Evidence for God from Science

@Audie - the form ethical egoism I espoused isn't just a concept I came up with, but it is certainly an alternative that makes the most sense in a godless world and which modern scientific thinking supports.

@Kenny - you keep touting "society" appearing to think what your society says is the rule. Society can't say who is right in the many cases I presented, because which society is saying who is right/wrong -- we're talking about different competing societies. Each would claim their own moral superiority.

I think you did hit onto something though when you say that a society changes it morality. But, this is not moral reform. This is moral change. Reform would suggest a society progressed towards a better morality, but this is not possible if the highest standard of morality is a society itself.

So morality-wise, one society is "just different" from another, but not better or worse. And I agree, that this is the best we have. At least in a godless position of the world.

Kurieuo wrote: @Kenny - you keep touting "society" appearing to think what your society says is the rule.

True! What society says is the rule within the society.

Kuieuo wrote:Society can't say who is right in the many cases I presented, because which society is saying who is right/wrong -- we're talking about different competing societies. Each would claim their own moral superiority.

In my case, MY society says who is right/wrong. Now even though you and other societies may disagree with what my society says, how is that different between what YOU"VE got?

It's kinda like me saying your God can't say who is right in the many cases you presented because which God is saying who is right/wrong? We're talking about different competing Gods, each would claim their own moral superiority.

Let me guess..... In your case; YOUR God! says who is right/wrong even though I and different God worshippers will disagree, and because morality, right/wrong is subjective instead of objective; you are unable to demonstrate you and your God are right and Me and my society are wrong.
So what's the difference? The difference is my society enforces it's rules; your God does not.

Ken

You're once again confusing moral ontology (morality's existence) for moral epistemology (knowledge of what is right/wrong).

You haven't grounded morality's existence at all.'

Again, no moral reform in society is possible, only moral change.
And again, if most of society says its fine to kill Kenny, then it is fine. You'd be immoral in such instances if you disagree.

Continue believing what you want Kenny.

Cheers.

Kuriuo
You're once again confusing moral ontology (morality's existence) for moral epistemology (knowledge of what is right/wrong).
Ken
I wasn’t addressing any of that.

Kuriuo
You haven't grounded morality's existence at all.'
Ken
I have to the same extent you have.

Kuriuo
Again, no moral reform in society is possible, only moral change.
Ken
In this case; what’s the difference?

Kuriuo
And again, if most of society says its fine to kill Kenny, then it is fine. You'd be immoral in such instances if you disagree.
Ken
And if most of society says it’s fine to kill Kuriuo, your God and his morality will do nothing about it.

Kuriuo
Continue believing what you want Kenny.
Ken
Touché

Ken

Kuriuo
And again, if most of society says its fine to kill Kenny, then it is fine. You'd be immoral in such instances if you disagree.
Ken
And if most of society says it’s fine to kill Kuriuo, your God and his morality will do nothing about it.

"Most of society" killed Jesus...

God would probably take Kurieuo to heaven.

1over137 wrote:

Kuriuo
And again, if most of society says its fine to kill Kenny, then it is fine. You'd be immoral in such instances if you disagree.
Ken
And if most of society says it’s fine to kill Kuriuo, your God and his morality will do nothing about it.

"Most of society" killed Jesus...

God would probably take Kurieuo to heaven.

Of course! Wouldn't have it any other way! (LOL)

K

Kenny wrote:Kuriuo
You're once again confusing moral ontology (morality's existence) for moral epistemology (knowledge of what is right/wrong).
Ken
I wasn’t addressing any of that.

No, you're not understanding.

There is a difference between your "not addressing" and "not understanding".

You're following comments show that you do not understand what it is I'm discussing.
But, that can be equally my fault in not explaining it and just assuming others to know.

Kenny wrote:Kuriuo
You haven't grounded morality's existence at all.'
Ken
I have to the same extent you have.

Failure to understand the issue.

Kenny wrote:Kuriuo
And again, if most of society says its fine to kill Kenny, then it is fine. You'd be immoral in such instances if you disagree.
Ken
And if most of society says it’s fine to kill Kuriuo, your God and his morality will do nothing about it.

Again, failure to understand the issue.

Kenny wrote:Kuriuo
Continue believing what you want Kenny.
Ken
Touché

I believe you meant "touchy" rather than "touché"?
I don't see that I have made any point in saying continue to believe what you will.
And it's not touchy any more than seeing further discussion as futile until we are discussing the same thing.

Ken, I'll put down a misunderstanding of the real issue due to my not being clear enough.

