Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

Philip wrote:Mel:

Mel: Not okay to lie...... When does lying become not only justified but necessary.'

It's WWII and the Nazis are at your door - and as you knew they were on the way to your house, you hid your Jewish guests in the basement: Gestapo barks: "Are you hiding any Jews in this house - you best answer truthfully!" So, to tell the truth / give your Jewish friends up for certain death - or NOT?

Stealing is wrong..... But when is it honorable and not negative.

OK, extreme example: You work for the FBI, in an area in which you have access to and help maintain secret information, which you are legally sworn to never reveal or remove the contents of, unless ordered to by some superior authority. You discover digital documents that reveal great corruption in the bureau, and you know that your boss and others (you are uncertain of whom) you work with are in on and have helped cover up the corruption, but all are unaware that the proof of their corruption is in certain digital files. And so, the ONLY way you can prove what you know - before anyone might be tipped off and destroys the archived documentation - is to break your sworn oath and steal (if temporarily) discs that you want to send to outside investigative authorities, as otherwise, you'd have no proof - or the proof might disappear. So, to reveal the corruption, you will have to break your oath and steal the documentation, if but temporarily. So, to steal or not?

I think you made an excellent point concerning the objective vs subjective morality argument. If morality were objective, and lying and stealing are moral issues, to use your scenario; lying to the Gestapo would be wrong, and stealing in an effort to prevent corruption would still be wrong as well. That is why I say morality is subjective, because subjectivity allows for opinions and extenuating circumstances when determining moral issues like lying and stealing.

Ken

No Kenny. This has been pointed out by Kurieuo in this post. It doesn't make an argument for subjective morality. It's just an argument more for situational ethics. Lying would still be wrong. Because it's objectively wrong. But the Jewish people's lives, take precedence over a lie. At least that's the argument by those who hid Jews, and lied to nazis.

All of this objective vs. subjective stuff is an interesting debate. But if there is a God whose standards are all that truly matter, then how His directives and examples instruct us as to ethics are all that matter. All else is opinion. God Himself has instructed different things, at different times, dependent upon the time and circumstances, all with His ultimate and eternal purposes in mind - which do NOT change. There are times when the typical application of what God desires we are to normally do are superseded by an extraordinary situation or variable - meaning, a GREATER law or Godly principle make take precedence over a lesser one. And encountering evil is one of those atypical situations.

What I'm hinting at is termed Graded Absolutism. Here is an excellent description of this, as well as the various ethics approaches, as described by Norman Geisler: http://www.equip.org/article/any-absolutes-absolutely/

Philip wrote:All of this objective vs. subjective stuff is an interesting debate. But if there is a God whose standards are all that truly matter, then how His directives and examples instruct us as to ethics are all that matter. All else is opinion. God Himself has instructed different things, at different times, dependent upon the time and circumstances, all with His ultimate and eternal purposes in mind - which do NOT change. There are times when the typical application of what God desires we are to normally do are superseded by an extraordinary situation or variable - meaning, a GREATER law or Godly principle make take precedence over a lesser one. And encountering evil is one of those atypical situations.

What I'm hinting at is termed Graded Absolutism. Here is an excellent description of this, as well as the various ethics approaches, as described by Norman Geisler: http://www.equip.org/article/any-absolutes-absolutely/

Do you see a difference between "moral absolutes" as discussed in the article, and objective morality? If so, what are the differences?

Ken

The key variable in the subjective vs. objective debate - in fact the ONLY determinate of an objective morality - is if there is a God Who is the ONLY standard. And there IS! But for those who want to ONLY seek or assert the existence of subjective/personal truths, that won't stop them from denying any objective truth or absolutes of God.

Philip wrote:The key variable in the subjective vs. objective debate - in fact the ONLY determinate of an objective morality - is if there is a God Who is the ONLY standard. And there IS! But for those who want to ONLY seek or assert the existence of subjective/personal truths, that won't stop them from denying any objective truth or absolutes of God.

