List of reasons to believe God exists?

[Amarok]

2) The thing with objectivity, is that it's premises also have to be objective.  An objective conclusion based on a subjective premise is subjective.  That's where people are going to try and slip one by you.

I suspect that this will devolve into a meaningless or trivial subjectivity.  That we are all subjective agents, and necessarily so, does not prevent us from recognizing or describing objectivity.

I subjectively experience writing this post.  You subjectively experience reading it.  It's existence, however....and the truth of whether or not there is a post, and the contents of the post, can be objectively determined apart from either of our subjective experience thereof.   Now...it might be helpful to mention that  the objection above is not actually an objection to moral realism itself, but a more fundamental objection to the existence of facts or our ability to possess them.  If you object to this, how can we communicate or argue for anything..including the nonexistence of or inability to possess facts?

The claim of moral realism is small, unencumbered by any additional requirements.  There is no need to deny our subjectivity in order to assert or demonstrate moral objectivity, no need to "slip" anything by anyone.  That;s not to say that people don;t do that...that people won;t make the attempt in order to argue that some subjective or arbitrary (or divine) x is objective morality.  They will, and they do.  That;s because those people are bad at logic, and bad at moral realism..not because there's some particular issue with moral realism in that regard.  

If -that- is what you're objecting to, then you're objecting to incompetence, not moral realism.  You are responding to their mistakes, not the claim itself.

Indeed moral realism is a humble proposal . It's just humans are not great at it .

[henryp]

I've had khem on ignore for like a month. He hasn't been responding to my posts all this time, has he?

[The Grand Nudger]

Mission accomplished.  

Not gonna lie, I derive a certain amount of pleasure from posting thorough refutations of whatever it is those who have me on ignore are yanking peoples chains about -as- they yank people chains. It's tickles me to realize that they aren't aware of the running commentary. It's easily the greatest benefit of being a rank and file user.

[Aegon]

When illiterate Muhammed created the Koran the concept of other planets did not exist! Why? The human sourced gods never knew more than their human creators know.

 In Abraham's time men knew there were about 6000 stars, yet God told Abraham they were innumerable. So the God of Abraham knew more than Abraham and all other people.

GC

If you're using the Christian God's alleged interaction with a human as proof for the existence of the Christian God then you've skipped a few steps.

[henryp]

Mission accomplished.  

Not gonna lie, I derive a certain amount of pleasure from posting thorough refutations of whatever it is those who have me on ignore are yanking peoples chains about -as- they yank people chains.  It's tickles me to realize that they aren't aware of the running commentary.  It's easily the greatest benefit of being a rank and file user.

Keep up the good work!  I'll try to soldier on despite the blistering refutations secretly occurring after each of my posts.

[The Grand Nudger]

 In Abraham's time men knew there were about 6000 stars, yet God told Abraham they were innumerable. So the God of Abraham knew more than Abraham and all other people.

GC

If you're using the Christian God's alleged interaction with a human as proof for the existence of the Christian God then you've skipped a few steps.

There's that...but theres this other even weirder thing at the end.  I'm willing to bet that alot of people knew more than "abraham" and that alot of people know more than GC.  So....when does he plan on prostrating himself before them?

[Amarok]

Mission accomplished.  

Not gonna lie, I derive a certain amount of pleasure from posting thorough refutations of whatever it is those who have me on ignore are yanking peoples chains about -as- they yank people chains.  It's tickles me to realize that they aren't aware of the running commentary.  It's easily the greatest benefit of being a rank and file user.

Yup it's fun .No denial 

[GUBU]

Moral disagreement neither implies nor demonstrates that morality is subjective.  I suspect that most people, placed in any culture and any timeframe, would find at least certain elements of a great many disparate moral systems familiar.  If they really sought to understand the underlying motivations, they would even find that things which seemed entirely counterintuitive and morally "counterfactual" arise from the same motivations that their own moral propositions arose from.

We notice, for example, that rape and pillagers didn't seem to have a particular aversion to rape or pillage..but we forget that they were unlikely to consider it a justifiable behavior when the victims were their own family, or when it was carried out between members of their own group.  This is a failure to extend their own moral propositions to their logical limits, and often enough it was a practical and explicable omission.  

Moral disagreement such as this is not moral subjectivity, but a subjective experience and selective deployment -of- morality.  If you asked them why they did not want their own daughters raped, or why it was immoral..in all likelihood, they would have told you the same thing that any father would tell you now.  Interestingly, a rape and pillager would have first-hand knowledge..as the aggressor, of exactly why he didn't want his own daughter raped.  

