Thorrn:

You offered the claim that nothing [in this world] created itself as a response to my query to prove your god's existence. Given the context of my request, it is safe to assume that your belief that nothing created itself means that everything [in this world] has a creator, according to you. Since you wilfully declined to make any further clarifications, I simply inferred that you were suggesting that there is a source from which everything that exists [in this world] was created. In which case, you would simply be rehashing the cosmological argument for gods, also known as The First Cause argument...

Thorrn:


You didn't give any proof my guy. You just presented a rendition of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, but dressed it up in a tattered manner, as opposed to the elegance with which more competent apologists usually portray it. And the KCA has been widely trashed and destroyed in all forums of philosophical debate throughout modern history.

Permit me to rephrase your last sentence here:

"THERE IS NO VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST A NON-ARGUMENT"

Safe to say, the case is closed. And you have been dismissed.

Next!

Dtruthspeaker:
You clearly asked what "in this world" means asking if I meant "this "WORLD" consist of the earth alone in which humans are one of the inhabitants"

And I confirmed it saying :The bold! this "WORLD" consist of the earth alone in which humans are one of the inhabitants. That's why I kept saying that we are all arguing using our knowledge and experiences in and from this world to make our arguments..

So you got it.

Dtruthspeaker:


Wrong! I gave the proof, you saw it and then you in your bid to raise a counter you went off point or change of post which clearly means that you have no valid argument to make thereby proving "THERE IS NO VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST THE TRUTH "

Thorrn:

You're not actually addressing the paragraph you just quoted with this rejoinder. My primary focus in that paragraph was the meaning of your claim nothing [in this world] created itself in its entirety, not the definition of the qualifier you took the liberty to employ. Allow me to ask the question this way.

Thorrn:

How does the notion that "nothing [in this world] created itself" suggest that God exists? Can you give a direct answer?
You and I already know where you're heading with your argument, but keep denying and pretending to be none the wiser .

Thorrn:

You know you've lost an argument when you can't help but repeat yourself incessantly without offering any new insight. Please don't go the dark route of Aemmyjah. As you can see, he's now languishing in the dark corners of Nairaland hell. Blind and stubborn assertions will not save your position here.

Thorrn:

Simply clarify things for me. You said that nothing [in this world] created itself. What are you trying to suggest here if not the fact that everything has a creator?

Dtruthspeaker:


Now you are lying for you clearly said "Since you wilfully declined to make any further clarifications, And now that I have shown you that you were truly clarified, you are now changing your mouth.

Thorrn:
You offered the claim that nothing [in this world] created itself as a response to my query to prove your god's existence. Given the context of my request, it is safe to assume that your belief that nothing created itself means that everything [in this world] has a creator, according to you. Since you wilfully declined to make any further clarifications, I simply inferred that you were suggesting that there is a source from which everything that exists [in this world] was created.

Dtruthspeaker:


You lost the argument since, l was just waiting to see if you would raise any valid thing that would make me seek an adjournment. But you got no thing.

We call it res judicata. You can't litigate (reargue) what has already been litigated. sorry!

That is why IT IS THE LAW, THERE IS NO VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST THE TRUTH

Thanks for the debate, it was very intellectually stimulating

Thorrn:



Nothing new to see here. I've just refuted this garbage. You keep repeating yourself like a broken bot. Here retard. Read it and weep. Again .

Thorrn:


Pray tell, how could Wallace have possibly "fault(ed)" evolution when he was literally a pioneer of the theory, alongside Charles Darwin? Christ, you really are thicker than 2 short planks.



So apparently Wallace believed in spiritualism IE the existence of a spiritual realm beyond the physical world. Okay, good. Although I think it's funny how you're trying to use Wallace's personal ideologies to support your spurious claim to a higher creator deity. Three things here,

1, you commit the appeal to authority fallacy by hinging the validity of your claims on a passing remark made by Wallace. Why exactly should I care that Wallace believed in a higher mind? I could easily cite a number of even more credible scientists who confidently dismiss any notions of a supreme metaphysical being, and use their ideologies to justify my argument. You have no point here.

