If God loves us unconditionally, why does he kill us instead of curing us?

[ding]

Do you see a reason why God doesn’t exist? Because you believe that, right? You don’t have a reason to believe one way or another yet you have chosen to believe one way, right?

I have a rational reason why God created space and time. Is that good enough?

I have repeatedly said I believe it's possible that a god might exist just like unicorns might exist. Virtually anything is possible. I don't have any reason to believe that is the case, and I have no reason to modify my behavior because of the possibility that either one is real.

And my point is that it isn’t just as likely as unicorns existing. For you to consider the possibility of the existence of a creator to be like unicorns is illogical. I can make a case for the existence of a creator. A rather compelling argument no less. I can’t make an argument for a unicorn.

No one is asking you to modify your behaviors. You have free will just like everyone else. We are all subject to the consequences of our actions. At any point in our lives we are the sum of our choices. So whether one believes in God or not that will still be the case. But the practical benefits of faith far outweigh the benefits of no faith. Such that having no faith is irrational.

And no, not everything is virtually possible. Only the things which are potential under the physical, biological and moral laws of nature are possible. Furthermore, the potential existed before space and time existed because the laws of nature existed before space and time.

The reality is that you don’t have any reason to believe God doesn’t exist, but you do.

I have been very forthcoming and truthful on this subject. I have seen lots of evidence that seems to indicate that no god exists, but i haven't made that decision...yet. Don't try to put words into my mouth. I have no idea what might have existed before space and time, or if space or time might have had a beginning.

You have mostly been respectful and courteous during our discussion. And I’m sure you believe you have been forthcoming and honest. I have no doubt you believe what you say. But it isn’t logical to believe that the existence of unicorns is just as likely as the existence of a creator and it isn’t logical to believe you have evidence to prove a negative. So while you believe you are being honest about those beliefs it just doesn’t make any sense to actually believe those things.

You are free to believe what you will. I have seen no more believable proof that a god exists than that unicorns exist.

Let’s test that. What evidence do you have that unicorns exist?

What evidence do you have that a creator created space and time? Wouldn’t space and time be evidence? I’m sure you can debate whether or not God created space and time but the reality is there is literally evidence that can be debated. So whether or not you agree that the evidence supports the existence of God a great many people do accept this evidence.

That just isn’t the case for unicorns. So it is 100% illogical for you to equivocate the two.

 

[BULLDOG]

Interesting. I have heard that theory, or theories much like it from lots of places. I'm not denigrating your belief, or your right to your belief/beliefs in any way. That is and always will be your choice. My only concern is when people with deeply held beliefs try to legislate or otherwise direct or limit my rights based on their particular religious beliefs. Live your life as you will. Of course, we are all required to abide by certain universal tenants. Theft, murder, lying, and a host of other actions are universally considered to be forbidden whether you believe in the existence of a god or not. "Because God said so" is not, and should not be a valid remark in any broad ranging discussion concerning the behavior of the population as a whole.

I can’t say I understand why you believe people are trying to force their religion upon you. It seems you are over reacting.

But I hear that complaint a lot. I just don’t agree that it is happening.

I don’t believe I have ever said because God said so. For instance I’m not against abortion because God said so. I am against abortion because it is wrong to end a human life, especially for selfish reasons. My argument against abortion is based on science and is a legal argument. Do you believe I am forcing my relyupon you because I oppose abortion? Or am I participating in the secular process the same as you?

Your opposition to abortion is based on the agreement made with TV preachers to support anti-abortion in exchange for their support of the GOP. Abortion was accepted and mostly uncontroversial before the unholy alliance between Jerry Falwell and the GOP.

Nope. It is based on the scientific fact that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. Can you dispute that fact? No. You can’t.

Additionally, since it is a new genetically distinct human being it is literally a specific person and should be afforded his or her inalienable right to life. That’s a legal argument.

So the only one mentioning religion in this discussion is you. That’s because you don’t have a scientific argument or a legal argument to make.

A small cluster of cells that cannot exist without total support from the body it is in is hardly a distinct human being. The apparatus required for sentient existence is not there.

First of all no abortions are performed when that human life you describe as a cluster of cells is in its earliest stage of the human life cycle.

At conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. Rather than admitting this scientific fact, you are literally dehumanizing a human life.

Secondly, at every stage along the continuum, this new human life has the attributes it should have for that stage of the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death. Every step along the journey from conception to death he or she is fully human. Do you deny this?

Of course abortions are performed on small cell clusters all the time.. You haven't heard of the morning after pill or seen the opposition to it by anti abortion groups? There are lots of steps before anything that can be considered a distinct human life exists. A zygote is further along the process than a single sperm or egg is, but only slightly, and still far from being a distinct person.

An ingot of steel might have some of the characteristics that are required for gears in a pocket watch, but an ingot is not a watch. It is only potentially a part of a watch.

At each step of development, a developing cluster of cells becomes closer to being what it could potentially become, but in the case of a human being, that is much further along in the process. I don't know exactly what point it becomes a distinct human, but it would have to be after it is self regulating enough to maintain it's own functions. Of course I deny that a fertilized egg is the same as a human.because it's not.

 

[BULLDOG]

I have repeatedly said I believe it's possible that a god might exist just like unicorns might exist. Virtually anything is possible. I don't have any reason to believe that is the case, and I have no reason to modify my behavior because of the possibility that either one is real.

