List of reasons to believe God exists?

[The Grand Nudger]

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 ( our? ) 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.

I think....and I;ve commented on this before, that your opinion up above is an expression of moral absolutism, that you think theres some requirement of absolutism..but there isn;t, and I;m not a moral absolutist...I'm a moral realist; an objectivist. This would explain why you may feel some duty to march on a clinic, whereas I don't. I just won't be marching -to- a clinic.

Where in any of my posts in this thread did I make the moral argument for the existence of God? You are deflecting.

Oh, my bad, I seemed to recall you connecting god with objective morality in the manner of best explanations and indicators of existence...but if that wasn't you, mea culpa.  Though...the comment still applies to those who do present such a rationalization, and I know for a fact it was presented in this thread.  What's your opinion of that?  I'm guessing you think it's a poor assertion, what with the distance you're putting between yourself and it?

[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. 

[henryp]

You just said you agreed with that premise Wallym in this thread and other threads, so perhaps, clarify your viewpoint and stick to one.

I informally agree that if you want objective morality, it seems like you'd need some sort of God type.  And that if there's a God type of the mildly defined nature you guys would like, it seems like they'd maybe be able to pull off objective morality.

But these are not facts.  They're hypothetical musings.  

I tend not to push back against theists on hypothetical musings because it's just a thought exercise.  Like how tall are unicorns or how many teeth do dragons have.  We could say "well, dragons eat sheep, so they probably need such and such number of teeth minimum."  But it's not really a fact dragons eat sheep.   Or have teeth.  Or anything.  Because Dragons aren't real so they have no traits at all.  

But if we were to pretend there were dragons or objective morality, we can guess about things like that.  It's just not factual because they don't exist.
--

The confusion, I think, is that my musings on things don't necessarily mean I think they are facts that can be used as premises in logical proofs.  Does that clear up why I have some seemingly contradictory positions?

[The Grand Nudger]

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 think so too...but I wouldn't saddle it with the absurd baggage of an argument for a god. No need.

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. 

Something isn't any less objective just because subjective agents are capable of finding a place to insert their subjectivity.  I've been trying to explain this to you for some time now.  Nor would an objective system always provide full or complete answers to any question.  It could only provide as much as there were relevant facts available...and if relevant facts are missing..well..that's that.   

Moral realism isn't a magic bullet that provides a curt answer to every moral question with no ambiguity, absolutely and in every scenario regardless of circumstance - it can;t while simultaneously satisfying the defining criteria of an objective moral system. Though, in the case of abortion, at least in my assessment, there is no ambiguity. All relevant facts considered, it would be morally and legally abhorrent to sentence women to childbirth. Full stop.

[Jehanne]

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".

---

Yeah, your (nonexistent) "god" is a sick SOB.

[Catholic_Lady]

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".

Ladies and gentlemen:

Jehanne, father of 5, supposed lover of science, says there is no difference between sperm and an unborn child!

[henryp]

Let me go find a 3 hour YouTube video on the subject to clear it all up!

[The Grand Nudger]

I do understand, btw, Steve, that you think that killing a fetus is morally abhorrent...but you're not killing them, nor are you complicit in killing them..and all that will or can be achieved by you (or I) sticking our noses in business that is emphatically not ours..is to make the whole situation shittier.

Tell me, as a moral realist..what's worse.  A shitty situation..or one which, by your own actions..you've made even shittier?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

LOL it's a human right to kill humans...according to a diplomatic body representing mostly authoritarian regiemes.

How about a human right to be fucking born!

Quick!  Go screw someone so that a baby can be born.  And then repeat.

[Jehanne]

I do understand, btw, Steve, that you think that killing a fetus is morally abhorrent...but you're not killing them, nor are you complicit in killing them..and all that will or can be achieved by you (or I) sticking our noses in business that is emphatically not ours..is to make the whole situation shittier.

Tell me, as a moral realist..what's worse.  A shitty situation..or one which, by your own actions..you've made even shittier?

A woman has the fundamental human right to control her own reproductive functions; a fetus has no rights until it is outside of her body.