Here is why you should believe in God.

[R00tKiT]

1. If we assume the Abrahamic God exists (for the sake of this argument) we also must accept that God has his own nature.  Otherwise he is a cruel and unjust god punishing people arbitrarily because they go against his wishes (which themselves are arbitrary)

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "own nature" ?
Whatever you think God's wishes are, you're not exactly in a position to complain. He's God, you're not, live with it. God created free will, he's not responsible for your screw ups.

2. If God does not have his own nature, his rules are entirely arbitrary and meaningless.  If God DOES have his own nature, he must have his own natural laws.  This clearly warrants its own lawgiver.

Again, you can call any rule *arbitrary and meaningless* when it doesn't please your ego. And God possesses all the absolute propertes by definition, his existence doesn't warrant any additional explanation.

3. Ergo, God also has a law giver who created his nature.

4. So who's God's lawgiver?  Does he not know?  Or does he simply believe he does not have one?

The "who created god?" question or the one you're asking were debunked thousands of time already. Only finite entities with incomplete attributes need an external agent to account for their existence, because they weren't always there. That's not true of an entity that is the answer to contradictions arising from infinite regress.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Can I come to your home and teach evolution?

[Duty]

Those features alone do not meet the criteria of "God" as described in any religion or religious tradition. Most importantly it needs to be able to interfere in human affairs and also give a fuck so as to be inclined to do that. The Spanish flu epidemic of 2018, the Tsunami of 2004, congenital birth defects, childhood cancers, paedophiles etc etc etc are overwhelming evidence that such an entity does not exist.

I didn't claim my list of features is exhaustive, this is off-topic, as I said. And you should try better than simply invoking the problem of evil, as *overwhelming evidence*. There is extensive theodicy literature addressing each of your concerns,.

It's not off topic, as you said God and then described something which does not necessitate nor even imply the existence of God as any religious tradition describes it.

My bold - Citation please? I consider myself to be at least relatively well read - I wonder how come I don't remember hearing an explanation for why God allows cot deaths, paedophilia etc etc etc...PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME/US!!!

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think playing on the letter "I", or on the vast set of viewpoints of what actually makes me .. me, will be of any practical use. As you said, it wouldn't stop us from calling ourselves I, and we should continue doing that, unless there is a real incentive to rethink this issue. We move on with our lives, regardless of any particular theory of consciousness. If we can conceive of life and death, the latter literally meaning to cease to exist, then we clearly have a conception of our existence.


It is futile from a practical point of view. As far as I know, there was never any significant advancement regarding reductive or non reductive theories of consciousness, nor any decisive evidence clearly solving the mind body problem ... it's simply one word against another. That is, one guy who's prepared to believe in metaphysical stuff and the other guy who thinks that WYSIWYG.

Speaking of taking things seriously, I don't think the theological viewpoint of consciousness was taking seriously by "philosophers and researchers", there is a huge, authentic literature about the soul in Islam, and I would be interested in reading the Islamic concept of soul *criticized*. But again all we get as criticism is Muhammad did this, Muhammad didn't do that...

I guess we just disagree?  Understanding consciousness is of vast practical use.  We could all benefit from a better understanding of self, whatever that happens to be. 

A criticism of "soul" in islamic literature will be the same as criticism of "soul" in any other body of superstitions.  

1. I think I already addressed this gross misunderstanding in a previous dicussion. a god was always there, there was never any nothing he came out from. So no, there is no special pleading.

2. a 747 is much more than Aluminum. You are strawmaning my axiom. If we take all the components with their needed quantities as in a 747, they clearly have the potential as a whole to actually become a 747, and even more, provided we have really clever aliens way brighter than every Airbus engineer. And a 747 is only a label given by humans, it could be as useless as a single Carbon atom to some aliens. Human beings are made of  (organic chemistry+ the entire set of chemical/physical laws and convenient environment throughout aeons of time to make the evolutionary processes operate as "precisely" as they did). If you think about a little bit more carefully, what could be done with this set of conditions through thousands of centuries is only bounded by your imagination.

3. It actually depends on what you mean by infinity, a very tricky concept in its own right. Under certain definitions of the latter, infinite regress is clearly impossible. If we mean by infinite regress a successive causal chain of events, say ... => A => B => C => our universe => stuff => ... then clearly our universe shouldn't have been here since it's preceded by an infinite amount of events, and since the latter never ends, by definition, the universe never comes into being.