And my point is that it isn’t just as likely as unicorns existing. For you to consider the possibility of the existence of a creator to be like unicorns is illogical. I can make a case for the existence of a creator. A rather compelling argument no less. I can’t make an argument for a unicorn.

No one is asking you to modify your behaviors. You have free will just like everyone else. We are all subject to the consequences of our actions. At any point in our lives we are the sum of our choices. So whether one believes in God or not that will still be the case. But the practical benefits of faith far outweigh the benefits of no faith. Such that having no faith is irrational.

And no, not everything is virtually possible. Only the things which are potential under the physical, biological and moral laws of nature are possible. Furthermore, the potential existed before space and time existed because the laws of nature existed before space and time.

The reality is that you don’t have any reason to believe God doesn’t exist, but you do.

I have been very forthcoming and truthful on this subject. I have seen lots of evidence that seems to indicate that no god exists, but i haven't made that decision...yet. Don't try to put words into my mouth. I have no idea what might have existed before space and time, or if space or time might have had a beginning.

What evidence have you seen that indicates God doesn’t exist?

Are you trying to tell me that you have evidence to prove a negative?

Because I’m pretty sure that isn’t possible.

I have heard reasonable arguments claiming god doesn't exist. As I said, I haven't accepted that as fact, and as such it is immaterial in this discussion.

No. You literally said you have seen lots of evidence that seems to indicate that God does not exist.

Would you like to retract that claim?

I acknowledge that is what it seemed to indicate, but it wasn't persuasive enough for me to accept it as fact. No need to retract anything. It didn't convince me that a god doesn't exist, so it is immaterial in this discussion.-----like I already said.

 

[BULLDOG]

I have repeatedly said I believe it's possible that a god might exist just like unicorns might exist. Virtually anything is possible. I don't have any reason to believe that is the case, and I have no reason to modify my behavior because of the possibility that either one is real.

And my point is that it isn’t just as likely as unicorns existing. For you to consider the possibility of the existence of a creator to be like unicorns is illogical. I can make a case for the existence of a creator. A rather compelling argument no less. I can’t make an argument for a unicorn.

No one is asking you to modify your behaviors. You have free will just like everyone else. We are all subject to the consequences of our actions. At any point in our lives we are the sum of our choices. So whether one believes in God or not that will still be the case. But the practical benefits of faith far outweigh the benefits of no faith. Such that having no faith is irrational.

And no, not everything is virtually possible. Only the things which are potential under the physical, biological and moral laws of nature are possible. Furthermore, the potential existed before space and time existed because the laws of nature existed before space and time.

The reality is that you don’t have any reason to believe God doesn’t exist, but you do.

I have been very forthcoming and truthful on this subject. I have seen lots of evidence that seems to indicate that no god exists, but i haven't made that decision...yet. Don't try to put words into my mouth. I have no idea what might have existed before space and time, or if space or time might have had a beginning.

You have mostly been respectful and courteous during our discussion. And I’m sure you believe you have been forthcoming and honest. I have no doubt you believe what you say. But it isn’t logical to believe that the existence of unicorns is just as likely as the existence of a creator and it isn’t logical to believe you have evidence to prove a negative. So while you believe you are being honest about those beliefs it just doesn’t make any sense to actually believe those things.

You are free to believe what you will. I have seen no more believable proof that a god exists than that unicorns exist.

Let’s test that. What evidence do you have that unicorns exist?

What evidence do you have that a creator created space and time? Wouldn’t space and time be evidence? I’m sure you can debate whether or not God created space and time but the reality is there is literally evidence that can be debated. So whether or not you agree that the evidence supports the existence of God a great many people do accept this evidence.

That just isn’t the case for unicorns. So it is 100% illogical for you to equivocate the two.

Calm down. Take a breath, and try to make a reasonable remark. I have no evidence that unicorns exist, so I'm not interested in trying to convince you that they do. Why would you think I would? Yes, space and time exist. I have no idea how they might have been created, or if they even needed to be created. Could have been in existence forever. The fact that they do exist is not proof of god. any more than this glass of rum is proof of unicorns. I also don't believe trolls live under bridges. Are you gonna ask me to compare trolls under bridges to god or unicorns? From the evidence I have concerning the existence of the three, they each seem just as unlikely as the other two. The fact that some people believe in unicorns, or god, or trolls under bridges is not proof that any one of the three is real.Of course, if you want to present evidence for any one of the three, I will be happy to hear it. You saying "I believe it" or "lots of us believe it" won't be very persuasive for any one of the three.

 

[BULLDOG]

Interesting. I have heard that theory, or theories much like it from lots of places. I'm not denigrating your belief, or your right to your belief/beliefs in any way. That is and always will be your choice. My only concern is when people with deeply held beliefs try to legislate or otherwise direct or limit my rights based on their particular religious beliefs. Live your life as you will. Of course, we are all required to abide by certain universal tenants. Theft, murder, lying, and a host of other actions are universally considered to be forbidden whether you believe in the existence of a god or not. "Because God said so" is not, and should not be a valid remark in any broad ranging discussion concerning the behavior of the population as a whole.

I can’t say I understand why you believe people are trying to force their religion upon you. It seems you are over reacting.

But I hear that complaint a lot. I just don’t agree that it is happening.

I don’t believe I have ever said because God said so. For instance I’m not against abortion because God said so. I am against abortion because it is wrong to end a human life, especially for selfish reasons. My argument against abortion is based on science and is a legal argument. Do you believe I am forcing my relyupon you because I oppose abortion? Or am I participating in the secular process the same as you?

Your opposition to abortion is based on the agreement made with TV preachers to support anti-abortion in exchange for their support of the GOP. Abortion was accepted and mostly uncontroversial before the unholy alliance between Jerry Falwell and the GOP.

Nope. It is based on the scientific fact that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. Can you dispute that fact? No. You can’t.

Additionally, since it is a new genetically distinct human being it is literally a specific person and should be afforded his or her inalienable right to life. That’s a legal argument.

So the only one mentioning religion in this discussion is you. That’s because you don’t have a scientific argument or a legal argument to make.

A small cluster of cells that cannot exist without total support from the body it is in is hardly a distinct human being. The apparatus required for sentient existence is not there.

First of all no abortions are performed when that human life you describe as a cluster of cells is in its earliest stage of the human life cycle.

At conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. Rather than admitting this scientific fact, you are literally dehumanizing a human life.

Secondly, at every stage along the continuum, this new human life has the attributes it should have for that stage of the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death. Every step along the journey from conception to death he or she is fully human. Do you deny this?

God was the first Morning After Pill

Hosea 9:14
Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.

 

[ding]

I can’t say I understand why you believe people are trying to force their religion upon you. It seems you are over reacting.

But I hear that complaint a lot. I just don’t agree that it is happening.

I don’t believe I have ever said because God said so. For instance I’m not against abortion because God said so. I am against abortion because it is wrong to end a human life, especially for selfish reasons. My argument against abortion is based on science and is a legal argument. Do you believe I am forcing my relyupon you because I oppose abortion? Or am I participating in the secular process the same as you?

Your opposition to abortion is based on the agreement made with TV preachers to support anti-abortion in exchange for their support of the GOP. Abortion was accepted and mostly uncontroversial before the unholy alliance between Jerry Falwell and the GOP.

Nope. It is based on the scientific fact that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. Can you dispute that fact? No. You can’t.

Additionally, since it is a new genetically distinct human being it is literally a specific person and should be afforded his or her inalienable right to life. That’s a legal argument.

So the only one mentioning religion in this discussion is you. That’s because you don’t have a scientific argument or a legal argument to make.

A small cluster of cells that cannot exist without total support from the body it is in is hardly a distinct human being. The apparatus required for sentient existence is not there.

First of all no abortions are performed when that human life you describe as a cluster of cells is in its earliest stage of the human life cycle.

At conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. Rather than admitting this scientific fact, you are literally dehumanizing a human life.

Secondly, at every stage along the continuum, this new human life has the attributes it should have for that stage of the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death. Every step along the journey from conception to death he or she is fully human. Do you deny this?

Of course abortions are performed on small cell clusters all the time.. You haven't heard of the morning after pill or seen the opposition to it by anti abortion groups? There are lots of steps before anything that can be considered a distinct human life exists. A zygote is further along the process than a single sperm or egg is, but only slightly, and still far from being a distinct person.

An ingot of steel might have some of the characteristics that are required for gears in a pocket watch, but an ingot is not a watch. It is only potentially a part of a watch.

At each step of development, a developing cluster of cells becomes closer to being what it could potentially become, but in the case of a human being, that is much further along in the process. I don't know exactly what point it becomes a distinct human, but it would have to be after it is self regulating enough to maintain it's own functions. Of course I deny that a fertilized egg is the same as a human.because it's not.

At any point along the continuum it is literally a human being. It isn’t a potential human being it is a human being with potential.

You deny it is a human being because you know it is wrong to kill a human being. You are literally dehumanizing he or she to ease your conscience.

 

[ding]

I can’t say I understand why you believe people are trying to force their religion upon you. It seems you are over reacting.

But I hear that complaint a lot. I just don’t agree that it is happening.

I don’t believe I have ever said because God said so. For instance I’m not against abortion because God said so. I am against abortion because it is wrong to end a human life, especially for selfish reasons. My argument against abortion is based on science and is a legal argument. Do you believe I am forcing my relyupon you because I oppose abortion? Or am I participating in the secular process the same as you?

Your opposition to abortion is based on the agreement made with TV preachers to support anti-abortion in exchange for their support of the GOP. Abortion was accepted and mostly uncontroversial before the unholy alliance between Jerry Falwell and the GOP.

Nope. It is based on the scientific fact that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. Can you dispute that fact? No. You can’t.

Additionally, since it is a new genetically distinct human being it is literally a specific person and should be afforded his or her inalienable right to life. That’s a legal argument.

So the only one mentioning religion in this discussion is you. That’s because you don’t have a scientific argument or a legal argument to make.

A small cluster of cells that cannot exist without total support from the body it is in is hardly a distinct human being. The apparatus required for sentient existence is not there.

First of all no abortions are performed when that human life you describe as a cluster of cells is in its earliest stage of the human life cycle.

At conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. Rather than admitting this scientific fact, you are literally dehumanizing a human life.

Secondly, at every stage along the continuum, this new human life has the attributes it should have for that stage of the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death. Every step along the journey from conception to death he or she is fully human. Do you deny this?

God was the first Morning After Pill

Hosea 9:14
Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.

It seems that you are making an argument that since miscarriages naturally occur that abortion is moral. So since death naturally occurs are murders moral?

Besides you don’t believe God exists so you don’t believe God is the first morning after pill, right?

