Evil Proves The Existence of An Evil God

Morality Need Not Be 100% Objective Or Not At AllJust because there are fuzzy areas in morality does not mean that there is no objective morality at all. As Con has conceded there can exist moral systems that would destroy society. From an objective standpoint, this morality is wrong. For we can assume axiomatically that as human beings in a society we want to continue to exist. To argue otherwise would be the same as saying there is no "objective disease" or illness, because from a purely physical standpoint all it is is another fact about the universe. But we regularly consider science pointing out diseases to be objective, because of the allowed assumption that we want to go on existing, and to be free from pain and suffering.From this, that we should continue to preserve our existence both as individuals and collectively and that we should be free of pain and suffering, from this axiom we can derive a limited objective morality. There are times when the axiom itself will have contradictions and people will have to make judgment calls, but that does not mean there are no times when we can clearly say "this is right" or "this is wrong" in an objective manner. The Nazis Conception of "Evil" Was WrongThe Nazis conception of "evil" was simply wrong, just like if I said the sky was green I would be wrong. The killing of Jews created untold pain and suffering that clearly outweighs any emotional offense the Nazis had at the thought of Jews due to their minds being brainwashed with antisemitic propaganda.On SuicideCon misinterpreted what I said on suicide."My opponent states that because suicide includes brain chemisty, then it's impossible for it to happen."No, I have just laid out a solid argument for why if all that is going on is natural selection we should see a sizeable number of people who are immune to suicidality, but science has not found a single gene for this.Natural Instinct to Avoid PainPain and pleasure themselves are subjective experiences which needed to evolve and continue to evolve and change. Hypothetically a person could mentally associate "death" with such strong "pain" as to immunize them from ever considering suicide. Such a feared pain need not be physical, the feared pain could be existiential, the person could fear the unknown after death or fear non-existence, and in addition the person could be immune to accepting any line of thought that would challenge the idea of "death" as "non-existence", or even the person could believe they continue to exist after death but that if they commit suicide it will be "torment" or even that it will be "torment" no matter what so they might as well continue on as long as possible.Those with genes for that sort of response would be more likely to get through times of hardship without killing themselves, living on, and reproducing. Yet scientists have not found any genes linked to a mindset that wouldn't under any circumstances consider suicide. You would also expect certain cultures to have vastly lower suicide rates, since genetics between cultures do vary, and you would expect that at least some lineages would've taken advantage of the genetic advantage of being immunized from suicide.Even depression, which typically is present before suicide is ever considered is odd from an evolutionary standpoint. "Depression" is not just "feeling bad" but also feeling emotionally run-down and demotivated. How is such a response beneficial? Cave man A's girlfriend leaves him, he feels depressed, wallowing in his misery, slowing down tremendously as he ruminates over his loss. Cave man B's girlfriend leaves him, he feels bad about it, but feels a burst of energy and a will to improve his life. Which one is more likely to survive and reproduce? It is clearly, Cave man B, so why is it that depression is the most common response to "grief" rather than neurological stimulation and a strong desire to start improving one's life (which the individual may experience as a strong pleasure-seeking drive)?Why didn't mroe Cave Man Bs survive? Why did the Cave Man B types lose in natural selection? Since natural selection would suggest the opposite, the only explanation for this outcome is divine intervention. Negotiation v. War"Therefore, when we find those who are counter-productive to our existence, such as a school-yard bully or an outside group who competes with resources, we naturally seek to eliminate the source of this counter-productiveness in order for us to continue to leave happily."For argument's sake let's say we can quantify all resources except people into a discrete set of units.Tribe A has 100 people and 1000 units of resources. Tribe B also has 100 people and 1000 units of resources.In scenario A, the tribes fight to the death because they both want more resources.In scenario B, the tribes talk amongst each other first, and decide to share the resources and to work together to develop them.Clearly, if they behave as in scenario B that would indicate better survival chances. Whoever "wins" in Scenario A is likely to pass on what ever genes and cultural memes lead to the aggressive behavior in the first place, and this will lead to more wars in the future, and so more of a chance of that tribe being wiped out. But in scenario B they now benefit from having more human resources than if they killed a substantial portion off through war, as well as more economic opportunities from combining resources. They also stand a greater chance of defending themselves if attacked by a larger foreign tribe.So, then why is it that there is so much war in the world today, and has been throughout human history? And not just war, but cruelty. Genocides, massacres, sometimes with sadistic torture against innocents. How does cruelty help pass on genes?If it was all natural selection we'd still expect to see some violence, and indeed maybe a few examples of cruelty here and there but the sheer amount that exists in history compared to people advancing themselves through cooperation and trade shows there must have been an evil deity that intervened.If It Was Just "Natural Selection" Hate Would Be Straight And to the PointEven if the reason from natural selection for hatred is that "they have resources we need" people typically do not reason that way. If they did that would at least limit violence to when it is actually needed to gain resources. But what we see is that instead people's "emotions" lead the way and the reasoning is typically "these people are different and that difference is detestable because..." along those lines. Had we stuck to the plain truth "we really need those resources" that would've been better for passing on genes because violence that doesn't help in that endeavor would not have happened. Furthermore, violence would've been limited because people could avoid violence by surrending their resources. In many cases hatred leads people to violence even if the target agrees to surrender their resources, because those who have hate are blinded to that being the actual reason for their hatred.In fact people often use hatred in ways that waste resources. A good example is the Holocaust. Resources were used to gas Jews that could've been directed to the war effort. If this was an isolated example maybe there'd still be a case for "natural selection" having occured without any divine intervention skewing the results. But if there was no evil God involved in changing the outcome we'd expect only "survival-based hatred" based on a calculation of resource needs and not an "emotional hatred" based on irrational things like "I don't like the way they look" or "I don't like their religion" or "I don't like..."... However, "survival-based hatred" is far, far more rare than "emotional hatred". Natural selection suggests that underneath it all the motivation is "survival". If no evil God is involved why has natural selection lead us to self-deceive and make believe that we are hating for other reasons?