Do you have any other reasons?  Arguing over factual corrections to your axioms is pointless.  You're free to take them as axioms and insist that they're true regardless of whether or not they are.  People generally assess their axioms against brute facts - but I don't see the point between us.  If you took those thing to be true axioms..sure, you could probably force a god - just like you could force absolutely any claim whatsoever by any set of axioms in the same manner.  

You've freed yourself from a commitment to facts all the way down to an axiomatic level - the sky is the limit, lol!

Abraham actually believed that the Sun is God, it's clearly stated in the Qur'an. My point is that he was justified, temporarily, in doing so. If I think the Sun's visible properties are too impressive for it to be merely stuff, and I decide to worship it, then at least I have some reason to worship it. 

Similarly we're clearly impressed by the sunset, by the diversity of creature, by the beauty of nature, etc. An atheist jepordizes this overwhelming sense of wonder by appealing to what we know currently. The thing is, it doesn't help, as I said, that we know how things became beautiful and impressive. There are underlying conditions that made all the natural processes we know possible. We're dealing with specified complexity, a universe that could have been much, much worse.

Sure, and in the comics, people really never connect clark kent to superman.  It's a story.  A narrative vehicle for theology. 

Atheists also feel the sense of the numinous.  It's a human trait, not a trait of the faithful that's jeopardized by the status of one's belief in gods.  

-but so what?

So what if not believing in god reduced a persons sense of wonder?  That would be an argument to negative consequences.  Invalid.  

I'm sure that the universe could have been worse..however you define worse, but it could have been better as well.  You must believe this, if you believe in a hereafter.  This..is not the best world.

I am curious then. How do you think we can reach John? Knowing cooking recipes clearly doesn't help, nor is the mechanical process of chewing food, but we still know someone ate the food. We skipped through the minutious details and scientific processes of (cooking recipes) and (chewing food) and decided that swallowing a meal requires a conscious agent.. can't you do that for the whole universe? Is it that hard really ...?

You directly asserted that the only way that we can know john..analogizing john to god, is through his processes.  Well, if that's true, then we can know John - and if that's true, then not finding any god through process is a problem. 

Either way you'll have to figure out whether you doubt your faculties on your own.  You know yourself better than I do.  

How can you possibly know that "natural law requires a lawgiver" is *factually untrue*... ? You have no empirical data of universes casually popping out into being which are described by natural laws. And you still have to deal with the ex nihilo problem. It is logically forced that something was always there. And it doesn't take too much honesty to acknoweldge that a universe that could have been infinitely much worse and simplistic, should come from some intelligent agent.

And the real question you should be asking is : what would be carefully built according to you? If you don't think designing this universe warrants intelligent preparation.. what would actually warrant it? If you can't answer that then your objections go both ways, and then they wouldn't be very good objections.

Natural law is descriptive law - by definition.  I can know that natural law needs no lawgiver for the same reason that I know there are no married bachelors.  Natural law simply isn't referring to that kind of law.  It doesn't have the -defining- requirements that prescriptive law has, and therefore the existence of descriptive law doesn't imply that the requirements of prescriptive law exist.  This is a common equivocation on the boards, for the faithful.  Let's use a fun example.  Molly.  Molly is either a drug, or a girl.  

Molly(the girl) requires parents, therefore Molly(the drug) has parents.  

Is that the best you can do? All the greek literature(Aristotle's, Hippocrates', Galen's) on medicine back then presented menstrual blood as involved in embryonic development.. the Qur'an didn't do that. It's pretty impressive for an illiterate merchant to get this detail straight...even more impressive is to take the chance of mentioning that in a book supposed to guide humanity to better spiritual life ... why bother delving into human development in a religious book if you know you're lying?

I think I asked for clear mistakes and internal inconsistencies. The Qur'an claims that much more unlikely things will happen, like resurrection. It would just be your word against mine.

First of all, if by "magic book" you're referring to the Qur'an specifically, the existence of God is not a matter of dicussion throughout the whole book. Even Meccan pagans back then worshipped their idols because they believe them to be intermediaries to the highest being, nobody back then denied the highest being. As a result, the Qur'an never presents an argument intended to "prove" God. Speaking of the children of Adam - us - witnessing, it's an event that reportedly happened, clearly not an argument. Speaking of ad pop, the Qur'an is literally the last religious book about which you can make such an accusation, countless verses explcitly state that most people are wrong, misguided, dishonest.

And about the Qur'an stating that "people who believe in god have more stuff", I think you should try and actually find the verse that says that. Good luck.

