₦airaland Forum

Dtruthspeaker:
The mere fact that you do not know does not mean others do not know something more than you do.

Legal Means means man made laws. But Moral Laws aka Natural Laws are not made by men. THEY ARE EVEN THE LAWS WHICH MADE MAN AND EVERYTHING IN THIS WORLD.

https://www.nairaland.com/7019584/lawyers-every-body-not-deceit

https://www.nairaland.com/6989896/lawyers-not-deceit

So legal can change because man is the god of legal, so therefore he can do as he likes with it.

But he can not change Moral Laws (Natural Laws) for that one is beyond his reach.

Which is why the only thing he can do is to either obey or disobey them according to his power.

Wrong again .
What are considered "natural laws" varies from culture to culture.

The mere fact that you do not know does not mean others do not know something more than you do.

LOL .....and when my daddy gets home, he's gonna beat up your daddy.
How incredibly childish .

You have no evidence, (and you have presented nothing sensible) for this unfounded assertion : "They are the laws which made man and everything in this world."
LOL ... and what are these "laws" and exactly where did they come from ?
What are these laws which you *claim* "made man and everything in this world", and what are you even talking about ?
Provide the evidence.
I checked out your posts in the links. They're hot TRASH and I find it hard to believe that a thinking adult created such posts .

But he can not change Moral Laws (Natural Laws) for that one is beyond his reach.

Which is why the only thing he can do is to either obey or disobey them according to his power.

Prove it with 5 examples.

i would propose that modern science disproves this bs claim countless times every day of the week .
Let me try to help you.
https://iep.utm.edu/natlaw/

Dtruthspeaker:
Morals do not change. It is the people who change by disobeying the morals as they exercise their power to obey and disobey.

Bet you never heard this statement of Law (Morals)

"A crime does not cease to be a crime simply because it's offenders have increased" eg like the crime of adultery.

Aren't you special. Quoting a moronic piece of tripe. Where do you get this garbage ?
A "crime" is the breaking of a LEGAL standard.
Adultery may or may not be a crime, depending on where you live.
It may or may not be considered immoral in the society where you live.
The laws any given society puts in place may or may not be in line with their morals, (which change all the time).
They are NOT the same. Was it "moral" for ancient Israelites to kill the babies/infants of their neighboring city states ?
I get that this seems to be a bit too complicated for you.
There are cultures, even today, where it is perfectly legal AND moral to have numerous wives. So much for adultery.

Endtimer:
Since I've come to understand your point, I can't say this discussion has been fruitless; painful perhaps, but far from fruitless. I'll use your post to illustrate something to someone who thinks. Wilgrea7, this woman has demonstrated exactly what we've been talking about for a while now, so I'm going to demonstrate the untenability of Godless morality using her ideas as a foil. That way something sensible can result from my interaction with her and perhaps objective third parties can come to see what I'm talking about.

She starts her reply by indicating that morality is sourced from individual wants. She quickly refutes herself, but I'll stick to debunking her claims for now (you might want to read the quoted text in its entirety for context). If morals really did come from what people want, then the Holocaust would certainly be the greatest moral accomplishment in the history of the world as it fulfilled Hitler's desires admirably.

She undoes herself by following her first point with a short paragraph where she struggles to demonstrate innate human goodness through evolutionary appeal. I'm not one to reference Richard Dawkins but she might want to read The Selfish Gene. Contrary to her Powerpuff Girls influenced fantasy, humans are demonstrably bad. We've been at war throughout our existence and when we take time off from that, it's to enjoy the spoils of battles won: captive women, slaves, stolen goods and property. If her argument here is that we naturally manifest (what her Christianity-influenced mind considers) moral sentiment it is only because we live in a civilization only 3% as old as the time we've spent on this earth. Furthermore, her point about survival being contingent on empathy is as ludicrous as it is absurd. Empathy is hardly an important trait in determining the survival of a species; not to mention that survival cannot be seen as determinant of morality because it often involves killing (another thing most Christian-influenced atheist minds consider bad). If that was the case anything required for survival (essentially doing your part in perpetuating your genetic heritage) would be moral. Things like killing, stealing, rape, theft, and most of the other things constitutions ban would be alright depending on the situation.

