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

You didn't actually address the argument there, and I already explained how something can be subjective and a fact, which you agreed to. No, the principle of not murdering people is subjective whenever applied to murder, it is wrong because of the consciousness we have, I mean, we don't say animals hunting their food is wrong do we? Yes, murder causes objective physical and mental harm, but that harm is the subjective part, it is only morally wrong because we self aware and have minds.

The argument there is morality is dependent on a mind to be true correct? Well I just gave two scenarios where people have minds, they both can’t be true if they conflict with one another which they indeed do.

Actually they very well can - from one mind it could be biased that harm is good and the other that harm is bad, hence the subjective aspect to it. You are still operating under the assumption that morality is objective that there is only one answer, and you would be incorrect

One minute you say murder is objectively harmful and in the same breath say it’s subjective, contradiction at its finest.

Look I think you are not understanding what I'm saying : It objectively causes harm, damage, whatever you want to call it to people - whether that harm matters morally is the subjective nature of it. You are being semantic again

The fact that you call it harmful implies that it matters (at least to you it does) and you can call me semantic all you want I accept the label, semantics is important we won’t get too far without it.

Yes - to me it matters, because I am a human. Not to mention "harmful" as in taking away from a physical or mental state, negatively impacting it, that doesn't logically follow. And you are correct, semantics can be important,  but just like anecdotal evidence, without any other form of objection backing up your semantics, it is not important, nor is it a cogent objection.

Clearly the universe has agency. It is silly to claim otherwise. The universe does exercise power.

Woah.

Stop , stop stop.... 

You need to put on the brakes a bit big fella.

Take a few deep breaths.  

In through the nose.

And out through the mouth. 

Continue. 

Best Arguments for Gods existence. 

Jesus appearing on a piece of toast has to be up there with the best arguments for proving god exists. 

 

 

Nuh uh, "exercise"-ing power implies that the movement is intentional, which I do not believe, the universe is not an agent, you are misconstruing things to make it seem like it is.

Would you not also be a little frustrated is someone continuously ignored your argument after "conceding" their own. Then whenever reminded of that argument, they go on the exact same irrelevant semantic train of an argument.

There is no such implication. If that was the case, we wouldn't refer to certain substances in chemistry as agents.

You lost me here, what exactly doesn’t logically follow?

Chemistry agents and being-agents are clearly different things, as they have distinctly different definitions - you are being semantic to the worst degree

That "the fact that you call it harmful means it matters to you" that isn't cogent, I was simply describing a state of affairs. 

Rather I would say that your use of language leads to superstitious thinking.

A being is simply an existence.

No, I think its quite the opposite, as evidenced by the fact that you want to use the same definition of agent that is clearly used in the context of chemistry for a philosophical agent, the two are clearly seperate.

And again, you are just incorrect, not in the context being used

But you agreed with that point.

No, I agreed that, yes as a human specifically with a mind it matters to me, that doesn't mean its objective however.

You’re the one that called murder objectively harmful, your words not mine.

Yes murder causes harm to a person, they were alive and then the murder is what kills them. So yes, objectively speaking, murder harms people. That has nothing to do with whether it is objectively moral or immoral however. 

Yes it does the word harm falls along the lines of immoral, I got your semantics for you.

No, it is your biases that make you think that. Why is human harm objectively wrong? You haven't demonstrated that link, they don't necessarily link together, you are again - incorrect

Hold on for a sec, I thought that we can at least agree on that point.

Let me ask you a question are immoral humans harmful yes or no?

What bias is that?

The human mind- in it's entirity.