Argument from justice.

[Cyberman]

Mystic... when one has to try as hard as you are doing to prove something that you insist ought to be trivially obvious, it's reasonable to speculate on precisely whom you are trying to convince - us? Or you?

[Jesster]

Mystic... when one has to try as hard as you are doing to prove something that you insist ought to be trivially obvious, it's reasonable to speculate on precisely whom you are trying to convince - us? Or you?

He's obviously not trying to convince us. If you disagree with him long enough, he'll put you on ignore and run away. He's probably just trying to prove something to himself.

[Cyberman]

If you disagree with him long enough, he'll put you on ignore and run away.

I wish him luck with that.

[FatAndFaithless]

..Slapping together a list of premises out of thin air doesn't make an argument, or a good argument.

[Mystic]

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

If you believe in justice, you have to believe in the potential of applying justice as humans to one another. We haven't see that justice happen, but we all believe the potential of that is there and believe we ought to work for it.

Do you disagree with this?

[bennyboy]

If you believe in justice, you have to believe in the potential of applying justice as humans to one another. We haven't see that justice happen, but we all believe the potential of that is there and believe we ought to work for it.

You're not very observant. We see justice in action all the time. Sometimes, the legal system gets it right, and a transgressor pays appropriately for his transgressions.

And anyway, who the fuck is a muslim to talk about justice? Girls getting stoned to death for the crime of being raped-- pretty fucking just, is it?

[Cyberman]

I understand the principle - for want of a better word - is "kill 'em all and let god sort it out".

[Pat Mustard]

1. Justice either has a basis or it doesn't.
2. If it has a basis, then justice itself is the basis of all instances and application.
3. If doesn't have a basis, it's arbitrary.
4. If it's arbitrary it's contradictory and delusional.
5.If it has a basis, it must have a real existence and not be a mere relative conceptual framework that we sort of agree upon.
6. There exists a non-arbitrary justice potential.
8. Therefore a basis of justice exists.
9. Therefore justice exists.
10. Therefore justice has a real existence.
11. We haven't seen justice in this world as of yet, which means it's basis must be eternal.
12. If justice exists, then humanity will eventually experience justice.
13. Therefore humanity will eventually experience justice.
14. Justice by definition gives everything it's due.
15. The only being that can give everything it's due, is the perfect judge and the one who sees things as they are.
16. If justice, exist, then the perfect judge exists.
17. Therefore, the perfect judge exists.

1...2....3....let's see everyone deny justice.............

Justice is simply the interpretation of human morality through societal instiutions. And bot morality and institutions are a result of human evolution as a social species.

Therefore the exisence of justice does nothing to prove allah.

[Whateverist]

1. Justice either has a basis or it doesn't.

I wonder what exactly you have in mind by saying the concept of justice has a "basis" - or doesn't.

noun

1. 1. 
   just behavior or treatment.
   "a concern for justice, peace, and genuine respect for people"
   synonyms:
   fairness, justness, fair play, fair-mindedness, equity, evenhandedness, impartiality, objectivity, neutrality, disinterestedness, honesty, righteousness, morals, morality
   "I appealed to his sense of justice"
   

Does "a concern" require a basis.  Please say more about what you mean by "having a basis". 

[The Grand Nudger]

He means Allah.  

"No allah, no justice!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k