Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

kenny wrote:
A sadomasochist who is Atheist would probably have to find a different source for Objective Morality. The Golden rule doesn't work for everybody; nothing does.

Kenny,

If the golden rule doesn't work for everybody, that means it's not objective.

I think subjectivety could be found in the Golden Rule. Example; 2 people, one finds cursing offensive, the other does not. If they both follow the Golden rule, is cursing okay?
Obviously for one person it is, but the other person it is not. Yes subjectivy could be found in the Golden Rule, but that doesn't stop someone from using it as their own personal basis of objectivite morality; and people do often disagree on what issues are objectivity moral. An argument could be made that when comparing what is written in the Old vs New Testaments, subjectivity could be found.

Again Kenny,

The golden rule is subjective. Look at the golden rule:

One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.

Kenny,

Are you seeing it yet? It's really not that difficult to see. It just may be difficult for you to admit.

Seeing what? That the golden rule is subjective? I already admitted that. I said that the golden rule can be used as the "basis" for objective morality. Example; I can use the Golden Rule as my own personal basis for objective moral issues; meaning, if it goes aginst the Golden Rule, I will proclaim it morally wrong. Now if I were a sadomasochist, I would proably have to use something else like "cause no harm" or whatever some of those humanists atheists may believe.

Kenny wrote:
Seeing what? That the golden rule is subjective? I already admitted that. I said that the golden rule can be used as the "basis" for objective morality. Example; I can use the Golden Rule as my own personal basis for objective moral issues; meaning, if it goes aginst the Golden Rule, I will proclaim it morally wrong. Now if I were a sadomasochist, I would proably have to use something else like "cause no harm" or whatever some of those humanists atheists may believe.

Yes Kenny, you could use the subjective golden rule as the basis for objective morality. But it would not be logical. I don't see how you can't comprehend this.

You can't logically use something subjective for a basis for something objective.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:
Seeing what? That the golden rule is subjective? I already admitted that. I said that the golden rule can be used as the "basis" for objective morality. Example; I can use the Golden Rule as my own personal basis for objective moral issues; meaning, if it goes aginst the Golden Rule, I will proclaim it morally wrong. Now if I were a sadomasochist, I would proably have to use something else like "cause no harm" or whatever some of those humanists atheists may believe.

Yes Kenny, you could use the subjective golden rule as the basis for objective morality. But it would not be logical. I don't see how you can't comprehend this.

You can't logically use something subjective for a basis for something objective.

I believe the Golden Rule can be objective when applied to me. I believe each person can have a moral situation of which they could consider objective; and they would recognize the person standing next them would disagree.
I believe objective and subjective morality is determined by the individual. Subjective morality is a morality that one believes can be changed by situation, environment, or time, and Objecitive morality is a morality one believes does not change no matter the situation. Example; if I say lying is wrong, but then when confronted with a situation where telling the truth could cause an innocent person to be murdered, I make an exception; that would be an example of subjective morality.
If I say lying is wrong and believed it was objective; that would mean even if the truth causes an innocent person to be killed, you should always tell the truth. And the person who holds that specific moral situation as objective will recognize the person next to him may see it as subjective; and visa versa.

Does that make sense to you? If not please explain why.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Seraph wrote:Objective morality is morality whether one believes in it or not. So it doesn't matter what one thinks is the source of it.

So you agree objective morality can be as prevalent with Atheists as it is for Christians?

Ken

I suppose an Atheist could believe in objective morality and follow it, though philosophically I don't think objective morality makes a whole lot of sense if there isn't a God. If there's no God, there's no authority to determine morality, and if people determine it a fellow human just has to disagree with it and they're both equally valid. From a Theistic standpoint, Atheists can have morals are in line with God's objective morality, but it is God that makes it objectively moral, independent of peoples belief in that morality.

Of course, determining the objective morality that God put in place can be quite difficult to piece together. I think God hardwired morality into us, so I guess a human following their instinctive morality is in a sense adhering to objective morality.

Seraph wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Seraph wrote:Objective morality is morality whether one believes in it or not. So it doesn't matter what one thinks is the source of it.

So you agree objective morality can be as prevalent with Atheists as it is for Christians?

Ken

I suppose an Atheist could believe in objective morality and follow it, though philosophically I don't think objective morality makes a whole lot of sense if there isn't a God. If there's no God, there's no authority to determine morality, and if people determine it a fellow human just has to disagree with it and they're both equally valid. From a Theistic standpoint, Atheists can have morals are in line with God's objective morality, but it is God that makes it objectively moral, independent of peoples belief in that morality.

