Evidence for God from Science

As I said before, objective means not based on personal opinions, beliefs, not influenced by extenuating circumstances, or biases.
Subjective means it is based upon and influenced by those things.

That you state this and then say the Law is objective cracks me up to no end.
According to your view, IF the Law is objective then it would :
not based on personal opinions, beliefs, not influenced by extenuating circumstances, or biases.

And yet, as you know, that law IS based on personal opinion ( the people making the law), beliefs ( of the people making the Law) and IS influenced by circumstances ( laws change) and biases ( of the people making the law).
That is why we have different laws all over the world and why laws change on a pretty regular basis, sometime the polar opposite of what it was.

Nils,
By Ken very own definition of what is objective:
objective means not based on personal opinions, beliefs, not influenced by extenuating circumstances, or biases.

Then the Law is NOT objective ( for the obvious reasons).

Nothing that is influenced by man can be objective so nothing we believe or adhere is objective.
Which means that everything is subjective.
Which means that the rape of an infant is only subjectively bad, which means it can be subjectively good as well.
ALL the horrific events that have happened, like persecutions, ethic cleansing, mass genocides, all these things can be viewed as subjectively good since that certainly can't be viewed as objectively bad.

You understand this, right?

Nils wrote:Ken,

Kenny wrote:

Nils wrote: I am a bit astonished about the discussion between Ken on one side and Rick and Paul and others on the other side. It's so apparent that you talk besides each other and it took a long time until finally Ken noted that. The Wikipedia entry on Objectivity (philosophy) states in the beginning that there are several definitions of Objectivity:
"Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject.

This is the definition I was using.

[/quote="Nils"]My understanding of Wikipedia above is " when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of ANY sentient subject". This is the definition used by Paul and others. They think that God, not humans, gives morality. That is also according to my definition of objective morality and how the concept is used in philosophy.

Why is it if God/Gods give morality it is objective, but if a human/humans give morality it is not?

Nils wrote:You say that legal law is objective but is is not according to the philosophical definition. Laws are dependent on human perceptions and hence are not objective in the philosophical way. On the other hand they are in some way objective in the other meaning of the word (= neutral).

Again; why is it that laws dependent on human perception cannot be objective? Could laws dependent on God’s perception be objective? And please provide a philosophical definition of “objective” that exempts human involvement; if this is what you are saying.

PaulSacramento wrote:

As I said before, objective means not based on personal opinions, beliefs, not influenced by extenuating circumstances, or biases.
Subjective means it is based upon and influenced by those things.

That you state this and then say the Law is objective cracks me up to no end.
According to your view, IF the Law is objective then it would :
not based on personal opinions, beliefs, not influenced by extenuating circumstances, or biases.

And yet, as you know, that law IS based on personal opinion ( the people making the law), beliefs ( of the people making the Law) and IS influenced by circumstances ( laws change) and biases ( of the people making the law).
That is why we have different laws all over the world and why laws change on a pretty regular basis, sometime the polar opposite of what it was.

Laws ORIGINATE from personal opinions, beliefs, and influenced by extenuating circumstances (at this point it is actually called a Bill). But once the Bill becomes law, is on record and enforced; all personal opinions, beliefs, and extenuating circumstances of those who must follow that law are not allowed.

PaulSacramento wrote:Nils,
By Ken very own definition of what is objective:
objective means not based on personal opinions, beliefs, not influenced by extenuating circumstances, or biases.

Then the Law is NOT objective ( for the obvious reasons).

Nothing that is influenced by man can be objective so nothing we believe or adhere is objective.
Which means that everything is subjective.
Which means that the rape of an infant is only subjectively bad, which means it can be subjectively good as well.
ALL the horrific events that have happened, like persecutions, ethic cleansing, mass genocides, all these things can be viewed as subjectively good since that certainly can't be viewed as objectively bad.

You understand this, right?

Can you provide a definition of Objective that supports your claim that nothing influenced by an can be objective?

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

As I said before, objective means not based on personal opinions, beliefs, not influenced by extenuating circumstances, or biases.
Subjective means it is based upon and influenced by those things.

That you state this and then say the Law is objective cracks me up to no end.
According to your view, IF the Law is objective then it would :
not based on personal opinions, beliefs, not influenced by extenuating circumstances, or biases.