So much for gladly leaving your faith, huh? You knew that wasn't true when you said it..everyone else did too. Getting shit wrong in the way you've been is explicable, particularly by your faith - but it's hard to explain why you'd say something so silly about such a menial detail as what you would do confronted with the inadequacies of your superstitions.

You need to make up your mind on key issues for this to be a profitable discussion. Issues like whether or not we can know anything. We must be able to know something, if we need good reasons. Hell, if we want to have a coherent conversation at all. You need to make up your mind on whether or not you need good reasons, even. If you decide that we do, you're going to have to offer those, instead of arguments as to why you think your bad reasons are good ones. For fucks sake..whatever you decide on those issues - take a little time to look them up before you post. That's the premise of the thread, is it not?

That there is some reason that you have, for why other people should believe in god? I'm not personally aware of any, and haven't been informed of any through your posts.

[GUBU]

Okay, I would first need evidence that you've learnt some manners on how to handle a civilised discussion.

Bring a civilised discussion instead of ignorant bullshit and lies and I'll show you some evidence.

[Rahn127]

Kloro, you sounded drunk to me as I read the many words you wrote, none of which made very much sense.

John ate some ribs and then the atheist questions if John exists ? WTF ?
Then some other nonsense about natural laws and a law giver. What the fuck is a law giver ?
Under what natural laws is the law giver operating under BEFORE he gives laws and how the fuck does someone give a law ?

Drunk posting is a problem. You might want to seek professional help before things get too bad.

You don't need a reason to believe a god exists. You just need to be gullible.

[Gwaithmir]

Still waiting to see a rational argument for God's existence. 

[R00tKiT]

It's not off topic, as you said God and then described something which does not necessitate nor even imply the existence of God as any religious tradition describes it.

I didn't intend for my post to be a formal proof of God, as atheists usually request it to be like. My point is that their very request is absurd, as they betray their excessive skepticism when pressed in situations requiring reasonable explanations and not pages of rigorous case by case analysis, as in the "burglar breaking their window and stealing their money" analogy.

The second point is that they make a very elementary categorical mistake. The typical atheist thinks scientific explanations of various processes are all one needs to account for to have complete knowledge of reality. This is a laughable assertion. It doesn't even work with someone eating his food. Explaining cooking recipes and the complex mechanical movements of his jaw is by no means substitute for the explanation "John ate his food".

Once one gets rid of these two very absurd preconceptions, it becomes straightforward to believe in a supernatural force that account sfor every aspect of design around crying for a deeper explanation than the simple "we figured it out".

My bold - Citation please? I consider myself to be at least relatively well read - I wonder how come I don't remember hearing an explanation for why God allows cot deaths, paedophilia etc etc etc...PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME/US!!!

I am not going to claim I know more than you already do. But from what I read about the subject, theodicy is more concerned with addressing the problem of evil as a whole, not in some specific examples. Just because we're emotional about death doesn't mean it's inherently "immoral" or "wrong" or unworthy of a deity, these are all baseless conclusions we jump to because we're emotional creatures.

Again, one can only hold a deity accountable for free will, not its consequences, since they're the product of the individual's choice by definition.

1. I think I already addressed this gross misunderstanding in a previous dicussion. a god was always there, there was never any nothing he came out from. So no, there is no special pleading.

2. a 747 is much more than Aluminum. You are strawmaning my axiom. If we take all the components with their needed quantities as in a 747, they clearly have the potential as a whole to actually become a 747, and even more, provided we have really clever aliens way brighter than every Airbus engineer. And a 747 is only a label given by humans, it could be as useless as a single Carbon atom to some aliens. Human beings are made of  (organic chemistry+ the entire set of chemical/physical laws and convenient environment throughout aeons of time to make the evolutionary processes operate as "precisely" as they did). If you think about a little bit more carefully, what could be done with this set of conditions through thousands of centuries is only bounded by your imagination.

3. It actually depends on what you mean by infinity, a very tricky concept in its own right. Under certain definitions of the latter, infinite regress is clearly impossible. If we mean by infinite regress a successive causal chain of events, say ... => A => B => C => our universe => stuff => ... then clearly our universe shouldn't have been here since it's preceded by an infinite amount of events, and since the latter never ends, by definition, the universe never comes into being.

Do you have any other reasons?  Arguing over factual corrections to your axioms is pointless.  You're free to take them as axioms and insist that they're true regardless of whether or not they are.

