Evidence for God from Science

If morality is subjective then it can't have any intrinsic meaning. This is what I said that you originally rejected. If it is subjective, then murder is NOT wrong.

I keep asking this and you keep ignoring it:

If a society were to decide that murder was GOOD, would you agree that it is good? If morality is only subjective, then you have to agree that it would be good.

You can't have it both ways, Wayne. Either morality is like my favorite flavor of ice cream and is subjective and really intrinsically meaningless or it really exists and is objective, which requires God. So I go back to my original statement:

In order for something to be really wrong, in and of itself, God must first exist.

Jac3510 wrote:If morality is subjective then it can't have any intrinsic meaning. This is what I said that you originally rejected. If it is subjective, then murder is NOT wrong.

I keep asking this and you keep ignoring it:

If a society were to decide that murder was GOOD, would you agree that it is good?

No, I would not. If the hypothetical society decided that murder is "good", that has no direct bearing on what other societies consider "right" or "wrong". From time to time certain societies HAVE decided that murder of some people is "good" (aka "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide"). I might point out that in many cases of ethic cleansing and genocide are done using religion for "justification".

If morality is only subjective, then you have to agree that it would be good.

Not true.

You can't have it both ways, Wayne. Either morality is like my favorite flavor of ice cream and is subjective and really intrinsically meaningless or it really exists and is objective, which requires God. So I go back to my original statement:

In order for something to be really wrong, in and of itself, God must first exist.

Morality IS subjective, at the personal, cultural, and global levels. The fact that YOU like chocolate ice cream does not mean that vanilla ice cream is not produced. The fact that Muslims abstain from alcohol doesn't mean that breweries and distilleries do not exist.

Byblos wrote:Wane, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I sense a shift in your position. First you were saying objective morality can exist without God, then you stated even if OM did exist we have no way of knowing it, and now that it doesn't exist at all, it is all subjective. Could you please narrow it down to one position? This way we can determine whether or not this discussion is even worth pursuing. As it stands now you're all over the place. Thanks.

At first I was unsure what you (collectively) meant by "objective morality". I think several earthly sources serve quite well as an objective framework upon which to build a viable morality and against which to test various moral systems. These sources include the primitive code of conduct programmed in our genes, the "Golden Rule", among others. I still feel the same, but now understand that in your minds the definition of "objective morality" IS "morality based on God". This is fine with me.

What is NOT fine with me is that no morality can exist if God does not exist.

What is NOT fine with me is that because religions are based on "objective morality", they can impose their view of morality upon others.

What is NOT fine with me is that no morality can exist if God does not exist.

Objective morality can not exist if God does not exist.

How well did objective morality work out for them?

What? It is statements like this, that demonstrate your stubborness. We know that the killing of Jews was wrong. By your own admission, you only think it is wrong because of genetics and societal preferences. Not because it is objectively wrong.

So if there is an objective morality, how did it benefit the Jews?

We can know that what was done to the Jews was not merely a violation of societal preferences, but was objectively wrong. But the meaning up to this point is not to interpret objective morality, but to decide whether it exist. In Germany and a few other countries, the murder of Jews was not a violation of societal preferences. As far as a benefit? I'm not sure this even remotely has anything to do with whether objective morality exists. I could say, "what did subjective morality benefit those in 9/11." That would be a ridiculous assertion.

Some of these societies use religion to "justify" their concepts.

Wayne, religion is the opiate of the masses. If you think taking back handed stabs at religion has any bearing on whether objective morality exist, you are gravely mistaken.

What society says is "right" and "wrong" is considerably more important.

So, what Nazi society said was right and wrong was as important as what American society said?

I said no such thing. I have repeatedly said morality is subjective.

Actually, when you got backed into a corner and realized that an objective morality is direct evidence of God, you quickly abandoned the concept, claimed ignorance of the definition and jumped to the subjective platform.

Morality IS subjective, at the personal, cultural, and global levels. The fact that YOU like chocolate ice cream does not mean that vanilla ice cream is not produced. The fact that Muslims abstain from alcohol doesn't mean that breweries and distilleries do not exist.

