God exists

Con argues that morality does not exists apart from human cognition. He says, "Why is rape "bad"? It could be instinctual or societal or cultural or conditioned." If that is the case, Con cannot rightfully judge the Nazi's for the holocaust, and neither can any of us. If the holocaust was only wrong in our societal, cultural, or instinctual "opinions," but wasn't wrong by any law beyond that, on what basis can we judge another people for what was in harmony with the laws of their own state - namely, the massacre of millions of Jews? They were not breaking the law of Germany at the time. If rape is only wrong in some people's opinion, what right do they have to punish another man who thinks that rape is ok according to his morals and values? According to Con, he doesn't know why its bad. What right has Con to impose his morality on another person, and say that rape is an evil thing? Without God we have no proper foundation for saying that any action is really good or bad. And if the rapist is simply dancing to his genes, and following his instincts like the animal he is, why should this be condemned? This atheistic doctrine tells us that our sense of morality is delusional, and it mocks us. My point is this: the mere fact that Con considers rape an evil thing despite what the rapist may think argues strongly that even Con himself must be basing his morals on some higher law above himself. If not, then he should not condemn such things, he should not think of them as evil, they just are! If he truly believed morality was a societal thing, then when the Germans decided to eradicate the Jews, and when the whites decided to put blacks in slavery and treat them as slaves, then this should have made these actions justified, because the whites as a society and the Germans were by majority vote treating blacks or Jews in said way. But Con argues that if God place morals in us, why don't we all live by these same morals? And how did they get there? Well, first of all, all over the world there is a consensus that certain things are good, and certain things are bad. Love, peace, generosity, honesty, and so on are universally accepted as good things, while lying, murder, pain, fear, etc, are recognized as bad. So it's the majority that do conform to the basic morals in all of us. We were created in God's image as a species, so we have these attributes. We have a conscience. When we do wrong, we feel it most of the time. But just as a man can wear a condom and refuse to procreate, we can rebel against our morals. And so many people rebel at times. But lets get back to a few facts Con seems to have forgotten. (1) Abiogenesis is not a fact, but a theory. A theory I should to be so unlikely as to be impossible via Miller's experiment. No one has repeated abiogenesis, nor is it seen in nature today, and thus it is not a fact. Life NEVER comes from non-living material, ever, in nature, that is a fact. Science is based in that which is observable and testable; no observation or test has confirmed abiogenesis. (2) Life comes from life. This is a proven fact of the natural world. It was going on before humans were here, it was observes all during our history, and is still happening now. (3) The physical universe had a beginning. (4) Since life comes from life, and NEVER from non -life, life always existed; the universe did not. Life before the universe is by definition outside nature, and hence supernatural life. This supports my argument that a supernatural entity, God, created the world. Con has not refuted any of the premises on which my original argument was based. He provided a link arguing for abiogenesis which I refuted but didn't have space to go into detail, and he argued that there are millions of other possible explanations aside from this for the beginning of life but gave no examples, hence, we can dismiss this claim. He claims that a man doesn't rape a woman because of something he sees in her eyes. I don't know that a lion cares what is in a zebra's eye when he eats her. "In the absence of God, there is no reason to think that the morality evolved by humans is objective. After all, if there is no God, then what's so special about human beings? They're just accidental by-products of nature that have only recently evolved on a tiny speck of dust lost somewhere in a mindless universe and are doomed to perish forever in a relatively short time. Thus, without God, there is no absolute right or wrong that imposes itself on our conscience. Without God, there are no objective moral values. Actions like rape and child abuse aren't just behaviours that happen to be socially unacceptable - they are clearly moral abominations. They are objectively wrong. And such things as love, equality, and self-sacrifice really are good in an objective sense. We all know these things deep down. We all know that objective moral values do in fact exist." *credit for content here goes to W.L. Craig Even though the studies on serotonin seem to undermine the Christian worldview, the results of the research do not necessarily support the notion that brain chemistry alone dictates morality. Rather, the studies shows that brain chemicals merely modulate morality. The observation that highly empathetic individuals were more responsive to elevated serotonin levels is significant. This observation indicates that "serotonin modulates empathetic response to harm—i.e., by boosting an already-present neural signal—rather than being the source of the empathetic response." (Molly J. Crockett et al., "Serotonin Selectively Influences Moral Judgment and Behavior through Effects on Harm Aversion," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 107 (2010): 17433–38; Ibid., 17436) In other words, the brain appears to be hardwired for moral judgment with serotonin influencing the responsiveness of an intrinsically moral brain. This result comports with the words Paul wrote in Romans 2:14–15, which teach that all human beings have God's Law "written on their hearts." Accordingly, the brain is the hardware that manifests human spirituality and the image of God. Meanwhile, the image of God itself is analogous to the software programming. According to this model, hardware structures—brain regions—support the expression of the various aspects of God's image, such as moral judgment. Brain chemicals are the means to mediate the communication between neurons and, ultimately, the different brain regions. However, brain structures and biochemistry are not the source of moral judgments. Instead they are part of the physical apparatus and operations that make the expression of moral judgments possible. If the hardware of a computer doesn't function properly, the software, though it may be fully intact, cannot work either. In like manner, the brain can be altered, influencing how the image of God is expressed. In this way, increasing or decreasing serotonin levels may impact one's sensitivity to inflicting harm, but serotonin is not responsible for creating the ideal that causing harm is wrong. "Human beings often manifest radically sacrificial, consequentially altruistic behavior that reduces reproductive success without compensatory reciprocation or kinship benefit. Behaviors such as voluntary poverty, celibate orders of benevolence, Holocaust rescuers, and religious asceticism or martyrdom are examples in humans that have provoked reconceptualism or substantial refinement of evolutionary approaches to human altruism. And even less extreme behaviors, such as adoption of non-kin, anonymous philanthropy, and costly investment in reproductively inert endeavors such as art or funeral caches have stimulated the extension or nuancing of initial sociobiological accounts." (http://www.discovery.org...) His chimp-link gave no examples proving altruism in chimps, and mathmeticians can give the probability of drawing 1 to 6 randomly as so small as to require anintelligence.