Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

kenny wrote: I made a mistake on my previous reply. You asked if I agree raping an 8 yr old is objectively wrong; then you defined “objectively wrong” as “regardless of anyone’s opinion, it is wrong”. I don’t agree objectively wrong is limited to “regardless of opinion” I think it also includes an ability to demonstrate as wrong.
As far as ontological, I don’t believe it can be applied to morality because its about things with an actual existence; not thoughts and ideas. I believe morality is based on thoughts and ideas. Things with an actual existence can be demonstrated.

Kenny, I sincerely hope you do realize that if your thoughts can't be demonstrated then not only do you not exist, but communication in general is illusory.

I disagree. Thoughts don’t exist by themselves, but can be demonstrated through action.

K

How do we communicate with one another Kenny? Before we can demonstrate anything thru action, what is the principle agent in any good theory of communication?

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

If a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound? Yes. When gravity pulls something to the surface of the Earth, the impact will cause an audible sound, and witnesses are not necessary for this to take place. that is an example of an objective truth.

RickD wrote: Ok, I think I understand where you're coming from. Things can be objectively true, but you just don't believe morality is objective. Is that accurate?

Yes

RickD wrote:Would you agree that "my truck is a Chevrolet", is an objective claim? By objective, I mean it's either a Chevrolet, or it's not, and nobody's opinion can change that fact.

Yes.

K

Ok, good.

Since you agree that "my truck is a Chevrolet", is an objective claim, would you agree that the claim, "God exists" is also an objective claim?

Yes.

K

Ok, great.

Would you then agree that a man raping an eight year old girl, is objectively wrong? Meaning, regardless of anyone's opinion, it is wrong to rape an eight year old girl?

Philip wrote:

Ken : How am I supposed to answer that question? Suppose I said all the matter that currently exist in the Universe existed prior to the Big Bang. could you prove me wrong using established scientific theories?

Ken, if you insist that matter existed prior to the Big Bang, then either you don't believe the overwhelming number of physicists and studies that deny that, or you don't understand basic Big Bang science assertions and studies. You are asserting something that science says isn't true. And so your belief in the, yes, the MAGIC, of blind, random matter, to self-organize so brilliantly and to coordinate with itself, while also recognizing and harnessing such unfathomable power - you are insisting that the irrational and mathematically, IMMENSELY improbable is possible. Really, Ken, what level of exponential math would make you realize an impossibility the equivalent of rocks, given enough time, learning how to do and take advatage of algebra and calculus. Oh, and btw, the rocks have to be either eternal or created.

Justhuman wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:
Yes


Yes.

K

Ok, good.

Since you agree that "my truck is a Chevrolet", is an objective claim, would you agree that the claim, "God exists" is also an objective claim?

Yes.

K

Ok, great.

Would you then agree that a man raping an eight year old girl, is objectively wrong? Meaning, regardless of anyone's opinion, it is wrong to rape an eight year old girl?

Rape is allways wrong, whoever or whatever age the victim is.

RickD wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: Ok, good.

Since you agree that "my truck is a Chevrolet", is an objective claim, would you agree that the claim, "God exists" is also an objective claim?

Yes.

K

Ok, great.

Would you then agree that a man raping an eight year old girl, is objectively wrong? Meaning, regardless of anyone's opinion, it is wrong to rape an eight year old girl?

Rape is allways wrong, whoever or whatever age the victim is.

Ok Justhuman, then I'll ask you what I was going to ask Kenny. If rape is objectively wrong, meaning that it's wrong regardless of anyone's opinion, then what is the basis for it being wrong?

If it's "wrongness" didn't originate in the minds of people, where did it come from?

RickD wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: Ok, good.

Since you agree that "my truck is a Chevrolet", is an objective claim, would you agree that the claim, "God exists" is also an objective claim?

Yes.

K

Ok, great.

Would you then agree that a man raping an eight year old girl, is objectively wrong? Meaning, regardless of anyone's opinion, it is wrong to rape an eight year old girl?

Rape is allways wrong, whoever or whatever age the victim is.

Ok Justhuman, then I'll ask you what I was going to ask Kenny. If rape is objectively wrong, meaning that it's wrong regardless of anyone's opinion, then what is the basis for it being wrong?

If it's "wrongness" didn't originate in the minds of people, where did it come from?

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:
Yes.

K

Ok, great.

Would you then agree that a man raping an eight year old girl, is objectively wrong? Meaning, regardless of anyone's opinion, it is wrong to rape an eight year old girl?

Rape is allways wrong, whoever or whatever age the victim is.

