Argument from justice.

[Mystic]

1. Justice either has a basis or it doesn't.
2. If it has a basis, then justice itself is the basis of all instances and application.
3. If doesn't have a basis, it's arbitrary.
4. If it's arbitrary it's contradictory and delusional.
5.If it has a basis, it must have a real existence and not be a mere relative conceptual framework that we sort of agree upon.
6. There exists a non-arbitrary justice potential.
8. Therefore a basis of justice exists.
9. Therefore justice exists.
10. Therefore justice has a real existence.
11. We haven't seen justice in this world as of yet, which means it's basis must be eternal.
12. If justice exists, then humanity will eventually experience justice.
13. Therefore humanity will eventually experience justice.
14. Justice by definition gives everything it's due.
15. The only being that can give everything it's due, is the perfect judge and the one who sees things as they are.
16. If justice, exist, then the perfect judge exists.
17. Therefore, the perfect judge exists.

1...2....3....let's see everyone deny justice.............

Justice is a word humans invented to describe fair treatment and so on.

It's subjective but not completely random, people try and decide what's fair and debate about it and argue about it.

I don't know if we have seen justice in this world yet, I'm not a perfect judge of what justice is, I'm just another human being like everyone else who has an opinion on what being treated fairly is, other people will disagree with my opinion.

I don't know if all humans will experience justice at some point.

You can't look up a word in a dictionary and based on it's meaning say that everyone is going to experience some sort of action in the future, it's just a word used to vaguely describe something, it doesn't mean that a perfect version of it exists and therefore god exists because only he can do this thing perfectly.

At some point in time someone came up with the word "good" this doesn't mean therefore something perfectly, objectively definitively, good exists eternally out there. 
It's just a word people use to describe their subjective experience and a lot of the time it can be agreed upon and a lot of the time it can't.
It's a human word and subject to human experience.

Look at the order of the premises.  You aren't formulating my argument that right.

It's more like I'm saying the potential of justice is part of the definition of justice. Justice is the basis of all applications of justice. There exist a non-arbitrary instances of justice. Hence justice exists and so does it's potential. If it's potential exists, then so did it's basis, which was justice. Since potential of justice hasn't been seen yet, justice must pre-exist before the world as we see it now and history. Giving everything it's due is part of definition of justice which requires a perfect judge.

Well simpler argument is to say justice by it's definition includes giving everything it's due in all possible worlds in all possible scenarios. That is not possible except with a perfect judge.

With it being arbitrary in possible worlds, it would be arbitrary in ours. It's not in ours, so it exists entirely, and hence an absolute perfect judge exists who gives everything it's due and has perception of absolute justice.

In fact, it's so intuitive that justice and perception of people's due right, go hand to hand. That justice is only possible if truly exists and that all applications must be based on this reality, and this reality is a perception, and that perception is the light by which we ought to perceive and act justly by.

These things prove God whether people like it or not. We cannot disconnect names like love, justice, worth, from God, because they are interconnected.

[Jesster]

Justice is the basis of justice? Great argument, MK. You do your religion proud.

By the way, gumballs are the basis of gumballs.

[Mystic]

Love is subjective or objective?

I clarified this already. Do you have short-term memory problems?

Love is the effect of a chemical reaction. Chemical reactions are objective processes.

Does this have a point?

---

The objective process will have a relationship to the subjective experience of human love, which proves your assertion that all subjective experiences ARE ONLY human constructs to be false.

---

Justice is the basis of justice? Great argument, MK. You do your religion proud.

By the way, gumballs are the basis of gumballs.

In this case Justice as an archetype unseen that is the basis of physical actions that are applications of justice is very intuitive but a lot of people miss that. Yes it's simple and intuitive, and inshallah I am pleasing God as well as his Messenger.

[Jesster]

The objective process will have a relationship to the subjective experience of human love, which proves your assertion that all subjective experiences ARE ONLY human constructs to be false.

Woah, pump the breaks. You changed the subject there. You were talking about love before. Now you're talking about the experience we have of love. Our experience of an objective process is subjective based on our personal perception of it.

That does not disprove me in any way, MK. We construct our own subjective opinion of things and we are human, making them effectively human constructs.

---

In this case Justice as an archetype unseen that is the basis of physical actions that are applications of justice is very intuitive but a lot of people miss that. Yes it's simple and intuitive, and inshallah I am pleasing God as well as his Messenger.

I think this is a bald assertion, but I can't work my way past all the gibberish to be entirely sure.

[Mystic]

The objective process will have a relationship to the subjective experience of human love, which proves your assertion that all subjective experiences ARE ONLY human constructs to be false.

Woah, pump the breaks. You changed the subject there. You were talking about love before. Now you're talking about the experience we have of love. Our experience of an objective process is subjective based on our personal perception of it.

That does not disprove me in any way, MK. We construct our own subjective opinion of things and we are human, making them effectively human constructs.

I asked you if subjective things ARE ONLY human constructs?