Next, is another short paragraph where she states that her happiness about the wellbeing of others is enough to bring about morality. If people should do good things only because they make us happy, then the same can be said about bad things. No sensible person can honestly believe this (as we'll see at the end of her post). Once again she fails to grasp that some people do not think like she does and solipsistically declares that people will be good little boys and behave in the absence of objective morals because it makes her happy to see others happy. It also made Nazis happy to throw people in gas chambers and Bin Laden happy when the second plane hit the building. Furthermore, no adult should believe that goodness is contingent on our happiness because happiness is a flimsy emotion. One moment we wish to be alone in the world and the next to be surrounded by friends and family. Emotional transience would render all morals super-arbitrary as they not only change when one person's happiness fades but were never even in place as different people are made happy by different things. Some people would be happy if we all died so they could claim our land.

She says something about Saudi's.

Then, she assumes the ironic position of the holier-than-thou atheist by borrowing my morals and attacking me for believing in a God that commands the "suffering of innocents"; all this despite having stated her disbelief in objective morality elsewhere. How can I be bad, if good and bad are matters of personal taste. Isn't that just her isolated, valueless opinion.

Finally, she proves my point by accusing me of evil and demanding my immediate arrest and imprisonment without the possibility of bail and without a fair trial, all because I, the Christian, am a mass shooter and arsonist (I'm as shocked as you are, as I was just informed). Her last paragraph is proof of what I've been saying all along: she wants me locked up for not believing what she believes. The significance of this is that atheist morality is dependent on personal opinion. Our laws are codified morals and would-be tyrants would have me (and all other believers) locked up for believing a logically unassailable position (moral contingence on deity). Ironically, from her post history she feels oppressed as an atheist in Nigeria, but finds it within herself to call for the arrest of someone for believing in God. I'm curious as to whose morals would inevitably lead to totalitarianism as they aren't morals at all; just what she woke up feeling.

Sorry for the long text. I'm tired so I'll post my proposed solution to Christian antinomianism some other day. Happy independence.

You forgot a couple things in this desperate attempt to obfuscate , diversion and hope we didn't notice you did not address the questions posed to you ........
What god are you talking about, (and BTW, prove it exists).
You still have not explained WHY you hold your position with respect to the gods and morality...... Hop to it.
You CLAIM that it's logically unassailable, but you have never even once presented the steps in the logic , AND you have not told us which system of logic you're using,... (along with the demonstration that particular logic applies to this situation/topic).
So, all this crap amount to is nothing, the same as "I know you are, but what am I".
Since you have demonstrated NOTHING logically, except to make a claim, you are dismissed.
Come back when you grow up , and after you go to school.

You CLAIM that morality is unwarranted without the gods.
You have never told us WHY ?
When you get big, and take Logic, you will learn you must PRESENT your premises, and only THEN, present your conclusion. You have never done that.
Your claim is so UNsound logically , it can be destroyed with 4 simple words. Guess what they are ?
You have been given numerous examples why a moral code IS warranted with the gods.
You have answered no example, directly.
Most of Sociology, Psychology, the law, Anthropology, common sense, etc etc disagrees with your minority claim.

Best of luck in your career as a troll.
you'll have to do better than this if you think anyone honest will take you seriously .

Endtimer:
So what? What you’re saying is that most people do what everyone else does. What I’m saying is that it isn’t warranted whether or not the people in question are aware.

You are simply saying that in the absence of your hypothetical church-laws, people (due to ignorance) would continue to act properly. I’m asking why they should. Saying that they ignorantly will is a cop-out. I’ll restate the question: if God doesn’t exist, why should anyone do the right thing?

Hopefully, you won’t say, “because we’ll throw them in jail otherwise”. The question would become: why should we throw them in jail? If you say, “because killing people (as an example) is wrong”; the question becomes: why is it wrong? If you say, “it just is”; the question becomes: why? That’s enough prediction from me, but just in case you say that we just know what is good and what isn’t you’d have created the basis for rationalization of whatever anyone does based on their subjective knowledge of good and bad.

