Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: Ken,
You think something is right or wrong, because in your opinion, it's right or wrong. That makes it subjective. It's not rocket surgery.

How is that different than God saying something is right or wrong? Sounds like you're just talking semantics.

Ken

Kenny,

Do you have difficulty with comprehension of the English language? I already told you. It's different by definition.
“Objective” means “independent of people’s (including one’s own) opinion.” “Subjective” means “just a matter of personal opinion.”

Are you really that obtuse?

Did you even read what I told you? It is no more my opinion than it is God's opinion. I said I was the source my morality. And you can't have an objective opinion independent of your own personal opinion. Objective means independent of what everyone else says.

Ken

Ok Ken. Let me see if I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that what you believe is right or wrong, is not your opinion, because you are the source of your morality?

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: Ken,
You think something is right or wrong, because in your opinion, it's right or wrong. That makes it subjective. It's not rocket surgery.

How is that different than God saying something is right or wrong? Sounds like you're just talking semantics.

Ken

Kenny,

Do you have difficulty with comprehension of the English language? I already told you. It's different by definition.
“Objective” means “independent of people’s (including one’s own) opinion.” “Subjective” means “just a matter of personal opinion.”

Are you really that obtuse?

Did you even read what I told you? It is no more my opinion than it is God's opinion. I said I was the source my morality. And you can't have an objective opinion independent of your own personal opinion. Objective means independent of what everyone else says.

Ken

Ok Ken. Let me see if I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that what you believe is right or wrong, is not your opinion, because you are the source of your morality?

I am saying when you say "objective" you can't include yourself as those it is independent of, only others. It would be silly to say your objective opinion is independent of all others even your own. As far as the semantics game; I say what I say is right or wrong is just much as my opinion as what God says is right or wrong is his.

Ken

Kenny wrote: I am saying when you say "objective" you can't include yourself as those it is independent of, only others. It would be silly to say your objective opinion is independent of all others even your own. As far as the semantics game; I say what I say is right or wrong is just much as my opinion as what God says is right or wrong is his.

Ken

Kenny,

I know you think your opinion of what is right and wrong, is equal to what God says is right or wrong.
But you asked me what the difference between your opinion of what's right and wrong, and what God says is right or wrong. And I told you that the difference, by the very definition of the words objective and subjective(in the context of morality), is that your opinion is subjective, by definition. And what God says, is objective, by definition.

You can't change the definitions of objective morality, and subjective morality, just because you don't like the definitions. It doesn't work that way.

Understand?

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote: I am saying when you say "objective" you can't include yourself as those it is independent of, only others. It would be silly to say your objective opinion is independent of all others even your own. As far as the semantics game; I say what I say is right or wrong is just much as my opinion as what God says is right or wrong is his.

Ken

Kenny,

I know you think your opinion of what is right and wrong, is equal to what God says is right or wrong.
But you asked me what the difference between your opinion of what's right and wrong, and what God says is right or wrong. And I told you that the difference, by the very definition of the words objective and subjective(in the context of morality), is that your opinion is subjective, by definition. And what God says, is objective, by definition.

You can't change the definitions of objective morality, and subjective morality, just because you don't like the definitions. It doesn't work that way.

Understand?

you keep using the term"opinion" when I say right vs wrong, but you refuse to do so with God. I do understand your theism probably requires this.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote: I am saying when you say "objective" you can't include yourself as those it is independent of, only others. It would be silly to say your objective opinion is independent of all others even your own. As far as the semantics game; I say what I say is right or wrong is just much as my opinion as what God says is right or wrong is his.

Ken

Kenny,

I know you think your opinion of what is right and wrong, is equal to what God says is right or wrong.
But you asked me what the difference between your opinion of what's right and wrong, and what God says is right or wrong. And I told you that the difference, by the very definition of the words objective and subjective(in the context of morality), is that your opinion is subjective, by definition. And what God says, is objective, by definition.

