speak with someone whose responses aren't based on reality.

Ken wrote:
I like dictionary.com’s definition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evil?s=t

When used as a noun it basically uses it in reference to something else like “lesser of two evils” or evil intentions.
But it also defines evil as “a force in nature that gives rise to wickedness and sin”. This definition I disagree with. I realize dictionary.com defines words the way they are used; and many religious people use it that way.
The reason I disagree with this definition is because (according to my understanding) all the forces of nature we are familiar with are detectable by science. Science is unable to detect evil. (if they could life would be much easier; imagine if we had an evil detector sorta like a carbon monoxide detector and when an evil person like Hitler enters the room, the evil detector sounds off and everybody knows not to pay any attention to him; could have saved a lot of lives)
The fact that evil is undetectable tells me that evil does not have an actual existence like gravity, Centrifugal force, or other forces of nature.

Ken, you claim that you like dictionary.com's definition of evil. Yet you ignore the definition given(the very definition which is the proper definition for the context of this discussion!), and instead focus on a other definitions which aren't the definitions in the context of this discussion.

Here are the definitions from dictionary.com, for evil as a noun:

6.
that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct:
to choose the lesser of two evils.
7.
the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
8.
the wicked or immoral part of someone or something:
The evil in his nature has destroyed the good.
9.
harm; mischief; misfortune:
to wish one evil.
10.
anything causing injury or harm:
Tobacco is considered by some to be an evil.
11.
a harmful aspect, effect, or consequence:
the evils of alcohol.
12.
a disease, as king's evil.

#8, is the definition of evil in the context of this discussion.

Please focus on that definition if you want to participate in this discussion. You can't just change the definition of a word being discussed just because you don't agree with it.

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Evil:
Full Definition of EVIL

1
a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse>
b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>
2
a archaic : inferior
b : causing discomfort or repulsion : offensive <an evil odor>
c : disagreeable <woke late and in an evil temper>
3
a : causing harm : pernicious <the evil institution of slavery>
b : marked by misfortune : unlucky

or:

adjective
1.
morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked:
evil deeds; an evil life.
2.
harmful; injurious:
evil laws.
3.
characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous:
to be fallen on evil days.
4.
due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character:
an evil reputation.
5.
marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.:
He is known for his evil disposition.
noun
6.
that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct:
to choose the lesser of two evils.
7.
the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
8.
the wicked or immoral part of someone or something:
The evil in his nature has destroyed the good.
9.
harm; mischief; misfortune:
to wish one evil.
10.
anything causing injury or harm:
Tobacco is considered by some to be an evil.
11.
a harmful aspect, effect, or consequence:
the evils of alcohol.
12.
a disease, as king's evil.

I don't think we can view the term "evil" as a subjective since it applies to something objective.
Evil, like dark as Rick pointed out, is used to describe or to define something that is negative.
If evil is subjective then so is good BUT if both good and evil are subjective then NEITHER actually mean anything at all.

See, if evil was subjective then there would be no need for an understanding of Good since, well, good and evil would be interchangeable depending on the POV or situation.
In short, Rape would be good depending on the situation.
Evil then would be saving the life of a child, depending on the situation.
And while one CAN argue those possibilities, the reality is that SHOULD you?
See, evil is doing what one KNOWS to be wrong because it IS wrong and DOING it anyways.

It can't be subjective because be it's very existences it makes the statement that there is a good and that means it is objective.

This does not make sense to me. This reminds me of people who claim if God didn't exist they would commit every atrocity imaginable. Subjective and Objective are just categories. How does identifying an act as subjective rather than objective make it any less important?

Ken

You're right Kenny, it doesn't make sense to YOU because you are looking at a PHILOSOPHICAL question in a "observable" (ie: scientific) way.
It does not work that way and never has.

RickD wrote:
Ken, you claim that you like dictionary.com's definition of evil. Yet you ignore the definition given(the very definition which is the proper definition for the context of this discussion!), and instead focus on a other definitions which aren't the definitions in the context of this discussion.

Here are the definitions from dictionary.com, for evil as a noun:

6.
that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct:
to choose the lesser of two evils.
7.
the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
8.
the wicked or immoral part of someone or something:
The evil in his nature has destroyed the good.
9.
harm; mischief; misfortune:
to wish one evil.
10.
anything causing injury or harm:
Tobacco is considered by some to be an evil.
11.
a harmful aspect, effect, or consequence:
the evils of alcohol.
12.
a disease, as king's evil.

#8, is the definition of evil in the context of this discussion.

Please focus on that definition if you want to participate in this discussion. You can't just change the definition of a word being discussed just because you don't agree with it.

