Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

How is that passage above the least bit relevant to reasoning that God exists?

The evidence is not merely out there in nature, around us all, but we also have intuitive knowledge of God, for, as it says "God has made it evident to them." In fact, says Romans, we all have enough knowledge that only a willful effort will prevent us realizing that God exists.

You may not take my word for it, but then, the Bible isn't my word. It's His.

As far as I know, the Bible is no different than many other human mythologies.

Then I think you have some research to do.

[Immanuel Can]

If God is a good being, then God is welcome to come before me and make his presence known if that's what God wants to do. Until, then I'll remain agnostic.

What if he's already done enough, and you are just unwilling to accept His terms? What if you insist on running the relationship your own way...meaing without having to trust Him at all? Do you suppose, then, that the Supreme Being owes you to bend to your will? Or do you think that being defiant is going to win you something?

You really should take Pascal more seriously, perhaps. You're not being very prudent.

If there's a God, I don't know why s/he/it would send me to hell just for being agnostic. Seems kind of ridiculous.

He wouldn't have to "send" you anywhere. You, yourself would choose. If God has done enough that you should know about Him, and you don't care enough to pay attention, then on whom is that responsibility? And if the choice has been to live without God, what should be done to honour that choice, but to make it ongoing? To do otherwise would be to compel your will.

[Immanuel Can]

IC. I'm sure you're a decent human being.

I would like to think so. But what makes you think that?

However, if there's a God, then God is welcome to show him or herself to me.

If you mean that, and really want to know God, then I'm confident it won't be long.

Heads up.

[Atla]

Playing Pascal's wager is for spineless cowards, don't think the Goddess would let those into heaven. The correct choice is to not play at all, but to follow your own reason.

[Gary Childress]

IC. I'm sure you're a decent human being.

I would like to think so. But what makes you think that?

Most people are unless they're running around instigating a great deal of harm. I assume you're probably like most of us.

[Gary Childress]

However, if there's a God, then God is welcome to show him or herself to me.

If you mean that, and really want to know God, then I'm confident it won't be long.

Heads up.

Sounds good.

[Gary Childress]

Honestly, I would think I have more to fear from some people out there than I do from God, if there is one.

[Harbal]

Head trauma, perhaps. Blood spatter. The presence of a weapon with the deceased's brain matter on it. Being bludgeoned to death looks rather different from "natural causes," doesn't it?

You are continuing with the analogy, but I am asking what phenomena you see in our world to which the only possible, or even most likely, explanation could be God?

Creation itself, for one. Morality, for another. Revelation, for another. The person of Jesus Christ, for the conclusive evidence.

Yes, I know that you personally accept those things as evidence, but they do not constitute evidence under the same standards that science, or the law, would require for something to be counted as evidence. The things that you present as evidence are not even slightly convincing unless you believe in God to start with.

Well now we are talking about evidence of evidence.

No, we aren't, actually. We're only asking what one Harbal is capable of claiming, rationally speaking.

Well I stand by what I said: If genuine evidence for the existence of God had been found, I'm sure everyone would know about it, it would be the biggest news story ever.

What firm evidence of God's existence do you have that is as verifiable as the claim that Boston exists?

Actually, I have MORE evidence that God exists than that Boston does. As I said, I have no personal experience with Boston...just testimony by others, a few pictures people tell me are Boston, and maybe an artifact that says, "My parents went to Boston, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt."

So your evidence for God's existence is your claim to have it, and we can verify that simply by asking you. Is that what you are saying?

You seem to be implying that someone who believes in God to start with is in a better position to judge what constitutes evidence for his existence.

The opposite. I'm pointinog out that one Harbal's lack of knowledge has no relevance to anybody else's decision about that, and does not constrain the contrary experience of even one person. Heck, it doesn't even stop Harbal himself from discovering something new in the next five minutes. That's fairly obvious, isn't it?

But I don't have to be an expert on dragons to reasonably come to the conclusion that there is a lack of genuine evidence for their existence. It is my knowledge of the world, and access to accredited information about it, that entitles me to do that. And as far as mythical creatures are concerned, I would say God is a bigger stretch on credulity than even dragons.

