Nature's Laws

[Freedom4me]

I think my point is valid.  It's true that what is "the most just" is often impossible for us to ascertain with perfect precision, but we strive for justice because we are certain that it truly and objectively exists, and that we ought to seek after it.  That, IMO, is the reason why race-based slavery is no longer tolerated in most of the world.  Things that are purely subjective, such as "cashews taste better than peanuts" would be silly to argue about.  But human beings will always argue about what is more/less just.

Do not mistake conceptual for subjective; conceptual things can still refer, in part, to objective reality, without existing as objective entities beyond the minds that consider them. Justice is one such concept; it is itself not objectively real, but it refers to several objective facts about reality and how we interact with it, and using those facts as a yardstick we can determine the quality of justice that a given scenario has.

The far larger issue, however, is that you continue to merely assert that things like justice are products of, or inextricably tied to, your god, without ever feeling the need to argue or support that claim. This is why your point is not valid; what you've said so far is no more impressive than if I'd simply argued back that moral absolutes are evidence of Vishnu. Are you ready to become a Hindu because I said that?

If not, then why would your simple assertion that moral absolutes are evidence for your god make anyone else a christian?

I'm just telling you what I find convincing.  I can't convert anyone.  Just as my conversion was a miracle, so it is for all who, by faith, are saved in Christ.  As I've said, God brought me to a point at which it began to require vastly more faith to remain an atheist than it took for me to believe in the God of the bible.  As I began to evaluate my atheism after reading "Evidence" I began to realize that atheism isn't something positive (like an explanatory and conceptually fulfilling world view), it is merely the negation (or rejection) of theism.  Since atheism is nothing more than that, it doesn't contain or support, and it isn't trying to contain or support, any kind of philosophical foundation for morality, the origins of life, or anything else.  Atheism is highly prized as if it were really something wonderful by those who reject theism, but it is nothing but the rejection of theism.  It is nothing!  How can "nothing" make a person free?