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

The mind is a lot like a slotted spoon, don't you think? There is a big bowl filled to the brim with understanding and information, and we keep on scooping it up. But it never stays. That is why some people who are long out of school and don't have mind-boggling jobs do sudoku and crosswords. It is to keep their minds sharp. That is why teachers teach and repeat and review and assign and test and review and re-test, granted this diminishes as one traverses into higher grades of school, as the spoon becomes bigger and the slots smaller. But there are still slots, and while there are still slots we still cannot understand, we can merely keep scooping and try to hold it while we can. We can try to clog the slots with memory tricks, but these, two, will eventually slip away.Language is a funny thing, such a disorganized jumble of stuff. Have you ever created a new language? I recommend it. Then you will understand just what a pathetic thing a language is. And yet a language can be great. A language is massive, incomprehensible, and yet it is our tool for understanding. Language is by no means efficient. Every person speaks slightly differently, and every difference is viewed and imitated by others, and thus spreads. So, language is not only a confusing jumble of random stuff, it is a constantly changing confusing jumble of random stuff.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. Nothing is organized. Look at mathematics. It is the epitome of organization, correct? It is disorganized. We may, through repetitive lessons and the brainwashing of teachers come to understand the world of numbers, but how does one explain it? How does one learn? How does one compute?We learn math as we learn to speak. We have flashy little musical toys that sing to us, "One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten and Again! One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten! Now backwards! Ten Nine eight Seven Six Five Four Three Two One! Yay!" and hundreds of thousands of variations of this, each with their own little rhymes and rhythms and devious plots to slip a small sequence into a child's mind. These numbers are meaningless to a child, for the child hasn't the slightest concept of what a number is. And yet there are children who can rattle off their numbers in order like pros. I had the privilege of babysitting a brilliant two-year-old once. She could count to thirty forwards and backwards and knew which way was east and she was already being a backseat driver. She had memorized the daily routine, and, if anyone in her life made even the slightest detour in a routine drive she would pitch a fit and explain which way they were supposed to go. She could point in the direction of nearly any place she had previously visited from any other place and be correct. If she heard a band play in one place she would ask where the band was every time that place was passed. She memorized the sequence of songs on CD's, and would announce which song was coming next right after a song ended. And what did she know of mathematics? Very little.In first grade one learns to count to 199 and how to add and subtract small sums. This does not come easily. Counting is memorization of a sequence of sounds in a language that I have already explained to be inexact. The next step is to memorize which words go with which symbols. Addition is counting to a certain number, and subtraction is counting backwards. This is done slowly by counting everything out. Practice makes it faster, and pattern recognition appears. Next is multiplication, or adding multiple times, a way of shortening addition and speeding it up. Division appears as multiplying backwards. Then square roots, then squaring and so on.It is a sort of brainwashing slowly over years to form a sort of understanding in the imagination of a three-dimensional world of numbers, a world which cannot be understood at all if this does not take place. It seems perfectly organized to you, because you understand it, the same as language. However, when you think about it, it is not.Numbers themselves are difficult to disorganize, due to their being the basis of pretty much all human organization. But if organization itself is not organized, regardless of disorganization, what is it? Wow...that seems really weird there...sorry if this makes utterly no sense, it's quite difficult to explain.Mathematics is not organized. Numbers are a sequence and computations are shortcuts in counting in interesting ways. Shortcuts are not organized, they are devised as a means to make things easier for the human mind. The human mind is definitely not organized, assuming we speak of organization on the level of human understanding. Mathematics, no matter what level, is something devised by humanity to understand the world around us.Human understanding is utterly disorganized. We understand each other and mathematics through language. We understand the scientific world through mathematics, and through the scientific world we attempt to understand ourselves. Science itself is observation and the attempt to organized observations into a format which we can understand. So, if organization is meant to allow understanding, and understanding is disorganized, organization itself is disorganized.Look at government, the organization of people. How does one define a government? I am one who tries to work out every detail of a fantasy world in my writing, you see. I create new languages to the point which I can communicate just about anything in them, and this is why I understand that language is a slew of words. A slew, because they are arranged in no particular order. If one understands both the meaning of the words and the order in which they are placed, one understands the meaning of the sentence. I create new symbols, the written language. I create new governments.Have you ever tried to create a government? Have you ever noticed how redundant a government is, and how much everything overlaps? One cannot simply list the rights, list the laws, and explain the systems. To develop rights one must know the laws and the government systems already, so they do not conflict. If a government does not have the right to punish a person, then that person can never be arrested or imprisoned, regardless of criminal acts. If a government has the right to punish any person, then the government may become corrupt and the people have serious problems. If there is a specific group of procedures and people to punish specific people for specific acts which break the law, one must know this specific group of things before one can create the rights and laws for it to work. However, something so specific cannot be created without rights and laws already in mind. A law cannot be created without a system to back it up and rights for it to protect. One cannot explain any one part of a government without first explaining all others, which require equal explanation. Thus, all must be explained together. After a basic understanding, there is still overlap in all specifics. Nothing can be exactly split into any group, and if groups or patterns or such things cannot be formed then organization cannot exist.How, then, does a government organize and be organized? It exists in the common understanding and in understanding we perceive it as organization.However, the human understanding is a key which allows sense to made