Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

patrick wrote:

Kenny wrote:If you told me (for example) rape were wrong, in theory if I were a sick “#@*/!!” I could disagree with you and claim rape is good, and if you were the type who believes all human opinions are equal, you would have no way of proving your opinion is any better than mine; we’re just two people who disagree.

Kenny, what do you think of social contractarianism?

Or put another way, what metric are you using to gauge which opinion is "better" ? Cause I'm assuming you don't really think "rape is good" is a valid opinion.

The metric I use is what makes sense to me.

Can you picture what makes sense to you changing?

Consider, for example, the group of soldiers raping women. It wasn't just limited to Vikings, or "the enemy" side, but no doubt American, Australian, Chinese, Japanese, Russian and the like all have done it. It doesn't matter which side of the coin they're on, I'm sure all sides have done horrible acts. It may not be just in war, but I'll pursue this line of thought because I think I can psycho-analyse such better as an example.

Many of these same soldiers, in a normal civilised environment would have answered raping is never good because it makes sense to them. Yet, in changing conditions, the bar of what becomes normal and acceptable gets dropped so far down in senselessness that raping perhaps seems like nothing. Seeing the horrors of the world, your mates and innocent people torn to bits, the absolute devaluing of human life, realities of how harsh our world can be, such values end up (I assume) becoming so meaningless that what's it even matter.

So, you have the many cases we often hear about, with soldiers who may have been once very morally good men, their opinion of raping changes. These "values" we might accept under more normal conditions, mean nothing when faced with extremely horrible conditions where death is everywhere, you see babies shredded or the like in shrapnel, perhaps even initially accidentally killing a few people yourself caught in crossfire.

I suppose a main point I'm getting at, is if "what makes sense" is the metric, then when nothing makes sense, don't you suppose such values would also mean nothing?

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

patrick wrote:

Kenny wrote:If you told me (for example) rape were wrong, in theory if I were a sick “#@*/!!” I could disagree with you and claim rape is good, and if you were the type who believes all human opinions are equal, you would have no way of proving your opinion is any better than mine; we’re just two people who disagree.

Kenny, what do you think of social contractarianism?

Or put another way, what metric are you using to gauge which opinion is "better" ? Cause I'm assuming you don't really think "rape is good" is a valid opinion.

The metric I use is what makes sense to me.

Can you picture what makes sense to you changing?

Consider, for example, the group of soldiers raping women. It wasn't just limited to Vikings, or "the enemy" side, but no doubt American, Australian, Chinese, Japanese, Russian and the like all have done it. It doesn't matter which side of the coin they're on, I'm sure all sides have done horrible acts. It may not be just in war, but I'll pursue this line of thought because I think I can psycho-analyse such better as an example.

Many of these same soldiers, in a normal civilised environment would have answered raping is never good because it makes sense to them. Yet, in changing conditions, the bar of what becomes normal and acceptable gets dropped so far down in senselessness that raping perhaps seems like nothing. Seeing the horrors of the world, your mates and innocent people torn to bits, the absolute devaluing of human life, realities of how harsh our world can be, such values end up (I assume) becoming so meaningless that what's it even matter.

So, you have the many cases we often hear about, with soldiers who may have been once very morally good men, their opinion of raping changes. These "values" we might accept under more normal conditions, mean nothing when faced with extremely horrible conditions where death is everywhere, you see babies shredded or the like in shrapnel, perhaps even initially accidentally killing a few people yourself caught in crossfire.

I suppose a main point I'm getting at, is if "what makes sense" is the metric, then when nothing makes sense, don't you suppose such values would also mean nothing?

I believe it is rare for a person to do wrong strictly out of ignorance. Most of these people know right, they know wrong and they choose wrong. Those soldiers in your scenario, still knew rape was wrong, but for whatever reason they did it anyway.
Speaking for myself, when what make sense to me is the metric, everything makes sense.

