Scientific truth and religious truth will never contradict each other. If a contradiction appears, we have either misinterpreted the religious truth or arrived at a false scientific conclusion.

There are many different ways through which we come to understand truth. Scientific truth is gained through observation and recording. Many scientific theories have been disprove or improved throughout the ages, and science continues to evolve. Science is a human method of figuring out how God's creation functions. It is a way of trying to understand God, too. For example, if you read a book and make no attempt to understand what the author is trying to say, you have defeated the purpose of the book. We are not in heaven now because we must first learn what He is teaching us through His creation.

Now for non-scientific truths. Lots of ways of getting those, I can't possibly cover them all so I'll just talk about the Bible. Truth can be understood through means besides literal. While some parts of the Bible are historical and others are symbolic, there's lots of more specific terminology but I'm not a theology major and I haven't studied it in detail. It should be a major clue that there are two creation stories in the Bible and they cannot possibly both be taken literally, as they are different.

This does not mean that they are not true. To clarify, I give the example of C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia. This is not a literal account of history, but it contains religious truth, does it not? at the very least, if you do not believe that this is religious truth, you will believe that it was written to portray what the author believed to be religious truth? Symbolism. I hate over-obsessive English teachers who think that authors throw symbolism into ever other syllable, but I have to admit that it is important to accept its existence. Everything within the Bible contains religious truth, but not all of it is literal.

Okay, now scientific evidence. Yes, not all science is true, that's definite enough from the changes over the years. But it's gradually getting closer to truth, building on itself and learning from mistakes, gaining better ways to prove things. Probably not every little detail scientists have gathered about evolution is 100% correct, and there are definitely pieces missing. But we cannot say it is completely rubbish, and we cannot say with absolute certainty that it is not entirely correct. The concept of evolution, however, is difficult to dispute. We evolved, and we are still evolving today, but it should also be fairly clear that evolution is not left up to chance, and life did not at any point come from a funky chemical reaction. All life comes from life, according to science, and thus to state that all life came from a chemical reaction is a contradiction. Life was undoubtedly created by God, and has been guided by God ever since.

Regarding forgiveness: Have you ever read The Scarlet Letter? It's been awhile since I have, and so I can't remember the names of the characters. However, I remember that a Puritan minister/priest/preacher (not sure what the term is for Puritans, but a religious leader in the Puritan society) and a woman had sex against Puritan law and had a child. The woman was publicly humiliated and everyone knew of her sin, and so she was able to find a greater level of peace than the minister, who never told anyone but God. There were many reasons why it would be better for the society if the minister simply confessed to God and the people never knew of what he had done. He truly regretted what he had done, and thus there was no reason for him not to be forgiven. However, he became torn by guilt and could not bear the praise of others who claimed that he was holy, people who did not know of his sin. He could not find peace until he had to confessed to his fellow humans. And thus we must, to have inner peace, be forgiven both by God and by humanity, to confess to both.

I hope that makes sense.

Religion isn't composed of attendance at mass or obedience to rules and regulations or observations of traditions. Religion is belief, and however one chooses to practice that belief. If she believes in god, she has a religion, even if it is not a religion shared by a group of people. If it is her belief that the rituals, rules, etc. associated with religion are not good, then that is also a part of her religion. To be an atheist is to have a religion, even, as that is itself a belief.

Religion is belief in God. How can you believe in God but not religion? If you believe in God, you believe in what God told us, correct? God told us to spread the Good News. It is wrong to force a religion on a person, I agree. However, it is wrong not to try to help them to understand. If you believe in God but do not believe in any part of any religion you know of, you are simply creating a new religion, not avoiding it. Religion is not, or should not be, a strict set of laws and a force to keep people in line. Religion is a set of beliefs. Any religion which tries to use force is wrong to do so. A person believes what they believe and cannot be forced to believe more or less than that. The most a person can do is explain their beliefs so that others might understand and believe as well. One cannot even force themself to believe or not believe something, they may only seek out the truth and listen. Belief is simply a state of being, and those in the same state of being are a part of the same religion. Names and policies make little difference unless they are a part of a belief. For example, many protestants do not believe that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus Christ, so their imitating the Last Supper is an unnecessary ritual with little meaning. However, those that do believe in the Eucharist practice something quite meaningful and necessary under their beliefs. Religion is not something you can say you do or do not believe in, as saying so is in itself a kind of religion.

Organize is a verb. The nouns related to it are organizability, or the ability to be organized, and organization, the state of being organized. There is also the adjective organizable, meaning that it can be organized. Please tell me if you find another word (besides verb forms), but it seems to me that organization is something that is done by someone or something, and it cannot exist on its own. I believe that true organization cannot truly exist, but yes, partial organization can. However, if the universe is organized as you say, and have so nicely explained just now, who or what organized it? You can say it was just a bad choice of words on your part, but I can't think of any word right now that can say something is organized without someone doing the organization. True, this could be a fault in the jumble of words we call a language, but perhaps it is simply because that is the way the world works. Tell me how something can be organized without an organizer.