This is what a world of subjective morals produces:

Article: MIZZOU CAMPUS ACTIVISTS AND BLACK LIVES MATTER COMPLAIN ABOUT PARIS STEALING THE SPOTLIGHT

End of debate...
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:

Philip wrote:The key variable in the subjective vs. objective debate - in fact the ONLY determinate of an objective morality - is if there is a God Who is the ONLY standard. And there IS! But for those who want to ONLY seek or assert the existence of subjective/personal truths, that won't stop them from denying any objective truth or absolutes of God.

This is what a world of subjective morals produces:

Article: MIZZOU CAMPUS ACTIVISTS AND BLACK LIVES MATTER COMPLAIN ABOUT PARIS STEALING THE SPOTLIGHT

End of debate...
-
-
-

God help America! We are truly doomed!

Philip wrote:The key variable in the subjective vs. objective debate - in fact the ONLY determinate of an objective morality - is if there is a God Who is the ONLY standard. And there IS! But for those who want to ONLY seek or assert the existence of subjective/personal truths, that won't stop them from denying any objective truth or absolutes of God.

I've maintained objective morality as a theistic position. But again; do you see a difference between "moral absolutes" as discussed in the article and the idea that morality is objective? To me they kinda seem the same

Ken

Ken, many approaches to moral absolutes are discussed within the article I linked. Of those, the ONLY moral absolutes I would say are valid are ones rooted in God's desires for our behavior, per His holy character - which is also the source of all objective morality - which DOES exist because He exists AND because of WHO He is.

But this universal moral law/absolutes are not only known to Christians, this is known to ALL men. And Scripture says this will be most clearly revealed on that day in which God judges the "secrets of men."

Romans 2:15: "They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them"

So, God's moral law is consistently known to all, even though denied by most. Again, it exists because He exists.

B. W. wrote:

Philip wrote:The key variable in the subjective vs. objective debate - in fact the ONLY determinate of an objective morality - is if there is a God Who is the ONLY standard. And there IS! But for those who want to ONLY seek or assert the existence of subjective/personal truths, that won't stop them from denying any objective truth or absolutes of God.

This is what a world of subjective morals produces:

Article: MIZZOU CAMPUS ACTIVISTS AND BLACK LIVES MATTER COMPLAIN ABOUT PARIS STEALING THE SPOTLIGHT

End of debate...
-
-
-

I agree!

Ken

Philip wrote:Ken, many approaches to moral absolutes are discussed within the article I linked. Of those, the ONLY moral absolutes I would say are valid are ones rooted in God's desires for our behavior, per His holy character - which is also the source of all objective morality - which DOES exist because He exists AND because of WHO He is.

But this universal moral law/absolutes are not only known to Christians, this is known to ALL men. And Scripture says this will be most clearly revealed on that day in which God judges the "secrets of men."

Romans 2:15: "They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them"

So, God's moral law is consistently known to all, even though denied by most. Again, it exists because He exists.

This is a key answer for you Ken, just as Phillip pointed out: God's moral law is consistently known to all, even though denied by most. Again, it exists because He exists

Let us go the recent event: how do you know it is wrong for 8 terrorist to murder 129 and wound 352 innocent people in France?

The logical answer most oft heard from militant atheist on this is that life is rare so it is valuable because it is rare.

If that is the case, then you have proved absolutes exist.

However, if all life just ceases and non-exist, then how could any terrorist be wrong?

Who and what will hold such to account?

They can murder, pillage, rape at will and get away with it because after one dies - poof non-existence! If a person does good and values the rarity of life, so what, after that person dies - poof non-existence!

Life then has no value just because it is rare - why - because - absolutely with 100 percent empirical accuracy our mortal life will end and poof - so what?

