Argument from justice.

[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.