"Evidence? Any stories of people who were born alone, lived alone and went on to reproduce? Any reason to believe that one could do so in all of the various environments we inhabit?"

A person cannot be born alone as parents must be there. However, there are many non-social beings who are born and shortly after leave. A person cannot reproduce alone, as reproduction requires a partner. However, this is irrelevant because a being can survive without reproducing. As for the species surviving, many non-social species survive as well. As for a true story about it, well, that would require someone to write or tell it, and if the person were truly alone, that could not happen. However, you will find many fictional stories based in the real world which explain how it could work, and they are generally believable. However, emotions remain a limiting factor here. I said that we could survive alone in all but emotions. This means that, because we have emotions, we cannot survive alone, and so we don't.

As for our always having social nature because primates had it, well, that really doesn't matter because the primates had to get it sometimes, and if you keep going like that you'll get to the beginning of life. Either we began with social nature or we didn't. If we didn't, we had to develop it. For us to develop it, it had to be protected. Thus, we either always had it or it was protected. It has to come all at once or not at all.

By this I mean that one organism cannot have an evolutionary benefit with social nature if there is no other social being to allow social nature to take any effect at all. Thus development would take enormous luck or protection. A group would have to develop it simultaneously, and this group would have to actually come into contact, else social nature is meaningless. Social nature only works if there is someone to be social with. It doesn't mater if the social beings are single-celled or highly complex animals, the same concept applies. For a whole group to develop social nature with identical rules and morals at the same time, in the same place, either God did it or we had some really good luck. The fact that social nature is so widespread on earth means that it was either so great that this group flourished and wiped out most of the others (directly or indirectly, it doesn't matter), or it was more widespread than this single group developing social nature suddenly, and many different groups appeared across many different species or variations of a species and was suddenly completely there. If it did not appear suddenly, then each single organism that developed it would have to miraculously survive with no benefit and possible disadvantages from it to have offspring which would have to either all inherit the trait and become a group or a few would inherit it and have to be protected. Perhaps there would only be one offspring, in which case it would have to be protected. Perhaps the offspring would have other natures and patterns of life requiring them to separate, in which case they would have to be protected. Even a group would, in many cases, have to be protected, however, I cannot argue well at this point as the group itself is a protection and provides a definite advantage. I hope this makes sense to you. Please explain to me just how morality came to be without God.

Set science aside for a moment and look at the end fact, the big picture and what is now and not before. We seek a happiness that cannot be found, beyond creativity and imagination as it is a happiness we cannot even find in a single story written or otherwise created in the history of Earth. If all joy we know of comes from other human beings, then a greater joy must come from God. A child who never knew his father will feel an empty space where happiness and memories should be. God is our Father in heaven, and while he has contact with us, it is not the same as actually being in heaven with Him.

This is the way I see history.

Somehow, something was created at some point which resulted in the first thing which eventually became the universe for whatever reason and however it happened after that point. God triggered the first reaction which lead to others. God organized the universe to the extent that organization can go, while not achieving true organization as this would not allow for certain happenings. However, it does not matter how organized the universe is so long as God understands it and made it possible for us to understand, on some level.

After the universe was created, God created the first life in a place capable of supporting it. Life must be created in the same way that computers must be created. Even if we did not know that computers were created by human beings, we could figure it out fairly easily because we would not find a natural resource which produces computers and computers are complex and have many factors which only a human would make, and it could not be left to chance. We can tell that life was created by God in the same way.

Somewhere along the line, there was a male and a female and they were either early humans or ancestors of them. We refer to them as Adam and Eve, although they may or may not have had these names. Perhaps they did not have language yet. Perhaps they were the creators of the first language. Whatever the case, they were the first human beings to have something that makes them, for whatever reason, special. It really doesn't matter what it was, but they knowingly betrayed God, and this is known as the first sin. Sin itself cannot be inherited, however, the mentality that allowed for sin can be, and was. Adam and Eve had children and their children had children and evolution continued.

Somewhere along the line, sin got out of hand and God made the Great Flood. He made certain that Noah and his family survived, along with many animals, whether or not they were all animals I do not know. What I do know is that there is scientific proof that there was such a flood and mine is not the only religion with a story of a family, or at least a man and a woman, surviving it due to their being good. God promised not to flood the world again, and he has not.

Over the course of many years God slowly revealed himself to humanity as we evolved to be more and more capable of handling this truth. Some believed and some did not. Some misinterpreted God and created other religions, often portraying him as many gods. The people who were closest to understanding ended up slaves of the Egyptains, and God set them free. The Hebrews ended up escaping from Egypt, a great military power of the time, and getting all the way to Israel. The got there following what God told them. If He did not tell them anything, they would be fairly screwed. On their journey out of Egypt, many miraculous things happened, including the creation of the Ten Commandments, which further guided the Hebrews. The Hebrews, who then became the Isrealites, never had a great military prowess, and were often on the brink of obliteration, but they somehow survived all this time. Along His path of slow revelation to the world, He told them that a Messiah was coming, and he told them that he would be a descendant of King David born in Bethlehem, among other things.