Fact is, life came from somewhere: God, he gave it to us, rare in the scope that it was given to us for the purpose to tend, take care of, and exercise dominion on this earth. Since he gave life, he holds to account those that abuse the gift of life and provides redemption for those that choose to return to him. Ken, we discussed that part before so I’ll leave that thought for now and continue.

If there is no God, just because life is rare would in essence absolutely make life have no value. Human beings would be living in delusion to value life because it is rare as there is no purpose for anything. One large, big comet smacks into earth - poof all gone.

So let us for a change get past the life is rare montage of this militant atheist pat answer and ask, why do people value life at all - where did that come from?

Where did knowing that it is wrong and evil for 8 terrorist to murder 129 and wound 352 innocent people in France at last victim count come from?

If all is subject morality - where did that line of reasoning come from that guide terrorist to justify their acts?

Where did moral reasoning come from?

God set forth a set of standards to guide us out of subjectivity into his objectivity.

Humanity would not have come up with these on their own...

Exo 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before Me.
Exo 20:4 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
Exo 20:5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,
Exo 20:6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
Exo 20:7 "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
Exo 20:8 "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:12 "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you.
Exo 20:13 "You shall not murder.
Exo 20:14 "You shall not commit adultery.
Exo 20:15 "You shall not steal.
Exo 20:16 "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Exo 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor anything that is your neighbor's." NKJV

...why... well because, just, look at how terrorist justify their acts and abortion advocates justify murder of the truly innocent based on moral subjectivism.

How one wiggles their way out by saying that their theft is small compared to what others steal. no one will notice.

God's objective morals sent to us were sent to guide us back to find his help that will help guide our steps into the right path free from moral subjectivism to discover our objective purpose in life midst the messes we all, humans collectively make.

Ken, just as Phillip pointed out: God's moral law is consistently known to all, even though denied by most. Again, it exists because He exists, Romans 2:15.

Life has value because it is God who gave life and it was humanity who chose not to listen to God and thus began our collective abuse of dominion, tending, and keeping this world in which we were given as well as our blaming him for all our crimes against humanity.

We can and do accuse God for allowing or not stopping terrorist, etc, but God entrusted us with the care, keeping, and exercising dominion on this earth - it is we who are doing this. Yes, God will stop it all one day - the day one human beings surrender to him, one human being at a time. What don't you surrender and find true life he offers and empirically find out yourself?

You can meet the creator of the universe and know that he is real. He will change your life and set you on a new life course so that after you die, poof - you will not be gone. We discussed this before, he keeps knocking. Be free, untied, from moral subjectivism for you do not know what you are doing.

Blessings...in Jesus' name Ken!
-
-
-

P.S.

I will have to admit. Ken, you have shown respect, a bit of snarkiness at times too, but at least you do not have the hate toward God as many folks have and are willing to discuss matters objectively. Since you do - please consider: If there is no God, just because life is rare would in essence absolutely make life have no value. Human beings would be living in delusion to value life because it is rare as there is no purpose for anything. One large, big comet smacks into earth - poof all gone.

The only way life could have value because it is rare if there was a giver of life greater than random chance of colliding star dust and chemical reactions - a living highly intelligent just Creator - whom we have all ignored, slighted, mocked, ridiculed who gave a gift called life to us all despite ourselves for a purpose midst the no purpose.

What's your purpose Ken?

B. W. wrote:

Philip wrote:Ken, many approaches to moral absolutes are discussed within the article I linked. Of those, the ONLY moral absolutes I would say are valid are ones rooted in God's desires for our behavior, per His holy character - which is also the source of all objective morality - which DOES exist because He exists AND because of WHO He is.

But this universal moral law/absolutes are not only known to Christians, this is known to ALL men. And Scripture says this will be most clearly revealed on that day in which God judges the "secrets of men."

Romans 2:15: "They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them"

So, God's moral law is consistently known to all, even though denied by most. Again, it exists because He exists.

