Evil Proves The Existence of An Evil God

MoralityMy opponent puts forth a view of morality that is entirely based on societal opinion.So I ask my opponent Were the people who hid Jews during the Holocaust being immoral? Were runaway slaves immoral?Most people would say "no". That's because although morality is not black-and-white neither is it entirely relative. Looking at the way the concept has been used throughout history we can say roughly that things that cause "harm" in people's lives are immoral, and things that help people in their lives are good. Sometimes this is unclear. For instance, conscription. Does the good in national defense outweigh the harm in forcing people into an occupation they may not want, especially when they may have moral objections to participating in violence? But in other cases it's more cut and dry. Regardless of how anyone feels about it, including the individual doing it suicide (in general cases, not exceptional cases) is harmful, and murder is harmful.My opponent quotes Lord Devlin saying:"... society means a community of ideas, without shared ideas on politics, morals, and ethics no society can exist. Each one of us has ideas about what is good and what is evil; they cannot be kept private from the society in which we live."And uses this to suggest morality is entirely socially relative. However, Lord Devlin forgets one thing: NOT just any shared set of ideas on politics, morals, and ethics will allow a society to exist. A society that believes that murder is on the whole a good thing that people should do everyday indiscriminately is not going to last very long. If that were the case a society would be better off in a state of confusion where a large portion of the population disagrees, since at least then there's hope for the dissenters coming out on top.Furthermore, you could have contradictory or idiosyncratic morals. Imagine if it was considered immoral to wear pink on a Wednesday, but it's also considered immoral to punish or even criticize someone for wearing pink on a Wednesday. Furthermore, it is considered morally right to praise people or even reward them for wearing pink on Wednesday.Clearly such a situation is impossible. "Morality" can not be "morality" if action even speech is morally directed to give positive encouragement for acts considered to be "immoral". Similarly, say it's considered morally good to wear pink on Wednesday, but it's also considered morally good to have laws against wearing pink on Wednesday and send them to jail. Again, you have an impossible moral system. Inherent in "morality" is social sanction, or else it's not "morality".Nurture/Nature Is A False DichotomyNo gene may ever achieve expression without an environment. That's called a miscarriage. And if it weren't for genes in the first place conception would never take place. In reality things are caused by a system of interaction, not just genes or the environment.Even environmental effects are physical. Science has shown that talk therapy can change brain chemistry.http://www.nytimes.com...Every thought that you have is the result of neurons firing. When the environment influences your thoughts that's the result of incoming stimuli interacting with your brain causing it to change.Therefore "suicide" and the thought process leading to it must involve brain chemistry. Since it involves brain chemistry then it is possible for there to emerge a gene that would code for proteins in such a way as to make an individual choosing suicide impossible or at least extremely unlikely. Yet, no gene immunizing the person against committing suicide has ever been discovered*. This does not make sense, since from a natural selection standpoint such a gene would confer great benefits upon the person who has that gene. This leaves a supernatural, otherworldly, being, a God intervening from beyond our Universe to somehow obstruct this natural process by killing any individual to develop such a mutation or somehow preventing them from procreating as the only explanation.*Note that this gene needn't prevent depression, it only has to prevent the individual from reacting to depression or from anything else with suicide.Then, there's hatred. How is this explained in evolutionary terms? A group could have more protection from the elements and from attacks, and have a greater deal of productivity, and innovation if it were willing to come together with other groups and cooperate. Yet historically people tend to hate outsiders, even going to the point of genocide. This is not only evil but goes against natural selection. The only explanation is that God is pushing the haters and mass murderers of history such as Hitler towards this behavior.MoreNatural selection need not yield perfect results to be the sole explanation, but things aren't just imperfect. The amount of evil in the world requires more than just nature, it requires an intelligence capable of altering things towards evil.