List of reasons to believe God exists?

[Jehanne]

It's not in the latest Catechism (2nd edition, by the way), but that's slated for a revision here soon (next century?), with Francis' new "dogma" of the divorced and civilly remarried receiving the "Blessed Sacrament".

It's almost like they are just making shit up as they go along.  Go figure.

The term that secularists use for that is called "religion".

---

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.   

I understand your position. Your moral system produces some level of objective morality on most questions because most questions have some objectively knowable fact of the matter. 

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.

Setting aside that you use pejorative language to make you position appear stronger, you are completely wrong there is no ambiguity--even under your system. At the most, you have explicitly denied any rights or value to the child and at the least you have given preference to the mothers desires over the rights or value of the child. This is totally subjective.

---

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?

You are literally saying that this issue is entirely subjective. Thank you.

Oh, yeah, like it is "subjective" to say that the State should have control over my hands and what I can do with those hands with respect to my own body.

[RoadRunner79]

This is kind of funny, because the second part I highlighted, shows that you do not understand what subjective and objective mean in regards to the moral argument for God.  It doesn't have anything to do with it being accessible to us, ones knowledge of it, or speaking objectively about it.  It is about the nature of morality, and what is the basis for calling anything right or wrong.  An objective morality, is what gives one any real rights (that I have heard tossed around here a lot lately).  It why you can talk about rights and morals outside of the individual or the social grouping, at all, and that they may be correct or incorrect in doing so.  So despite your confidence, you are only demonstrating your ignorance.

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

I understand your position. Your moral system produces some level of objective morality on most questions because most questions have some objectively knowable fact of the matter. 

I don't think that you do, since my moral system is based only on the unambiguous, and if there is ambiguity I withhold judgement, as would be prudent, as I explained.

Setting aside that you use pejorative language to make you position appear stronger, you are completely wrong there is no ambiguity--even under your system. At the most, you have explicitly denied any rights or value to the child and at the least you have given preference to the mothers desires over the rights or value of the child. This is totally subjective.

That our laws cannot coherently justify a prohibition on abortion is a statement of fact, not opinion. Legality, is not morality, nor is it decided by my opinion. That people can have an opinion about it, is a trivial subjectivity. We have opinions about facts. Quelle surprise.

---

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?

You are literally saying that this issue is entirely subjective. Thank you.

Am I? I think it's strange that you think so, looking at the above..since I didn't. At some point you'll have to learn to use that term properly.  I'm asking you, as a moral realist, considering all relevant facts, whether it would be moral for you, by your actions, to make what you already consider to be a shitty situation worse. This question assumes, for the sake of conversation..that "baby killing" is immoral in a vacuum (an assumption shared by you and just about every other human beoing on the planet....). Is that where you're objective assessment of the morality..not the legality, the morality of abortion begins and ends? I;m not sure you're capable of such an assessment, if that;s the case. That would be half baked moral absolutism, not moral realism.

What's ambiguous about that, and do you think that the only way to determine which situation is worse will reduce to a meaningful subjectivity, rather than the trivial subjectivity of me asking you your opinion?

This is -your- failure to engage in an objective assessment and to understand the terms you're using or the subject we're discussing. It is not a failure of moral realism, not an issue of ambiguity, and not an indication of moral subjectivity.

[RoadRunner79]

You are literally saying that this issue is entirely subjective. Thank you.

Oh, yeah, like it is "subjective" to say that the State should have control over my hands and what I can do with those hands with respect to my own body.
[/quote]

The issue is not at all about what your hands do to your own body. When what your hands do, kills another human being, then it is no longer just your concern. This is a horrible way to try to avoid the issue, and justify killing little humans.

[Mystic]

Wallym, do you remember the argument, if morality is objective, than it is eternal? It made use of some premises and then proved this conclusion.

So do you find fault with that argument? That would be a fact about morality. I will rephrase it to suit our purposes:

1. If a hypothetical Creator can create morality from nothing, it would be able to make it what it wishes.
2. If it can make it what it wishes, it can be arbitrary.
3. If it can be arbitrary, it can be the case that torturing an innocent soul forever morally good to do.
4. It is impossible it is morally good to do if objective morality exists.
5. If objective morality exists, than a Creator cannot create objective morality from nothing.
6. If a hypothetical Creator cannot create objective morality out of nothing than nothing else can.
7. Therefore if objective morality exists, it is eternal.

And if we combine it with our argument, we see we have vivid knowledge, that cannot be objective morality and non-eternal at the same time.

That means we do have knowledge of an objective moral fact which if premise 1 is true, would prove objective morality to be real.

[The Grand Nudger]

I suspect that this conversation will never be productive.  No one's looking to go kill them some babies or justify killing them some babies.  Nobody.  I'll say it again, nobody...so just cut the shit?

The basis of the legal decision is nothing -other- than what the state can and can't force a person to do with their own body.  That -is- the issue.  The roe v wade case affirmed the -legality- of a woman's right to an abortion.  It did not justify baby killing, or affirm any moral proposition whatsoever. If we can't engage with that fact, we cannot engage in a productive conversation -about- that fact. From the moral angle, anti-abortion laws were a disaster. That is a fact. If we cannot engage with that fact, then we cannot engage in any conversation -about- that fact...including whether or not there are any moral facts to be had.

If there aren't any such facts to be had..and it's all "just like, your opinion...man" then perhaps we should kindly shut the fuck up about how immoral abortion is? This thread has become a reason not to believe in a god. If there were one, he'd have struck some dipshits with lightning by now, out of pure disappointment. It's kind-of his thing, to hear the story told.

[henryp]

That we have the ability to come up with a system to determine and assess the moral rightness and wrongness of acts means that it is possible for morality to be objective...

A person can come up with a system to determine and assess which flavor of ice cream tastes the best.  Which girl is the prettiest.  What joke is the funniest.  How to assess moral rightness and wrongness.

A second person can come up with a different system to determine and assess which flavor of ice cream tastes best.  Which girl is the prettiest.  What joke is the funniest, and how to assess moral rightness and wrongness.

--

If you want one system to be objectively true, what you need is ANOTHER system that compares the two systems and says which system is better.

Uh oh, someone else has a system that also compares the two systems and says which one is better in a different way.

--

So now we need a system to compare systems that compares systems to see which of those is better.
 
God damn it!  Wouldn't you know it, someone else also made a system to compare systems that compares systems.  

and so on forever and ever and ever and ever.

[Catholic_Lady]

Objective morality makes no sense unless you believe in a deity

[henryp]

Wallym, do you remember the argument, if morality is objective, than it is eternal? It made use of some premises and then proved this conclusion.

So do you find fault with that argument? That would be a fact about morality. I will rephrase it to suit our purposes:

1. If a hypothetical Creator can create morality from nothing, it would be able to make it what it wishes.
2. If it can make it what it wishes, it can be arbitrary.
3. If it can be arbitrary, it can be the case that torturing an innocent soul forever morally good to do.
4. It is impossible it is morally good to do if objective morality exists.
5. If objective morality exists, than a Creator cannot create objective morality from nothing.
6. If a hypothetical Creator cannot create objective morality out of nothing than nothing else can.
7. Therefore if objective morality exists, it is eternal.

And if we combine it with our argument, we see we have vivid knowledge, that cannot be objective morality and non-eternal at the same time.

That means we do have knowledge of an objective moral fact which if premise 1 is true, would prove objective morality to be real.

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.

[Amarok]

Objective morality makes no sense unless you believe in a deity

Nope it makes Objective morality has nothing to do with deities