Evidence for God from Science

Spock wrote:

RickD wrote:I'm confused!

With all this blather, absolute morality without God still hasn't been proven?

What are you talking about? It has been proven, and no one yet has refuted a word I wrote in the proof.

Just keep doing those psychedelic drugs, spock. They can help you believe anything!

PaulSacramento wrote:From Page 1:

However, from what I've seen, the more sensible of the "moral" Atheists who have actually given thought to the matter typically acknowledge that there is no objective standard of morality in their worldview, but they say that the relative is just as valid as the absolute in their view. In their worldview, since there is no God and people are the highest form of life, there is nothing wrong with saying "I act by this set of morals because I want to, not because I believe they are inherently and objectively moral. I WANT to help mankind, therefore I try to fight sexism and racism". Which I admit, I think is somewhat noble of them, even if I as a Christian don't hold that view of morality. Just because you don't believe in objective morality doesn't mean you will go off the deep end and actively try to do the opposite of what is considered moral.

And it all could have ended there, LOL !

The idea that there is no objective moral standard is based on two fundamental misconceptions:

1) It confuses morality with a list of rules established by a legislative agent.

2) It is based on a failure to understand the meaning of the word "objective."

I have answered both of these confusions in my article The Logic of Love: A Natural Theory of Morality. I would be most interested if anyone could find any error in my argument.

RickD wrote:

Spock wrote:

RickD wrote:I'm confused!

With all this blather, absolute morality without God still hasn't been proven?

What are you talking about? It has been proven, and no one yet has refuted a word I wrote in the proof.

Just keep doing those psychedelic drugs, spock. They can help you believe anything!

The profound depth of insight in your comment humbles me.

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:So, 39 pages later we have the answer to morality without God:
Self Love and the "golden rule".
In short, the answer to morality without God is to place OURSELVES in the place of God.

Well, yes. For those who do not believe in God what else is there other than the self?

Belief in an an abstract non-demonstrable concept like the Allah, Santa Claus, Krishna, Yahweh, or whatever, does not make your fundamental ontological status as a "self" any different than mine. You are every bit as limited to your "self" as every other person.

Spock wrote:

RickD wrote:

Spock wrote:

RickD wrote:I'm confused!

With all this blather, absolute morality without God still hasn't been proven?

What are you talking about? It has been proven, and no one yet has refuted a word I wrote in the proof.

Just keep doing those psychedelic drugs, spock. They can help you believe anything!

The profound depth of insight in your comment humbles me.

That's me...Mr. deep insight. The simple truth is usually better than deep, meaningless insight. Especially for simpletons like me who cannot think too deeply. Perhaps some funny mushrooms may enlighten my consciousness?

Spock wrote:

Byblos wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:So, 39 pages later we have the answer to morality without God:
Self Love and the "golden rule".
In short, the answer to morality without God is to place OURSELVES in the place of God.

Well, yes. For those who do not believe in God what else is there other than the self?

Belief in an an abstract non-demonstrable concept like the Allah, Santa Claus, Krishna, Yahweh, or whatever, does not make your fundamental ontological status as a "self" any different than mine. You are every bit as limited to your "self" as every other person.

Sounds subjective.

Spock wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:From Page 1:

However, from what I've seen, the more sensible of the "moral" Atheists who have actually given thought to the matter typically acknowledge that there is no objective standard of morality in their worldview, but they say that the relative is just as valid as the absolute in their view. In their worldview, since there is no God and people are the highest form of life, there is nothing wrong with saying "I act by this set of morals because I want to, not because I believe they are inherently and objectively moral. I WANT to help mankind, therefore I try to fight sexism and racism". Which I admit, I think is somewhat noble of them, even if I as a Christian don't hold that view of morality. Just because you don't believe in objective morality doesn't mean you will go off the deep end and actively try to do the opposite of what is considered moral.

And it all could have ended there, LOL !

The idea that there is no objective moral standard is based on two fundamental misconceptions:

1) It confuses morality with a list of rules established by a legislative agent.

2) It is based on a failure to understand the meaning of the word "objective."

I have answered both of these confusions in my article The Logic of Love: A Natural Theory of Morality. I would be most interested if anyone could find any error in my argument.

Maybe others are willing to go over this AGAIN but I have understood what you are trying to sell and I am not interested in buying something that I used to have and have found much better.
All the best to you though but I don't think you'll find any converts here.

Spock wrote:

RickD wrote:I'm confused!

With all this blather, absolute morality without God still hasn't been proven?

What are you talking about? It has been proven, and no one yet has refuted a word I wrote in the proof.

Yes, you have shown in your proof that morality can exist whether or not a god exists, but all WLC has done is assert that morality cannot exist without god.
-

RickD wrote:That's me...Mr. deep insight. The simple truth is usually better than deep, meaningless insight. Especially for simpletons like me who cannot think too deeply. Perhaps some funny mushrooms may enlighten my consciousness?

Your comments would apply to the sophistry typical of Christian apologetics, but they have absolutely nothing to do with the argument I have presented which is founded on the same kind of symmetry principles that have unified our understanding of the natural world. Symmetry is truly one of the simplest of all concepts and it reveals the unity of the basic laws of physics. That's why all physics is established on logic that is formally identical to my natural theory of morality.

