Evidence for God from Science

See, the "la la la" I can live with
Good enough for J-lo, good enough for me

Out of curiosity, have you read Kant and Schopenhauer?

PaulSacramento wrote:See, the "la la la" I can live with
Good enough for J-lo, good enough for me

PaulSacramento wrote:Out of curiosity, have you read Kant and Schopenhauer?

Familiar with their work but not in detail. For my own curiosity, I've read some of your posts in other threads and you strike me as the God-believing type so I am curious why you would want to undermine one of the most powerful arguments FOR the existence of God, i.e. objective morality.

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:See, the "la la la" I can live with
Good enough for J-lo, good enough for me

PaulSacramento wrote:Out of curiosity, have you read Kant and Schopenhauer?

Familiar with their work but not in detail. For my own curiosity, I've read some of your posts in other threads and you strike me as the God-believing type so I am curious why you would want to undermine one of the most powerful arguments FOR the existence of God, i.e. objective morality.

I am very much a devote Christian.
And I believe in an object morality, not just one that can be applied by Man.
Why?
Because that very argument was destroyed by an atheist over at another forum by the very one I just applied and yet, the argument I just used was Kant's and has been used by the likes of Dinesh D'Souza as evidence FOR objective morality AND the existence of life after death.
How?
If we agree that the objective is subjective to our perception of reality, then when we distinquish between what IS and what OUGHT to be, we are going beyond our perception and beyond our reality so that perception is no longer the defining force of objectivity.
Hence objectivisim is no longer subjective to Us and OUR reality, but whole objective.

There is really no reason for us to believe that something ought to be in a way that our reality shows that it is not and yet, we believe just that.

PaulSacramento wrote: I am very much a devote Christian.
And I believe in an object morality, not just one that can be applied by Man.
Why?
Because that very argument was destroyed by an atheist over at another forum by the very one I just applied and yet, the argument I just used was Kant's and has been used by the likes of Dinesh D'Souza as evidence FOR objective morality AND the existence of life after death.
How?
If we agree that the objective is subjective to our perception of reality, then when we distinquish between what IS and what OUGHT to be, we are going beyond our perception and beyond our reality so that perception is no longer the defining force of objectivity.
Hence objectivisim is no longer subjective to Us and OUR reality, but whole objective.

There is really no reason for us to believe that something ought to be in a way that our reality shows that it is not and yet, we believe just that.

Much clearer now, thanks. So we're not that far off with our respective beliefs then; for a while there I was under the impression you were arguing from a completely different camp. So let's continue the discussion then from that perspective because now you've peeked my interest as to what you mean. I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say 'the objective is subjective due to our perception of reality'. The point I was trying to make all along is that there are certain truths that are intrinsically objective (in and of themselves) so they are objective independently of our perceptions. How is that different from what you are saying that things are wholly objective and not reliant on our perception of reality? I am arguing from basic ontology (what a thing is) versus epistemology (how we come to know what a thing is).

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: I am very much a devote Christian.
And I believe in an object morality, not just one that can be applied by Man.
Why?
Because that very argument was destroyed by an atheist over at another forum by the very one I just applied and yet, the argument I just used was Kant's and has been used by the likes of Dinesh D'Souza as evidence FOR objective morality AND the existence of life after death.
How?
If we agree that the objective is subjective to our perception of reality, then when we distinquish between what IS and what OUGHT to be, we are going beyond our perception and beyond our reality so that perception is no longer the defining force of objectivity.
Hence objectivisim is no longer subjective to Us and OUR reality, but whole objective.

There is really no reason for us to believe that something ought to be in a way that our reality shows that it is not and yet, we believe just that.

Much clearer now, thanks. So we're not that far off with our respective beliefs then; for a while there I was under the impression you were arguing from a completely different camp. So let's continue the discussion then from that perspective because now you've peeked my interest as to what you mean. I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say 'the objective is subjective due to our perception of reality'. The point I was trying to make all along is that there are certain truths that are intrinsically objective (in and of themselves) so they are objective independently of our perceptions. How is that different from what you are saying that things are wholly objective and not reliant on our perception of reality? I am arguing from basic ontology (what a thing is) versus epistemology (how we come to know what a thing is).