Hopefully you see why I have to continue explaining myself.

such ignorant tripe / bullshit.
So you want your prize candy sucker from your Jesus for "doing the right thing". you have never told us how you determine what is "proper".....
You keep saying that doing the right thing , (there is NO single "right thing" which is why adult organizations have ethics committees ) is not warranted without a god .
What god are you talking about ? the gods that humans had to sacrifice their babies to obtain their favor ? What is it about the gods that make morality "warranted" ... exactly.
so ... you're saying that there being gods makes morality "warranted", and self-evident, but .... the gods themselves are not self-evident.
LMAO.

Killing people is wrong for a number of reasons (I see you still haven't taken Anthro 101), including the fact that YOU would not want to be killed .
are you lacking empathy ? are you a pathological personality with no empathy ? even rats have empathy ... you keep asserting morality is unwarranted with no gods ,
yet you have even ONCE attempted to tell us why that is. People in a society believe in all sorts of gods . Could you provide us a list of your "approved" gods which make morality warranted ?

Sorry we suggested you're 13.
You are 12, right ?

TenQ:
Is your argument that complexity is not relative!?

if that bullshit is true, the water molecule is "complex".
H2O is 100 % more complex than H2 and oxygen.
Are you on drugs ?

TenQ:
Can you please show the Evidence to prove that conscience EVOLVED and from what?

LOL
No one has to show you that .
"Conscience" is nothing but "learned behaviors", (which as you were told yesterday even by all the major religious groups, is "formed" by environment) and you have no evidence there is anything called "conscience" other than learned behaviors and learned standards .
Can you please take Anthropology 101 and actually learn the BASICS of how cultures teach their children about what are proper behaviors for their members. Can you also describe for us what allowed your god-given consciences to permit child sacrifice in the many cultures that practiced it .
You're not really this stupid are you ?

TenQ:
Most Atheists like you are powered by the same unclean spirit, so your uncouth nature is not surprising.

See how he is changing goalpost all about ; the trashing of a drowning man.

I can see you've demonstrated mastery and brilliance in in the sciences, morality, theology and
on philosophy.
It's so evident: I wish to come and learn from you!

LOL!!

Tell us what an "And Hill" is and how complex it is .
then post your complexity scale and tell us how (exactly) complex something needs to be for it to require a designer .
Be very specific . either answer this very specifically or you'll be booted out of my school.
my tuition is free . How much are you paying for the crap your bullshit school teaches ?

how is it your fake god(s) let the people of Puerto Rico suffer, and many die without intervention ?
he did nothing to help . How many innocent infants died yesterday of cancer and starvation, and your fake gods did nothing ?
be sure and tell your fake gods thanks for nothing.
Your (fake) gods are worthless pieces of shit.
Yet you believe in them.
How delusional can you get ? Dullard

TenQ:
Complexity is relative my dear: I'm surprised you didn't know that!

Fail.
So your standard is meaningless.

TenQ:
Ands are NOT intelligent!
Bees are NOT intelligent !!
Governments are not intelligent!!!

Which school did you attend please, maybe I should transfer my studentship. They are doing a good job with you.

Khai:
Wannabe Atheist reasoning at its best!

Thanks for agreeing with me.
i’m not sure what an "And Hill" would be, (are "ands" related to ants ?) but maybe your school can tell you about what an And Hill is.
Unfortunately for you , you clearly are wasting your tuition money at whichever theology school you chose to waste it at .
they failed to teach you the very basics,
which you are missing in every post . I feel sorry for you.
Ant hills are COMPLEX SYSTEMS (as bee hives are) which (as you say) have no intelligent designers .
Let me know if you need any help with other interpretations of plain English .

TenQ:
You can't force your definition and whims on God's nature and moreover an objective law is not binding over the giver of the law as to him, it is subjective.

If the claim of God as omnipotent is true, by your claims, he should be bound by laws He created (against His nature)!?

