Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

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.

I think you are confusing whether the Law is objective ( it can't be since it is created by subjective means and is dependent on those very means) with the objective enforcing of the law.
And even then, as we know, the enforcing of the law is NOT consistent and doesn't always happen and the reason is becaus personal opinion and bias are applied to it.
Your example of stealing is a good one and here is why:
Objective morality ( morality from which the law comes from) says that stealing is wrong, it may be condoned but it is always wrong.
The Law states that stealing is wrong ( because objective morality tells us this).
Since The Law came AFTER morals ( you need to accept that there is a right and wrong before you decide what is wright and wrong) then the Law is dependent on morals.
At best, the law is an expression of objective morals.
BUT, lets assume that you are correct and the Law is objective, what does that mean?
It means that Morals, the foundation of the Law must therefore be objective.

Ken,

Still, it seems that you (and others) don't take the matter of definition seriously. I referred to the Wikipedia definition eralier: "
"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. A second, broader meaning of the term refers to the ability in any context to judge fairly, without partiality or external influence. This second meaning of objectivity is sometimes used synonymously with neutrality."

The first definition, I call it Objectivity1, says that morality, what is right and wrong, is independent of human thoughts, feelings etc. and is defined by sources outside the human. There are two possibilities, morality is defined by God or it is a Natural Law, inherent in the universe.
The second definition according Wikipedia, I call it Objectivity2, is morel like "neutrality". Sometimes it seems when you talk of objectivity, I call it ObjectivityK, is like Objectivity2, but I am not sure.

However, I like the definition objective1, partly because I have read John Mackies book: Ethics, Inventing Wright and Wrong, where he discusses objectivity1 and dismisses it and I agree with him. I think you also should discuss objectivity1 not only because that's what Chistians (mostly) go for but all the Christians on this site seem to do so. What's the purpose of discussing objectivityK with them when they don't use that definition. When you say that Law is objective you don't intend to say that it is objectiv1 but that it is objectiveK. Now, Paul and others don't seem very interested in your objectiveK and perhaps don't understand what you mean. So you continue to speak past each other.

I am more interested in discussion objectivity1, why I think it is wrong. But most others seem to prefer discuss a misunderstanding based on different definitions of the concept objective.

Nils

I am more interested in discussion objectivity1, why I think it is wrong.

Nils, do you see the conundrum you are in? the self-refuting argument?
If there is no right and wrong, then how could objectivity1 be wrong? indeed, what IS this "wrong" you speak of?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:
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?

When following the law, you are not allowed to apply your own personal biases, beliefs, and extenuating circumstances like you do when judging moral issues; do you agree?

Kenny wrote:

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.

PaulSacramento wrote: I think you are confusing whether the Law is objective ( it can't be since it is created by subjective means and is dependent on those very means) with the objective enforcing of the law.

No confusion, I see them as the same. When following the law, we are not allowed to apply our personal biases, and opinions, like do with morality, we must put all that aside because the enforcement of the law (in theory) does not allow it. The enforcement of the law should be the same as the law.

PaulSacramento wrote: And even then, as we know, the enforcing of the law is NOT consistent and doesn't always happen and the reason is becaus personal opinion and bias are applied to it.
Your example of stealing is a good one and here is why:
Objective morality ( morality from which the law comes from) says that stealing is wrong, it may be condoned but it is always wrong.
The Law states that stealing is wrong ( because objective morality tells us this).

Morality tells us this; whether said morality is objective or subjective is yet to be determined

PaulSacramento wrote: Since The Law came AFTER morals ( you need to accept that there is a right and wrong
before you decide what is wright and wrong)

No; there is no such thing as right or wrong, there is only what we CALL right or wrong. Do you know the difference?

PaulSacramento wrote: then the Law is dependent on morals.
At best, the law is an expression of objective morals.

I agree the law is dependent on and even an expression of morals.

PaulSacramento wrote: BUT, lets assume that you are correct and the Law is objective, what does that mean?
It means that Morals, the foundation of the Law must therefore be objective.

I cannot agree with you on that. Just because its origin is subjective doesn’t mean it is. Just as a chicken can result from an egg, a subjective idea can evolve into an objective law.

Nils wrote:The first definition, I call it Objectivity1, says that morality, what is right and wrong, is independent of human thoughts, feelings etc. and is defined by sources outside the human.

Here you seem to suggest that right and wrong actually exists! I don’t believe it does. I see right and wrong as judgment labels we attach to things we experience. They no more exist than beautiful, funny, silly, or stupid. These are all labels and labels don’t exist outside of human thought; and human thoughts are all subjective, not objective.
Your thoughts?

PaulSacramento wrote:

I am more interested in discussion objectivity1, why I think it is wrong.

Nils, do you see the conundrum you are in? the self-refuting argument?
If there is no right and wrong, then how could objectivity1 be wrong? indeed, what IS this "wrong" you speak of?

No Paul, I don't see any conundrum. When I was talking about right and wrong I was talking about the moral concepts, right = good, wrong = bad. You seem to talk about right and wrong related to knowledge.

Nils

Kenny wrote:

Nils wrote:The first definition, I call it Objectivity1, says that morality, what is right and wrong, is independent of human thoughts, feelings etc. and is defined by sources outside the human.

Here you seem to suggest that right and wrong actually exists! I don’t believe it does. I see right and wrong as judgment labels we attach to things we experience. They no more exist than beautiful, funny, silly, or stupid. These are all labels and labels don’t exist outside of human thought; and human thoughts are all subjective, not objective.
Your thoughts?

Ken,
If moral right and wrong are objective1 values they exist independent of human thoughts. God has defined them or they are in some way inherent in Nature. I don't believe in any God and find it strange that they could be part of Nature. Therefore I don't think there are any objective1 values so right and wrong are subjective1 values. (Mackie call this: The argument from queerness). But I don't think that it is metaphysical impossible that there could be objective1 right and wrong. If there really is a God it may be plausible.

