List of reasons to believe God exists?

[SteveII]

You say that with some sense of satisfaction. Over 50,000,000 babies have died and you use it as a barb. Doesn't matter what your position on religion is, this should sicken you. You sicken me.

Yeah, feel sorry for all those sperm, also!  After all, only 1 out of 100,000,000 get the big prize!  The rest of those poor suckers either end-up in the landfill or in the sewer!!  Pity, pity!!  And, what about those 30 to 40% of "unborn" who miscarry spontaneously???  The Jehovah, the great abortionist, must be a sick SOB to send all of those unborn infants to eternal hell.

I will double down on "you sicken me".

---

Ah, you bring up a good point (though not the one you intended). You can salvage your position but the price you will have to pay for your "objective morality" is to condemn elective abortion on the same grounds a theist would condemn it: all human life has intrinsic value--a position you can back up with both metaphysical and scientific reasoning AND is does not contain "biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject". There's your moral fact of the matter. Well, are you ready to march on a clinic? 

Why would there be some "price" to pay at all?  I did expand on my own position with regards to the subject of abortion, and I'm not sure why you continue to reference trivial subjectivity -or- meaningful subjectivity, between us...both being moral realists.  That;s just not an adequate grounds for moral assessments, in my opinion...and where I cannot establish some objective immorality (or where some accounting of all relevant facts of the matter produce a zero sum or inverted conclusion), I withhold moral condemnation.

That seems prudent, don't you think?  I'm not particularly enamored with abortion..and most pro-choice advocates aren't either, but that doesn't warrant my declaring that the legality of abortion is somehow an example of immorality or that having an abortion is, itself, immoral.  Whenever the choice is between shit or twice as much shit, I'll take the single serving- and that's assuming shit is being served at all.

First, thanks for the writing practice. 
I am not arguing that you're not a moral realist. I think most people are intuitively so--whether a theist or not (that's one of the premises of the moral argument for God). I am arguing epistemology. If a moral system can produce ambiguity as described above and then leaves it to people to insert their biases caused by feelings/ideas/opinions to make up the balance of the consideration as to a moral question, then that is simply not an objective system. It may produce objective results in most cases, but it is not an objective system.