Sorry sir. The explanation is solid enough. A law set by a government is subjective to the government but objective to the citizens! If it is difficult for you to comprehend this, too bad as you are beyond help

I didn't say "omnipotent", ... i said "omniscient".
You can't read.
i need no help from an ignoramus.
Would you like an "eclxample" ?
LOL

So far you've been proven ignorant
on the science,
on the morality,
on the theology,
on the philosophy.

Why are you here making a fool of yourself ?

your FIRST job here is to demonstrate there are gods, any gods.
Get you're sorry ass busy and show us there are any gods.
Any at all.
So far , you're batting ZERO.

TenQ:
Governments can be wrong. In fact government can make laws against morals.
Whatever their subjective opinion of laws are become binding and objective to the citizen.

As a member of the communist party in China, tell them you are a Christian or Muslim and see what will happen to you. The Chinese or North Korean Communist Party is exclusively ATHEISTIC!

Governments are composed (according to you) of people with consciences . what the hell happened ?
you failed to address the other groups mentioned.

TenQ:
The question I asked was:
Is it possible to see a complex system without an intelligent designer behind it?

Yes
Ant hills, bee hives , the Federal Government.

TenQ:
A complex system.

It is easy to be vague with overly simple systems.

A house as a system is complex enough with a roof, doors, windows, water supplies, drainage, access roads.

A bacteria is a complex system as a Car is a complex System.

A snow crystal is an overly simple system (even though functionality of the parts is debatable)


The more complex a system is, the higher the probability it is designed and built by a highly intelligent being.
Do you agree or disagree with this?

highly complex systems have been observed to have evolved, (and replicated) with no designer .
Many highly complex systems, (for example human bodies and their components) have been shown to be very poorly designed .....
Yet another field of your ignorance.

TenQ:
All you needed to do was to falsify the logic not cry about what is not

You wish.
the POINT was and is that you have not demonstrated the logic you chose to use applies to what you know nothing about ... the environment in which the gods exist . You know nothing about that (potential) environment, or which of the many logics apply to that reality ... Dr. Sean Carroll schooled WL Craig about this in their debate, and Craig had no answer. i never expected you, ignorant of all the fields you know nothing about, would have any answer to it . Thanks for proving me correct.

https://www.haverford.edu/sites/default/...reason.pdf

TenQ:
People read to comprehend, yours is reading to misinterpret.

It's "misinterpret" . You forgot to say how.

Does God have the right to change His laws to man?
Has God ever changed His laws to man?

No if they're objective .
Not if your god meets the definition of a god.
There are no gods.
You have to demonstrate that first.

If your answer is yes to both, then Laws to God are Subjective as he could change them if He wants.

The answer is no to both . your answer is meaningless drivel.

A miracle for your information is God SUSPENDING physical laws for a purpose. The Laws are Subjective to Him BUT objective to you.

actually no . ALL Biblical Scholars say miracles are totally natural events in which a non-believer see nothing unusual, and a believer sees the hand of god operating . As I said the VERY BASICS escape you.

If you have read a little slowly, you would have noted that I used the eclxample of Government too.

if you had written a little slowly you would not have written "eclxample". What ? you're so uneducated you can't use a spell checker ?

The legal age of 18 is subjective rule by the government. They could make it 16,17 or 21 if they wanted. The rule is subjective to them but to the citizens, the same law is OBJECTIVE to them. You can't claim that a 17year 11 month girl gave you consent for sex and the law will not treat you as a rapist.

Nope , your distinctions are irrelevant.
You are totally ignorant of science, religion, history, ethics, the Bible, and morality .
Good luck to you .

TenQ:
You can't beat logic: only if the postulates are wrong can the conclusion be invalidated

Show logically or scientifically that infinite regress of cause and effect is possible?


Time, Space, Matter and all the laws of Physics occured simultaneously at/after big bang.
You know the implication!?

It means that however we try Scientifically, we cannot probe beyond (before) the big bang.

The Uncaused First cause must of course be beyond (before/ the big bang) meaning that He cannot be subject either to the laws of physics nor be of material/matter origin.

