Evil Proves The Existence of An Evil God

Objective MoralityMy opponent says "disease" is a fact. But for "disease" to be defined as a "disease" it must cause some kind of pain or suffering otherwise we would not think of it as a disease. In shorter terms, we would not call something a "disease" unless it caused something we SUBJECTIVELY find "wrong".And yet my opponent is quite correct that "disease" is a fact. It is a fact, because subjective things, things people feel can be facts. It is objectively true that fibromyalgia feels painful, and so it is a disease.Similarly, morality which pertains to how people conduct themselves in society in consideration of the good of each other and the good of the whole can have objective facts. That not everything is "objective" in morality doesn't undermine that. The same is true of disease. Take "homosexuality". This used to be considered a mental disorder, a disease. But now it is not. Why? Because over time people changed their minds and decided that "homosexuality" was not an inherently harmful condition. Some people point to higher STD rates and suicide rates and claim that makes it a disease, but most people today believe these are the result of society's treatment of homosexuality. There are fuzzy issues with disease as well, but that doesn't mean we can't speak of "facts" regarding disease or of wellness and illness, just like there being fuzzy issues with morality doesn't mean we can't speak of "facts" regarding morality or of good and evilOn SuicideCon implies that suicide has absolutely nothing to do with natural selection.However, there is a lot of evidence that genetics can lead to suicidality.http://complexinterplay.blogspot.com..."There is convergent evidence from adoption, family, geographical, immigrant, molecular genetic, twin and, most recently, surname studies of suicide for genetic contributions to suicide risk."This ties in to what Con says about natural selection and human decision-making dealing with pain and pleasure. Those people who had an increased risk of suicide had genes that conditioned them to develop concepts of pain and pleasure which had the more common pains in life weighing more than the perceived pain of death.Then, it's possible for a human to have genes which cause one to consider "Death" to be the worst pain, the most feared suffering, preventing that person from committing suicide.So, how come these genes aren't common enough for scientists to have discovered and identified them? Why are we not now working towards a cure for suicidality? If we could give this gene to everyone then nobody would commit suicide again.Those genes would confer a huge advantage on the recipient by stopping them from committing suicide, greatly increasing the chance of them reproducing and passing on the gene. There's no logical explanation for why this gene isn't common enough for us to have found it by now, unless God prevented it from being common. Depression & Geneticshttp://www.nhs.uk...Scientists have found a genetic link to severe, recurrent depression.That doesn't rule out environmental influences, but it shows that genes do have to do with depression, so that makes it a possibility for a population to develop genes that would block depression, or even genes that would react to the same environmental circumstances that a normal person would at least feel "sadness" to by stimulating energy and creativity rather than suppressing it and causing the person to mope about. Such behavior would be more beneficial to survival and hence reproduction, yet there are many things that would make a "normal" person feel sad and that could trigger depression in some unlucky people, even severe things which would make a normal person "depressed". Why is "sadness" and sometimes "depression" a majority response and not a minority response to certain things? It must be divine intervention.My point about Caveman A & Caveman B remains valid. Why did Caveman B die out?Fatal FeverOne oddity is the fatal fever. This is one example of the ways the immune system, which is supposed to protect us can kill us. Why do we not find even one person in the world in case of fever who has a trait where these immune responses "stop" before reaching a level that would kill them? That's no good from an evolutionary perspective. It's understandable why some people can have fevers that get fatal, but why is it a possibility for everyone and not a disordered minority? Why didn't genes providing for a "stopping mechanism" become predominant? In many cases had an individual had that stopping gene they would've survived. The only way to explain why the ability to die from a fever is found in practically everyone, rather than a minority of people with defective genes is that God intervened to guarantee this.Yes, Violence Does Have To Do With GeneticsCon claims that violence is not caused at all by genetics.Several sources prove him wrong.http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...http://www.livescience.com...Including impulsive violence. A tendancy towards planned violence could be explained by natural selection alone, since planned violence in a logically-directed manner, especially in man's earlier times could've been useful.But impulsive violence is messy and chaotic. How can impulsive violence be an improvement to one's reproductive success? And yet history is full of it, and almost everyone has some tendancy towards impulsive aggression when they get angry, even over the most stupid things. If genes can code for a person to have a serious problem with it, they could also code for a person to be calm, rational, and only use violence if it's thought out such as if a person rationally concludes it to be necessary in self-defense or a country organizes its military for war when attacked.So, why do humans tend to not only be violent but impulsive with it? Science can't explain how that would've evolved. There's no good reason for impulsive violence to lead to more reproductive success. Not unless some "higher power" intervened and made sure of it, by saving the people with these genes, or killing people with genes against impulsive violence.Con Still Doesn't Explain Why We Do Not Exercise "Hate" In A More Logical MannerNot every aspect of a person's "way of life" helps them pass on genes. If a person were to only defend those that do and not the others this would be more effective in passing on their genes. Humans have the capacity for logic and reason, so why is it that we fail to exercise this when it comes to "hate"?The Holocaust wasn't "survival-based" in the sense that the act did nothing to improve survival.That "Hatred" tends to be exercised impulsively and tends to take the form of "we think you are ugly/we hate your beliefs/we hate your culture" rather than a more logical (in relation to survival and passing on genes), "we want your food, we want your women" goes along with my observation that violence in humanity tends to be impulsive more often than it is methodological and logical. Even if the emotions guiding these impulses are oriented towards "survival" why didn't we just evolve to exercise hatred and violence only according to a deep analysis towards "survival"? Why is it that violence and hatred when practiced by humans tend to be based upon impulse and emotion and oftentimes fallacies, rather than cold, hard, logic?ConclusionIf it was just evolution and natural selection picking these genes then we would expect different outcomes. The only possible explanation is an evil God who seeks to make these problems worse by subjecting human beings to not just violence, but chaotic, impulsive, emotionally-charged violence. That we also suffer death from our own immune systems at such a high rate, and are prone to suicidality shows the divine intervention of an evil deity.