of things, and once one thing is understood, this understanding leads to understanding of more things. Organization does not really exist, but it is not necessary. Organization is a result of understanding and a tool used to make others understand. It is a sort of mental trick to block the slots of the spoon. When we understand, we try to organize to remember and maintain understanding. However, as long as we review we maintain understanding, organization is not needed. Understanding alone is required.Right now we are using a common language, which we have a common understanding of, to attempt to make each other understand. I would not call our arguments organized. Would you? I hope that made at least some sense.Okay, perhaps this is a bit better. When I made a government, I tried to organize it. It didn't work, so I said, "Screw organization!" and just wrote paragraphs, a big modge-podge of information all together. And guess what? It was easier to understand. Organization is itself impossible, however, an attempt at organization is usable as a quick memory trick. My first attempt at a government, while not good for a first explanation, it is good for retrieving memories quickly. We try to make reality into perfect squares and strait lines. Sometimes we can manage to some extent, but a lot of reality is curved, so real organization does not exist.Anyways, onwards.You're right, specialization and all of that good stuff works quite well, and we survive better in groups. But that is not my point. My point is, we can, in all but emotions, survive alone. Yeah, maybe we have a few weaknesses when it comes to being prey, but tough luck, we have those weaknesses alone or in a group, and we're pretty screwed either way. But guess what? We exist, so we must have survived somehow.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. Besides, sometimes groups don't work. Look at cats and mice. Cat vs mouse = the cat gets a snack. Cat vs ten mice = the cat is really lucky and gets a good meal plus leftovers. Humans aren't invincible, but not all humans get attacked. Plus, when we can climb, swim, and run, if we assume that we aren't being attacked by a lot of things or a predator that can do the same, we've got a chance of escape. We're bested in a lot of areas, but again, no animal is perfect. I'll bet a cat is bested in sound by some birds, but the cat bests those birds in running ability. The bird bests the cat in flight ability, but the cat bests the bird in biting ability. This is not to say all animals are equal in ability, but we all have strengths and weaknesses, and, if something like a cricket can survive without forming tribes and specializing and suchlike, why can't a human? It doesn't all come down to ability. There's a load of luck involved.I understand the whole survival of the fittest thing. But, looking at this from a Godless point of view, there is no way that animals can have any direction beyond that. Perhaps evolution did occur the way you say, but the way you say is impossible unless God is directing it.A creature that lets an enemy one inch closer before attacking is that one inch closer to a chance of death. This one inch poses no benefit and thus allows no greater likelihood of survival. However, it poses a very, very small increased chance of harm. There is also the chance that a predator will come along that could kill this being either way, and, if this being dies before having offspring, then the trait is lost until it randomly appears again. If you say it's not random, then that is equivalent to saying there is a mind guiding it.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.Someone with no morals can fights and not care what happens and end up somewhat okay as a lone person. This person would not require emotional support from others, would have no understanding of others, and would not care what happens to others. He or she could make a severe social mistake and not care. Then, if this person should be placed in danger because of it, he or she could deal with it in any number of ways and not care what people think. This person would have a disadvantage in a world of moral people, but would have a decent chance of surviving.Someone with morals can survive in numbers and in words. A moral person can understand others and support others, gaining trust and making others not wish to fight him or her.And what of the in-between? A person with very little morals hasn't enough to survive as a moral person but has too much to simply not care and survive as an amoral person. It would be cut off right there before morals could develop.As well, social nature and morals depend on the group. They might develop in increments, but increments make no difference when they are either a weakness or have no effect. They would be crushed before they became the majority, and they would have no effect until the majority was achieved. A group of people requires every person in the group to have a social nature. A loss of aggressiveness between two groups requires that both groups loose aggressiveness at the same time. Why should they? They are just as likely to develop wings at the same time. The only reason they would work simultaneously is if they were guided. "Different things evolving simultaneously to push each other up" requires guidance to function. Evolution may be survival of the fittest, but new traits are either guided or random, your choice. Random and concurrently helping each other does not work. The only answer is that they are guided.I am sure you have felt the desire for the happiness that you have never known. Have you ever listened to a really good song and wished you could do more than listen? Have you ever played a good song and wished you could do more than play? Looked at a work of art and wished it were real? Alive? A person you could meet? Have you ever met a person and wished you could know them completely? Have you ever wished you could be something that you admire? Have you ever become something, then wished you could become it, enjoy it more fully? Have you ever felt five senses to not be enough? Have you ever wished for a more complete joy than the brief joy felt in life? It is not a feeling that is easily described, but I believe that the completeness we seek lies with God in Heaven, and that is what makes Heaven paradise.As for why we are allowed to suffer, there is a Chinese proverb which says, "As fire refines gold, so suffering refines virtue." We are sinners because we sin. We sin because we have not stopped sinning since the first sin, the Original Sin. We are not marked by Original Sin forever, but by it's effects. Earth is not perfect. That is what Heaven is for. Life is both the lesson and the test. Also, it would not be free will if God completely prevented us from hurting others.Guilt is felt when one hurts others. When you hurt a girl by telling you that you don't love her, she is hurt for awhile, and so you feel guilt for awhile. When you lie and tell her that you love her when you don't, you will feel worse guilt for the entire time you are lying to her and she will be constantly unhappy for not receiving the love she gives. Then she will be even more badly hurt if you ever tell her the truth, and your guilt would worsen then and remain for some time, as her pain would remain for some time.Sorry if this made no sense, I am still tired, and it is now 2:00 AM. This took longer than I anticipated.