2, you are going down a very slippery slope by conflating science with religious beliefs. Science, as a process, is totally independent of the personal convictions, ideologies and bias of the individuals who engage in its practice. Wallace may have believed in a higher mind, but his belief is NOT justified by the theory of evolution. Many of Wallace's scientific propositions, including warning colouration and natural selection are widely accepted across the scientific community, since they have withstood subsequent scientific scrutiny and have become established scientific theories. However, many scientists refused to lend credence to his supernatural beliefs since they were untestable and therefore unscientific.

3, and this is the important bit: Wallace may have been a spiritualist, but he didn't believe in the Christian God and even rejected Christianity as a religion. He also rejected intelligent design. A seasoned scholar on the subject, Charles Smith, addressed this misconception of Wallace HERE. When asked if Wallace believed in Intelligent Design, he said, "No, no, and no--assuming that i.d. leans on the operation of first causes as Creationism does, that is. Don't fall for the facile understanding being promoted by some agenda-driven observers who argue that, just because Wallace was a spiritualist and believed that "higher intelligences" were influencing events here on earth, that he also believed in miraculous, non-law-based kinds of Godly intervention."

So basically, you're just running a fool's errand with this nonsensical argument.



I don't think you're lying here actually. I think you're just too stupid to understand how nuanced Wallace's perspectives towards reality were.



LMFAO @ "subtle mother of macroevolution" . Newsflash, dumbo: Abiogenesis is NOT evolution. It's a separate topic within biology and biochemistry. Secondly, and strictly speaking, Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation with his famous swan-neck experiment, not abiogenesis. You clearly don't know the difference. Finally, spontaneous generation is literally how things were created in the Bible if you read your precious book of Genesis very closely. Your imaginary sky daddy was just popping out random complex subjects, both living and non-living, out of thin air. Lol .



More bitter rants and tears from Dundeejah .



Ask a biologist. Evolution is not my business.



Ask a biologist. Evolution is not my business.



Why is the human eye vulnerable to dust and impact from very strong light? Why is our eyesight so terrible compared to bats? Why are bacteria and viruses more powerful than the human species given that certain ailments like cancer and HIV are totally incurable, or that COVID-19 almost threatened to wipe out the entire human race? How come only 20% of the Earth is inhabitable for human beings, and within the little are that is habitable, we constantly suffer tsunamis, pandemics, earthquakes, floods, droughts, global warming and tornadoes?

Oh I know the answer! It's InTeLLiGent dESigN!!!



You don't think. You can't think. You only regurgitate bullshit you don't even understand. Pathetic dullard.



Ask a biologist. Evolution is not my business.



Gof? Who's Gof?





Of course you'd make this spurious argument because you cannot decipher the difference between religion (unquestioned dogma) and science. Criticisms of scientific theories are commonplace within the scientific community. That's how science works, dumbo. Scientists collect data for research, carry out experiments and report their findings. These data are readily accessible to other scientists who can carry out the same experiments and attempt to falsify them. And that's where the strength of science lies: it subjects supposed facts to intense scrutiny to establish their veracity. Scientific knowledge is cumulative. It evolves through the process of scientists learning about, criticizing, and improving upon the previous works of scientists.

Religion on the other hand, makes allusions to absolute "truths" and are not open to change or growth. In fact, religion explicitly discourages anyone from honestly and objectively challenging the inherent beliefs that are considered sacred to said religion. For example, the case of Galileo being persecuted by the Catholic Church for his conception of a heliocentric solar system which directly contradicted the Church's belief in a flat Earth.

So long story short, Science establishes truth via thorough experiments, criticisms and continuous revision of theories. Whereas, religion establishes truth via indoctrination, blackmail and threats.



