Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

kenny wrote:
Human rights are laws of the land. Laws of the land are objective

How are laws of the land objective? What makes them objective?

Laws state what is legal and what is not legal. If the law says “X” is legal, it doesn’t matter if you or I agree it is still legal. It can be demonstrated/proven as legal by reading details of the specific law in question

I asked what makes them objective. You didn't answer that. Legality does not equal objective.

Of coarse it does.

http://www.differencebetween.net/langua ... ubjective/

Laws are written down. As the above definition alludes, you can verify the facts concerning a law by looking them up. This makes laws objective.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that laws are objective because they're written down?

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: How are laws of the land objective? What makes them objective?

Laws state what is legal and what is not legal. If the law says “X” is legal, it doesn’t matter if you or I agree it is still legal. It can be demonstrated/proven as legal by reading details of the specific law in question

I asked what makes them objective. You didn't answer that. Legality does not equal objective.

Of coarse it does.

http://www.differencebetween.net/langua ... ubjective/

Laws are written down. As the above definition alludes, you can verify the facts concerning a law by looking them up. This makes laws objective.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that laws are objective because they're written down?

Yes.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote: Laws state what is legal and what is not legal. If the law says “X” is legal, it doesn’t matter if you or I agree it is still legal. It can be demonstrated/proven as legal by reading details of the specific law in question

I asked what makes them objective. You didn't answer that. Legality does not equal objective.

Of coarse it does.

http://www.differencebetween.net/langua ... ubjective/

Laws are written down. As the above definition alludes, you can verify the facts concerning a law by looking them up. This makes laws objective.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that laws are objective because they're written down?

Yes.

Then being consistent, you believe the 10 commandments are objective as well, correct?

Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery, etc., are all objective?

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: I asked what makes them objective. You didn't answer that. Legality does not equal objective.

Of coarse it does.

http://www.differencebetween.net/langua ... ubjective/

Laws are written down. As the above definition alludes, you can verify the facts concerning a law by looking them up. This makes laws objective.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that laws are objective because they're written down?

Yes.

Then being consistent, you believe the 10 commandments are objective as well, correct?

Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery, etc., are all objective?

Yes!

Kenny,

What are your thoughts on these two points?

if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.

RickD wrote:Kenny,

What are your thoughts on these two points?

if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.

They both make perfect sense to me.

K

Ken, if a Law is objective it can NEVER be changed or repealed? you understand that, right?
Your position is simply not logical, sorry.
The objective can't be consensus, it either IS or IS NOT.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Kenny,

What are your thoughts on these two points?

if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.

They both make perfect sense to me.

K

So,

We can't know darkness without anything objective (light) to measure darkness by, and we can't know a crooked line without an objective marker(straight line).

But we can know how wrong something is without something objective to measure "wrongness" by?

PaulSacramento wrote:Ken, if a Law is objective it can NEVER be changed or repealed? you understand that, right?
Your position is simply not logical, sorry.
The objective can't be consensus, it either IS or IS NOT.

No. as you can see from the below definitions, News paper articles are considered objective while the editorial is considered subjective.

News paper articles tell what happened; ex: somebody was killed, a bank got robbed, somebody won the lottery; etc.

The law says what is legal. Now just because something is legal today doesn’t mean it will be legal tomorrow. If the law changes tomorrow that is because law makers decided what is legal has changed. But laws are not left up to the interpretation of those who are under the law. (unless there is a system in place, like judges whose job is to interpret the law).

https://www.diffen.com/difference/Objec ... Subjective

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:Kenny,

What are your thoughts on these two points?

if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.

They both make perfect sense to me.

K

So,

We can't know darkness without anything objective (light) to measure darkness by, and we can't know a crooked line without an objective marker(straight line).

But we can know how wrong something is without something objective to measure "wrongness" by?

Light is known by comparing it to darkness.
Straight is known by comparing it to crooked.
But when it comes to morality, because there is no single objective standard of which to judge all right or wrong actions against; everybody uses their opinion, (or the opinion of their standard of choice; which is usually something they believe to be superior to themselves).
Thats why we have laws. Laws are an objective standard, not based on what is believed to be right or wrong, but what is legal or not legal

The law says what is legal. Now just because something is legal today doesn’t mean it will be legal tomorrow. If the law changes tomorrow that is because law makers decided what is legal has changed. But laws are not left up to the interpretation of those who are under the law. (unless there is a system in place, like judges whose job is to interpret the law).

That makes the law subjective Ken.

Thats why we have laws. Laws are an objective standard, not based on what is believed to be right or wrong, but what is legal or not legal

And what defines what is legal or not Ken? and you can't saw the law because that is circular reasoning.,

The law says what is legal. Now just because something is legal today doesn’t mean it will be legal tomorrow. If the law changes tomorrow that is because law makers decided what is legal has changed. But laws are not left up to the interpretation of those who are under the law. (unless there is a system in place, like judges whose job is to interpret the law).

PaulSacramento wrote: That makes the law subjective Ken.

I disagree. If you look at the link I provided, just as a news report is objective, the Law is as well. Just because something is capable of changing doesn't mean it is subjective. What is it about the law that gives you the impression it is subjective?

PaulSacramento wrote:
And what defines what is legal or not Ken? and you can't saw the law because that is circular reasoning.,

What defines what is legal? There is usually a system in place for that; Lawyers, Judges, Jury, etc.

kenny wrote:
Light is known by comparing it to darkness.
Straight is known by comparing it to crooked.

No Kenny, you have that backwards. Darkness is lack of light.

And no, we don't say how straight a line is, by comparing it to a crooked line.

But when it comes to morality, because there is no single objective standard of which to judge all right or wrong actions against; everybody uses their opinion, (or the opinion of their standard of choice; which is usually something they believe to be superior to themselves).
Thats why we have laws. Laws are an objective standard, not based on what is believed to be right or wrong, but what is legal or not legal

Kenny,

You do realize that the word objective in objective morality, has a different meaning than it does in objective law, don't you?

kenny wrote:
Light is known by comparing it to darkness.
Straight is known by comparing it to crooked.

RickD wrote: No Kenny, you have that backwards. Darkness is lack of light.

And no, we don't say how straight a line is, by comparing it to a crooked line.

My point is, with light and something straight, there is an objective standard. With morality there is not.

But when it comes to morality, because there is no single objective standard of which to judge all right or wrong actions against; everybody uses their opinion, (or the opinion of their standard of choice; which is usually something they believe to be superior to themselves).
Thats why we have laws. Laws are an objective standard, not based on what is believed to be right or wrong, but what is legal or not legal

RickD wrote: Kenny,

You do realize that the word objective in objective morality, has a different meaning than it does in objective law, don't you?

So what is this difference?