Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Rape is easy? Have you raped someone Kenny...

I said rape is easy because everybody agrees on that issue. I think Proinsias made an excellent point about the treatment of animals.
The fact that animals raised for food will live an entire life of torture up to the point of slaughter. We have chickens so full of drugs and so bloated they can’t even walk, and if they could the cages are so small and cramped there isn’t any room to walk anyway. Is this moral?

But this type of treatment is the only way we can get those huge 5-6 oz chicken breasts we’ve become accustomed to instead of the 4 oz breast of a natural chicken; and if we had less meat the 1 out of 6 Americans who struggle with hunger will be 1 out of 4 or 1 out of 3

But then we throw away over half of the food produced in this USA, if we wasted less we could treat animals humanely and still have enough for everyone to eat..

But throwing food away is the result of quality control in the meat packing industry; we don’t wanna go back to the times of the 1930’s when everyone was getting sick do we?

And that’s just chickens; what about cows? Ever see a ranch hand saw the horns off a long horned bull? Is that moral?

If morality were objective, these type of questions would be as obvious as 1+1=2. The fact that some people will say yes while others will say no, is obvious to me that morality is subjective.

Ken

And this is where Kenny has lingered for so long. Kenny is saying that objective morality is dependent on people agreeing. We've had this debate before, although i seem to remember him denying this. But, he says here that if morality were objectively grounded then everyone would obviously see how wrong this animal treatment is. What is implied in this example is that this animal cruelty is REALLY wrong. You can't make that argument. You can't adhere to subjective morality and say, if OM existed then everyone would agree that __________ is wrong. Why? Because it already assumes that there is an objective standard by which everyone should adhere to. It must smuggle in OM to try and undermine it.

But, Kenny says not everyone has a problem with it, therefore morality isn't objectively grounded. In doing so, Kenny has made a claim. If morality is objective then it would be as obvious as 1+1=2. However, he has yet to offer any proof to support that claim. It is simply........wait for it........his opinion. I would agree, objective moral truth SHOULD be obvious. Whether it is, is another story. If Kenny is right, then how can we even find grounds on which to speculate whether OM should be obvious? And, if Kenny is right, then we would also be perfect moral creatures.

Now, the difference is that one who adheres OM can explain why agreement is not as obvious as it ought to be. It isn't that right and wrong aren't obvious. It is a perception problem. If i am driving my car, I can look at the gauge and determine whether I need fuel. Unless, of course, the gauge is broken. If so, how much fuel I have in my tank is still an objective fact, but I am impaired from knowing how much fuel is in my tank. Following Kenny's logic, the fuel in the tank is not an objective fact. One person might be convinced it's full, the other, empty. It's entirely subjective. But, Kenny's example totally undermines this. To take this further, what if everyone agreed that the tank was full because the gauge said it was full? Everyone sees how obvious it is that the tank is full. See, i can demonstrate it is full, just look at the gauge. Yes, our moral gauge ought to reflect what is true. Kenny has not shown how his claim is correct. It's just a bald assertion.

I'll eat my shoe if Kenny agrees with any of this.

Kenny, apparently, thinks this animal treatment is wrong, and i think it's safe to say that he thinks that others should agree with him. If he is going to be consistent then there should be NO reason for anyone to agree with him, and no reason to convince anyone to agree with him. (which he is trying to do, btw) In fact, he should be just as willing to change his opinion on the matter. But he won't. Why not? Because he believes it really, really is wrong. Objectively wrong.

There is little question that we are moral agents. But, we are flawed moral agents. I would venture that any normal, rational person who witnessed the things Kenny describes would be appalled if not repulsed.

Kenny seems to have snared himself on the rape issue. He says rape is wrong because he can demonstrate it is wrong. If so, then OM exist and Kenny's position is destroyed. However, how is Kenny going to demonstrate it is wrong? Subjective opinions and preferences? Collective subjective opinions? Subjective laws? Here is the rub. If everyone agrees that rape is wrong, does that make OM exist? Then, let's say, some people decide differently that rape is good and right. Does that change whether that is the case?

