List of reasons to believe God exists?

[henryp]

The problem with introducing anything that doesn't exist in reality into reality, is that it means we're talking about a new hypothetical reality.  And the nature of a hypothetical reality can't be known.  In a hypothetical reality, do things follow logically?  You can't know that they do.  So even an ironclad proof formed with the logic in our reality can't say anything about the nature of a hypothetical reality.  

So in a hypothetical reality with a Creator, there are no premises for us to build arguments on.  

It's the same reason, as an Atheist, I no longer make arguments that try to point out contradictions in the nature of a hypothetical God.  Because those contradictions exist according to logic and understanding of our reality.  But a hypothetical God doesn't exist in our reality.  It's like saying Harry Potter can't fly because of Gravity.

You can always use hypothetical possible worlds to prove things.

I disagree for the reasons I said.  Nothing about a reality that is not our own can be assumed.  That's the whole point of God in the first place.  To have a being that doesn't play by the rules we observe in our reality to explain things we couldn't otherwise explain.  So you're free to make up whatever you want and there's no way to argue for it being true or false, because we don't have access to the hypothetical reality.  

We can speculate for fun.  We can try to apply the rules of our own reality to the hypothetical reality.  But that doesn't meet any standards of proof.  It's just guessing.

[GrandizerII]

Uh, thats you strawmanning me by committing a non sequitur. Not my problem if you cant read.

I don't understand, could you please explain where the non sequitur was, and how you think that straw manned you? 
And if you where not talking about the moral argument for God, then I apologize.  If you where; then talking about a system of knowing, means you don't understand the argument you are attempting to assail, and are just looking foolish by attacking the other poster saying they don't know what they are talking about.

Sure, here's what you basically did.

P1. Grandizer said that the "divine command theory" has lots of problems, including lack of accessibility to God's moral system.
P2. Grandizer earlier mentioned something about objective vs. subjective and how other people did not understand the distinction.
C. Grandizer did not understand the distinction between objective vs. subjective, since Grandizer sad stuff about how the "divine command theory" has problems.

Do you see now how the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, and how you strawmanned me in the process?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Is an acorn an oak tree?

---

Says who?  You??  Does 2+2=4 make sense only with belief in a deity??  I cannot imagine that 2+2 is anything other than 4.  Ditto for morality; there are certain acts that are intrinsically evil.  Abortion is not one of those acts!  In fact, good Catholic women have been having abortions for many centuries.

Actually math facts only makes sense with deity.

So, God "caused" 2+2 to equal 4; could he/she/it have caused it to equal '5'?  Or, any other number, for that matter?
[/quote]
A word is just a word until we agree on what it means.  2+2 could equal "blue" if we agreed on it.  Naturally we have to agree on a lot of things (words) if we are to have any meaningful conversation of else we will all be speaking foreign language gibberish.

[The Grand Nudger]

We can speculate for fun.  We can try to apply the rules of our own reality to the hypothetical reality.  But that doesn't meet any standards of proof.  It's just guessing.

The "possible worlds" line of argumentation implicitly assumes our rules for the purposes of demonstration.  It's not actually a guess about other worlds with other rules, but a way to end-run any given persons strongly held ideas about -this world- by reference to some other, possible world, where all things are equal -except- the point of contention.

For example: In some possible world, where all other things are equal except people's reference to possible worlds for thing you don't believe...-you- would have no problem, with possible worlds.

[Amarok]

I don't understand, could you please explain where the non sequitur was, and how you think that straw manned you? 
And if you where not talking about the moral argument for God, then I apologize.  If you where; then talking about a system of knowing, means you don't understand the argument you are attempting to assail, and are just looking foolish by attacking the other poster saying they don't know what they are talking about.

Sure, here's what you basically did.

P1. Grandizer said that the "divine command theory" has lots of problems, including lack of accessibility to God's moral system.
P2. Grandizer earlier mentioned something about objective vs. subjective and how other people did not understand the distinction.
C. Grandizer did not understand the distinction between objective vs. subjective, since Grandizer sad stuff about how the "divine command theory" has problems.

Do you see now how the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, and how you strawmanned me in the process?

Unfortunately he likely won't

[GrandizerII]

Sure, here's what you basically did.

P1. Grandizer said that the "divine command theory" has lots of problems, including lack of accessibility to God's moral system.
P2. Grandizer earlier mentioned something about objective vs. subjective and how other people did not understand the distinction.
C. Grandizer did not understand the distinction between objective vs. subjective, since Grandizer sad stuff about how the "divine command theory" has problems.

Do you see now how the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, and how you strawmanned me in the process?

Unfortunately he likely won't

Yeah, just as they won't even acknowledge that divine command theory has more problems than almost any version of utilitarianism or consequentialism or some other framework for objective morality, the biggest problem being it's practically useless. Notice that RR didn't even try to address that part; instead, he went for a distractor in the form of strawmanning me.

[ohreally]

Objective morality makes no sense unless you believe in a deity

What was the last objective moral thing you did?

[Jehanne]

Religion offers no unique moral truths, different than those espoused in naturalistic moral systems.  If CL (or, anyone else) can name one, please do!

[GrandizerII]

Religion offers no unique moral truths, different than those espoused in naturalistic moral systems.  If CL (or, anyone else) can name one, please do!

Giving tithes to the church.

[Amarok]

Religion offers no unique moral truths, different than those espoused in naturalistic moral systems.  If CL (or, anyone else) can name one, please do!

The answer is nothing . They just insist magic gives them the right to be angry about rape or murder .

---

Objective morality makes no sense unless you believe in a deity

What was the last objective moral thing you did?

She will insist anything she does is .Because reasons .