Evidence for God from Science

[WARNING: This video is not for the faint at heart, but it demonstrates the logical implications of a naturalistic worldview; hence the name “Cruel Logic”. Watch as the implications of this worldview are played out in a dramatic life and death scenario.

Here is the question to keep in mind while watching: What objective morality can you claim when you’re professing that all that exists is nature? Is anything truly moral or immoral?

Nessa wrote:Here is the question to keep in mind while watching: What objective morality can you claim when you’re professing that all that exists is nature?

You cannot claim objective morality, but you can claim subjective morality.

Nessa wrote:Is anything truly moral or immoral?

Morality and Immorality exist to the same extent as beautiful, or funny; they are just labels we attach to human behavior. Does beauty exist? Does funny exist? I think so; but only in the context of human thought.

Ken

Hey kenny
Its really good to see you back.

So to one person someone is beautiful and to another person they are ugly - neither right or wrong, right? Its just a matter of opinion?

Edit: Did you watch the vid? What did you think?

Kenny wrote:

Nessa wrote:Here is the question to keep in mind while watching: What objective morality can you claim when you’re professing that all that exists is nature?

You cannot claim objective morality, but you can claim subjective morality.

Here we go again. Kenny's favourite topic.
Subjective "morality" is based upon what?

Nessa wrote:Hey kenny
Its really good to see you back.

Thank-you

Nessa wrote:So to one person someone is beautiful and to another person they are ugly - neither right or wrong, right? Its just a matter of opinion?

Yes. The problem is; nobody gets hurt when we differ on beauty but people can get hurt if we differ on right or wrong. Nobody cares if I think Halley Barry is ugly, but if I believe there is nothing wrong with torturing children, everybody cares; and rightly so. that’s why we have to have laws. Laws are objective and they are based on morality, and though everybody is not going to agree with every law (because morality is subjective) the basics are usually agreed upon by the majority of society, and for those laws one might disagree with; there is usually a system in place where we can address those disagreements and perhaps get the law changed if your argument is convincing enough.

Nessa wrote:Edit: Did you watch the vid? What did you think?

Unfortunately there are people like that sick man. Weather you believe morality is objective or subjective, won’t make a difference to him, he will kill you anyway. You can say you believe murder is wrong; and he will respond that he believes murder is right. You can explain God says murder is wrong, and he will say his word trumps God and he says murder is right. Nothing will stop this person if he is determined to kill you, except maybe the law; and sometimes not even that works.

Ken

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Nessa wrote:Here is the question to keep in mind while watching: What objective morality can you claim when you’re professing that all that exists is nature?

You cannot claim objective morality, but you can claim subjective morality.

Here we go again. Kenny's favourite topic.

Of course it's my favorite topic; that's why I'm always the one bringing it up! Oh; wait......

Kurieuo wrote:Subjective "morality" is based upon what?

Subjective morality is based upon opinion and extenuating circumstances

Ken

Kenny wrote:...but if I believe there is nothing wrong with torturing children, everybody cares; and rightly so. that’s why we have to have laws. Laws are objective and they are based on morality, and though everybody is not going to agree with every law (because morality is subjective) the basics are usually agreed upon by the majority of society, and for those laws one might disagree with; there is usually a system in place where we can address those disagreements and perhaps get the law changed if your argument is convincing enough.

Unfortunately there are people like that sick man. Weather you believe morality is objective or subjective, won’t make a difference to him, he will kill you anyway. You can say you believe murder is wrong; and he will respond that he believes murder is right. You can explain God says murder is wrong, and he will say his word trumps God and he says murder is right. Nothing will stop this person if he is determined to kill you, except maybe the law; and sometimes not even that works.

Ken

Not everyone thinks torturing babies is bad.
So what makes the torturers objectively wrong? And what made that man in the clip sick?

He was basically giving a tangible presentation of what alot of people see as being acceptable on paper.

dawkins wrote: The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

Nessa wrote:

Kenny wrote:...but if I believe there is nothing wrong with torturing children, everybody cares; and rightly so. that’s why we have to have laws. Laws are objective and they are based on morality, and though everybody is not going to agree with every law (because morality is subjective) the basics are usually agreed upon by the majority of society, and for those laws one might disagree with; there is usually a system in place where we can address those disagreements and perhaps get the law changed if your argument is convincing enough.