Later, Jesus appeared, a descendant of King David, born in Bethlehem, the son of a virgin, and he matched all of the prophecies. He was a carpenter, and he was fairly poor. He did not fight anyone, but he performed many miracles and he taught. People would not have followed him to the extent that they did, and still do, if he did not perform miracles. The Apostles would not have done what they did if they, his closest friends, did not truly believe the words they spoke, and they could not have believed them if they were false. Jesus died and rose to free us all from sin.

After his death, Jesus' followers believed that the Second Coming would be within their lifetimes, so they so no need to write things down until a few things started to happen. Firstly, distortions to Jesus' teachings were appearing. Secondly, eye-witnesses had started to die. However, people of ancient times had extraordinary memories. Also, an eyewitness would tell his or her story to many people. Some eyewitnesses were still alive when the New Testament was being written, and if they were not, a close friend or family member would be alive to tell the story.

You may think that this makes the New Testament inaccurate, but any inaccuracy is slight. I told you before that I do not believe in taking the Bible literally, but I do believe that the Bible should be taken into account and read in different senses. Some parts are to be taken literally, other figuratively. I don't remember all of the forms of writing and the way to read them off the top of my head, but I do know that they exist. I also cannot be certain that every book in the Bible is true, but I do know that most, if not all, of them are. Anyways, I am the youngest of five siblings, the one closest to my age is five years older than me. Because of these siblings I was able to preview everything before actually facing it myself. I knew many secrets and tricks about my high school before ever setting foot in it. I knew, for example, that the door to the boiler room was never locked, so I could get into the school at any time through there. I was not told exactly where the door was, but i knew the vague area and was able to find it easily. I was able to see different colleges and learn about what to look for, what is a good sign and what isn't, although I only ever entered the ones that my siblings actually chose. This was also helpful in my own college selection. Much of what I know about the world, I learned from my siblings. I know a lot about beekeeping, or at least more than other people do, although I have never in my life seen a beekeeper's hive and I have never researched it, because one of my sisters is a beekeeper. I know the nicknames of her boss and her children, as well as the basic appearance, personalities, and habits of these children and her boss, although I have never met them myself. I know the basic layout of a gaming lounge that I have never set foot in because I have a brother who spends time there. I know every song and track number on a Disney CD that I have not heard because I babysit a very smart little girl who memorizes everything she sees or hears. I do not have the memory of the people of ancient times. In fact, my memory is quite poor in comparison to other people of this time. However, I can know all of these things without having any contact with them. The human brain finds stories easier to remember than just plain facts. Put that all together and you've got a better Bible than most people realize.

Anyways, back to the history of the world. The early Christians spread Jesus' message as best they could, and they were persecuted because of it. However, the message still got out and spread quickly. Yes, some other religions got mixed with it every now and then, but the central idea remained, and most of the influences of the other religions left. Saints appeared, often not from believers but from the exact opposite side, and further increased belief in Christianity.

Eventually, the Church became corrupt, and Martin Luther said so. He was right originally, but then he broke away and changed more than he had to, and it became more than a reform. Later, the Church reformed, but people realized that they could become protestants and broke away, forming a lot of different branches of Christianity. The one that is not protestant is Catholocism. Some people claim that Catholics are not Christian. This really angers me, as Catholics were the first Christians and remain the original Christians.

I do think that the Church is not perfect. This is not to say that what we believe is wrong, but that in some cases we are wrong in the way we act to support this belief, and we often misunderstand. Also, many rituals and symbols are from other religions. Mass began as a group of friends around a table, with a priest who would consecrate the Eucharist for them. It has changed to whole communities gathering in a building which many people are not comfortable in. This change is not necessarily bad, and I do not say that we should destroy it. I do believe it is necessary, as it is impossible to have priests at every household on Sunday, and it would be silly to try. What I am saying is that it is not what it seems. People look at other religions and see magnificent structures and worship. It is a good thing to create beautiful works of art for God. It is a good thing to sing and pray and worship God, but it is not a good thing to make something so structured and intimidating that people are scared away. It is good to have community Mass, not only due to the number and availability of priests, but also so that everyone can be included and no one gets lost. It decreases the number of splits in the Church. However, many people see it as akin to the worship of the ancient Greeks or Egyptians for their false gods and goddesses, and this turns them away. It is still a gathering around a table with friends, and it is not as strict as it seems at first glance. To be catholic is to be universal, united. We have structure to remain Catholic and catholic. While some things are taken from other religions this does not make us believe in those religions...I don't know if this makes sense....I hope it does.

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.

Okay, some animals have morals, I'll give you that. I had already disproved myself a few hours after writing my previous argument, and have been thinking how stupid I was since.

Before I continue, you appear to be of the opinion that the only advantageous attributes of humanity are our minds and our morals. This is not true. We can run.

Yes, we aren't the fastest of runners. However, we are naked, sweating animals. Scientists note that there are mainly legs designed for walking and legs designed for running, and we have the legs of runners. Our feet are great for absorbing impact (running barefoot, that is) as well. As long as we have water, we can run for a crazy long time.

