Evidence for God from Science

You are not seeming to grasp the one thing that is crucial and that without an objective there can NOT be anything subjective.

There is no logic to your reasoning.
You see it on something that, according to you, can't be denied by your own eyes or experience ( the example of falling 500 feet or getting your head blasted off) BUT you fail to grasp that those examples are NOT relevant to the understanding of objective and subjective.

You don't grasp that one can NOT say that something is right or wrong UNLESS there is such a thing AS right and wrong.
Which makes right ( not wrong since wrong is an absence of right) an absolute.

PaulSacramento wrote:You are not seeming to grasp the one thing that is crucial and that without an objective there can NOT be anything subjective.

There is no logic to your reasoning.
You see it on something that, according to you, can't be denied by your own eyes or experience ( the example of falling 500 feet or getting your head blasted off) BUT you fail to grasp that those examples are NOT relevant to the understanding of objective and subjective.

You don't grasp that one can NOT say that something is right or wrong UNLESS there is such a thing AS right and wrong.
Which makes right ( not wrong since wrong is an absence of right) an absolute.

Or understanding the difference between ontology and epistemology with regards to morality.

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:You are not seeming to grasp the one thing that is crucial and that without an objective there can NOT be anything subjective.

There is no logic to your reasoning.
You see it on something that, according to you, can't be denied by your own eyes or experience ( the example of falling 500 feet or getting your head blasted off) BUT you fail to grasp that those examples are NOT relevant to the understanding of objective and subjective.

You don't grasp that one can NOT say that something is right or wrong UNLESS there is such a thing AS right and wrong.
Which makes right ( not wrong since wrong is an absence of right) an absolute.

Or understanding the difference between ontology and epistemology with regards to morality.

Indeed:

on·tol·o·gy
änˈtäləjē/Submit
noun
the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.

e·pis·te·mol·o·gy
iˌpistəˈmäləjē/Submit
nounPHILOSOPHY
the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.

PaulSacramento wrote:You are not seeming to grasp the one thing that is crucial and that without an objective there can NOT be anything subjective.

There is no logic to your reasoning.
You see it on something that, according to you, can't be denied by your own eyes or experience ( the example of falling 500 feet or getting your head blasted off) BUT you fail to grasp that those examples are NOT relevant to the understanding of objective and subjective.

You don't grasp that one can NOT say that something is right or wrong UNLESS there is such a thing AS right and wrong.
Which makes right ( not wrong since wrong is an absence of right) an absolute.

could you identify a few absolutes for me?

Nicki wrote:

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.

Do you believe “good” or “smart” exist by themselves? Outside of human thought? In other words, (for example) if there are no humans on the Moon, is it possible for smart to exist on the moon?

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:You are not seeming to grasp the one thing that is crucial and that without an objective there can NOT be anything subjective.

There is no logic to your reasoning.
You see it on something that, according to you, can't be denied by your own eyes or experience ( the example of falling 500 feet or getting your head blasted off) BUT you fail to grasp that those examples are NOT relevant to the understanding of objective and subjective.

You don't grasp that one can NOT say that something is right or wrong UNLESS there is such a thing AS right and wrong.
Which makes right ( not wrong since wrong is an absence of right) an absolute.

Do you agree with the below definition?
http://www.differencebetween.net/langua ... ubjective/

If not please explain why.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:The question CS Lewis was actually answering was: "Can we be good without Christianity?" Many Christians might ask this, even indeed, many Christians today think it is the Christian Gospel that we strive to be good and simply love each other, that, being Muslim, Christian, Atheist, Buddhist and the like -- such ultimately doesn't matter.

Don't recommend just responding to the question, but first watching the video, which contains CS Lewis' words put into a nice little YouTube video. The question is really just a launching pad for a fuller exploration of thought.