Unfortunately there are people like that sick man. Weather you believe morality is objective or subjective, won’t make a difference to him, he will kill you anyway. You can say you believe murder is wrong; and he will respond that he believes murder is right. You can explain God says murder is wrong, and he will say his word trumps God and he says murder is right. Nothing will stop this person if he is determined to kill you, except maybe the law; and sometimes not even that works.

Ken

Not everyone thinks torturing babies is bad.
So what makes the torturers objectively wrong? And what made that man in the clip sick?

Of course everybody will answer this question differently, but my answer is that it goes against my morals.
I define morals as the ability to understand the consequences of actions and how they affect your neighbor.
And it starts from the position that what is harmful to your neighbor is bad, and what is helpful to your neighbor is good.

What this sick man was doing was harmful to his neighbor.

Nessa wrote:He was basically giving a tangible presentation of what alot of people see as being acceptable on paper.

What do you mean by “acceptable on paper” I find it difficult to believe a lot of people would find that behavior acceptable in any way

dawkins wrote: The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

Do you agree with this?

Ken

Kenny wrote: I define morals as the ability to understand the consequences of actions and how they affect your neighbor.
And it starts from the position that what is harmful to your neighbor is bad, and what is helpful to your neighbor is good.

What this sick man was doing was harmful to his neighbor.

What makes you think your view of what causes harm is more right than anothers tho?

What do you mean by “acceptable on paper” I find it difficult to believe a lot of people would find that behavior acceptable in any way

He wasn't doing anything wrong according to the victims paper.

dawkins wrote: The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

kenny wrote: Do you agree with this?

Ken

If there is no God to give us objective moral standards, then this is what you basically end up with.

Nessa wrote:

Kenny wrote: I define morals as the ability to understand the consequences of actions and how they affect your neighbor.
And it starts from the position that what is harmful to your neighbor is bad, and what is helpful to your neighbor is good.

What this sick man was doing was harmful to his neighbor.

What makes you think your view of what causes harm is more right than anothers tho?

I am convinced my views are superior to all others that differ from my own. If I were to hear an opinion that I find superior to my own, I would change my views on that issue and adopt that superior view as my own; I do this on a regular basis.

What do you mean by “acceptable on paper” I find it difficult to believe a lot of people would find that behavior acceptable in any way

Nessa wrote: He wasn't doing anything wrong according to the victims paper.

Okay I get it. If he wasn't doing anything wrong according to the victims paper, I probably wouldn’t agree with what the victim wrote on the paper.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Kenny wrote: I define morals as the ability to understand the consequences of actions and how they affect your neighbor.
And it starts from the position that what is harmful to your neighbor is bad, and what is helpful to your neighbor is good.

What this sick man was doing was harmful to his neighbor.

What makes you think your view of what causes harm is more right than anothers tho?

I am convinced my views are superior to all others that differ from my own. If I were to hear an opinion that I find superior to my own, I would change my views on that issue and adopt that superior view as my own; I do this on a regular basis.

What do you mean by “acceptable on paper” I find it difficult to believe a lot of people would find that behavior acceptable in any way

Nessa wrote: He wasn't doing anything wrong according to the victims paper.

Okay I get it. If he wasn't doing anything wrong according to the victims paper, I probably wouldn’t agree with what the victim wrote on the paper.

Ken

So what makes your morals more superior to anothers?

Nessa wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Kenny wrote: I define morals as the ability to understand the consequences of actions and how they affect your neighbor.
And it starts from the position that what is harmful to your neighbor is bad, and what is helpful to your neighbor is good.

What this sick man was doing was harmful to his neighbor.

What makes you think your view of what causes harm is more right than anothers tho?

I am convinced my views are superior to all others that differ from my own. If I were to hear an opinion that I find superior to my own, I would change my views on that issue and adopt that superior view as my own; I do this on a regular basis.

What do you mean by “acceptable on paper” I find it difficult to believe a lot of people would find that behavior acceptable in any way

Nessa wrote: He wasn't doing anything wrong according to the victims paper.

Okay I get it. If he wasn't doing anything wrong according to the victims paper, I probably wouldn’t agree with what the victim wrote on the paper.