We are built for endurance, whereas most other running animals are sprinters. Most animals do not sweat, and have fur. Their only way of cooling off is by panting, and many cannot do this whilst running.

What benefit does this have for us, if sprinters can just catch us anyways? We were predators. Even people who don't run much can probably chase a deer or gazelle or something until it dies of exhaustion. Yes, they may be faster, but we can continuously pursue. They run a little and stop, and we can continuously plod along.

We may not be as graceful at climbing trees as some other animals, but we can climb trees, which can be defensive. As well, climbing trees improves with practice. My brother can climb about twenty feet high in a maple tree in a matter of seconds, and can climb down even faster.

We have hands, and these hands have thumbs, so we can grab things even without claws. We can turn surroundings into weapons or defenses, or strangle or smother our enemies. We have teeth, and I know other girls who have drawn blood with their fingernails. Our legs are good for kicking, and we have the knowledge to figure out what areas to aim for, when and how to dodge, and what objects we can use for defense or attack. Someone as educated as yourself must know of the various martial arts which allow people to fight without weapons very well.

I have four siblings, and in our youth we happened to have a 30 foot long rope and some sticks. We invented many games and practiced fighting, trying not to actually hurt each other. I learned how to untie my hands from behind my back merely from the necessity to know. I was six or seven years old at the time. We played games like "Manhunt" and "Stone River," which also taught us on the spot how to quickly dodge, aim, catch, swing, chase, run, hide and climb effectively. We waged war upon each other. We all had a fascination with medieval times, and learned to sharpen sticks on stones and made bows and sling-shots from sticks and rubber bands. when we grew older, we carved wooden swords and daggers, among other things, we even made a trebuchet. We learned exactly what will and will not cause water balloons to explode. We pretended the floor was lava or sinking sand, and learned how to balance on the baseboards of our house. No one taught us how to do any of this, we simply taught ourselves in the moment. As well, all of us participated in track an cross country at some point in our lives. We are well aware of the physical capabilities of humans, and they are nowhere near as small as you make them out to be. In the times when they were necessary for survival, humans used them more and in their use perfected them to an extend that my siblings and I never have, and probably never will.

But even I have managed to sneak up on seagulls. Have you ever tried to do that? be noisy, and they'll fly away when you get within twenty feet of them. Just walk naturally, but quietly, and they'll fly away at ten feet. Sneak and you can get really, really close. I managed to come to the center of a seagull flock once, without any of them flying away. I can hide very well. The trick of hiding is not to pick a place and remain till and hidden, unless it;s a really great place, because eventually it will be the one place not checked and one can find you. To hide, one must move discreetly, running and creeping in utter silence from place to place. One must control their breath. Great that we can do these things, right?

Oh, and don't forget swimming. Do you know how know how long swimmers can hold their breath? In seventh grade I was a swimmer, and I could hold my breath for nearly two minutes. Imagine what adult swimmers are capable of. Now go back to sneaking. If you have ever played "Marco-Polo" or "Shark," particularly the latter, you know how hard it is to hide in water. Move and you make waves. In clear water, you can be seen from very far away. Move quickly and you make loud noises. So, water isn't the greatest, right? Maybe in a swimming pool, but think about nature. The water isn't clear, is it?

There is a game that my siblings and I once played. We never named it, but it's basically a version of tag, except you have to tap people on the head. And it's not played with one vs. a group, it's everyone on their own. Tag someone and they'll try to tag you back. Tag five people and five people try to tag you back. Get tagged and try to tag that person back. Tag everyone and run like crazy.

We originally played it on land, but it is better in a lake. The water is not clear, it is so dirty that you can't see your feet when you stand in it. there are mussels on the sandy bottom. So, I'm the youngest by five years, and I was smaller and slower and weaker than the others. When one came after me, I would disappear under the water, push myself to the bottom while making as few movements as possible (to avoid waves). You may not know this, but mussels pinch. So, I could grabs some, throw them at my pursuer, and that would be enough of a distraction for me to swim far enough away to avoid their detecting my waves. The mussels didn't really clamp, they were just little pinches, so it's not like I hurt anyone. Then I could stay under for a little under two minutes, before quickly coming up for air and stream-lining away before they could get close enough to catch me. I could go on like this for a very long time, and, were I not intentionally staying in the water, easily leave and run while a predator was waiting, and have a head-start on a run. The predator would be tired from chasing me in the water, so a sprinter would have little advantage against a being built for endurance.

Now, same game, skip to land. No one taught us self-defense, but we learned how to defend our heads. We would develop bruises along our arms from attacking and blocking. One would try to quickly tap the head before the other can react. Speed brings a more forceful blow as the other quickly snaps an arm in the way to block. We can use our handy hands to grab another's arm and try to get past the defenses, but the other person also has a second arm to block with. It is possible to hold both of a person's hands in one hand, but it is difficult to transition into this unless one has a third hand. My brother figured out that one can also raise a knee, creating an area that an attacker cannot stand in. an, if you have ever tried to get behind someone who does not want you behind them, you will know how nearly impossible this is. However, I figured out a way to grab a sibling and force him or her to turn, at the same time pulling myself to the back, where I could easily tap a head. I taught myself this, so pre-historic humans probably could as well. I also learned how to jumps and hold onto a person's back, both preventing him or her from touching my head and allowing myself to be in the perfect position for head-tapping.