Bro, it took you 40 pages to finally realize I'm a girl after calling me a guy all along.

We don't think you're stupid.

We KNOW you're stupid.

Now that you've unwittingly gotten your dumb ass banned, I hope you spend the next 24 hours of your sorry life reflecting on your relentless stupidity, and come back a better man. In the meantime, I'll have to clean up this place. The stench of your illiteracy continues to linger on the thread, like a curry fart in an elevator .

Thorrn:


Pray tell, how could Wallace have possibly "fault(ed)" evolution when he was literally a pioneer of the theory, alongside Charles Darwin? Christ, you really are thicker than 2 short planks.



So apparently Wallace believed in spiritualism IE the existence of a spiritual realm beyond the physical world. Okay, good. Although I think it's funny how you're trying to use Wallace's personal ideologies to support your spurious claim to a higher creator deity. Three things here,

1, you commit the appeal to authority fallacy by hinging the validity of your claims on a passing remark made by Wallace. Why exactly should I care that Wallace believed in a higher mind? I could easily cite a number of even more credible scientists who confidently dismiss any notions of a supreme metaphysical being, and use their ideologies to justify my argument. You have no point here.

2, you are going down a very slippery slope by conflating science with religious beliefs. Science, as a process, is totally independent of the personal convictions, ideologies and bias of the individuals who engage in its practice. Wallace may have believed in a higher mind, but his belief is NOT justified by the theory of evolution. Many of Wallace's scientific propositions, including warning colouration and natural selection are widely accepted across the scientific community, since they have withstood subsequent scientific scrutiny and have become established scientific theories. However, many scientists refused to lend credence to his supernatural beliefs since they were untestable and therefore unscientific.

3, and this is the important bit: Wallace may have been a spiritualist, but he didn't believe in the Christian God and even rejected Christianity as a religion. He also rejected intelligent design. A seasoned scholar on the subject, Charles Smith, addressed this misconception of Wallace HERE. When asked if Wallace believed in Intelligent Design, he said, "No, no, and no--assuming that i.d. leans on the operation of first causes as Creationism does, that is. Don't fall for the facile understanding being promoted by some agenda-driven observers who argue that, just because Wallace was a spiritualist and believed that "higher intelligences" were influencing events here on earth, that he also believed in miraculous, non-law-based kinds of Godly intervention."

So basically, you're just running a fool's errand with this nonsensical argument.



I don't think you're lying here actually. I think you're just too stupid to understand how nuanced Wallace's perspectives towards reality were.



LMFAO @ "subtle mother of macroevolution" . Newsflash, dumbo: Abiogenesis is NOT evolution. It's a separate topic within biology and biochemistry. Secondly, and strictly speaking, Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation with his famous swan-neck experiment, not abiogenesis. You clearly don't know the difference. Finally, spontaneous generation is literally how things were created in the Bible if you read your precious book of Genesis very closely. Your imaginary sky daddy was just popping out random complex subjects, both living and non-living, out of thin air. Lol .



More bitter rants and tears from Dundeejah .



Ask a biologist. Evolution is not my business.



Ask a biologist. Evolution is not my business.



Why is the human eye vulnerable to dust and impact from very strong light? Why is our eyesight so terrible compared to bats? Why are bacteria and viruses more powerful than the human species given that certain ailments like cancer and HIV are totally incurable, or that COVID-19 almost threatened to wipe out the entire human race? How come only 20% of the Earth is inhabitable for human beings, and within the little are that is habitable, we constantly suffer tsunamis, pandemics, earthquakes, floods, droughts, global warming and tornadoes?

Oh I know the answer! It's InTeLLiGent dESigN!!!



You don't think. You can't think. You only regurgitate bullshit you don't even understand. Pathetic dullard.



Ask a biologist. Evolution is not my business.



Gof? Who's Gof?