Now Kenny seems interested in demonstrating that this animal treatment is objectively wrong. Totally confusing. I would even say, perhaps everyone would be RIGHT to adopt Kenny's position on animal cruelty.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Rape is easy? Have you raped someone Kenny...

I said rape is easy because everybody agrees on that issue. I think Proinsias made an excellent point about the treatment of animals.
The fact that animals raised for food will live an entire life of torture up to the point of slaughter. We have chickens so full of drugs and so bloated they can’t even walk, and if they could the cages are so small and cramped there isn’t any room to walk anyway. Is this moral?

But this type of treatment is the only way we can get those huge 5-6 oz chicken breasts we’ve become accustomed to instead of the 4 oz breast of a natural chicken; and if we had less meat the 1 out of 6 Americans who struggle with hunger will be 1 out of 4 or 1 out of 3

But then we throw away over half of the food produced in this USA, if we wasted less we could treat animals humanely and still have enough for everyone to eat..

But throwing food away is the result of quality control in the meat packing industry; we don’t wanna go back to the times of the 1930’s when everyone was getting sick do we?

And that’s just chickens; what about cows? Ever see a ranch hand saw the horns off a long horned bull? Is that moral?

If morality were objective, these type of questions would be as obvious as 1+1=2. The fact that some people will say yes while others will say no, is obvious to me that morality is subjective.

@Kenny,
Morality applies to subjects.
It is only when applied that moral values are expressed.
So it is inevitable the objective values applied by subjects results may result in subjective differences.
If someone says 1+1 = 3 then the fact remains the values are still objective, even if the answer is subjective.

Those are my last comments to you here regarding this subject.
We can respectfully disagree and believe each other doesn't really understand subjective/objective morality.

@Other Christians,
You know, as far as the moral argument is concerned we've basically been resting upon a typical objective morality argument for centuries.
That's fine, because I think it is a good argument. However, I think that things are becoming more difficult for it such that apologetic thought on morality by Christians will need to develop further.

This is difficult to do when all we get to debate with are those who say "subjective" this and "subjective" that and don't appear to really understand (sorry Kenny, but I don't believe you get me and it like I don't get you).

BUT, there are Atheists that are more sophisticated. Atheists who do understand the standard objective moral argument, and in response have attempted to take morality to new heights of logic, reason and heavily cloaked in persuasive words.

It's a two punch without a logical knock down:
1) Show that people who believe in God do have an objective morality cast in the worst possible light,
2) Show that an objective morality can be grounded in reason and "science".

All that's left to do is ask the audience which "objective standard" makes more sense?

Getting people to answer which is best = a win for those wanting to bury God. Once you speak you agree with a side, then logic and reason normally no longer play a role -- because the stones you crossed to get to where you are aren't required any longer.

Mark my words, the new generations coming through, if they are in any way religious, Christian, Muslim or otherwise, will be cast as immoral and dangerous in our Western societies. In same cases, there is good reason. In other cases, well... New Atheism is making an impact.

Humanism is the philosophy of the time, and I see many Christians accepting the thought without any filters. We're all taught how to think in schools, society, media -- it's comfortable. And when your thought processes are wired a certain way, and the bubble you know appears so nice and comfortable, then it becomes harder and harder to accept answers that don't even register as logical.

Now, I don't think we can do too much about this. The world has always been at odds with God and this is one reason we hope in Christ, because while we're born into it we're really not of this world. Hung on the strings of this world's god which deceives with words stitched between truths made out to be our own, the world will always continue rationalising away God and burying any knowledge thereof.

Re: the moral argument. It is one thing to say these more sophisticated secular moral arguments are wrong, and another to be able to explain why. With the very powerful rhetoric as I say "stitched" between truths, it'll be even more difficult to show how morality points to God (and we think it is hard now!). Further, I genuinely fear for the next generations of Christian children (my own), the hostility they may receive when older in the world.