Ken

So what makes your morals more superior to anothers?

Morals is something that must be discussed one issue at a time. If you wish to present a moral scenerio, I will be happy to give my opinion on it and explain why I find my opinion superior to any other.

Ken

Kenny wrote:Subjective morality is based upon opinion and extenuating circumstances

No. Morality is established by cultural consensus. Therefore, what is moral or immoral may change as the consensus within a given society changes.

Kurieuo wrote:Subjective "morality" is based upon what?

Cultural consensus. Different cultures have different mores, unless their morality shares a common metanarative.

Anonymous

Kenny,

Firstly, for clarity, let's define "objective morality" as meaning some actions are morally wrong regardless of what anyone thinks.

To use, for my lack of imagination, the holocaust (since it is always used as a base example in morality talk)... even if we all thought that it was alright to exterminate Jewish people for no real reason, then well, whether we let them live or not has no real moral significance. Someone might choose to kill them, another might not. It doesn't really matter. Some might find it distasteful, try to change opinion to make people prefer their tastes, but in what sense can such be called wrong?

Without some objective moral standard that exists separate from humanity, then what we have is just social agreement by and large -- not moral right or wrong. "Social morality" is perhaps kind of oxymoronic, in that it is really like saying "subjective objectivism". If morality exists, then some things really are wrong. If, on the other hand morality doesn't really exist, then let's not try to be confusing. Let's lose terms like "right" and "wrong" and just call it social consensus regarding socially acceptable actions.

Having said all that let me ask you, whether you actually see a difference between social agreement and cooperation vs. social morality? If there's none, then using the former is less confusing.

PS. Welcome back FL. Maybe D220 will return now too.

Video seemed too short. Not that I wanted to see the guy die... but there is obviously more to discuss on this topic

Kenny wrote:Yes. The problem is; nobody gets hurt when we differ on beauty but people can get hurt if we differ on right or wrong. Nobody cares if I think Halley Barry is ugly,

I think Halle might care... it's not really nice to call people ugly.

But note that you are merely expressing an opinion here, not acting out on the belief that she is ugly (calling for her death, for example, or saying she should no longer be hired for movies, should get a pay cut, should be banned from public appearances, etc.)

Kenny wrote:if I believe there is nothing wrong with torturing children, everybody cares; and rightly so.

What makes you think "everyone cares" about your own personal opinion?
Your belief is simply an expression of your opinion, right?

People might care more if you actually acted out on those beliefs though... coz they don't want their kids, or others kids being targeted by you.

Kenny wrote:The basics are usually agreed upon by the majority of society

Killer: "Society is another word for statistical average."

So it really depends on society being made up of more of the genetically predisposed to empathy than agression say???

Do you find it interesting that the "basics" tend to be the same for most human cultures?

But when it comes to specific cases, such as abortion say... Is it moral to have an abortion in the US but immoral to have one in Ireland? Or even between states of the US, where the gestational limit changes.
I guess that's how subjective morality works, huh?

Kenny wrote:Unfortunately there are people like that sick man.

Lecturer: "You're a Sick Man. Your Mind is diseased."
Killer: "Correction, I'm a genetically determined man with a predisposition toward aggression: Killing is in my genes."

So, is he "sick"? Or is he just genetically predisposed toward aggression? Is that a sickness? A disease?
Are other people with genetic predisposions that we find distasteful actually "sick" too?

And what is "sick" here? His physical body? His brain? His mind?

Kenny wrote:Nothing will stop this person if he is determined to kill you

Perhaps, but as an onlooker... is what the killer doing right or wrong?

With "subjective morality" then it really could be either, or even neither... as in "I don't care either way"

Kenny wrote:What this sick man was doing was harmful to his neighbor.

Why do you choose "harm to a neighbour" as a morality criteria?
(interesting language BTW, sounds kind of like "Love thy neighbour...")

With our planet so overpopulated with humans, what's it matter is a few killers take some and have a bit of fun with them? Think of the greater good -- less people to use up our planet's limited resources, less carbon emissions, etc.
It not like everyone is going to go out an kill someone... so why ruin it for everyone?
"If you don't like killing people, don't kill!"