I'm sure Jac will have a field day with this. First you need to understand that the existence of subjective morality does not negate objective morality. You and I may make a code between ourselves. It is subjective. But this doesn't negate the objective. I don't see that Jac is saying subjective morality doesn't exist. What Jac is saying is that if subjective morality is all there is, then nothing can be labled as right and wrong, but only as personal, cultural and global preferences. This is what you seem unwilling to accept. If there is no objective source of morality. Your logic is confused here. Jac is not saying that because morality is objective, and murder is wrong that guns and murderers don't exist.

So "do unto others," can not be an objective source. Without an objective source it is only a concept, and idea. You and your society may embrace it, but others may not. Who is to determine who is right and who is wrong? It would be like trying to say someone liking chocolate ice cream is wrong. Chocolate ice cream may disgust you and make you want to vomit, but does that make it wrong for me to like it? If I am standing there with a gun to shoot you, and you say it is wrong to murder you, I can simply say, "so what. That is your preference and your societies preference. My preference is to kill you. Your socieity may arrest me, but they are only forcing their moral preference on me, just as I forced my moral preference on you."

What does the meaning or non-meaning of the universe have to do with murder being wrong?

Pretty much everything. You want to believe that you live in a meaningless universe. And that your very existence is only the result of billions of years of meaningless events. Yet somehow, because you are self-aware, suddenly things in your life are supposed to have meaning. I would contend that this is a mere meaningless by-product of meaningless evolution. That would be called an accident. What you call meaning is only a cosmic accident. You think it has meaning because you are self-aware. But in reality it is only the result of biology. It can't have anymore meaning than say a bee making honey, or me digesting my lunch and converting into energy.

However if there is objective morality then it all has meaning. Right and wrong. The bee making honey. Every planet, every star, every galaxy. They all focus back that our lives do have real meaning, and that it is really wrong to murder someone.

What is NOT fine with me is that because religions are based on "objective morality", they can impose their view of morality upon others.

Ah hah. A very revealing statement. This is what it always boiols down to. First I could take this and ask, "is it OK for the secular culture to impose its view of morality on others? " But that is not what lies under the surface of your objection.
I don't know you Wayne, but I know human nature. And I think that your desire to claim that right and wrong exists and stubbornly hold on to meaning, is that you don't want an objective morality to exist. You don't want to think that your lies, your lusts, your decisions will be held to account by the highest of authorities. And this is such a wet blanket to the way you live your life and your world view that you will refuse logic and reason to maintain that view. You will cling to that view depsite the reason that you must reject to do so.

2 Thess 2: 10-12
and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

With all due respect, Wayne, you don't understand what you are talking about. There are no atheistic philosophers who defend your position. What I am having trouble with is trying to get you to see your self contradiction. I am going to walk through each of your responses above later tonight, but in the meantime, let me ask you a simple question:

What does the word 'wrong' mean (in both a moral and empirical context)? When you say "Murder is wrong," what do you mean?

jlay wrote:

What is NOT fine with me is that no morality can exist if God does not exist.

Objective morality can not exist if God does not exist.

I think some elements of morality are objective, but by your definition of "objective morality", it cannot exist without God. That is fine by me.

How well did objective morality work out for them?

What? It is statements like this, that demonstrate your stubborness. We know that the killing of Jews was wrong. By your own admission, you only think it is wrong because of genetics and societal preferences. Not because it is objectively wrong.

If you read the quoted text in my post that was in response to "Sure, it might be meaningful to you and to a particular society. How did that work out for the Jews in Germany?"

So if there is an objective morality, how did it benefit the Jews?

We can know that what was done to the Jews was not merely a violation of societal preferences, but was objectively wrong. But the meaning up to this point is not to interpret objective morality, but to decide whether it exist. In Germany and a few other countries, the murder of Jews was not a violation of societal preferences. As far as a benefit? I'm not sure this even remotely has anything to do with whether objective morality exists. I could say, "what did subjective morality benefit those in 9/11." That would be a ridiculous assertion.

My point was the "objective morality" DIDN'T appear to help the Jews (again in response to the quoted text).

Some of these societies use religion to "justify" their concepts.

Wayne, religion is the opiate of the masses. If you think taking back handed stabs at religion has any bearing on whether objective morality exist, you are gravely mistaken.

Was my "back handed stab" correct or not? Is religion sometimes used to justify unholy acts? Does not the presumption of an "objective morality" play into this misuse of religion?

