Evidence for God from Science

Butterfly wrote:The reason the GR has value is because it is meaningful to humans as a collective whole. In other words when something is viewed as meaningful from every human angle, not being dependent on an individual interpretation, but true no matter who views it (even if they don't practice it)...it then becomes objective to humans.

The reason the GR has value is because it is meaningful to humans as a collective whole. In other words when something is viewed as meaningful from every human angle, not being dependent on an individual interpretation, but true no matter who views it (even if they don't practice it)...it then becomes objective to humans.

Butterfly, Spcok,

No. It becomes universal, not objective. You are confusing the two. By default, if a human perceives GR to be objective, that is his subjective view. It may be "objective" as in, as subjective as it it gets, but not objective.

Because you contradict when you posit the GR is not dependent on individual interpretation...and this is what? Your interpretation. How can it be objective then?

It is circular.
If anyone contradicts you, you would simply say, he is not rational. This is simply a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Here are the logical problems I am facing if I do endorse what you are saying or what Spock said to be precise.

The underlying symmetry is what makes the GR objective, this is in essence the core of Spock's argument. Ok, now "An eye for an eye" is also the same principle but it is the exact anti-thesis of GR. There is an underlying symmetry here too. The interchange of actions in an eye for an eye become objective because of the underlying symmetry.

I would say, infact using spock's terminaology here

"that all consequential actions that we accept as valid (statements in concord with our fundamental intuitions) will be symmetric.
I assert that a necessary condition for any statement to be consequential is that it be symmetric under an interchange of persons A and B.

Also, an eye for an eye, does not change, the same way you say that the GR, does not change, which means that regardless of interpretation, the rule can be applied to everyone. It is meaning full no matter who accepts or rejects it.

I would also contend that "an eye for an eye" is objective because it is a meaningful form of action. If a person murders, he is either put to death by the law or be life time imprisoned, being equal to the years of his life. If he steals, in Saudia, they actually cut their hands he is imprisoned for his actions. "An eye for an eye" carries a form of justice or revenge but I think it is more subtle than that. It carries the idea that every action can have equal consequences. The symmetry exists in an interchange of two persons. The symmetry is valid because it can be equally carried out both ways.

I would say then that we have two principles which hold the claim of objectivity, yet are the exact opposite nature of each. Would it not then be the case that the law of non-contradiction be breached? Because we have two opposite claims and both of them can not be right at the same time. One is wrong or both are wrong but both can not be true.

My point right here is not only that the GR can not be objective but also that it can not be objective when the underlying principle also makes its anti-thesis objective as well.

The reason I can use the same mechanics is because the GR is not truly objective in the sense you are calling it objective. It is only subjectively (to rational humans as valid meaningful course of action) objective, not more.

See, if you disagree, I have by equal right, as you, the option to say that those who contradict are simply irrational. As they could not see the symmetry which can be applied equally under this rule, to anyone and furthermore, they can not agree that any given action has its equal consequences.

Can you see the dilemma?

The sun gives heat because of nuclear fusion, but the reason we feel heat is because we are living beings that have sensory nerves. The reason the GR has value is because it is meaningful to humans, not because of a moral law giver.

Butter.
That is like bragging on your tan, while denying the sun exists. Let me preface this by saying that analogies always fail at some point. The sun and OM are not analogous in all areas. But, for the sake of discusssion. Feeling the heat doesn't make the sun exist. This is kind of what I've been talking about all along. Yes we are capable of feeling heat, but the sun isn't any less hot if there are no humans here to feel it. You are is essense saying that the capacity to feel heat is responsible for heat existing, objectively. Sure, all rational people would agree, "the sun is hot," but that isn't WHY it's hot. I guess Craig would say, 'see it's obvious." And in this case all one has to show is that epistemology and ontology are different. They don't have to have a complete theory on nuclear fission to do so.

IT seems to me that the GS is 100% subjective to the indivudal.
In which ever form you choose to state it:
Positive: Do unto others as YOU would have THEM do unto YOU
Negative: Do nothing to ANOTHER that YOU would NOT have them do to YOU

Seems that the GR is 100% about how an individual feels things will work out in his/her BEST INTEREST.
That is totally subjective.