You can't change the definitions of objective morality, and subjective morality, just because you don't like the definitions. It doesn't work that way.

Understand?

you keep using the term"opinion" when I say right vs wrong, but you refuse to do so with God. I do understand your theism probably requires this.

Ken

Yes Kenny. People have opinions. God doesn't. An opinion is a belief or judgement that people have about something. God cannot have a belief like humans do. God is immutable. Which means He cannot change. Having a belief goes against immutability.
Or if you prefer, an opinion is a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. And since God is also omniscient, He is not uncertain.

As we've been saying all along, objective morality necessitates God's existence. It boils down to simple logic.

Hello, Euthyphro.

Jac3510 wrote:Hello, Euthyphro.

Very well played Jac!

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote: I am saying when you say "objective" you can't include yourself as those it is independent of, only others. It would be silly to say your objective opinion is independent of all others even your own. As far as the semantics game; I say what I say is right or wrong is just much as my opinion as what God says is right or wrong is his.

Ken

Kenny,

I know you think your opinion of what is right and wrong, is equal to what God says is right or wrong.
But you asked me what the difference between your opinion of what's right and wrong, and what God says is right or wrong. And I told you that the difference, by the very definition of the words objective and subjective(in the context of morality), is that your opinion is subjective, by definition. And what God says, is objective, by definition.

You can't change the definitions of objective morality, and subjective morality, just because you don't like the definitions. It doesn't work that way.

Understand?

you keep using the term"opinion" when I say right vs wrong, but you refuse to do so with God. I do understand your theism probably requires this.

Ken

Yes Kenny. People have opinions. God doesn't. An opinion is a belief or judgement that people have about something. God cannot have a belief like humans do. God is immutable. Which means He cannot change. Having a belief goes against immutability.
Or if you prefer, an opinion is a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. And since God is also omniscient, He is not uncertain.

As we've been saying all along, objective morality necessitates God's existence. It boils down to simple logic.

Yes I get it. To you objective morality is a morality that is based in your concept of God. To me objective morality is something that does not exist because morality cannot be demonstrated. I get it. What I have a problem with is this claim that unless morality is based in your concept of God (objective) rape, incest, murder, pedophilia, etc. becomes good. This is the same obtuse mentality that concludes without God there is no reason to refrain from committing every atrocity imaginable. That is just plain ignorant.

Ken

Kenny wrote:Yes I get it. To you objective morality is a morality that is based in your concept of God. To me objective morality is something that does not exist because morality cannot be demonstrated. I get it. What I have a problem with is this claim that unless morality is based in your concept of God (objective) rape, incest, murder, pedophilia, etc. becomes good. This is the same obtuse mentality that concludes without God there is no reason to refrain from committing every atrocity imaginable. That is just plain ignorant.

You tell 'em, Kenny! They're all just a bunch of dummies!

FL

Kenny wrote:
Yes I get it. To you objective morality is a morality that is based in your concept of God. To me objective morality is something that does not exist because morality cannot be demonstrated.

Kenny,
If you believe it's wrong, always wrong to rape a child, then you are demonstrating morality.

What I have a problem with is this claim that unless morality is based in your concept of God (objective) rape, incest, murder, pedophilia, etc. becomes good.

Kenny,
If there's no objective morality, then it's all subjective. And if all is subjective, then you have no basis for telling someone that things you know are evil, are actually not good. If all is subjective, then your opinion means no more or no less than anyone else's opinion. By listing things like murder, rape, etc., that you know are wrong, you are smuggling in the very thing (objective morality) that you claim doesn't exist.

This is the same obtuse mentality that concludes without God there is no reason to refrain from committing every atrocity imaginable. That is just plain ignorant.

Of course there are reasons not to commit every atrocity imaginable without belief in God. Not all atheists are criminals.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:
Yes I get it. To you objective morality is a morality that is based in your concept of God. To me objective morality is something that does not exist because morality cannot be demonstrated.