Kant argued that everything we know, objective and subjective, is based on our perception of reality.
Reality exists in the way we KNOW it because we KNOW it in that way -via the 5 senses.
Even scientific experiments and data are based on perception.
Before the first black swan was found, science stated the objective truth that all swans are white.
Before artifical insemination science stated the objective truth that all women who gave birth were NOT virgins ( and the virgin birth was of course supernatural).
Anything outside the objective realm of reality ( nature) was supernatural.
Yet the natural is subjective to our perception.
Objective reality is objective ONLY till it becomes subjective ( though in reality it is always subjective to reality as we perceive it).
There is no reason to believe in objective morals UNLESS we believe in something beyond the subject reality we live in.
If we do NOT believe in a reality beyond our own then everything is subjective, including morals.
And history has shown that when we remove the "objective reality", then everything is subjective ( personal morals that are fluid and ever changing).
BUT we also KNOW that we are hardwired to KNOW the difference between can do and ought to.
Even the most militant of atheist or most liberal of people will say "not fair" when something they don't like is done to them.
WHY?
What do they base that on?
Why do we believe in an "ought to" when our reality gives us no cause to believe that "ought to" even exists?
Our bodies tell us one thing, our mind and conscience tells us another, why?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: I am very much a devote Christian.
And I believe in an object morality, not just one that can be applied by Man.
Why?
Because that very argument was destroyed by an atheist over at another forum by the very one I just applied and yet, the argument I just used was Kant's and has been used by the likes of Dinesh D'Souza as evidence FOR objective morality AND the existence of life after death.
How?
If we agree that the objective is subjective to our perception of reality, then when we distinquish between what IS and what OUGHT to be, we are going beyond our perception and beyond our reality so that perception is no longer the defining force of objectivity.
Hence objectivisim is no longer subjective to Us and OUR reality, but whole objective.

There is really no reason for us to believe that something ought to be in a way that our reality shows that it is not and yet, we believe just that.

Much clearer now, thanks. So we're not that far off with our respective beliefs then; for a while there I was under the impression you were arguing from a completely different camp. So let's continue the discussion then from that perspective because now you've peeked my interest as to what you mean. I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say 'the objective is subjective due to our perception of reality'. The point I was trying to make all along is that there are certain truths that are intrinsically objective (in and of themselves) so they are objective independently of our perceptions. How is that different from what you are saying that things are wholly objective and not reliant on our perception of reality? I am arguing from basic ontology (what a thing is) versus epistemology (how we come to know what a thing is).

Kant argued that everything we know, objective and subjective, is based on our perception of reality.
Reality exists in the way we KNOW it because we KNOW it in that way -via the 5 senses.
Even scientific experiments and data are based on perception.
Before the first black swan was found, science stated the objective truth that all swans are white.
Before artifical insemination science stated the objective truth that all women who gave birth were NOT virgins ( and the virgin birth was of course supernatural).
Anything outside the objective realm of reality ( nature) was supernatural.
Yet the natural is subjective to our perception.
Objective reality is objective ONLY till it becomes subjective ( though in reality it is always subjective to reality as we perceive it).
There is no reason to believe in objective morals UNLESS we believe in something beyond the subject reality we live in.
If we do NOT believe in a reality beyond our own then everything is subjective, including morals.
And history has shown that when we remove the "objective reality", then everything is subjective ( personal morals that are fluid and ever changing).
BUT we also KNOW that we are hardwired to KNOW the difference between can do and ought to.
Even the most militant of atheist or most liberal of people will say "not fair" when something they don't like is done to them.
WHY?
What do they base that on?
Why do we believe in an "ought to" when our reality gives us no cause to believe that "ought to" even exists?
Our bodies tell us one thing, our mind and conscience tells us another, why?

Without divine intervention to expose what is right and wrong within human beings, none would or could ever really know.

Human beings cannot decide what is right or wrong so the Creator would have to send forth a code to objectively define what is morally right as opposed as to what is morally wrong in order to prove He truly just.

Kant, can’t go this route as he defines such standards as subjective to human nature. The Ten Commandments set forth a moral code that proves to human beings how human being twist these codes to suite subjective whims as well cause human beings to game the moral system God lain forth to entrap God to act contrary who and what he is.

People attempt to base an argument that the Ten Commandments are human generated but fail to see that the design of the Ten Commandments was to expose as well as define what sin is within human beings. How could human beings design something that expose and brings forth what sin is within and pointing out that only God can cleanse human beings from the twisted nature that resides within us all? This is contrary to the human nature of residing in a ‘self works orientation’ to earn or better yet said ‘manipulate favor’ of the Divine for true self gain.