And yet, as you know, that law IS based on personal opinion ( the people making the law), beliefs ( of the people making the Law) and IS influenced by circumstances ( laws change) and biases ( of the people making the law).
That is why we have different laws all over the world and why laws change on a pretty regular basis, sometime the polar opposite of what it was.

Laws ORIGINATE from personal opinions, beliefs, and influenced by extenuating circumstances (at this point it is actually called a Bill). But once the Bill becomes law, is on record and enforced; all personal opinions, beliefs, and extenuating circumstances of those who must follow that law are not allowed.

Can a Law be changed Ken?
Yes or no?

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Nils,
By Ken very own definition of what is objective:
objective means not based on personal opinions, beliefs, not influenced by extenuating circumstances, or biases.

Then the Law is NOT objective ( for the obvious reasons).

Nothing that is influenced by man can be objective so nothing we believe or adhere is objective.
Which means that everything is subjective.
Which means that the rape of an infant is only subjectively bad, which means it can be subjectively good as well.
ALL the horrific events that have happened, like persecutions, ethic cleansing, mass genocides, all these things can be viewed as subjectively good since that certainly can't be viewed as objectively bad.

You understand this, right?

Can you provide a definition of Objective that supports your claim that nothing influenced by an can be objective?

What ??

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

As I said before, objective means not based on personal opinions, beliefs, not influenced by extenuating circumstances, or biases.
Subjective means it is based upon and influenced by those things.

That you state this and then say the Law is objective cracks me up to no end.
According to your view, IF the Law is objective then it would :
not based on personal opinions, beliefs, not influenced by extenuating circumstances, or biases.

And yet, as you know, that law IS based on personal opinion ( the people making the law), beliefs ( of the people making the Law) and IS influenced by circumstances ( laws change) and biases ( of the people making the law).
That is why we have different laws all over the world and why laws change on a pretty regular basis, sometime the polar opposite of what it was.

Laws ORIGINATE from personal opinions, beliefs, and influenced by extenuating circumstances (at this point it is actually called a Bill). But once the Bill becomes law, is on record and enforced; all personal opinions, beliefs, and extenuating circumstances of those who must follow that law are not allowed.

Can a Law be changed Ken?
Yes or no?

Of course! Umm... you aren't under the impression "objective" means unchangeable are you?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Nils,
By Ken very own definition of what is objective:
objective means not based on personal opinions, beliefs, not influenced by extenuating circumstances, or biases.

Then the Law is NOT objective ( for the obvious reasons).

Nothing that is influenced by man can be objective so nothing we believe or adhere is objective.
Which means that everything is subjective.
Which means that the rape of an infant is only subjectively bad, which means it can be subjectively good as well.
ALL the horrific events that have happened, like persecutions, ethic cleansing, mass genocides, all these things can be viewed as subjectively good since that certainly can't be viewed as objectively bad.

You understand this, right?

Can you provide a definition of Objective that supports your claim that nothing influenced by an can be objective?

What ??

Opps! Let me rephrase; can you provide a definition of objective that supports your claim that nothing influenced by MAN (not an) can be objective?

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

As I said before, objective means not based on personal opinions, beliefs, not influenced by extenuating circumstances, or biases.
Subjective means it is based upon and influenced by those things.

That you state this and then say the Law is objective cracks me up to no end.
According to your view, IF the Law is objective then it would :
not based on personal opinions, beliefs, not influenced by extenuating circumstances, or biases.

And yet, as you know, that law IS based on personal opinion ( the people making the law), beliefs ( of the people making the Law) and IS influenced by circumstances ( laws change) and biases ( of the people making the law).
That is why we have different laws all over the world and why laws change on a pretty regular basis, sometime the polar opposite of what it was.

Laws ORIGINATE from personal opinions, beliefs, and influenced by extenuating circumstances (at this point it is actually called a Bill). But once the Bill becomes law, is on record and enforced; all personal opinions, beliefs, and extenuating circumstances of those who must follow that law are not allowed.

Can a Law be changed Ken?
Yes or no?

Of course! Umm... you aren't under the impression "objective" means unchangeable are you?

Why would a law change Ken?