Again, it is not whose morality is right/wrong.
It is not whether what we believe is right or wrong is divine command or socially developed.
It's about what is sufficient to ground morality itself.

Such that,
rape is always wrong regardless of what anyone thinks;
killing Kenny or Kurieuo purely for fun is always wrong regardless of what anyone thinks;
cutting off the heads of people in the name of religion is wrong regardless of what anyone thinks;
the African slave trade and modern sex slave trade is wrong regardless of what anyone thinks;
taking of human life without any just reason is wrong regardless of what anyone thinks;

OR, [insert your own belief on a morally wrong action] is wrong regardless of what anyone thinks.

Kurieuo wrote:Ken, I'll put down a misunderstanding of the real issue due to my not being clear enough.

Again, it is not whose morality is right/wrong.
It is not whether what we believe is right or wrong is divine command or socially developed.
It's about what is sufficient to ground morality itself.

Such that,
rape is always wrong regardless of what anyone thinks;
killing Kenny or Kurieuo purely for fun is always wrong regardless of what anyone thinks;
cutting off the heads of people in the name of religion is wrong regardless of what anyone thinks;
the African slave trade and modern sex slave trade is wrong regardless of what anyone thinks;
taking of human life without any just reason is wrong regardless of what anyone thinks;

OR, [insert your own belief on a morally wrong action] is wrong regardless of what anyone thinks.

It's easy to list a bunch of stuff that is obviously right or obviously wrong, but what about the Gray areas? There are many issues that people disagree on. I will bet some of the most saved, honest, and sincere Christians you know will not agree with you on 100% of all moral issues. Does this mean they are dishonest? Does this mean YOU are dishonest? Why do you suppose in the real world everybody does not agree on what is right or wrong 100% of the time?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Ken, I'll put down a misunderstanding of the real issue due to my not being clear enough.

Again, it is not whose morality is right/wrong.
It is not whether what we believe is right or wrong is divine command or socially developed.
It's about what is sufficient to ground morality itself.

Such that,
rape is always wrong regardless of what anyone thinks;
killing Kenny or Kurieuo purely for fun is always wrong regardless of what anyone thinks;
cutting off the heads of people in the name of religion is wrong regardless of what anyone thinks;
the African slave trade and modern sex slave trade is wrong regardless of what anyone thinks;
taking of human life without any just reason is wrong regardless of what anyone thinks;

OR, [insert your own belief on a morally wrong action] is wrong regardless of what anyone thinks.

It's easy to list a bunch of stuff that is obviously right or obviously wrong, but what about the Gray areas? There are many issues that people disagree on. I will bet some of the most saved, honest, and sincere Christians you know will not agree with you on 100% of all moral issues. Does this mean they are dishonest? Does this mean YOU are dishonest? Why do you suppose in the real world everybody does not agree on what is right or wrong 100% of the time?

Ken

Ken, understand that there are no grey areas until the assertion of morality's existence is accepted.

I'm not trying to sort out what is right or wrong.
I'm not trying to claim what is right or wrong.
I'm not trying to say what Atheists should or should not believe is right or wrong.

Both of us first need to embrace that there are some actions that are morally right and some actions that are morally wrong.
And by that I mean, actions based upon moral values that are good and bad regardless of what anyone thinks.

For example, if I thought it was alright to force my beliefs onto others, that could be morally wrong even if I believe it is morally right.
BUT, how we come to know what is right or wrong is not what I'm pursuing here or challenging Atheists to "tie down".

RATHER, if we accept moral right or wrong does in fact exist,
as I'm sure we both intuitively do regardless of what the Bible or society says (right?? -- I'd hope you'd still think it wrong to kill Kenny for fun even if society at large thought it morally fine).
So then, what is the nature of its existence? How can it exist?

Kurieuo wrote:@Audie - the form ethical egoism I espoused isn't just a concept I came up with, but it is certainly an alternative that makes the most sense in a godless world and which modern scientific thinking supports.

.

What you said about evolutionary advantage probably wasnt original to you, no. But wherever you did get
thar, it was not from science. Misrepresented science may lead to sense, but not
good sense.

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:@Audie - the form ethical egoism I espoused isn't just a concept I came up with, but it is certainly an alternative that makes the most sense in a godless world and which modern scientific thinking supports.

.

What you said about evolutionary advantage probably wasnt original to you, no. But wherever you did get
thar, it was not from science. Misrepresented science may lead to sense, but not
good sense.

It seems you just want to try and assault me over and over.

