Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

No. What does not make sense to me is the claim that only if good and evil are subjective, that makes them interchangeable according to the situation or POV

Ken

Ken, good and evil, if subjective, will always be in the "it depends" category.
If they are not objective ( and all it takes is for ONE of them to be so) then there IS a Good and as such then there are things that are wrong REGARDLESS of anything else.

Rape, if good is subjective, can be good is something good comes out of it ( subjective to end result) or if it is in the best interest of an individual ( subjective to personal happiness).
If its wrong REGARDLESS of any possible positive outcome or reason then it will ALWAYS be wrong and if it is ALWAYS wrong then doing what is wrong knowing it is wrong is evil and as such, evil is objective.

I disagree! If good is subjective, that doesn't mean rape can be good if something positive results from it, it means somebody will perceive rape as good if something positive results from it. But that person is going to have this opinion of rape weather it is labeled subjective or objective. The morality of the act is not determined by the label objective or subjective.

Ken

Ken, if, as you say : The morality of the act is not determined by the label objective or subjective, then WHAT is it that determines an act to be good or evil ?

I'll answer for Ken.
Good and evil only exist in one's imagination. I don't believe in God, so I can't believe in something that can't be known by the 5 senses. Materialism is all that exists. My thoughts don't exist. My mind is a figment of my imagination. Blah blah blah...

So I guess that , unless one person's view means more than another ( which according to any material view, it doesn't) that ANYTHING that can be viewed good or evil is in the "eye of the beholder.
So, rape, incest, murder, infanticide, pedophilia, to name only a few things, are not evil or bad at all and are actually good things.

PaulSacramento wrote:So I guess that , unless one person's view means more than another ( which according to any material view, it doesn't) that ANYTHING that can be viewed good or evil is in the "eye of the beholder.
So, rape, incest, murder, infanticide, pedophilia, to name only a few things, are not evil or bad at all and are actually good things.

Could be good. Depends on perspective. So says subjective morality.

I'd hate to have to make an argument for subjective morality. It's pretty rediculous, IMO.

PaulSacramento wrote:Ken, if, as you say : The morality of the act is not determined by the label objective or subjective, then WHAT is it that determines an act to be good or evil ?

Human judgment

PaulSacramento wrote:So I guess that , unless one person's view means more than another ( which according to any material view, it doesn't)

I’ve never claimed to be a materialist, but I have claimed to believe my views are equal or superior to all other views I’ve heard. Obviously if I heard a view that was superior to mine, I would adopt that view and it would become my own as well.

PaulSacramento wrote:that ANYTHING that can be viewed good or evil is in the "eye of the beholder.

There are some who view evil as good, and visa versa. Labeling morality objective doesn’t change that.
I say behavior “X” is wrong because I decided it is wrong and I value my opinion over all others that are different than mine.
You have no respect for my opinion because as a fellow human it is equal to yours or all others

You say behavior “X” is wrong because your God says it is wrong and you value your God’s word over all others that are different than his
I have no respect for what you call your God’s opinion because as an atheist I don’t believe he exists.

How is what you are saying any different than what I am saying?
We both point to a source of morality and claim our source is superior to the others.

PaulSacramento wrote:So, rape, incest, murder, infanticide, pedophilia, to name only a few things, are not evil or bad at all and are actually good things.

To who? Do you honestly believe that because I believe morality is subjective, that I believe rape, incest, murder, and all those other evils you mentioned are good?


Ken


.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

No. What does not make sense to me is the claim that only if good and evil are subjective, that makes them interchangeable according to the situation or POV

Ken

Ken, good and evil, if subjective, will always be in the "it depends" category.
If they are not objective ( and all it takes is for ONE of them to be so) then there IS a Good and as such then there are things that are wrong REGARDLESS of anything else.

Rape, if good is subjective, can be good is something good comes out of it ( subjective to end result) or if it is in the best interest of an individual ( subjective to personal happiness).
If its wrong REGARDLESS of any possible positive outcome or reason then it will ALWAYS be wrong and if it is ALWAYS wrong then doing what is wrong knowing it is wrong is evil and as such, evil is objective.

I disagree! If good is subjective, that doesn't mean rape can be good if something positive results from it, it means somebody will perceive rape as good if something positive results from it. But that person is going to have this opinion of rape weather it is labeled subjective or objective. The morality of the act is not determined by the label objective or subjective.

