Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 6:38 am

RickD wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:08 pm

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 12:30 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 12:02 pm

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 11:53 am In regards to taking a life:

Taking a life is wrong.
Taking a life to save another, justified but still taking a life, hence wrong.


Now, IF justification = right, then how does one decide WHAT is justifiable?

Why do you think that taking a life is necessarily wrong? Murder is wrong. Killing someone in self defense, or to save another, isn't wrong.

So right and wrong are not objective?

Of course they are. Morality is objective. Murder is objectively wrong. Killing someone in self defense is not objectively wrong.

Stealing is wrong. Stealing to feed a starving family is still wrong. I'm not saying that I wouldn't steal to feed my family if they were starving. But it would still be wrong. I'd have to decide if it would be more wrong, in my mind, to steal food, or let my family starve.

Remember, the Bible says it's wrong to murder. Not all killing is murder. And on the topic of abortion, while not "legally" murder, I believe it is murder in a biblical sense of killing an innocent life, without justification.

If right an wrong are OBJECTIVE, then how can taking a life be BOTH right and wrong?

Like I said, it depends on how the life is taken. Murder is objectively wrong. Killing in self defense isn't.

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 6:48 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 6:38 am

RickD wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:08 pm

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 12:30 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 12:02 pm

Why do you think that taking a life is necessarily wrong? Murder is wrong. Killing someone in self defense, or to save another, isn't wrong.

So right and wrong are not objective?

Of course they are. Morality is objective. Murder is objectively wrong. Killing someone in self defense is not objectively wrong.

Stealing is wrong. Stealing to feed a starving family is still wrong. I'm not saying that I wouldn't steal to feed my family if they were starving. But it would still be wrong. I'd have to decide if it would be more wrong, in my mind, to steal food, or let my family starve.

Remember, the Bible says it's wrong to murder. Not all killing is murder. And on the topic of abortion, while not "legally" murder, I believe it is murder in a biblical sense of killing an innocent life, without justification.

If right and wrong are OBJECTIVE, then how can taking a life be BOTH right and wrong?

Like I said, it depends on how the life is taken. Murder is objectively wrong. Killing in self defense isn't.

Now one is taking about murder, which is basically a legal term - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
I am asking if the taking of a life is right or wrong.
If the answer is "it depends" then the right and wrong of taking a life are subjective.

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:21 am Even Nils would recoil away if you touch him/her, so what does that prove? Does he/she feel anything that is similar to human pain?

Your statements tell me much Nils.

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge."

Sorry, Kurieuo. Your statements don't tell me anything.
Nils

Kenny wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 1:09 pm

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 11:52 am Thou shall not steal.
Stealing is WRONG.
Steal food to feed your kids - justified but still wrong.

From your perspective, if you do wrong, but it is justified, is it still a sin? Example; if you lie to a criminal in order to save the life of an innocent person; are you still sinning? Or is this one of those "white lies" that gets the ghetto pass.

Ken

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 6:38 am Sure, since for me a sin is any act or thought that we either KNOW is wrong or that is "bad" for us as individuals and the group.
Again, it can be justified, as in your example, but that doesn't make it right.

So if I understand you correctly; lying to evil men in order to save the lives of innocent people is wrong, but isn’t a sin because it’s justified; is that correct? How about if you tell the truth to the evil men resulting in the death of innocent people? Since this is a righteous act, is it considered a sin because it is unjustified? In other words, are there times when righteousness is sometimes a sin?

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 6:38 am This is, of course, IF one believes in objective right and wrong.

Humm.....Sounds like an awful lot of hoops you gotta jump through just to keep those objective morality beliefs y’all insist on hangin’ on to; NOT JUDGING! Just a personal observation.

So if I understand you correctly; lying to evil men in order to save the lives of innocent people is wrong, but isn’t a sin because it’s justified; is that correct? How about if you tell the truth to the evil men resulting in the death of innocent people? Since this is a righteous act, is it considered a sin because it is unjustified? In other words, are there times when righteousness is sometimes a sin

You understood it wrong.
A SIN is always a SIN.
Lying is still a SIN even if it serves a greater good.

In real life we say "it depends" a lot because, as failed humans and a fallen world, we sometimes have to justify doing something that is objectively wrong ( taking a life) because we HAVE to for a greater good ( to save a life). That act, however, is still objectively wrong ( taking a life is wrong) BUT it can be justified.

Heck, the law sees this distinction.

Legal definition of justification: Justification is a reason for committing an act which otherwise would constitute an actionable wrong or tort. It is an ancient principle of the common law that a trespass may be justified in many cases.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 10:13 am

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 6:48 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 6:38 am

RickD wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 9:08 pm

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 12:30 pm

So right and wrong are not objective?