Of course you'd make this spurious argument because you cannot decipher the difference between religion (unquestioned dogma) and science. Criticisms of scientific theories are commonplace within the scientific community. That's how science works, dumbo. Scientists collect data for research, carry out experiments and report their findings. These data are readily accessible to other scientists who can carry out the same experiments and attempt to falsify them. And that's where the strength of science lies: it subjects supposed facts to intense scrutiny to establish their veracity. Scientific knowledge is cumulative. It evolves through the process of scientists learning about, criticizing, and improving upon the previous works of scientists.

Religion on the other hand, makes allusions to absolute "truths" and are not open to change or growth. In fact, religion explicitly discourages anyone from honestly and objectively challenging the inherent beliefs that are considered sacred to said religion. For example, the case of Galileo being persecuted by the Catholic Church for his conception of a heliocentric solar system which directly contradicted the Church's belief in a flat Earth.

So long story short, Science establishes truth via thorough experiments, criticisms and continuous revision of theories. Whereas, religion establishes truth via indoctrination, blackmail and threats.



Bro, it took you 40 pages to finally realize I'm a girl after calling me a guy all along.

We don't think you're stupid.

We KNOW you're stupid.

Now that you've unwittingly gotten your dumb ass banned, I hope you spend the next 24 hours of your sorry life reflecting on your relentless stupidity, and come back a better man. In the meantime, I'll have to clean up this place. The stench of your illiteracy continues to linger on the thread, like a curry fart in an elevator .

Aemmyjah:


I'm not a retard

You are the retard for accepting what defies proven fact and logic

If abiogenesis is obsolete
Now, did life arose from inorganic matter?
Yes or No? Explain

Thorrn:



Oh the divine irony ! I can't believe you just wrote this.

Why don't you practice what you preach, Dundeejah? Hmm? Where are all the answers to my questions that YOU have intentionally ignored for numerous pages now just to throw your infantile tantrums about atheists. In fact I think I'm going to refrain from answering any more of your stupid questions until you do justice to the following questions that I've been asking you for close to a month now. Go on and show me little ol' me how to answer "simple questions" >>>

1. Can you kindly demonstrate how evolution being false serves as undeniable proof that an intelligent creator deity exists?

2. Do you mean to tell me that the only thing that motivates you to get up in the morning is your God? Nothing else inspires your energy and dedication? Not even your family?

3. Since the start of this thread, where did I make any claim that everything came from nothing?

4. How do you measure and/or recognize design? How can you tell the difference between a designed object and one that was not designed?

5. If everything in the universe was designed as you claim, how does it prove the existence of the God of the Bible, as opposed to Allah, Vishnu, Krishna etc etc? What if Allah is the true creator deity?

6. Abraham Lincoln, one of the foremost presidents of the USA was the titular character in the Vampire Hunter book mentioned above, and he hunted vampires. So I guess going by your logic (that the Bible is true because it contains real people and real places), vampires have been proven to exist?

7. If everything has a creator, then who or what created God?

You and I both know say if you make mistakes answer these questions honestly and objectively, in a straight-forward manner, fowl nyansh go open and the stupidity of your position will be 100% evident, even to you. That's why you've been running scared from my arguments like a petty thief because you know deep down that your position lacks any substance .

If you get mind, answer those questions. I will only just continue mocking your foolishness until you do.

Aemmyjah:


You are a sadist

What is abiogenesis and what is spontaneous theory.

See this ignorant child?
Keep lying to yourself

Abiogenesis and Biogenesis
Which one is scientific fact? 😎

Aemmyjah:



You're just negatively sentimental
If you see a house with broken windows and pipes. It shows the house was never built by someone shey?