Of course, determining the objective morality that God put in place can be quite difficult to piece together. I think God hardwired morality into us, so I guess a human following their instinctive morality is in a sense adhering to objective morality.

Okay I think I understand where you are getting at. Let me ask you a question; do you believe rape (for example) is wrong because God says it is wrong? Or do you believe rape is wrong, and God just so happens to say it is wrong as well. If you say rape is only wrong because God says it is wrong, that would mean in theory if God were to say rape is okay, it would be okay to go around raping inspite of what people might say right? Or worse yet a person might become convinced God says it is okay to do something wrong and feel he is doing God's work by doing it. However if you say rape is wrong and God just so happens to agree, th at would take away from the claim that God is what makes morals objective.
So is rape wrong only because God says it is wrong?

Ken

Kenny wrote:Okay I think I understand where you are getting at. Let me ask you a question; do you believe rape (for example) is wrong because God says it is wrong? Or do you believe rape is wrong, and God just so happens to say it is wrong as well. If you say rape is only wrong because God says it is wrong, that would mean in theory if God were to say rape is okay, it would be okay to go around raping inspite of what people might say right? Or worse yet a person might become convinced God says it is okay to do something wrong and feel he is doing God's work by doing it. However if you say rape is wrong and God just so happens to agree, th at would take away from the claim that God is what makes morals objective.
So is rape wrong only because God says it is wrong?

Ken

As far as objective morality goes, yeah kinda. However, I think our subjective instinctive morality definitely has value, in fact I think our instinctive morality is the way it is because God made us the way we are with our moral wiring and such. If it turned out there were no God, I would still believe that rape and murder are wrong. However I wouldn't really be able to say that I think they are absolutely objectively wrong, just that I find it repulsive on a personal level.

Of course some might disagree with me and say that human nature is completely sinful and morality in our world comes *only* through revelation through the Bible. I'm not sure what they would say about the matter.

Seraph wrote:

Kenny wrote:Okay I think I understand where you are getting at. Let me ask you a question; do you believe rape (for example) is wrong because God says it is wrong? Or do you believe rape is wrong, and God just so happens to say it is wrong as well. If you say rape is only wrong because God says it is wrong, that would mean in theory if God were to say rape is okay, it would be okay to go around raping inspite of what people might say right? Or worse yet a person might become convinced God says it is okay to do something wrong and feel he is doing God's work by doing it. However if you say rape is wrong and God just so happens to agree, th at would take away from the claim that God is what makes morals objective.
So is rape wrong only because God says it is wrong?

Ken

As far as objective morality goes, yeah kinda. However, I think our subjective instinctive morality definitely has value, in fact I think our instinctive morality is the way it is because God made us the way we are with our moral wiring and such. If it turned out there were no God, I would still believe that rape and murder are wrong. However I wouldn't really be able to say that I think they are absolutely objectively wrong, just that I find it repulsive on a personal level.

Of course some might disagree with me and say that human nature is completely sinful and morality in our world comes *only* through revelation through the Bible. I'm not sure what they would say about the matter.

So what good is Objective morality? I guess what I'm trying to say is, how would the world be different if objective morality did not exist?

K

Just for the fun of it I am going to see if I can explain OM in the simplest way possible by way of analogy.

I want to talk about gravity as being a law of nature that is objective, whether I believe gravity exists or not does not change the fact that gravity will always have an effect on me. Regardless of belief it remains objectively true, it does not change from person to person, I cannot pick a particular gravity that suits my needs better.

Anything that is objectively true cannot be choice from a list of possibilities or else it is no longer objectively true.

You asked Ken what the world would be like without OM, I guess we wouldn't understand right from wrong, if there is no standard to weight our actions against, morality becomes meaningless, no action would be right and no action would be wrong, it would just be an action. We would essentially be like animals, we just wouldn't have any concept of what morality is.
But as Christians we believe God has written his law on the hearts of all people and that is why we can say that something is either right or wrong.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Just for the fun of it I am going to see if I can explain OM in the simplest way possible by way of analogy.

I want to talk about gravity as being a law of nature that is objective, whether I believe gravity exists or not does not change the fact that gravity will always have an effect on me. Regardless of belief it remains objectively true, it does not change from person to person, I cannot pick a particular gravity that suits my needs better.

Anything that is objectively true cannot be choice from a list of possibilities or else it is no longer objectively true.

You asked Ken what the world would be like without OM, I guess we wouldn't understand right from wrong, if there is no standard to weight our actions against, morality becomes meaningless, no action would be right and no action would be wrong, it would just be an action. We would essentially be like animals, we just wouldn't have any concept of what morality is.
But as Christians we believe God has written his law on the hearts of all people and that is why we can say that something is either right or wrong.

