Evidence for God from Science

Remove talk of states. Without the physical, could consciousness be had? No, not if the mental supervenes upon the physical. Hence, the mental is produced by the physical ordering.

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Nessa wrote: If someone else's life is just as valuable as your own, then what makes you choose to save your life over theirs?

My life is (subjectively) more valuable to me.

Ken

Then you dont really see their life as just as valuable

If you asked me whose life do I value more, yours; a person I’ve never met, or my brothers, whom I’ve spent my entire life building an emotional relationship with, I could easily claim that all lives are equal and one life is no more valuable than another etc. etc. But if I found out you were killed, I would feel bad due to the great conversations we’ve had; but if I found out my brother were killed, my response would be distraught, outrage, disbelief, and extreme sorrow. In other words, my reaction of learning of my brothers death vs my reaction of learning of your death would make it obvious that my claim that I value all lives equally was a lie. Does this ?make sense to you?

Ken

Nessa wrote: Are you saying im right then?

Yes.

Nessa wrote: And are you also saying you wouldn't fly to NZ for my funeral? heehee

No; I'm afraid not. However if my brother died in NZ I would fly there for the funeral.
Now that I've answered your questions, would you mind answering mine?

Ken

Yes, it seemed at best a contradiction. When push comes to shove, you base the value of a life on your own personal feelings.

What about rapists and murderers? Pyschopaths? What value do their lives have?

Materialistic people MUST see everything as subjective.

PaulSacramento wrote:Materialistic people MUST see everything as subjective.

I think to stay consistent in a materialistic worldview, they can see certain concepts as objective.

Or, as in Kenny's case, they can see certain things like child rape, as objectively wrong, but not know how to reconcile that with their subjective morality beliefs.

I think any sane person knows, really knows, that certain things are objectively wrong. But some refuse to see how that contradicts their worldview.

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Kenny wrote: My life is (subjectively) more valuable to me.

Ken

Then you dont really see their life as just as valuable

If you asked me whose life do I value more, yours; a person I’ve never met, or my brothers, whom I’ve spent my entire life building an emotional relationship with, I could easily claim that all lives are equal and one life is no more valuable than another etc. etc. But if I found out you were killed, I would feel bad due to the great conversations we’ve had; but if I found out my brother were killed, my response would be distraught, outrage, disbelief, and extreme sorrow. In other words, my reaction of learning of my brothers death vs my reaction of learning of your death would make it obvious that my claim that I value all lives equally was a lie. Does this ?make sense to you?

Ken

Nessa wrote: Are you saying im right then?

Yes.

Nessa wrote: And are you also saying you wouldn't fly to NZ for my funeral? heehee

No; I'm afraid not. However if my brother died in NZ I would fly there for the funeral.
Now that I've answered your questions, would you mind answering mine?

Ken

Nessa wrote: Yes, it seemed at best a contradiction. When push comes to shove, you base the value of a life on your own personal feelings.

Thanks for answering my question. So if I understand you correctly, if a stranger died, this would be just as traumatic for you as it would be if your sister, mother, or brother died; is this correct?

Nessa wrote: What about rapists and murderers? Pyschopaths? What value do their lives have?

I believe all human lives have value, but the actions of some people are so detrimental to society that they should pay with their lives. It doesn’t mean their lives don’t have value, its just that the cost to society of what they’ve done exceeds the value of their life. What is your opinion of of such people?

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:Materialistic people MUST see everything as subjective.

Why?

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:Materialistic people MUST see everything as subjective.

RickD wrote:I think to stay consistent in a materialistic worldview, they can see certain concepts as objective.

Or, as in Kenny's case, they can see certain things like child rape, as objectively wrong, but not know how to reconcile that with their subjective morality beliefs.

Actually in Kenny's case, certain things like child rape are subjectively wrong. (remember I'm the one who keeps insisting subjective morality does NOT equal nihilism). 1+1=3 is an example of something that is objectively wrong.

RickD wrote:I think any sane person knows, really knows, that certain things are objectively wrong. But some refuse to see how that contradicts their worldview.

kenny wrote:
Actually in Kenny's case, certain things like child rape are subjectively wrong. (remember I'm the one who keeps insisting subjective morality does NOT equal nihilism). 1+1=3 is an example of something that is objectively wrong.

I seem to recall you said something along the lines that child rape is always wrong. If it's always wrong, even if someone else says it's ok, then that means you think it's objectively wrong.

I challenge you to try to reconcile something as obvious as child rape being objectively wrong, with your subjective morality beliefs. If you're honestly looking at it, you'll either conclude that what your mind is telling you about it always being wrong, is true. Or, you'll find a way to reconcile a way to fit something objectively wrong, into your subjective morality worldview.

If you ever decide to seriously think about it, I'd like to hear your thoughts about what your conclusion is.

I think that certain evil things like child rape, are a huge stumbling block for people with a subjective morality worldview.

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Materialistic people MUST see everything as subjective.

Why?

Ken

Because your materialistic view demands it.
Or do you see certain things as objective?