To reiterate, this is Ken's definition of objective:
objective means not based on personal opinions, beliefs, not influenced by extenuating circumstances, or biases.
That is the definition that he is working with for formulating his views.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:
That you state this and then say the Law is objective cracks me up to no end.
According to your view, IF the Law is objective then it would :
not based on personal opinions, beliefs, not influenced by extenuating circumstances, or biases.

And yet, as you know, that law IS based on personal opinion ( the people making the law), beliefs ( of the people making the Law) and IS influenced by circumstances ( laws change) and biases ( of the people making the law).
That is why we have different laws all over the world and why laws change on a pretty regular basis, sometime the polar opposite of what it was.

Laws ORIGINATE from personal opinions, beliefs, and influenced by extenuating circumstances (at this point it is actually called a Bill). But once the Bill becomes law, is on record and enforced; all personal opinions, beliefs, and extenuating circumstances of those who must follow that law are not allowed.

Can a Law be changed Ken?
Yes or no?

Of course! Umm... you aren't under the impression "objective" means unchangeable are you?

Why would a law change Ken?

There is a system in place that allows for laws to be changed or dispelled. IMO the reason for this system is because as morality changes people want the laws to change also to be in tune with morality.
Now I realize as a Christian you may take issue with this idea that morality changes.

dictionary.com defines morality as “a conformity to the rules of good conduct”

I see “good conduct” as subjective. This is the way I see it:

The year 1800 people believed they had morality figured out! It was okay to enslave non white people because they are an inferior race, and human sacrifice is immoral even though in the past, people thought it was okay; but they were just wrong back then, we know better now, and we can even point to scripture to support our beliefs.

Jump 100 years later, 1900 people believed they had morality figured out! among other things, it was okay to spank your kids, race mixing is wrong because God made different races for a reason and who are we to mix all that up? And slavery was wrong, even though they used to think it was okay; they were just wrong back then, but we know better now, and can even provide scripture to support our beliefs.

Jump 80 years later; 1980 people believed they had morality all figured out! Race mixing is okay, marriage should be only between a man and a woman, and spanking your children is wrong, even though we used to think it was okay; but they were just wrong back then, we know better now and can even provide scripture to support our beliefs.

Jump to today! 2018 people believe we have morality all figured out! Men with “Gender Dysphoria” should be allowed access to public female restroom and shower facilities as long as he identifies as a woman, and it is immoral to discriminate against same sex couples who want to get married, even though we used to think such discrimination was okay; but they were just wrong back then, we know better now and can even provide scripture to support our beliefs

Now I ask you; if morality is objective, what do you think are the chances that we actually have gotten it right this time?

PaulSacramento wrote:To reiterate, this is Ken's definition of objective:
objective means not based on personal opinions, beliefs, not influenced by extenuating circumstances, or biases.
That is the definition that he is working with for formulating his views.

Yes. Now don’t misunderstand me, the way a law is created is subjective, because people with various ideas use a system to get laws created; but once it is implemented, its enforcement is (supposed to be) objective. Think about it; if laws were subjective, how could they be enforced? If the law says it is illegal to steal, but allows for personal biases and extenuating circumstances, it could be legal to steal if I am hungry and in need of food, or feel I deserve what someone else has. If the law says it is illegal to beat my wife, but allowed for extenuating circumstances or personal biases, it could be okay to beat her if she p**ssed me off, if I am drunk, or used a stick no bigger than my thumb to beat her with! (Sharia Law) If the enforcement of laws were subjective, it would be equal to no law at all. No! laws are objective; that means no matter how hungry I am or deserving I may be, if I steal the law will come down on me. It doesn't matter how angry she made me, how drunk I am; or what type of stick I used, if I beat my wife the law will come down on me.

Now I’ve got a feeling there is much of what I said that you disagree with; so go ahead; tell me where I’ve gone wrong.

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:
First of all, if alcohol can be legal without surgeons entering an operation drunk, I suspect pot can be legal without surgeons entering an operation high.
Second; The scenarios I use are not reflective of my opinions, or the opinions of anyone else. I was simply using it to make a point.

But suddenly you are coming around to thinking objectively,where before it was subjective.Suddenly you want other laws/rules to cover for the objectivity of that position and in the process you're potentially putting your health at risk,and willing to do it out of subjectivity just because it was made legal to do so.