If this is over your head, how is it you feel justified to mock what you don't understand?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Spock wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:From Page 1:

However, from what I've seen, the more sensible of the "moral" Atheists who have actually given thought to the matter typically acknowledge that there is no objective standard of morality in their worldview, but they say that the relative is just as valid as the absolute in their view. In their worldview, since there is no God and people are the highest form of life, there is nothing wrong with saying "I act by this set of morals because I want to, not because I believe they are inherently and objectively moral. I WANT to help mankind, therefore I try to fight sexism and racism". Which I admit, I think is somewhat noble of them, even if I as a Christian don't hold that view of morality. Just because you don't believe in objective morality doesn't mean you will go off the deep end and actively try to do the opposite of what is considered moral.

And it all could have ended there, LOL !

The idea that there is no objective moral standard is based on two fundamental misconceptions:

1) It confuses morality with a list of rules established by a legislative agent.

2) It is based on a failure to understand the meaning of the word "objective."

I have answered both of these confusions in my article The Logic of Love: A Natural Theory of Morality. I would be most interested if anyone could find any error in my argument.

Maybe others are willing to go over this AGAIN but I have understood what you are trying to sell and I am not interested in buying something that I used to have and have found much better.
All the best to you though but I don't think you'll find any converts here.

I am not trying to "convert" anyone to anything, except perhaps from confusion to clarity.

Your use of the word "AGAIN" is irrational because my argument has yet to be carefully reviewed, let alone refuted. A good place to start would be my definition of objectivity. Do you understand that invariance under transformation means, and why Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick wrote a book on the subject?

I don;'t think that any of these were answered....

IS it moral to kill the one to save the many?
Is it moral to kill the few to save millions?
Would it have been moral to kill the Nazis to save the 10's of millions that died in WW2?
Would it have been moral to kill Stalin or Lenin or Mao and save 10's of millions?

If one applies the GR to those subject to a violent regime, like the communist under Stalin or Chinese under Mao or nazis under Hitler, since I don't want the Nazi's to treat ME badly, I should NOT treat them badly and if I want them to treat me nice ( ie not persecute and kill me) I should go along with them and treat them nice.
Of course we KNOW that to be immoral, one should NOT allow what is "not good" to be simply because it would follow the GR, right?

Would the killing of any of these children BEFORE they commited these crimes, be moral or immoral?
http://listverse.com/2011/05/14/top-10-young-killers/

Spock wrote:]
I am not trying to "convert" anyone to anything, except perhaps from confusion to clarity.

Your use of the word "AGAIN" is irrational because my argument has yet to be carefully reviewed, let alone refuted. A good place to start would be my definition of objectivity. Do you understand that invariance under transformation means, and why Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick wrote a book on the subject?

Yes, I understand WHY one needs to "re-define" objectivity in a way that lends validity to their claim.
Seems like you are trying to fall back on the "argument from authority" here...

PaulSacramento wrote:

Spock wrote:]
I am not trying to "convert" anyone to anything, except perhaps from confusion to clarity.

Your use of the word "AGAIN" is irrational because my argument has yet to be carefully reviewed, let alone refuted. A good place to start would be my definition of objectivity. Do you understand that invariance under transformation means, and why Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick wrote a book on the subject?

Yes, I understand WHY one needs to "re-define" objectivity in a way that lends validity to their claim.
Seems like you are trying to fall back on the "argument from authority" here...

To what authority did I appeal? I presented Nozick's definition of objectivity because I believe it is true. It is his ARGUMENT that I am presenting. I do not appeal to his authority. I stand by the argument he presented. If you want to challenge his definition of objectivity, then please do so. Your comment is nothing but the logical fallacy of Appeal to Motivation. It does not help your case and adds nothing to our understanding.

Spock wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Spock wrote:]
I am not trying to "convert" anyone to anything, except perhaps from confusion to clarity.

Your use of the word "AGAIN" is irrational because my argument has yet to be carefully reviewed, let alone refuted. A good place to start would be my definition of objectivity. Do you understand that invariance under transformation means, and why Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick wrote a book on the subject?

Yes, I understand WHY one needs to "re-define" objectivity in a way that lends validity to their claim.
Seems like you are trying to fall back on the "argument from authority" here...

To what authority did I appeal? I presented Nozick's definition of objectivity because I believe it is true. It is his ARGUMENT that I am presenting. I do not appeal to his authority. I stand by the argument he presented. If you want to challenge his definition of objectivity, then please do so. Your comment is nothing but the logical fallacy of Appeal to Motivation. It does not help your case and adds nothing to our understanding.

If you weren't appealing to his authority, why mention him at all?
Why mention him as "Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick" and how he "wrote a book on the subject"?
Dude...

PaulSacramento wrote:I don;'t think that any of these were answered....

IS it moral to kill the one to save the many?
Is it moral to kill the few to save millions?
Would it have been moral to kill the Nazis to save the 10's of millions that died in WW2?
Would it have been moral to kill Stalin or Lenin or Mao and save 10's of millions?

Moral dilemmas are common to all moral theories. They depend upon the assumption that the moral theory defines something as immoral, and then create a situation that pits one immoral action against another. That's why it is a dilemma.

My moral theory explains why killing is immoral. The question of which horn of the dilemma would be "more immoral" depends upon further argument, as it would under any moral theory. For example, I presume you have a moral theory. How would you answer your own questions? If you can't or won't answer this point, your will be revealing that you have a double standard are not interested in seeking truth.