Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:
In an effort to understand each other better, let's see where we agree. Can we agree that if morality is objective; there must be a standard/base that morality is established upon? I know earlier you said it infers a law giver (I believe that was the term you used) But I say it requires one. Do you agree? Sorta like in my scenario of Math how math has to be based upon the number 10 to be considered objective? Do you agree morality has to have a moral base?

Kenny,

I agree, BUT it's only my subjective opinion.

All kidding aside, from this post of yours, it almost looks like you're starting to understand.

Kenny wrote:

jlay wrote:Trying to convince Kenny using epistemological examples is fruitless. This is a matter of truth. Kenny has narrowly defined how something can be demonstrated as well as requiring people to agree (regardless of whether he denies this).
Kenny is right about pedophilia. Some cultures would say that anyone under 18, and other cultures would say anyone who has not reached puberty. Others may have different laws. But that isn't an argument for OM. The objective truth is that there is a way we ought to behave as it relates to sexual practice and specifically children. Now, how a culture interprets that is another story and an epistemological one at that. But, it would be absurd to say that are interpreting nothing. They are attempting to establish a correct moral practice. What are they trying to interpret? Morality.

Where Kenny always gets stuck in these examples is this. Let's say there is a culture that advocates human trafficking. That is, kidnapping people (children as well) and selling them into the sex trade. If this culture supports this practice, then following Kenny's SM, we can't say they are wrong. We can say we don't prefer the practice, or it's wrong according to what I believe, but we can't say those people are actually wrong. Further, if we were suddenly inserted into this society, we would have to either accept this practice to be morally good, or chose to be evil by opposing it. Even Kenny can see how absurd this is, and he will deny it, but on what grounds. Not on the grounds of all morality being subjective.

Kenny likes the math example. There are many areas of math that aren't demonstrable unless we have the proper tools and knowledge. A protractor for example, or a level. Kenny makes a lot of assumptions regarding math. First, that it's all demonstrable. Where does the number 10 exist? A mathematician can't even demonstrate that numbers are actual. Not mathematically anyway. You'd have to actually make a philosophical argument.

Moral truth cannot be worked out like a math problem, at least not that I've seen. However that doesn't undermine whether objective moral duties and values exist.
So, please don't waste your time arguing pedophilia.

In an effort to understand each other better, let's see where we agree. Can we agree that if morality is objective; there must be a standard/base that morality is established upon? I know earlier you said it infers a law giver (I believe that was the term you used) But I say it requires one. Do you agree? Sorta like in my scenario of Math how math has to be based upon the number 10 to be considered objective? Do you agree morality has to have a moral base?

Ken

I would prefer the term, source.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:
In an effort to understand each other better, let's see where we agree. Can we agree that if morality is objective; there must be a standard/base that morality is established upon? I know earlier you said it infers a law giver (I believe that was the term you used) But I say it requires one. Do you agree? Sorta like in my scenario of Math how math has to be based upon the number 10 to be considered objective? Do you agree morality has to have a moral base?

Kenny,

I agree, BUT it's only my subjective opinion.

All kidding aside, from this post of yours, it almost looks like you're starting to understand.

Okay. If we agree Objective morality would require a base; (or as Jlay would prefer “source”) allow me to present a scenario. In the scenario I am assuming you say the moral source is Jesus/God of the Bible. If this is incorrect please explain this source and I will adjust my scenario accordingly.

If you believe behavior “X” is immoral/wrong because according to the bible, Jesus/God (the moral source) says it is wrong, but the next guy says behavior “X” is moral/good because according to his Holy Text (a religious book you do not subscribe to) it says his moral source (some deity you do not subscribe to) says it is good, what right do you have to say your claim is credible and his is not? In other words; other than blind faith, what system do you use to verify that your moral source is authentic and his is not?

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

I've given plenty of examples of objective, and absolute truths. I have said morality is not objective.

So you do believe there is objectiveness and absolutes BUT not when it comes to morality, yes?

Yes! I believe earlier I gave the example of poison, and another example of math to make this point.

Ken

But Kenny, you can NOT say that morals are not absolute without proof AND with a quantifier of what you define as "morals".

As I noted before, every person and/or culture has a view of right and wrong and while that view may vary, the point is that ALL believe IN a right and wrong ( even if they don't agree with what that/those right and wrongs are).

