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

'Isn't what you call the Moral Law simply our herd instinct and hasn't it been developed just like all our other instincts?' Now I do not deny that we may have a herd instinct: but that is not what I mean by the Moral Law. We all know what it feels like to be prompted by instinct - by mother love, or sexual instinct, or the instinct for food. It means you feel a strong want or desire to act in a certain way. And, of course, we sometimes do feel just that sort of desire to help another person: and no doubt that desire is due to herd instinct. But feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling you ought to help whether you want to or not. Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires - one a desire to help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to your instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, ans suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them.Action is determined by which impulse is strongest. There is no need to posit a "third thing". He goes on to talk about weaker and stronger instincts. It would be assumed that stronger instinct would win, but the Moral Law often sides with the weaker instinct....ORYou are only taking short term consequences into consideration. Often you will find that the moral action nearly always has long term benefits.One might say that maternal instinct is always good. but haven't you heard of over-protective mothers? They love their children so much that the children hate it, and negative effects result.Maternal instinct, isn't an instinct at all. It is learned, and thus not an instinct. Maternal instinct consists of picking up on subtleties in a child's behavior, this is something that is learned by a primary caretaker, even fathers can learn this.About God helping those who help themselves, it's fairly easy to explain.I'd agree. It's a coping mechanism to quell the cognitive dissonance inherent in believing in a loving, caring deity in a world where so much suffering exists. It's a tool to help explain why God apparently doesn't help so many who desperately need it and nothing more.Also, many philosophers aren't religious, and many scientists are.GOOD scientists learn to separate their religious views (if they have them) from their scientific views.Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. The highest percentage of belief was found among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).About Mother Theresa and rich folk, this is also fairly simple. It is not about an heir of saintliness. It is what is given in relation to the giver. Yeah, Bill Gates may have helped more people, but Mother Theresa still gave more, regardless of numbers.Look at it this way. There's a billionaire and someone who's working at McDonald's for a living. The billionaire donates a million dollars to the poor, but still has a few billion left for himself.Warren Buffet has recently pledged 99% of his wealth for a charity donation, and is asking other billionaire's to pledge up to 50% of theirs. I suppose by this standard, he is more saintly than mother Theresa. Some things to note about Mother Theresa:"MT was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. And she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan. Where did that money, and all the other donations, go? The primitive hospice in Calcutta was as run down when she died as it always had been—she preferred California clinics when she got sick herself—and her order always refused to publish any audit. But we have her own claim that she opened 500 convents in more than a hundred countries, all bearing the name of her own order. Excuse me, but this is modesty and humility?"http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/C. S. Lewis was once an atheist. Sean Forrest has been a part of just about every faith there is in his search for the truth, and has come to believe that Catholicism is the truth, and now preaches it.I was once christian. Whose word should take precedence?St. Paul originally captured and killed Christians in the horrible ways they did back then, but converted so fully that he is now a saintI find it interesting that you take pride in the fact that a mass murderer is declared a saint.God always answers prayers, just not always in the way we expect.You mean to say God answers prayers in a way consistent with chance and probability. He fixes problems, only those which can be resolved by natural means. Which to me is indicative of his non-involvement.Pray for something which is impossible by natural means, and I guarantee it will not be answered.