Ok Justhuman, then I'll ask you what I was going to ask Kenny. If rape is objectively wrong, meaning that it's wrong regardless of anyone's opinion, then what is the basis for it being wrong?

If it's "wrongness" didn't originate in the minds of people, where did it come from?

If it's objectively wrong, how come it's wrongness can't originate from the mind of a person?

Ken

Justhuman wrote:
Do you mean you want some 'general rule of wrongfulness'?
The basis would be it is wrong to do any harm to any being against their consent. The basis is too to avoid pain, or to willingly inflict as less pain as possible. That makes it too a human thing, for other beings might have other perspectives.

I'm not sure whether human is the only species with a sense of right/wrong. Is it solely a human thing?
Did we allways have a sense of right/wrong? Or has it gradually evolved from 'unknowing ignorance' into 'intelligent reasoning'?

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

RickD wrote: Ok, great.

Would you then agree that a man raping an eight year old girl, is objectively wrong? Meaning, regardless of anyone's opinion, it is wrong to rape an eight year old girl?

Rape is allways wrong, whoever or whatever age the victim is.

Ok Justhuman, then I'll ask you what I was going to ask Kenny. If rape is objectively wrong, meaning that it's wrong regardless of anyone's opinion, then what is the basis for it being wrong?

If it's "wrongness" didn't originate in the minds of people, where did it come from?

If it's objectively wrong, how come it's wrongness can't originate from the mind of a person?

Ken

By definition, objective means regardless of the opinions of someone.

RickD wrote:

Justhuman wrote:
Do you mean you want some 'general rule of wrongfulness'?
The basis would be it is wrong to do any harm to any being against their consent. The basis is too to avoid pain, or to willingly inflict as less pain as possible. That makes it too a human thing, for other beings might have other perspectives.

No, not a general rule. An origin of that rule perhaps. If it is always wrong to rape an 8 year old, where does that objective morality come from?

I'm not sure whether human is the only species with a sense of right/wrong. Is it solely a human thing?
Did we allways have a sense of right/wrong? Or has it gradually evolved from 'unknowing ignorance' into 'intelligent reasoning'?

Again, pertaining to my point, if there is an objective rule that says rape is wrong, where did that rule come from? It seems that we're all agreeing that it's always wrong to rape an 8 year old. So, what is the reason why it's always wrong?

RickD wrote:

Justhuman wrote:
Do you mean you want some 'general rule of wrongfulness'?
The basis would be it is wrong to do any harm to any being against their consent. The basis is too to avoid pain, or to willingly inflict as less pain as possible. That makes it too a human thing, for other beings might have other perspectives.

No, not a general rule. An origin of that rule perhaps. If it is always wrong to rape an 8 year old, where does that objective morality come from?

I'm not sure whether human is the only species with a sense of right/wrong. Is it solely a human thing?
Did we allways have a sense of right/wrong? Or has it gradually evolved from 'unknowing ignorance' into 'intelligent reasoning'?

Again, pertaining to my point, if there is an objective rule that says rape is wrong, where did that rule come from? It seems that we're all agreeing that it's always wrong to rape an 8 year old. So, what is the reason why it's always wrong?

kenny wrote:
Yes regardless of anyone's opinion; even God's. Because even if God said raping an 8 yr old girl is good, it would still be wrong, right?

I never said rape of an 8 yr old girl is wrong due to some rule written down somewhere, I said it was wrong due to MY rule.

Justhuman wrote:


Ultimately, the reason is man-made morality.
Unless you believe that God hard-wired us in considering it wrong, it comes down to free choice.

RickD wrote:

kenny wrote:
Yes regardless of anyone's opinion; even God's. Because even if God said raping an 8 yr old girl is good, it would still be wrong, right?

I never said rape of an 8 yr old girl is wrong due to some rule written down somewhere, I said it was wrong due to MY rule.

Im sorry Kenny. I don't mean to be rude, but if your responses are going to be nonsense, then I can't continue trying to have a conversation with you.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

kenny wrote:
Yes regardless of anyone's opinion; even God's. Because even if God said raping an 8 yr old girl is good, it would still be wrong, right?

I never said rape of an 8 yr old girl is wrong due to some rule written down somewhere, I said it was wrong due to MY rule.

Im sorry Kenny. I don't mean to be rude, but if your responses are going to be nonsense, then I can't continue trying to have a conversation with you.

Why is this nonsense? If the rape you described is objectively wrong, that would mean in theory if God said it were right, that would make God wrong; do you agree? It seems to me, in order for morality to be objective, God would have to be subject to those laws of morality; even if they are his laws! Otherwise it is all subjective to God. If you disagree, tell me where I’m going wrong.

Ken