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:
In an effort to understand each other better, let's see where we agree. Can we agree that if morality is objective; there must be a standard/base that morality is established upon? I know earlier you said it infers a law giver (I believe that was the term you used) But I say it requires one. Do you agree? Sorta like in my scenario of Math how math has to be based upon the number 10 to be considered objective? Do you agree morality has to have a moral base?

Kenny,

I agree, BUT it's only my subjective opinion.

All kidding aside, from this post of yours, it almost looks like you're starting to understand.

Okay. If we agree Objective morality would require a base; (or as Jlay would prefer “source”) allow me to present a scenario. In the scenario I am assuming you say the moral source is Jesus/God of the Bible. If this is incorrect please explain this source and I will adjust my scenario accordingly.

If you believe behavior “X” is immoral/wrong because according to the bible, Jesus/God (the moral source) says it is wrong, but the next guy says behavior “X” is moral/good because according to his Holy Text (a religious book you do not subscribe to) it says his moral source (some deity you do not subscribe to) says it is good, what right do you have to say your claim is credible and his is not? In other words; other than blind faith, what system do you use to verify that your moral source is authentic and his is not?

Again kenny, you are demonstrating the ontological/epistemological confusion. How we come to know whether something is right or wrong is different than whether OM exist. Whether some things are really wrong, is a different question than knowing the source of such moral values. The Bible is not the source of OM. How we come to know the bible is correct revelation, and that other religious texts are wrong, is an epistemological question and one that can't be addressed until the ontological question is answered. If there are no OM, then why should you care? Christianity being right, Islam being right or atheism being right is just a subjective matter. If atheism is right, then humans have no intrinsic value or purpose for being here. No purpose to know truth, morally or otherwise. So, if Christians want to believe in OM, then that is there subjective opinion and has just as much validity as your subjective opinion. But then, that's not what you are saying or arguing for, is it?

So, it's futile to try and answer these questions. Either objective moral values and duties exist or they do not. If they do not, then we've already shown you the problem with your own thinking. You provide an example, but you've not answered the questions and examples posited to you. You are only proving our point.
If a culture agrees that torturing puppies for pleasure is a good thing, then how do you, should you become part of that society, respond?
You either:
a. conform, and agree that torturing puppies for fun is a good thing.
b. Resist. If so, on what grounds? If it is on your preference then you can't say that they are really wrong. Therefore, you are evil because you oppose what is deemed good. And, you can't get mad at being called evil, because it's merely a subjective term. If you reject this cultures notion of good then you aren't conforming to its subjective morals. If morality is subjective, then right and wrong are subjective, arbitrary terms that don't have any objective basis. If you say it is 'better' not to torture puppies, then you have just appealed to OM. If you say people 'ought' not do such things, you've just appealed to OM. If you say they 'ought' to change their laws and practice, you just appealed to OM. If you say,' But no society (no decent one) would EVER condone torturing puppies for fun," then you once again have appealed to OM.
So, this is your burden of proof, not ours. If morals are only subjective, then please explain how torturing puppies for pleasure really isn't wrong (in the objective sense) but is just a matter of preference? If you can't, then we've just demonstrated OM.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

I've given plenty of examples of objective, and absolute truths. I have said morality is not objective.

So you do believe there is objectiveness and absolutes BUT not when it comes to morality, yes?

Yes! I believe earlier I gave the example of poison, and another example of math to make this point.

Ken

But Kenny, you can NOT say that morals are not absolute without proof AND with a quantifier of what you define as "morals".

As I noted before, every person and/or culture has a view of right and wrong and while that view may vary, the point is that ALL believe IN a right and wrong ( even if they don't agree with what that/those right and wrongs are).

I'm not sure how you are defining "absolute" but if you are defining it the same way they are defining "objective" (which is the term I was referring to) than it is not something that can vary from person to person.

Ken

jlay wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:
In an effort to understand each other better, let's see where we agree. Can we agree that if morality is objective; there must be a standard/base that morality is established upon? I know earlier you said it infers a law giver (I believe that was the term you used) But I say it requires one. Do you agree? Sorta like in my scenario of Math how math has to be based upon the number 10 to be considered objective? Do you agree morality has to have a moral base?

Kenny,

I agree, BUT it's only my subjective opinion.

All kidding aside, from this post of yours, it almost looks like you're starting to understand.