What society says is "right" and "wrong" is considerably more important.

So, what Nazi society said was right and wrong was as important as what American society said?

My point was that a society's view of "right" and "wrong" typically trumps that of the individuals that comprise the society. As to your question, I have no idea what you're asking.

I said no such thing. I have repeatedly said morality is subjective.

Actually, when you got backed into a corner and realized that an objective morality is direct evidence of God, you quickly abandoned the concept, claimed ignorance of the definition and jumped to the subjective platform.

As I stated above, I felt (and still feel) that some elements of morality are objective independent of God, but when I realized that you defined "objective morality" as "based on God", I started using your definition. I was neither "backed into a corner" nor changed my position.

Morality IS subjective, at the personal, cultural, and global levels. The fact that YOU like chocolate ice cream does not mean that vanilla ice cream is not produced. The fact that Muslims abstain from alcohol doesn't mean that breweries and distilleries do not exist.

I'm sure Jac will have a field day with this. First you need to understand that the existence of subjective morality does not negate objective morality. You and I may make a code between ourselves. It is subjective. But this doesn't negate the objective. I don't see that Jac is saying subjective morality doesn't exist. What Jac is saying is that if subjective morality is all there is, then nothing can be labled as right and wrong, but only as personal, cultural and global preferences. This is what you seem unwilling to accept. If there is no objective source of morality. Your logic is confused here. Jac is not saying that because morality is objective, and murder is wrong that guns and murderers don't exist.

Actually, I agree that what are considered "right" and "wrong" ARE personal, cultural, and global. I feel the term "preference" somewhat misleading - an individual that violates a law (something deemed "wrong" by society) does so at risk of society's proscribed remedy. The transgressor's preferences have nothing to do with his punishment. I realize this is probably overstating your point, but it is intended to illustrate my objection to use of "preference" as in your post.

So "do unto others," can not be an objective source. Without an objective source it is only a concept, and idea. You and your society may embrace it, but others may not.

Whether a given society embraces it or not is immaterial. The fact that it gives very similar answers to many moral situations is the reason I claim it to be "objective".

Who is to determine who is right and who is wrong? It would be like trying to say someone liking chocolate ice cream is wrong. Chocolate ice cream may disgust you and make you want to vomit, but does that make it wrong for me to like it? If I am standing there with a gun to shoot you, and you say it is wrong to murder you, I can simply say, "so what. That is your preference and your societies preference. My preference is to kill you. Your socieity may arrest me, but they are only forcing their moral preference on me, just as I forced my moral preference on you."

Try applying "do unto others" to the situation.

What does the meaning or non-meaning of the universe have to do with murder being wrong?

Pretty much everything. You want to believe that you live in a meaningless universe. And that your very existence is only the result of billions of years of meaningless events. Yet somehow, because you are self-aware, suddenly things in your life are supposed to have meaning. I would contend that this is a mere meaningless by-product of meaningless evolution. That would be called an accident. What you call meaning is only a cosmic accident. You think it has meaning because you are self-aware. But in reality it is only the result of biology. It can't have anymore meaning than say a bee making honey, or me digesting my lunch and converting into energy.

However if there is objective morality then it all has meaning. Right and wrong. The bee making honey. Every planet, every star, every galaxy. They all focus back that our lives do have real meaning, and that it is really wrong to murder someone.

What is NOT fine with me is that because religions are based on "objective morality", they can impose their view of morality upon others.

Ah hah. A very revealing statement. This is what it always boiols down to. First I could take this and ask, "is it OK for the secular culture to impose its view of morality on others? "

Such as?

But that is not what lies under the surface of your objection.
I don't know you Wayne, but I know human nature. And I think that your desire to claim that right and wrong exists and stubbornly hold on to meaning, is that you don't want an objective morality to exist.

Actually, I would truly welcome an objective morality. I just have seen no evidence that one exists.

You don't want to think that your lies, your lusts, your decisions will be held to account by the highest of authorities. And this is such a wet blanket to the way you live your life and your world view that you will refuse logic and reason to maintain that view. You will cling to that view depsite the reason that you must reject to do so.

I have done a few things I was not proud of, and in each case apologized to the injured party(ies) and made restitution where warranted. In a large portion of the cases, I gained another friend in the process. It was logic and reason that overcame my Christian upbringing and led me to where I am.