You're quoting from hearsays
I quoted what Wallace himself said
Should I quote what Wallace wrote to Darwin and Darwin's reply? 😂

The catholic church was wrong
Bible says earth is spherical

You clearly need to educate yourself on spontaneous generation and abiogenesis... You don't even know basic sciences. Both are obsolete. Both are the same... Life cannot emerge from non-life, keep wallowing in ignorance

It's your type of intelligence that can believe that there was a nuclear explosion and Tokyo developed from it either instantaneously or spontaneously... If not, how can the earth and other planets and life emerge from a big bang (cosmic explosion)... You're highly delusional

Evolutionists says that mutation is also responsible for life... How? Mutation is far harmful than beneficial. How can it create something good... Poor critical thinker

Thorrn:


False equivalence fallacy. Also a form of category error. You're equating the universe in all its vastness and complexity to a house in one corner of our tiny earth, and you somehow believe your analogy is justified?

Retard_ is as retard_ does. You are just a retard_ and there's nothing I can do to help you.



Hearsays? Lol. Anyone who opens that link will see that Smith was literally rephrasing Wallace's own words from the book "My Life" which is an autobiography written by Wallace himself. Open the link and find out for yourself. He also rejected belief in the Christian god, but I know this part of the debate will be too inconvenient for your stupid agenda. Anyways I don't actually expect you to read the link because I know you don't actually care for honest conversation. You just want to be "right" by all means, even when your knowledge on a subject is clearly lacking.

Also, why do you think I should care if Wallace believed in higher beings? What do you think Wallace's irrational beliefs prove. Like I told before, you are going down a very slippery slope by conflating science with religious beliefs. Science, as a process, is totally independent of the personal convictions, ideologies and bias of the individuals who engage in its practice. Wallace may have believed in a higher mind, but his belief is NOT justified by the theory of evolution. Many of Wallace's scientific propositions, including warning colouration and natural selection are widely accepted across the scientific community, since they have withstood subsequent scientific scrutiny and have become established scientific theories. However, many scientists refused to lend credence to his supernatural beliefs since they were untestable and therefore unscientific.

Why should I care for Wallace's own personal convictions over that of countless other scientists?



Very interesting, because there are Christians who believe in a flat earth and can justify their beliefs using the Bible. They also reject the law of gravity, saying gravity does not exist. And they believe in a higher being who created everything just like you. This link here (https://biblicalcosmologybook..com/?m=0) redirects to a blog by a Christian who insists that the Bible preaches a flat earth. Why should I believe your claim that the earth is spherical instead of his own claim that the earth is flat? He also goes ahead to lay out his argument citing Bible verses to corroborate his claims. Where is your own detailed argument supporting the belief in a spherical earth using Bible passages?

Also, the above example serves to deflate the argument that the Bible represents absolute truth. Pray tell, how can truth of the Bible be absolute when different people derive subjective ideas from its' contents?



I'll let ChatGPT do the talking:

What is the difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation?

Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are two different concepts related to the origin of life. Abiogenesis is the scientific theory that life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds, through natural processes. This theory is supported by evidence from fields such as biochemistry, molecular biology, and paleontology. Spontaneous generation, on the other hand, is an outdated and disproven idea that living organisms can arise from non-living matter under certain conditions. This concept was popular in ancient and medieval times but was eventually refuted by experiments and observations, leading to the acceptance of the theory of biogenesis, which states that living organisms only arise from pre-existing living organisms. In summary, abiogenesis is a modern scientific concept that explores the natural origins of life from non-living matter, while spontaneous generation is a historical idea that has been replaced by the theory of biogenesis and the modern understanding of abiogenesis.

You're retarded_ and wilfully ignorant. Case closed.



When you're done furiously beating about the bush, please answer my simple and straightforward questions. I've quoted them for you in my previous post. Thanks

Thorrn:



And you're a masochist. A glutton for punishment .



If you don't know the difference, then why, oh why Dundeejah, are we having this discussion?



Ignorance runs through your bloodstream. It is the very essence of your being. You are like a totem that represents ignorance. The day you die is the day you'll stop being ignorant .



Answer my questions and stop making a fool of yourself already.

Thorrn:


False equivalence fallacy. Also a form of category error. You're equating the universe in all its vastness and complexity to a house in one corner of our tiny earth, and you somehow believe your analogy is justified?