Kenny, also made me think of you, given the many discussions always had about "being good" in life, your core value belief that everyone should abide by a law of love, if you will.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9fR1vSxNEQ

I found the Video interesting. Some things I agreed with, some things I didn’t.
Below is my responses to the Minute mark section of the video I disagreed with. (0:00-1:25 is from the beginning of the Video through the 1 minute 25 second spot of the video)


0:00-1:25
If a person asks if it’s possible to be good if he doesn’t believe in Christianity, I don’t think it is fair to assume the person asking has no interest in the truth, The truth is another conversation; his question is about morality.

Also, the type of person to ask such a question will probably already be Christian; I can’t imagine someone of another religion, or even an atheist asking such a question, these people would be making the argument that Christianity is not necessary to live a good life. Yet the narrator tells his story from the position the question is asked by a non-Christian.

The narration is of CS Lewis, I'd recommend checking out anything interesting on YouTube of his if you find yourself board online. You'll come across much more interesting thinking I'm sure.

As for your comment here, I think it is fair that such is a different conversation. If one comes to Christianity though, and then asks the question, that conversation is within Christianity. The person asking the question isn't so much concerned, like say Audie, with the truth of Christianity (which for the flood is one of her obvious stumbling points), but rather whether there is any practical or "helpful" aspect nonetheless.

Indeed, you are also correct that the type of person asking this question, are probably already "Christian", more concerned about pushing some benefit to Christianity without regard to its truth, and indeed many Christians obviously carry a stigma in the eyes of an "enlightened" non-Christian majority as being irrational and anti-intellectual. It's one I routinely combat, this stereotype.

Many Christians past and present have fed this, sadly, so far as I can tell by distracting from truth with feel good messages and snake oils. As Lewis says about 1:30 in,

• "More probabaly, foolish preachers telling you how much Christianity will help you, and how good it is for society, have actually lead you to forget that Christianity is not a patent medicine. Christianity claims to give an account of facts, to tell you what the real universe is like. Its account of the universe may be true or it may not. Once the question is really before you, then your natural inquisitiveness must make you want to know the answer. If Christianity is untrue, then no honest man will want to believe it, however helpful it might be. If it is true, every honest man will want to believe it, even if it gives him no help at all."

I feel there are many Christians, today, that look to and use Christianity more like helpful crutch, and then they try to lend their crutches to others touting how much Jesus loves them and can help them, etc. Failing to realise, that the an honest person perhaps doesn't care so much for crutches, but would rather want to more honestly reconcile themselves with the truth even if such was unhelpful.

There is much to be gleaned I think, from this video, perhaps more-so for the Christian than the non-Christian. As Christian2 posted several months ago about his own church entertaining Islamic teachers, many Christians there considered the Gospel to be about living a good life and I'm sure given your Christian experiences early on that eve you're well aware that such is not the Gospel at all.

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:The question CS Lewis was actually answering was: "Can we be good without Christianity?" Many Christians might ask this, even indeed, many Christians today think it is the Christian Gospel that we strive to be good and simply love each other, that, being Muslim, Christian, Atheist, Buddhist and the like -- such ultimately doesn't matter.

Don't recommend just responding to the question, but first watching the video, which contains CS Lewis' words put into a nice little YouTube video. The question is really just a launching pad for a fuller exploration of thought.

Kenny, also made me think of you, given the many discussions always had about "being good" in life, your core value belief that everyone should abide by a law of love, if you will.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9fR1vSxNEQ

I found the Video interesting. Some things I agreed with, some things I didn’t.
Below is my responses to the Minute mark section of the video I disagreed with. (0:00-1:25 is from the beginning of the Video through the 1 minute 25 second spot of the video)


0:00-1:25
If a person asks if it’s possible to be good if he doesn’t believe in Christianity, I don’t think it is fair to assume the person asking has no interest in the truth, The truth is another conversation; his question is about morality.

Also, the type of person to ask such a question will probably already be Christian; I can’t imagine someone of another religion, or even an atheist asking such a question, these people would be making the argument that Christianity is not necessary to live a good life. Yet the narrator tells his story from the position the question is asked by a non-Christian.

