The Things Science Cannot Prove

[sethhersch]

Not to mention Pascal was a Calvinist and didn't think belief was a choice anyway, so it's likely he was joking when he made Pascal's Wager. Besides, if Pascal's Wager was a reliable reason to believe, since Pascal was a Catholic, wouldn't that mean Catholicism is the one true religion and you should convert to Catholicism if you're not?

 

 

I think Blaise Pascal was a Jansenist Catholic. Calvanists were reformers by definition, so they would not have been Catholic in any case.

 

He wrote pretty extensively on the tension between Jansenists and Jesuits.

[Dagan]

Not to mention Pascal was a Calvinist and didn't think belief was a choice anyway, so it's likely he was joking when he made Pascal's Wager. Besides, if Pascal's Wager was a reliable reason to believe, since Pascal was a Catholic, wouldn't that mean Catholicism is the one true religion and you should convert to Catholicism if you're not?

 

 

I think Blaise Pascal was a Jansenist Catholic. Calvanists were reformers by definition, so they would not have been Catholic in any case.

 

He wrote pretty extensively on the tension between Jansenists and Jesuits.

 

If I think you're an arrogant, condescending nitwit but don't tell you, can you prove it... with SCIENCE?

[Kuroikaze]

1. Logical principles -- i.e. the law of non-contradiction

2. Mathematical axioms

 

Granted, but we accept both of these because they are tautologies, I.E. things that are necessarily true as they are stated. And they are only tautological in the abstract, once they are applied to physical reality they are less certain because our sense are less certain.

 

These are not comparable in any way to theism because there is no tautological quality about the statement "god exists"

 

3. Ethical principles -- i.e. [prima facie] stealing is wrong, keep your promises, etc.

 

You seem to be coming at this from a Kantian perspective. I flat out disagree with this, Ethical principles ARE decided by using something akin to the empirical method.

 

I.E. we know that stealing is wrong, because we have an empirical understanding which shows that large societies need a concept of property ownership in order to function, and theft will damage that concept. Most everyone has already accepted that we need society in SOME form. These days even more so, because advanced technology only continues to function through cooperation.

 

Ethics are best decided through logic and empirical study, so I think you are wrong on this one.

 

4. The reliability of our senses -- how can we trust that we are interpreting ordinary empirical evidence accurately and without adulteration?

 

Who says are senses are reliable? Actually are senses can be fooled quite easily, the scientific process is meant to minimize that, but the short of it is that we cannot ever be 100% certain.

 

However, we have no choice but to trust our senses for the most part, it would be absurd and pointless to do otherwise. I do not see Theism as being in the same category.

 

 

These are all things to which I subscribe. To be sure, there is some dissent about the law of non-contradiction, but for the most part, these are all things to which most people subscribe and they are rational to do so. Furthermore, none of these things is provable in the scientific sense. This gets us so far: some true propositions don't require science for their justification.

 

This is actually significant ground to gain when writers like Dawkins are slamming all that is overtly non-scientific.

 

If you read Dawkins you will find he does not "slam" anything that is non-scientific. He particularly slams things which are non-scientific but claim to be, like creationism or intelligent design. He also advocates skepticism towards unwarranted ideas.

 

However advocating for the scientific process does not mean one advocates that ALL ideas must be tested by that process, Tautologies do not need to be tested, and it is logically impossible to test if our senses are reliable since the results of any test must be seen through the senses.

[Kuroikaze]

 

There is actually huge dissent about this among philosophers or religion, but I actually agree that GOD cannot violate necessary logical truths. This doesn't preclude him from being their causal agent. Omnipotence doesn't mean that there aren't things that GOD cannot do.

 

 

Tautological claims cannot, by definition, have a causal agent. If there is a causal agent, even if that agent is god, then the truth is subjective and no longer objective.

[Shyone]

You didn't listen. I don't think that the argument is sound...I don't believe it gets off the ground and I made that painfully clear, if you had bothered to read the whole post before assuming that I was simply ignorant and in desperate need of your two-cents.

 

Let me say it again: "Most philosophers think that the first premise is false." If a premise is false in a deductive argument, it's a nail in the coffin. I can't believe that I was so flagrantly misunderstood here. How could you read what I wrote and interpret it as a defense of Pascal's argument?

 

Further, I never said a word about "logical fallacies." People jump on this fallacy bandwagon far too often, I think. First we look for validity and soundness, then we scope out whether it breaks any obvious rules like circularity or vacuity. If we have sufficiently given consideration to these, then we can see if there are any fallacies. There's no reason to leap to claims of logical fallacies when most philosophers [myself included] reject the argument as unsound.