If you look at Hagel, Kant, Marx, Piven, Alinsky, Plato – all are based on Human effort to achieve something impossible. Impossible because human nature is bent toward selfish gain, manipulation, and exploitation as it cannot define what the greatest good or the greatest wrong is or even what these should look like: the result – strife between people that is based on various forms of robbery, destruction, and slaying to achieve the greatest good.

Before the Law came from Divine source, how could any human being objectively define right and wrong? You could not because the objective truth is that human beings twist what is good and pervert what is right – cannot help but to ‘game the system’ to exploit to one’s personal advantage. This the Ten C’s do. Book of Romans chapters 1 thru 7 explain much of this.

God himself remains objectively moral unto Himself, if not; he would cease to be God. Therefore, exploit his goodness, game – pit his own moral standards against himself, is the essence of sin as it seeks to make oneself god over God. The 10 C’s begin to reveal this about ourselves and helps lead a person to the realization that they must rely on God to be forgiven, cleansed, healed forever from taking advantage of God’s own moral nature performed knowingly or unknowingly in order to overthrow God or other people for that matter. (Done it to the least of these - Jesus said)

The defense of subjective morals proves humanities willingness to continue this transgression against the very nature and character of God. However, God permitting this demonstrates that God is absolutely Just as well as all Powerful enough to work through all things without fear of loss of control. He is Just in allowing reason to exist within human beings. This very reason exposes how we twist things good into malice, evil, self gain, etc. Thus, exposing our need for objective change that can only be wrought forth by the Lord’s Right Hand, indentified as Jesus Christ.
-
-
-

Byblos wrote:No, we most certainly do NOT make up ideas, we discover truths, undeniable truths. We may not discover the fullness of these truths and that's what science is all about and that is precisely why I keep on telling you, Wane, and Paul that the existence of universal truths and us knowing about them are two completely different subjects you keep on insisting on conflating.One only need look at the laws of mathematics and how our discoveries of them over time have converged so beautifully with the laws of physics in describing the universe. Look at the simplicity of 2nd order differential equations or Maxwell's equations and tell me it was his imagination that those equations describe so intimately the universe in which we live. If science is not in the business of discovering truths we might as well just give up on science altogether.

I'm just not as certain as you are. From here it looks like you too are conflating the two, what appears to you to be undeniable objective truth proves the existence of undeniable objective truth. I just don't see that saying 1+1=2 shows that there is a universal standard of objectivity. Mathematics often provides a novel and helpful way of looking at things but I'm not quite sold on it uncovering objective truths. There's no need to give up on science if it's not in the business of discovering truths - healing the sick, feeding the hungry and exploring space are good enough reasons to keep on keeping on in science. Or just science for that sake of science.

Byblos wrote:It is not unreasonable to believe in an uncaused cause. From there it becomes equally as reasonable to believe an author of certain laws can choose to suspend such laws to achieve a particular purpose.

You seem to have changed your stance, if the author can change or suspend the laws it seems unreasonable to be absolutely certain that 1+1 always equals 2. On the other hand if one plus one equaling two isn't objectively true then miracles and whatnot need not have God invoked, it's just that unpredictable things happen on occasion that seems to defy ideas like 1+1=2, humans often build religions around them.

Byblos wrote:And for the last time please try to remember that because we do not fully understand all there is to understand about the law of gravity does not in any way negate the fact the law of gravity actually does exist.

It doesn't prove that it exists either though.

Byblos wrote:

Proinsias wrote:1+1=2 implies that there are two identical things in existence which can be added together, it's proving tough to show that two things can be verified as identical at the any one time.

And who said anything about adding identical things? We're talking about a mathematical concept which, at its purest is governed by the laws of logic and reason. It is not unreasonable to state 1 + 1 = 2 is a universal truth in any universe. In fact it is quite unreasonable to state otherwise and that's where you are.

A mathematical concept built on philosophy. I do understand the need for reasonable, and reasonably logical, conversation most of the time but I have difficultly taking it to the extreme that the universe is somehow governed by what is deemed to be reasonable and logical.

People attempt to base an argument that the Ten Commandments are human generated but fail to see that the design of the Ten Commandments was to expose as well as define what sin is within human beings. How could human beings design something that expose and brings forth what sin is within and pointing out that only God can cleanse human beings from the twisted nature that resides within us all? This is contrary to the human nature of residing in a ‘self works orientation’ to earn or better yet said ‘manipulate favor’ of the Divine for true self gain.