Okay. If we agree Objective morality would require a base; (or as Jlay would prefer “source”) allow me to present a scenario. In the scenario I am assuming you say the moral source is Jesus/God of the Bible. If this is incorrect please explain this source and I will adjust my scenario accordingly.

If you believe behavior “X” is immoral/wrong because according to the bible, Jesus/God (the moral source) says it is wrong, but the next guy says behavior “X” is moral/good because according to his Holy Text (a religious book you do not subscribe to) it says his moral source (some deity you do not subscribe to) says it is good, what right do you have to say your claim is credible and his is not? In other words; other than blind faith, what system do you use to verify that your moral source is authentic and his is not?

Again kenny, you are demonstrating the ontological/epistemological confusion. How we come to know whether something is right or wrong is different than whether OM exist. Whether some things are really wrong, is a different question than knowing the source of such moral values. The Bible is not the source of OM. How we come to know the bible is correct revelation, and that other religious texts are wrong, is an epistemological question and one that can't be addressed until the ontological question is answered. If there are no OM, then why should you care? Christianity being right, Islam being right or atheism being right is just a subjective matter. If atheism is right, then humans have no intrinsic value or purpose for being here. No purpose to know truth, morally or otherwise. So, if Christians want to believe in OM, then that is there subjective opinion and has just as much validity as your subjective opinion. But then, that's not what you are saying or arguing for, is it?

So, it's futile to try and answer these questions. Either objective moral values and duties exist or they do not. If they do not, then we've already shown you the problem with your own thinking. You provide an example, but you've not answered the questions and examples posited to you. You are only proving our point.
If a culture agrees that torturing puppies for pleasure is a good thing, then how do you, should you become part of that society, respond?
You either:
a. conform, and agree that torturing puppies for fun is a good thing.
b. Resist. If so, on what grounds? If it is on your preference then you can't say that they are really wrong. Therefore, you are evil because you oppose what is deemed good. And, you can't get mad at being called evil, because it's merely a subjective term. If you reject this cultures notion of good then you aren't conforming to its subjective morals. If morality is subjective, then right and wrong are subjective, arbitrary terms that don't have any objective basis. If you say it is 'better' not to torture puppies, then you have just appealed to OM. If you say people 'ought' not do such things, you've just appealed to OM. If you say they 'ought' to change their laws and practice, you just appealed to OM. If you say,' But no society (no decent one) would EVER condone torturing puppies for fun," then you once again have appealed to OM.
So, this is your burden of proof, not ours. If morals are only subjective, then please explain how torturing puppies for pleasure really isn't wrong (in the objective sense) but is just a matter of preference? If you can't, then we've just demonstrated OM.

Jlay
Again kenny, you are demonstrating the ontological/epistemological confusion. How we come to know whether something is right or wrong is different than whether OM exist. Whether some things are really wrong, is a different question than knowing the source of such moral values.

Ken
No. I’ve made it clear I don’t believe OM exist and I’ve also made it clear how I know something is right or wrong. You're just putting up a "smoke screen" in an effort to get outta answering my question.


Jlay
The Bible is not the source of OM. How we come to know the bible is correct revelation, and that other religious texts are wrong, is an epistemological question and one that can't be addressed until the ontological question is answered.

Ken
I never said anything about the bible being the source, I said Jesus/God


Jlay
If there are no OM, then why should you care? Christianity being right, Islam being right or atheism being right is just a subjective matter.

Ken
You care because that’s what you believe.


Jlay
If atheism is right, then humans have no intrinsic value or purpose for being here. No purpose to know truth, morally or otherwise.

Ken
You are wrong and this has nothing to do with the question at hand


Jlay
So, it's futile to try and answer these questions.

Ken
*No it’s not futile; we agreed if morality were objective, a source is required.
*We agreed you believe Jesus/God as described in the Bible is this source
and I simply asked what you would say to the guy who sees some other God as the source of morality. Now why is it so difficult to get a straight answer from you concerning this?
If you don’t have an answer, say so! If it is a matter of blind faith, say so! I can respect that.


Jlay
Either objective moral values and duties exist or they do not. If they do not, then we've already shown you the problem with your own thinking. You provide an example, but you've not answered the questions and examples posited to you. You are only proving our point.

Ken
What questions have you asked me that I haven’t answered?


Jlay
If a culture agrees that torturing puppies for pleasure is a good thing, then how do you, should you become part of that society, respond?