Kurieuo wrote:Remove talk of states. Without the physical, could consciousness be had? No, not if the mental supervenes upon the physical. Hence, the mental is produced by the physical ordering.

Kurieuo,
I don't understand what you are saying. We discuss a materialistic worldview and then there are only physical things, no separate spiritual entities. How can you then discuss what could be had without the physical? Not only consciousness can not be had but anything.

"Production" is in my understanding a causal concept that indicates that the physical causes the mind but that is dualism. In supervenience there is no upward or downward causation. The wave IS the molecules, it is not caused by the molecules. In the same way, the mind IS (part of) the physical and epiphenominalism is not possible.

Nils

Kenny wrote: No; I'm afraid not. However if my
I believe all human lives have value, but the actions of some people are so detrimental to society that they should pay with their lives. It doesn’t mean their lives don’t have value, its just that the cost to society of what they’ve done exceeds the value of their life. What is your opinion of of such people?

Ken

I would grieve more for my dead child than a stranger but not because I saw them as more valuable but because I loved my child more. My child has more personal meaning in my world.

I grew up believing murders and rapists go to hell. Good people go to heaven. But then I had to ask myself who is good? and by whose standards? I don't see myself having any more value than a rapist or murder. Given certain circumstances we are all capable of the most horrific crimes. To think otherwise is deluded. At least that's how I see it.

People have a need to play good cop, bad cop because we need to believe we are better. But we aren't better. We are just more capable of making better choices.

I have been watching documentaries about kids in prisons who have committed sexual crimes against other kids. When you hear some of the background of the kids who did the crimes, you can begin to understand the true reality of this world.

We need to pay for our crimes but when parents put their kids in the washing machine and dryer and do other sick things to their kids, you can't expect a child to not be affected negatively.

Nils wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Remove talk of states. Without the physical, could consciousness be had? No, not if the mental supervenes upon the physical. Hence, the mental is produced by the physical ordering.

Kurieuo,
I don't understand what you are saying. We discuss a materialistic worldview and then there are only physical things, no separate spiritual entities. How can you then discuss what could be had without the physical? Not only consciousness can not be had but anything.

Where did I mention spiritual entities? Unless you wish to say you don't believe there is anything "mental" -- everyone, all sides, still discuss the mind-body i.e., "mind" and "body" problem.

PS. I'm not saying anything, my body is doing the talking so it would seem to some, not me.

kenny wrote:
Actually in Kenny's case, certain things like child rape are subjectively wrong. (remember I'm the one who keeps insisting subjective morality does NOT equal nihilism). 1+1=3 is an example of something that is objectively wrong.

RickD wrote: I seem to recall you said something along the lines that child rape is always wrong. If it's always wrong, even if someone else says it's ok, then that means you think it's objectively wrong.

No. IMO the bar for objectivity is a bit higher than just me believing it is right/wrong even if others disagree.

RickD wrote: I challenge you to try to reconcile something as obvious as child rape being objectively wrong, with your subjective morality beliefs.

Lets take this to its logical conclusion. Suppose I claim killing animals and eating their flesh is always wrong even if others disagree? Does eating meat become objectively wrong?

RickD wrote: If you're honestly looking at it, you'll either conclude that what your mind is telling you about it always being wrong, is true. Or, you'll find a way to reconcile a way to fit something objectively wrong, into your subjective morality worldview.

Or... perhaps there is a third option.

RickD wrote: you ever decide to seriously think about it, I'd like to hear your thoughts about what your conclusion is.

I think that certain evil things like child rape, are a huge stumbling block for people with a subjective morality worldview.

No stumbling block at all my friend, we've discussed this many times before! However if you wish to discuss some more, I would be more than happy to, but not here I don't want to derail this thread. Perhaps if you start a new one

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Materialistic people MUST see everything as subjective.

Why?

Ken

Because your materialistic view demands it.
Or do you see certain things as objective?

Yes. I see certain things as objective.

K

Nessa wrote:

Kenny wrote: No; I'm afraid not. However if my
I believe all human lives have value, but the actions of some people are so detrimental to society that they should pay with their lives. It doesn’t mean their lives don’t have value, its just that the cost to society of what they’ve done exceeds the value of their life. What is your opinion of of such people?

Ken

I would grieve more for my dead child than a stranger but not because I saw them as more valuable but because I loved my child more. My child has more personal meaning in my world.

I grew up believing murders and rapists go to hell. Good people go to heaven. But then I had to ask myself who is good? and by whose standards? I don't see myself having any more value than a rapist or murder. Given certain circumstances we are all capable of the most horrific crimes. To think otherwise is deluded. At least that's how I see it.

People have a need to play good cop, bad cop because we need to believe we are better. But we aren't better. We are just more capable of making better choices.

I have been watching documentaries about kids in prisons who have committed sexual crimes against other kids. When you hear some of the background of the kids who did the crimes, you can begin to understand the true reality of this world.

We need to pay for our crimes but when parents put their kids in the washing machine and dryer and do other sick things to their kids, you can't expect a child to not be affected negatively.

You say you love your child more, but value your child no more than a stranger, or that you don’t see yourself as having any more value than a murderer. What is the standard you are using when you consider value?