This is a key answer for you Ken, just as Phillip pointed out: God's moral law is consistently known to all, even though denied by most. Again, it exists because He exists

Let us go the recent event: how do you know it is wrong for 8 terrorist to murder 129 and wound 352 innocent people in France?

The logical answer most oft heard from militant atheist on this is that life is rare so it is valuable because it is rare.

If that is the case, then you have proved absolutes exist.

However, if all life just ceases and non-exist, then how could any terrorist be wrong?

Who and what will hold such to account?

They can murder, pillage, rape at will and get away with it because after one dies - poof non-existence! If a person does good and values the rarity of life, so what, after that person dies - poof non-existence!

Life then has no value just because it is rare - why - because - absolutely with 100 percent empirical accuracy our mortal life will end and poof - so what?

Fact is, life came from somewhere: God, he gave it to us, rare in the scope that it was given to us for the purpose to tend, take care of, and exercise dominion on this earth. Since he gave life, he holds to account those that abuse the gift of life and provides redemption for those that choose to return to him. Ken, we discussed that part before so I’ll leave that thought for now and continue.

If there is no God, just because life is rare would in essence absolutely make life have no value. Human beings would be living in delusion to value life because it is rare as there is no purpose for anything. One large, big comet smacks into earth - poof all gone.

So let us for a change get past the life is rare montage of this militant atheist pat answer and ask, why do people value life at all - where did that come from?

Where did knowing that it is wrong and evil for 8 terrorist to murder 129 and wound 352 innocent people in France at last victim count come from?

If all is subject morality - where did that line of reasoning come from that guide terrorist to justify their acts?

Where did moral reasoning come from?

God set forth a set of standards to guide us out of subjectivity into his objectivity.

Humanity would not have come up with these on their own...

Exo 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before Me.
Exo 20:4 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth;
Exo 20:5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me,
Exo 20:6 but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
Exo 20:7 "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
Exo 20:8 "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:12 "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you.
Exo 20:13 "You shall not murder.
Exo 20:14 "You shall not commit adultery.
Exo 20:15 "You shall not steal.
Exo 20:16 "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Exo 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor anything that is your neighbor's." NKJV

...why... well because, just, look at how terrorist justify their acts and abortion advocates justify murder of the truly innocent based on moral subjectivism.

How one wiggles their way out by saying that their theft is small compared to what others steal. no one will notice.

God's objective morals sent to us were sent to guide us back to find his help that will help guide our steps into the right path free from moral subjectivism to discover our objective purpose in life midst the messes we all, humans collectively make.

Ken, just as Phillip pointed out: God's moral law is consistently known to all, even though denied by most. Again, it exists because He exists, Romans 2:15.

Life has value because it is God who gave life and it was humanity who chose not to listen to God and thus began our collective abuse of dominion, tending, and keeping this world in which we were given as well as our blaming him for all our crimes against humanity.

We can and do accuse God for allowing or not stopping terrorist, etc, but God entrusted us with the care, keeping, and exercising dominion on this earth - it is we who are doing this. Yes, God will stop it all one day - the day one human beings surrender to him, one human being at a time. What don't you surrender and find true life he offers and empirically find out yourself?

You can meet the creator of the universe and know that he is real. He will change your life and set you on a new life course so that after you die, poof - you will not be gone. We discussed this before, he keeps knocking. Be free, untied, from moral subjectivism for you do not know what you are doing.

Blessings...in Jesus' name Ken!
-
-
-

P.S.

I will have to admit. Ken, you have shown respect, a bit of snarkiness at times too, but at least you do not have the hate toward God as many folks have and are willing to discuss matters objectively. Since you do - please consider: If there is no God, just because life is rare would in essence absolutely make life have no value. Human beings would be living in delusion to value life because it is rare as there is no purpose for anything. One large, big comet smacks into earth - poof all gone.

The only way life could have value because it is rare if there was a giver of life greater than random chance of colliding star dust and chemical reactions - a living highly intelligent just Creator - whom we have all ignored, slighted, mocked, ridiculed who gave a gift called life to us all despite ourselves for a purpose midst the no purpose.

