In fact, I'm going to use God as a justification in this argument not because God is the most powerful entity in the universe and beyond, but because the Bible contains incredibly important philosophical ideas. "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21). The most widely accepted interpretation of this, especially in the United States of America, is that Jesus is separating the worldly from the heavenly, the state from the Church, the physical from the spiritual. Therefore, in an argument that is purely of spiritual nature, an argument of pure philosophy, one should use God in justification. In secular argument, however, "Render unto Caesar," and use worldly evidence to back up the argument.
And to those who have been arguing that there is no evidence for God, you are sadly mistaken. Why would evolution occur if there were nothing to push it forward? Why would bacteria evolve into plants for no reason? Why would microorganisms evolve into fish without a substantial cause? These organisms can withstand incredible extremes in nature; they are indeed the most likely candidates to survive in space. We have already concluded that microorganisms inhabit the depths of antarctic glacial sheets. What would propel these microorganisms to becoming the vast array of plants and animals we have today other than a God?
And this evidence for God is backed up even further by the miracles that occur today. Take for example the Eucharistic Miracle of the Bleeding Host. This specific video analyzes bleeding consecrated bread, which scientists have analyzed. Http://www.Youtube.Com/watch?V=vz9L2EYjjsc
It drives me crazy to hear the argument that "There is no evidence of God," when there is plenty of evidence proving God's existence, while there is no evidence disproving God.
Sure, the Bible is an important text in some people's lives. But so is the Constitution. Freedom of religion is the very first right we are guaranteed by our founding fathers, and to jeopardize that right by citing the bible in political and governmental issues is grossly unethical.
America is the melting pot. People of all creeds and walks of life come here to practice their religion (or lack thereof) and to prioritize one over the rest by citing it is unconstitutional.
Since there is no evidence that there is a higher power in the first place, appealing to God, or any gods, is meaningless. Show evidence for the existence of God first, then ask God to speak for himself, herself, themselves, or itself. Don't presume to speak for anyone but yourself.
How can a hypothesis that is unproven itself be used to prove another hypothesis? Another problem is that (if you wish to accept any "design" arguments as proof) which god shall we use, and for what rational reason shall we use that particullar god? Why don't we use Krishna's opinions as justifications? Or Thor's? There is no rational leap from the "design" argument to the Christian god. So the premise itself of this question makes no sense.
Saying something is immoral or wrong because it is said by a certain religion proves nothing. Even if God does exist there is a separation between church and state. Your faith is your own but you cannot use it in arguments because all it does is express your beliefs and doesn't provide any evidence for it. It just means a deity supposedly said it.
Unless you first define what you mean by "God", then prove that a "God" can exist, then prove the proposition that "God" does exist, and then the proposition that your particular "God" exist, then prove that your in communication with "IT", then prove that "IT" has something relevant to say about our conversation, then prove that what "it" has to say is true, Then no... God should not be used as justification in arguments. Not to mention that if you proved all of these things to be true, you would still have to prove that what i was arguing was incorrect (so it seems more reasonable to just start with that). :-)