 

 

You are one of the sharpest on this whole forum, so far as I've seen...how did you miss my point by so much?

I apologise if I misunderstood, or if I reflexively assumed you were arguing for Pascal's wager. It is common enough for theists to argue that, and it such a slimy trick that is triggers my anger reflex.

 

I got that from this conjunction:

 

Here's the core of Pascal's case in premise-conclusion format:

 

The argument is clearly valid.

 

I got that far, and saw red.

 

Nothing written after that had any meaning to me. You could have written, "I don't believe in God" and I would have missed it.

 

When philosophers write that an argument is "valid" I realize it doesn't mean that the argument has a true premise or that the argument itself is therefore "persuasive", but I'm a surgeon and when we say, "The operation was a success but the patient died" that doesn't go over well with the family of the dead patient.

 

We are speaking past one another, and I'm fairly literal and concrete with respect to my reasoning. Attributing positive attributes to a diseased argument caught me off guard.

 

Again, I apologise.

[bdp]

I'm convinced - belief in deity is completely IL-logical. Thanks for showing up sethhersch.

[skepticalme]

 

 

Newtonian mechanics are not true, nor were they ever. They have incredible utility in that they help us to understand and predict motion, but to say that they were provisional true is silly. How could something go from true to false over time? It was true or it was false. We thought it was true. We were mistaken. It's that simple. I don't believe that functionality has any say in whether a thing is true at all, much less absolutely true. I agree with your characterization of how science works, but I don't agree that these are examples that elucidate how and why we should think that truth values shift over time.

 

 

I think that we are not using the same definition of 'provisional truth'. In the context I am using, provisional truth means,"The best truth we have for the moment". I'm using it to draw a distinction between, "What is true' and 'What we perceive is true'. At any given moment truths that appear to be absolute, may after futher investigation, prove to be inaccurate. But they were close enough that, at the time, all available evidence pointed to that being the absolute truth. Ultimatly, no truths that we have, nor could ever have, are absolute, because for it to be an absolute truth, you would have to know everything. You would have to know that there is no senario in which that particular truth was untrue, and thus be absolute. Alas, we can never know everything, so all the truths we think we have are provisional, even if they haven't been replaced by a 'better truth' just yet.

 

 

I think I understand now. You have a great argument here, but I still want to resist the use of the term "provisional truth." In analytic philosophy, we usually think that propositions [scientific hypotheses are always propositional] are either true or false, and necessarily not both. There is a modal distinction between necessary and contingent truths, but this is not the same as provisional vs absolute, which I'm still not sure is a distinction that has any connection with truth.

 

Nonetheless, I understand your argument:

 

1. If we have access to absolute truths, then we know everything.

2. But we can't know everything.

3. So we don't have access to absolute truths.

 

It's valid [MT]. I reject premise one. I think that there are things that we can immediately know [foundational things] that don't require that we know everything in order to know that they are true. We are rational, in other words, to hold that no new piece of information could come along that would upset these kinds of knowledge. I mentioned the law of non-contradiction -- I think that this is an example of something we can be comfortable asserting. No scientific or phenomenalogical evidence could possibly overturn this kind of thing. You might disagree, though.

 

This is pretty fascinating. Is it possible that some new piece of evidence could make us doubt something as fundamental as the law of non-contradiction? I don't think so, but the argument definitely has some pull.

 

You mean something like the duality of light? How it can be both a particle AND a wave even though those are mutually exclusive. Or Schrodinger's cat which is both dead and alive until it is measured. Quantum physics is full of phenomena that contradict basic logic.

[LivingLife]

Seth

 

Even through thems fancy wurds I can see that you whole argument departs from the premise that your POV is the default correct one.

 

W/o going into any fancy semantics, I just find it odd that theists cannot see that this so call one true god decided to reveal himself to a bunch of lowly goatherders from the sandy plains of the ME while there were many far more advanced cultures and civilizations predating them and with far more techno savvy than even the Greeks and Romans.

 

The whole premise of biblegawd and sp. the omni-everythings attributed to it fails as nowhere in any culture are there any signs of this bible gawd revealing itself to those cultures. It just so happens that the Greco/Roman empire at the time were strategically positioned to hijack Judaism and invent a new theopolitical religion which has subsequently grown to a global belief barring the 2/3rd that have not thankfully been influenced by the church of Rome.

 

With science a discovery in Japan or China or wherever can be used used to independently test and verify the ToE as there is a standard by which this science is done. With theism however, there is ZERO evidence of biblegawd in any remote culture not influenced by the ancient derivatives of the Roman empire. Sure they had their myth but these have all timeously disappeared as folk evolved or went extinct, the vacuum left in these nether regions were quickly filled with new adherents of this xian faith to keep the locals in awe of the white mans superstition while the rest raped and pillaged the riches of the land or took it over. The spread of xianity was never a will of the invented gawd but purely by chance of the cultures that evolved technologically first.