Kenny,
If you believe it's wrong, always wrong to rape a child, then you are demonstrating morality.

What I have a problem with is this claim that unless morality is based in your concept of God (objective) rape, incest, murder, pedophilia, etc. becomes good.

Kenny,
If there's no objective morality, then it's all subjective. And if all is subjective, then you have no basis for telling someone that things you know are evil, are actually not good. If all is subjective, then your opinion means no more or no less than anyone else's opinion. By listing things like murder, rape, etc., that you know are wrong, you are smuggling in the very thing (objective morality) that you claim doesn't exist.

This is the same obtuse mentality that concludes without God there is no reason to refrain from committing every atrocity imaginable. That is just plain ignorant.

Of course there are reasons not to commit every atrocity imaginable without belief in God. Not all atheists are criminals.

Rick D
If you believe it's wrong, always wrong to rape a child, then you are demonstrating morality.

Kenny
Morality isn’t the debate; the debate is subjective vs objective. You view objective as true inspite of what others say, and I view objective as something that is true and can be demonstrated by facts or mathematical equations.
Because morality cannot be demonstrated by facts or mathematical equations, I do not believe morality is objective.


RickD
If there's no objective morality, then it's all subjective. And if all is subjective, then you have no basis for telling someone that things you know are evil, are actually not good. If all is subjective, then your opinion means no more or no less than anyone else's opinion.

Kenny
I have the same right to voice my subjective opinion as you have to voice God’s objective opinion; (remember I view my subjective moral opinions as superior to all others that differ just as you view God's objective moral opinion as superior to all others) and the person we are telling is just as likely to dismiss my subjective opinion as he is to dismiss God’s objective opinion.
You can claim God is right inspite of what others say, and I can claim I am right inspite of what others may say. Sounds like we're in the same boat my friend!

Ken

Truth is truth. It is out there. Whether we know it or not.

1over137 wrote:Truth is truth. It is out there. Whether we know it or not.

I think we're basically saying the same thing; you guys just take it a step further and include God. You say ""X is wrong because I believe it is wrong and God says it is wrong" and I say X is wrong because I believe it's wrong; but because I don't believe in God, I don't include him. But we both agree "X" is wrong.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

1over137 wrote:Truth is truth. It is out there. Whether we know it or not.

I think we're basically saying the same thing; you guys just take it a step further and include God. You say ""X is wrong because I believe it is wrong and God says it is wrong" and I say X is wrong because I believe it's wrong; but because I don't believe in God, I don't include him. But we both agree "X" is wrong.

Ken

That's all I have to say.

RickD wrote:
If you believe it's wrong, always wrong to rape a child, then you are demonstrating morality.

Ken wrote:
Morality isn’t the debate; the debate is subjective vs objective. You view objective as true inspite of what others say, and I view objective as something that is true and can be demonstrated by facts or mathematical equations.
Because morality cannot be demonstrated by facts or mathematical equations, I do not believe morality is objective.

But Kenny, you said:

Yes I get it. To you objective morality is a morality that is based in your concept of God. To me objective morality is something that does not exist because morality cannot be demonstrated.

I was just showing you that one can demonstrate morality, which you disagreed with.

So, because morality cannot be demonstrated by facts or mathematical equations(science), morality is not objective? How does that possibly follow? It makes absolutely no sense.

I hope you are not suggesting that if something cannot be demonstrated by science, it doesn't exist. Is that what you're saying?

Kenny wrote:
I have the same right to voice my subjective opinion as you have to voice God’s objective opinion; (remember I view my subjective moral opinions as superior to all others that differ just as you view God's objective moral opinion as superior to all others) and the person we are telling is just as likely to dismiss my subjective opinion as he is to dismiss God’s objective opinion.
You can claim God is right inspite of what others say, and I can claim I am right inspite of what others may say. Sounds like we're in the same boat my friend!

I'm afraid not Kenny. This is your boat: