Why did God create evil?

[ding]

The simple answer is that God didn't create evil.

Everything God created is good.

Evil is not extant. Evil doesn't exist in and of itself.

Evil is the absence of good, just as cold is the absence of heat, and darkness is the absence of light.

How do you know?

Men know right from wrong and when they violate it, rather than abandoning the concept, they rationalize that they didn't violate it at all. Men do not do evil for the sake of evil. They do evil for the sake of their own good. A bad man has no clue that he is bad. Only a good man knows just how bad he is. It's the dunning effect, so to speak.

The reality is that good and evil are human constructs, but the underlying values that define them are universal. Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. It isn't surprising that relationships or societies which behave with virtue like honesty, humility, charity, thankfulness, courage, integrity, etc, have order and harmony. Just as it isn't surprising that societies or relationships which practice behaviors devoid of virtue like dishonesty, arrogance, selfishness, greed, thanklessness, cowardice, etc are disordered and chaotic. So while men think they are behaving with virtue, it is their behaviors and outcomes that tell the real story. But the surprising thing is that everyone believes they are good. No one will acknowledge that they are bad. No one says, the hell with your universal code of common decency. They all argue that they are being decent and good.

If God had made evil then we would see evil being done for the sake of evil. This we do not see.

Well, the problem here is the "evil" under the eyes of God is actually what humans have decided is evil.

For God, if there is one, there's a system of atoms. When a living being dies, it merely becomes something else. The atoms don't die.

.

For God, if there is one, there's a system of atoms. When a living being dies, it merely becomes something else. The atoms don't die.

When a living being dies, it merely becomes something else ...

there is hope afterall - for a second chance ... good luck.

the physiology disperses when the spirit is removed, hopefully the spirit can survive to receive its metaphysical judgement - nothing merely about it.

Or maybe there is no such thing as a spirit. The spirit is merely the human demand for something to ignore reality.

As near as I can tell the only solution to the first cause conundrum is no thing as in no material thing. For something to be eternal it must be unchanging. Matter and energy as we know it do not fit the bill. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes matter and energy from being eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium. Therefore, the only possible thing that can exist eternally is something beyond matter and energy; thought, intelligence, truth, etc. would fit this bill.

 

[ding]

.
"frigidweirdo, post: 20823531, member: 47831"]For God, if there is one, there's a system of atoms. When a living being dies, it merely becomes something else. The atoms don't die.

When a living being dies, it merely becomes something else ...

there is hope afterall - for a second chance ... good luck.

the physiology disperses when the spirit is removed, hopefully the spirit can survive to receive its metaphysical judgement - nothing merely about it.

.

"frigidweirdo: Or maybe there is no such thing as a spirit. The spirit is merely the human demand for something to ignore reality.

Or maybe there is no such thing as a spirit ...

living beings are not prototype copies from parent to offspring - no two blades of grass from 200 million years ago and for all eternity will ever be the same is proof of a spiritual identity. the will to live for some could be made possible to separate itself and continue to exist after their physiology expires would seem an evolutionary goal capable of realizing if not in fact what happens under the proper conditions. living the good life might just have an added bonus ...

.

Do you have a point to make?

it's in the pudding ... living the good life might just have an added bonus.

Might.

That's all you have. It might do something good at the end.

But I guess that's the point. Tell people there MIGHT be something good in the afterlife and they MIGHT just behave themselves and be easily malleable in this life.

That's where you are wrong. It is not about the destination at all. It is about the journey.

 

[BreezeWood]

When a living being dies, it merely becomes something else ...

there is hope afterall - for a second chance ... good luck.

the physiology disperses when the spirit is removed, hopefully the spirit can survive to receive its metaphysical judgement - nothing merely about it.

.

"frigidweirdo: Or maybe there is no such thing as a spirit. The spirit is merely the human demand for something to ignore reality.

Or maybe there is no such thing as a spirit ...

living beings are not prototype copies from parent to offspring - no two blades of grass from 200 million years ago and for all eternity will ever be the same is proof of a spiritual identity. the will to live for some could be made possible to separate itself and continue to exist after their physiology expires would seem an evolutionary goal capable of realizing if not in fact what happens under the proper conditions. living the good life might just have an added bonus ...

.

Do you have a point to make?

it's in the pudding ... living the good life might just have an added bonus.

Might.

That's all you have. It might do something good at the end.

But I guess that's the point. Tell people there MIGHT be something good in the afterlife and they MIGHT just behave themselves and be easily malleable in this life.

That's where you are wrong. It is not about the destination at all. It is about the journey.

.

That's where you are wrong. It is not about the destination at all. It is about the journey.

It is not about the destination at all ...

you are wrong, the journey may or may not be what the spirit expects or desires, only by its conclusion can its benefit per the required result be realized. for a Sabbath purity is required. 4th century christianity is a doomed prescription.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, the problem here is the "evil" under the eyes of God is actually what humans have decided is evil.

Which is based upon a moral law which transcends man. There is a universal code of moral decency that we did not put there and cannot get rid of. We know right from wrong, even though we don't always follow it and rationalize that we did not violate it. We let the cat out of the bag that we believe in a moral law every time we argue that something done to us was not fair. If there was no moral law we shouldn't even have a concept of right and wrong.

This universal code leads to peace and harmony in relationships and societies. It is this outcome which tells us that it cannot be just anything man wants it to be. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. This means that reality decides what is right and wrong, not man.

Why does it transcend man?

You're just making stuff up as far as I can tell.

 

[frigidweirdo]

How do you know?

Men know right from wrong and when they violate it, rather than abandoning the concept, they rationalize that they didn't violate it at all. Men do not do evil for the sake of evil. They do evil for the sake of their own good. A bad man has no clue that he is bad. Only a good man knows just how bad he is. It's the dunning effect, so to speak.

The reality is that good and evil are human constructs, but the underlying values that define them are universal. Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. It isn't surprising that relationships or societies which behave with virtue like honesty, humility, charity, thankfulness, courage, integrity, etc, have order and harmony. Just as it isn't surprising that societies or relationships which practice behaviors devoid of virtue like dishonesty, arrogance, selfishness, greed, thanklessness, cowardice, etc are disordered and chaotic. So while men think they are behaving with virtue, it is their behaviors and outcomes that tell the real story. But the surprising thing is that everyone believes they are good. No one will acknowledge that they are bad. No one says, the hell with your universal code of common decency. They all argue that they are being decent and good.

If God had made evil then we would see evil being done for the sake of evil. This we do not see.

Well, the problem here is the "evil" under the eyes of God is actually what humans have decided is evil.

For God, if there is one, there's a system of atoms. When a living being dies, it merely becomes something else. The atoms don't die.

.

For God, if there is one, there's a system of atoms. When a living being dies, it merely becomes something else. The atoms don't die.

When a living being dies, it merely becomes something else ...

there is hope afterall - for a second chance ... good luck.

the physiology disperses when the spirit is removed, hopefully the spirit can survive to receive its metaphysical judgement - nothing merely about it.

Or maybe there is no such thing as a spirit. The spirit is merely the human demand for something to ignore reality.

As near as I can tell the only solution to the first cause conundrum is no thing as in no material thing. For something to be eternal it must be unchanging. Matter and energy as we know it do not fit the bill. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes matter and energy from being eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium. Therefore, the only possible thing that can exist eternally is something beyond matter and energy; thought, intelligence, truth, etc. would fit this bill.

Or maybe there isn't anything eternal.

 

[frigidweirdo]

When a living being dies, it merely becomes something else ...

there is hope afterall - for a second chance ... good luck.

the physiology disperses when the spirit is removed, hopefully the spirit can survive to receive its metaphysical judgement - nothing merely about it.

.

"frigidweirdo: Or maybe there is no such thing as a spirit. The spirit is merely the human demand for something to ignore reality.

Or maybe there is no such thing as a spirit ...

living beings are not prototype copies from parent to offspring - no two blades of grass from 200 million years ago and for all eternity will ever be the same is proof of a spiritual identity. the will to live for some could be made possible to separate itself and continue to exist after their physiology expires would seem an evolutionary goal capable of realizing if not in fact what happens under the proper conditions. living the good life might just have an added bonus ...

.

Do you have a point to make?

it's in the pudding ... living the good life might just have an added bonus.

Might.

That's all you have. It might do something good at the end.

But I guess that's the point. Tell people there MIGHT be something good in the afterlife and they MIGHT just behave themselves and be easily malleable in this life.

That's where you are wrong. It is not about the destination at all. It is about the journey.

You'd hope it would be. But then these religious zealots make their life on Earth rubbish in order to get a better afterlife. Sounds like the journey is just a crappy train ride to them.

Those who reject religion are often the ones making the most of the journey.

 

[ding]

Well, the problem here is the "evil" under the eyes of God is actually what humans have decided is evil.

Which is based upon a moral law which transcends man. There is a universal code of moral decency that we did not put there and cannot get rid of. We know right from wrong, even though we don't always follow it and rationalize that we did not violate it. We let the cat out of the bag that we believe in a moral law every time we argue that something done to us was not fair. If there was no moral law we shouldn't even have a concept of right and wrong.

This universal code leads to peace and harmony in relationships and societies. It is this outcome which tells us that it cannot be just anything man wants it to be. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. This means that reality decides what is right and wrong, not man.

Why does it transcend man?

You're just making stuff up as far as I can tell.

Because we are born with it, everyone knows about it, we didn't put it there, we can 't seem to get rid of it and when we violate it rather than abandoning it we rationalize we didn't violate it. That ought to make you suspicious.

You can't make up reality.

 

[ding]

Men know right from wrong and when they violate it, rather than abandoning the concept, they rationalize that they didn't violate it at all. Men do not do evil for the sake of evil. They do evil for the sake of their own good. A bad man has no clue that he is bad. Only a good man knows just how bad he is. It's the dunning effect, so to speak.

The reality is that good and evil are human constructs, but the underlying values that define them are universal. Virtue is the greatest organizing principle. It isn't surprising that relationships or societies which behave with virtue like honesty, humility, charity, thankfulness, courage, integrity, etc, have order and harmony. Just as it isn't surprising that societies or relationships which practice behaviors devoid of virtue like dishonesty, arrogance, selfishness, greed, thanklessness, cowardice, etc are disordered and chaotic. So while men think they are behaving with virtue, it is their behaviors and outcomes that tell the real story. But the surprising thing is that everyone believes they are good. No one will acknowledge that they are bad. No one says, the hell with your universal code of common decency. They all argue that they are being decent and good.

If God had made evil then we would see evil being done for the sake of evil. This we do not see.

Well, the problem here is the "evil" under the eyes of God is actually what humans have decided is evil.

For God, if there is one, there's a system of atoms. When a living being dies, it merely becomes something else. The atoms don't die.

.

For God, if there is one, there's a system of atoms. When a living being dies, it merely becomes something else. The atoms don't die.

When a living being dies, it merely becomes something else ...

there is hope afterall - for a second chance ... good luck.

the physiology disperses when the spirit is removed, hopefully the spirit can survive to receive its metaphysical judgement - nothing merely about it.

Or maybe there is no such thing as a spirit. The spirit is merely the human demand for something to ignore reality.

As near as I can tell the only solution to the first cause conundrum is no thing as in no material thing. For something to be eternal it must be unchanging. Matter and energy as we know it do not fit the bill. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes matter and energy from being eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium. Therefore, the only possible thing that can exist eternally is something beyond matter and energy; thought, intelligence, truth, etc. would fit this bill.

Or maybe there isn't anything eternal.

Then how were space and time created from nothing?

 

[ding]

.

"frigidweirdo: Or maybe there is no such thing as a spirit. The spirit is merely the human demand for something to ignore reality.

Or maybe there is no such thing as a spirit ...

living beings are not prototype copies from parent to offspring - no two blades of grass from 200 million years ago and for all eternity will ever be the same is proof of a spiritual identity. the will to live for some could be made possible to separate itself and continue to exist after their physiology expires would seem an evolutionary goal capable of realizing if not in fact what happens under the proper conditions. living the good life might just have an added bonus ...

.

Do you have a point to make?

it's in the pudding ... living the good life might just have an added bonus.

Might.

That's all you have. It might do something good at the end.

But I guess that's the point. Tell people there MIGHT be something good in the afterlife and they MIGHT just behave themselves and be easily malleable in this life.

That's where you are wrong. It is not about the destination at all. It is about the journey.

You'd hope it would be. But then these religious zealots make their life on Earth rubbish in order to get a better afterlife. Sounds like the journey is just a crappy train ride to them.

