List of reasons to believe God exists?

[Jehanne]

 Oh, no problem.  That was a pretty much what I was talking about, and a, b, c, and e have all come up.  And with the priority given, assuming I'm guessing what those words mean correctly, origins of existence/universe seems to be the big one that are rooted in something tangible.  Because we're fairly confident existence exists.  The other things, free will, morals, values, etc..., I think whether or not they exist is debatable.  A debate that is strengthened greatly by having the 'natural theology' thing to build off from.

Well, regarding (d) there are many Christian philosophers that think this is a very promising line of inquiry. If consciousness is not identical to, but more than, brain function, there are interesting questions about supervenience, emergent properties, immaterial  and how that can be in a purely naturalistic framework. 

Regarding the whole enterprise of natural theology, you mentioned in your opening post "If that domino falls, and some nerd explains the origins of the universe...?" I think people have the impression that natural theology arguments are just waiting around to be disproved by science and assume a trend in that direction. However, I think the opposite is true. Scientific discoveries in the last 100 years have fueled old arguments (for example b and c) and created new ones (like d).

Most scientists and most philophers are atheistic, and remain unconvinced by the apologetics of natural theology.

[Catholic_Lady]

I don't see why it would be more weighty if it didn't effect me and if human life didn't have intrinsic value. Otherwise, why would I care so much about a woman being raped and then murdered by her family for being raped on the other side of the globe? I mean, there's empathy so from a purely emotional stand point I would feel sorry for her. But there would be no justifiable, rational reason for me to get really angry at the people who did that to her if I didn't concede that doing so was in fact wrong. But subjective morality people do anyway. (get really angry I mean) 

You get mad because you care about something, and someone hurt the something you care about.  By hurting someone you care about, they are hurting you.  So you get angry.  That seems rational to me.  
Rationally, you may also know there's no reason for them to care about hurting you, but that doesn't mean you still shouldn't have a strong dislike for people and things that hurt you.  Where and how you direct those emotions may vary on the logical scale, but it's an emotional response, so you'd expect that?

I see what you are saying. Though not sure that a purely emotional response can ever be called rational, but it does make sense. 

I suppose the question would then be, is it justifiable to feel extreme anger towards a rapist if it's merely my opinion that rape is immoral? I still think mostly everyone would answer yes, even those who say morality is subjective. They still act as though it isnt.       

As for human life's intrinsic value.  What would you have a bigger emotional response to?  News someone across the world got murdered, or one of your cats dying?  If human value is intrinsic, shouldn't our reaction to human loss be constant?  If my kid died, I'd be fucked up for years.  But 1000's of other kids die every day, and I go about my business.  I'm not exactly like everyone else.  But I think that goes for most people.  We certainly aren't paralyzed by the horror of the world.  Most of us aren't giving up all our stuff and following Jesus.  We shake our fist for a couple minutes, and then get back to it.  If life has intrinsic value, it doesn't seem like it's very much.

From a purely emotional standpoint, I would be more sad about my cats of course. Because I have an emotional bond to them. But that's why morality and value shouldn't be based purely on emotion. If I had to save either my cat or a human being who was a complete stranger, I'd be emotionally inclined to save my cat, but I would know that I ought to save the person.

And likewise I can say that I would be more sad about my husband dying than I would if I heard about your wife's death, but that doesn't mean that my husband's life is objectively of greater value. And I'm sorry, but I need to quote KP again:

"Let's spin it this way.  You hand a homeless man $100 bill.  In that same day you hand Donald Trump $100 bill.  Who values it more?  Donald Trump could use it for toilet paper and not care, where the homeless man may be able to eat for month.  Does the value of that bill change depending on who is using it?  It has objective value of $100 placed on it by the U.S. Government.  So you could argue that the homeless man subjectively places higher value to a $100 bill than Donald trump does, but objectively it's true value never changed."

[Angrboda]

Natural theologists have the audacity to say not only is "It's magic!" a good explanation, but that it is in fact the best.

[Jehanne]

CL, I have no idea why you think that morality is "subjective" if there is no God?! After all, is 2+3 = 5 subjective? Seems like you are assuming a conclusion, once again.

[Catholic_Lady]

Maybe that's what I'm getting at.  I'm not sure!  It does seem like there's room for some confirmation bias.

On the big bang, I'm just not well read enough science wise.  I wonder what those people think that are.  If you are certain the big bang needs God, you'd expect them to be even more certain with their expertise?

I know Hawkins isn't but he could have some bias against a God what with the wheelchair stuff.  I know a lot of old-timey folks were.  I wonder what most modern physicists who look at the origins of the universe as their primary study say.

Here's a quick overview: https://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html

The popular belief seems to be that the universe is an infinite cycle of shrinking into a singularity, and expanding back into the cosmos. Though there is no answer as to how something eternal can reconcile with the laws of physics.

Would it worry you if they were predominantly skeptical on the Deity answer, when you're as convinced as you are that your knowledge of the big bang points towards a Deity?

No. Not unless they found out how this all started and the answer leaves no room for a Deity, then I'd be rocked. But the notion that most scientists are skeptics, in and of itself, doesn't bother me. It tends to be in the nature of these type of folks, which is why they gravitate towards such career field in the first place.

---

CL, I have no idea why you think that morality is "subjective" if there is no God?!  

I explained in my first post.

[RoadRunner79]

CL, I have no idea why you think that morality is "subjective" if there is no God?!

I would agree here... It's more of a problem for the materialist. And while many atheists are materialists, it isn't necessarily so.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not a problem for materialists in the least. Moral realism is filled to the brim with materialist assumptions, it doesn't really work without them...since we're incapable of perceiving or identifying objective "immaterial" facts even if they do exist.

[Jehanne]

CL, I have no idea why you think that morality is "subjective" if there is no God?!

I would agree here... It's more of a problem for the materialist.  And while many atheists are materialists, it isn't necessarily so.

It's like asking Us to explain "why" 2 + 3 = 5.  I deny your premise; I do not think that morality is always subjective.  In other words, there exist brute facts in the Universe, in that there are some things which are intrinsically evil.

[Amarok]

Morality is only a problem for materialists if we had any reason to think they were non material

[The Grand Nudger]

It's one of those common and perplexing objections that's even less than wrong. Religious morality commonly depends upon a materialist justifications as well. The vanishingly small portion that doesn't simply don't justify their moral proclamations at all.

Natural Law™, as conceieved by the believers in this thread, for example..is nothing other than a running list of explicitly materialistic claims regarding divine morality.