Debate: Are There Any Good Arguments For Gods Existence?
Side: Yes

apply to your claim that somehow it is 'unnecessarily restrictive' to just assume it exists without any evidence.You see the stuff in front of you and are using it. That is proof it exists. Also, its not my job to provide evidence for someone else's claim.Its their job to provide evidence for their own assertion. Russell's teapot claims that a philosophical claim is false because it can't be scientifically verified. The logic is faulty because a philosophical claim isn't meant to be tested scientifically. The person making the claim implies, in one way or another, that there is only truth in science. That claim isn't a scientific truth, its a philosophical claim that can't be tested scientifically so the claim defeats itself. The dragon in my garage claim is also problematic. If all that existed was the natural world, then that analogy would be right, but it leaves out anything that can't be scientifically tested. Things like truth, morality, and freedom would have no rational reason to exist since they can't be proven scientifically in a purely naturalistic worldview.If you have subjective moral law, you can say something is subjectively wrong.Part of the issue with this though is that yo have to assume that there is no need to improve. Take slavery for example. We as a country used to own slaves, but don't anymore and in fact forbid it. People believed then just as we do now that people have inherent human rights, but that the slaves weren't human. Human rights didn't change. What changed was peoples understanding of what a human actually is. If there truly is a subjective moral law, then there was no need to change thisAs to spousal rape being legal, my link named: China, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and India.How is the fact that this is legal there proof of subjective morality? This is a difference in the understanding of rape rather than moralityExactly. Is this process of justification objective?It is objective. Is it hard for someone to stay objective? I'd would imagine some people would. A just killing isn't considered murder. Whats different is peoples definition of just which is why honor killings are allowed in some countriesYour comment applies mostly just to abortion rather than self-defense generally.We discussed why abortion should be considered self-defense in our other debate hereAbortion being considered self-defense is still a poor argument. Thats why I mentioned consent and responsibility. Also, all the stuff that happens to a woman during and after pregnancy is either made out to be worse than it actually is or seems more frequent than it actually happens. Self-defense requires some kind of attack on the mother, even in a legal sense. Notice I never mentioned intentYour arguments for consent and responsibility to the child (/person posing harm) would not apply to the generally accepted self-defense right - so, perhaps you can address that.Part of your defense for abortion makes a pregnancy out to be some kind of attack on the mother thus requiring self-defense. If the woman willingly consented, she basically brought it on herself and is thus responsible for whatever happens. In the cases where she wasn't responsible, she still has a responsibility to the child even though she didn't consent to the pregnancyWhich just means sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't - ergo, subjective.A difference in understanding of what constitutes murder does not mean that morality is subjective. Murder is still wrong even if someone does a mercy killing. All they are doing is trying to find a way around it to make what they are doing okJust saying so does not address the cases I provided where people "justify" stealing (necessity, spying, eminent domain, etc.)People can try to justify theft, but in reality there is no justification for it. Necessity, spying, and eminent domain are not just causes for the unlawful taking of something that isn't yoursActually, that is exactly what it means. If one type of rape has severe penalties and another type has none, that means that the people in control deem that it is less wrong/more justifiable.In actuality, is still wrong. Just because someone tries to justify a wrong doing by redefining it, that doesn't make what they do any less wrongDo you think everyone would agree?Not everyone needs to. An objective morality makes it wrong regardless of whether or not someone like me or someone else thinks soYes, it can be nonexistent/unattainable for you even if it is attainable by a population with control over whether you stay in an asylum.Its either nonexistent/unnattainable or it isn't. It can't be both true and not true at the same time