I mentioned a video earlier to Kenny, and was in fact hesitant to post it because there a probably many here who don't even understand the traditional moral argument. So being ill-equipped it'll sound very convincing. Nonetheless, it is through being challenged that our knowledge grows, and truth is on our side so... if you want to hear a more sophisticated morality then Sam Harris seems to be at the edge of popular secular thought:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

RickD wrote:
Kenny,

If I live in a society where it's not illegal to rape a woman, and I commit rape, is it wrong?

Ken wrote:
Of course it is wrong!

Why would it be wrong, if it's not illegal, and therefore I think it's ok? So, tell me why it would be wrong?

If I could demonstrate to you that it was wrong, and provide absolute proof? It would be "objectively wrong". The fact that I can't shows it is subjectively wrong.

Ken

Then it's not wrong. If you committed the act, it would be wrong for you. But I told you, it's not illegal to commit rape in that country, and I think it's ok to rape. So, explain how it's wrong if I raped someone in that instance.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Rape is easy? Have you raped someone Kenny...

I said rape is easy because everybody agrees on that issue. I think Proinsias made an excellent point about the treatment of animals.
The fact that animals raised for food will live an entire life of torture up to the point of slaughter. We have chickens so full of drugs and so bloated they can’t even walk, and if they could the cages are so small and cramped there isn’t any room to walk anyway. Is this moral?

But this type of treatment is the only way we can get those huge 5-6 oz chicken breasts we’ve become accustomed to instead of the 4 oz breast of a natural chicken; and if we had less meat the 1 out of 6 Americans who struggle with hunger will be 1 out of 4 or 1 out of 3

But then we throw away over half of the food produced in this USA, if we wasted less we could treat animals humanely and still have enough for everyone to eat..

But throwing food away is the result of quality control in the meat packing industry; we don’t wanna go back to the times of the 1930’s when everyone was getting sick do we?

And that’s just chickens; what about cows? Ever see a ranch hand saw the horns off a long horned bull? Is that moral?

If morality were objective, these type of questions would be as obvious as 1+1=2. The fact that some people will say yes while others will say no, is obvious to me that morality is subjective.

Ken

jlay wrote:And this is where Kenny has lingered for so long. Kenny is saying that objective morality is dependent on people agreeing. We've had this debate before, although i seem to remember him denying this. But, he says here that if morality were objectively grounded then everyone would obviously see how wrong this animal treatment is. What is implied in this example is that this animal cruelty is REALLY wrong.

The point I was making has nothing to do with weather the treatment of these animals is wrong or not, it’s about the fact that people disagree on the issue, and their position cannot be demonstrated as right or wrong.

jlay wrote:You can't make that argument. You can't adhere to subjective morality and say, if OM existed then everyone would agree that __________ is wrong. Why? Because it already assumes that there is an objective standard by which everyone should adhere to.

No; it assumes if OM existed such a standard would exist. The fact that such a standard doesn’t makes the case that OM doesn’t exist

jlay wrote:But, Kenny says not everyone has a problem with it, therefore morality isn't objectively grounded. In doing so, Kenny has made a claim. If morality is objective then it would be as obvious as 1+1=2. However, he has yet to offer any proof to support that claim. It is simply........wait for it........his opinion. I would agree, objective moral truth SHOULD be obvious. Whether it is, is another story.

Actually I wasn’t just offering my opinion, I looked up several sites and saw how the terms are used.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Object ... Subjective

jlay wrote:If Kenny is right, then how can we even find grounds on which to speculate whether OM should be obvious? And, if Kenny is right, then we would also be perfect moral creatures.