 

[ding]

And my point is that it isn’t just as likely as unicorns existing. For you to consider the possibility of the existence of a creator to be like unicorns is illogical. I can make a case for the existence of a creator. A rather compelling argument no less. I can’t make an argument for a unicorn.

No one is asking you to modify your behaviors. You have free will just like everyone else. We are all subject to the consequences of our actions. At any point in our lives we are the sum of our choices. So whether one believes in God or not that will still be the case. But the practical benefits of faith far outweigh the benefits of no faith. Such that having no faith is irrational.

And no, not everything is virtually possible. Only the things which are potential under the physical, biological and moral laws of nature are possible. Furthermore, the potential existed before space and time existed because the laws of nature existed before space and time.

The reality is that you don’t have any reason to believe God doesn’t exist, but you do.

I have been very forthcoming and truthful on this subject. I have seen lots of evidence that seems to indicate that no god exists, but i haven't made that decision...yet. Don't try to put words into my mouth. I have no idea what might have existed before space and time, or if space or time might have had a beginning.

What evidence have you seen that indicates God doesn’t exist?

Are you trying to tell me that you have evidence to prove a negative?

Because I’m pretty sure that isn’t possible.

I have heard reasonable arguments claiming god doesn't exist. As I said, I haven't accepted that as fact, and as such it is immaterial in this discussion.

No. You literally said you have seen lots of evidence that seems to indicate that God does not exist.

Would you like to retract that claim?

I acknowledge that is what it seemed to indicate, but it wasn't persuasive enough for me to accept it as fact. No need to retract anything. It didn't convince me that a god doesn't exist, so it is immaterial in this discussion.-----like I already said.

So you stand by your assertion that you have seen evidence that can prove a negative?

Please show me the evidence you have seen that proves God does not exist.

 

[ding]

And my point is that it isn’t just as likely as unicorns existing. For you to consider the possibility of the existence of a creator to be like unicorns is illogical. I can make a case for the existence of a creator. A rather compelling argument no less. I can’t make an argument for a unicorn.

No one is asking you to modify your behaviors. You have free will just like everyone else. We are all subject to the consequences of our actions. At any point in our lives we are the sum of our choices. So whether one believes in God or not that will still be the case. But the practical benefits of faith far outweigh the benefits of no faith. Such that having no faith is irrational.

And no, not everything is virtually possible. Only the things which are potential under the physical, biological and moral laws of nature are possible. Furthermore, the potential existed before space and time existed because the laws of nature existed before space and time.

The reality is that you don’t have any reason to believe God doesn’t exist, but you do.

I have been very forthcoming and truthful on this subject. I have seen lots of evidence that seems to indicate that no god exists, but i haven't made that decision...yet. Don't try to put words into my mouth. I have no idea what might have existed before space and time, or if space or time might have had a beginning.

You have mostly been respectful and courteous during our discussion. And I’m sure you believe you have been forthcoming and honest. I have no doubt you believe what you say. But it isn’t logical to believe that the existence of unicorns is just as likely as the existence of a creator and it isn’t logical to believe you have evidence to prove a negative. So while you believe you are being honest about those beliefs it just doesn’t make any sense to actually believe those things.

You are free to believe what you will. I have seen no more believable proof that a god exists than that unicorns exist.

Let’s test that. What evidence do you have that unicorns exist?

What evidence do you have that a creator created space and time? Wouldn’t space and time be evidence? I’m sure you can debate whether or not God created space and time but the reality is there is literally evidence that can be debated. So whether or not you agree that the evidence supports the existence of God a great many people do accept this evidence.

That just isn’t the case for unicorns. So it is 100% illogical for you to equivocate the two.

Calm down. Take a breath, and try to make a reasonable remark. I have no evidence that unicorns exist, so I'm not interested in trying to convince you that they do. Why would you think I would? Yes, space and time exist. I have no idea how they might have been created, or if they even needed to be created. Could have been in existence forever. The fact that they do exist is not proof of god. any more than this glass of rum is proof of unicorns. I also don't believe trolls live under bridges. Are you gonna ask me to compare trolls under bridges to god or unicorns? From the evidence I have concerning the existence of the three, they each seem just as unlikely as the other two. The fact that some people believe in unicorns, or god, or trolls under bridges is not proof that any one of the three is real.Of course, if you want to present evidence for any one of the three, I will be happy to hear it. You saying "I believe it" or "lots of us believe it" won't be very persuasive for any one of the three.

What makes you believe I’m not calm? What is it I have written that was unreasonable?

If anything you are accusing me of what you are doing.

Tell you what I will present the evidence for the existence of God and you can present the evidence for the existence of unicorns and then we can see which one has more evidence. Fair enough?

I’ll go first.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Your turn. Now present your evidence for the existence of unicorns and let's see if you have just as much evidence as I have for the existence of God.

 

[Bonzi]

If God loves us unconditionally, why does he kill us instead of curing us?

Jesus, Yahweh to some, said he came to serve us and not to have us serve him. That is what I describe as unconditional love.

Yahweh, on the other hand, seems to put a condition of us serving him on his love. If we do not love Yahweh, off to hell we go.

I call that a condition to his love, which is negated when he tortures us in hell, then kills us in hell’s second death.

This appears to be a huge contradiction in the Christian ideology.

Is Yahweh’s love unconditional to you, or is our having to love him back and serve him a condition?

Am I bound for hell because I cannot love or serve a genocidal demiurge like Jesus or Yahweh?