Ken

Ken

Kenny wrote:

patrick wrote:

Kenny wrote:If you told me (for example) rape were wrong, in theory if I were a sick “#@*/!!” I could disagree with you and claim rape is good, and if you were the type who believes all human opinions are equal, you would have no way of proving your opinion is any better than mine; we’re just two people who disagree.

Kenny, what do you think of social contractarianism?

Or put another way, what metric are you using to gauge which opinion is "better" ? Cause I'm assuming you don't really think "rape is good" is a valid opinion.

The metric I use is what makes sense to me.

Ken

OK. Do you think there's something rational about morality then? Like when you decide what to do for fun, that comes from how that'll make you feel, right? But "what makes sense" sounds like it's coming from an entirely different process.

I brought up social contractarianism because it's an ethical theory that grounds itself only on the demand for codes of conduct between persons. And yet, because it's starting from the premise that we've agreed to engage in prosocial behavior, some principles necessarily fall from that, as some behaviors are unambiguously antisocial.

So to be more precise, do you think morality is based in prosocial behavior?

patrick wrote:

Kenny wrote:

patrick wrote:

Kenny wrote:If you told me (for example) rape were wrong, in theory if I were a sick “#@*/!!” I could disagree with you and claim rape is good, and if you were the type who believes all human opinions are equal, you would have no way of proving your opinion is any better than mine; we’re just two people who disagree.

Kenny, what do you think of social contractarianism?

Or put another way, what metric are you using to gauge which opinion is "better" ? Cause I'm assuming you don't really think "rape is good" is a valid opinion.

The metric I use is what makes sense to me.

Ken

OK. Do you think there's something rational about morality then? Like when you decide what to do for fun, that comes from how that'll make you feel, right? But "what makes sense" sounds like it's coming from an entirely different process.

I brought up social contractarianism because it's an ethical theory that grounds itself only on the demand for codes of conduct between persons. And yet, because it's starting from the premise that we've agreed to engage in prosocial behavior, some principles necessarily fall from that, as some behaviors are unambiguously antisocial.

So to be more precise, do you think morality is based in prosocial behavior?

Yes

K

I didn't say "no such thing as funny" I said "no such thing as OBJECTIVLY funny"

Ken

Wow....just wow....

Ken, to say that there is no objective funny means to say there is no such thing as funny.
You do realize that right?

PaulSacramento wrote:

I didn't say "no such thing as funny" I said "no such thing as OBJECTIVLY funny"

Ken

Wow....just wow....

Ken, to say that there is no objective funny means to say there is no such thing as funny.
You do realize that right?

This is the second time you've made this claim. Again; please explain WHY the label "funny" cannot exist unless there is an actual objective "funny" existing. I've already explained why this position does not make sense to me, explain why it does make sense to you.

Ken

PaulSacramento

Below is a previous point I made that explains my position.

Okay; Subjective truth means a truth based on opinion, extenuating circumstances taken into consideration, or influenced by personal biases.

Objective truth means true no matter opinion, biases, or extenuating circumstances.

If you told me (for example) rape were wrong, in theory if I were a sick “#@*/!!” I could disagree with you and claim rape is good, and if you were the type who believes all human opinions are equal, you would have no way of proving your opinion is any better than mine; we’re just two people who disagree.

If you told me a jump off a 500 foot cliff will kill me, it doesn’t matter how much of a sick “#@*/!!” I am, how mentally inept, or stubborn I may be, if I jump off a 500 ft cliff, I will die; I have no say so in this situation.

The first scenario is an example of subjective truth, the second scenario is an example of objective truth. Objective truth can be demonstrated as true, subjective truth cannot.

You voiced an objection to this point, but you neglected to explain why you object to this point. If you can explain WHY you object to this point it would go a long ways to making your POV make sense to me.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

I didn't say "no such thing as funny" I said "no such thing as OBJECTIVLY funny"

Ken

Wow....just wow....

Ken, to say that there is no objective funny means to say there is no such thing as funny.
You do realize that right?

This is the second time you've made this claim. Again; please explain WHY the label "funny" cannot exist unless there is an actual objective "funny" existing. I've already explained why this position does not make sense to me, explain why it does make sense to you.

