Arguments for God in Quran.

[Edwardo Piet]

---

None of you represent all Atheists. And if there is a few who care, that is good enough for me.

Find one and I’ll eat my shoe.

I frequently care about arguing over stupid shit like his beliefs, otherwise I wouldn't do it all the time.

Okay when do I get to watch you eat your shoe? And where? Skype?

[The Grand Nudger]

...........and?  I don't think that we're the authors of morality either.  I don't see how inventing a god improves our position in this regard.

Really, so did you have it from birth and it hasn't changed?

You know what was going through my mind at birth?  Two things.  Thing one, I need to shit.  Thing two..where's the titties?  

Or is genetics and evolution so trustworthy you have to act according to moral instinct?

If I put all my trust in genetics and evolution I'd hardly need a moral system..but...I will say this, my moral instincts are more reliable than your magic book.  So there's that.

[Mystic]

So how did it develop, what is the guiding process, what is the guidance of morality people rely on? If it's you deciding it, than it's not guidance. If it's you recognizing it, what are you recognizing?

And why do we disagree more on it even then taste of food?

[Edwardo Piet]

Saying you are the guide of yourself, is just stating you act on according to your will and decide, it means guidance is not necessary.

Then the only guidance I believe in is guidance from other humans, if we say I cannot guide myself.

Going back to why you need to reformulate your argument then:

What is this "moral guidance that love acts by" according to you?

This "real guidance" that you speak of 1. Needs defining and 2. You need to demonstrate that it cannot exist without a god.

So,

1. first you need to define this guidance, so we know what you're actually arguing for.

2. Then you need to argue that it exists.

3. And finally you need to demonstrate why and how God is required for its existence.

That's it. Three steps. Can't be that hard.

Simply talking about some guidance without it being clear to us what you mean, and then telling us that it exists without demonstrating that it does, and then saying that God can't exist without it without demonstrating why or how... that certainly isn't enough.

If your argument doesn't require a reformulation then neither does mine, and for the exact same reasons (they can be reasonable starting premises because I say so if yours can because you say so and my argument has the exact same logical structure).... and so from the point of view you've displayed here, we have just as much reason to believe in your real God as we do my real spell-casting wizards.

[The Grand Nudger]

This just in! Different people are different! That's not really a problem for me.  Moral disagreement, exists, this is a fact.  It's also a fact that people commonly get the answers wrong on a math quiz.  

I think that underneath that disagreement there's quite a bit of commonality, though.  I think that the fetishist moralizing of religion goes a long way to getting the answers on the quiz wrong, personally.

[Mystic]

I am working with what you guys see of it. You already know my perspective. Trying to see how you guys don't see it the way I do.

[Whateverist]

Hey if there is proof in the koran that's good enough for me. Where do I sign?

[Mystic]

This justin, different people are different, but that;s not really a problem for me.  Moral disagreement, exists, this is a fact.  It's also a fact that people commonly get the answers wrong on a math tequizt.  

I think that underneath that disagreement there's quite a bit of commonality, though.  I think that the fetishist moralizing of religion goes a long way to getting the answers on the quiz wrong, personally.

That's not really answering the question.

We get things wrong, but what is the recognition of the right? What is right morality?

---

Hey if there is proof in the koran that's good enough for me.  Where do I sign?

The sign is already in you.

[The Grand Nudger]

I can't swoop down and save-a-ho anymore than your imaginary god can, Mystic. I;m fallible, and limited. One of my limitations is in being incapable of expressing a moral truth to a person who asserts that there can be none. If you don;t have a moral sense and we have no common moral experience then how could I possibly communicate a moral concept to you? Do you even know what we're discussing?

May as well argue with my cat.

[Edwardo Piet]

So how did it develop, what is the guiding process, what is the guidance of morality people rely on? If it's you deciding it, than it's not guidance. If it's you recognizing it, what are you recognizing?

And why do we disagree more on it even then taste of food?

It's not clear what this "guidance" you speak of, even means. It sounds like you're talking about some kind of transcendent force of grace or something. No such thing exists.

I'm a moral realist too. In the sense that I believe there are objectively true and false moral propositions, but I don't believe in some ontological "force" of morality. Morality isn't a thing besides the subjective values (subjective in a different sense) that reside in our brains. It's simply that some of those values are more moral than others, and hence some statements about them are morally true whereas some are morally false.