Objective morals would be what is "right" REGARDLESS of the best interest of ALL involved.

It may be in my best interest to steal food so I can eat and in doing so from somewhere / someone that is so rich that can't even tell and I can even "reason" the act as moral because, IF I was rich, I wouldn't mind someone stealing from what I have, because I have more than I could ever need.
That view is correct under BOTH views of the GR ( positive and negative).
Yet stealing is morally wrong.

And I think that brings us to the core issue with the GR, it is based on an individuals ability to reason something to be "good".

Objective morals would be what is "right" REGARDLESS of the best interest of ALL involved.

Let's say I agree with your statement.

Can you prove that it exists anywhere on this planet? I don't see people behaving that way.

***I've seen some of you here argue that killing someone in self defense is somehow accepted. I don't think so. It doesn't matter which situation you find yourself in: if you kill someone then you use moral values subjectively. As a Christian you shouldn't kill someone in self defense, but think that God will reward you on the other side.


1) Christians assume that there is OM.
Where? I don't see it.
You just say that God gave some rules and he is the source of OM.
You can't even prove that the source exists in the first place.

You assume that God exists and then you assume again that he is the source of OM.

You have 2 assumptions which you can't literally prove.


2) The GR assumes that people are subjective and act in relation to one another.

Can I prove that? Well, I can because that is how people behave.


***Every person is unique and has an individual personality. Given these 2 facts, you can't argue that a PERSON can be MORALLY OBJECTIVE. They can be closer or further to what the general moral values are.
***A In normal social conditions every person will be closer and 'more' objective to moral values.
***B In special extreme conditions, you will notice that the survival instinct takes over and people can do pretty immoral things just to survive.

Given facts A+B, you can't say that a PERSON is morally objective because SAME moral values are used differently given different scenarios.

BryanH wrote:

Objective morals would be what is "right" REGARDLESS of the best interest of ALL involved.

Let's say I agree with your statement.

Can you prove that it exists anywhere on this planet? I don't see people behaving that way.

***I've seen some of you here argue that killing someone in self defense is somehow accepted. I don't think so. It doesn't matter which situation you find yourself in: if you kill someone then you use moral values subjectively. As a Christian you shouldn't kill someone in self defense, but think that God will reward you on the other side.


1) Christians assume that there is OM.
Where? I don't see it.
You just say that God gave some rules and he is the source of OM.
You can't even prove that the source exists in the first place.

You assume that God exists and then you assume again that he is the source of OM.

You have 2 assumptions which you can't literally prove.


2) The GR assumes that people are subjective and act in relation to one another.

Can I prove that? Well, I can because that is how people behave.


***Every person is unique and has an individual personality. Given these 2 facts, you can't argue that a PERSON can be MORALLY OBJECTIVE. They can be closer or further to what the general moral values are.
***A In normal social conditions every person will be closer and 'more' objective to moral values.
***B In special extreme conditions, you will notice that the survival instinct takes over and people can do pretty immoral things just to survive.

Given facts A+B, you can't say that a PERSON is morally objective because SAME moral values are used differently given different scenarios.

For a moral to be objective ( or absolute) it would have to exist/be REGARDLESS of how people behave.
If morals were based on behaviour they would be subjective.

Are there such a things as an objective moral? a sense of right and wrong BEYOND what is 'best" for an indivudual?
The fact that we all believe so (typically) means Yes.
We believe that there is a right moral that exists regardless of how it makes a person feel, regardless of whether it is of any benefit to him/her.
We don't think that something is right or moral BECAUSE it is good for someone, we think it is good for someone because it IS moral.
The issue is, WHY do we think that?
Perhaps the issue is also why SHOULD we think that? is there any reason to think morals are anything BUT subjective?

I've seen some of you here argue that killing someone in self defense is somehow accepted. I don't think so. It doesn't matter which situation you find yourself in: if you kill someone then you use moral values subjectively. As a Christian you shouldn't kill someone in self defense, but think that God will reward you on the other side.