Retard_ is as retard_ does. You are just a retard_ and there's nothing I can do to help you.



Hearsays? Lol. Anyone who opens that link will see that Smith was literally rephrasing Wallace's own words from the book "My Life" which is an autobiography written by Wallace himself. Open the link and find out for yourself. He also rejected belief in the Christian god, but I know this part of the debate will be too inconvenient for your stupid agenda. Anyways I don't actually expect you to read the link because I know you don't actually care for honest conversation. You just want to be "right" by all means, even when your knowledge on a subject is clearly lacking.

Also, why do you think I should care if Wallace believed in higher beings? What do you think Wallace's irrational beliefs prove. Like I told before, you are going down a very slippery slope by conflating science with religious beliefs. Science, as a process, is totally independent of the personal convictions, ideologies and bias of the individuals who engage in its practice. Wallace may have believed in a higher mind, but his belief is NOT justified by the theory of evolution. Many of Wallace's scientific propositions, including warning colouration and natural selection are widely accepted across the scientific community, since they have withstood subsequent scientific scrutiny and have become established scientific theories. However, many scientists refused to lend credence to his supernatural beliefs since they were untestable and therefore unscientific.

Why should I care for Wallace's own personal convictions over that of countless other scientists?



Very interesting, because there are Christians who believe in a flat earth and can justify their beliefs using the Bible. They also reject the law of gravity, saying gravity does not exist. And they believe in a higher being who created everything just like you. This link here (https://biblicalcosmologybook..com/?m=0) redirects to a blog by a Christian who insists that the Bible preaches a flat earth. Why should I believe your claim that the earth is spherical instead of his own claim that the earth is flat? He also goes ahead to lay out his argument citing Bible verses to corroborate his claims. Where is your own detailed argument supporting the belief in a spherical earth using Bible passages?

Also, the above example serves to deflate the argument that the Bible represents absolute truth. Pray tell, how can truth of the Bible be absolute when different people derive subjective ideas from its' contents?



I'll let ChatGPT do the talking:

What is the difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation?

Abiogenesis and spontaneous generation are two different concepts related to the origin of life. Abiogenesis is the scientific theory that life arises from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds, through natural processes. This theory is supported by evidence from fields such as biochemistry, molecular biology, and paleontology. Spontaneous generation, on the other hand, is an outdated and disproven idea that living organisms can arise from non-living matter under certain conditions. This concept was popular in ancient and medieval times but was eventually refuted by experiments and observations, leading to the acceptance of the theory of biogenesis, which states that living organisms only arise from pre-existing living organisms. In summary, abiogenesis is a modern scientific concept that explores the natural origins of life from non-living matter, while spontaneous generation is a historical idea that has been replaced by the theory of biogenesis and the modern understanding of abiogenesis.

You're retarded_ and wilfully ignorant. Case closed.



When you're done furiously beating about the bush, please answer my simple and straightforward questions. I've quoted them for you in my previous post. Thanks

Aemmyjah:


Abiogenesis and Biogenesis

Chatgpt
Biogenesis is scientifically supported, stating that living organisms arise from pre-existing living organisms. Abiogenesis, the idea of life originating from non-living matter, is a [b]hypothesis with ongoing research but hasn't been definitively proven.[/b]

Retard calling someone ignorant
😎

Aemmyjah:


I laugh at you
All those who say earth is flat are Christians you say? 😂

Your delusion is mighty
The bible itself already described the shape of the earth about 3000 years ago

If the Pope authorize that gay marriages be blessed whereas the Bible says something different or opposite. Does that discredit the Bible?

Aemmyjah:
You mention something about people finding their own purpose
Yet we sometimes condemn or criticise others
If your child wants to find a purpose living as a serial killer or a terrorist... It seems that will make you happy right?