When I look at the world, I have absolutely no reason to consider God as an explanation for anything I might not understand, or have an explanation for.

Romans 1 says you do. And I agree, of course.

I'm afraid what someone once wrote on a papyrus scroll hundreds of years ago doesn't carry that much weight with me.

[Immanuel Can]

IC. I'm sure you're a decent human being.

I would like to think so. But what makes you think that?

Most people are unless they're running around instigating a great deal of harm. I assume you're probably like most of us.

Fair enough.

[Immanuel Can]

You are continuing with the analogy, but I am asking what phenomena you see in our world to which the only possible, or even most likely, explanation could be God?

Creation itself, for one. Morality, for another. Revelation, for another. The person of Jesus Christ, for the conclusive evidence.

Yes, I know that you personally accept those things as evidence, but they do not constitute evidence under the same standards that science, or the law, would require for something to be counted as evidence.

Law? Well, it meets that standard. But science? Even yesterday's news cannot be tested by "science." Science has specific material sorts of phenomena and entities it can test: but there's a lot it cannot. I know of no scientific test for love, or for rightness, or for consciousness -- things in which we all believe, and have no trouble believing in, but which have no scientific experimental verification.

Well now we are talking about evidence of evidence.

No, we aren't, actually. We're only asking what one Harbal is capable of claiming, rationally speaking.

Well I stand by what I said: If genuine evidence for the existence of God had been found, I'm sure everyone would know about it, it would be the biggest news story ever.

I don't think that's the case. I think there'd still be doubters, and lots of them. Some people still believe COVID wasn't a fix...even though they're not any longer wearing masks, social distancing or getting "vaxxed." Some people doubt the existence of the Holocaust, or the moon landing, or even of 9-11. People have a greater ability to choose not to believe than you're suggesting, I think.

What firm evidence of God's existence do you have that is as verifiable as the claim that Boston exists?

Actually, I have MORE evidence that God exists than that Boston does. As I said, I have no personal experience with Boston...just testimony by others, a few pictures people tell me are Boston, and maybe an artifact that says, "My parents went to Boston, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt."

So your evidence for God's existence is your claim to have it, and we can verify that simply by asking you. Is that what you are saying?

Well, personal testimony is certainly an important form of evidence in court. But no, I don't expect you just to believe me. I expect you only to be willing to exercise enough faith to consider it possible that God exists, and that He rewards those who seek Him...which is exactly what He promises in the Bible, actually.

You seem to be implying that someone who believes in God to start with is in a better position to judge what constitutes evidence for his existence.

The opposite. I'm pointing out that one Harbal's lack of knowledge has no relevance to anybody else's decision about that, and does not constrain the contrary experience of even one person. Heck, it doesn't even stop Harbal himself from discovering something new in the next five minutes. That's fairly obvious, isn't it?

But I don't have to be an expert on dragons to reasonably come to the conclusion that there is a lack of genuine evidence for their existence.

Kimodo dragons? They exist. Or at least, people think they do.

[Harbal]

Creation itself, for one. Morality, for another. Revelation, for another. The person of Jesus Christ, for the conclusive evidence.

Yes, I know that you personally accept those things as evidence, but they do not constitute evidence under the same standards that science, or the law, would require for something to be counted as evidence.

Law? Well, it meets that standard.

No it doesn't. I don't know the criteria, but your evidence certainly does not reach it. I'm not talking about proving God's existence in court, or anything silly like that, I am just talking about the conditions that have to be met to qualify something as evidence.

But science? Even yesterday's news cannot be tested by "science." Science has specific material sorts of phenomena and entities it can test: but there's a lot it cannot. I know of no scientific test for love, or for rightness, or for consciousness -- things in which we all believe, and have no trouble believing in, but which have no scientific experimental verification.

But those are all immaterial things, whereas the proof you are claiming is to do with the existence of physical things. Science, and its proofs, are what inform us about the physical universe. God may not be physical, but the things you are putting forward as evidence are.