And what is this, but your subjective opinion?
Fine, let's say you are RIGHT. But RIGHT according to what? You've provided nothing but your opinion versus another. Arbitrary, meaningless.
Let's put it this way. Do you think it is morally right to defend the defenseless? Let's say that someone has burst into a daycare, and is killing children one at a time, on the hour. You happen to live next door. No law enforcement is around. You have your hunting rifle, and a clear shot at the assailant. He is counting down the last minute till his next execution. You are saying that a Christian should do nothing?

1) Christians assume that there is OM.
Where? I don't see it.
You just say that God gave some rules and he is the source of OM.
You can't even prove that the source exists in the first place.

Assume? No. You are assuming it. You are claiming that we are WRONG to say killing someone in self-defense is morally justified. The problem is you are assuming it while denying it, which is called smuggling in OM.

2) The GR assumes that people are subjective and act in relation to one another.

Rules make assumptions? So, there is rule that is making assumptions about people? But no rule maker?

Can I prove that? Well, I can because that is how people behave.

People behave in opposition to the GR all the time.

And what is this, but your subjective opinion?
Fine, let's say you are RIGHT. But RIGHT according to what? You've provided nothing but your opinion versus another. Arbitrary, meaningless.
Let's put it this way. Do you think it is morally right to defend the defenseless? Let's say that someone has burst into a daycare, and is killing children one at a time, on the hour. You happen to live next door. No law enforcement is around. You have your hunting rifle, and a clear shot at the assailant. He is counting down the last minute till his next execution. You are saying that a Christian should do nothing?

As a Christian you should do NOTHING. If you do something than you are being subjective, but only the fact that you want to do something is a clear evidence of how your moral values are subjective.
Mate no offense, but that is the point I am trying to make: if you want to be objective, you can't actually intervene when someone is breaking the rules because the moment you do that, bye bye objectivity.
When you pull the trigger it doesn't matter if you have a valid reason or not: YOU WILL BECOME A KILLER. The fact that the guy is slaughtering kids one by one will not change the fact that you killed someone.


*** The funny part is that breaking the commandments would mean that you are punished by death in the old times. So if you killed someone, you would be killed as a punishment, but for you to be killed, someone would have to kill you. It's so funny from my point of view... It goes round and round... kind of circular wouldn't you say?

Assume? No. You are assuming it. You are claiming that we are WRONG to say killing someone in self-defense is morally justified. The problem is you are assuming it while denying it, which is called smuggling in OM.

As long as I am subjective I can't smuggle any OM. You seem to have a hard time understanding that. You do understand that from my point of view, anything you say in relation to moral values is subjective, therefore I am not smuggling any OM. I am just making a comparison between 2 opinions pointing out that one can be proved easier than the other.

People behave in opposition to the GR all the time.

Of course they do... I already said that. Given certain conditions, people can behave in an immoral way according to present standards.

The issue is, WHY do we think that?

I already responded to this, but everyone seems to ignore it.

YOU DO NOT THINK LIKE THAT. You are educated to believe what is good and what is wrong. Period. If your parents would have left you in a forest and you would have survived, you would have no moral values. Don't believe me? I already provided an example with a kid that was abandoned in the forest and found years later. He didn't have any moral values. He should have had if you what you are saying is right...

If morals were based on behaviour they would be subjective.

What are our morals based on then? Your behavior is what tells me if you are a moral person or not.
So morals are based on your behavior.

BryanH wrote:As a Christian you should do NOTHING. If you do something than you are being subjective, but only the fact that you want to do something is a clear evidence of how your moral values are subjective.

I think it is amusing that a non-Christian is telling a Christian how to behave!

Anyway, I don't want to enter this discussion but I am observing. Here is my complaint:

Both jlay and BryanH don't identify where their quotes are coming from. Could you guys change that? It would make following your conversation easier.

FL

PS...in case you don't know how, here is what you do: drag the cursor over the quote you wish and it becomes highlighted; then click the QUOTE box in the upper right hand corner of the person's post:

BryanH wrote:I already responded to this, but everyone seems to ignore it.

see? it is easy!