What's your purpose Ken?

So you are of the opinion that if there is no eternal life following this current life, that this current life has no value, because once you die; poof! everything is gone.

Obviously I disagree, but let me ask you; if this life has no value in and of itself, why not spend the ENTIRETY of this life in preparation of the following life? Why read a good book, go to the movies, have friends, get married, have children, etc. if when you die; poof! It’s all gone and none of it will matter?


Ken

Kenny wrote:

Obviously I disagree, but let me ask you; if this life has no value in and of itself, why not spend the ENTIRETY of this life in preparation of the following life? Why read a good book, go to the movies, have friends, get married, have children, etc. if when you die; poof! It’s all gone and none of it will matter?

Kenny,

Nobody is saying this life has no value if God exists. The point was that IF there is no God, then ultimately, life is meaningless.

With God, life has meaning.

The "poof! And then you're gone" was in reference to this life, without God existing.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Obviously I disagree, but let me ask you; if this life has no value in and of itself, why not spend the ENTIRETY of this life in preparation of the following life? Why read a good book, go to the movies, have friends, get married, have children, etc. if when you die; poof! It’s all gone and none of it will matter?

Kenny,

Nobody is saying this life has no value if God exists. The point was that IF there is no God, then ultimately, life is meaningless.

With God, life has meaning.

The "poof! And then you're gone" was in reference to this life, without God existing.

Ditto...
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:
Ditto...
-
-
-

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood you; my bad. If what you meant was that life is meaningless without the Christian God, I can understand a christian taking that position; but certainly you are aware Christians aren’t the only people capable of having meaning in their lives aren’t you? Not just atheists and skeptics, but those who worship what you might call “non-existent” Gods can have meaning in their lives as well; yes?

Ken

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Obviously I disagree, but let me ask you; if this life has no value in and of itself, why not spend the ENTIRETY of this life in preparation of the following life? Why read a good book, go to the movies, have friends, get married, have children, etc. if when you die; poof! It’s all gone and none of it will matter?

Kenny,

Nobody is saying this life has no value if God exists. The point was that IF there is no God, then ultimately, life is meaningless.

Kenny, I've been following this discussion here and there.
And I might agree with you to a certain extent, but then disagree with you to another.

Consider this. For me, I can't even fathom a world without God because as I see it such is just not ontologically possible.
It's like trying to consider the value of cars without anyone ever existing. How is this similar? Well,
- firstly, someone must exist to have created them.
- secondly, value is something subjective beings assign. (as you've reasoned right?)

So if no one exists, then 1) cars have no value and 2) not just that, they can't exist.
Therefore, to ask someone to consider the value of cars without anyone having existed is just absurd and ultimately nonsense. From where I stand, so too is any discussion of the value of the world (or things in the world) without God.

Here is the thing about value.
You (Kenny) are perhaps correct to a degree that it is something "subjects" give rather than inherent.
Let's consider something like existence. Does existence itself have any value?
Common sense tells us, "yes, of course." We intuit such.

So does its value exist just because Kenny says so? Because I say so?
I've agreed with you that value cannot be given unless there is someone to give it.
Now I might disagree with "existence" having any value, but then perhaps I really don't exist.
What I think doesn't have any bearing on the matter -- it seems clear to me that I'd be just as wrong in both cases.
And if I would be wrong, then a subject greater than I must exist to give "existence" its value.

The kicker is that things do exist, and sentient beings at that which didn't previous.
Our value wouldn't be possible unless there was a necessary something, a subjective being like God.
Therefore if existence has value, indeed we have value beyond just what someone on the same level thinks...
if we agree value is subjectively given, then a subjective being such as God must necessarily exist to give existence and us that value.

So, I guess, welcome to Theism Kenny. You're so in denial. You need to come out of the closet.