The Uncaused First cause is an ENIGMA!

totally false . There are MANY logics ... the fact you don't know about ALL of them is not my problem. Clearly you know only one.
You have to establish that the ONE logic you are using applies to the situation you are analyzing.
Many of the known logical systems, (which you obviously know nothing about), while being perfectly internally consistent, do not obtain in reality.
you also don't know that your one logic applies to reality before/apart from THIS universe. It's an unsupported assumption. All you know about is 5 % of this universe . Nothing else.

Deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is a type of reasoning that uses formal logic and observations to prove a theory or hypothesis. ...
Inductive reasoning. ...
Analogical reasoning. ...
Abductive reasoning. ...
Cause-and-effect reasoning. ...
Critical thinking. ...
Decompositional reasoning.
... and many others.

there is no implication , as "something" was at high temperature and density, and both of those are PHYSICAL properties.
You're wrong about the Big Bang , and what can be known from it.

TenQ:
4. Finally, God's laws are subjective to Him because He has the right and power to change the law according to how it suits Him.

it's bullshit.

according to every theology I've ever read, (and you obviously missed), "God" is an eternal, timeless and unchanging being , BY DEFINITION.
a god that changes it's mind does not meet the definition of a "god".
a real god would be omniscient, and KNOW everything, eternally. If a god needs to change its mind , it ain't no god.

Psalm 90:2
"Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God."

How is it you seem to be unaware of the VERY BASICS ?
Are you a Freshman at Biola ?

1000WaysToLive:
THIS has got to be one of the funniest things I have read in a while


I did not feel "empty" when I gained the perspective of atheism.


I felt freed of superstition in all ways. I had escaped the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, and finally also escaped "God". All were just imaginations.

I don't know where you get the inane idea that atheists have no "conscience".

We don't need a "guy in the sky" to tell us what is decent and right regarding others.

If you do need religion to tell you what is right to do, that suggests that you have no internal ethical guidelines yourself and act properly only in fear of some afterlife punishment.

I do actually pity you for that lack.

I don't need a deity to tell me to be kind to my neighbors and family.

Apparently, you do.


Please try to get a real human life and learn to think for yourself...

he better add Psychology 101, especially the chapter on "projection" to his classes.

chryssanthe:
I like how you skirt around specific problems and sink into nonsensical nebulous posts!

You do realize that what you term as "objective morality" is based on your own judgment and interpretation of the bible or whatever god you believe in. There are thousands of different Christian denominations each interpreting the Bible differently and the objective moralities of one denomination's version of god is a different objective moralities than another denomination's and also different than yours.
There are evangelical denominations who believe in beating children per Deut. 21:18 -21. I know, I had to deal with one of these insane groups.
Other deniminations are horrified by this.

There is no such thing as objective morality when you have a god who hides and relies on biased, flawed human beings writing down what he wants people to do!

he claimed that his god put consciences in people.
how is it so many variations of morality exist ?
how is it so many cultures had child sacrifice ?
how is it even the Jews/Hebrews (which is spoken about in the Bible) practiced child sacrifice.
did they not have consciences ?
LOL

Oh wait, I remember. It was the "devil".

TenQ:
Sorry Sir,
Our frame of reference is the big bang as it is important to know or measure anything BEFORE the big bang/inflation as SPACE, TIME , MATTER and ENERGY, including All the Laws of Physics and Chemistry with their Fundarmental Constant did not exist?

We were not speaking about BEFORE the big bang/inflation sir

i couldn't care less what you were speaking about.
You MUST answer WHAT was at high temperature and high density before the expansionary phase.
You are hijacking the theory to say what it does not say.

High temperature and high density are PHYSICAL PROPERTIES . they are not properties of "nothing".

WHAT WAS AT HIGH TEMPERATURE AND DENSITY ?
(You don't know), and neither does anyone else.
the Big Bang Theory is not about a creation event.

TenQ:
It's good I scare you bad!
May all your demons ever be scared of my mention!

No wonder, response to simple questions throw you off the bridge.

I'm sure you've never heard of the word conscience: let me explain.

It's the little sentinel program God wrote into you to be your first tutor to doing good. It doesn't matter if you are Buddhist, Hindi, Hare Krishna, Muslim or Christian, you have a conscience (an instinct) that rewards you with peace and joy when you do good and withdraws peace and joy from your heart when you do evil.