I suggest you start taking the mistakes you make seriously. You tend to avoid discussing the details precisely when you get them wrong. It's a big problem that you're accusing me of special pleading when there is none. A big, huge problem you can't solve by circling around, as you do here.

So I am going to state my - very important - factual corrections again :

1) There is no special pleading when one appeals to the "something can't come from nothing" tautology to argue for a first cause. It's a disaster that your misunderstanding of a tautology lead you to accuse me of special pleading.

2) "Something can't give what it doesn't have" is actually true in your 747 example. Since the label "something" also includes the whole manufacturing process and the exact quantity of material needed to build a 747 from scratch. 

3) Infinite regress of causes is impossible under most definitions of infinity.

Until I hear some good objections to what's above, they're forcibly true in your worldview as well.

If you took those thing to be true axioms..sure, you could probably force a god - just like you could force absolutely any claim whatsoever by any set of axioms in the same manner.  

You've freed yourself from a commitment to facts all the way down to an axiomatic level - the sky is the limit, lol!

The set of axioms I'm appealing to is the exact one you appeal to in every situation in your life, except for god. Do you have any objection you want to say to "something can't come from nothing" ? really..? Don't we have at least this very basic principle in common?
It's laughable that you're now taking refuge in some "commitment to facts", since, obviously, the axiomatic level doesn't seem to be on your side at all. If you were, by any means, committed to facts, you would've thought the same way about the whole universe as you do when your money is stolen and your windows glasses smashed, that is, when you're pressed in more serious situations than that of calmly arguing god off existence when sitting on your sofa. The "whole universe" is just bigger, there is nothing fundamentally different when I used these analogies in my original post, we're just tricked by differences of size.

Atheists also feel the sense of the numinous.  It's a human trait, not a trait of the faithful that's jeopardized by the status of one's belief in gods. 

And it's about time they act on this sense. The same way they do when they're hungry, thirsty, afraid, shocked, etc. Every sense should at least warrant action or interest to a reasonable person who is, actually, commited to facts.

And saying that this sense is a human trait doesn't exactly help your camp. If human beings as products of nature don't share these traits with what's around them, this warrants a more serious explanation in itself.

So what if not believing in god reduced a persons sense of wonder?  That would be an argument to negative consequences.  Invalid. 

Again. The same way hunger and thirst should be treated as biological warnings to one's exitinction, that we can't ignore, ignoring this sense/urge of belief is simply not sensible.

Natural law is descriptive law - by definition.  I can know that natural law needs no lawgiver for the same reason that I know there are no married bachelors.  Natural law simply isn't referring to that kind of law.  It doesn't have the -defining- requirements that prescriptive law has, and therefore the existence of descriptive law doesn't imply that the requirements of prescriptive law exist.  This is a common equivocation on the boards, for the faithful.  Let's use a fun example.  Molly.  Molly is either a drug, or a girl.  

Molly(the girl) requires parents, therefore Molly(the drug) has parents. 

I suggest you think again about this descriptive law thing, because this is truly laughable.

Descriptive laws describe something's workings, movement, interactions, etc. Namely, they don't create what they're describing. Their very existence, instead of no intelligible law to describe existing things at all, clearly imply a lawgiver.

As you agreed with me above, our universe could've been worse. One way for it to be worse is to have no intelligible pattern any intelligent mammal - such us ourselves - can figure out. And this not the case. Our world is really better than that. It's a big question in philosophy that our universe is intelligble, that the elegant language of mathematics exactly fits what we see, I don't think you can avoid it by a couple of remarks on what descriptive laws mean.

So much for gladly leaving your faith, huh?  You knew that wasn't true when you said it..everyone else did too.  Getting shit wrong in the way you've been is explicable, particularly by your faith - but it's hard to explain why you'd say something so silly about such a menial detail as what you would do confronted with the inadequacies of your superstitions.

Nothing you mentioned counts as some inadequacy of any type. They're the same bad quality criticism one finds when typing the keywords "Errors in the qur'an" in any search engine out there. I suggest you read Muslim apologists answers to these supposed inadequacies before trying again, since my own answers don't seem to fit your tastes.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you have any other reasons?  Arguing over factual corrections to your axioms is pointless.  You're free to take them as axioms and insist that they're true regardless of whether or not they are.

I suggest you start taking the mistakes you make seriously. You tend to avoid discussing the details precisely when you get them wrong. It's a big problem that you're accusing me of special pleading when there is none. A big, huge problem you can't solve by circling around, as you do here.