 

Other than recent history and arguments of ad-numerum, the claims of xianity fail to prove anything concrete.

 

Applying the science example stated above, theism has nothing except the vague idea that all cultures believe in some type of sky daddy therefor we are right. We all know these ancient sky-daddies were all brutal requiring death of innocents either by attrition or by sacrifice which BTW is also evident that your OT forebearers did sacrifice to molech which some of the more compassionate philosophers of the time tried to put a stop to, barring the other prophets that were good at inciting the masses to violence.

 

What better recipe for success when the conquering Romans realized that this Jewish megalomaniac gawd was a perfect tool to control the masses and worked even better than the then current emperor worship, let the emperor sign onto it and make it a state religion and wallah, there you have the basics of where your whole theist beliefs are derived from some 1600 years later.

 

The origins of your beliefs are questionable from the get go so any belief in this biblegawd is doomed to failure w/o some sort of political slant to make it survive which is just what has happened in the USA.

 

The way some of the Levitical laws are stated, one must assume these goatherders were a bunch of animal "f**king" everything that moved in the streets and marketplace, or if they had some discretion, there was a whole group of sex police/peeping toms set up to somehow enforce these laws. I do think even in the desert communities, people do it behind closed curtains at least, so if homos wanted to have it off with each other, knowing the tribe ess ostracized their lewd behaviors, would be even more discrete. I am harping on this based on your post that people justifiably killed for sexual immorality, you folk buy this shit w/o even thinking it through, sorry my language is not eloquent.

 

I am sure by today's standards, these goatherders would be classified as terrorists. The number do not tie in to the so called many thousand strong armies, maybe a few extra zeros to the actual happenings were done to impress, the Jews by today should be far more than 6M and if their number were so high back then how the f**k does an invading army overcome such overwhelming numbers seeing they were far from home and even the ancient armies had logistic constraints? Just look at your lot in Iraq and Afghanistan the infrastructure and the cost behind such a mission and you are not even facing an organized army as the whoring/warring Jews scriptures claim to have had. Think about it, no philosophical degree required.

 

When the Romans invaded and annexed Israel back then, I am sure their opposition was underwhelming and there was probably a short lived battle of resisters that fled to the hills in high gear once the saw they were outnumbered. I am sure the armies of Rome were well equipped despite their small numbers and what they came across was no more than a bunch of nomadicks, with a weeny small army. The story of Masada shows how brave these folk really were, committing mass suicide and all.

 

The greatness ascribed in the wholly babble to the Hebrews IMO is far more exaggerated than what really happened.

 

Now if you want to believe that one person can take on an encampment of soldiers armed with the jawbone of an ass and wipe them all out and all the supposed angelic interventions that happened when they warred under Gideon, then sure, have at it, I am sure that koolaide you drink has some special Patmos mushroom hallucinogens to give it just that extra kick so to speak.

 

Science will however delve into the natural testable world, your head unfortunately is off limits till you die and only if you donate your organs to science.

 

Peace

[chefranden]

I'm not suggesting that belief in the Christian GOD is essential to objective morality -- I am saying that GOD's very existence is. It's quite a different argument.

 

I have to say that Seth is correct in his contention that a god is essential for objective morality i.e. that one would imply the other.

 

However since there is no "objective morality" no god is needed.

[Shyone]

I'm not suggesting that belief in the Christian GOD is essential to objective morality -- I am saying that GOD's very existence is. It's quite a different argument.

 

I have to say that Seth is correct in his contention that a god is essential for objective morality i.e. that one would imply the other.

 

However since there is no "objective morality" no god is needed.

HanSolo made an argument that "objective morality" means a morality that can be verified by everyone - and that is the law. Whatever the law says is objective morality.

 

I think Sethhersch is going for "absolute" morality - some standard that is not defined by human law and that could potentially contradict human law. Absolute in the sense of transcending cultures, times and places.

 

Clearly he's not speaking of the Biblical god however.

[Ouroboros]

That's right. At least that's my view.

 

Recently I realized there is a difference between absolute and objective. The law is objective, but it is still man-made. But the law is not absolute because it does change over time. Something absolute is both objective and beyond human creation, while objective is just something we as humans agree to exist beyond our own emotions or views, and that can be something we have made, not necessarily just discovered.

 

The law that makes it illegal to litter on the freeway is an objective law. It applies to me regardless what I think of it. It wasn't created by God, but by humans. And if someone maintains that the objective necessarily has to come from God, then the human collective is God.