Ken
I’ve answered this question hundred times already; I say it’s wrong recognizing I am expressing my subjective opinion

Jlay
You either:
conform, and agree that torturing puppies for fun is a good thing.

Ken
No.


Jlay
b. Resist. If so, on what grounds? If it is on your preference then you can't say that they are really wrong

Ken
Yes I can say it’s wrong. I do this all the time! In the real world everybody complains about laws they don’t agree with


Jlay
Therefore, you are evil because you oppose what is deemed good. And, you can't get mad at being called evil, because it's merely a subjective term. If you reject this cultures notion of good then you aren't conforming to its subjective morals.

Ken
Nothing wrong with that!


Jlay
If morality is subjective, then right and wrong are subjective, arbitrary terms that don't have any objective basis.

Ken
The base is subjective.


Jlay
If you say it is 'better' not to torture puppies, then you have just appealed to OM. If you say people 'ought' not do such things, you've just appealed to OM. If you say they 'ought' to change their laws and practice, you just appealed to OM. If you say,' But no society (no decent one) would EVER condone torturing puppies for fun," then you once again have appealed to OM.

Ken
You are wrong. Objective morality is not defined that way. I say it is wrong to slaughter puppies/dogs, but it is okay to slaughter rats. If morality is objective, what do you say to the guy who says it is okay to slaughter puppies/dogs but wrong to slaughter rats? Are exterminators evil?


Jlay
So, this is your burden of proof, not ours. If morals are only subjective, then please explain how torturing puppies for pleasure really isn't wrong (in the objective sense) but is just a matter of preference? If you can't, then we've just demonstrated OM.

Ken
Because you cannot demonstrate that it is wrong. Can you explain why it is okay to kill cockroaches and rats but not okay to kill dogs and cats?

Okay Jlay; I’ve answered each of your questions. On 01/19/15 at 6:47pm I gave a scenario and asked you 1 question; not multiple questions like you asked me. To be fair about this, you should either answer my question or admit you can’t.


Ken

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

I've given plenty of examples of objective, and absolute truths. I have said morality is not objective.

So you do believe there is objectiveness and absolutes BUT not when it comes to morality, yes?

Yes! I believe earlier I gave the example of poison, and another example of math to make this point.

Ken

But Kenny, you can NOT say that morals are not absolute without proof AND with a quantifier of what you define as "morals".

As I noted before, every person and/or culture has a view of right and wrong and while that view may vary, the point is that ALL believe IN a right and wrong ( even if they don't agree with what that/those right and wrongs are).

I'm not sure how you are defining "absolute" but if you are defining it the same way they are defining "objective" (which is the term I was referring to) than it is not something that can vary from person to person.

Ken

Kenny, to state that morals are subjective is to state that the notion of right and wrong is subjective.
That means that there is no right or wrong OTHER than what any given person things to be right or wrong IN SPECIFIC ( and act for example).

What I am saying is that morals ARE Objective /Absolute because the NOTION of right and wrong ( that there is a right and a wrong) does indeed exist for EVERYONE.
Now, people and cultures may vary as to WHAT is right and wrong BUT not THAT THERE IS right and wrong.

Understand what I mean?

PaulSacramento wrote: Kenny, to state that morals are subjective is to state that the notion of right and wrong is subjective.
That means that there is no right or wrong OTHER than what any given person things to be right or wrong IN SPECIFIC ( and act for example).

What I am saying is that morals ARE Objective /Absolute because the NOTION of right and wrong ( that there is a right and a wrong) does indeed exist for EVERYONE.
Now, people and cultures may vary as to WHAT is right and wrong BUT not THAT THERE IS right and wrong.

Understand what I mean?

I understand what you are saying. Do you believe everybody knows what right and wrong are in every situation? Or do you believe this variety in moral beliefs is the result of people pretending something is right when they know deep down that it is not?

Ken

Kenny, what I am hearing you say in all this on the matter of Objective Morality (OM) and Objective Truth (ObjT) is that only you have OM based upon your own ObjT.

If that is the case, then, would not that mean that OM and ObjT is true?

In this, how do you know what good is, how would you define what good is?

Are you perfect, without any faults?

Have you ever exhibited any dysfunctional thoughts, actions?

Do you really want to discuss this further?
-
-
-

Kenny wrote: No. I’ve made it clear I don’t believe OM exist and I’ve also made it clear how I know something is right or wrong. You're just putting up a "smoke screen" in an effort to get outta answering my question.