Is Jesus showing unconditional love for us when he kills us instead of curing us?


Regards
DL

First off, God does not kill us. The only reason we die a physical death is because (if you are a Bible believer) we disobeyed God.
Jesus, God in the flesh, came to fulfill the law and to die for our sins, so, OT and NT work hand in hand.
Hell was created for Satan, not us.

Let's compare God's love to a parent's love. We, like children, have a free will and freedom to "defy" our creator. Love doesn't stop just because your disobedience gets you in trouble.

Lastly, there are things you may never understand. That's why Christianity is founded on faith. It may sound like a cop out, but it's something people believe. If you don't believe that, it should not bother you. If it does, you have to ask yourself why.

 

[ding]

I can’t say I understand why you believe people are trying to force their religion upon you. It seems you are over reacting.

But I hear that complaint a lot. I just don’t agree that it is happening.

I don’t believe I have ever said because God said so. For instance I’m not against abortion because God said so. I am against abortion because it is wrong to end a human life, especially for selfish reasons. My argument against abortion is based on science and is a legal argument. Do you believe I am forcing my relyupon you because I oppose abortion? Or am I participating in the secular process the same as you?

Your opposition to abortion is based on the agreement made with TV preachers to support anti-abortion in exchange for their support of the GOP. Abortion was accepted and mostly uncontroversial before the unholy alliance between Jerry Falwell and the GOP.

Nope. It is based on the scientific fact that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. Can you dispute that fact? No. You can’t.

Additionally, since it is a new genetically distinct human being it is literally a specific person and should be afforded his or her inalienable right to life. That’s a legal argument.

So the only one mentioning religion in this discussion is you. That’s because you don’t have a scientific argument or a legal argument to make.

A small cluster of cells that cannot exist without total support from the body it is in is hardly a distinct human being. The apparatus required for sentient existence is not there.

First of all no abortions are performed when that human life you describe as a cluster of cells is in its earliest stage of the human life cycle.

At conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. Rather than admitting this scientific fact, you are literally dehumanizing a human life.

Secondly, at every stage along the continuum, this new human life has the attributes it should have for that stage of the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death. Every step along the journey from conception to death he or she is fully human. Do you deny this?

Of course abortions are performed on small cell clusters all the time.. You haven't heard of the morning after pill or seen the opposition to it by anti abortion groups? There are lots of steps before anything that can be considered a distinct human life exists. A zygote is further along the process than a single sperm or egg is, but only slightly, and still far from being a distinct person.

An ingot of steel might have some of the characteristics that are required for gears in a pocket watch, but an ingot is not a watch. It is only potentially a part of a watch.

At each step of development, a developing cluster of cells becomes closer to being what it could potentially become, but in the case of a human being, that is much further along in the process. I don't know exactly what point it becomes a distinct human, but it would have to be after it is self regulating enough to maintain it's own functions. Of course I deny that a fertilized egg is the same as a human.because it's not.

Maybe you are thinking about the abortion pill because the morning-after pill, also known as emergency contraception, helps prevent pregnancy, it does not terminate pregnancy.

You can't abort a human life until one actually recognizes they are pregnant. So your assumption that abortions terminate a clump of cells is patently false.

I am afraid that you will have to face reality. Try researching what that vast majority of "clumps of cells" actually look like when their life is being ended. While you are at it try researching what a D&E procedure is as 10% of abortions are performed using this technique. It's freaking barbaric. But it's OK because it isn't a human being, right?

 

[BULLDOG]

Your opposition to abortion is based on the agreement made with TV preachers to support anti-abortion in exchange for their support of the GOP. Abortion was accepted and mostly uncontroversial before the unholy alliance between Jerry Falwell and the GOP.

Nope. It is based on the scientific fact that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. Can you dispute that fact? No. You can’t.

Additionally, since it is a new genetically distinct human being it is literally a specific person and should be afforded his or her inalienable right to life. That’s a legal argument.

So the only one mentioning religion in this discussion is you. That’s because you don’t have a scientific argument or a legal argument to make.

A small cluster of cells that cannot exist without total support from the body it is in is hardly a distinct human being. The apparatus required for sentient existence is not there.

First of all no abortions are performed when that human life you describe as a cluster of cells is in its earliest stage of the human life cycle.

At conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. Rather than admitting this scientific fact, you are literally dehumanizing a human life.

Secondly, at every stage along the continuum, this new human life has the attributes it should have for that stage of the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death. Every step along the journey from conception to death he or she is fully human. Do you deny this?

God was the first Morning After Pill

Hosea 9:14
Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.

It seems that you are making an argument that since miscarriages naturally occur that abortion is moral. So since death naturally occurs are murders moral?

Besides you don’t believe God exists so you don’t believe God is the first morning after pill, right?

In that case it doesn't refer to natural random miscarriages. It's referring to intentional induced ending of a pregnancy. That is abortion. There are also instructions in the bible for a priest to perform a form of abortion for wives whose husband thinks have fooled around. I don't have to believe it is true. I just have to point out to those that do believe it that it is in there. Of course Christians regularly ignore parts they don't choose to believe.

 

[BULLDOG]

I have been very forthcoming and truthful on this subject. I have seen lots of evidence that seems to indicate that no god exists, but i haven't made that decision...yet. Don't try to put words into my mouth. I have no idea what might have existed before space and time, or if space or time might have had a beginning.