Those who reject religion are often the ones making the most of the journey.

As near as I can tell, you are the only one talking about the destination. I've never heard that preached once.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, the problem here is the "evil" under the eyes of God is actually what humans have decided is evil.

Which is based upon a moral law which transcends man. There is a universal code of moral decency that we did not put there and cannot get rid of. We know right from wrong, even though we don't always follow it and rationalize that we did not violate it. We let the cat out of the bag that we believe in a moral law every time we argue that something done to us was not fair. If there was no moral law we shouldn't even have a concept of right and wrong.

This universal code leads to peace and harmony in relationships and societies. It is this outcome which tells us that it cannot be just anything man wants it to be. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. This means that reality decides what is right and wrong, not man.

Why does it transcend man?

You're just making stuff up as far as I can tell.

Because we are born with it, everyone knows about it, we didn't put it there, we can 't seem to get rid of it and when we violate it rather than abandoning it we rationalize we didn't violate it. That ought to make you suspicious.

You can't make up reality.

Born with what? What is it you're actually talking about here?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, the problem here is the "evil" under the eyes of God is actually what humans have decided is evil.

For God, if there is one, there's a system of atoms. When a living being dies, it merely becomes something else. The atoms don't die.

.

For God, if there is one, there's a system of atoms. When a living being dies, it merely becomes something else. The atoms don't die.

When a living being dies, it merely becomes something else ...

there is hope afterall - for a second chance ... good luck.

the physiology disperses when the spirit is removed, hopefully the spirit can survive to receive its metaphysical judgement - nothing merely about it.

Or maybe there is no such thing as a spirit. The spirit is merely the human demand for something to ignore reality.

As near as I can tell the only solution to the first cause conundrum is no thing as in no material thing. For something to be eternal it must be unchanging. Matter and energy as we know it do not fit the bill. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes matter and energy from being eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium. Therefore, the only possible thing that can exist eternally is something beyond matter and energy; thought, intelligence, truth, etc. would fit this bill.

Or maybe there isn't anything eternal.

Then how were space and time created from nothing?

Imagine you have a pack of cards. You shuffle the cards. You keep the cards face down at all times, no one has seen what is on those cards.

You come along and say "the top one is the ace of spades". I say "you can't know it's the ace of spades". You say "Of course it's the ace of spades, it has to be the ace of spades."

You might be right. You have a small chance it's right.

But we're playing with a set of playing cards that has a hundred billion different suits and in each suit there are a hundred billion cards.

What are the chances you are right?

The simple fact is we don't know how things formed. We don't know what's out there. Some people can accept this. Others make shit up to fill the gaps (and they're very large gaps).

 

[frigidweirdo]

.
Or maybe there is no such thing as a spirit ...

living beings are not prototype copies from parent to offspring - no two blades of grass from 200 million years ago and for all eternity will ever be the same is proof of a spiritual identity. the will to live for some could be made possible to separate itself and continue to exist after their physiology expires would seem an evolutionary goal capable of realizing if not in fact what happens under the proper conditions. living the good life might just have an added bonus ...

.

Do you have a point to make?

it's in the pudding ... living the good life might just have an added bonus.

Might.

That's all you have. It might do something good at the end.

But I guess that's the point. Tell people there MIGHT be something good in the afterlife and they MIGHT just behave themselves and be easily malleable in this life.

That's where you are wrong. It is not about the destination at all. It is about the journey.

You'd hope it would be. But then these religious zealots make their life on Earth rubbish in order to get a better afterlife. Sounds like the journey is just a crappy train ride to them.

Those who reject religion are often the ones making the most of the journey.

As near as I can tell, you are the only one talking about the destination. I've never heard that preached once.

There's a big difference between what is preached and what is thought by others.

It's like the Chinese with Confucianism. They love to quote it, but don't follow it for anything.

 

[ding]

Well, the problem here is the "evil" under the eyes of God is actually what humans have decided is evil.

Which is based upon a moral law which transcends man. There is a universal code of moral decency that we did not put there and cannot get rid of. We know right from wrong, even though we don't always follow it and rationalize that we did not violate it. We let the cat out of the bag that we believe in a moral law every time we argue that something done to us was not fair. If there was no moral law we shouldn't even have a concept of right and wrong.

