Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

Okay, some animals have morals, I'll give you that. I had already disproved myself a few hours after writing my previous argument, and have been thinking how stupid I was since.Before I continue, you appear to be of the opinion that the only advantageous attributes of humanity are our minds and our morals. This is not true. We can run.Yes, we aren't the fastest of runners. However, we are naked, sweating animals. Scientists note that there are mainly legs designed for walking and legs designed for running, and we have the legs of runners. Our feet are great for absorbing impact (running barefoot, that is) as well. As long as we have water, we can run for a crazy long time.We are built for endurance, whereas most other running animals are sprinters. Most animals do not sweat, and have fur. Their only way of cooling off is by panting, and many cannot do this whilst running.What benefit does this have for us, if sprinters can just catch us anyways? We were predators. Even people who don't run much can probably chase a deer or gazelle or something until it dies of exhaustion. Yes, they may be faster, but we can continuously pursue. They run a little and stop, and we can continuously plod along.We may not be as graceful at climbing trees as some other animals, but we can climb trees, which can be defensive. As well, climbing trees improves with practice. My brother can climb about twenty feet high in a maple tree in a matter of seconds, and can climb down even faster.We have hands, and these hands have thumbs, so we can grab things even without claws. We can turn surroundings into weapons or defenses, or strangle or smother our enemies. We have teeth, and I know other girls who have drawn blood with their fingernails. Our legs are good for kicking, and we have the knowledge to figure out what areas to aim for, when and how to dodge, and what objects we can use for defense or attack. Someone as educated as yourself must know of the various martial arts which allow people to fight without weapons very well. I have four siblings, and in our youth we happened to have a 30 foot long rope and some sticks. We invented many games and practiced fighting, trying not to actually hurt each other. I learned how to untie my hands from behind my back merely from the necessity to know. I was six or seven years old at the time. We played games like "Manhunt" and "Stone River," which also taught us on the spot how to quickly dodge, aim, catch, swing, chase, run, hide and climb effectively. We waged war upon each other. We all had a fascination with medieval times, and learned to sharpen sticks on stones and made bows and sling-shots from sticks and rubber bands. when we grew older, we carved wooden swords and daggers, among other things, we even made a trebuchet. We learned exactly what will and will not cause water balloons to explode. We pretended the floor was lava or sinking sand, and learned how to balance on the baseboards of our house. No one taught us how to do any of this, we simply taught ourselves in the moment. As well, all of us participated in track an cross country at some point in our lives. We are well aware of the physical capabilities of humans, and they are nowhere near as small as you make them out to be. In the times when they were necessary for survival, humans used them more and in their use perfected them to an extend that my siblings and I never have, and probably never will.But even I have managed to sneak up on seagulls. Have you ever tried to do that? be noisy, and they'll fly away when you get within twenty feet of them. Just walk naturally, but quietly, and they'll fly away at ten feet. Sneak and you can get really, really close. I managed to come to the center of a seagull flock once, without any of them flying away. I can hide very well. The trick of hiding is not to pick a place and remain till and hidden, unless it;s a really great place, because eventually it will be the one place not checked and one can find you. To hide, one must move discreetly, running and creeping in utter silence from place to place. One must control their breath. Great that we can do these things, right?Oh, and don't forget swimming. Do you know how know how long swimmers can hold their breath? In seventh grade I was a swimmer, and I could hold my breath for nearly two minutes. Imagine what adult swimmers are capable of. Now go back to sneaking. If you have ever played "Marco-Polo" or "Shark," particularly the latter, you know how hard it is to hide in water. Move and you make waves. In clear water, you can be seen from very far away. Move quickly and you make loud noises. So, water isn't the greatest, right? Maybe in a swimming pool, but think about nature. The water isn't clear, is it?There is a game that my siblings and I once played. We never named it, but it's basically a version of tag, except you have to tap people on the head. And it's not played with one vs. a group, it's everyone on their own. Tag someone and they'll try to tag you back. Tag five people and five people try to tag you back. Get tagged and try to tag that person back. Tag everyone and run like crazy.We originally played it on land, but it is better in a lake. The water is not clear, it is so dirty that you can't see your feet when you stand in it. there are mussels on the sandy bottom. So, I'm the youngest by five years, and I was smaller and slower and weaker than the others. When one came after me, I would disappear under the water, push myself to the bottom while making as few movements as possible (to avoid waves). You may not know this, but mussels pinch. So, I could grabs some, throw them at my pursuer, and that would be enough of a distraction for me to swim far enough away to avoid their detecting my waves. The mussels didn't really clamp, they were just little pinches, so it's not like I hurt anyone. Then I could stay under for a little under two minutes, before quickly coming up for air and stream-lining away before they could get close enough to catch me. I could go on like this for a very long time, and, were I not intentionally staying in the water, easily leave and run while a predator was waiting, and have a head-start on a run. The predator would be tired from chasing me in the water, so a sprinter would have little advantage against a being built for endurance.Now, same game, skip to land. No one taught us self-defense, but we learned how to defend our heads. We would develop bruises along our arms from attacking and blocking. One would try to quickly tap the head before the other can react. Speed brings a more forceful blow as the other quickly snaps an arm in the way to block. We can use our handy hands to grab another's arm and try to get past the defenses, but the other person