The narration is of CS Lewis, I'd recommend checking out anything interesting on YouTube of his if you find yourself board online. You'll come across much more interesting thinking I'm sure.

As for your comment here, I think it is fair that such is a different conversation. If one comes to Christianity though, and then asks the question, that conversation is within Christianity. The person asking the question isn't so much concerned, like say Audie, with the truth of Christianity (which for the flood is one of her obvious stumbling points), but rather whether there is any practical or "helpful" aspect nonetheless.

Indeed, you are also correct that the type of person asking this question, are probably already "Christian", more concerned about pushing some benefit to Christianity without regard to its truth, and indeed many Christians obviously carry a stigma in the eyes of an "enlightened" non-Christian majority as being irrational and anti-intellectual. It's one I routinely combat, this stereotype.

Many Christians past and present have fed this, sadly, so far as I can tell by distracting from truth with feel good messages and snake oils. As Lewis says about 1:30 in,

• "More probabaly, foolish preachers telling you how much Christianity will help you, and how good it is for society, have actually lead you to forget that Christianity is not a patent medicine. Christianity claims to give an account of facts, to tell you what the real universe is like. Its account of the universe may be true or it may not. Once the question is really before you, then your natural inquisitiveness must make you want to know the answer. If Christianity is untrue, then no honest man will want to believe it, however helpful it might be. If it is true, every honest man will want to believe it, even if it gives him no help at all."

I feel there are many Christians, today, that look to and use Christianity more like helpful crutch, and then they try to lend their crutches to others touting how much Jesus loves them and can help them, etc. Failing to realise, that the an honest person perhaps doesn't care so much for crutches, but would rather want to more honestly reconcile themselves with the truth even if such was unhelpful.

There is much to be gleaned I think, from this video, perhaps more-so for the Christian than the non-Christian. As Christian2 posted several months ago about his own church entertaining Islamic teachers, many Christians there considered the Gospel to be about living a good life and I'm sure given your Christian experiences early on that eve you're well aware that such is not the Gospel at all.

You made some excellent points! Thanks for your perspective Kurieuo

Ken

Actually Ken:

Do you believe “good” or “smart” exist by themselves? Outside of human thought? In other words, (for example) if there are no humans on the Moon, is it possible for smart to exist on the moon?

Ken

You are on the right track.

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:You are not seeming to grasp the one thing that is crucial and that without an objective there can NOT be anything subjective.

There is no logic to your reasoning.
You see it on something that, according to you, can't be denied by your own eyes or experience ( the example of falling 500 feet or getting your head blasted off) BUT you fail to grasp that those examples are NOT relevant to the understanding of objective and subjective.

You don't grasp that one can NOT say that something is right or wrong UNLESS there is such a thing AS right and wrong.
Which makes right ( not wrong since wrong is an absence of right) an absolute.

Do you agree with the below definition?
http://www.differencebetween.net/langua ... ubjective/

If not please explain why.

Ken

Ah, I see why you have issues with the whole objective and subjective thing.
That article isn't addressing what we are addressing, you realize that right?
It is talking about statements about what is objective or subjective and is NOT talking about the nature of objectiveness and subjectiveness.
It is talking about literary agents and not what we are talking about here.

PaulSacramento wrote:Actually Ken:

Do you believe “good” or “smart” exist by themselves? Outside of human thought? In other words, (for example) if there are no humans on the Moon, is it possible for smart to exist on the moon?

Ken

You are on the right track.

When you say "on the right track" does that mean you agree?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Actually Ken:

Do you believe “good” or “smart” exist by themselves? Outside of human thought? In other words, (for example) if there are no humans on the Moon, is it possible for smart to exist on the moon?

Ken

You are on the right track.

When you say "on the right track" does that mean you agree?

Ken

It means that you are starting to think outside the box about the abstract principles of existence.

EX:
The nature of a triangle is triangularity, correct?
Even if there were NO triangles anywhere, triangularity would still exist, yes?