Dude! Didn't you read the second point I made? Nothing I said reflects my actual beliefs! C'mon; I'm supposed to be the obtuse one remember?

I think it was a bad point you were trying to make and I just responded as to how I was thinking when I read it.You might can come up with a better point next time whether you're being obtuse or not.Here is something that I notice you do from time to time that you may need to think through because I've been wanting to challenge you about it but it just has'nt been the right time. But I notice that you mostly are just giving your opinion about things when confronted with arguments for God.If it keeps up? I'm going to eventually call you out on your opinion and ask you for evidence it is true and correct.So you might need to think about it and think about evidence because just how you personally feel about things is making a case.

If I make a point based on opinion, I try to make it clear that it is only my opinion. If I make a point and I say it is based on fact, feel free to ask me to provide the facts.

As far as my point being a bad one, the fact that you responded by suggesting I think it should be legal to smoke pot, then commence to tell me why it is a bad idea; this tells me either you didn’t read with an understanding of what I said, or you simply misread what I said. Perhaps you should read it again.

Yeah,I know you seem to always just go with how you personally feel to shape your reality which is not wise at all.You see we need to try to base our opinions on truth and the only way to do this is to go by evidence to the best of our abilities.I mean throughout history man has been wrong many times about what he believed and taught was true,whole societies were effected by it too,and it matters not whether or not they believed in God or not and yet you just going on how you feel is going down the same wrong path man has done many times before.

You've probably heard the phrase "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." You know,we should try to learn from history and not keep on doing the samething over and over expecting to get a different result and yet you by going on just your feelings to base your truth and reality on is dangerous.

The bible tells us to Let God be true and every man a liar and for good reason because man cannot be trusted to know the truth or tell the truth and I think history proves this.So we should not go on how man thinks about things like you do,even if it is your own personal feelings about things.You should not go on just how you personally feel about things and instead should try to look for evidence to the best of your abilities in order to shape your personal opinions and feelings about things.

Oh,and I did not think you were a pot-head that wants it legal to smoke pot I was just trying to make a point.

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote: Laws ORIGINATE from personal opinions, beliefs, and influenced by extenuating circumstances (at this point it is actually called a Bill). But once the Bill becomes law, is on record and enforced; all personal opinions, beliefs, and extenuating circumstances of those who must follow that law are not allowed.

Can a Law be changed Ken?
Yes or no?

Of course! Umm... you aren't under the impression "objective" means unchangeable are you?

Why would a law change Ken?

There is a system in place that allows for laws to be changed or dispelled. IMO the reason for this system is because as morality changes people want the laws to change also to be in tune with morality.
Now I realize as a Christian you may take issue with this idea that morality changes.

dictionary.com defines morality as “a conformity to the rules of good conduct”

I see “good conduct” as subjective. This is the way I see it:

The year 1800 people believed they had morality figured out! It was okay to enslave non white people because they are an inferior race, and human sacrifice is immoral even though in the past, people thought it was okay; but they were just wrong back then, we know better now, and we can even point to scripture to support our beliefs.

Jump 100 years later, 1900 people believed they had morality figured out! among other things, it was okay to spank your kids, race mixing is wrong because God made different races for a reason and who are we to mix all that up? And slavery was wrong, even though they used to think it was okay; they were just wrong back then, but we know better now, and can even provide scripture to support our beliefs.

Jump 80 years later; 1980 people believed they had morality all figured out! Race mixing is okay, marriage should be only between a man and a woman, and spanking your children is wrong, even though we used to think it was okay; but they were just wrong back then, we know better now and can even provide scripture to support our beliefs.

Jump to today! 2018 people believe we have morality all figured out! Men with “Gender Dysphoria” should be allowed access to public female restroom and shower facilities as long as he identifies as a woman, and it is immoral to discriminate against same sex couples who want to get married, even though we used to think such discrimination was okay; but they were just wrong back then, we know better now and can even provide scripture to support our beliefs

Now I ask you; if morality is objective, what do you think are the chances that we actually have gotten it right this time?

Ken, going by your own definition of objective, you just argued that the Laws is NOT objective, you realize that right?