List of reasons to believe God exists?

[henryp]

...

Thanks for the discussion, by the way.  The personal experience aspect is an interesting one.  I tell my catholic mother who's upset all her kids ditched Catholicism to just come haunt us or something along those lines after she dies.  It'd be interesting if something did happen to try and adjust my view on things to include that.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Oh, it gets worse that those! The pro-abortion arguments rest entirely on the legal (subjective) interpretation of personhood - the same one that assigns personhood to corporations.
And the pro-abortion arguments dismiss the objective scientific fact that from the moment of conception the fetus is a distinct human being.

There is also the objective scientific fact that, at conception, it is still a fertilized egg, not a fetus ...

Your nit-pick about the nomenclature of human development is irrelevant. A zygote is still a complete and distinct human being.

[GrandizerII]

It doesn't say anything about morality other than God is the ground for morality. Theists themselves then have to decide the specifics regarding morality, and so end up still being in the same boat as non-theists trying to figure it out.

Having some kind of universally applicable ground for morality is a difference that makes a difference with respect to human dignity, something that is either merely asserted or missing entirely from non-theistic moral systems. Also, it is very important to have agreement that something is before having a discussion about what something it. Otherwise, you're just talking past one another.

Great, so let's agree God is the ground for morality (as opposed to relying on concepts such as pain and happiness and such), then what? What does this say about what the moral system is like?

[Amarok]

From that article on morality:

It's also worth noting that despite examining several different moral theories in his book, from constructivism, to instrumentalism, to consequentialism, to virtue-ethics, to utilitarianism, Carroll never gives serious consideration to the theistic view. He never considers God to be the objective ground of morality. This is likely because Carroll presumes poetic naturalism is true, and thereby precludes God from the outset.

That's because the theist view of morality is basically a vacuous one. It doesn't say anything about morality other than God is the ground for morality. Theists themselves then have to decide the specifics regarding morality, and so end up still being in the same boat as non-theists trying to figure it out.

It's less then vacuous . It's non existent .

[GrandizerII]

There is also the objective scientific fact that, at conception, it is still a fertilized egg, not a fetus ...

Your nit-pick about the nomenclature of human development is irrelevant. A zygote is still a complete and distinct human being.

Apparently not distinct or complete enough to be able to survive outside someone else's body.

[Amarok]

Having some kind of universally applicable ground for morality is a difference that makes a difference with respect to human dignity, something that is either merely asserted or missing entirely from non-theistic moral systems. Also, it is very important to have agreement that something is before having a discussion about what something it. Otherwise, you're just talking past one another.

Great, so let's agree God is the ground for morality (as opposed to relying on concepts such as pain and happiness and such), then what? What does this say about what the moral system is like?

Aside Neo first assertion being bullshit (Non theism is grounded ) . Make believing in god does nothing. It's not any kind of actual grounding it's just mythology .

---

Your nit-pick about the nomenclature of human development is irrelevant. A zygote is still a complete and distinct human being.

Apparently not distinct or complete enough to be able to survive outside someone else's body.

Which is the central issue . A woman is under no obligation to host an intruder .Simply being distinct from the parent means nothing .

[Neo-Scholastic]

Your nit-pick about the nomenclature of human development is irrelevant. A zygote is still a complete and distinct human being.

Apparently not distinct or complete enough to be able to survive outside someone else's body.

Again a nit-pick. Throughout the life of a human being, he or she is often dependent on others for survival. Infants cannot survive on their own either without adult care. Nor can the extremely sick or infirm. On whom someone is dependent is irreverent. The pro-abortion argument is also based on avoiding responsibility to provide for the care of one's dependents.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, personhood this and pro-abortion that.  You know what, fuck it.  They're right.  Let's outlaw it and go back to Dr Coathangar in his Back Alley Abortion Bonanza.  We won't actually save any babies, but we will get to punish those filthy whores.

God wills it! Unless she may be an adulteress..then he recommends abortion as a test of her marital fealty.

[GrandizerII]

Apparently not distinct or complete enough to be able to survive outside someone else's body.

Again a nit-pick. Throughout the life of a human being, he or she is often dependent on others for survival. Infants cannot survive on their own either without adult care. Nor can the extremely sick or infirm.

Yeah, but not by remaining inside their mother's body. That would be even more hell for the mother.

[Catholic_Lady]

...

Thanks for the discussion, by the way.  The personal experience aspect is an interesting one.  I tell my catholic mother who's upset all her kids ditched Catholicism to just come haunt us or something along those lines after she dies.  It'd be interesting if something did happen to try and adjust my view on things to include that.

Thank you for asking us to share our views, and for doing so genuinely. Seems like a lot of times, when someone asks, it's only so that they can immediately turn around and ridicule us. I appreciate the productive discussion. It was fun.