Nonetheless, it's interesting you give no other alternative, to what I thought was a solid Atheist defense re: morality.
No explanation of this "bigger picture" that you feel some need to bite your tongue on because it might what... be more insulting then you're being to me here?

Quite typical of my discussions with self-proclaimed Atheists (at least online).
That is, quick to criticise, but silent when asked to contribute at the table.

At least Kenny is trying, although I'm sadly still seen as an antagonist rather than friend.

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Ken, I'll put down a misunderstanding of the real issue due to my not being clear enough.

Again, it is not whose morality is right/wrong.
It is not whether what we believe is right or wrong is divine command or socially developed.
It's about what is sufficient to ground morality itself.

Such that,
rape is always wrong regardless of what anyone thinks;
killing Kenny or Kurieuo purely for fun is always wrong regardless of what anyone thinks;
cutting off the heads of people in the name of religion is wrong regardless of what anyone thinks;
the African slave trade and modern sex slave trade is wrong regardless of what anyone thinks;
taking of human life without any just reason is wrong regardless of what anyone thinks;

OR, [insert your own belief on a morally wrong action] is wrong regardless of what anyone thinks.

It's easy to list a bunch of stuff that is obviously right or obviously wrong, but what about the Gray areas? There are many issues that people disagree on. I will bet some of the most saved, honest, and sincere Christians you know will not agree with you on 100% of all moral issues. Does this mean they are dishonest? Does this mean YOU are dishonest? Why do you suppose in the real world everybody does not agree on what is right or wrong 100% of the time?

Ken

Ken, understand that there are no grey areas until the assertion of morality's existence is accepted.

I'm not trying to sort out what is right or wrong.
I'm not trying to claim what is right or wrong.
I'm not trying to say what Atheists should or should not believe is right or wrong.

Both of us first need to embrace that there are some actions that are morally right and some actions that are morally wrong.
And by that I mean, actions based upon moral values that are good and bad regardless of what anyone thinks.

For example, if I thought it was alright to force my beliefs onto others, that could be morally wrong even if I believe it is morally right.
BUT, how we come to know what is right or wrong is not what I'm pursuing here or challenging Atheists to "tie down".

RATHER, if we accept moral right or wrong does in fact exist,
as I'm sure we both intuitively do regardless of what the Bible or society says (right?? -- I'd hope you'd still think it wrong to kill Kenny for fun even if society at large thought it morally fine).
So then, what is the nature of its existence? How can it exist?

There has never been a dispute as to weather morality exist or not, the question has been weather morality is objective or subjective (because of the dispute that often arises between what is wrong and what is right; you mentioned if rape or killing were wrong; but it is only wrong in context. by context I mean when applied to humans. killing a thousand roaches or rats in an infested house isn't the same as what hitler did. a wild animal in the jungle forcing sex upon another it doesn't know isn't the same as if a human did it. If those actions were objectively wrong it would be wrong in all instances not only when applied to humans) and in the current case; if morality and moral laws come from God or society. You seem to believe they come from God, I believe they come from society; and if moral any laws do come from God; he doesn't enforce them thus the unenforced law is equal to no law at all.

Ken

Kenny wrote: if morality and moral laws come from God or society. You seem to believe they come from God, I believe they come from society...

Since morality is defined by the society in which one lives, then we could conceive of a society where violence is an acceptable means of getting ahead. (No pun intended, but ISIS sure can get a head...) And such societies exist today. I find it odd that you would condemn Nazi Germany given your belief that morality is subjective. If a society's ruling class determines that summary executions are the correct way to keep order, who are you to criticize? What makes your morality ''better'' than theirs?

Kenny wrote: and if moral any laws do come from God; he doesn't enforce them thus the unenforced law is equal to no law at all.

Two mistakes here: 1, a law that is not enforced is still a law, and 2, God has promised to punish those who break the law with eternal damnation. You have this one life to repent of your lawlessness, otherwise you're headed for somewhere very, very hot.

FL

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Ken, I'll put down a misunderstanding of the real issue due to my not being clear enough.

Again, it is not whose morality is right/wrong.
It is not whether what we believe is right or wrong is divine command or socially developed.
It's about what is sufficient to ground morality itself.

Such that,
rape is always wrong regardless of what anyone thinks;
killing Kenny or Kurieuo purely for fun is always wrong regardless of what anyone thinks;
cutting off the heads of people in the name of religion is wrong regardless of what anyone thinks;
the African slave trade and modern sex slave trade is wrong regardless of what anyone thinks;
taking of human life without any just reason is wrong regardless of what anyone thinks;

OR, [insert your own belief on a morally wrong action] is wrong regardless of what anyone thinks.