No; if morality were objective, we could be perfect moral creatures.

jlay wrote:Now, the difference is that one who adheres OM can explain why agreement is not as obvious as it ought to be. It isn't that right and wrong aren't obvious. It is a perception problem. If i am driving my car, I can look at the gauge and determine whether I need fuel. Unless, of course, the gauge is broken. If so, how much fuel I have in my tank is still an objective fact, but I am impaired from knowing how much fuel is in my tank. Following Kenny's logic, the fuel in the tank is not an objective fact.

No, just because the gauge is broken doesn’t mean you can’t determine how much fuel is in the tank. You can take the car apart, put a stick down the spout, if there is any way you can provide proof of how much fuel is in the tank, that proof is an objective fact/truth. If there is no way of providing proof, and all you have are opinions, then it is a subjective opinion

jlay wrote:Kenny, apparently, thinks this animal treatment is wrong, and i think it's safe to say that he thinks that others should agree with him. If he is going to be consistent then there should be NO reason for anyone to agree with him, and no reason to convince anyone to agree with him.

If we assume your claim of my views on animal treatment is correct (which it is not) why is there no reason for anyone to agree with me?

jlay wrote:(which he is trying to do, btw) In fact, he should be just as willing to change his opinion on the matter. But he won't. Why not? Because he believes it really, really is wrong. Objectively wrong.

You mistakenly assume subjective views of right vs wrong change on a regular basis

jlay wrote:Kenny seems to have snared himself on the rape issue. He says rape is wrong because he can demonstrate it is wrong.

[/quote]
No, I said because morality is subjective, I am unable to demonstrate it as wrong.

Ken

Kurieuo wrote: @Kenny,
Morality applies to subjects.
It is only when applied that moral values are expressed.
So it is inevitable the objective values applied by subjects results may result in subjective differences.
If someone says 1+1 = 3 then the fact remains the values are still objective, even if the answer is subjective.

Math is objective. 1+1=3 is objectively wrong and can be demonstrated as wrong.

K

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

RickD wrote:
Kenny,

If I live in a society where it's not illegal to rape a woman, and I commit rape, is it wrong?

Ken wrote:
Of course it is wrong!

Why would it be wrong, if it's not illegal, and therefore I think it's ok? So, tell me why it would be wrong?

If I could demonstrate to you that it was wrong, and provide absolute proof? It would be "objectively wrong". The fact that I can't shows it is subjectively wrong.

Ken

Then it's not wrong. If you committed the act, it would be wrong for you. But I told you, it's not illegal to commit rape in that country, and I think it's ok to rape. So, explain how it's wrong if I raped someone in that instance.

Again; I cannot demonstrate to you in a way you would agree that it is wrong, I can only demonstrate in a way that I would agree that it is wrong. With you believing objective morality and all, how would you explain how such a rape is wrong?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

RickD wrote:
Kenny,

If I live in a society where it's not illegal to rape a woman, and I commit rape, is it wrong?

Ken wrote:
Of course it is wrong!

Why would it be wrong, if it's not illegal, and therefore I think it's ok? So, tell me why it would be wrong?

If I could demonstrate to you that it was wrong, and provide absolute proof? It would be "objectively wrong". The fact that I can't shows it is subjectively wrong.

Ken

Then it's not wrong. If you committed the act, it would be wrong for you. But I told you, it's not illegal to commit rape in that country, and I think it's ok to rape. So, explain how it's wrong if I raped someone in that instance.

Again; I cannot demonstrate to you in a way you would agree that it is wrong, I can only demonstrate in a way that I would agree that it is wrong. With you believing objective morality and all, how would you explain how such a rape is wrong?

Ken

So,

Rape in that instance is not wrong, correct?

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: @Kenny,
Morality applies to subjects.
It is only when applied that moral values are expressed.
So it is inevitable the objective values applied by subjects results may result in subjective differences.
If someone says 1+1 = 3 then the fact remains the values are still objective, even if the answer is subjective.

Math is objective. 1+1=3 is objectively wrong and can be demonstrated as wrong.