Kenny, it's not a smoke screen. You didn't ask me a question. On 01/19/15 at 6:47pm you asked Rick a question. Check it out.
And no, you've not made it clear. You've simply said it's your opinion. Not "HOW" you know something is right or wrong.

I never said anything about the bible being the source, I said Jesus/God

You said, Jesus/God and the Bible. But, let's not pick nits. It doesn't change that how we come to know morality is different than how we know whether objective moral values and duties exist. You say you understand the distinctions, but if you did, you wouldn't make this statement. Yes, I believe that the God of the Bible is the same as the god of natural theology. But that is my conclusion, not what we are arguing for. For the umpteenth time, the argument isn't, "OM exist, therefore the Bible is true."
Why would I try to convince you the Bible is true if you reject theism and OM? It doesn't follow. So, it would be nice if you would stop repeating this error even after it is pointed out to you multiple times.

You care because that’s what you believe.

Tisk, tisk. I don't care because that's what I believe. Kenny, I care because what I believe (morals are objective) DEMANDS it. I am consistently following my belief (that OM exists) to its logical ends. Are you? No. My belief acknowledges OM, yours does not. Therefore, for you, it's all subjective. Really, really, subjective. Meaning no opinion on morality holds more weight than any other. To state otherwise is to smuggle in OM. Yet, you are saying that your opinion on morality is right and mine (that morality is objectively grounded) is wrong. Odd, because that is an objective truth claim concerning morality. You are entitled to your opinion, but opinions have consequences, and you have consistently dodged the implications of your opinions.

You are wrong and this has nothing to do with the question at hand

How am I wrong? Making bald assertions isn't an argument. It has plenty to do with the question at hand. Human value is interwoven with OM.

*No it’s not futile; we agreed if morality were objective, a source is required.
*We agreed you believe Jesus/God as described in the Bible is this source
and I simply asked what you would say to the guy who sees some other God as the source of morality. Now why is it so difficult to get a straight answer from you concerning this?
If you don’t have an answer, say so! If it is a matter of blind faith, say so! I can respect that.

Sam Harris rejects a transcendent source of OM, but accepts OM nontheless.
What I would say to some guy would be a completely different argument. There are a lot of things I would ask and say. If someone already assumes OM, then we can begin to analyze our particular positions to see if they line up. The point though is that we are at least starting on common ground. An argument for theism is different than arguing for Christianity or the veracity of the Bible.

What questions have you asked me that I haven’t answered?

Kenny, just within these latest responses you haven't answered. Perhaps you have answered these in the past.

I’ve answered this question hundred times already; I say it’s wrong recognizing I am expressing my subjective opinion

Kenny, nothing personal, but that's not an answer. Saying, "that's my opinion" is not an answer.
-I have a pet monkey who craps diamonds.
-No you don't.
-Well, that's my opinion.
You haven't explained your subjective morality, or owned the implications of it.

Jlay
You either:
conform, and agree that torturing puppies for fun is a good thing.

Ken
No

No? Why not?
Oh, let me guess, your opinion.

Yes I can say it’s wrong. I do this all the time! In the real world everybody complains about laws they don’t agree with

Sure. But then you MUST (if you are consistent) affirm the opposite. You can also say it's right. If you are employing SM you can't say that something is ALWAYS wrong, even for yourself. That is to again smuggle in OM.

Nothing wrong with that!

So good can be evil and evil good? In other words it's arbitrary. So, if someone calls you evil, you just shrug it off as meaningless?

The base is subjective.

So, it CAN be good and virtuous to torture puppies, forcibly rape someone, or pursue a career in human trafficking?

You are wrong. Objective morality is not defined that way. I say it is wrong to slaughter puppies/dogs, but it is okay to slaughter rats. If morality is objective, what do you say to the guy who says it is okay to slaughter puppies/dogs but wrong to slaughter rats? Are exterminators evil?

I'm wrong? No I'm not, I'm right. The person who denies OM, telling me "I'm wrong." Hilarious.
OK, define OM?
How do you define what you reject? This is really becoming ridiculous.

I think the exterminator question is a good one. But again, this isn't an ontological question. It's a dilemma. If OM don't exist then there is no dilemma. Kill dogs, cats, people, rats. It's all the same.
What's the difference in spraying an ant hill and Hitler gassing thousands of Jews? Opinion?
If someone kills any living thing for pleasure then it's sadistic. And that is objectively wrong.