Nils

Nils wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Nils wrote:The first definition, I call it Objectivity1, says that morality, what is right and wrong, is independent of human thoughts, feelings etc. and is defined by sources outside the human.

Here you seem to suggest that right and wrong actually exists! I don’t believe it does. I see right and wrong as judgment labels we attach to things we experience. They no more exist than beautiful, funny, silly, or stupid. These are all labels and labels don’t exist outside of human thought; and human thoughts are all subjective, not objective.
Your thoughts?

Ken,
If moral right and wrong are objective1 values they exist independent of human thoughts. God has defined them or they are in some way inherent in Nature. I don't believe in any God and find it strange that they could be part of Nature. Therefore I don't think there are any objective1 values so right and wrong are subjective1 values. (Mackie call this: The argument from queerness). But I don't think that it is metaphysical impossible that there could be objective1 right and wrong. If there really is a God it may be plausible.

Nils

So do you agree with the points I made? If not, what do you disagree with?

Ken

If right and wrong don't exist, then how do you know that doing something like say, eating sewage, is not wrong, when it shows health problems result?
If right and wrong don't exist, then how do you know that your statement about right and wrong not existing, is right?
Obviously sometimes morality is subjective, but other times it's objective and always applies.

Kenny wrote:

Nils wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Nils wrote:The first definition, I call it Objectivity1, says that morality, what is right and wrong, is independent of human thoughts, feelings etc. and is defined by sources outside the human.

Here you seem to suggest that right and wrong actually exists! I don’t believe it does. I see right and wrong as judgment labels we attach to things we experience. They no more exist than beautiful, funny, silly, or stupid. These are all labels and labels don’t exist outside of human thought; and human thoughts are all subjective, not objective.
Your thoughts?

Ken,
If moral right and wrong are objective1 values they exist independent of human thoughts. God has defined them or they are in some way inherent in Nature. I don't believe in any God and find it strange that they could be part of Nature. Therefore I don't think there are any objective1 values so right and wrong are subjective1 values. (Mackie call this: The argument from queerness). But I don't think that it is metaphysical impossible that there could be objective1 right and wrong. If there really is a God it may be plausible.

Nils

So do you agree with the points I made? If not, what do you disagree with?

Ken

Ken, if you say that human law is objective1 I think you are wrong. If you say it is objectiveK you may be right ("may" because I am not sure about your definition of objectiveK). The problem with your discussion is that you mix different definitions of objectivity.
See http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 73#p232373

To me, there is no objective1, all human values are subjective1, including law. Do you agree with that?

Nils

thatkidakayoungguy wrote: If right and wrong don't exist, then how do you know that doing something like say, eating sewage, is not wrong, when it shows health problems result?

Eating sewage is a sanitation issue, not a moral one.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:If right and wrong don't exist, then how do you know that your statement about right and wrong not existing, is right?

When I said right/wrong; I was speaking in the context of morality; not accuracy.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:Obviously sometimes morality is subjective, but other times it's objective and always applies.

So which morality issues are subjective, and which are objective?

Nils wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Nils wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Nils wrote:The first definition, I call it Objectivity1, says that morality, what is right and wrong, is independent of human thoughts, feelings etc. and is defined by sources outside the human.

Here you seem to suggest that right and wrong actually exists! I don’t believe it does. I see right and wrong as judgment labels we attach to things we experience. They no more exist than beautiful, funny, silly, or stupid. These are all labels and labels don’t exist outside of human thought; and human thoughts are all subjective, not objective.
Your thoughts?

Ken,
If moral right and wrong are objective1 values they exist independent of human thoughts. God has defined them or they are in some way inherent in Nature. I don't believe in any God and find it strange that they could be part of Nature. Therefore I don't think there are any objective1 values so right and wrong are subjective1 values. (Mackie call this: The argument from queerness). But I don't think that it is metaphysical impossible that there could be objective1 right and wrong. If there really is a God it may be plausible.

Nils

So do you agree with the points I made? If not, what do you disagree with?

Ken

Ken, if you say that human law is objective1 I think you are wrong.

When you say human law is subjective, are you saying it’s enforcement is subjective?

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:If right and wrong don't exist, then how do you know that doing something like say, eating sewage, is not wrong, when it shows health problems result?

Of course, the concepts right and wrong exist, you and I use them. Most persons agree that it is not good to do things that damage your health but this is a subjective opinion.
The question is if there is any objective moral truth, truth independent of what we human think. My answer is No, there is only subjective moral perceptions.

If right and wrong don't exist, then how do you know that your statement about right and wrong not existing, is right?

Talking about knowledge I think that there is a reality, things that are objectively true. But don't confuse moral right with the epistemological question, how we know reality - if our knowledge is right or wrong.

Obviously sometimes morality is subjective, but other times it's objective and always applies.

It may be obvious to you because you believe in a Christian God. To an atheist it's far from obvious that there is objective morality. My interest in this question depends on the statement from some Christians that the need of an objective moral is an argument for Gods existence. This I deny. I have argued for that, at length, earlier in this thread.

Nils

Kenny wrote:

Nils wrote: Ken, if you say that human law is objective1 I think you are wrong.

When you say human law is subjective, are you saying it’s enforcement is subjective?

If there is a law, normally it is an undisputed fact that it exist, it exists objectively (epistemological objectivity). It should be enforced objectively, but this is what Wikipedia (objectivity, philosophical) says is used synonymously with neutrality and I call objectivety2. The definition of objectivity the Christians here (and I) use in this tread is objectivity1, objectivity independent of human thinking.

What I try to say is that it is important with definitions.

Nils