Ken

Ken, if for a thing to exist in a subjective manner is first MUST exist independent of the subject, ie: in an objective state.
You realize that?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

I didn't say "no such thing as funny" I said "no such thing as OBJECTIVLY funny"

Ken

Wow....just wow....

Ken, to say that there is no objective funny means to say there is no such thing as funny.
You do realize that right?

This is the second time you've made this claim. Again; please explain WHY the label "funny" cannot exist unless there is an actual objective "funny" existing. I've already explained why this position does not make sense to me, explain why it does make sense to you.

Ken

Ken, if for a thing to exist in a subjective manner is first MUST exist independent of the subject, ie: in an objective state.
You realize that?

PaulSacramento; you keep saying this. Are you able to articulate why you believe this to be the case? I've already explained why I believe it is not the case. Explain why you are right and I am wrong.

Ken

I am not sure how easier I can put this...

Objective:
Being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ).

Of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

Lets take good for example:

That there is such a thing as Good ( Good as objective) allows for something to be viewed as good ( Subjective).
If there was no objective good then the subjective could not exist since it is interdependent of the objective existence of Good.

In short, the simple fact that something CAN be good means that GOOD must exist independent of what can or can't be good.
There must be an objective thing before it can be subjective.

In short, WHAT is good is subjective, that there is such a thing as good is objective since, if good was not objective there would be no way to have a subjective view of it since it wouldn't exist.

Let's deal with you view here:

Okay; Subjective truth means a truth based on opinion, extenuating circumstances taken into consideration, or influenced by personal biases.

Objective truth means true no matter opinion, biases, or extenuating circumstances.

If you told me (for example) rape were wrong, in theory if I were a sick “#@*/!!” I could disagree with you and claim rape is good, and if you were the type who believes all human opinions are equal, you would have no way of proving your opinion is any better than mine; we’re just two people who disagree.

If you told me a jump off a 500 foot cliff will kill me, it doesn’t matter how much of a sick “#@*/!!” I am, how mentally inept, or stubborn I may be, if I jump off a 500 ft cliff, I will die; I have no say so in this situation.

The first scenario is an example of subjective truth, the second scenario is an example of objective truth. Objective truth can be demonstrated as true, subjective truth cannot.

Your definition are correct but your examples are not since they are not relevant to each other.
EX:
You say this is objective:
If you told me a jump off a 500 foot cliff will kill me, it doesn’t matter how much of a sick “#@*/!!” I am, how mentally inept, or stubborn I may be, if I jump off a 500 ft cliff, I will die; I have no say so in this situation.

BUT it isn't because all it would take is 1 person surviving to make it subjective and we know that some people even survive falling from planes without parachutes.

The first example of rape is fine because it deals with a subjective view BASED ON AN OBJECTIVE reality, that there IS a such a right and wrong ( you wrote good but I assume you meant right because you said rape was wrong before).


See example 1 deals with a statement of possible factual consequence of an action while example two is about the moral correctness of one.
Two very different things.

PaulSacramento wrote:I am not sure how easier I can put this...

Objective:
Being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ).

Of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

Lets take good for example:

That there is such a thing as Good ( Good as objective) allows for something to be viewed as good ( Subjective).

It is the action which is objective that is viewed as good.  You seem to be confusing the action with the judgment attached to the action

PaulSacramento wrote:If there was no objective good then the subjective could not exist since it is interdependent of the objective existence of Good.

In short, the simple fact that something CAN be good means that GOOD must exist independent of what can or can't be good.

Where we disagree is I say nothing can be/become “good” objective things are labeled good.

PaulSacramento wrote:There must be an objective thing before it can be subjective.

In short, WHAT is good is subjective, that there is such a thing as good is objective since, if good was not objective there would be no way to have a subjective view of it since it wouldn't exist.

Here is how I see it; the objective part is either a person, place, or a thing. that which is subjective is just how we judge, or label, that objective person, place or thing. Example: In the sentence “Kenny is smart”. Kenny is objective; smart is subjective. You wouldn’t claim smart has an actual existence would you? I am labeled or judged as smart, thus smart only exist in the context of Kenny’s description.