Of course they are. Morality is objective. Murder is objectively wrong. Killing someone in self defense is not objectively wrong.

Stealing is wrong. Stealing to feed a starving family is still wrong. I'm not saying that I wouldn't steal to feed my family if they were starving. But it would still be wrong. I'd have to decide if it would be more wrong, in my mind, to steal food, or let my family starve.

Remember, the Bible says it's wrong to murder. Not all killing is murder. And on the topic of abortion, while not "legally" murder, I believe it is murder in a biblical sense of killing an innocent life, without justification.

If right and wrong are OBJECTIVE, then how can taking a life be BOTH right and wrong?

Like I said, it depends on how the life is taken. Murder is objectively wrong. Killing in self defense isn't.

Now one is taking about murder, which is basically a legal term - the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
I am asking if the taking of a life is right or wrong.
If the answer is "it depends" then the right and wrong of taking a life are subjective.

Yes, in the English language, murder is more of a legal term. But in Hebrew, "thou shalt not kill", is not a catch all term for any kind of killing. It's close to the definition of murder, in English.

So, I'd say yes, it's objectively wrong to murder. And to take that further, I'd say that abortion would fall under the scope of murder, even though abortion is legal.

RickD wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 7:00 am

Nils wrote:
I accept that there is a human being from conception. You say that killing the human being right after conception is “simply wrong”. That is what I listed as argument 5 in my post #57:
"5. It IS wrong to abort young fetuses!
But this is not an argument, only an ungrounded statement."

Nils,

I don't know how else to say it.

Every human being has the right to life. If someone kills an unborn human being, that person is denied the right to live.

Again, my reasoning is that all persons, from the moment of conception, through their entire life, have the right to live.

Thank you, Rick, for a clear answer. Just to be quite sure, I summarize: You think that it is objectively true that young fetuses have a right to live, but you haven't any argument to motivate your thought. That seems to be a view that is held by many “pro-lifers”.

My opinion is that the young fetus don’t have any right to live if the parents want to kill it. I don’t think that this is objectively true because I don’t think that there are any objective true moral statements. On the other hand I am quite sure that a prohibition of abortion of young fetuses will cause considerable suffering for many families and individuals. This view is held by most “pro- choicers”. I and those think that the only individuals that might suffer if a young fetus is killed is the parents but they have made a consent. The young fetus doesn’t feel anything.

Then, what would you say if you argued with those that are for abortion of young fetuses? Would you say?: I think that you should adopt my principle of the right to life. This principle doesn’t generate any good. No less suffering, no more happiness or well being. But still you should adopt my thinking even if you know that lot off suffering will be the result of prohibiting abortion. And note that if you don’t accept my argument I will work for a law so that if you act according to your conviction, you and those that help you, will be sentenced to prison.

Nils

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 11:53 am

So if I understand you correctly; lying to evil men in order to save the lives of innocent people is wrong, but isn’t a sin because it’s justified; is that correct? How about if you tell the truth to the evil men resulting in the death of innocent people? Since this is a righteous act, is it considered a sin because it is unjustified? In other words, are there times when righteousness is sometimes a sin

You understood it wrong.
A SIN is always a SIN.
Lying is still a SIN even if it serves a greater good.

In real life we say "it depends" a lot because, as failed humans and a fallen world, we sometimes have to justify doing something that is objectively wrong ( taking a life) because we HAVE to for a greater good ( to save a life). That act, however, is still objectively wrong ( taking a life is wrong) BUT it can be justified.

Heck, the law sees this distinction.

Legal definition of justification: Justification is a reason for committing an act which otherwise would constitute an actionable wrong or tort. It is an ancient principle of the common law that a trespass may be justified in many cases.

Okay so per my scenario, the right thing to do would be to give the evil men the correct information, knowing it will lead to the death of innocents. This is the righteous and sinless thing to do; is this correct?
If lying to the evil men to save innocent lives is wrong and sinful, but justified, what good is calling it justified if you gonna burn in hell for it anyway?

Nils wrote:
Thank you, Rick, for a clear answer. Just to be quite sure, I summarize: You think that it is objectively true that young fetuses have a right to live, but you haven't any argument to motivate your thought. That seems to be a view that is held by many “pro-lifers”.

What!?!?!

No, human life has inherent value. All human life. All humans have a right not to be murdered. Especially innocent humans, like the unborn kind. To say that many pro-lifers have no argument as to why baby humans shouldn't be murdered, is just ignorant.