It's easy to list a bunch of stuff that is obviously right or obviously wrong, but what about the Gray areas? There are many issues that people disagree on. I will bet some of the most saved, honest, and sincere Christians you know will not agree with you on 100% of all moral issues. Does this mean they are dishonest? Does this mean YOU are dishonest? Why do you suppose in the real world everybody does not agree on what is right or wrong 100% of the time?

Ken

Ken, understand that there are no grey areas until the assertion of morality's existence is accepted.

I'm not trying to sort out what is right or wrong.
I'm not trying to claim what is right or wrong.
I'm not trying to say what Atheists should or should not believe is right or wrong.

Both of us first need to embrace that there are some actions that are morally right and some actions that are morally wrong.
And by that I mean, actions based upon moral values that are good and bad regardless of what anyone thinks.

For example, if I thought it was alright to force my beliefs onto others, that could be morally wrong even if I believe it is morally right.
BUT, how we come to know what is right or wrong is not what I'm pursuing here or challenging Atheists to "tie down".

RATHER, if we accept moral right or wrong does in fact exist,
as I'm sure we both intuitively do regardless of what the Bible or society says (right?? -- I'd hope you'd still think it wrong to kill Kenny for fun even if society at large thought it morally fine).
So then, what is the nature of its existence? How can it exist?

There has never been a dispute as to weather morality exist or not, the question has been weather morality is objective or subjective (because of the dispute that often arises between what is wrong and what is right; you mentioned if rape or killing were wrong; but it is only wrong in context. by context I mean when applied to humans. killing a thousand roaches or rats in an infested house isn't the same as what hitler did. a wild animal in the jungle forcing sex upon another it doesn't know isn't the same as if a human did it. If those actions were objectively wrong it would be wrong in all instances not only when applied to humans) and in the current case; if morality and moral laws come from God or society. You seem to believe they come from God, I believe they come from society; and if moral any laws do come from God; he doesn't enforce them thus the unenforced law is equal to no law at all.

Ken

Here I think we can easily be mislead about our true starting place for where we believe morality comes from.
Since we disagree so much, I'm just wanting to build a starting block from which we can both work from.

Yes, I believe morality is rooted in God. Ok, you believe morality is manufactured by society.
But, these are like secondary beliefs. I don't think these beliefs are really why we believe some things are wrong or right.

For example, in my hypothetical when I asked you what if everyone thought it alright to kill Kenny for fun...
Intuitively, I know all of society would be wrong. Just like I'd know if God asked it of me something wouldn't be right.
So where morality comes from for us appears to be more base than a belief in God or humanity.

We have our own moral conscience.
Such seems intrinsic to who we are as human beings.
This then should be the correct starting place: morality is found within ourselves.

As such, we can often just appeal to the moral intuition in another person and reach an agreement that some things are really are wrong and shouldn't be tolerated.
This moral sense crosses the boundaries of any belief, religion or non-religion.

Right? So, then this provides us with the same starting block to work from.
Namely that we believe some things are wrong and right just instinctively.
Maybe not all our moral beliefs align, but for the most part I'm sure you and I would both talk a similar moral language.

For example, do you really believe it wrong that millions of Jews were considered as nothing more than rats and and roaches -- a pest to be eradicated?
Would I be correct in saying that right now, you believe this would always be morally wrong regardless of what any society says?
And similarly I would believe this would always be wrong regardless of my belief in God or Scripture.
We actually don't need society, God or the Bible to directly tell us this is wrong.

So then, we both appear to believe in some moral code within ourselves as real?

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:@Audie - the form ethical egoism I espoused isn't just a concept I came up with, but it is certainly an alternative that makes the most sense in a godless world and which modern scientific thinking supports.

.

What you said about evolutionary advantage probably wasnt original to you, no. But wherever you did getb6
thar, it was not from science. Misrepresented science may lead to sense, but not
good sense.

It seems you just want to try and assault me over and over.

Nonetheless, it's interesting you give no other alternative, to what I thought was a solid Atheist defense re: morality.
No explanation of this "bigger picture" that you feel some need to bite your tongue on because it might what... be more insulting then you're being to me here?

Quite typical of my discussions with self-proclaimed Atheists (at least online).
That is, quick to criticise, but silent when asked to contribute at the table.

At least Kenny is trying, although I'm sadly still seen as an antagonist rather than friend.

You didnt seem worth a second chance. I dont do thirds.