also has a second arm to block with. It is possible to hold both of a person's hands in one hand, but it is difficult to transition into this unless one has a third hand. My brother figured out that one can also raise a knee, creating an area that an attacker cannot stand in. an, if you have ever tried to get behind someone who does not want you behind them, you will know how nearly impossible this is. However, I figured out a way to grab a sibling and force him or her to turn, at the same time pulling myself to the back, where I could easily tap a head. I taught myself this, so pre-historic humans probably could as well. I also learned how to jumps and hold onto a person's back, both preventing him or her from touching my head and allowing myself to be in the perfect position for head-tapping.These are but a few examples, from my own experiences as a child. A modern child, so I did not have the athletic experiences that a prehistoric person would have. Imagine just what a single human would be capable of, physically.Then there's the mental side of things. Humans can build things, work their way out of problems, and use tools with no lessons, independently of each other. Combine this with the physical side of things and you've got a great predator. We do not require other humans for any reason but emotionally. That is not to say that there is no strength in numbers, because there is. We would grow stringer in numbers, but we do not require numbers to be strong.I'm sure you're thinking, "Yes, the strongest survive and so those with numbers survive and thus we have social nature." Sure, why not let you have that? It's not my point. You speak of the majority with morals, the universal sense of right and wrong. Yes, once these are established, the ones who have them survive and the ones without get punished. This is meaningless, as it requires that it is already the majority who have it. My question is how this majority appeared without first a minority.Survival of the fittest makes sense. Each new organism is slightly different, those with beneficial differences live and those without die. The survivors mate, so the things which aid in survival are passed on, and those which prevent it are eliminated.However, nothing states that all new organisms which survive have the same change. A single organism passes the change to its offspring, and the offspring, be this actually beneficial, will probably survive to pass it on to theirs, and so it spreads with each generation. Bu it begins with the single organism. Perhaps a few might develop it independently by some quirk of fate, but not nearly enough for an instant majority.So, what becomes of the very first organism with morals? Morals rely on the fact that all people have the same morals. If people had different morals there would be no advantage to them.All life on Earth is amoral at this point in time, as this is the very first. So, no organism really cares about each other. It is difficult to describe, because there are no rules or standards. So here's this moral creature. It matters little what strength it has. It has this idea not to attack everything and anything that in any way threatens or offends it. Some things are, in it's mind, off-limits to do. For example, it might not want to eat its own species, though this may be too complex an idea for the first. Perhaps, assuming it is male, it has this idea that females should not be murdered carelessly. Perhaps, assuming it is female, it decides to protect its children, when they are born.What would happen to this creature? It would be at a disadvantage. Sure, its children might have a better chance of survival when under its care, but it probably wouldn't live to reproduce. It would have less food available, as it would not (maybe) eat its own. It would have rules preventing it from doing what others would do without a second thought, particularly in the area of fighting and/or killing, which could easily impact survival. Guilt would be catastrophic. It would be isolated for being peculiar, and thus would have little chance of mating. Even as I type this I find myself accidentally creating social rules among the animals. They have none, which is very hard to comprehend. One must have moral rules before social nature, so these would not be social animals, but even non-social animals must have some level of social-ness to mate.Going on that there is the possibility that there was asexual reproduction at the time, and genetic variation was based on mutation. Or there was non-social sexual reproduction, like flowers...or something. Sorry, I'm sort of tired right now, I hope this makes some level of sense.Then again, perhaps a species needs social nature to develop morals, and social nature is overrated. Perhaps minor social nature must be developed before morals and morals must be developed before major social nature. I don;t know, and this makes this argument quite difficult.My point is, however badly represented, morals or social nature in the single being provide no benefit to survival, perhaps even a disadvantage, so there is no guarantee that it would survive to become the majority, unless it began as the majority and thus functioned as it must from the beginning. This would require someone or something to initialize them in the majority, or that all life began with morals or social nature, which we know not to be true.All attributes must begin in the single being in their slightest form. In order to advance through evolution, this slightest form in the single being must be advantageous, unless the being is merely lucky, in which case it must be advantageous to the offspring, and must either be dominant, or the offspring must mate with each other. Unless of course some other being manages to get the same variation somehow and actually mates with a being with the same characteristic. And there is the chance that it won't get passed on at all. Sorry I'm not wording this better, I keep zoning out.Guilt is very moral. It would be wrong to make a girl who loves you think that you love her back not for your own sake but because she deserves to be loved truly and you cannot give her that, so she would be unhappy with you. Guilt cannot arise from your own failure which effects only yourself. Your guilt from not turning in papers comes not from fear of no success in life, as that would be fear, completely different. Guilt comes from a desire not to disappoint teachers or parents or role models in the case of schoolwork. Guilt is a peculiar pain from a moral desire to make others happy and failing to do so. Have you ever done something that you thought would make someone so proud of you, so wonderfully pleased, but it actually really hurts them or makes them angry at you? The feeling from that is very strong guilt....I think