Kenny, there exists a basic understanding of what is okay.
Call it morals or objective/subjective decency but it's written into our DNA. Every culture has written it's stamp in history surrounding these basic principles.
Yes, there are differences and nuances as to how it's interpreted or applied but across history and across societies the basic principles have remained.
I said to you some time ago, that you and I could not come up with a new primary colour anymore than a new moral.
The basic principles are ageless.
Is it questionable that in some circumstances lying may be okay, yes.
Are there situations when stealing is justifiable, yes.
Could it be possible that even murder in self defence is excusable, yes.
Every society even today has a different set of laws and values regarding such a subjective set of rules. Which leads some to a very subjective view of such.
But these rules are ageless.
No one questions the moral basic of theft.
Or deceit
Or murder
The same basic principles are explored in every society, the only difference is how it is dealt with.
Just because x culture said murder was okay does not mean that therefore murder is subjective. It means that human life is sacred otherwise justification would not be necessary.
The question begs the necessity.
Is it okay to lie? For the betterment of others??
This is not a question of subjective morality but an understanding of an absolute principle of two principles... Lying or protection.
It's ambigious often, again this is not a sign of subjective morality but a dealing with the balance of honesty and integrity.

The questions are always the same, it's our take on it that is subjective.

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Actually Ken:

Do you believe “good” or “smart” exist by themselves? Outside of human thought? In other words, (for example) if there are no humans on the Moon, is it possible for smart to exist on the moon?

Ken

You are on the right track.

When you say "on the right track" does that mean you agree?

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:It means that you are starting to think outside the box about the abstract principles of existence.

EX:
The nature of a triangle is triangularity, correct?

What is “triangularity”? I’m not familiar with the term.
I don’t see how a triangle could possibly have a nature; triangle is a description of something that does exist. Shapes only exist as a description of something real.

PaulSacramento wrote: Even if there were NO triangles anywhere, triangularity would still exist, yes?

I don’t see how that is possible. Where would these triangularity's exist?

Ken

melanie wrote:Kenny, there exists a basic understanding of what is okay.
Call it morals or objective/subjective decency but it's written into our DNA. Every culture has written it's stamp in history surrounding these basic principles.
Yes, there are differences and nuances as to how it's interpreted or applied but across history and across societies the basic principles have remained.
I said to you some time ago, that you and I could not come up with a new primary colour anymore than a new moral.
The basic principles are ageless.
Is it questionable that in some circumstances lying may be okay, yes.
Are there situations when stealing is justifiable, yes.
Could it be possible that even murder in self defence is excusable, yes.
Every society even today has a different set of laws and values regarding such a subjective set of rules. Which leads some to a very subjective view of such.
But these rules are ageless.
No one questions the moral basic of theft.
Or deceit
Or murder
The same basic principles are explored in every society, the only difference is how it is dealt with.
Just because x culture said murder was okay does not mean that therefore murder is subjective. It means that human life is sacred otherwise justification would not be necessary.
The question begs the necessity.
Is it okay to lie? For the betterment of others??
This is not a question of subjective morality but an understanding of an absolute principle of two principles... Lying or protection.
It's ambigious often, again this is not a sign of subjective morality but a dealing with the balance of honesty and integrity.

The questions are always the same, it's our take on it that is subjective.

So if I understand you correctly, you say all the basics of morality are already known and agreed upon; it is just the interpretation and application that is in a constant change, and constantly being discovered. ex even though stem cell research was not an issue years ago, the morality of it falls under murder or not; one of the basic morality’s discovered long ago. Even though slavery is no longer considered acceptable, it falls under the category of "fairness" one of the moral issues discovered long ago. Am I on the right page here? If so, I think where we disagree is the fact that we are able to interpret how we apply the basics; lying, murder, fairness, stealing, etc. tells me even the basics are subjective. I see gravity as objective. You can’t interpret or apply gravity at your convenience, it applies to everybody whether you like it or not.

Ken