Why "mysterious ways" don't matter.

[SteveII]

Just as we have the capacity to perceive objective beauty, love, logic, etc., we have the capacity to perceive objective right and wrong. The default position is to trust our perceptions until proven otherwise.

Oh, I'm sorry. I must not have been clear to you: I was asking for evidence, not a repeat of the same fiat assertion you made a post before.

Also? If you actually think what you just said counts as evidence, there's the little problem of slipping your conclusion into one of the premises you think demonstrates it, so even your idea of evidence is begging the question.

Is it more probably that objective beauty exists or not?

Objective beauty doesn't exist. Our perceptions of beauty vary wildly, and we find its origin in our evolution, specifically those things we've been programmed to find visually appealing as a survival mechanism. It's no coincidence, off the top of my head, that the traits we find visually appealing in animals- big eyes, symmetry, soft hair- are reminiscent of traits found in human infants, whereas traits we find undesirable- bared teeth, boniness- are hallmarks of aggression in predators.

Is it more probably that objective love exists or not?

Love is an emotion derived from conscious experience. By its very nature it is subjective to the person experiencing it.

Is it more probably that logic exists or not?

Logic exists as observations based on consistent patterns and conformation to reality. Not as some external force.

Is it more probably that objective right and wrong exists or not?

The frame through which we derive moral right and wrong exists objectively, but it's not the source you think it is.

Beauty is a good analogy because objective beauty does exist and our perception of it certainly can't be explained by evolution. We perceive a sunset or a mountain vista as beautiful. We perceive some music as beautiful. If you are suggesting the beauty in a persons face is somehow programmed by evolution, I think that is also wrong. There is no evolutionary value in a pretty face. All that would count is that the opposite sex be young, fertile, and otherwise healthy. It is absurd to think that 60 year old Kim Basinger is not more attractive then most 60 year old women--none of which are ready to bare children.

So, just as we have an aesthetic sense, we have a moral sense. By intuition, we know when a situation is right or wrong. There are baby studies that show that even infants and toddlers recognize right and wrong. http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/us/baby-lab-morals-ac360/

When I mentioned love, it was not a good analogy. We can perceive love by observing two other people. We trust our perceptions that such a thing as love exists. We know it when we see it--just like right and wrong. The same with logic.