Even when you finally decided for Atheism, you remember how EMPTY you felt!?

Even in your Atheism, if you've not completely overwritten your programming, you still have a conscience. Don't you!?

nope. Fail again.
consciences are "formed" ... by culture and by experience and by teaching.
All the major theological systems talk extensively about a "well formed" conscience.
how is it you don't know that ?
your opinion that they are somehow innate is false, and even religion agrees with that, and has extensive writing about that.

Maybe besides science you should take Theology 101.

TenQ:
A System is the hallmark of intelligent design.

No wonder you couldn't answer a single question I post.

Google:
Everything can be found on Google including falsehood and misinformation.

Will you answer my questions!?

you can post no example of intelligent design which does not have at least a purported explanation,
or which cannot be shown to be piss-poor design.

Wow. Is this garbage all you have ?

Intelligent Design is actually an argument AGAINST the gods.
A real god could make things work the way she wants it to work, no matter what the design was.

TenQ:
Shame on you: I said there is no morality!? And I am a Christian!?

Everyone irrespective of government or no government laws know that Murder, Rape is wrong because we have been programmed to know that these are wrong.

I just punchured you argument that morality is subjective to God therefore also subjective to man.

governments put people to death all the time , many times in error.
many people think capital punishment is wrong , many do not.
many people say abortion is murder, many do not.
it used to be legal for husbands to rape their wives.
you punctured nothing.

TenQ:
How: Big Bang or Inflation of gravitational singularity
When: 13.8billion years ago

You're wrong

nope. She is not wrong . YOU are wrong. you're taken the typical hijacking of the theory by Christian apologists as true. It is not.
the Big Bang Theory says that something(s) which ALREADY EXISTED, which was at high temperature and density, (no one knows what that was .... but it ALREADY EXISTED, ie it was NOT a "creation event" ) and it expanded ... the Big Bang was the EXPANSIOARY phase, not a beginning of anything.
"Nothing" is not at high temperature and density. SOMETHING was (already) at high temperature and pressure. The Big Bang Theory says NOTHING about the creation or "beginning" of anything.

chryssanthe:
Yet your god impregnates 13 or 14 year old little Mary without her fathers consent!
The age of consent in Hebrew culture 2000 years ago was 12 or sometime after her first period!

She was subject to the rule and legal control of her father which was based on the laws of the Talmud which was based on the laws handed down by their god, the same god you believe in.

According to Christian myth Jesus is the result of impregnating a child which today would be consider statitory rape!
As a secular society we've decided that a 12 year old girl is still a child yet in objective religious standards set up by your god it's perfectly fine to deposit magical sperm in a child.

Tell me again about these objective moral standards!

Morality developes and changes through time and experience. We don't stone children today as is condoned in the bible. Anyone stoning a child today would be in prison!

the holy child predator owed marys dad a lump sum, and poor little mary a support payment...biblically speaking.

they let you do it when you're a god though. Do anything . Grab em by the uterus.

1. "Thou shalt not kill."
2. "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."

there is no objective moral system in religion.
in the Bible , it totally depends on the circumstances, which is the definition of "subjective".

Tamaratonye1:
He has not asserted any such thing!

For crying out loud, are you simply incapable of reading for comprehension? Is English not your first language? Or is there some other handicap that explains your constant misreading?

his argument from personal incredulity is a well known fallacy
he doesn't know what is a scientific impossibility .
there are many theories in abiogenesis (by Nobel winners) of how life began. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
he can provide no scientific reference for his false (ignorant) claim.
there is nowhere science says that, AND yes it is a possibility.
Chaos Theory ... he should check it out. Order arises in this universe spontaneously.
(Has he told us yet which of the many gods created everything ?) (Of course it's his personal god. It always is.)