[chefranden]

That's right. At least that's my view.

 

Recently I realized there is a difference between absolute and objective. The law is objective, but it is still man-made. But the law is not absolute because it does change over time. Something absolute is both objective and beyond human creation, while objective is just something we as humans agree to exist beyond our own emotions or views, and that can be something we have made, not necessarily just discovered.

 

The law that makes it illegal to litter on the freeway is an objective law. It applies to me regardless what I think of it. It wasn't created by God, but by humans. And if someone maintains that the objective necessarily has to come from God, then the human collective is God.

 

I have my doubts that man made law is objective other than one could point to the words written in a book or data base i.e. there exist an objective record of the law.

 

Human law is usually written and always enforced subjectively.

 

It is an objective fact that law is used to regulate human society, but I don't think that means that the law itself is objective.

 

The law against sleeping under a bridge in theory applies equally to the rich man and the beggar, but one would hardly think that it was written against the rich man. Driving 8 mph over the speed limit might get ignored, might get you a warning, or might get you a ticket depending on the subjective feeling of the police person observing you. It is a fact that one's standing before the law depends on how much money and power the accused has.

 

Attempts to make the law purely objective often leads to insane results like when an 8 year old girl is arrested in handcuffs on a zero tolerance weapons charge for bringing a nail clipper to school.

[Ouroboros]

I have my doubts that man made law is objective other than one could point to the words written in a book or data base i.e. there exist an objective record of the law.

It's objective because it is not subjective. You don't chose which law apply to you and which one does not.

 

The traffic laws apply to all, not to just those who choose to have them apply.

 

The point I'm making is that the definition of the words "objective" and "absolute" are different. "Objective" is not the same as "Absolute." And things can be "Objective" without being Universally Absolute and without being created by a supreme being.

 

The objective laws are created by humans. And they are objectively applicable to all members of the group.

 

Human law is usually written and always enforced subjectively.

There are two levels here.

 

It's subjective in the sense of how it is written and chosen. But when it is agreed upon and established, then it applies objectively too all members.

 

It's not like you personally can pick subjectively which law should apply to you.

 

It is an objective fact that law is used to regulate human society, but I don't think that means that the law itself is objective.

The thing is that "objective" has an infinite range of levels.

 

It can be objective to and individual, i.e. it applies to you regardless of your personal emotions and feelings.

 

It can also be objective to all nature, i.e. it applies to all humans, animals, and biological life, and nature.

 

It can be objective to all existence, Gods, super-natures, and so on.

 

I think there are things that exists objectively on each level, but law is objective at the first level. It is established to apply above individual opinions. I can't just decide that a law doesn't apply to me. It applies to me regardless of my feelings about it. That's the definition of the word "objective."

 

The law against sleeping under a bridge in theory applies equally to the rich man and the beggar, but one would hardly think that it was written against the rich man. Driving 8 mph over the speed limit might get ignored, might get you a warning, or might get you a ticket depending on the subjective feeling of the police person observing you. It is a fact that one's standing before the law depends on how much money and power the accused has.

Well, I guess that's the flaw of the system that it allows subjective handling and interpretations, but the idea is that law applies equal to everyone, regardless of their personal opinions or feelings.

 

Attempts to make the law purely objective often leads to insane results like when an 8 year old girl is arrested in handcuffs on a zero tolerance weapons charge for bringing a nail clipper to school.

I don't think that's the same thing. The law can be objective and still apply different for different situations. The objectivity is about the correlation between the law as an entity and one individuals feelings and opinions about the law.

 

The definition of "objective" is this in my dictionary:

 

objective

 

* (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts : historians try to be objective and impartial. Contrasted with subjective .

* not dependent on the mind for existence; actual : a matter of objective

I think law does apply under the first definition. It is not (or should not) be influenced by personal feelings or opinions.

 

But does law exist as some kind of mathematical truth from infinite time and created by some external force and we have to discover it through some magical thinking? No. That's not what I'm talking about, and it's not really the same thing (or level). Think of it as multi-level objective and not as black-and-white/absolute/all-or-nothing objective.

 

The law is objective because we (humans, member of society) make it so.

[chefranden]

It's objective because it is not subjective. You don't chose which law apply to you and which one does not.

 

The traffic laws apply to all, not to just those who choose to have them apply.

 

The point I'm making is that the definition of the words "objective" and "absolute" are different. "Objective" is not the same as "Absolute." And things can be "Objective" without being Universally Absolute and without being created by a supreme being.

 

The objective laws are created by humans. And they are objectively applicable to all members of the group.

 

If this were true, then George Bush and the inmates at Gitmo would have been tried for war crimes. The hypothesis is that human law is objectively applicable to all members, but this is not the reality. It has never been the reality in human law.