Well I stand by what I said: If genuine evidence for the existence of God had been found, I'm sure everyone would know about it, it would be the biggest news story ever.

I don't think that's the case. I think there'd still be doubters,

I daresay there would, but that wouldn't prevent the story from being the biggest news headline in history.

So your evidence for God's existence is your claim to have it, and we can verify that simply by asking you. Is that what you are saying?

Well, personal testimony is certainly an important form of evidence in court. But no, I don't expect you just to believe me. I expect you only to be willing to exercise enough faith to consider it possible that God exists,

People believe all sorts of things that seem wildly implausible to me, and I tend to dismiss them as not worth thinking about most of the time, as I'm sure you do. I had a very entertaining evening once with someone on another forum who was convinced that the Earth was once occupied by ancient space aliens, thousands of years ago. Are you suggesting I should have been willing to exercise enough faith to consider it possible that he was right? God is a special case to you, but he's just another made up character in another made up story to me, and deserves no special consideration.

But this is straying from the point: The only thing I am questioning here is, what can legitimately be called evidence, and I do not think that what you are claiming as evidence can legitimately be called it.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, I know that you personally accept those things as evidence, but they do not constitute evidence under the same standards that science, or the law, would require for something to be counted as evidence.

Law? Well, it meets that standard.

No it doesn't. I don't know the criteria, but your evidence certainly does not reach it.

"I don't know the criteria, but the evidence you have doesn't reach the criteria I don't know." That's basically what you just said.

Want to say something not self-contradictory, instead?

But science? Even yesterday's news cannot be tested by "science." Science has specific material sorts of phenomena and entities it can test: but there's a lot it cannot. I know of no scientific test for love, or for rightness, or for consciousness -- things in which we all believe, and have no trouble believing in, but which have no scientific experimental verification.

But those are all immaterial things, whereas the proof you are claiming is to do with the existence of physical things. Science, and its proofs, are what inform us about the physical universe. God may not be physical, but the things you are putting forward as evidence are.

Of course.

Love may be something science can't measure, but we know it by its physical realities. Rightness is a moral property, but as you yourself have said, we often sense it when something isn't right...and when it is...and we do so by things in the physical world. As for consciousness, it may not itself be capable of physical experimentation, but not a single scientist can do a single experiment, no matter how simple, without depending on this very elusive quantity we call "consciousness."

We know the things that are not physical, but are real, by their physical effects, if not by something more experiential or spiritual. And if you cannot get the Supreme Being into a graduated cylinder, or pinched in Vernier calipers, or squirming under your skeptical microscope, is that a surprise to you? And does it even remotely extenuate the decision to ignore all the manifest effects of God in the physical world -- far less the personal determination to position oneself as a cynic or even as His detractor -- if such is one's wish?

The thing about evidence is this: it remains evidence, whether one wishes to see it or not. All one changes by gratuitously refusing it is the level of one's own access to the evidence.

Well I stand by what I said: If genuine evidence for the existence of God had been found, I'm sure everyone would know about it, it would be the biggest news story ever.

I don't think that's the case. I think there'd still be doubters,

I daresay there would, but that wouldn't prevent the story from being the biggest news headline in history.

Then here you go. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059245/.

So your evidence for God's existence is your claim to have it, and we can verify that simply by asking you. Is that what you are saying?

Well, personal testimony is certainly an important form of evidence in court. But no, I don't expect you just to believe me. I expect you only to be willing to exercise enough faith to consider it possible that God exists,

People believe all sorts of things that seem wildly implausible to me, and I tend to dismiss them as not worth thinking about most of the time, as I'm sure you do.

Not really.

I would like to think that a better route is to hear them out, decide if what they were saying was possibly relevant to where I live, or to something I needed to know, and if it was, I'd want to see their evidence. What I wouldn't do is just gratuitously say, "You have no evidence." I'd see if they did.

[Harbal]

Law? Well, it meets that standard.

No it doesn't. I don't know the criteria, but your evidence certainly does not reach it.

