Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

I see two basic problems with your assertions about organization:1. "True organization does not exist. You say the universe is organized because there is no other way it can be. I say that is ridiculous." Then you go on to talk about math. You started the whole thing out using the "slotted spoon" metaphor to identify faults within human understanding. Then you support it using language as an example, and later on, government. Taking this all in at once, it seems to me that you feel that because human thought processes and actions can't be perfectly organized, such a thing can't exist at all in the universe. Seems a little anthropocentric doesn't it? If things happen in specific ways whether we understand them or not, I would argue that they are indeed organized. It is simply our understandings that are not. Both religion and science emerged to deal with this phenomenon. Math isn't organized? Each base numeral does not have a specific set of qualities that exist no matter how you arrange them? Different people working in different times and different languages can't develop geometry and calculus independently if given enough time? The rules that run throughout mathematics don't mean the same thing in every equivalent application? Once you dip down into the quantum scale, I'll admit, math becomes a bit distorted. But here in the macro world, it really is quite organized and universal. 2. You seem to be arguing that organization only exists if something is completely and perfectly organized and that if it isn't then it is purely disorganized. You are totally ignoring differences along the continuum. If you connect two points on a horizontal line, with point A representing pure disorganization and point B representing pure organization, then you can plot two points anywhere along the line and find a relative difference between the two. The farther to the right you go, the closer you get to pure organization and vice versa. Language will never be all the way to point B, but it will always exist to the right of non language, which hovers around point A. Government generally does the same thing. Governments can get sloppy, but it is hard for me to imagine anarchy as ever being more organized than most extant governments. And while math is technically subordinate to language, and language can never be pure organization, observing the math within things has a gravitational pull towards point B and away from A. Sure, computations are a shortcut. But they can be verified through manual counting, or through different methods of calculation, or if the final result is what your calculation predicts. If the verification test fails, then we know that something is wrong with our understanding, and we can go step by step to figure out where we failed. Chemistry is a good example. Entry level chemistry students are taught all sorts of models and rules, but these are simplified versions of reality and are never completely or universally correct. But the student has to start somewhere, and as they progress it becomes possible to learn the exceptions to rules. And WHY these exceptions happen in the first place, which can be hard to really understand until you go through the basics and develop the notions needed to make these distinctions. One's progression through chemistry is roughly equivalent to the history of the discipline itself. The earliest aspects are basically how the earliest chemists viewed these concepts, and are based on the most common and obvious rules. As you proceed, you start to get more specific in more or less the same sequence that the chemists themselves did, adding new rules when a new understanding is tossed on the pile. Will chemistry ever be a perfectly understood field? Probably not. But the more trial and error the field goes through, the closer to point B it gets. "My point is, we can, in all but emotions, survive alone."Evidence? Any stories of people who were born alone, lived alone and went on to reproduce? Any reason to believe that one could do so in all of the various environments we inhabit?"You may be saying that we survived because we grouped up. Maybe we did. I never said we didn't ever get social nature, because we've got that now, too, and we've had it for quite some time."Actually we've always had it. I'm kind of embarrassed that I forgot to mention this much earlier, but I guess I got a little sidetracked. Anthropological evidence shows that we've always been social. Indeed, that's a leading characteristic of primates. Its not like a few wandering individuals got together one day and said "hey let's group up." Us primates have been doing that instinctively for as long as we've been around. And throughout the fossil record there are examples of social species in every era. I don't know if it goes all the way back to the very beginning, but I do know that evidence shows predator/prey relationships started developing shortly before the Cambrian explosion. Prior to there being predators, being social wouldn't be particularly disadvantageous. Actually, sexual reproduction requires at least a minimum of sociality. Even non-social sexually reproducing species have hormonal triggers that allow them to be a little less territorial during mating season. They would have to have this skill or the species would die off very quickly. So the potential for social interaction has to be at least as old as sexual reproduction, and is only bred out when a species' adaptations favor a more independent lifestyle. Even then, traces of it remain. "Morality is all of nothing. Either it appeared all at once, or it was protected in its evolution, unless there was some crazy chance that allowed it to survive. It is not something which can so smoothly increase, as you say."Not if it is genetic, and I've already highlighted repeatedly that it certainly appears to be. Morality can't just evolve in a different mechanism than any other evolutionary trait. That would pretty much require a second set of DNA. "Random and concurrently helping each other does not work"There hundreds of genetic experiments and observations that show quite the contrary. You are pretty knowledgeable about biology, but do you truly believe you know more about this than microbiologists who work with these principles every day?"I am sure you have felt the desire for the happiness that you have never known."Creativity. Imagination. The product of abstract thinking. The seeds that built civilization and philosophy and technology and religions and art. Often our emotions fire up and join in the game. They sense some lack because there is always a lack in life when one is as critical as human beings tend to be. The attempt to satiate this sense of lack by hijacking our thought processes and painting a picture of the world that is different from what we know. Or they just fire off in response to the nearly infinite chains of chemical reactions and electrical pulses that run up and down the CNS. Interesting and powerful? Yes. Supernatural? Not likely. So the core of morality is not hurting others, and the purpose of guilt is simply to reduce that possibility? I'm just trying to make sure I understand what you are saying.