Weather evil is an adjective or a noun is beside the point; my point was I don't believe evil has an actual existence by itself; it's only used in context of something else. The example in #8 refers to the evil in a person's nature. Again; this is an example of evil only in the context of someone's nature; something else.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Evil:
Full Definition of EVIL

1
a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse>
b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>
2
a archaic : inferior
b : causing discomfort or repulsion : offensive <an evil odor>
c : disagreeable <woke late and in an evil temper>
3
a : causing harm : pernicious <the evil institution of slavery>
b : marked by misfortune : unlucky

or:

adjective
1.
morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked:
evil deeds; an evil life.
2.
harmful; injurious:
evil laws.
3.
characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous:
to be fallen on evil days.
4.
due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character:
an evil reputation.
5.
marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.:
He is known for his evil disposition.
noun
6.
that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct:
to choose the lesser of two evils.
7.
the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
8.
the wicked or immoral part of someone or something:
The evil in his nature has destroyed the good.
9.
harm; mischief; misfortune:
to wish one evil.
10.
anything causing injury or harm:
Tobacco is considered by some to be an evil.
11.
a harmful aspect, effect, or consequence:
the evils of alcohol.
12.
a disease, as king's evil.

I don't think we can view the term "evil" as a subjective since it applies to something objective.
Evil, like dark as Rick pointed out, is used to describe or to define something that is negative.
If evil is subjective then so is good BUT if both good and evil are subjective then NEITHER actually mean anything at all.

See, if evil was subjective then there would be no need for an understanding of Good since, well, good and evil would be interchangeable depending on the POV or situation.
In short, Rape would be good depending on the situation.
Evil then would be saving the life of a child, depending on the situation.
And while one CAN argue those possibilities, the reality is that SHOULD you?
See, evil is doing what one KNOWS to be wrong because it IS wrong and DOING it anyways.

It can't be subjective because be it's very existences it makes the statement that there is a good and that means it is objective.

This does not make sense to me. This reminds me of people who claim if God didn't exist they would commit every atrocity imaginable. Subjective and Objective are just categories. How does identifying an act as subjective rather than objective make it any less important?

Ken

You're right Kenny, it doesn't make sense to YOU because you are looking at a PHILOSOPHICAL question in a "observable" (ie: scientific) way.
It does not work that way and never has.

No. What does not make sense to me is the claim that only if good and evil are subjective, that makes them interchangeable according to the situation or POV

Ken

Ken wrote:
Weather evil is an adjective or a noun is beside the point; my point was I don't believe evil has an actual existence by itself; it's only used in context of something else. The example in #8 refers to the evil in a person's nature. Again; this is an example of evil only in the context of someone's nature; something else.

Ok Ken, you keep telling yourself that.

No. What does not make sense to me is the claim that only if good and evil are subjective, that makes them interchangeable according to the situation or POV

Ken

Ken, good and evil, if subjective, will always be in the "it depends" category.
If they are not objective ( and all it takes is for ONE of them to be so) then there IS a Good and as such then there are things that are wrong REGARDLESS of anything else.

Rape, if good is subjective, can be good is something good comes out of it ( subjective to end result) or if it is in the best interest of an individual ( subjective to personal happiness).
If its wrong REGARDLESS of any possible positive outcome or reason then it will ALWAYS be wrong and if it is ALWAYS wrong then doing what is wrong knowing it is wrong is evil and as such, evil is objective.

PaulSacramento wrote:

No. What does not make sense to me is the claim that only if good and evil are subjective, that makes them interchangeable according to the situation or POV

Ken

Ken, good and evil, if subjective, will always be in the "it depends" category.
If they are not objective ( and all it takes is for ONE of them to be so) then there IS a Good and as such then there are things that are wrong REGARDLESS of anything else.

Rape, if good is subjective, can be good is something good comes out of it ( subjective to end result) or if it is in the best interest of an individual ( subjective to personal happiness).
If its wrong REGARDLESS of any possible positive outcome or reason then it will ALWAYS be wrong and if it is ALWAYS wrong then doing what is wrong knowing it is wrong is evil and as such, evil is objective.

I disagree! If good is subjective, that doesn't mean rape can be good if something positive results from it, it means somebody will perceive rape as good if something positive results from it. But that person is going to have this opinion of rape weather it is labeled subjective or objective. The morality of the act is not determined by the label objective or subjective.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

No. What does not make sense to me is the claim that only if good and evil are subjective, that makes them interchangeable according to the situation or POV

Ken

Ken, good and evil, if subjective, will always be in the "it depends" category.
If they are not objective ( and all it takes is for ONE of them to be so) then there IS a Good and as such then there are things that are wrong REGARDLESS of anything else.

Rape, if good is subjective, can be good is something good comes out of it ( subjective to end result) or if it is in the best interest of an individual ( subjective to personal happiness).
If its wrong REGARDLESS of any possible positive outcome or reason then it will ALWAYS be wrong and if it is ALWAYS wrong then doing what is wrong knowing it is wrong is evil and as such, evil is objective.

I disagree! If good is subjective, that doesn't mean rape can be good if something positive results from it, it means somebody will perceive rape as good if something positive results from it. But that person is going to have this opinion of rape weather it is labeled subjective or objective. The morality of the act is not determined by the label objective or subjective.

Ken

Ken, if, as you say : The morality of the act is not determined by the label objective or subjective, then WHAT is it that determines an act to be good or evil ?