Ken

Ken, if, as you say : The morality of the act is not determined by the label objective or subjective, then WHAT is it that determines an act to be good or evil ?

I'll answer for Ken.
Good and evil only exist in one's imagination. I don't believe in God, so I can't believe in something that can't be known by the 5 senses. Materialism is all that exists. My thoughts don't exist. My mind is a figment of my imagination. Blah blah blah...

Strawman

Ken wrote:

How is what you are saying any different than what I am saying?
We both point to a source of morality and claim our source is superior to the others.
.

Ken,

One is objective, and one is subjective. Do you finally understand that now?

RickD wrote:

Ken wrote:

How is what you are saying any different than what I am saying?
We both point to a source of morality and claim our source is superior to the others.
.

Ken,

One is objective, and one is subjective. Do you finally understand that now?

Why is your source objective, and my source subjective?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Ken wrote:

How is what you are saying any different than what I am saying?
We both point to a source of morality and claim our source is superior to the others.
.

Ken,

One is objective, and one is subjective. Do you finally understand that now?

Why is your source objective, and my source subjective?

Ken

Because it is by definition. "Objective” means “independent of people’s (including one’s own) opinion.” “Subjective” means “just a matter of personal opinion.”

Your source of morality is your opinion. Which makes it subjective by definition.

My source of morality is God. Which makes it objective by definition.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Ken wrote:

How is what you are saying any different than what I am saying?
We both point to a source of morality and claim our source is superior to the others.
.

Ken,

One is objective, and one is subjective. Do you finally understand that now?

Why is your source objective, and my source subjective?

Ken

Because it is by definition. "Objective” means “independent of people’s (including one’s own) opinion.” “Subjective” means “just a matter of personal opinion.”

Your source of morality is your opinion. Which makes it subjective by definition.

My source of morality is God. Which makes it objective by definition.

I never said anything about my opinion being the source of my morality; I am the source of my morality.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Ken wrote:

How is what you are saying any different than what I am saying?
We both point to a source of morality and claim our source is superior to the others.
.

Ken,

One is objective, and one is subjective. Do you finally understand that now?

Why is your source objective, and my source subjective?

Ken

Because it is by definition. "Objective” means “independent of people’s (including one’s own) opinion.” “Subjective” means “just a matter of personal opinion.”

Your source of morality is your opinion. Which makes it subjective by definition.

My source of morality is God. Which makes it objective by definition.

I never said anything about my opinion being the source of my morality; I am the source of my morality.

Ken

Ken,
You think something is right or wrong, because in your opinion, it's right or wrong. That makes it subjective. It's not rocket surgery.

RickD wrote: Ken,
You think something is right or wrong, because in your opinion, it's right or wrong. That makes it subjective. It's not rocket surgery.

How is that different than God saying something is right or wrong? Sounds like you're just talking semantics.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: Ken,
You think something is right or wrong, because in your opinion, it's right or wrong. That makes it subjective. It's not rocket surgery.

How is that different than God saying something is right or wrong? Sounds like you're just talking semantics.

Ken

For you God does not exist Kenny. So no wonder you are saying that.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: Ken,
You think something is right or wrong, because in your opinion, it's right or wrong. That makes it subjective. It's not rocket surgery.

How is that different than God saying something is right or wrong? Sounds like you're just talking semantics.

Ken

Kenny,

Do you have difficulty with comprehension of the English language? I already told you. It's different by definition.
“Objective” means “independent of people’s (including one’s own) opinion.” “Subjective” means “just a matter of personal opinion.”

Are you really that obtuse?

Kenny's superior knowledge & intelligence keeps stumping all of us.

FL

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: Ken,
You think something is right or wrong, because in your opinion, it's right or wrong. That makes it subjective. It's not rocket surgery.

How is that different than God saying something is right or wrong? Sounds like you're just talking semantics.

Ken

Kenny,

Do you have difficulty with comprehension of the English language? I already told you. It's different by definition.
“Objective” means “independent of people’s (including one’s own) opinion.” “Subjective” means “just a matter of personal opinion.”

Are you really that obtuse?

Did you even read what I told you? It is no more my opinion than it is God's opinion. I said I was the source my morality. And you can't have an objective opinion independent of your own personal opinion. Objective means independent of what everyone else says.

Ken