 

Of course since you are not the authority, you don't get to choose which law applies to you in terms of consequence. However the law is still subjectively applied based on the whims and choices of the police, prosecutors, and courts. In addition you make a subjective choice to obey or not obey the law for your own reasons. For example: If you are late for something important, I bet you choose to speed. Most people would.

 

Now of course we like to think that the law is objective and impartial, just like we used to like to think that God was objective and impartial. But this is not reality.

 

The law against sleeping under a bridge in theory applies equally to the rich man and the beggar, but one would hardly think that it was written against the rich man. Driving 8 mph over the speed limit might get ignored, might get you a warning, or might get you a ticket depending on the subjective feeling of the police person observing you. It is a fact that one's standing before the law depends on how much money and power the accused has.

Well, I guess that's the flaw of the system that it allows subjective handling and interpretations, but the idea is that law applies equal to everyone, regardless of their personal opinions or feelings.

 

This is not a flaw in the system. It is a flaw in expectations. Human nature is subjective. There is no way to leave out personal opinions and feelings.

 

 

 

objective

 

* (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts : historians try to be objective and impartial. Contrasted with subjective .

* not dependent on the mind for existence; actual : a matter of objective

 

I think law does apply under the first definition. It is not (or should not) be influenced by personal feelings or opinions.

 

I think your caveat recognizes that law is not going to be objective. Objective law is the ideal, but it cannot be obtained.

 

 

The law is objective because we (humans, member of society) make it so.

 

There is no way that a human or group of humans can make the law objective (not influenced by personal feelings or opinions). This is why an objective law would require a god, a being without feelings or opinions and with the power to make sure all are actually punished and rewarded according to the rules.

[Shyone]

If this were true, then George Bush and the inmates at Gitmo would have been tried for war crimes. The hypothesis is that human law is objectively applicable to all members, but this is not the reality. It has never been the reality in human law.

 

Let me take the simplistic point of view:

 

If it is written specifically, it is objective (There, you can see it - it exists outside of your mind).

 

Application is another thing entirely; always was, always will be (wherever the source).

 

The existence of a reference which we call "law" is the objective law.

[chefranden]

If this were true, then George Bush and the inmates at Gitmo would have been tried for war crimes. The hypothesis is that human law is objectively applicable to all members, but this is not the reality. It has never been the reality in human law.

 

Let me take the simplistic point of view:

 

If it is written specifically, it is objective (There, you can see it - it exists outside of your mind).

 

Application is another thing entirely; always was, always will be (wherever the source).

 

The existence of a reference which we call "law" is the objective law.

 

I already stipulated that law existed objectively in this fashion.

 

Religious law also exists in this fashion.

[Shyone]

If this were true, then George Bush and the inmates at Gitmo would have been tried for war crimes. The hypothesis is that human law is objectively applicable to all members, but this is not the reality. It has never been the reality in human law.

 

Let me take the simplistic point of view:

 

If it is written specifically, it is objective (There, you can see it - it exists outside of your mind).

 

Application is another thing entirely; always was, always will be (wherever the source).

 

The existence of a reference which we call "law" is the objective law.

 

I already stipulated that law existed objectively in this fashion.

 

Religious law also exists in this fashion.

Yep. That about sums it up.

 

Objective = external.

 

I think the distinction Hans was originally trying to make was between and Platonic form of "Absolute" laws that are true everywhere for everyone for all time that are accessed via ESP versus "objective" which Christians were using to mean the same thing.

[Ouroboros]

If this were true, then George Bush and the inmates at Gitmo would have been tried for war crimes. The hypothesis is that human law is objectively applicable to all members, but this is not the reality. It has never been the reality in human law.

He should have been, absolutely. I think he committed war crimes.

 

To me it sounds like that you actually support the view that law should be subjective and should be applied different to different people? So driving too fast should only apply to poor people but not to rich people because the law should be subjective to each persons opinion, view, emotions, power, and influence?

 

I don't think that's what you mean, but that is what you're saying when the law is subjective (dependent on the perpetrator's opinions and feelings about the law) and not objective (independent of the perpetrator's opinions and feelings about the law).

 

Of course since you are not the authority, you don't get to choose which law applies to you in terms of consequence. However the law is still subjectively applied based on the whims and choices of the police, prosecutors, and courts. In addition you make a subjective choice to obey or not obey the law for your own reasons. For example: If you are late for something important, I bet you choose to speed. Most people would.

Of course the choice is subjective, but the text of the law isn't (or shouldn't be). The law should not declare: "it's unlawful to speed in a speed limit zone, except when the driver feels like it because then it is okay."

