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

So simply saying “I am a moral subjectivist” explains how you came to the conclusion? Okay

First I came to the conclusion that morals aren't objective because of the whole lack of an objective moral link from standard to morality. Then I realized that that was because the moral link was subjective. Boom done. 

Also, you are committing the fallacy fallacy - which is to claim that because something is fallacious is is necessarily incorrect, which is actually false - but you would also be wrong in the fact that i am not appeal to emotion, never once did I appeal to emotion, you are literally the only one that at all adds emotion to the argument, in fact, you WANT me to add emotions to the argument, and I say, "No." Because not only did I never do that, but I don't need to appeal to emotions. Actually read the forum please before asking more questions.

The spirit of anti-Christ. 

Because you cannot say Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, that is, that when I use the word "God", you do not see what is meant by the word. Rather, like those who crucified Christ and only saw a man, you do not see the divine word that is united to this created word. It is simply a meaningless pronouncement of syllables to you, devoid of meaning. 

The Word is who He says He is. The Ultimate Reality means exactly the essence of those words. The Ultimate Reality itself. The word "God" means The Ultimate Reality, the essence of those words. That is the God I believe. To make my God anything else is to attach to me a God I do not believe in. To refuse to accept this is to talk about a God that is not the God I believe. You are for all practical purposes, talking about something else. We can not have a meaningful discussion.

I can easily counter that by saying the opposite, that argument means nothing.

No... because my position has been supported by the literal nature of how prinicples are, which I already explained, not only this, from that assertion you would have to demonstrate something..... go ahead, I'll wait.... what's that? You have failed to demonstrate a single thing so far, and everytime I push you you run? So let's stop with all of the tu quoque from your side, and you actually demonstrate your position.

Cool, you have claimed that god is the ultimate reality, prove it. Thats all I ask, of course I don't see that, because you haven't demonstrated it. If I were to use your logic and just "give charity" then I would believe in every religion, that doesn't work.

What exactly are you referring to? Your definitions of objective and subjective?

I was referring to the argument I made originally that you attacked semantically and then completely dropped that point.... And again.... don't change the subject, demonstrate your assertion, this is the second post I'm asking.

I don’t know what your talking about but whatever I’ll substantiate my claim, your “moral” view is centered around humans because you value them, that means you care and caring is emotional therefore it’s an emotional appeal once you can accept this I’ll move on to your fallacy fallacy argument.

That wasn't what I was referring to, but okay let's deal with this malarkey. Wrong, I value the well being because it is pragmatic and demonstrative to do so, as I already explained. Yes I care about them, but that's like saying, "You say you love God? That means your argument proving him is an emotional fallacy, wrong!" Yes I care about people but that's not the reasoning behind my argument, the two facts are completely unrelated. If I said, "MOrality is subjective because I care about humans" then you would have a point, but I never said that, not once. You should learn some logical fallacies, you have commited tons. I can't accept something that isn't even a proper citation of an appeal to emotion, your rhetoric in the field of fallacies is so incomprehensible, its attrocious. Let me teach you a few things, shall I?

The burden of proof - whenever you make a claim you have the necessary burden to provide evidence 

An appeal to emotion - whenever you claim that x is true because of emotion, or whenever you appeal to emotion to conclude that x is true

Tu quoque - whenever you fail to address your interlocutor's criticism of your argument, and instead turn it back at them. Example: Person X says -  You clearly didn't change your bedsheets this moring person y. Person Y: Neither did you!

Notice that person Y doesn't actually refute the criticism, instead they simply point it back at person x.

Okay first of all drop the well being point because the fact that there’s no consensus around the definition means that anyone is free to define it as they please meaning an opposing definition is just as good as yours, second emotional fallacy doesn’t apply when you add logic to the equation and if there is indeed a God (which I believe there is) then it is completely logical to love Him, and don’t be ridiculous if the subject is murder and you say you shouldn’t murder because I care about humans then that would be an emotional fallacious argument.

Nothing you say is at all a sequitur (something in which the premises lead to a logically nececissent conclusion)  

Incorrect - there is a general definition that it went on to describe, there is no specific consensus definition, but that does not mean that the definition is subject to change. Your logic is flawed, how does the fact that their isn't a specific definition mean that you can change it's fundamental meaning? It doesn't it means you can change a word or two, but the fundamental message is there. Not only that, but we've already went over why you're incorrect here, this is a repeat in my lessons I see. 

The meaning of well-being here is concisely stated as, "The mental and physical state- more specifically the positive bearing of them" which is quite detailed in what it means, not at all subject to change. That is what I mean when I say the words "well-being". That definition fits with the general meaning of well-being. Would you like to know another word without one specific definition that the experts also lack a consensus on? Knowledge, yet still we have a broad knowing of what knowledge is do we not?