2 Thess 2: 10-12
and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

God tricks people so He can then condemn them?

Such as?

Abortion on demand?

Actually, I would truly welcome an objective morality. I just have seen no evidence that one exists.

So will you concede that nothing in and of itself is wrong or right, only a subjective preference/desire/choice/whatever of a person, society, or world?

Try applying "do unto others" to the situation.

Jac has already addressed this ad-naseum. That is YOUR preference. If it isn't based out of an objective truth, then this is only you and society trying to force your morality on me. Stop forcing your subjective morality on me.
You say there is no way to know objective truth, yet you use the very words of Jesus to claim there is some sort of objective truth apart from God. His words are evidence of the truth that there is objective truth and it is knowable. You claim to know it, but then discard it at the same time.

God tricks people so He can then condemn them?

Nope. He sends them exactly what they want. They want to believe a lie. God graciously obliges. Why are they condemned? "They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved."
God will not force his morality on you.

jlay wrote:

Such as?

Abortion on demand?

I'm not a fan of abortion either, so I won't defend it. I'm all for reducing or eliminating abortions, but I can see the "other" side's viewpoint also, at least in the first trimester.

Actually, I would truly welcome an objective morality. I just have seen no evidence that one exists.

So will you concede that nothing in and of itself is wrong or right, only a subjective preference/desire/choice/whatever of a person, society, or world?

Yet again - I feel there are some moral issues that can be resolved objectively (ie Golden Rule), but each society specifies the code of conduct members of the society is expected to adhere to. Each society's code of conduct is subjective, but at least some elements thereof can be validated objectively. In general, societies have refined their codes and have become more in line with the Golden Rule.

Try applying "do unto others" to the situation.

Jac has already addressed this ad-naseum. That is YOUR preference. If it isn't based out of an objective truth, then this is only you and society trying to force your morality on me. Stop forcing your subjective morality on me.

As I have addressed ad nauseum, choice has nothing to do with it.

How to use the Golden Rule 101
Q1: Would you [insert action under consideration here] me be "wrong"?
Q2: Would YOU consider MY [insert action under consideration here] YOU "wrong"?
A: If your honest answer to Q2 is "wrong", then the answer to Q1 is also "wrong"
For example, try replacing [insert action under consideration here] with "murdering". Is murder "right" or "wrong"?
Try "enslaving". Try "stealing from". Try "bearing false witness". Try "torturing". Etc. Etc.

Neither the "Golden Rule" nor "Objective Morality" are diminished in objectivity by whether anyone chooses to use them.

I have demonstrated how the Golden Rule works. Would you demonstrate "Objective Morality" please?

There are some "moral" issues that are actually cultural, for instance consentual sex with "minors". Most societies consider sex with persons under 18 to be "rape", but some consider sex with anyone who is post-pubescent or even peri-pubescent acceptable. These issues are often used in an attempt to discredit the Golden Rule, but the Golden Rule is simply indicating the issue to be cultural.

You say there is no way to know objective truth, yet you use the very words of Jesus to claim there is some sort of objective truth apart from God. His words are evidence of the truth that there is objective truth and it is knowable. You claim to know it, but then discard it at the same time.

The concept long predates Jesus - the Egyptian story of The Eloquent Peasant includes "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do". This story is dated to the Middle Kingdom (about 2040 - 1650 BC). Similar stories are found in many pre-Christian cultures (Greece, OT Israel, etc). I would think the fact that Christ restated it would lend the "Golden Rule" considerable credence.

God tricks people so He can then condemn them?

Nope. He sends them exactly what they want. They want to believe a lie. God graciously obliges. Why are they condemned? "They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved."

So rather than helping convince the doubters, He reinforces their doubts so He can condemn them?

God will not force his morality on you.

If God doesn't "force His morality on [us]", why do some Christians feel duty bound to do it for Him?

Would you demonstrate "Objective Morality" please?

Again, as Jac and others have pointed out, it seems you are failing to grasp what objective means here. You either think morality is objective or it is not. You do understand what that means, right? Because you have stated that morality is only subjective, but have also said some things are objective. If the GR is only an idea of man then it is subjective by definition. If it is objective, then it is established outside of the opinions, ideas and preferences of man. Those things can only interpret an objective truth, not establish one. for example, 2+2=4 is not a subjective fact. It is objective. If there were no humans around, 2+2 would still equal four.