What evidence have you seen that indicates God doesn’t exist?

Are you trying to tell me that you have evidence to prove a negative?

Because I’m pretty sure that isn’t possible.

I have heard reasonable arguments claiming god doesn't exist. As I said, I haven't accepted that as fact, and as such it is immaterial in this discussion.

No. You literally said you have seen lots of evidence that seems to indicate that God does not exist.

Would you like to retract that claim?

I acknowledge that is what it seemed to indicate, but it wasn't persuasive enough for me to accept it as fact. No need to retract anything. It didn't convince me that a god doesn't exist, so it is immaterial in this discussion.-----like I already said.

So you stand by your assertion that you have seen evidence that can prove a negative?

Please show me the evidence you have seen that proves God does not exist.

This is the third and last time I intend to address that in this discussion. I have seen no evidence that proves god does not exist. I have seen evidence that tends to indicate there might not be a god, but it was inconclusive, and I didn't accept it as proof that god does not exist. Since I chose not to embrace, that information, there is no need to go into it here, unless that is a proof you intend to endorse. If you care to reverse yourself and now argue that you believe god doesn't exist, I could probably make a pretty good argument against that too. Valid proof of a negative is very rare, and usually easily countered. My claim is nothing more or less than "I have seen no evidence that proves a god does exist." You have yet to offer even the slightest bit of anything even slightly indicating a god does or must exist.

 

[BULLDOG]

I have been very forthcoming and truthful on this subject. I have seen lots of evidence that seems to indicate that no god exists, but i haven't made that decision...yet. Don't try to put words into my mouth. I have no idea what might have existed before space and time, or if space or time might have had a beginning.

You have mostly been respectful and courteous during our discussion. And I’m sure you believe you have been forthcoming and honest. I have no doubt you believe what you say. But it isn’t logical to believe that the existence of unicorns is just as likely as the existence of a creator and it isn’t logical to believe you have evidence to prove a negative. So while you believe you are being honest about those beliefs it just doesn’t make any sense to actually believe those things.

You are free to believe what you will. I have seen no more believable proof that a god exists than that unicorns exist.

Let’s test that. What evidence do you have that unicorns exist?

What evidence do you have that a creator created space and time? Wouldn’t space and time be evidence? I’m sure you can debate whether or not God created space and time but the reality is there is literally evidence that can be debated. So whether or not you agree that the evidence supports the existence of God a great many people do accept this evidence.

That just isn’t the case for unicorns. So it is 100% illogical for you to equivocate the two.

Calm down. Take a breath, and try to make a reasonable remark. I have no evidence that unicorns exist, so I'm not interested in trying to convince you that they do. Why would you think I would? Yes, space and time exist. I have no idea how they might have been created, or if they even needed to be created. Could have been in existence forever. The fact that they do exist is not proof of god. any more than this glass of rum is proof of unicorns. I also don't believe trolls live under bridges. Are you gonna ask me to compare trolls under bridges to god or unicorns? From the evidence I have concerning the existence of the three, they each seem just as unlikely as the other two. The fact that some people believe in unicorns, or god, or trolls under bridges is not proof that any one of the three is real.Of course, if you want to present evidence for any one of the three, I will be happy to hear it. You saying "I believe it" or "lots of us believe it" won't be very persuasive for any one of the three.

What makes you believe I’m not calm? What is it I have written that was unreasonable?

If anything you are accusing me of what you are doing.

Tell you what I will present the evidence for the existence of God and you can present the evidence for the existence of unicorns and then we can see which one has more evidence. Fair enough?

I’ll go first.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Your turn. Now present your evidence for the existence of unicorns and let's see if you have just as much evidence as I have for the existence of God.

See IM

 

[ding]

What evidence have you seen that indicates God doesn’t exist?

Are you trying to tell me that you have evidence to prove a negative?

Because I’m pretty sure that isn’t possible.

I have heard reasonable arguments claiming god doesn't exist. As I said, I haven't accepted that as fact, and as such it is immaterial in this discussion.

No. You literally said you have seen lots of evidence that seems to indicate that God does not exist.

Would you like to retract that claim?

I acknowledge that is what it seemed to indicate, but it wasn't persuasive enough for me to accept it as fact. No need to retract anything. It didn't convince me that a god doesn't exist, so it is immaterial in this discussion.-----like I already said.

So you stand by your assertion that you have seen evidence that can prove a negative?

Please show me the evidence you have seen that proves God does not exist.

This is the third and last time I intend to address that in this discussion. I have seen no evidence that proves god does not exist. I have seen evidence that tends to indicate there might not be a god, but it was inconclusive, and I didn't accept it as proof that god does not exist. Since I chose not to embrace, that information, there is no need to go into it here, unless that is a proof you intend to endorse. If you care to reverse yourself and now argue that you believe god doesn't exist, I could probably make a pretty good argument against that too. Valid proof of a negative is very rare, and usually easily countered. My claim is nothing more or less than "I have seen no evidence that proves a god does exist." You have yet to offer even the slightest bit of anything even slightly indicating a god does or must exist.

You literally live in a universe that was created by God. So it’s not that you have seen no evidence. It’s that you dismiss what you have seen and experienced as evidence.

 

[ding]

Nope. It is based on the scientific fact that at conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. One that has never existed before and will never exist again. Can you dispute that fact? No. You can’t.

Additionally, since it is a new genetically distinct human being it is literally a specific person and should be afforded his or her inalienable right to life. That’s a legal argument.