On a third point -"Any opposing definition is as good as yours" in what regard? Why? Could you demonstrate that something that has nothing to do with the accepted general definition of well-being means well being? For example  - "A fluffy item used to rest your head on" Is, objectively speaking, not a better way to describe well being than what I described. Another thing, none of my arguments are contingent on the point, so even if you did have a point, it wouldn't be relevant to our debate. 

Also wrong, there is no such thing as the "emotional fallacy" that has never been what its referred to, it is the appeal to emotion, and the reason henceforth is that name perfectly describes what it is we're talking about - an appeal to emotion to prove x true. You can actually have an argument of logic and appeals to emotion, in fact, the popular marketing principle says that you should favor using logic and emotion, and that could still be an appeal to emotion, or have you never heard of ethos, pathos, logos?

Second of all I object to the notion that - "if there is indeed a God then it is completely logical to love him" how so? In what regard? Why? Do you have any evidence for this proposition that you just thrust into the argument? Do you have any at all logic to support your statement, all you have hear is an assertion that your asking me to accept, have you not read the name of the forum, you're supposed to be providing an argument not an assertion, too bad you been too busy dilly dalling.

Finally my objection to this is that if this is your standard for what is and isn't an appeal to emotion, then my argument should not at all be an appeal to emotion - I argued that it is beneficial for humans to value other human beings, since that encourages them to care for you, which is more benefit for you. Thus the pragmatic would have to necessarily agree with my conclusion, that doesn't even use emotion to conclude it's conclusion, but if it did, you can bet there was also logic, by your logic that precludes it from any appeal to emotion.

That wasn't my argument, is my first objection, but that would be repeating myself. It seems no mater how many times I correct you, you simply pay no attention to my pleas to actually read my arguments, in fact, who I am kidding, I'll be surprised if do more than skim this passage, but' I'll continue my tirade nevertheless. Actually no - to say that you care about humans therefore you should not murder them is not necessarily an appeal to emotion. I know its hard to understand so pay close attention now. 

If you come to the pragmatic conclusion that you should value other human lives, then the obvious is also apparent - that you shouldn't murder them. Thus, I care about humans therefore you should not murder them. You are conflating what makes you emotional with actual appeals to emotion, just as you are confusing assertions for arguments and your bullshit for rhetoric. Futhermore, there is actually another way that you could claim this to be true, and that would be through populus. 

If you live in a society that means you have signed a social contract whether you like it or not, by that social contract you should not harm others or break the law, you should care for others and care about human beings, and if you do, the society will take care of you, you will be generally accepted and you won't be ostracized, therefore, I care about humans, you shouldn't murder. You are wrong on so many levels I could continue on and on and on with these arguments to mark you wrong. 

This paragraph that you wrote is so jam-packed full of lies and assertions without evidence and such a fundamental misunderstanding of not only logical fallacies, but the principles of logic - that I would assert it is not unjust for me to send you back to proper school. Maybe take a course or three about logic, about fallacies, about philosophy, maybe they'll teach you a thing or three. It was so condense with bad arguments that I could write 10 paragraphs of response, isn't that amazing. 

Just a P.S this is the third post asking for you to demonstrate your assertion - you decide which

I prefer to tackle one thing at a time so I’m not gonna match you on the long paragraphs, but the balls in your court you can lead the way in this discussion what do you want to address first?

Everything I wanted to say is in those 10 paragraphs, why don't we go line by line

That is incorrect, and I explained why there but to concisely explain - your point is a non sequitur, just because there is no specifically consensus agreed definition does not mean that their isn't a broad one, an example of such would be knowledge, but I expect at least a response to one paragraph at a time.

"Incorrect - there is a general definition that it went on to describe, there is no specific consensus definition, but that does not mean that the definition is subject to change. Your logic is flawed, how does the fact that their isn't a specific definition mean that you can change it's fundamental meaning? It doesn't it means you can change a word or two, but the fundamental message is there. Not only that, but we've already went over why you're incorrect here, this is a repeat in my lessons I see. "

As far as I’m concerned if there is no consensus definition then there is no definition, so you can interpret it your way and an opposing viewpoint can interpret it theirs, so I think over the course of this discussion the most objective approach is to just toss the word to the wayside for now.

Well too bad, I could care less what you think on the subject, there is a definition - just because you don't understand how something works doesn't give you the logical permission to get rid of it, or did you ignore my argument? I made a three paragraph rebuttal.  Actually respond instead of repeating yourself.

It’s not that simple, it’s not just a matter of what I think it’s a matter of what is and if there was a definition there would be consensus and there is none, therefore there’s no definition, I’m repeating myself because so are you just because you say there’s a definition that doesn’t make it so, and those three paragraphs were all filler, nothing of substance I rebutted all that in one sweep.