These are but a few examples, from my own experiences as a child. A modern child, so I did not have the athletic experiences that a prehistoric person would have. Imagine just what a single human would be capable of, physically.

Then there's the mental side of things. Humans can build things, work their way out of problems, and use tools with no lessons, independently of each other. Combine this with the physical side of things and you've got a great predator. We do not require other humans for any reason but emotionally. That is not to say that there is no strength in numbers, because there is. We would grow stringer in numbers, but we do not require numbers to be strong.

I'm sure you're thinking, "Yes, the strongest survive and so those with numbers survive and thus we have social nature." Sure, why not let you have that? It's not my point.

You speak of the majority with morals, the universal sense of right and wrong. Yes, once these are established, the ones who have them survive and the ones without get punished. This is meaningless, as it requires that it is already the majority who have it. My question is how this majority appeared without first a minority.

Survival of the fittest makes sense. Each new organism is slightly different, those with beneficial differences live and those without die. The survivors mate, so the things which aid in survival are passed on, and those which prevent it are eliminated.

However, nothing states that all new organisms which survive have the same change. A single organism passes the change to its offspring, and the offspring, be this actually beneficial, will probably survive to pass it on to theirs, and so it spreads with each generation. Bu it begins with the single organism. Perhaps a few might develop it independently by some quirk of fate, but not nearly enough for an instant majority.

So, what becomes of the very first organism with morals? Morals rely on the fact that all people have the same morals. If people had different morals there would be no advantage to them.

All life on Earth is amoral at this point in time, as this is the very first. So, no organism really cares about each other. It is difficult to describe, because there are no rules or standards.

So here's this moral creature. It matters little what strength it has. It has this idea not to attack everything and anything that in any way threatens or offends it. Some things are, in it's mind, off-limits to do. For example, it might not want to eat its own species, though this may be too complex an idea for the first. Perhaps, assuming it is male, it has this idea that females should not be murdered carelessly. Perhaps, assuming it is female, it decides to protect its children, when they are born.

What would happen to this creature? It would be at a disadvantage. Sure, its children might have a better chance of survival when under its care, but it probably wouldn't live to reproduce. It would have less food available, as it would not (maybe) eat its own. It would have rules preventing it from doing what others would do without a second thought, particularly in the area of fighting and/or killing, which could easily impact survival. Guilt would be catastrophic. It would be isolated for being peculiar, and thus would have little chance of mating. Even as I type this I find myself accidentally creating social rules among the animals. They have none, which is very hard to comprehend. One must have moral rules before social nature, so these would not be social animals, but even non-social animals must have some level of social-ness to mate.

Going on that there is the possibility that there was asexual reproduction at the time, and genetic variation was based on mutation. Or there was non-social sexual reproduction, like flowers...or something. Sorry, I'm sort of tired right now, I hope this makes some level of sense.

Then again, perhaps a species needs social nature to develop morals, and social nature is overrated. Perhaps minor social nature must be developed before morals and morals must be developed before major social nature. I don;t know, and this makes this argument quite difficult.

My point is, however badly represented, morals or social nature in the single being provide no benefit to survival, perhaps even a disadvantage, so there is no guarantee that it would survive to become the majority, unless it began as the majority and thus functioned as it must from the beginning. This would require someone or something to initialize them in the majority, or that all life began with morals or social nature, which we know not to be true.

All attributes must begin in the single being in their slightest form. In order to advance through evolution, this slightest form in the single being must be advantageous, unless the being is merely lucky, in which case it must be advantageous to the offspring, and must either be dominant, or the offspring must mate with each other. Unless of course some other being manages to get the same variation somehow and actually mates with a being with the same characteristic. And there is the chance that it won't get passed on at all. Sorry I'm not wording this better, I keep zoning out.

Guilt is very moral. It would be wrong to make a girl who loves you think that you love her back not for your own sake but because she deserves to be loved truly and you cannot give her that, so she would be unhappy with you. Guilt cannot arise from your own failure which effects only yourself. Your guilt from not turning in papers comes not from fear of no success in life, as that would be fear, completely different. Guilt comes from a desire not to disappoint teachers or parents or role models in the case of schoolwork. Guilt is a peculiar pain from a moral desire to make others happy and failing to do so. Have you ever done something that you thought would make someone so proud of you, so wonderfully pleased, but it actually really hurts them or makes them angry at you? The feeling from that is very strong guilt....I think that was relevant somehow, but I can;t remember what I was going to say next.....

As for miracles, there are plenty of miracles. Look up people with "Blessed" in front of their names, rather than "saint." Blessed Pope John Paul the Second died fairly recently, and he worked a great many miracles. Sorry not to list more at this time, again, I'm tired. But look up blessed people.

You mention more miracles happening in the past. You must also remember that there were absolute monarchies, oppressive governments, capital punishment, torture, extreme racism and sexism, wars over just about everything, and little technology or medical knowledge. As such, yes, I think there was a greater need for mitracles, and this was responded to.

