Evidence for God from Science

I often hear Christians claim the existence of “objective morality” as opposed to all morality being subjective. What is it? Is it like math where anybody who understands math will agree that 1+1=2, or like anyone with their 5 senses working correctly will see the grass is green, that sugar is sweet, and the brick wall in front of them exists? Do you believe anyone who understands morals will agree that slavery (for example) is wrong if slavery is an objective moral situation? What are objective morals?

Ken

What does it mean "senses working correctly" ?

Kenny wrote:I often hear Christians claim the existence of “objective morality” as opposed to all morality being subjective. What is it? Is it like math where anybody who understands math will agree that 1+1=2, or like anyone with their 5 senses working correctly will see the grass is green, that sugar is sweet, and the brick wall in front of them exists? Do you believe anyone who understands morals will agree that slavery (for example) is wrong if slavery is an objective moral situation? What are objective morals?

Do universal right and wrong exist, Kenny? Can torturing babies for fun ever be called right?

1over137 wrote:What does it mean "senses working correctly" ?

In this particular case I would say; works in accordance with 99% of the population.

Ken

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:I often hear Christians claim the existence of “objective morality” as opposed to all morality being subjective. What is it? Is it like math where anybody who understands math will agree that 1+1=2, or like anyone with their 5 senses working correctly will see the grass is green, that sugar is sweet, and the brick wall in front of them exists? Do you believe anyone who understands morals will agree that slavery (for example) is wrong if slavery is an objective moral situation? What are objective morals?

Do universal right and wrong exist, Kenny? Can torturing babies for fun ever be called right?

I guess it depends upon what you mean by "universal". If it means "understood and agreed by all" I wold say no because there is always gonna be some sick jerk who disagrees. If it means pertains to all, weather they agree or not; I would say yes.

Ken

It means it is true regardless of opinion.

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:I often hear Christians claim the existence of “objective morality” as opposed to all morality being subjective. What is it? Is it like math where anybody who understands math will agree that 1+1=2, or like anyone with their 5 senses working correctly will see the grass is green, that sugar is sweet, and the brick wall in front of them exists? Do you believe anyone who understands morals will agree that slavery (for example) is wrong if slavery is an objective moral situation? What are objective morals?

Do universal right and wrong exist, Kenny? Can torturing babies for fun ever be called right?

I guess it depends upon what you mean by "universal". If it means "understood and agreed by all" I wold say no because there is always gonna be some sick jerk who disagrees. If it means pertains to all, weather they agree or not; I would say yes.

Ken

By your last statement I emphasized I take it you agree with what Jlay said? That certain morals are objectively right (or wrong) regardless of anyone's opinion? I just want to be sure I fully understand what you're saying.

jlay wrote:It means it is true regardless of opinion.

Is it something that can be proven or demonstrated as true? Or is simply believing it true good enough?

Ken

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:I often hear Christians claim the existence of “objective morality” as opposed to all morality being subjective. What is it? Is it like math where anybody who understands math will agree that 1+1=2, or like anyone with their 5 senses working correctly will see the grass is green, that sugar is sweet, and the brick wall in front of them exists? Do you believe anyone who understands morals will agree that slavery (for example) is wrong if slavery is an objective moral situation? What are objective morals?

Do universal right and wrong exist, Kenny? Can torturing babies for fun ever be called right?

I guess it depends upon what you mean by "universal". If it means "understood and agreed by all" I wold say no because there is always gonna be some sick jerk who disagrees. If it means pertains to all, weather they agree or not; I would say yes.

Ken

By your last statement I emphasized I take it you agree with what Jlay said? That certain morals are objectively right (or wrong) regardless of anyone's opinion? I just want to be sure I fully understand what you're saying.

I think objective is what can be proven or demonstrated; subjective is what is believed.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

jlay wrote:It means it is true regardless of opinion.

Is it something that can be proven or demonstrated as true? Or is simply believing it true good enough?

Ken

Anyone who doesn't believe in the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until they admit that to be beaten and burned is not the same as to not be beaten and burned.

Is there any situation where it would be right to torture puppies for personal pleasure?

Kenny wrote: I think objective is what can be proven or demonstrated; subjective is what is believed.


Ken

Let's just say that everyone believed it was OK to torture puppies for fun. Would that make it so?

Kenny wrote:I think objective is what can be proven or demonstrated; subjective is what is believed.

Here I thought we were making progress but I'm not despairing just yet.

By your definition above, does this mean that something that is not proven or demonstrated cannot be objective? Again I'm just attempting to flesh out your position because it seems to me that it keeps changing.

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:I think objective is what can be proven or demonstrated; subjective is what is believed.

Here I thought we were making progress but I'm not despairing just yet.

By your definition above, does this mean that something that is not proven or demonstrated cannot be objective? Again I'm just attempting to flesh out your position because it seems to me that it keeps changing.

How many times have we seen people confuse ontology with epistemology?

Byblos wrote:

Kenny wrote:I think objective is what can be proven or demonstrated; subjective is what is believed.

Here I thought we were making progress but I'm not despairing just yet.

By your definition above, does this mean that something that is not proven or demonstrated cannot be objective?

Correct. That would make it subjective.

K

jlay wrote:

Kenny wrote: I think objective is what can be proven or demonstrated; subjective is what is believed.


Ken

Let's just say that everyone believed it was OK to torture puppies for fun. Would that make it so?

Torturing puppies is easy. How about if one person felt race mixing was okay but fornication was wrong. The other person felt that fornication was okay, but race mixing was wrong, and they both felt it was objective; if something like that can't be demonstrated; wouldn't that make it subjective?

Ken