This universal code leads to peace and harmony in relationships and societies. It is this outcome which tells us that it cannot be just anything man wants it to be. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. This means that reality decides what is right and wrong, not man.

Why does it transcend man?

You're just making stuff up as far as I can tell.

Because we are born with it, everyone knows about it, we didn't put it there, we can 't seem to get rid of it and when we violate it rather than abandoning it we rationalize we didn't violate it. That ought to make you suspicious.

You can't make up reality.

Born with what? What is it you're actually talking about here?

An innate ability to know right from wrong. We're hardwired for it. How many people do you see saying the hell with your concept of common decency and fairness? None. They are all arguing that the other guy is unfair or they are being fair.

You act like this is news to you. Just watch anyone quarrel over anything for crying out loud.

 

[ding]

.
When a living being dies, it merely becomes something else ...

there is hope afterall - for a second chance ... good luck.

the physiology disperses when the spirit is removed, hopefully the spirit can survive to receive its metaphysical judgement - nothing merely about it.

Or maybe there is no such thing as a spirit. The spirit is merely the human demand for something to ignore reality.

As near as I can tell the only solution to the first cause conundrum is no thing as in no material thing. For something to be eternal it must be unchanging. Matter and energy as we know it do not fit the bill. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes matter and energy from being eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium. Therefore, the only possible thing that can exist eternally is something beyond matter and energy; thought, intelligence, truth, etc. would fit this bill.

Or maybe there isn't anything eternal.

Then how were space and time created from nothing?

Imagine you have a pack of cards. You shuffle the cards. You keep the cards face down at all times, no one has seen what is on those cards.

You come along and say "the top one is the ace of spades". I say "you can't know it's the ace of spades". You say "Of course it's the ace of spades, it has to be the ace of spades."

You might be right. You have a small chance it's right.

But we're playing with a set of playing cards that has a hundred billion different suits and in each suit there are a hundred billion cards.

What are the chances you are right?

The simple fact is we don't know how things formed. We don't know what's out there. Some people can accept this. Others make shit up to fill the gaps (and they're very large gaps).

First of all, I know a little slight of hand and can make you pick the ace of spades every time.

Secondly, it isn't like we don't have any evidence for this. There's tons of evidence for it.

You are the one who has no evidence for what you are saying as you are literally arguing against science.

I thought you guys were supposed to worship science.

 

[ding]

.
it's in the pudding ... living the good life might just have an added bonus.

Might.

That's all you have. It might do something good at the end.

But I guess that's the point. Tell people there MIGHT be something good in the afterlife and they MIGHT just behave themselves and be easily malleable in this life.

That's where you are wrong. It is not about the destination at all. It is about the journey.

You'd hope it would be. But then these religious zealots make their life on Earth rubbish in order to get a better afterlife. Sounds like the journey is just a crappy train ride to them.

Those who reject religion are often the ones making the most of the journey.

As near as I can tell, you are the only one talking about the destination. I've never heard that preached once.

There's a big difference between what is preached and what is thought by others.

It's like the Chinese with Confucianism. They love to quote it, but don't follow it for anything.

Holy shit. Now you know what other people think?

I am telling you that I don't see anyone discussing heaven and hell except atheists.

It's a bullshit argument.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, the problem here is the "evil" under the eyes of God is actually what humans have decided is evil.

Which is based upon a moral law which transcends man. There is a universal code of moral decency that we did not put there and cannot get rid of. We know right from wrong, even though we don't always follow it and rationalize that we did not violate it. We let the cat out of the bag that we believe in a moral law every time we argue that something done to us was not fair. If there was no moral law we shouldn't even have a concept of right and wrong.

This universal code leads to peace and harmony in relationships and societies. It is this outcome which tells us that it cannot be just anything man wants it to be. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. This means that reality decides what is right and wrong, not man.

Why does it transcend man?

You're just making stuff up as far as I can tell.

Because we are born with it, everyone knows about it, we didn't put it there, we can 't seem to get rid of it and when we violate it rather than abandoning it we rationalize we didn't violate it. That ought to make you suspicious.

You can't make up reality.

Born with what? What is it you're actually talking about here?

An innate ability to know right from wrong. We're hardwired for it. How many people do you see saying the hell with your concept of common decency and fairness? None. They are all arguing that the other guy is unfair or they are being fair.