 

Now of course we like to think that the law is objective and impartial, just like we used to like to think that God was objective and impartial. But this is not reality.

The law is supposed to be, but you're right, people corrupt it. But the text in the law books does not declare a subjective definition which is depending on the perpetrators emotions or opinions.

 

This is not a flaw in the system. It is a flaw in expectations. Human nature is subjective. There is no way to leave out personal opinions and feelings.

But still, the law is not expressed as: "Don't do this, unless you feel like it because then it's okay."

 

The law is defined as objective declarations of the duty of the citizens. What people do with it isn't the same thing as the purpose of the text written.

 

The author is not culpable of the perpetrators misuse of the text, especially when the text condemn the perpetrators misuse.

 

 

There is no way that a human or group of humans can make the law objective (not influenced by personal feelings or opinions). This is why an objective law would require a god, a being without feelings or opinions and with the power to make sure all are actually punished and rewarded according to the rules.

 

But I will list the synonyms and antonyms to the word "objective" here. Perhaps it will give a hint to what I'm talking about:

 

synonyms:

impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral, uninvolved, evenhanded, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, neutral.

 

antonym:

biased, partial, prejudiced.

The law is XXX. Which word fits best?

 

Anyway, I can see that we're in disagreement, so I'm going to let it all go.

[chefranden]

He should have been, absolutely. I think he committed war crimes.

 

And if the law were objective he would have been. Because of his power and prestige he turned out to be above the law. On the other hand the inmates at Gitmo turned out to be below the law. For subjective reasons the law was not applied to either party.

 

To me it sounds like that you actually support the view that law should be subjective and should be applied different to different people? So driving too fast should only apply to poor people but not to rich people because the law should be subjective to each persons opinion, view, emotions, power, and influence?

 

I think that the sky should be green, but it's not. What I feel should be and what is haven't always been sharply super imposed.

 

It seems to me that developing systems, even systems of law, that take into account what is may make the systems more effective. I may feel that the planets should travel in perfect circles around the sun and if I'm a ditch digger, the fact that the planets don't travel in perfect circles won't matter much. But if I'm a planet probe designer, I'd better take reality into account.

 

How could the law be more fair given that we are subjective creatures? Maybe all who go before the bench should have to rely on overworked public defenders. Maybe names and status of defendents and witnesses should be hidden from judges and juries. I don't know, but I do know that denying that something is what it is is not a good course for improvement.

 

Of course the choice is subjective, but the text of the law isn't (or shouldn't be). The law should not declare: "it's unlawful to speed in a speed limit zone, except when the driver feels like it because then it is okay."

 

I don't argue that the text of the law is not objective. But the law doesn't operate on the page.

 

The law is defined as objective declarations of the duty of the citizens. What people do with it isn't the same thing as the purpose of the text written.

 

And so? Again the law doesn't operate on the page.

 

The author is not culpable of the perpetrators misuse of the text, especially when the text condemn the perpetrators misuse.

 

This is not necessarily true. The author may write laws that may be very difficult to obey. For example: laws against teenagers having sex.

 

The law is XXX. Which word fits best?

 

biased, partial, prejudiced as carried out.

 

Anyway, I can see that we're in disagreement, so I'm going to let it all go.

 

What fun is that?

[Ouroboros]

And if the law were objective he would have been. Because of his power and prestige he turned out to be above the law. On the other hand the inmates at Gitmo turned out to be below the law. For subjective reasons the law was not applied to either party.

Sure. But I'm talking about the intention of the law.

 

Does law makers make the law with the intention that is should be subjective?

 

And is it true that if a person has an opinion against the law, then it doesn't apply?

 

Can any criminal just say, "I don't like it," and undo the law?

 

I think that the sky should be green, but it's not. What I feel should be and what is haven't always been sharply super imposed.

That's what the word "objective" means. The sky is objectively blue. Your experience of a blue sky is subjective, but a certain range of radioactive rays are defined as the color "blue," and it is so regardless if you're blind or defiant. The definition of the word doesn't change because you feel like it should be different.

 

It seems to me that developing systems, even systems of law, that take into account what is may make the systems more effective. I may feel that the planets should travel in perfect circles around the sun and if I'm a ditch digger, the fact that the planets don't travel in perfect circles won't matter much. But if I'm a planet probe designer, I'd better take reality into account.

Do the planets travel in non-perfect circles? Do they do this regardless of what you feel? Do they do this regardless of your opinion?

 

"Objective" does not mean perfect. The planets revolve around the sun, is an objective fact, not your subjective feeling about it. Unless you argue that all existence of all things are just in your head and a fantasy only pertaining to your mind.