Nils wrote:
My opinion is that the young fetus don’t have any right to live if the parents want to kill it. I don’t think that this is objectively true because I don’t think that there are any objective true moral statements. On the other hand I am quite sure that a prohibition of abortion of young fetuses will cause considerable suffering for many families and individuals. This view is held by most “pro- choicers”. I and those think that the only individuals that might suffer if a young fetus is killed is the parents but they have made a consent. The young fetus doesn’t feel anything.

The young fetus' right to life is less important than the parents' choice to kill another human for convenience. Got it.

You don't think there are any objective true moral statements? I think you're lying to yourself on that one. Take this statement: "It is wrong to rape and murder children." You don't think that's objectively true?

The prohibition of abortion of young fetuses will cause considerable suffering to many families and individuals? So again, whatever suffering that families and individuals would have, takes precedence OVER the life of another human being. That seems pretty damn messed up, if you ask me. Individuals and families are inconvenienced by the birth of a child, so let's just kill the baby. PROBLEM SOLVED!

Nils wrote:
Then, what would you say if you argued with those that are for abortion of young fetuses? Would you say?: I think that you should adopt my principle of the right to life. This principle doesn’t generate any good. No less suffering, no more happiness or well being. But still you should adopt my thinking even if you know that lot off suffering will be the result of prohibiting abortion. And note that if you don’t accept my argument I will work for a law so that if you act according to your conviction, you and those that help you, will be sentenced to prison.

And this sums it up perfectly. "A lot of suffering will be the result of prohibiting abortion."

To hell with the suffering and murder of the unborn, if the parents are inconvenienced by a baby, IT'S A CRISIS!!!!

Good grief! Your priorities are really screwed up.

Kenny wrote:
If lying to the evil men to save innocent lives is wrong and sinful, but justified, what good is calling it justified if you gonna burn in hell for it anyway?

Yup Kenny. I think you've got a great understanding of Christian theology. Pretty much nailed it, I'd say!

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:31 pm

Kenny wrote:
If lying to the evil men to save innocent lives is wrong and sinful, but justified, what good is calling it justified if you gonna burn in hell for it anyway?

Yup Kenny. I think you've got a great understanding of Christian theology. Pretty much nailed it, I'd say!

Are you being sarcastic?

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 6:05 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:31 pm

Kenny wrote:
If lying to the evil men to save innocent lives is wrong and sinful, but justified, what good is calling it justified if you gonna burn in hell for it anyway?

Yup Kenny. I think you've got a great understanding of Christian theology. Pretty much nailed it, I'd say!

Are you being sarcastic?

That's sorta like saying 'Are you being Rickd'?

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 6:05 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:31 pm

Kenny wrote:
If lying to the evil men to save innocent lives is wrong and sinful, but justified, what good is calling it justified if you gonna burn in hell for it anyway?

Yup Kenny. I think you've got a great understanding of Christian theology. Pretty much nailed it, I'd say!

Are you being sarcastic?

I'm sorry, I thought my post was very obviously sarcastic.

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 6:35 pm

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 6:05 pm

RickD wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:31 pm

Kenny wrote:
If lying to the evil men to save innocent lives is wrong and sinful, but justified, what good is calling it justified if you gonna burn in hell for it anyway?

Yup Kenny. I think you've got a great understanding of Christian theology. Pretty much nailed it, I'd say!

Are you being sarcastic?

I'm sorry, I thought my post was very obviously sarcastic.

Yeah; I was just making sure. Do you agree with the explanation Paul gave concerning the differences between that which is right vs that which is wrong but justified?

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:11 pm

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 11:53 am

So if I understand you correctly; lying to evil men in order to save the lives of innocent people is wrong, but isn’t a sin because it’s justified; is that correct? How about if you tell the truth to the evil men resulting in the death of innocent people? Since this is a righteous act, is it considered a sin because it is unjustified? In other words, are there times when righteousness is sometimes a sin

You understood it wrong.
A SIN is always a SIN.
Lying is still a SIN even if it serves a greater good.

In real life we say "it depends" a lot because, as failed humans and a fallen world, we sometimes have to justify doing something that is objectively wrong ( taking a life) because we HAVE to for a greater good ( to save a life). That act, however, is still objectively wrong ( taking a life is wrong) BUT it can be justified.

Heck, the law sees this distinction.

Legal definition of justification: Justification is a reason for committing an act which otherwise would constitute an actionable wrong or tort. It is an ancient principle of the common law that a trespass may be justified in many cases.

Okay so per my scenario, the right thing to do would be to give the evil men the correct information, knowing it will lead to the death of innocents. This is the righteous and sinless thing to do; is this correct?
If lying to the evil men to save innocent lives is wrong and sinful, but justified, what good is calling it justified if you gonna burn in hell for it anyway?

Wow...so it seems that you truly either don't understand Christianity, at all, or you simply ignore all that has been discussed on this site since you have been here.