So, can you demonstrate how "the golden rule" or any other "rule" can be an objective moral reality in and of itself.

You see, I do beleive that the GR is an objective truth. Established by God and given to man. It is not true because man thinks it is a good idea, or prefers it to some other rule. It is true because it is true. And that truth is established by the highest authority.

Neither the "Golden Rule" nor "Objective Morality" are diminished in objectivity by whether anyone chooses to use them.

Are you trying to prove my position or your own??

If God doesn't "force His morality on [us]", why do some Christians feel duty bound to do it for Him?

Again, this has nothing to do with the discussion. "Is morality objective?" I could ask, "why do secular humanist want to force their morality on to others." But what is the point? It doesn't speak to the ultimate question of this thread. If morality is objective then someone/something beyond the mind of man, has set it in place.
I mean think about this. "Morality is Objective."
Atheist: "I don't like Christians telling me how to live my life." Sure, that makes sense.

I would think the fact that Christ restated it would lend the "Golden Rule" considerable credence.

In what way? How does age give something credence. Tyranny is an old concept as well. I find you only confirming the position you are asking to understand. "Show me objective morality." What you state above is an example of how objective morality can be known and followed. Certainly the truth of the GR did not become true when Jesus said it in the 1st century. It was true before. In fact, I woud say it is eternally true.

There are some "moral" issues that are actually cultural, for instance consentual sex with "minors". Most societies consider sex with persons under 18 to be "rape", but some consider sex with anyone who is post-pubescent or even peri-pubescent acceptable. These issues are often used in an attempt to discredit the Golden Rule, but the Golden Rule is simply indicating the issue to be cultural.

Huh? i don't disagree, but what does that have to do with your position? I fail to see how this demonstrates your position.

jlay wrote: If there were no humans around, 2+2 would still equal four.

Proving that is going to be rather difficult with humans around, and even tougher when there are no humans around.

jlay wrote:

Would you demonstrate "Objective Morality" please?

Again, as Jac and others have pointed out, it seems you are failing to grasp what objective means here. You either think morality is objective or it is not. You do understand what that means, right? Because you have stated that morality is only subjective, but have also said some things are objective. If the GR is only an idea of man then it is subjective by definition. If it is objective, then it is established outside of the opinions, ideas and preferences of man. Those things can only interpret an objective truth, not establish one. for example, 2+2=4 is not a subjective fact. It is objective. If there were no humans around, 2+2 would still equal four.

The only demonstration of "Objective Morality" you can provide is the GR?

So, can you demonstrate how "the golden rule" or any other "rule" can be an objective moral reality in and of itself.

I did that in the previous post.

You see, I do beleive that the GR is an objective truth. Established by God and given to man. It is not true because man thinks it is a good idea, or prefers it to some other rule. It is true because it is true. And that truth is established by the highest authority.

If the GR was "established by God" why was it like pulling teeth to get anyone here to accept that it is objective?

Neither the "Golden Rule" nor "Objective Morality" are diminished in objectivity by whether anyone chooses to use them.

Are you trying to prove my position or your own??

Neither, just stating a simple fact. I still have doubts as to whether "Objective Morality" exists, but its objectivity (if it exists) is unaffected by anyone's choice to use it.

If God doesn't "force His morality on [us]", why do some Christians feel duty bound to do it for Him?

Again, this has nothing to do with the discussion. "Is morality objective?" I could ask, "why do secular humanist want to force their morality on to others." But what is the point? It doesn't speak to the ultimate question of this thread. If morality is objective then someone/something beyond the mind of man, has set it in place.
I mean think about this. "Morality is Objective."
Atheist: "I don't like Christians telling me how to live my life." Sure, that makes sense.

How would Christians feel about Muslims telling them how to live their life? If there is an "Objective Morality" why is Christian morality so different from Islam?

I would think the fact that Christ restated it would lend the "Golden Rule" considerable credence.

In what way? How does age give something credence. Tyranny is an old concept as well. I find you only confirming the position you are asking to understand. "Show me objective morality." What you state above is an example of how objective morality can be known and followed. Certainly the truth of the GR did not become true when Jesus said it in the 1st century. It was true before. In fact, I woud say it is eternally true.