So the only one mentioning religion in this discussion is you. That’s because you don’t have a scientific argument or a legal argument to make.

A small cluster of cells that cannot exist without total support from the body it is in is hardly a distinct human being. The apparatus required for sentient existence is not there.

First of all no abortions are performed when that human life you describe as a cluster of cells is in its earliest stage of the human life cycle.

At conception a new genetically distinct human being has come into existence. Rather than admitting this scientific fact, you are literally dehumanizing a human life.

Secondly, at every stage along the continuum, this new human life has the attributes it should have for that stage of the human life cycle which begins at conception and ends at death. Every step along the journey from conception to death he or she is fully human. Do you deny this?

God was the first Morning After Pill

Hosea 9:14
Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.

It seems that you are making an argument that since miscarriages naturally occur that abortion is moral. So since death naturally occurs are murders moral?

Besides you don’t believe God exists so you don’t believe God is the first morning after pill, right?

In that case it doesn't refer to natural random miscarriages. It's referring to intentional induced ending of a pregnancy. That is abortion. There are also instructions in the bible for a priest to perform a form of abortion for wives whose husband thinks have fooled around. I don't have to believe it is true. I just have to point out to those that do believe it that it is in there. Of course Christians regularly ignore parts they don't choose to believe.

Again, you don’t believe God exists let alone wrote the Bible, right?

 

[ding]

You have mostly been respectful and courteous during our discussion. And I’m sure you believe you have been forthcoming and honest. I have no doubt you believe what you say. But it isn’t logical to believe that the existence of unicorns is just as likely as the existence of a creator and it isn’t logical to believe you have evidence to prove a negative. So while you believe you are being honest about those beliefs it just doesn’t make any sense to actually believe those things.

You are free to believe what you will. I have seen no more believable proof that a god exists than that unicorns exist.

Let’s test that. What evidence do you have that unicorns exist?

What evidence do you have that a creator created space and time? Wouldn’t space and time be evidence? I’m sure you can debate whether or not God created space and time but the reality is there is literally evidence that can be debated. So whether or not you agree that the evidence supports the existence of God a great many people do accept this evidence.

That just isn’t the case for unicorns. So it is 100% illogical for you to equivocate the two.

Calm down. Take a breath, and try to make a reasonable remark. I have no evidence that unicorns exist, so I'm not interested in trying to convince you that they do. Why would you think I would? Yes, space and time exist. I have no idea how they might have been created, or if they even needed to be created. Could have been in existence forever. The fact that they do exist is not proof of god. any more than this glass of rum is proof of unicorns. I also don't believe trolls live under bridges. Are you gonna ask me to compare trolls under bridges to god or unicorns? From the evidence I have concerning the existence of the three, they each seem just as unlikely as the other two. The fact that some people believe in unicorns, or god, or trolls under bridges is not proof that any one of the three is real.Of course, if you want to present evidence for any one of the three, I will be happy to hear it. You saying "I believe it" or "lots of us believe it" won't be very persuasive for any one of the three.

What makes you believe I’m not calm? What is it I have written that was unreasonable?

If anything you are accusing me of what you are doing.

Tell you what I will present the evidence for the existence of God and you can present the evidence for the existence of unicorns and then we can see which one has more evidence. Fair enough?

I’ll go first.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Your turn. Now present your evidence for the existence of unicorns and let's see if you have just as much evidence as I have for the existence of God.

See IM

I’m not interested in your rebuttal to the reasons why I believe that God exists. I provided them to show that I literally had reasons for believing as I do. I provided them to show that it is foolish to believe that there are just as many good reasons to believe in unicorns as there are to believe in God.

The reality is that there are no good reasons to believe in unicorns. There are good reasons to believe in God. Whether or not you accept them is irrelevant to this argument. My providing the reasons is all that was required to win this argument. Unless of course you have some good reasons to believe in unicorns. Do you?

 

[BULLDOG]

You are free to believe what you will. I have seen no more believable proof that a god exists than that unicorns exist.

Let’s test that. What evidence do you have that unicorns exist?

What evidence do you have that a creator created space and time? Wouldn’t space and time be evidence? I’m sure you can debate whether or not God created space and time but the reality is there is literally evidence that can be debated. So whether or not you agree that the evidence supports the existence of God a great many people do accept this evidence.

That just isn’t the case for unicorns. So it is 100% illogical for you to equivocate the two.

Calm down. Take a breath, and try to make a reasonable remark. I have no evidence that unicorns exist, so I'm not interested in trying to convince you that they do. Why would you think I would? Yes, space and time exist. I have no idea how they might have been created, or if they even needed to be created. Could have been in existence forever. The fact that they do exist is not proof of god. any more than this glass of rum is proof of unicorns. I also don't believe trolls live under bridges. Are you gonna ask me to compare trolls under bridges to god or unicorns? From the evidence I have concerning the existence of the three, they each seem just as unlikely as the other two. The fact that some people believe in unicorns, or god, or trolls under bridges is not proof that any one of the three is real.Of course, if you want to present evidence for any one of the three, I will be happy to hear it. You saying "I believe it" or "lots of us believe it" won't be very persuasive for any one of the three.

What makes you believe I’m not calm? What is it I have written that was unreasonable?

If anything you are accusing me of what you are doing.

Tell you what I will present the evidence for the existence of God and you can present the evidence for the existence of unicorns and then we can see which one has more evidence. Fair enough?