You act like this is news to you. Just watch anyone quarrel over anything for crying out loud.

Is there an innate ability to know right from wrong?

Or is there an innate ability to know right from wrong when you decide what is right from wrong?

Clearly a lot of people don't agree on what makes right and wrong.

Some people think stopping gay people getting married is right, others think it's wrong. So what's the innate thinking? One person's view or another person's view?

When it comes to murder it's simple survival techniques.

Just as men are far more likely to get angry before thinking about what they're doing than women, as a survival technique, just as men have more hair than women on their bodies as a survival attribute.

Many humans don't care about other animals. A pig is just something to be eaten, or laugh at. But humans means it could be you who is eaten next. So, let's not eat humans then I don't need to be worried that someone will eat me. Survival technique.

There are plenty of them, all animals have them, they differ, but they have them.

That's not evidence of God, it's evidence that drugs in our bodies make things happen.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Or maybe there is no such thing as a spirit. The spirit is merely the human demand for something to ignore reality.

As near as I can tell the only solution to the first cause conundrum is no thing as in no material thing. For something to be eternal it must be unchanging. Matter and energy as we know it do not fit the bill. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes matter and energy from being eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium. Therefore, the only possible thing that can exist eternally is something beyond matter and energy; thought, intelligence, truth, etc. would fit this bill.

Or maybe there isn't anything eternal.

Then how were space and time created from nothing?

Imagine you have a pack of cards. You shuffle the cards. You keep the cards face down at all times, no one has seen what is on those cards.

You come along and say "the top one is the ace of spades". I say "you can't know it's the ace of spades". You say "Of course it's the ace of spades, it has to be the ace of spades."

You might be right. You have a small chance it's right.

But we're playing with a set of playing cards that has a hundred billion different suits and in each suit there are a hundred billion cards.

What are the chances you are right?

The simple fact is we don't know how things formed. We don't know what's out there. Some people can accept this. Others make shit up to fill the gaps (and they're very large gaps).

First of all, I know a little slight of hand and can make you pick the ace of spades every time.

Secondly, it isn't like we don't have any evidence for this. There's tons of evidence for it.

You are the one who has no evidence for what you are saying as you are literally arguing against science.

I thought you guys were supposed to worship science.

Yeah, you know a slight of hand. But can you do it on the scale of the universe? I bet you can't.

There's tons of evidence for what? And having evidence doesn't mean you're interpreting it properly.

I had a nice website that showed graphs comparing two completely random things, and showed them to be very, very similar that you could put 2 and 2 together and make 22.

But the pictures aren't working.

Interpreting evidence is different to having it.

I'm literally saying we don't know something so we should accept it. It's not going against science at all. It's pro-science. Anti-science is "Hey, we don't know what this is, so let's make it up".

 

[frigidweirdo]

Might.

That's all you have. It might do something good at the end.

But I guess that's the point. Tell people there MIGHT be something good in the afterlife and they MIGHT just behave themselves and be easily malleable in this life.

That's where you are wrong. It is not about the destination at all. It is about the journey.

You'd hope it would be. But then these religious zealots make their life on Earth rubbish in order to get a better afterlife. Sounds like the journey is just a crappy train ride to them.

Those who reject religion are often the ones making the most of the journey.

As near as I can tell, you are the only one talking about the destination. I've never heard that preached once.

There's a big difference between what is preached and what is thought by others.

It's like the Chinese with Confucianism. They love to quote it, but don't follow it for anything.

Holy shit. Now you know what other people think?

I am telling you that I don't see anyone discussing heaven and hell except atheists.

It's a bullshit argument.

This isn't about how people think on the inside, this is about WHAT THEY DO. The actions they have.

People who live so piously that they're giving up their life here for a better life "there".

Nuns in Santiago de Compostela in Spain.

These nuns can't go outside into the real world, can't talk with real world people. They just do pious shit and for what reason?

Because they think they'll go to a better place in the "next life".

Now, you try interpreting this as their journey is more important than their destination. I need a good laugh.

 

[ding]

Which is based upon a moral law which transcends man. There is a universal code of moral decency that we did not put there and cannot get rid of. We know right from wrong, even though we don't always follow it and rationalize that we did not violate it. We let the cat out of the bag that we believe in a moral law every time we argue that something done to us was not fair. If there was no moral law we shouldn't even have a concept of right and wrong.