If you look at Hagel, Kant, Marx, Piven, Alinsky, Plato – all are based on Human effort to achieve something impossible. Impossible because human nature is bent toward selfish gain, manipulation, and exploitation as it cannot define what the greatest good or the greatest wrong is or even what these should look like: the result – strife between people that is based on various forms of robbery, destruction, and slaying to achieve the greatest good.

Before the Law came from Divine source, how could any human being objectively define right and wrong? You could not because the objective truth is that human beings twist what is good and pervert what is right – cannot help but to ‘game the system’ to exploit to one’s personal advantage. This the Ten C’s do. Book of Romans chapters 1 thru 7 explain much of this.

very well said. also the morality that Kant tells is ultimately based on self interest and that makes every good and bad subject to it.

Great discussion guys.

B. W. wrote:

waynepii wrote:

B. W. wrote:

waynepii wrote:...OK, prove that OM exists (an ontological statement). Those who claim OM exists then use its presumed existence as the basis of their view of right and wrong…

I ask again, prove the existence of OM. Just because you (collectively) believe it exists (or that must exist, or can't conceive it doesn't exist, or whatever) has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it actually does exist.

I’ve been out of town for a few days and returned, and I am surprised this topic has come back to the forefront!

Okay…

Waynepii, what makes your terms the only basis for deriving truth?

How do you get from my asking for proof that OM exists to "what makes your terms the only basis for deriving truth"?

You only desire a ontological statement as the criteria as you so stated, and then you cite that OM uses its presumed existence as the basis for right and wrong; ...

No, I said theists use OM's presumed existence in an attempt to impose their interpretation of what OM says is "right" and "wrong" on everyone.

... therefore, what makes your point of view as the only right that exist?

Next, are you certain of this?
-
-
-

I'm not imposing my view on anyone, merely attempting to prevent others from imposing their views on everyone else.

Right along, I have been asking for evidence of OM's existence, and, if OM does exist, how do we mortals tell what OM's "verdict" is in any given case. Even if OM exists, if we can't tell what it says using objective means, it is of no value to us. For example, assume there is a 100% infallible method of predicting major disasters (earthquakes, cyclones, tornadoes, etc) 1 week in advance. Its existence does us NO GOOD unless we are able to accurately "read" it.

I'm not imposing my view on anyone, merely attempting to prevent others from imposing their views on everyone else

Come now Wayne, that statement is contradictory. Your view is that others (Christians) should not be able to impose their view on anyone. Since you are attempting to prevent their view, you are in fact imposing your view on others. Not only is it contradictory but its hypocritical, since you reject OM, you have zero grounds to do such. You have no basis to elevate your mission as any more valid than another. In fact, I can't see why you wouldn't just let others force their views on you.

Do you think society has a right to impose its views on criminals who would rape, steal and murder?

waynepii wrote:I'm not imposing my view on anyone, merely attempting to prevent others from imposing their views on everyone else.

Right along, I have been asking for evidence of OM's existence, and, if OM does exist, how do we mortals tell what OM's "verdict" is in any given case. Even if OM exists, if we can't tell what it says using objective means, it is of no value to us. For example, assume there is a 100% infallible method of predicting major disasters (earthquakes, cyclones, tornadoes, etc) 1 week in advance. Its existence does us NO GOOD unless we are able to accurately "read" it.

Thanks for clarifying. Regarding your first point, what do you base preventing others from imposing their views on everyone else as the greatest good? So to achieve this you must also do likewise, imposing your views on everyone to prevent others to do so? How does your motive of moral good really be good when performing the very wrong its seeks to eradicate?

Regarding your second point, first there is one true God. Romans 1:20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25c brings this out as well points out the first objective wrong – denial of God’s existence. Therefore, the objective standard is God himself. God originally designed human beings to be moral beings as we do have a sense of right and wrong.

When the moral compass is knocked out, what would it take to reset it?

Next, If one refuses to accurately read – they remain lost in the proverbial woods and up the creek without that canoe and that paddle people tell you about.
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

waynepii wrote:I'm not imposing my view on anyone, merely attempting to prevent others from imposing their views on everyone else.

Right along, I have been asking for evidence of OM's existence, and, if OM does exist, how do we mortals tell what OM's "verdict" is in any given case. Even if OM exists, if we can't tell what it says using objective means, it is of no value to us. For example, assume there is a 100% infallible method of predicting major disasters (earthquakes, cyclones, tornadoes, etc) 1 week in advance. Its existence does us NO GOOD unless we are able to accurately "read" it.