That looks like a big fat no...if I dont consider the reasons™ you gave to be good reasons™, and you don't have others to offer.  You would, instead, like me to consider that my disregard for those reasons™ is a mistake.  Okay, considered.  Truly, and it isn't.  You've given no good reason.  I'm only asking whether or not you have something else..because right or wrong, what you've offered isn't convincing.

So I am going to stay my - very important - factual corrections again :
1) There is no special pleading when one appeals to the "something can't come from nothing" tautology to argue for a first cause. It's a disaster that your misunderstanding of a tautology lead you to accuse me of special pleading.
2) "Something can't give what it doesn't have" is actually true in your 747 example. Since the label "something" also includes the whole manufacturing process and the exact quantity of material needed to build a 747 from scratch. 
3) Infinite regress of causes is impossible under most definitions of infinity.
Until I hear some good objections to what's above, they're forcibly true in your worldview as well.

....whatever you say....

If you took those thing to be true axioms..sure, you could probably force a god - just like you could force absolutely any claim whatsoever by any set of axioms in the same manner.  

You've freed yourself from a commitment to facts all the way down to an axiomatic level - the sky is the limit, lol!

The set of axioms I'm appealing to is the exact one you appeal to in every situation in your life, except for god. Do you have any objection you want to say to "something can't come from nothing" ? really..? Don't we have at least this very basic principle in common?
It's laughable that you're now taking refuge in some "commitment to facts", since, obviously, the axiomatic level doesn't seem to be on your side at all. If you were, by any means, committed to facts, you would've thought the same way about the whole universe as you do when your money is stolen and your windows glasses smashed, that is, when you're pressed in more serious situations than that of calmly arguing god off existence when sitting on your sofa. The "whole universe" is just bigger, there is nothing fundamentally different when I used these analogies in my original post, we're just tricked by differences of size.

You don't have the first clue as to what axioms I appeal to - thus your claim is wrong on it;s face.  I'm willing to be proven wrong though, and it would be easy.  Name a single axiom I would appeal to?

Atheists also feel the sense of the numinous.  It's a human trait, not a trait of the faithful that's jeopardized by the status of one's belief in gods. 

And it's about time they act on this sense. The same way they do when they're hungry, thirsty, afraid, shocked, etc. Every sense should at least warrant action or interest to a reasonable person who is, actually, commited to facts.

And saying that this sense is a human trait doesn't exactly help your camp. If human beings as products of nature don't share these traits with what's around them, this warrants a more serious explanation in itself.

All people act on this sense you bigoted piece of shit, lol.  -You- think that the only way to act appropriately is to be a msulim..but you think that because you're a bigoted piece of shit.

So what if not believing in god reduced a persons sense of wonder?  That would be an argument to negative consequences.  Invalid. 

Again. The same way hunger and thirst should be treated as biological warnings to one's exitinction, that we can't ignore, ignoring this sense/urge of belief is simply not sensible.

An argument to consequences is invalid no matter what consequences you might imagine.  A true thing can have terrible consequences.  Do you understand?

Natural law is descriptive law - by definition.  I can know that natural law needs no lawgiver for the same reason that I know there are no married bachelors.  Natural law simply isn't referring to that kind of law.  It doesn't have the -defining- requirements that prescriptive law has, and therefore the existence of descriptive law doesn't imply that the requirements of prescriptive law exist.  This is a common equivocation on the boards, for the faithful.  Let's use a fun example.  Molly.  Molly is either a drug, or a girl.  

Molly(the girl) requires parents, therefore Molly(the drug) has parents. 

I suggest you think again about this descriptive law thing, because this is truly laughable.

Descriptive laws describe something's workings, movement, interactions, etc. Namely, they don't create what they're describing. Their very existence, instead of no intelligible law to describe existing things at all, clearly imply a lawgiver.

As you agreed with me above, our universe could've been worse. One way for it to be worse is to have no intelligible pattern any intelligent mammal - such us ourselves - can figure out. And this not the case. Our world is really better than that. It's a big question in philosophy that our universe is intelligble, that the elegant language of mathematics exactly fits what we see, I don't think you can avoid it by a couple of remarks on what descriptive laws mean.

-and I;d suggest that you look into prescriptive and natural law.  You offered a textbook equivocation.  I don't need to argue it or point to some novel religious viewpoint.  That;s what you did..and why you are wrong, logically speaking. 

This is the part I enjoy..where I point out that your religious beliefs may be true, but that they can't be true for the reasons™ you've offered.