The GR is a simple concept and IMO well within the capability of the human intellect.

There are some "moral" issues that are actually cultural, for instance consentual sex with "minors". Most societies consider sex with persons under 18 to be "rape", but some consider sex with anyone who is post-pubescent or even peri-pubescent acceptable. These issues are often used in an attempt to discredit the Golden Rule, but the Golden Rule is simply indicating the issue to be cultural.

Huh? i don't disagree, but what does that have to do with your position? I fail to see how this demonstrates your position.

Just stating a fact.

How would Christians feel about Muslims telling them how to live their life? If there is an "Objective Morality" why is Christian morality so different from Islam?

Why is 2+2=5 so different from 2+2=4? People getting it wrong does not prove that math is not objective. If everyone on the planet decided that 2+2=5 it would not change the objective truths of math. Everyone would be wrong. Just like counterfeit money does not prove that real currency is without value. In fact the opposite is true. The counterfeit is proof of the real. People get things wrong all the time. Often we get things wrong, morally.

The only demonstration of "Objective Morality" you can provide is the GR?

Who said that? the point of this discussion has not been to provide examples of objective morality or to determine if it can be interpreted. But only to define what it is and whether it exists.

I did that in the previous post.

You demonstrated how one might use it. You never proved it was objective in and of itself. I can give you an explanation of the benefits of stopping at red lights, but that doesn't establish it as objective morality. I believe the GR to be an expression of objective morality given from the source of objective morality. Obviously for different reasons than you. It seems you want to apply your own definition to the word objective. You did not prove objective truth. you showed application.

Proving that is going to be rather difficult with humans around, and even tougher when there are no humans around.

Only if one is being stubborn beyond galatic proportions. But thanks for sharing. One doesn't have to prove something that is objective for it to be true. It is in and of itself. Man discovered that 2+2=4. It didn't suddenly become reality when he discovered it. No more than people were floating around aimlessly until Newton discovered the idea of gravity. Gravity isn't a reality because people, cultures and the world decide it to be. We've only been aware of radioactivity for a short period of time. Is the existence of radioactivity objective, or did it manifest when mankind discovered it and defined it??

The GR is a simple concept and IMO well within the capability of the human intellect.

Again, are you trying to prove my position or your own? I agree.

but its objectivity (if it exists) is unaffected by anyone's choice to use it.

Are you sure you are not arguing my position??

jlay wrote:

How would Christians feel about Muslims telling them how to live their life? If there is an "Objective Morality" why is Christian morality so different from Islam?

Why is 2+2=5 so different from 2+2=4? People getting it wrong does not prove that math is not objective. If everyone on the planet decided that 2+2=5 it would not change the objective truths of math. Everyone would be wrong. Just like counterfeit money does not prove that real currency is without value. In fact the opposite is true. The counterfeit is proof of the real. People get things wrong all the time. Often we get things wrong, morally.

Why did God make it so hard to "read" His "Objective Morality"?

The only demonstration of "Objective Morality" you can provide is the GR?

Who said that? the point of this discussion has not been to provide examples of objective morality or to determine if it can be interpreted. But only to define what it is and whether it exists.

Why are you avoiding providing examples of how it "Objective Morality" can be "read"? What is the point of a code of conduct if no one can read it? ... or if everyone can interpret it to fit their preferences?

I did that in the previous post.

You demonstrated how one might use it. You never proved it was objective in and of itself. I can give you an explanation of the benefits of stopping at red lights, but that doesn't establish it as objective morality. I believe the GR to be an expression of objective morality given from the source of objective morality. Obviously for different reasons than you. It seems you want to apply your own definition to the word objective. You did not prove objective truth. you showed application.

Yes I did. Please give me a similar concrete application using "Objective Morality", say how do you know murder is "wrong"?

Proving that is going to be rather difficult with humans around, and even tougher when there are no humans around.

Only if one is being stubborn beyond galatic proportions. But thanks for sharing. One doesn't have to prove something that is objective for it to be true. It is in and of itself. Man discovered that 2+2=4. It didn't suddenly become reality when he discovered it. No more than people were floating around aimlessly until Newton discovered the idea of gravity. Gravity isn't a reality because people, cultures and the world decide it to be. We've only been aware of radioactivity for a short period of time. Is the existence of radioactivity objective, or did it manifest when mankind discovered it and defined it??