Because you cannot demonstrate that it is wrong. Can you explain why it is okay to kill cockroaches and rats but not okay to kill dogs and cats?

I just did demonstrate it, unless of course that you can show me that torturing puppies for pleasure is a good thing. If morality is only subjective, then you should be able to demonstrate (clearly, not just state "it's an opinion.") that torturing puppies for pleasure CAN be virtuous.

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: Kenny, to state that morals are subjective is to state that the notion of right and wrong is subjective.
That means that there is no right or wrong OTHER than what any given person things to be right or wrong IN SPECIFIC ( and act for example).

What I am saying is that morals ARE Objective /Absolute because the NOTION of right and wrong ( that there is a right and a wrong) does indeed exist for EVERYONE.
Now, people and cultures may vary as to WHAT is right and wrong BUT not THAT THERE IS right and wrong.

Understand what I mean?

I understand what you are saying. Do you believe everybody knows what right and wrong are in every situation? Or do you believe this variety in moral beliefs is the result of people pretending something is right when they know deep down that it is not?

Ken

It isn't a matter of knowing WHAT is right or wrong, that would make things subjective. It is a matter of knowing that there IS A right and a wrong.

See, people can bend common sense to justify almost anything to be, if not right, at least "not wrong", but what they can't justify ever is that there is no such thing as right and wrong because everyone has at least one thing ( usually far more than one) that they will say, unreservedly, "that is not right" or "that is wrong".

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: Kenny, to state that morals are subjective is to state that the notion of right and wrong is subjective.
That means that there is no right or wrong OTHER than what any given person things to be right or wrong IN SPECIFIC ( and act for example).

What I am saying is that morals ARE Objective /Absolute because the NOTION of right and wrong ( that there is a right and a wrong) does indeed exist for EVERYONE.
Now, people and cultures may vary as to WHAT is right and wrong BUT not THAT THERE IS right and wrong.

Understand what I mean?

I understand what you are saying. Do you believe everybody knows what right and wrong are in every situation? Or do you believe this variety in moral beliefs is the result of people pretending something is right when they know deep down that it is not?

Ken

It isn't a matter of knowing WHAT is right or wrong, that would make things subjective. It is a matter of knowing that there IS A right and a wrong.

See, people can bend common sense to justify almost anything to be, if not right, at least "not wrong", but what they can't justify ever is that there is no such thing as right and wrong because everyone has at least one thing ( usually far more than one) that they will say, unreservedly, "that is not right" or "that is wrong".

I admire your persistence but dude...

B. W. wrote:Kenny, what I am hearing you say in all this on the matter of Objective Morality (OM) and Objective Truth (ObjT) is that only you have OM based upon your own ObjT.

If that is the case, then, would not that mean that OM and ObjT is true?

I believe morality are judgment calls people make about human actions. Where there are no humans, there is no morality. Because judgment calls are simply thoughts, they only exist in our heads. Because subjectivity is about what goes on in our heads, I say morality is subjective; not objective.

B. W. wrote:In this, how do you know what good is, how would you define what good is?

What I call good is judged on a case by case basis. I would define morally good as "understanding the consequences of actions and how they affect your neighbor. And it starts from the position that what is helpful for your neighbor is good, and what is harmful to your neighbor is bad".

B. W. wrote:Are you perfect, without any faults?

Have you ever exhibited any dysfunctional thoughts, actions?

I am far from perfect

B. W. wrote:Do you really want to discuss this further?
-
-
-

I would love to discuss this further

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote: It isn't a matter of knowing WHAT is right or wrong, that would make things subjective. It is a matter of knowing that there IS A right and a wrong.

I’ve never claimed right and wrong does not exist, I say it only exist in our heads. Right and wrong does not have an actual existence; they are just judgment calls people make about human actions. As I said before, where there are no humans, there is no morality.

PaulSacramento wrote:See, people can bend common sense to justify almost anything to be, if not right, at least "not wrong", but what they can't justify ever is that there is no such thing as right and wrong because everyone has at least one thing ( usually far more than one) that they will say, unreservedly, "that is not right" or "that is wrong".

I’m not talking about dishonesty, I’m talking about people who sincere. In other words; is it possible for group 1 to believe “X” is right and group 2 believe “X” is wrong without one of the groups being dishonest?

Ken