TenQ:
Is there no UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE of everything that exist?
You evaded the question:
Logically, infinite regress of cause and effect is impossible. It has to terminate somewhere and that is the where the Uncaused First Cause of Everything is waiting

you don't know that. Absolutely not . No.
1. there are many logics... , and you don't know (nor have you justified the one you're using) which one applies to the conditions you're claiming your logic applies to . You have not demonstrated there is a universal logic that applies to all situations . Even in this universe at a singularity, your logic does not apply. Fail. Near a black hole your logic does not apply......
which logic are you using and how is it you know it applies to the reality you're talking about ? Hint: You don't . Justify the logic you're using , or stop talking about logics.
2. you know nothing except 5% of this universe . You know nothing about the reality in which your gods exist . You know nothing about anything in those conditions . Your gods are not bound by your logic . You know nothing about the reality , logic or cause and effect that would have been external to this universe... you're making claims about "has to terminate somewhere" you know nothing about..... Fail again.
3. Is this your first debate ? These are rookie errors. "Terminates" assumes space-time exists in the reality without this universe , (and contradicts the theology of an eternal/timeless God and its environment).
you know nothing about that reality , and as far as we know space-time began at the Big Bang. Using ANY temporal reference ("terminate" is unsupported/unfounded/unwarranted.
Typical Christian ignorant misrepresentations.

TenQ:
Let me ask you a question as an Atheist:
Is sex with an animal wrong if there is guarantee that the animal is not hurt, that adequate protection against STDs are used and no danger is posed to the society?


Please don't doge this question!

allow me please to answer you.
yes it is NOT wrong, and it's precisely what Genesis describes, and you should know the answer to this if you have ever read your Bible.
you see your god is too stupid to figure out what to do about Eve.
you do read the Bible, right ?
your god has exactly that occur as He tried to figure out what to make for Adam as a helpmate.

Genesis 2:18-20
The Lord God said : "It is not good for man to be alone. I will make a suitable partner for him". So the Lord God formed out of the ground various wild animals and various birds of the air and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each of them would be its name. The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be a suitable partner for the man.

so as you can see from the Bible, your god is too stupid to make a partner for the man, and to compensate for His stupidity , they had to have "tryouts",...
and as part of that, your god had to have Adam sleep with pretty much every animal in existence . since your Bible mentions none of the things you're worried about, sex with animals is totally a part of god's master plan, and He totally approves of sex with animals . Hehehehe

efficiencie:
Well, news flash, the James Webb Telescope just destroyed your beloved big bang theory.

No it didn't. Not even a little bit .

https://www.cnet.com/science/space/no-james-webb-space-telescope-images-do-not-debunk-the-big-bang/

were this actually true, news of this nature would be front page headlines around the world . Instead it's found only in the lunatic fringes of the internet.

Oh, right. That it isn't in Newsweek or NPR PROVES it must be true and is being suppressed by the Hillary controlled baby-eating cabal . SMH

TenQ:
Objective morality gives a standard from God.

actually that is not true.
have you never studied the Bible ?
The standards there changed countless times.

Endtimer:
Everyone here wrongly thinks I’m talking about actual experiences rather than abstractions. I agree that most people will continue living as though there is a reason to be good. What I’m saying is that there isn’t such a reason, regardless of whether people act as though there were. The problem isn’t that there are people who digress from morality. The problem is that adherence to Godless morality is unwarranted..................

..some day when you grow up, you may attend school , and take an anthropology course.
If you can get into one of those, you, if you pay attention, you will find morality has nothing to do with the gods, (even though you know nothing at this point about the subject), .... and BTW what is considered as "good" under the Christian god, CHANGES from book to book in the Bible .... Culture has ALWAYS historically informed religious culture, (religion sanctions culture, culture does not sanction religion) not the other way around... but that's a few years away, from your present level, son, and obviously far from your present education level.

... you will learn, assuming you do your assignments, that adherence to moral standards promotes group cohesion, is group forming, and also assuming you get into a science course, you will learn that conforming to group rules, promotes survival of the group. The gods are not necessary to motivate moral systems, which you will also learn when you learn about different cultures, and comparative cultures.

we won't hold our breath that you will get into any of those courses .
we get that you need the candy/sucker to motivate your moral adherence, as you have the mentality of a two-year old, but most outgrow their moral infancy pretty quickly. You obviously are stuck in your toddler phase .