The categorizations of "Good" and "bad" are illusions and nothing more. (and so is morality)..part 3

Hello, thank you for accepting. You provide the elements necessary for morality to exist. I will address each: 1. "God exists" I remain that the existence of god can neither be disproven or proven, but you took the opposing opinion to this… "You say that God's existence cannot be proven. I disagree. Assuming we can accept the Big Bang as the creation of the universe, God exists. In a single instant, the First Law of Thermodynamics was wholly violated" The big bang is an incredibly complex thing, and only very advanced scientists can REALLY understand it fully. This type of analysis above comes from not understanding. It comes from looking at it, not being able to understand it, and then giving up and coming to this incredibly flawed conclusion: "If I can't understand it, it must be magic". This, however, is not science. The scientific community never embraces 2 contradictory theories…when 2 theories/phenomenon contradict each other, they work to come up with a new one. So, we must decide something: Should we trust the elite scientists who understand the big bang, or should we trust a handful of Christians, who have little or no understanding of the actual science of the big bang. AS far as my OWN understanding goes, it is to my knowledge that the atoms did not "come from nothing" they rapidly decompressed from an infinitesimally small point in space. And let's say, by some stretch of imagination, the big bang was disproved…how, in any way, would that PROVE that there is a god? And for all it's worth, NOTHING can be proven. Nothing at all. Especially something as magnificent as the existence of a god. When we discuss whether there is a god, we are discussing one of the fundamental questions of the universe. How, then, could we, as insignificant and relatively ignorant we are, ever PROVE, without a doubt, whether there is a god or not. How can so magnificent a question ever be answered by us, here, on this tiny pin-prick of a planet, so incredibly small and insignificant, still so relatively ignorant in nature. And this is what the debate boils down to, but because we can neither disprove nor prove god's existence, we must go with the most logical, and, for the most part, with evidence besides whether or not god exists. My PERSONAL opinion is that the idea of a god existing is NOT very logical. Now, unto the second… 2. "Sensible morality does not condemn things for existing, it condemns those who deliberately perform acts to harm others when the being's survival did not depend on said act." This is interesting, though flawed. WE are discussing the FUNDAMENTAL EXSISTANCE of all things. While I agree that in society it is beneficial to see people as individuals…in REALITY, it deos not work that way. We are physical objects…Do you deny this? WE are physical objects…we are made of matter. Therefore, we are just objects and act like any other. WE follow the same laws. And you are taking the position that it is a fundamental law that there is morality. Therefore, there is absolutely no difference between a sin committed by a river, and a sin committed by an "individual". This aspect of your stance largely circulates around free will. This is scientifically and logically flawed. We live in a world of logic and fate. One event CAUSES another event, and so it goes in our head. A multiple of factors and variables can only add up to ONE thing. 2+3 can not choose to equal 5, it HAS to equal 5. This is why free will is flawed. There are chemical processes in our brain that predict whether we do A or we do B. Therefore, in the eyes of fundamental existence, in the eyes of reality, un-tainted by illusions from our instinctual brain, we are no different from physical objects. WE are a group of atoms arranged in a certain way. So it is irrelevant to apply this to solely Human individuals, but not other physical objects. "I see an immoral act as an act that deliberately harms another human being." Why does it matter whether they are harmed? Why does it matter if it helps their survival? Does it really matter if a brain triggers a chemical reaction that symbolizes pain? Why does it matter? There is no universal cause, therefore it cannot matter…nothing can matter. What would it matter whether the human race died tomorrow? The only thing that compels you to state that these things are immoral are your instincts, you are analyzing things through the eyes of your instinctual brain. If an alien was to come, would they see it in the same light? Probably not. Whether or not blood runs through the veins of a couple of animals will not matter to any cause; there is no cause. 3. "Comparing morality to the behavior of animals is irrelevant, given that humans are capable of logic and rational thinking, and are not driven by instincts" This is very scientifically flawed. IN the realm of science, humans are, technically, animals. They are animals in every scientific definition of the word. We have organs like animals. We have a brain like animals. We are animals. These are the first 2 definitions of the word "animal" from dictionary.com… " 1.any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli: some classification schemes also include protozoa and certain other single-celled eukaryotes that have motility and animallike nutritional modes. 2.any such living thing other than a human being. " The first one, one can see on first glance, is the technical, scientific definition. This, scientifically, proves that we are animals. The second one, is the common usage definition. This is based on the minds (common usage; in other words how people render a word reflecting their own brains) of humans. This reflects upon how we PERCIEVE that we are above animals; that we are fundamentally different than them. This reflects upon how we have that ILLUSION (see the topic of this debate). But here in this debate, I am trying to transcend the silly illusions of our own brains. The topic is based on the fact that "good" and "bad" are illusions. WE are trying to look at the fundamentals, the very core of all existence. That is why we must use the FIRST definition, in this context. Because this is the scientific definition, and here is dictionary.com's definition of science: "a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences." My opponent is basing his views on illusions, I am basing mine on FACTS (see above). The voter must consider this. And I would like to focus on something else that grabbed my opinion that you said: "humans are capable of logic and rational thinking, and are not driven by instincts" This, too, is scientifically flawed. We are driven by instincts. This is a fact. You cannot deny it. It has been proven by the scientific community. If you really want to further pursue this stance, I will find some sort of proof. But I guarantee you, this is a fact. -Harlan