Thanks for clarifying. Regarding your first point, what do you base preventing others from imposing their views on everyone else as the greatest good? So to achieve this you must also do likewise, imposing your views on everyone to prevent others to do so?

How does your motive of moral good really be good when performing the very wrong its seeks to eradicate?

Not at all - let's take an example. Currently, one big issue is gay marriage - some theists wish to impose their anti-gay beliefs on those men & women who desire to marry someone of the same gender. The only limitation "we" wish to "impose" on "you" is to deny you the "right" to prevent a gay couple from getting married.

Regarding your second point, first there is one true God. Romans 1:20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25c brings this out as well points out the first objective wrong – denial of God’s existence. Therefore, the objective standard is God himself. God originally designed human beings to be moral beings as we do have a sense of right and wrong.

All that your cites prove is that Paul believed there was only one true god (although how accurately they reflect Paul's actual intent could be argued).

When the moral compass is knocked out, what would it take to reset it?

Basically, everyone should be treated equally (aka the "Golden Rule").

Next, If one refuses to accurately read – they remain lost in the proverbial woods and up the creek without that canoe and that paddle people tell you about.

By "accurately read", I assume you mean "accurately read OM"? If that is what you meant, how DO you "accurately read it" (that's been my question all along)? I get the feeling (from you and others in previous threads on the subject) that the reading is internal, along the lines of "listen to your conscience". The conscience is subject to past experiences, what you learned from parents, teachers (both secular and religious), peers, etc. That is about as subjective as it gets, it's hardly objective.

Wayne, as it was explained back then. It's an ontology vs. epistomology thing.

And furthermore, as I stated regarding your comments to BW, you are contradicting yourself. REad my previous post.

Basically, everyone should be treated equally (aka the "Golden Rule").

Sorry, Wayne, but you can't do this and be consistent. This presupposes that the Golden Rule is objectively better. By what standard? You simply have to stand on the territory of OM to make such a statement. It is self-defeating. Saying the Golden Rule is good only proves your own question. (how DO you "accurately read it") Here you are, claiming to be able to read it, yet denying it at the same time. It is either willful ignorance or spiritual blindness.

The conscience is subject to past experiences, what you learned from parents, teachers (both secular and religious), peers, etc.

No one, including Paul, says that a person is not influenced by these things. The conscience is an influence, just as are peers, parents, etc. However, it has been demonstrated all too often that people will rebel against all these influences. A child may have the past experience of being molested, and even taught that what is being done to them is OK, yet their conscience will speak against what is being done to them.
You can't simply say, "The conscience is subject." Ask 1,000 people if they have ever acted against their conscience. A person may be subject to the influence of the conscience. They may also be subject to fleshly temptations, greed, etc. A person can suppress the conscience, just as they can supress these other influences.

jlay wrote:Wayne, as it was explained back then. It's an ontology vs. epistomology thing.

And furthermore, as I stated regarding your comments to BW, you are contradicting yourself. REad my previous post.

Basically, everyone should be treated equally (aka the "Golden Rule").

Sorry, Wayne, but you can't do this and be consistent. This presupposes that the Golden Rule is objectively better. By what standard? You simply have to stand on the territory of OM to make such a statement. It is self-defeating. Saying the Golden Rule is good only proves your own question. (how DO you "accurately read it") Here you are, claiming to be able to read it, yet denying it at the same time. It is either willful ignorance or spiritual blindness.

You consider whatever act you are evaluating from the perspective of the person(s) the act affects. For example - When I was a child, if I stole Jimmy's toy, my mother would ask me "how would you feel if Jimmy stole your toy? After a while, I found I was asking myself the question whenever I had an impulse to something such as stealing from Jimmy. I still do to this day. I consider this to be one of the best lessons I learned as a child.

The conscience is subject to past experiences, what you learned from parents, teachers (both secular and religious), peers, etc.

No one, including Paul, says that a person is not influenced by these things. The conscience is an influence, just as are peers, parents, etc. However, it has been demonstrated all too often that people will rebel against all these influences. A child may have the past experience of being molested, and even taught that what is being done to them is OK, yet their conscience will speak against what is being done to them.
You can't simply say, "The conscience is subject." Ask 1,000 people if they have ever acted against their conscience. A person may be subject to the influence of the conscience. They may also be subject to fleshly temptations, greed, etc. A person can suppress the conscience, just as they can supress these other influences.

What is your point? If your conscience isn't the OM "talking to you", then how DO you "read" OM?