No... you didn't there is a definition, just not a specific one - again - as you would know if you actually read it: there is a fundamental meaning to well being, there is just no specific definition that experts agree on - in fact - there is a definition of well-being, its outdated but its there "The state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy." Which is fundamentally the same definition I use. You literally just hand wave away arguments. No. I am done with your red herrings, your tu quoques, your non-sequiturs and your hand waving. Either address the argument or this conversation is over. Period.

As of now the argument is whether or not there’s a definition is it not? Because that’s exactly what I’m talking about.

And you have blown your shot, good day.

I’ve blown my shot because you don’t want to be specific? Interesting, you too.

What kind of proof are looking? Because to me, it seems more to be the case that you want me to prove that The Ultimate Reality is an invisible bearded man in the clouds or something. You want me to proof what is meant by a word, but you refuse to accept what the dictionary says. If I were to quote church fathers, you would discount that as evidence.

Basically, you have given me an impossible task, because I can not prove that your superstitions about God are the ultimate reality.

You accuse me of a semantic argument, but I am using the understanding of the word we use. If you enter a field of study, do you ask those who educate you to prove that the words they use refer to what they use them for? Certainly not, or you would simply remain smug in your ignorance and never master the field you entered, or even learn the basics.

What proof would you even accept? It seems to me that you habe made the choice to disbelieve. That proof isn't really something that you

would entertain. 

It seems to me, as I said that you want me to prove that The Ultimate Reality conforms to your superstitions  concerning God. Or you want me to overthrow some deeply held nihilistic assumption that words are fundamentally meaningless, and that what they are taken to mean is an arbitrary matter.

I don't know what you want. To me, it just looks like you are being incredulous and unreasonable about it.

What kind of proof do you want?

To be clear I want you to prove that there is an "who" that created the universe, if you have some specific version of god with certain qualities you would have to prove that too

Coming from the guy that can’t prove all principles used to affirm morality are from the mind when in fact all principles are from logic that’s why when having a moral dispute logic prevails.

Keep on yacking, you have failed to address any of my arguments

Sum, it seems these other three have usurped your thread in a theoretic shouting match instead of discussion of observation by personal experience. I'm going to try to tackle the problem from that latter perspective. I think part of the issue is  a discussion of what God does; what's his job? I'd reply that creation is his job. As I've already noted, I think that is simply a matter of organizing matter and energy that is in chaos. I was recently in a debate with Fruit_Inspector, https://www.debateart.com/debates/2631-resolved-god-created-the-heaven-and-the-earth-with-existing-matter-and-energy-and-not-ex-nihilo on the subject of creation with existing matter and energy, or by ex nihilo [creation out of nothing] My BoP was the former [existing matter and energy - proposing the disorganized [chaotic] and organized [creation]. It ended in a tie, unfortunately. Also unfortunately, I didn't think of this scenario; it may be a better example of my thinking. Maybe creation begins by organizing chaotic matter, such as like shards of matter similar to Saturn's rings, or a mass of gas cloud, or likely both, and creation begins by starting this chaos into a spin as is theorized the beginning of a galaxy, and without getting into the weeds, we ultimately have rough worlds rotating and orbiting about a newly formed star. I'm skipping a lot detail for brevity. Then God engages in a concept we're just beginning to understand enough to theorize how it may happen: terraforming. That further organizes a hostile world into one compatible for life. God starts transplanting life forms from an existing, compatible world to this new, terraformed world and begins the process of living evolution, whether that is, as Darwin suggested in his first edition of "Origin of the Species" by one form, or many. Therefore, evolution is the ongoing process of creation. He is simply more experienced, and better at terraforming than we are. For now. We will learn. Does that mean we can become gods? If we learn enough, experience enough, why not?

Shouting match? I continuously pointed out what the thread was about, and told him to get back on track and he ignored me, lol. Not only that - this does have some minor relevance to the discussion. Not only that no... the thread is about your best argument for god, not... anecdotes. Again, if you were to actually read it, every time I pushed on the issue, for him to prove his argument for god, he immediately ran from it. Ignored my entire rebuttal to put an end to it and all. You have fun with those anecdotes.

No you’ve failed to address mine, difference is when I simply ask you to clarify which argument you’re referring to you fly off the handle, like I said before I’m not ignoring anything I’m just not gonna match you paragraph to paragraph I’ll address the other arguments once we get through the first one, but if you have a problem with that then that’s your prerogative have a nice day.

Except every time I bring it up you just repeat yourself without at all addressing my arguments  - I addressed your arguments so thoroughly I had three paragraphs to every line of yours. You have failed to bring up a single point I brought up there. Flying off the handle? If you think that's me flying off the handle you are hilariously incompetent at judging what that phrase means.

These last three posts after my #356 kind of settle my point, yeah? All three of you are talking past each other, and after several pages of it, it's getting old for the rest of us. Take your corners. No one is landing a punch.