AgentOfAllah:


The OP has requested logical or scientific theories as to why robbing, kidnapping and their other criminal activities are wrong/evil. To address the OP's challenge, it is crucial to first interpret it correctly. To do so, we must first define the operative adjectives: "wrong" and "evil".

(1) Wrong: This word is a judgement of value, and as it turns out, it has many definitions, however, all these definitions may occupy only two contextual categories, namely (i) social wrong and (ii) functional wrong.

(i) Social wrong: We may roughly define it as behaviour that does not conform to a set of highly regarded standards that guide social transactions. This category includes moral, ethical, legal and customary wrongs. The set of standards are usually highly subjective, and change from community to community, and person to person. In the specific context of morality for instance, it is morally wrong to put on tight skirts in public in Saudi Arabia, but not so in UK or US.

(ii) Functional wrong: We may define this as an action or proclamation that is not in conformity with what is true. This category may sometimes intersect with social wrong, but it is independent of it. In fact, it is highly amoral and apathetic to any social construct. Clearly this type of wrong is more objective (or universal for those who, like me, are subjectivists). An example of this is that tight skirt is a wrong/incorrect attire to put on if one wants to run their fastest. A different example is: it is wrong/incorrect to say 1+1 = 11. You may notice that "incorrect" is a great, often even more appropriate synonym for "functional wrong", but it wouldn't work quite as well with "social wrong".

(2) Evil: Evil, just like "wrong", is also a judgement of value. It is defined as behaviour that is profoundly immoral and malevolent. This is a more straight forward definition, and is clearly just a potent synonym for moral wrong, which falls under the social category.

Given the above definitions, in order to be able to prove that anything is "evil", your selected criterion must satisfy two conditions: (a) It must be able to impose a value of judgement on its results and (b) It must be amenable to moral interpretations. To prove that something is "wrong", however, it needs only accommodate condition (a) vis functional wrong.

Criterion of Logic and Science in Judging Wrong and Evil:

It is here we start to appreciate the import of the above definitions. You see, both science and logic are amoral pursuits, so we immediately see that they fail condition (b). By this account alone, the OP's challenge that their immoral behaviour be logically/scientifically proven evil is entirely moot! It is simply not possible to prove that anything is evil using science or logic. The discussion should end here, right? Well, the OP also used the word "Wrong", so let's see if we fare any better.

Science is fundamentally an endeavour to understand cause and effect. What it does not do, however, is place a value on causes or effects. For instance, I may have scientific knowledge of the processes involved in creating a light bulb with poor efficiency just as well as I have scientific knowledge of the processes involved in creating light bulbs with high efficiency. But there is nothing in science to inform me that making poorly efficient light bulbs is bad. Basically, science is apathetic to the ways you use your knowledge. As such, science also fails condition (a). We can now completely rule out science as a means to address the OP's challenge.

But wait! Not so fast! We have not established that logic fails criteria (a). Well, yes, that's because it doesn't. Logic is able to impose value judgments, but only functional right/wrong not social right/wrong. As such, since stealing and kidnapping are moral acts, whose values rest in social rights/wrongs as opposed to functional, logic cannot be used to prove them wrong. The only way out is if we all agreed that such things as "will to survive", empathy, utilitarianism, and selfishness are universal human traits and valid operands in our logical construct, then I can see a logical pathway through which such a proof can be made. Judging, only, by the OP's ferocious admittance to being a psychopath however, it is clear that these traits are not universal.

In short, if the OP lacks empathy, and fails to acknowledge other people's feelings, then the logical/scientific proof that robbing and kidnapping is wrong/"evil" should be the least of their concern because such a proof is impossible! My only advise to the OP is that they should be prepared for the eventuality of revenge. Revenge is not exactly a logical persuasion, but it could still be a valid persuasion for a selfish idiot who still has the will to live.

Aemmyjah:



I asked a simple question
You said neither
And you think you're intelligent?