OTOH, they could tell you in plain language why they found it necessary to engage in raids.  They were thinking of their family.  They needed the goods.  If they failed to provide those goods, or provide them at a commensurate rate to the average, their family would suffer.  Necessity and want and suffering are notable for their ability to erode our own moral competence, today..and the same must have been true then.  Even a person who was not completely onboard with the raping and pillaging (and there must have been at least some, no matter what time or culture) would have went off and engaged in the raping and pillaging parties.

Rather than deny moral commonality or moral agreement in response to the claim that this somehow implies a god or lawgiver..it's more useful and accurate to ask what all of those human beings have in common.  The answer being so blissfully obvious that one wonders why a person would point to this, if they were pointing to things, to argue for god.  They're all human beings.  Common biology, common evolutionary history, common pressures and common responses.  It should come as no surprise that human beings are alot alike, we're defined as a group by that very commonality.   A person may as well say "Feet, therefore gods".   In truth, the existence of -people- explains moral agreement -and- moral disagreement.  There is no room for god in either direction.  

We -do- and -should- base our morality off of what we already base our morality.  We could always improve it by making it more consistent, by extending it as far as it's implications suggest, and by removing those items that do not have a proper justification from our moral systems...but there is no issue with morality absent a god.  All morality, in point of fact, is already absent any gods, it's commonality is explained by reference to ourselves, it's disparity is explained by reference to ourselves..and gods..themselves...are little more than projections of  ourselves.  

In all of this, we maintain that our moral propositions...contradictory as they may be to each other, arise from observations of some fact x that others can verify for themselves should they so choose.  This doesn't mean that they all do, we have disagreements over these facts.......but it's difficult to maintain that -no- facts can be found in our moral justifications.  Morality is..very much, an attempt at an objective system of reference, no matter where you go or whose morality you have under consideration.  Our limitations and our compulsions,  explicable by our common humanity handily account for each and every instance when we get this wrong.  When we misapprehend some x for fact, when it is not...but also for each and every instance of getting it right.  Of accurately perceiving and communicating some relevant fact of the matter at hand.

That an accurate perception and effective communication of these facts is beneficial to human life and human societies should be obvious.  A group as small as a single family house won;t work when each member is at the others throats, indifferent to the pain and suffering caused by each member to the other.  The problem is compounded exponentially by greater numbers.  Some moral propositions concern things so fundamental and basic to functioning human relationships that their adherence is a matter of survival, and here again, it should come as no surprise to find that extant societies would share these..if no other, moral propositions between them.  

Morality, common or disparate..individually or at the level of human societies, rather than being a competent argument for or reliable indicator of a lawgiving god..is a damning indictment of the very concept as unnecessary, nonexistent, and fundamentally irrelevant.  Not even the tremendously lazy assertion that "yeah but, like, he created everything..so that's why you can percieve facts, because of the way he made you" can rescue this irrelevance.  If we can perceive facts due to the specifics of our construction..than no matter who or what constructed us -in this way- we would be able to perceive those facts.  Not only is the lawgiver unnecessary -as- a lawgiver...it's not even necessary as a creator.
(lol, think that just about covers everything......)

Tell me why a pro-abortion stance is not extremely subjective.

Tell me why your pro killing of women* stance is moral.

*At least my characterisation of the anti abortion movement has the virtue of being more accurate than its characterisations of both itself and the pro choice movement.

[SteveII]

While moral realism as a subset has left the god proposition behind as uneccessary, that doesn't mean that moral realism is unavailable to you, as a believer.  Frankly, if something truly is objectively wrong..it's objectively wrong regardless of whether or not there is a god..and I'm having trouble understanding why we can't agree to that, between you and I?  

If we can't agree to that..which of us is actually the moral realist.....?  Food for thought....the contention that, in the absence of god, there is no objective morality, is nothing more or les than the contention that..in the absence of god, there are no facts.  How's -that- for an absurd belief?  Can we agree to the existence of facts?  If we can't...what's the point in discussing anything?  If you have to establish god before you can establish facts but you can't establish god without establishing facts...how do you propose to go about doing that for god or facts, moral or otherwise?

I think we can probably discuss the matter unencumbered, personally.

Okay, let's discuss the mechanics of reasoning to an objective moral fact. Morality almost always has to do with assessing comparative value between two or more different options. Value is influences by culture. Every generation exhibits at least small changes in culture which translates into small changes in how the population assesses value. That is why abortion is a great example. 200 years ago, no one made the same arguments as supporters do today. So, obviously the early 19th century and 21st century culture reflected differing views on the morality of the issue and if the claim of the existence of objective morality is to be supported, one of them was wrong. But we are to believe there is an objective moral fact-of-the-matter that can be discovered. Please walk me through how that works.

[Catholic_Lady]

I've had khem on ignore for like a month.  He hasn't been responding to my posts all this time, has he?

I would tell you but I have no idea. I've had him on ignore for over a year now and my experience here has been a million times better lol.