 

How could the law be more fair given that we are subjective creatures? Maybe all who go before the bench should have to rely on overworked public defenders. Maybe names and status of defendents and witnesses should be hidden from judges and juries. I don't know, but I do know that denying that something is what it is is not a good course for improvement.

They could not do anything if the law was only subjective.

 

If the law is subjective, then the law changes with the defendant's opinions and feelings. Does it?

 

Does every case in front of the judge end with the question: "Now defendant, what is your opinion about this law? Do you like it or not? If you don't like it, you're free to go."

 

I don't argue that the text of the law is not objective. But the law doesn't operate on the page.

I'm not talking about how flawed implementations of the law is defined. I'm talking about the definition of the word "objective." Objective means something which is made to be a unified thing, regardless of individuals opinions. That's the words meaning. It doesn't mean perfect. It doesn't mean correct implementation or correct execution. It only means something which is outside the individual's personal preference. It also means something which the collective can agree upon to be ruling over the individuals. In other words, it's subjective in one level, but it is objective on the personal level.

 

And so? Again the law doesn't operate on the page.

I'm not really talking about the court, the judges, or the police officers. I'm talking about the construct which makes the books of law. The law text. The intention of the law. The purpose of the law which supposedly should apply to all. That is supposedly an objective text.

 

There are no laws written which states that it only applies to people who agree upon them. No one can argue in court that their subjective view of the law overrides the law itself.

 

This is not necessarily true. The author may write laws that may be very difficult to obey. For example: laws against teenagers having sex.

Yeah. Sure. But is that really the same thing here? The law still applies, even if it is poorly written? Or do you say that because it's bad in some cases and the teenagers disagree to the law that immediately and undeniable the law is thrown out? It would be nice, but I haven't heard that happen. That's what objective means. It applies, even if the person who committed the act disagree, and even if you disagree, that bad law still applies. Unfortunately. So what you're saying here confirms my definition, even bad laws apply to people's acts because our opinions and emotions about the laws do not override the laws.

 

biased, partial, prejudiced as carried out.

Oh. Ok.

 

So you define the law as you go? Whatever you say is the law, is the law? But whatever society say is the law, is not? Whatever the lawmakers say is the law is not, but only what you feel is?

 

What fun is that?

Ok. So I'm sticking with it then.

 

What I'm hearing here is that you are saying that "law = anarchy." Whatever people say is the law, or whatever they feel is the law, that is the law. Am I correct?

 

---

 

But perhaps if we discussed other ways we could apply "objective." Are mathematical laws objective or subjective? Do they change for each person based on that person's feelings, or do they apply to us all the same way?

 

My whole discussion is about the definition and use of the word "objective." I hope you understand that.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

To me it sounds like that you actually support the view that law should be subjective and should be applied different to different people? So driving too fast should only apply to poor people but not to rich people because the law should be subjective to each persons opinion, view, emotions, power, and influence?

 

 

I hope Chefranden will correct me if I get this wrong, but I don't think he means people should just apply the law arbitrarily based on nothing but their personal feelings, but you have to take into account the different situations before you pass a judgment. That's why we have a human court who runs the law and our justice system isn't done all by an emotionless computer. Think of it as like that one separation of church and state issue we were debating awhile back where I thought the violators should have been given a strict punishment but you (I think it was you, but please correct me if I remember it wrong) thought they should have just been fired and gotten a less strict punishment. If we were going by an objective moral value, shouldn't all violations of separation of church and state be equally punished then? Yet you had argued they should be given a lighter punishment because of their subjective experience.

 

I'm talking about the definition of the word "objective." Objective means something which is made to be a unified thing, regardless of individuals opinions.

Was slavery objectively good in the 19th century because it was legal in the U.S. and it was the popular opinion slavery was a good thing, even though even back then, many Americans protested against the popular opinion about the morality of slavery? Is banning gay marriage objectively good now because the majority of America is against it and it's illegal in the majority of the states?

[Shyone]

Was slavery objectively good in the 19th century because it was legal in the U.S. and it was the popular opinion slavery was a good thing, even though even back then, many Americans protested against the popular opinion about the morality of slavery? Is banning gay marriage objectively good now because the majority of America is against it and it's illegal in the majority of the states?

Slavery was not good, but it was objectively real; objective.

 

The laws supporting slavery were objective. They applied at the time.

 

The repeal of slavery was objective.

 

The law, for good or evil, is created by humans and indeed verifiable - written - and therefore objective.

 

The words "good" and "bad" are subjective words, so I don't think you can say anything is "objectively good or bad." It would be an oxymoron. We can say that something is universally good or bad (everyone agrees).

 

It boils down to semantics.