Oh, weren't you just calling "rape" easy?
1+1 = 3 is still a subjective opinion. I'm sure someone somewhere believes it.
So the fact there is a difference in calculations must evidence the math is subjective.
Keep in mind now that formulas can get much more complicated and cause differences of opinion.

But, respectfully... Kenny, you're really becoming unstuck and/or confused with different beliefs you hold.
Let me try show you with the hope you can re-think your positions to be more coherent.

Consider the universal thread elsewhere:

Kurieuo wrote:When it comes to the world, we understand concepts that are often called "universals"
-- universal concepts like shapes, numbers, math and the like.

With these clearly immaterial "things" one question to consider is whether such have always just existed;
OR, did these universal things come into existence at one point?

Picture that there was absolutely nothing - no physical world and no mind - just complete nothingness.
Would universals exist in such a world where there is no mind to conceive them?

You then responded in that thread:

Kenny wrote:I believe universal concepts like you described only exist in the context of human thought; they do not have an actual existence.

And now you write here:

Kenny wrote:Math is objective. 1+1=3 is objectively wrong and can be demonstrated as wrong.

Do you see the inconsistency in your beliefs here?

RickD wrote: So,

Rape in that instance is not wrong, correct?

As I've said countless times before, Rape in that instance is wrong; subjectively wrong. To Categorize something as subjective or objective doesn't change the morality of the action.


Ken

Kurieuo wrote: Oh, weren't you just calling "rape" easy?

Easy to call wrong? Yes! Don’t you agree?

Kurieuo wrote:1+1 = 3 is still a subjective opinion. I'm sure someone somewhere believes it.
So the fact there is a difference in calculations must evidence the math is subjective.
Keep in mind now that formulas can get much more complicated and cause differences of opinion.

1+1 is a math equation. Math has a set of rules agreed by all.
As long as you follow the rules of math correctly, there will be no differences in calculation.

As far as Universal concepts like shapes, numbers, and even math, they do not have an actual existence; they only exist in the context of human thought.
Though numbers and math do not exist by themselves, they are representative tokens that represent things that actually do/could exist. They are objective because there are a set of rules attached agreed by all when using them, and as long as numbers and math is used correctly, everybody will get the same answer every time they use these representative tokens.


Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Oh, weren't you just calling "rape" easy?

Easy to call wrong? Yes! Don’t you agree?

Please explain how you call it wrong.
I don't believe it is wrong for a man to want his genes to survive.
Do you?

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: So,

Rape in that instance is not wrong, correct?

As I've said countless times before, Rape in that instance is wrong; subjectively wrong. To Categorize something as subjective or objective doesn't change the morality of the action.


Ken

That doesn't make much sense to me. Saying it's subjectively wrong means it's wrong in your opinion (and most people's) but someone else's opinion that it's fine could be equally valid.

Nicki wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: So,

Rape in that instance is not wrong, correct?

As I've said countless times before, Rape in that instance is wrong; subjectively wrong. To Categorize something as subjective or objective doesn't change the morality of the action.


Ken

That doesn't make much sense to me. Saying it's subjectively wrong means it's wrong in your opinion (and most people's) but someone else's opinion that it's fine could be equally valid.

How does changing the label from subjectively wrong to objectively wrong make this other person's opinion any less valid?

Ken

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Oh, weren't you just calling "rape" easy?

Easy to call wrong? Yes! Don’t you agree?

Please explain how you call it wrong.
I don't believe it is wrong for a man to want his genes to survive.
Do you?

I consider it wrong because it goes against the Golden Rule. Other people might have other reasons; but that's mine.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Oh, weren't you just calling "rape" easy?

Easy to call wrong? Yes! Don’t you agree?

Please explain how you call it wrong.
I don't believe it is wrong for a man to want his genes to survive.
Do you?

I consider it wrong because it goes against the Golden Rule. Other people might have other reasons; but that's mine.

That's nice. I like chocolate.
So because of that, a man shouldn't be stopped from doing what is natural and passing on his jeans, err genes.