Just in case you missed it, that wasn't my post.

The GR is a simple concept and IMO well within the capability of the human intellect.

Again, are you trying to prove my position or your own? I agree.

If human intellect can come up with the GR, why do you believe it had to be God's work?

but its objectivity (if it exists) is unaffected by anyone's choice to use it.

Are you sure you are not arguing my position??

Possibly, what IS your position?

Why did God make it so hard to "read" His "Objective Morality"?

Didn't you say,

The GR is a simple concept and IMO well within the capability of the human intellect.

I contend that the GR is an expression of objective morality. The existence of objective morality is evidence that God exists. You say that the GR is well within the capability of the human intellect. So there you have it.
Again, I wonder whose position you are arguing here. You say morality is subjective, but the GR is objective. I would agree that the GR is an example of objective morality. Where you are missing it is the reality that objective morality must have a source outside of the human perspective. I beleive in the source. You deny the source, yet want to hold to your point that the GR can be objective. If it is only a human idea, then it is subjective.

If human intellect can come up with the GR, why do you believe it had to be God's work?

Man can come up with concepts to understand objective things. Science, math, etc. As I explained with gravity. Mankind did not invent gravity. He merely discovered it. Human intellect can discover objective truth. I would consider the GR an example of this.

Yes I did. Please give me a similar concrete application using "Objective Morality", say how do you know murder is "wrong"?

Wayne, as much as I'd like to take that step, I'm afraid your position precludes it from happening. A concrete application is not a verification that the GR in and of itself is objective. If you gave a concrete proof that the GR in and of itself is objective then I missed it. And I've read back through numerous times.

Why are you avoiding providing examples of how it "Objective Morality" can be "read"? What is the point of a code of conduct if no one can read it? ... or if everyone can interpret it to fit their preferences?

I would defer to my point regarding the GR. This is not a case of avoiding. It is a case of trying to keep the discussion focused on the point at hand. I can't explain that any better than Jac already has.

jlay wrote:

Why did God make it so hard to "read" His "Objective Morality"?

Didn't you say,

The GR is a simple concept and IMO well within the capability of the human intellect.

I contend that the GR is an expression of objective morality. The existence of objective morality is evidence that God exists. You say that the GR is well within the capability of the human intellect. So there you have it.
Again, I wonder whose position you are arguing here. You say morality is subjective, but the GR is objective. I would agree that the GR is an example of objective morality. Where you are missing it is the reality that objective morality must have a source outside of the human perspective. I beleive in the source. You deny the source, yet want to hold to your point that the GR can be objective. If it is only a human idea, then it is subjective.

I find it interesting that when I put forth the GR as the basis for my "moral compass" (in several other threads), it was universally derided as "my preference", "subjective", etc. NOW it is has apparently been adopted as God's "Objective Morality" AND "proof" that God exists.

If human intellect can come up with the GR, why do you believe it had to be God's work?

Man can come up with concepts to understand objective things. Science, math, etc. As I explained with gravity. Mankind did not invent gravity. He merely discovered it. Human intellect can discover objective truth. I would consider the GR an example of this.

And I think it is a product of human intellect.

Yes I did. Please give me a similar concrete application using "Objective Morality", say how do you know murder is "wrong"?

Wayne, as much as I'd like to take that step, I'm afraid your position precludes it from happening. A concrete application is not a verification that the GR in and of itself is objective. If you gave a concrete proof that the GR in and of itself is objective then I missed it. And I've read back through numerous times.

I am not asking for proof that "Objective Morality" exists, I want to know how you use it to "know" murder is "wrong". I've demonstrated how I know it is wrong, it's your turn.

Why are you avoiding providing examples of how it "Objective Morality" can be "read"? What is the point of a code of conduct if no one can read it? ... or if everyone can interpret it to fit their preferences?

I would defer to my point regarding the GR. This is not a case of avoiding. It is a case of trying to keep the discussion focused on the point at hand. I can't explain that any better than Jac already has.

And what point is that?

This discussion started because someone (you? Jac? ... ) claimed the right to impose their morality on others because it was "objective". I am trying to see how this "Objective Morality" works.