[Ouroboros]

I hope Chefranden will correct me if I get this wrong, but I don't think he means people should just apply the law arbitrarily based on nothing but their personal feelings, but you have to take into account the different situations before you pass a judgment. That's why we have a human court who runs the law and our justice system isn't done all by an emotionless computer. Think of it as like that one separation of church and state issue we were debating awhile back where I thought the violators should have been given a strict punishment but you (I think it was you, but please correct me if I remember it wrong) thought they should have just been fired and gotten a less strict punishment. If we were going by an objective moral value, shouldn't all violations of separation of church and state be equally punished then? Yet you had argued they should be given a lighter punishment because of their subjective experience.

No, I didn't argue they should be given a lighter punishment.

 

The law is written as a text, objective and above the defendant's personal opinions, views, and emotions. The law doesn't change because the defendant doesn't like the law.

 

In other words, it is objective in relationship to the defendant. If it was subjective, the law would have to be applied based on each defendants views and opinions.

 

What I'm talking about is how the word "objective" is used and using law as an example of something which is objective to individual opinions and yet it is created by humans (or the collective).

 

Was slavery objectively good in the 19th century because it was legal in the U.S. and it was the popular opinion slavery was a good thing, even though even back then, many Americans protested against the popular opinion about the morality of slavery? Is banning gay marriage objectively good now because the majority of America is against it and it's illegal in the majority of the states?

You're talking about objective on a higher level. I explained in one post that "objective" has different levels.

 

In the lowest level, something objective is something which exists above and beyond a person's feelings and opinions.

 

The speed limit on the road is neither good or bad, it's just something humans have created arbitrary based on accident statistics and human behavior. But yet, when I drive, I don't change the law by changing my opinion about the law. I can't drive faster because I feel like it and hence undo the law. The law is objective in relation to me. My opinion, my feeling, my idea, or my attitude will not change the speeding limit law.

 

Of course I could have a legitimate reason to speeding (a close family member is in the hospital), and of course such mitigating circumstances exists, but those are not my feelings. I can't use my feelings or my opinions as mitigating circumstances for speeding.

 

Look at the definition of the word "objective." Does it include any reference to "good" or "bad"? Does it make any statement about if God is involved in what is objective? Nope. It doesn't. Objective is only a word for something which exists (however it came to be) outside a person's opinion or feeling. I believe the law exists without my opinion about it. But it doesn't mean that it makes the law right, wrong, good, or bad, that's not what "objective" means.

[hereticzero]

In closing, I never asked for evidence against my GOD. I wouldn't do that. I also am not going to give any sort of "proof" that He exists, because I don't think that there is any in the same way that there is proof of something like the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. But it isn't a detriment...I don't need any such evidence to get a basic belief off the ground. In just the same way, I needn't have any evidence at all that the law of non-contradiction is true for me to be rational in believing it.

Philosophically speaking, true, you 'did not ask for evidence against' your god, but the implication of your post are what science cannot prove, which generally leads Christians to question how can someone claim science has all the answers when it cannot prove your philosophical points. We've had a lot of people blow through here trying to teach us poor heathens something intellectually stimulating and then they blow away just as fast as they came in. Your statement of science not being able to prove The Theory of Evolution shows how uninspired your way of thinking is. For one, there is no theory of evolution. There is Charles Darwin's On the Origin Of Species, which many claim to be the theory of evolution. Secondly, science has proven Darwin's theory to be true based on the EVIDENCE, by means of collected data. Evolution has been proven even at the genetic level by Ken Miller, a world renowned Professor at Brown University. He also claims to be a Christian, in case you are wondering. He, a Christian, provided enough evidence to support evolution and convince the court, in the Case of Dover School District (PA), who sought the court's help in mandating the teaching of Intelligent Design as factual science, wherein, the court ruled against Dover that faith in a supreme being was not science. That was a highly intelligent Christian that proved the value of evolution and offered proof that evolution was a true scientific fact and not just a theory. It, unlike Christian doctrine, is supported by the facts.

 

Philosophically speaking, philosophy needs no more proof to validate one's philosophy than stating, 'I believe this to be philosophically true, etc., etc..' By this method you can claim to carry on an intellectual debate based on your philosophy and your faith in that philosophy to hold true. It doesn't. Philosophy also has to be based on correct assumptions based upon factual evidence to support one's philosophy. It is like stating a theory, if you have no factual data to support a theory, then it fails. Likewise, no factual data to support reasoning philosophically, then the philosophy fails.

[hereticzero]

I was trying to come up with examples of things for which we lack evidence but which we are rational to believe to show why science may not be able to speak to the existence of GOD.

 

This statement is what I was talking about in my last post.