So much for gladly leaving your faith, huh?  You knew that wasn't true when you said it..everyone else did too.  Getting shit wrong in the way you've been is explicable, particularly by your faith - but it's hard to explain why you'd say something so silly about such a menial detail as what you would do confronted with the inadequacies of your superstitions.

Nothing you mentioned counts as some inadequacy of any type. They're the same bad quality criticism one finds when typing the keywords "Errors in the qur'an" in any search engine out there. I suggest you read Muslim apologists answers to these supposed inadequacies before trying again, since my own answers don't seem to fit your tastes.

Still haven't left your faith, huh?  Fucking liar.  Silly, stupid, predicatable liar. No one made you that way...not even your religion...it was a personal choice.

Gratz on that, liar.

You cant argue, by good reason...upon which you insist... that your stupid fucking god is really real. If you could, you would have by now. Prove me wrong. Do something different next post.

Or don't! Frankly..because I suspect that you're incapable. You know less than you believe, and are patently unable to offer a coherent criticism of any position on your good reasons™.

If those reasons aren't good enough, then there's no reason to believe in god at all...huh? So hop hop you dumb son of a bitch. Give better reasons or accept the weakness that you've insisted for your own silly case. When you asserted that you would gladly leave your religion for good reasons, you didn't mean it. What you meant was that you wanted to argue about those reasons, and why your shit reasons Were Too! the Good Reasons!

Denied.

[R00tKiT]

That looks like a big fat no...if I dont consider the reasons™ you gave to be good reasons™, and you don't have others to offer.  You would, instead, like me to consider that my disregard for those reasons™ is a mistake.  Okay, considered.  Truly, and it isn't.  You've given no good reason.

Take a breath, pal. You made mistakes when dismissing good points of mine. Mistakes. If you really can't bring yourself to acknowledge some, maybe that is the reason why whatever is written to you is never a good reason. Namely, you can't recognize one when you see it.

I'm only asking whether or not you have something else..because right or wrong, what you've offered isn't convincing.

Why do you need something else? I prefer discussing one tiny detail fully and agreeing on it than zapping through what might or might not be good reasons.

You don't have the first clue as to what axioms I appeal to

Do you react to your house being stolen any differently to the rest of people? If remarkable clues like smashed windows, broken handles and less money in your bag point to - in your worldview - a sophisticated, intelligent burglar, then clearly I have some first clue to what axioms you appeal to - when you're pressed. If you think some magical movement of wind blowing around your house accounts for the crime scene , just tell me about it.
Frankly, I am not interested to read more babble about why you're not willing to consider my reasons, since you're clearly reluctant to any kind of lengthy, meaningful discussion.

All people act on this sense you bigoted piece of shit, lol.  -You- think that the only way to act appropriately is to be a msulim..but you think that because you're a bigoted piece of shit.

Are the insults thrown a display of your moral realism ... by any chance?

An argument to consequences is invalid no matter what consequences you might imagine.  A true thing can have terrible consequences.  Do you understand?

Where did you see the word "argument" mentioned? Acting on the sense of wonder is a good reason to believe. If you're that reluctant to consider an argument to negative consequences, consider ignoring your more vital senses of hunger, thirst, etc. as long as you can. Just to see how long your reluctance to act on the obvious -because there might be a fallacy somewhere- can hold.

-and I;d suggest that you look into prescriptive and natural law.  You offered a textbook equivocation.  I don't need to argue it or point to some novel religious viewpoint.  That;s what you did..and why you are wrong, logically speaking. 

what textbooks are you exactly referring to... pal? legal theory's? you think you can just infer some arbitrary disctinction in legal texts to the whole universe.. and run away with it?
Read again : descriptive laws exist instead of no intelligible law at all.
Sure, you don't need to argue it. Just don't make mistakes.

Still haven't left your faith, huh?  Fucking liar.  Silly, stupid, predicatable liar. No one made you that way...not even your religion...it was a personal choice.

Gratz on that, liar.

You cant argue, by good reason...upon which you insist... that your stupid fucking god is really real.  If you could, you would have by now.  Prove me wrong.  Do something different next post.

It's not difficult to see why what's presented isn't a good reason to you. Someone used to badmouthing inside conversations intended to be serious, unable to acknowledge the tiniest screw ups he makes can hardly recognize good reasons.

So hop hop you dumb son of a bitch.

Moral realism in action.. again? A better upbringing would've helped.. maybe, but I can't help it.