And what is this, but your subjective opinion?
Fine, let's say you are RIGHT. But RIGHT according to what? You've provided nothing but your opinion versus another. Arbitrary, meaningless.
Let's put it this way. Do you think it is morally right to defend the defenseless? Let's say that someone has burst into a daycare, and is killing children one at a time, on the hour. You happen to live next door. No law enforcement is around. You have your hunting rifle, and a clear shot at the assailant. He is counting down the last minute till his next execution. You are saying that a Christian should do nothing?



As a Christian you should do NOTHING. If you do something than you are being subjective, but only the fact that you want to do something is a clear evidence of how your moral values are subjective.
Mate no offense, but that is the point I am trying to make: if you want to be objective, you can't actually intervene when someone is breaking the rules because the moment you do that, bye bye objectivity.
When you pull the trigger it doesn't matter if you have a valid reason or not: YOU WILL BECOME A KILLER. The fact that the guy is slaughtering kids one by one will not change the fact that you killed someone.


*** The funny part is that breaking the commandments would mean that you are punished by death in the old times. So if you killed someone, you would be killed as a punishment, but for you to be killed, someone would have to kill you. It's so funny from my point of view... It goes round and round... kind of circular wouldn't you say?

Bryan, the example that jlay gave is not murder. Do you know the difference between murder and killing? Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

BryanH wrote:

The issue is, WHY do we think that?

I already responded to this, but everyone seems to ignore it.

YOU DO NOT THINK LIKE THAT. You are educated to believe what is good and what is wrong. Period. If your parents would have left you in a forest and you would have survived, you would have no moral values. Don't believe me? I already provided an example with a kid that was abandoned in the forest and found years later. He didn't have any moral values. He should have had if you what you are saying is right...

If morals were based on behaviour they would be subjective.

What are our morals based on then? Your behavior is what tells me if you are a moral person or not.
So morals are based on your behavior.

So, according to your view, ALL morals are subjective, there is no objective morality, correct?

Paul Sacramento wrote:So, according to your view, ALL morals are subjective, there is no objective morality, correct?

Well, yeah. Some of the moral values might seem objective because a majority of people respect that, but you have to understand that moral values have changed with time. So they are subjective. People are subjective and if they agree on certain rules, the rules are objective to the point that everyone is forced to respect them, but the source/origin is subjective.

I can't say that morality is objective because first of all I would have to demonstrate that I am objective in relation to moral values or that moral values are objective in relation to me. I can't do that.
Can you do that?

RickD wrote:Bryan, the example that jlay gave is not murder. Do you know the difference between murder and killing? Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

The paragraph from wiki starts with 'Murder is the unlawful killing'.
And I didn't say that jlay will become a murderer. He will become a killer. I was very clear on my choice of words.

RickD wrote:Bryan, the example that jlay gave is not murder. Do you know the difference between murder and killing? Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder


Bryan wrote:
The paragraph from wiki starts with 'Murder is the unlawful killing'.
And I didn't say that jlay will become a murderer. He will become a killer. I was very clear on my choice of words.

Bryan, jlay said:

And what is this, but your subjective opinion?
Fine, let's say you are RIGHT. But RIGHT according to what? You've provided nothing but your opinion versus another. Arbitrary, meaningless.
Let's put it this way. Do you think it is morally right to defend the defenseless? Let's say that someone has burst into a daycare, and is killing children one at a time, on the hour. You happen to live next door. No law enforcement is around. You have your hunting rifle, and a clear shot at the assailant. He is counting down the last minute till his next execution. You are saying that a Christian should do nothing?

And Bryan, your answer to him was:

As a Christian you should do NOTHING.

When you pull the trigger it doesn't matter if you have a valid reason or not: YOU WILL BECOME A KILLER. The fact that the guy is slaughtering kids one by one will not change the fact that you killed someone.


*** The funny part is that breaking the commandments would mean that you are punished by death in the old times. So if you killed someone, you would be killed as a punishment, but for you to be killed, someone would have to kill you. It's so funny from my point of view... It goes round and round... kind of circular wouldn't you say?

Here's your error, Bryan. MURDER was punishable by death. Justified killing was not. Do you see the difference?

RickD wrote:Here's your error, Bryan. MURDER was punishable by death. Justified killing was not. Do you see the difference?

Mate you just proved my point...

You have unjustified killing and justified killing... That's kind of subjective, don't you think?