"I don't know the criteria, but the evidence you have doesn't reach the criteria I don't know." That's basically what you just said.

Want to say something not self-contradictory, instead?

You don't have a monopoly on talking nonsense, you know.

We know the things that are not physical, but are real, by their physical effects, if not by something more experiential or spiritual. And if you cannot get the Supreme Being into a graduated cylinder, or pinched in Vernier calipers, or squirming under your skeptical microscope, is that a surprise to you?

I don't believe there is any such thing as the supreme being, so of course it doesn't surprise me that you can't put him in a bottle.

The thing about evidence is this: it remains evidence, whether one wishes to see it or not. All one changes by gratuitously refusing it is the level of one's own access to the evidence.

But I do not accept that you have any evidence. Give me a sample of your evidence, and let's have a look at it.

People believe all sorts of things that seem wildly implausible to me, and I tend to dismiss them as not worth thinking about most of the time, as I'm sure you do.

Not really.

I would like to think that a better route is to hear them out, decide if what they were saying was possibly relevant to where I live, or to something I needed to know, and if it was, I'd want to see their evidence. What I wouldn't do is just gratuitously say, "You have no evidence." I'd see if they did.

I'm not saying you are wrong for believing in God, I'm just saying that you are misleading people if you tell them that there is evidence of his existence, because there simply isn't. I don't know why people believe in God, but it is nothing to do with logic, rationality or evidence.

I asked my daughter a while back if she believed in God, I think it was some discussion or other I had with you that prompted me to ask. While she didn't come out with an outright yes, she couldn't bring herself to say no. I could see she was a bit embarrassed about it, because she knows it is an irrational belief. At least she didn't seem to mind whether God existed or not, which was some consolation. The point is, people don't really believe in God because there is evidence for his existence, their belief seems much more to be based on a feeling. You could say that God put the feeling there, and I would not be able to say with any authority that he didn't; although I can say he doesn't seem to have put it in me.

Even if there are things that seem to suggest there is more to the universe than science and our understanding can account for, that isn't evidence of God, and all we are really entitled to say is that, at least for now, we don't know what it means.

[Immanuel Can]

The thing about evidence is this: it remains evidence, whether one wishes to see it or not. All one changes by gratuitously refusing it is the level of one's own access to the evidence.

But I do not accept that you have any evidence.

Yes, I know. And it's still evidence.

Give me a sample of your evidence, and let's have a look at it.

Let's start with this: open your eyes. Look at who you are, and where you're living, and what's going on in this universe, and ask yourself if it isn't just the most obvious thing that this whole drama is no accident.

I'm just saying that you are misleading people if you tell them that there is evidence of his existence, because there simply isn't.

Ah, I see: you're claiming to be God? You know what evidence exists in the whole universe, and even what other people can or do know?

You'll forgive me if I find that just a little implausible, and not a little hubristic.

...she knows it is an irrational belief.

Apparently she's more rational than her dad. She at least knows what it's impossible for her to know.

Even if there are things that seem to suggest there is more to the universe than science and our understanding can account for, that isn't evidence of God, and all we are really entitled to say is that, at least for now, we don't know what it means.

I'm astonished at how confidently you claim to be able to know what all other people can know. Truly, wisdom will die with you.

[popeye1945]

Biological consciousness is the measure and the meaning of all things. Subjective experiences and their meanings to the biological subject constitute all meanings including systems of morality. The thoughts and sentiments of subjective awareness give experiences their subjective meanings and are the property of the conscious subject alone, never the property of the object. Until the conscious subject bestows meaning upon a meaningless world the world is devoid of meaning. This is the only means of morality being objective when it is given form in the outer world as proclamations, rules, norms, and institutions embracing the thoughts and sentiments of the conscious subject/s. This projection is embraced as if the qualities and values belong to the world of objects when in fact it is an orchestrated illusion, a melody if you like heard only by the conscious subject. Meaning is the interpretation of experiences and never, again never are they the property of the physical world. Objectifying is a subjective function in the play between subject and object.