Naturally, by your definition, even in the framework of love being from God and we act according to it, it would be a human construct. The same is true of justice.

But the context you said was to make it SOLELY human constructs.

Min stated to say it was not from the divine but rather human constructs.

If we are defining simply to be things humans experience and come to believe subjectively with relationship to objective processess, then aside from chemical processes then they can be spiritual processes emanating from the divine.

The goal post is now moved to be saying, there is non-human contructs at work with these beliefs and experiences, but no divine. What has been proven is that it's not simply something we made up which was the original intention of min's post.

See the context.... words have multiple meanings, and I am going to put on you ignore only because I don't have the time to play these games and would rather have a meaningful discussion than the discussions I have with you if you continue with these dishonest approaches.

[bennyboy]

Nobody would deny justice. Justice is an expression of our social instinct for fairness. Its basis is rooted in human nature-- we don't like to be mistreated ourselves, and we don't want to allow others to mistreat members of our society.

[Jesster]

I asked you if subjective things ARE ONLY human constructs?

They are. You are failing to understand what a human construct is.

Naturally, by your definition, even in the framework of love being from God and we act according to it, it would be a human construct. The same is true of justice.

Oh, you're trying to apply this to another being. Fine, I'll follow you here. Now why does another being get more say in a subjective matter than the rest of us?

If we are defining simply to be things humans experience and come to believe subjectively with relationship to objective processess, then aside from chemical processes then they can be spiritual processes emanating from the divine.

Define "spiritual" and then prove that this even exists.

What has been proven is that it's not simply something we made up which was the original intention of min's post.

You've proven nothing of the sort.

See the context.... words have multiple meanings

It would be nice if you figured out one of these meanings so we could start speaking the same language.

and I am going to put on you ignore only because I don't have the time to play these games and would rather have a meaningful discussion than the discussions I have with you if you continue with these dishonest approaches.

Dishonest approaches? Pot, kettle, black.

But sure, I was going to take a nap anyway. Enjoy your hissy fit.

[Angrboda]

Failure in 4, 5, 11, and 12. You keep arguing that something has to be transcendent to be 'real'. It doesn't. And you routinely overlook human nature and group effects.

[paulpablo]

Justice is a word humans invented to describe fair treatment and so on.

It's subjective but not completely random, people try and decide what's fair and debate about it and argue about it.

I don't know if we have seen justice in this world yet, I'm not a perfect judge of what justice is, I'm just another human being like everyone else who has an opinion on what being treated fairly is, other people will disagree with my opinion.

I don't know if all humans will experience justice at some point.

You can't look up a word in a dictionary and based on it's meaning say that everyone is going to experience some sort of action in the future, it's just a word used to vaguely describe something, it doesn't mean that a perfect version of it exists and therefore god exists because only he can do this thing perfectly.

At some point in time someone came up with the word "good" this doesn't mean therefore something perfectly, objectively definitively, good exists eternally out there. 
It's just a word people use to describe their subjective experience and a lot of the time it can be agreed upon and a lot of the time it can't.
It's a human word and subject to human experience.

Look at the order of the premises.  You aren't formulating my argument that right.

It's more like I'm saying the potential of justice is part of the definition of justice. Justice is the basis of all applications of justice. There exist a non-arbitrary instances of justice. Hence justice exists and so does it's potential. If it's potential exists, then so did it's basis, which was justice. Since potential of justice hasn't been seen yet, justice must pre-exist before the world as we see it now and history. Giving everything it's due is part of definition of justice which requires a perfect judge.

Well simpler argument is to say justice by it's definition includes giving everything it's due in all possible worlds in all possible scenarios. That is not possible except with a perfect judge.

With it being arbitrary in possible worlds, it would be arbitrary in ours. It's not in ours, so it exists entirely, and hence an absolute perfect judge exists who gives everything it's due and has perception of absolute justice.

In fact, it's so intuitive that justice and perception of people's due right, go hand to hand. That justice is only possible if truly exists and that all applications must be based on this reality, and this reality is a perception, and that perception is the light by which we ought to perceive and act justly by.

These things prove God whether people like it or not. We cannot disconnect names like love, justice, worth, from God, because they are interconnected.

Yeh so like I said, you're basically doing the same as taking the word "good" and saying that because this word that humans came up with exists therefore something perfectly godlike and objectively good must exist.

It's just a word, a tool for humans to describe things when talking.  We as humans with subjective opinions came up with the word.  A word doesn't prove anything exists or predict anything will happen for certain.

At some point in time someone thought of these words JUST to describe a subjective opinion on something.  Someone might think a certain minumum wage is fair another person might think that wage is not justified. 

We use these words to describe these opinions.

We don't use these words to discover invisable beings who exist outside the universe.

[Astreja]

*facepalm* Dear, sweet Uncle Loki -- Not another idiotic pseudo-logical argument for MK's god! Can we just declare them all to be spam and be done with them?