This universal code leads to peace and harmony in relationships and societies. It is this outcome which tells us that it cannot be just anything man wants it to be. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. This means that reality decides what is right and wrong, not man.

Why does it transcend man?

You're just making stuff up as far as I can tell.

Because we are born with it, everyone knows about it, we didn't put it there, we can 't seem to get rid of it and when we violate it rather than abandoning it we rationalize we didn't violate it. That ought to make you suspicious.

You can't make up reality.

Born with what? What is it you're actually talking about here?

An innate ability to know right from wrong. We're hardwired for it. How many people do you see saying the hell with your concept of common decency and fairness? None. They are all arguing that the other guy is unfair or they are being fair.

You act like this is news to you. Just watch anyone quarrel over anything for crying out loud.

Is there an innate ability to know right from wrong?

Or is there an innate ability to know right from wrong when you decide what is right from wrong?

Clearly a lot of people don't agree on what makes right and wrong.

Some people think stopping gay people getting married is right, others think it's wrong. So what's the innate thinking? One person's view or another person's view?

When it comes to murder it's simple survival techniques.

Just as men are far more likely to get angry before thinking about what they're doing than women, as a survival technique, just as men have more hair than women on their bodies as a survival attribute.

Many humans don't care about other animals. A pig is just something to be eaten, or laugh at. But humans means it could be you who is eaten next. So, let's not eat humans then I don't need to be worried that someone will eat me. Survival technique.

There are plenty of them, all animals have them, they differ, but they have them.

That's not evidence of God, it's evidence that drugs in our bodies make things happen.

You are confusing people rationalizing that they didn't do wrong with people don't agree on right and wrong. Two different things. But it is people believing that their actions are right that tells us there is something inside of them that they didn't put there that keeps them from abandoning the concept even when they do do wrong. They just argue that they didn't. Didn't I already go over that?

Man is the only animal capable of knowledge of good and evil. No other creature has this concept. Sure animals can have empathy, but not like man. Animals function on impulse and instinct. Man functions on these too, but in man's case he has the unique ability to override his impulses and instinct for the sake of good. That is free will.

 

[ding]

As near as I can tell the only solution to the first cause conundrum is no thing as in no material thing. For something to be eternal it must be unchanging. Matter and energy as we know it do not fit the bill. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes matter and energy from being eternal without reaching thermal equilibrium. Therefore, the only possible thing that can exist eternally is something beyond matter and energy; thought, intelligence, truth, etc. would fit this bill.

Or maybe there isn't anything eternal.

Then how were space and time created from nothing?

Imagine you have a pack of cards. You shuffle the cards. You keep the cards face down at all times, no one has seen what is on those cards.

You come along and say "the top one is the ace of spades". I say "you can't know it's the ace of spades". You say "Of course it's the ace of spades, it has to be the ace of spades."

You might be right. You have a small chance it's right.

But we're playing with a set of playing cards that has a hundred billion different suits and in each suit there are a hundred billion cards.

What are the chances you are right?

The simple fact is we don't know how things formed. We don't know what's out there. Some people can accept this. Others make shit up to fill the gaps (and they're very large gaps).

First of all, I know a little slight of hand and can make you pick the ace of spades every time.

Secondly, it isn't like we don't have any evidence for this. There's tons of evidence for it.

You are the one who has no evidence for what you are saying as you are literally arguing against science.

I thought you guys were supposed to worship science.

Yeah, you know a slight of hand. But can you do it on the scale of the universe? I bet you can't.

There's tons of evidence for what? And having evidence doesn't mean you're interpreting it properly.

I had a nice website that showed graphs comparing two completely random things, and showed them to be very, very similar that you could put 2 and 2 together and make 22.

But the pictures aren't working.

Interpreting evidence is different to having it.

I'm literally saying we don't know something so we should accept it. It's not going against science at all. It's pro-science. Anti-science is "Hey, we don't know what this is, so let's make it up".

Let's see... red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedman's solutions to Einstein's field equations, quantum mechanics, 1st and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics all tell us that ~14 billion years ago space and time were created when all the matter and energy in the universe occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom and then began to expand and cool. Atheists worship science until it doesn't suit their purpose then they throw it under the bus.