Does this make sense to you?

Ken

Let's deal with you view here:

Okay; Subjective truth means a truth based on opinion, extenuating circumstances taken into consideration, or influenced by personal biases.

Objective truth means true no matter opinion, biases, or extenuating circumstances.

If you told me (for example) rape were wrong, in theory if I were a sick “#@*/!!” I could disagree with you and claim rape is good, and if you were the type who believes all human opinions are equal, you would have no way of proving your opinion is any better than mine; we’re just two people who disagree.

If you told me a jump off a 500 foot cliff will kill me, it doesn’t matter how much of a sick “#@*/!!” I am, how mentally inept, or stubborn I may be, if I jump off a 500 ft cliff, I will die; I have no say so in this situation.

The first scenario is an example of subjective truth, the second scenario is an example of objective truth. Objective truth can be demonstrated as true, subjective truth cannot.

PaulSacramento wrote:Your definition are correct but your examples are not since they are not relevant to each other.
EX:
You say this is objective:
If you told me a jump off a 500 foot cliff will kill me, it doesn’t matter how much of a sick “#@*/!!” I am, how mentally inept, or stubborn I may be, if I jump off a 500 ft cliff, I will die; I have no say so in this situation.

BUT it isn't because all it would take is 1 person surviving to make it subjective and we know that some people even survive falling from planes without parachutes.

I was just making up an example of something that can be demonstrated. I could have just as easily said “a 50 cal blast to the back of the head”, or “cutting your head off” Nobody has ever survived that.

PaulSacramento wrote:The first example of rape is fine because it deals with a subjective view BASED ON AN OBJECTIVE reality,

Not quite, it’s based on a subjective view/judgment of an objective action.

PaulSacramento wrote:that there IS a such a right and wrong ( you wrote good but I assume you meant right because you said rape was wrong before).

See example 1 deals with a statement of possible factual consequence of an action while example two is about the moral correctness of one.
Two very different things.

[/quote]
I agree they are different, but because one is objective and the other is subjective.
Perhaps this is just something we will have to agree to disagree

Ken

What about instinct? Take a dog that has never had puppies before and yet when it happens by instinct the dog knows how to clean them and get them breathing,and take care of them and all from instinct. Where could it come from,if not God?That dog is suddenly an expert at delivering puppies,has never been trained,etc.It could only come from God.

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I am not sure how easier I can put this...

Objective:
Being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ).

Of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

Lets take good for example:

That there is such a thing as Good ( Good as objective) allows for something to be viewed as good ( Subjective).

It is the action which is objective that is viewed as good.  You seem to be confusing the action with the judgment attached to the action

PaulSacramento wrote:If there was no objective good then the subjective could not exist since it is interdependent of the objective existence of Good.

In short, the simple fact that something CAN be good means that GOOD must exist independent of what can or can't be good.

Where we disagree is I say nothing can be/become “good” objective things are labeled good.

PaulSacramento wrote:There must be an objective thing before it can be subjective.

In short, WHAT is good is subjective, that there is such a thing as good is objective since, if good was not objective there would be no way to have a subjective view of it since it wouldn't exist.

Here is how I see it; the objective part is either a person, place, or a thing. that which is subjective is just how we judge, or label, that objective person, place or thing. Example: In the sentence “Kenny is smart”. Kenny is objective; smart is subjective. You wouldn’t claim smart has an actual existence would you? I am labeled or judged as smart, thus smart only exist in the context of Kenny’s description.

Does this make sense to you?

Ken

Some of the difference between the views, it seems to me, is grammatical - you're using 'good' and 'smart' as adjectives only whereas others see them as abstract nouns as well; 'intelligence' would be an equivalent noun for 'smart'. Notice I said abstract noun - objective things don't have to be visible, audible or physical in any way. Maybe that's where you're getting stuck; thinking objective things have to have some sort of physical existence.