What's your best argument for God's existence?

Then ponder my claim, and see how a denial of my God is profession of nihilism, and that it renders your very objection to God meaningless. You have no ground to stand on.

I would actually say that you have no ground to stand on.... your only justification of your claim is semantic nonsense that is another claim into itself. Why don't you ponder why I am disagreeing, and I'll do the same. Also, your continued cry of "Nihilism" isn't even accurate. That is a rather shallow view of morals you have if you think that.

Because I value well being, my reasoning for valuing that it works practically and humans ought to care about it deductively, not just their own, but other peoples. Now, this reasoning is subjective in the nature that humans valuing something or having ought to isn't really an objective in regards to morals, I happen to be a human and think that we ought to, hence the reasoning.

Due to your emotional appeal of humans correct?

nuh uh, not an emotional appeal, a subjective appeal the two aren't necessarily linked.

I’ll get back to that but for now I’ll say, if your standard of subjective is contingent on the mind then what about other degrees of subjectivity like our tastes in music isn’t that contingent on the ears, or food isn’t that contingent on our tastebuds? Unless you don’t think those subjects such as food and music are subjective?

I mean... that's the definition of subjective - "Dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence." that was the definition I cited, and the definition that I have been referring to, that's how subjective things work, now, they can also work when describing something that is influenced by emotions and such, but thats not what I was referring too.

Ah, so you want to nitpick the definition where it suits you huh?

Let's get something straight here - NONE of the definitions of harm suit what you thought they did, there are exactly two definitions of subjective - both of which refer to different things - this is subjective in opposition of objection, look at the wording here - the words are literally opposites of one another and they fit most topically:

Subjective - Dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.

Objective - Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.

As for god? Seriously, I could get into a whole other rant about why he's wrong there, oh wait, I ALREADY DID THAT HERE AND IN ANOTHER FORUM seriously this is the second time Mopac and I have gone back and forth over the same thing.

So what about logic? Doesn’t that stem from the mind? Unless you think that’s subjective as well.

Well no, technically logic is an abstract way to describe what we see, its kinda of like math in that regard. Math doesn't "exist" in the same ways trees exist, but obviously 2 + 2 always equals 4. The way we describe it is technically man made, but the actual mechanics and rules are just the rules of the universe, we just describe it.

So if you call someone a logical person isn’t it their mind that’s the basis behind that conclusion?

Well, their mind is the property that allowed them to come to a conclusion, but no, unless that thing is subjective then no, there was an objective reason they used, as well as the rules of logic, to come to a conclusion.

You said your appeal was a subjective one but would you have that subjective appeal if you didn’t have emotions?

You don't necessarily need emotions for something to be subjective, as I have already explained.

My position is very reasonable. It is that without having the charity to come to understand us, you will never do so by leaning on your own understanding.

I understand your position very well. I also do not hold it against you, because I know how much is being invested into making what we believe unintelligible. The worldview of your culture was very specifically constructed to negate Christianity. Not through anything but deceit. It is not your fault.

But charity may come in when the realization hits that your understanding of my faith in no way resembles the faith that I actually hold. In fact, that is a big red flag that there is a phenominal misunderstanding. It is a misunderstanding that has very real consequences in the world. Where does it lead? Always violence against us. It is fine, it is to be expected. The savior Himself said it was to be this way.

Once again, I point to the clue that leads to charity. You are never going to demonstrate that you understand what you are opposing. Rather, you are opposing that which you don't understand. Because the truth is not in you, it is not possible for you to have anything other than a superficial understanding of the faith. No doubt even polluted by what you hear from the heretics.

The only way out is love. It is important too. The world needs it right now. Without it, iniquity will multiply as the idolatries of men lead into ever deepening depravity.

You didn’t answer the question and merely denying isn’t explaining.

I did answer the question, I said no, that's not really dodging the question - I literally answered the question. I also explained my answer, no, if someone is logical then that means they came to a logical conclusion at some point, which is using logic, not necessarily their mind, again, unless that conclusion is subjective

Um.... I would have charity for the position if it was demonstrated, I would have more charity if it wasn't so oppressive, I would have charity if it wasn't harmful. To you your conclusion is reasonable, of course it is, it is also a massive begging the question fallacy and an assertion that you assert is a fact... I need evidence for that claim there.

I’m talking about the question in regards to emotions.

There is nothing harmful or oppressive about my faith. This is however, what those who constructed the worldview of your culture want you to believe.

Yes I did answer that one too, quote:

I answered your question in Post #314 which said, and I quote:

I guess I could be more concise? Yes. You could have a subjective appeal without emotions, I referenced that I already explained it, and I have, whenever I talked about how one definition of subjective is talking about being influenced by emotions and the other is something which is contingent on the mind to be true. I talked about that in post #307

Who constructed my worldview? I want to know who you think made it? Hm.. guess?

Seriously dude, if someone harmed a loved one of yours and you respond by crying then that’s an emotional response, happiness, sadness, that’s all emotional why because you care and caring is emotional period.

Yes... that is.. I fail to see how that's relevant to what we're talking about, my emotional response and whether morality is objective or subjective have nothing to do with one another

...Your emotional response proves you have an emotional appeal to the loved one that was harmed, and that emotional appeal shapes your “moral” view on “well being” come on man it’s not that far fetched.

What? No, that could be a reason why someone comes to that conclusion, but that isn't why I specifically came to that conclusion, I have an entire forum discussing why I came to that conclusion as well as two debates, trust me, I don't need some appeal to emotion here. Also, all of this is waaay off point. This forum was supposed to be your best argument for god, yet you immediately conceded it whenever I pushed.

I still stand by my argument I only conceded earlier for sake of the discussion and since your “moral” view is predicated on emotional appeal it’s fallacious by default, feel free to point me in the right direction of your forum and debates otherwise have a nice day.

"Emotional by default", what a claim you have failed to substantiate. Interesting how you always seem to do that.