that was relevant somehow, but I can;t remember what I was going to say next.....As for miracles, there are plenty of miracles. Look up people with "Blessed" in front of their names, rather than "saint." Blessed Pope John Paul the Second died fairly recently, and he worked a great many miracles. Sorry not to list more at this time, again, I'm tired. But look up blessed people. You mention more miracles happening in the past. You must also remember that there were absolute monarchies, oppressive governments, capital punishment, torture, extreme racism and sexism, wars over just about everything, and little technology or medical knowledge. As such, yes, I think there was a greater need for mitracles, and this was responded to.As for unanswered prayers and evil in the world, I have two explanations. The first is that we are shaped by our experiences. A world with no pain at all would be not only extremely easy to die in but would also hold a load of obnoxious people who do not know what it is like to suffer. People grow more serious not with age but with experience. We would not mature to full goodness without suffering. We would not know the light from the dark if we saw only the light.But God is not evil. He did not create evil. We chose evil. Evil is the perversion of good. No evil man seeks to be evil, he merely seeks good in the wrong way...did that make sense?Anyways, that leads to Original Sin. We are not so much inheriting the exact crime as inheriting the crime itself.....Um......See, I wrote about the first moral being very pathetically a bit earlier, on the assumption that morals are genetic. A murderer's children do not inherit the actual murders of their father, but they inherit the mentality that allowed for the murders, and, if they were raised by their father, there is the whole thing of imitating the people you are raised with, beyond genetics. Even if they weren't raised by him, there's still genetics in place.So, the first sin is the Original Sin. This sin itself is not inherited, but the mentality is. With that mentality we sin again and again. This is the effect of Original Sin.Did you know that Baptism is an exorcism? It's not like the movies make it out to be, and it's not saying that babies are possessed by demons. It's ensuring that they won't be so possessed. I'm really not knowledgeable about demons, that's pretty much the extent of my knowledge.Anyways, so, Jesus. You say that he did not claim to be God. You are wrong. It was Jewish authorities who arrested Jesus for claiming to be the Son of God, by his own words. Jesus did not correct his followers, as John the Baptist did, when they told him that they thought he was the Messiah. There is also the question of why Mary went along with it, even naming him "Jesus." If she was originally lying, she would cease to do so if she had any compassion for her son, for he suffered for it. Here is something I must say. No one can convince themself of their own lie unless they are insane. As such, we can conclude that liars do not believe what they tell others. Those who do not believe what they say, be what they say of false religion, cannot be called religious. Those who are not religious cannot be martyrs for their religion, as they do not believe it strongly enough to die for it.Religious people will not lie about their religion or scientific evidence, as a truly religious person would truly believe that what they speak is the truth, and what is also the truth cannot disprove the truth. Those who feel the need to lie cannot be religious as they would thus be feeling the need to hide the truth to protect their religion, which could not be the truth if truth must be hidden for it to live. A truly religious person would further investigate what disproves their religion to disprove the disproving factor, and investigating further would bring forth greater truth. I believe that, should humans some day fully understand the scientific workings of the universe, all humans will be Catholic. I do not believe that all Catholics speak the truth of Catholocism. Indeed almost all humans lie at some point in their life. A single lie or truth cannot disprove an entire religion, however, merely part of it, and upon such discoveries religion must be revised, though not erased unless completely disproven. I hope that made sense...again, I'm sleep deprived at the moment.All Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe in the same God. These are three very large religions. Hinduism stands utterly separate in every way, I do not believe it but I see how it may be appealing to people, and appealing creates followers. I see how my own religion may be appealing, but I see how it very definitely was not in its original state. Christians were arrested and killed, facing many hideous deaths, having to practice their religion in secret. Dead Christians were used as torches, live ones faced against wild beasts. Christianity was utterly despised. So why did so many persist in their belief, and continue to persist for over 2000 years? Why have their been more religious than non-religious at any point in all history of intelligent life on earth?Why do we feel a desire for a happiness which we have never felt, and can never feel on earth?Why did life not die out as soon as it appeared? What caused it to have all it needed to function properly? Life requires more than one part simultaneously. Irreducible complexity exists. You may reduce something to prove it doesn't, but in doing so you create a new problem. Reduce that, you have another. Eventually something can be reduced no more. If you will not accept a particular function of life, how about life altogether? Life needs multiple functions to support itself, or it must be supported by life. Those multiple functions had to appear simultaneously, or close to it. As well, all life must come from life. If life could be created from non-living things, why do we only ever hear of it happening a long time ago? Why do we never see life appear from non-living stuff?No matter how small you go, no one can scientifically explain the universe's actual beginning. Reactions require reactants, and something, no matter how small of a something, cannot come from nothing. So where did it come from, if not from God?All rules come from intelligence. Therefore, did not the laws of the universe come from intelligence? Why do they work so well, if they are not intelligently created? Why do they exist? Why would forces exist at all? Why all of the rules to matter and energy? Why is everything so organized?I told you that my analogy was not perfect, obviously it is not exactly on, but did you understand my meaning?Sorry about the weird bits and the nonsensical bits. I would write when I'm more awake, but that isn't going to happen any time soon.