As for unanswered prayers and evil in the world, I have two explanations. The first is that we are shaped by our experiences. A world with no pain at all would be not only extremely easy to die in but would also hold a load of obnoxious people who do not know what it is like to suffer. People grow more serious not with age but with experience. We would not mature to full goodness without suffering. We would not know the light from the dark if we saw only the light.

But God is not evil. He did not create evil. We chose evil. Evil is the perversion of good. No evil man seeks to be evil, he merely seeks good in the wrong way...did that make sense?

Anyways, that leads to Original Sin. We are not so much inheriting the exact crime as inheriting the crime itself.....Um......See, I wrote about the first moral being very pathetically a bit earlier, on the assumption that morals are genetic. A murderer's children do not inherit the actual murders of their father, but they inherit the mentality that allowed for the murders, and, if they were raised by their father, there is the whole thing of imitating the people you are raised with, beyond genetics. Even if they weren't raised by him, there's still genetics in place.

So, the first sin is the Original Sin. This sin itself is not inherited, but the mentality is. With that mentality we sin again and again. This is the effect of Original Sin.

Did you know that Baptism is an exorcism? It's not like the movies make it out to be, and it's not saying that babies are possessed by demons. It's ensuring that they won't be so possessed. I'm really not knowledgeable about demons, that's pretty much the extent of my knowledge.

Anyways, so, Jesus. You say that he did not claim to be God. You are wrong. It was Jewish authorities who arrested Jesus for claiming to be the Son of God, by his own words. Jesus did not correct his followers, as John the Baptist did, when they told him that they thought he was the Messiah. There is also the question of why Mary went along with it, even naming him "Jesus." If she was originally lying, she would cease to do so if she had any compassion for her son, for he suffered for it.

Here is something I must say. No one can convince themself of their own lie unless they are insane. As such, we can conclude that liars do not believe what they tell others. Those who do not believe what they say, be what they say of false religion, cannot be called religious. Those who are not religious cannot be martyrs for their religion, as they do not believe it strongly enough to die for it.

Religious people will not lie about their religion or scientific evidence, as a truly religious person would truly believe that what they speak is the truth, and what is also the truth cannot disprove the truth. Those who feel the need to lie cannot be religious as they would thus be feeling the need to hide the truth to protect their religion, which could not be the truth if truth must be hidden for it to live. A truly religious person would further investigate what disproves their religion to disprove the disproving factor, and investigating further would bring forth greater truth. I believe that, should humans some day fully understand the scientific workings of the universe, all humans will be Catholic. I do not believe that all Catholics speak the truth of Catholocism. Indeed almost all humans lie at some point in their life. A single lie or truth cannot disprove an entire religion, however, merely part of it, and upon such discoveries religion must be revised, though not erased unless completely disproven. I hope that made sense...again, I'm sleep deprived at the moment.

All Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe in the same God. These are three very large religions. Hinduism stands utterly separate in every way, I do not believe it but I see how it may be appealing to people, and appealing creates followers. I see how my own religion may be appealing, but I see how it very definitely was not in its original state. Christians were arrested and killed, facing many hideous deaths, having to practice their religion in secret. Dead Christians were used as torches, live ones faced against wild beasts. Christianity was utterly despised. So why did so many persist in their belief, and continue to persist for over 2000 years? Why have their been more religious than non-religious at any point in all history of intelligent life on earth?

Why do we feel a desire for a happiness which we have never felt, and can never feel on earth?

Why did life not die out as soon as it appeared? What caused it to have all it needed to function properly? Life requires more than one part simultaneously. Irreducible complexity exists. You may reduce something to prove it doesn't, but in doing so you create a new problem. Reduce that, you have another. Eventually something can be reduced no more. If you will not accept a particular function of life, how about life altogether? Life needs multiple functions to support itself, or it must be supported by life. Those multiple functions had to appear simultaneously, or close to it. As well, all life must come from life. If life could be created from non-living things, why do we only ever hear of it happening a long time ago? Why do we never see life appear from non-living stuff?

No matter how small you go, no one can scientifically explain the universe's actual beginning. Reactions require reactants, and something, no matter how small of a something, cannot come from nothing. So where did it come from, if not from God?

All rules come from intelligence. Therefore, did not the laws of the universe come from intelligence? Why do they work so well, if they are not intelligently created? Why do they exist? Why would forces exist at all? Why all of the rules to matter and energy? Why is everything so organized?

I told you that my analogy was not perfect, obviously it is not exactly on, but did you understand my meaning?

Sorry about the weird bits and the nonsensical bits. I would write when I'm more awake, but that isn't going to happen any time soon.

Thumbs and dental sets aid the self. Aside from early age, we are fully capable of fending for ourselves. Yes, we are social beings, but so are many other animals. Do they have morals? Have you seen a single other animal besides humans that has morals? If it is such an evolutionary advantage, why isn't it more common? And, as these morals tell us to value other beings above the self, wouldn't the beings with these morals die out, leaving the amoral to dominate?