I’ll go first.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Your turn. Now present your evidence for the existence of unicorns and let's see if you have just as much evidence as I have for the existence of God.

See IM

I’m not interested in your rebuttal to the reasons why I believe that God exists. I provided them to show that I literally had reasons for believing as I do. I provided them to show that it is foolish to believe that there are just as many good reasons to believe in unicorns as there are to believe in God.

The reality is that there are no good reasons to believe in unicorns. There are good reasons to believe in God. Whether or not you accept them is irrelevant to this argument. My providing the reasons is all that was required to win this argument. Unless of course you have some good reasons to believe in unicorns. Do you?

You seem to think those are good reasons. I don't think they hold water. Believe what you want. I don't care.

 

[ding]

Let’s test that. What evidence do you have that unicorns exist?

What evidence do you have that a creator created space and time? Wouldn’t space and time be evidence? I’m sure you can debate whether or not God created space and time but the reality is there is literally evidence that can be debated. So whether or not you agree that the evidence supports the existence of God a great many people do accept this evidence.

That just isn’t the case for unicorns. So it is 100% illogical for you to equivocate the two.

Calm down. Take a breath, and try to make a reasonable remark. I have no evidence that unicorns exist, so I'm not interested in trying to convince you that they do. Why would you think I would? Yes, space and time exist. I have no idea how they might have been created, or if they even needed to be created. Could have been in existence forever. The fact that they do exist is not proof of god. any more than this glass of rum is proof of unicorns. I also don't believe trolls live under bridges. Are you gonna ask me to compare trolls under bridges to god or unicorns? From the evidence I have concerning the existence of the three, they each seem just as unlikely as the other two. The fact that some people believe in unicorns, or god, or trolls under bridges is not proof that any one of the three is real.Of course, if you want to present evidence for any one of the three, I will be happy to hear it. You saying "I believe it" or "lots of us believe it" won't be very persuasive for any one of the three.

What makes you believe I’m not calm? What is it I have written that was unreasonable?

If anything you are accusing me of what you are doing.

Tell you what I will present the evidence for the existence of God and you can present the evidence for the existence of unicorns and then we can see which one has more evidence. Fair enough?

I’ll go first.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Your turn. Now present your evidence for the existence of unicorns and let's see if you have just as much evidence as I have for the existence of God.

See IM

I’m not interested in your rebuttal to the reasons why I believe that God exists. I provided them to show that I literally had reasons for believing as I do. I provided them to show that it is foolish to believe that there are just as many good reasons to believe in unicorns as there are to believe in God.

The reality is that there are no good reasons to believe in unicorns. There are good reasons to believe in God. Whether or not you accept them is irrelevant to this argument. My providing the reasons is all that was required to win this argument. Unless of course you have some good reasons to believe in unicorns. Do you?

You seem to think those are good reasons. I don't think they hold water. Believe what you want. I don't care.

Again it’s not a question of whether you accept those reasons. It is a question of do you have any reasons to believe in unicorns.

I am afraid you will just have to accept the fact that there is no evidence you will accept for the existence of God. Not that there isn’t any.

 

[LittleNipper]

Let’s test that. What evidence do you have that unicorns exist?

What evidence do you have that a creator created space and time? Wouldn’t space and time be evidence? I’m sure you can debate whether or not God created space and time but the reality is there is literally evidence that can be debated. So whether or not you agree that the evidence supports the existence of God a great many people do accept this evidence.

That just isn’t the case for unicorns. So it is 100% illogical for you to equivocate the two.

Calm down. Take a breath, and try to make a reasonable remark. I have no evidence that unicorns exist, so I'm not interested in trying to convince you that they do. Why would you think I would? Yes, space and time exist. I have no idea how they might have been created, or if they even needed to be created. Could have been in existence forever. The fact that they do exist is not proof of god. any more than this glass of rum is proof of unicorns. I also don't believe trolls live under bridges. Are you gonna ask me to compare trolls under bridges to god or unicorns? From the evidence I have concerning the existence of the three, they each seem just as unlikely as the other two. The fact that some people believe in unicorns, or god, or trolls under bridges is not proof that any one of the three is real.Of course, if you want to present evidence for any one of the three, I will be happy to hear it. You saying "I believe it" or "lots of us believe it" won't be very persuasive for any one of the three.

What makes you believe I’m not calm? What is it I have written that was unreasonable?

If anything you are accusing me of what you are doing.

Tell you what I will present the evidence for the existence of God and you can present the evidence for the existence of unicorns and then we can see which one has more evidence. Fair enough?

I’ll go first.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Your turn. Now present your evidence for the existence of unicorns and let's see if you have just as much evidence as I have for the existence of God.

See IM

I’m not interested in your rebuttal to the reasons why I believe that God exists. I provided them to show that I literally had reasons for believing as I do. I provided them to show that it is foolish to believe that there are just as many good reasons to believe in unicorns as there are to believe in God.

The reality is that there are no good reasons to believe in unicorns. There are good reasons to believe in God. Whether or not you accept them is irrelevant to this argument. My providing the reasons is all that was required to win this argument. Unless of course you have some good reasons to believe in unicorns. Do you?

You seem to think those are good reasons. I don't think they hold water. Believe what you want. I don't care.

Why don't you care, and yet Christians do care? Isn't that a difference that seems to bring into question one's value of one's fellow humanity?