Thorrn:



I remember AgentOfAllah gave a perfect response to this issue some years back, so I'm going to quote his post here. Your belief that subjective purpose justifies irrational behavior is farcical.

Thorrn:


The owner of this blog is a Muslim abi?
https://biblicalcosmologybook..com/?m=0



Again you did not answer my question.

You claim the Bible supports a spherical earth. The owner of that blog claims the Bible supports a flat earth. You are both basing your claims on "what the Bible says".

Why should I lend any more credence to your claim over his? I just need one reason. Shikena!

Thorrn:


Mr. Retard, so it's no longer Spontaneous generation vs Abiogenesis. It's now Abiogenesis vs biogenesis.

Oponu. Olodo rabata.

Thorrn:



I remember AgentOfAllah gave a perfect response to this issue some years back, so I'm going to quote his post here. Your belief that subjective purpose justifies irrational behavior is farcical.

Aemmyjah:


Evolution gave us sense of good and evil shey

If your child wants to find a purpose as a serial killer or terrorist. It is ok shey?

Your philosophy has left you with unreliable guidance

Keep wailing

Aemmyjah:


Abiogenesis is a scientific fact
Yes or No?

I never compared spontaneous generation with abiogenesis. They go hand in hand

Your brain don de increase temperature shey
You even wished i were banned for 24 hours as you aimlessly roam the internet for misleading statements

Aemmyjah:



What does the Bible really say?

Thorrn:



Oh the divine irony ! I can't believe you just wrote this.

Why don't you practice what you preach, Dundeejah? Hmm? Where are all the answers to my questions that YOU have intentionally ignored for numerous pages now just to throw your infantile tantrums about atheists. In fact I think I'm going to refrain from answering any more of your stupid questions until you do justice to the following questions that I've been asking you for close to a month now. Go on and show me little ol' me how to answer "simple questions" >>>

1. Can you kindly demonstrate how evolution being false serves as undeniable proof that an intelligent creator deity exists?

2. Do you mean to tell me that the only thing that motivates you to get up in the morning is your God? Nothing else inspires your energy and dedication? Not even your family?

3. Since the start of this thread, where did I make any claim that everything came from nothing?

4. How do you measure and/or recognize design? How can you tell the difference between a designed object and one that was not designed?

5. If everything in the universe was designed as you claim, how does it prove the existence of the God of the Bible, as opposed to Allah, Vishnu, Krishna etc etc? What if Allah is the true creator deity?

6. Abraham Lincoln, one of the foremost presidents of the USA was the titular character in the Vampire Hunter book mentioned above, and he hunted vampires. So I guess going by your logic (that the Bible is true because it contains real people and real places), vampires have been proven to exist?

7. If everything has a creator, then who or what created God?

You and I both know say if you make mistakes answer these questions honestly and objectively, in a straight-forward manner, fowl nyansh go open and the stupidity of your position will be 100% evident, even to you. That's why you've been running scared from my arguments like a petty thief because you know deep down that your position lacks any substance .

If you get mind, answer those questions. I will only just continue mocking your foolishness until you do.

Thorrn:
@Aemmyjah

Fancy you calling someone else a fraud when you're too busy plagiarizing JW articles from the internet. Unfortunately I couldn't screenshot your post before it got taken down. Lol. I'm sure that is why you got your stupid ass banned. This is the problem with y'all Christards. You find it difficult to be authentic because you are used to living a life full of lies and delusions.

Next time include your source when you copy and paste, you incompetent retard_. I won't quote the post in question so that I won't get banned too.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2009645

cc: Jaephoenix, kkins25

kkins25:




AEMMYJAH, AEMMYJAH,AEMMYJAH,

Truly,thou hast been caught committing the act of fraud. Bringeth forth thy ass to court, and answereth the questions set before thee by Thorn. Verily, verily, i say unto thee, doeth not this that the son of man hath said only brings shame upon you.

Thorrn:
@AEMMYJAH, WHERE ARE YOUR ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS BELOW?