Irreducable complexity and Freud's ideas are theoretical because they have not yet been observed. Many saints have worked miracles, and who was Jesus, if not the Messiah? Why would anyone follow a fake? These were religious people following him. We believe that Jesus will come a second time, but, in the case of most Christians, if some poor carpenter came up and said, "Hi, I'm Jesus Christ, and this is the Second Coming," guess what? They'd say, "Heh, yeah right. No, I'm not giving you a donation." And they would close the door in his face. So why did so many Jews believe, and Gentiles who didn't even believe in the prophecy in the first place? How do you explain the founding of my religion, and it's massive following? This is not a theory, because people of 2000 years ago saw it with they're own eyes. They didn't say, "Theoretically, he's the Son of God." They said, "Oh my gosh! It's the Messiah!"

It's not just Jesus. Over the two thousand years, so many miracles have occurred. When you research, however, you have to be careful of lies. We are not gullible. We do not believe everything that people say we believe.

About parents, it may well be a reaction to need. But there comes a time when we no longer need them, and we know we no longer need them, long before we actually leave. And, even after we leave, we are still bonded. Yes, there is love, and we do not want to lose it. But saying that guilt is a reminder developed in such a way that you describe seems to me silly, be it said by you or Freud. Guilt is an emotion, and we very definitely recognize it as such. We can no more develop guilt by our own recognition of what is bad for us than we can develop love or sadness. If guilt is there, it is there from the beginning of our life. If it is not, then it never has been. There is no developing of it, only the development of being able to feel it more clearly.

About the stories, as you have written sci-fi, fantasy, and horror, you would know all of the work that goes into developing worlds and characters. When you explain how something works, you cannot logically defy your explanation. As well, it is difficult to change such things once they have become integrated in the story, as changing one small thing changes many surrounding things, and the original still exists in the mind, although it can develop over time. When you make a character, it is hard to make that character say or do something that they would never actually do or say. For example, you might be trying to make two characters fall in love, but it is extremely difficult to make it happen without making one or both of them go out of character. When I write, I have a vague idea of what is going to happen, but I do not control my stories. I control the world and the faceless masses. I control the government, to some extent. But I cannot induce any strong control over characters, I can simply give them gentle pushes. For me, it is as though I am watching the story unfold before me. It does not feel that I am making the things in the story happen.

As I re-read this, it appears slightly different from what I actually mean, sorry, perhaps I can be clearer.

I am someone who over-thinks everything. I am very shy and easily embarrassed. When I enter a conversation, I often hear an opportunity to say something, but I must first run it through my mind, then check it and double-check it, thinking of what others might think. By the time I decide to speak, it's too late. I hate the way I am, but this is what I always revert to when I try to change myself.

When I first began writing, I was afraid that all of my characters would be like this. I was very young at the time, and had never been able to understand my classmates, who all seemed to me exceedingly immature. However, not a single one of my characters has turned out like me, and I cannot make them be like me.

It is me speaking behind the characters. I am playing every side of everything. However, I cannot make a character get out of character. I am sure you can understand this, as your characters are probably just as alive as mine.

When you write, you control every aspect of the world in your stories. You can make anything happen, you are all-powerful. However, your characters have free will. You are fully capable of changing the words, making them do anything, but then they would no longer be who they are and there would be no point, as the heart of any story lies in the characters. I'm sure you know this.

You are also aware of what your characters are going to do, and where it will lead them, regardless of how well you can control them, or what you may want them to do.

If you have ever killed a character, you know just how difficult it is. At times I have not been able to write after killing a character, so it is something I generally avoid. Sadly, I make better antagonists than protagonists, so it is extremely difficult to fulfill stories in which I must somehow defeat, killing them or no, my strongest characters.

The first story I ever wrote, I created when I was eight years old. It wasn't so much a book as a series of scenarios with the first character I ever made (an antagonist, no surprise) and slowly characters began to develop around him. I changed his history and his reasoning for doing evil many times, but the character and name remained the same. When I was about nine years old, I was getting frustrated because I could not make any of my protagonists defeat him, as I made him too thoroughly. He wasn't the bad guy you see when writers just need some random person to be bad so that they have some action. Those are tacky. I made him almost real, not like anyone I had ever known, but with strong emotions and reasoning for his doings and complex plots. At least, as close to that as a child of that age can make. He was smart, so he wouldn't fall victim to any of the traps or plans my protagonists laid. I had not once written an ending.

Then I got a great idea (I thought it was great at the time, you must remember I was nine). My protagonists couldn't defeat him because I made him too strong and too clever. But I could put myself into the story, and, as the author of the story, I would be all powerful.

The character me was not the real me, because she was a character, just like all of the others. She could not be the real me as the real me couldn't possibly exist in my own story. However, there was also no way she could not be me, as I am the voice behind her, and I made her character to be just like me. Or rather, the me without the hesitation and over-thinking of things. It truly was as though i was actually amidst the characters.