So are you saying subjective morality would not exist if objective morality did not?

Ken

Just as animals are affected by gravity, do you feel animals follow an objective morality? Wild animals that run in packs do have a moral code they live by; maybe not to the extent of humans, but still a code none the less. Do you believe such wild animals have an objective morality?

Ken

Kenny wrote:Just as animals are affected by gravity, do you feel animals follow an objective morality? Wild animals that run in packs do have a moral code they live by; maybe not to the extent of humans, but still a code none the less. Do you believe such wild animals have an objective morality?

Ken

Animals may seem to act in moral ways at times but I doubt they follow a moral code, I think humans just read into their behaviours and anthropomorphise their actions when infact they are just behaving according to their instinct.

Until we can communicate with animals this would be unknown, it's like asking if a tree is moral or is held to a standard or trying to explain the force of gravity to an ant.

Edit
I have been thinking about how OM exists for all creation just as gravity does and I believe you are right with your question that if gravity effects all creation then OM must also, but I think where it is different is that an animal is not accountable for it actions because it acts out of instinct with no awareness of OM just as it doesn't understand gravity but acts out of instinct to avoid falling to its death, so yes OM does exist but they cannot be held accountable to it.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kenny wrote:Just as animals are affected by gravity, do you feel animals follow an objective morality? Wild animals that run in packs do have a moral code they live by; maybe not to the extent of humans, but still a code none the less. Do you believe such wild animals have an objective morality?

Ken

Animals may seem to act in moral ways at times but I doubt they follow a moral code, I think humans just read into their behaviours and anthropomorphise their actions when infact they are just behaving according to their instinct.

Until we can communicate with animals this would be unknown, it's like asking if a tree is moral or is held to a standard or trying to explain the force of gravity to an ant.

Edit
I have been thinking about how OM exists for all creation just as gravity does and I believe you are right with your question that if gravity effects all creation then OM must also, but I think where it is different is that an animal is not accountable for it actions because it acts out of instinct with no awareness of OM just as it doesn't understand gravity but acts out of instinct to avoid falling to its death, so yes OM does exist but they cannot be held accountable to it.

So would you say Objective morality exists for the Athiest, but we just see it as subjective morality?

K

Kenny wrote:Okay I think I understand where you are getting at. Let me ask you a question; do you believe rape (for example) is wrong because God says it is wrong? Or do you believe rape is wrong, and God just so happens to say it is wrong as well. If you say rape is only wrong because God says it is wrong, that would mean in theory if God were to say rape is okay, it would be okay to go around raping inspite of what people might say right? Or worse yet a person might become convinced God says it is okay to do something wrong and feel he is doing God's work by doing it. However if you say rape is wrong and God just so happens to agree, th at would take away from the claim that God is what makes morals objective.
So is rape wrong only because God says it is wrong?

This is the classic Euthyphro's dilemma. You do know that it is a false dilemma fallacy, don't you? There is in fact a 3rd alternative to: things are moral because God decrees them as such or they are moral in and of themselves. Are you familiar with divine simplicity? If not, I strongly suggest that you look it up.

Byblos
This is the classic Euthyphro's dilemma. You do know that it is a false dilemma fallacy, don't you?

Ken
No I am unaware it is a false dilemma. Care to explain why?


Byblos
There is in fact a 3rd alternative to: things are moral because God decrees them as such or they are moral in and of themselves.

Ken
And what is this 3rd alternative?

Byblos
Are you familiar with divine simplicity? If not, I strongly suggest that you look it up.

Ken
I am not familiar with devine simplicity. How about if you look it up and tell me what it is all about?


Ken

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:Okay I think I understand where you are getting at. Let me ask you a question; do you believe rape (for example) is wrong because God says it is wrong? Or do you believe rape is wrong, and God just so happens to say it is wrong as well. If you say rape is only wrong because God says it is wrong, that would mean in theory if God were to say rape is okay, it would be okay to go around raping inspite of what people might say right? Or worse yet a person might become convinced God says it is okay to do something wrong and feel he is doing God's work by doing it. However if you say rape is wrong and God just so happens to agree, th at would take away from the claim that God is what makes morals objective.
So is rape wrong only because God says it is wrong?

This is the classic Euthyphro's dilemma. You do know that it is a false dilemma fallacy, don't you? There is in fact a 3rd alternative to: things are moral because God decrees them as such or they are moral in and of themselves. Are you familiar with divine simplicity? If not, I strongly suggest that you look it up.

Byblos,

Kenny is having a difficult time comprehending OM, and you want him to look at divine simplicity?