But what is a story in which the antagonist just vanishes before he does anything? That's not a story, that's an event. If I made myself some all-powerful destroyer of evil, then what could the protagonists do? Perhaps they would even try to destroy me, having no threat besides this all-powerful person who controls them. And they would fail, and I would destroy them, and my imaginary world would be gone.

So my character me did not fight directly. I tried to turn my antagonist into a good person, and my protagonists continued to fight and suffer, then learned and tried to help me. They became better people themselves in this, as they were no longer out for blood. They saw the good hidden beneath the bad, and did their best to bring it out. When my antagonist tried to destroy them, I would stop him, but I would not hurt him. He was my precious creation.

This is not a perfect analogy, but God is like a writer. We are his characters. He knows what we will do, and he can nudge us in a certain direction, but He will not force our decisions, as we are his precious creations and he would not destroy us. He can shape our characters into better people through events of the world around us, and can use these events as well to forge a path for us, but He will not force us down it, even if He is aware that we will not choose this path, just as, sometimes, a writer gives a character an opportunity that he/she knows the character will not take. Perhaps this will teach them, down the line, to make better choices.

I said it was not a perfect analogy, and this is for multiple reasons, the most important being that God did not create evil. He created free will, and free will is not truly free will unless the one bearing it is equally free to do good and to do evil. Some choose evil, and thus Satan is the Fallen Angel. No one chooses evil for the sake of evil, though. Everyone pursues good, but some pursue it for the wrong reasons or in the wrong way. The end does not justify the means. someone may be trying to save a child's life, and perhaps there is a cure that would kill ten others. The end is saving a life, that is good. But the means is murdering ten people, and that is evil. Power itself is not evil, it is the corruption and the means to obtain power that are evil. Power is so easily abused. These are but a few examples.

God saw that there was evil in His world, and He gradually gave more and more help to those that still believed in Him as conditions grew worse. He freed the Hebrews from Egypt, and thus came the Israelites, later the Jews. However, when his intervention was becoming greater and greater, He decided to put Himself in His world. (This is another place where the analogy isn't quite right. God was technically already in the world, simply not in flesh and blood).

However, He did not want to simply be an all-powerful person who banishes all evil with a wave of His hand, He could already do that. That was not the point. The point was to make us, the people of His world, strong enough to face the evil. To let us defeat evil.

Also, there is the fact of Original Sin. It probably wasn't some apple, that story is just a story to illustrate a point. Perhaps it was an apple, we have no way of knowing. But the fact is, God gave us the Moral Law. We disobey this Moral Law every day. This is known as sin. Because we do this now, and we have done it before, and we know that we have not existed for all eternity, there logically must have been a first sin. Whatever this first sin was, it is Original Sin, and we repeat versions of it every day. As sinners, we have to prove ourselves to be good enough in this world.

God made Mary to not inherit this Original Sin, and she was free of sin her entire life. God sent the angel Gabriel to her, and she gave her permission to be the Virgin Mother of God. And so God came to her, and she gave birth to Jesus. Jesus is God made flesh. He is the very same God who created the world, and he is completely God. However, he is also completely human, as he is flesh and blood, born of Mary. He experienced anger, pain, sadness, joy, and so many other human things. He did not come in shining armor to banish the world of evil. He came as a poor carpenter to teach the world how to be saved, allowing all of the people, God's precious creations, His characters, to each play their part in the story. He sacrificed Himself, He who is without sin, to save all of us sinners, to teach us how to get to heaven. And to get there, we must follow Him. He suffered as only a human would, but if He were not God it would be meaningless. If it were meaningless, he would not have been so stubborn.

If you were lying, for whatever reason, making up a religion, how long would you hold onto that lie? Would you not tell the truth, even when you only had to say that you lied to free yourself from intense torture and crucifixion? There have been scientists who were certain that they spoke the truth who lied to save their lives from instant, painless death, when they had received no torture. So why would a man who claimed to be the Son of God not say he was lying through all that he suffered, unless He was telling the truth?

Those five precepts may appear in different strengths and forms, but they all appear, yes?

And, if irreducible complexity is but a hypothesis, so is Freud's idea of guilt.

Perhaps we do fear the loss of parents' love. But why? That only moves the question rather than answering it. Why does every person yearn for the love of their parents? They could survive just as well with the love of any other person, but we specifically want the love of parents, even if the parents are abusive and the alternative is not. Where is the survival value there?

What kind of stories? (I have an argument here, I swear!)

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond, I'm getting somewhat busy.

Okay, you won that one, just because the video was old and I don't have the time to come up with a good argument to back it, though I do disagree with more than a few of your statements. However, I must just point out that just because previous things that were believed to be examples of irreducible complexity were proven wrong doesn't mean that there is no such thing. The more we learn, the more we can reduce, and the more we reduce the closer we come to the irreducible. Perhaps that was worded weirdly...sorry.

The Moral Law is cannot be a developed instinct or learned attitude as it has appeared in the exact same way in all history in all places in all the world. It is the knowledge of right and wrong, and it is always right. No instinct is always right, and no instinct is always wrong. This is a standard that we compare all things in life to. This is justice. I know no instinct that attacks us later emotionally if we do not follow it. Moral Law causes guilt when we disobey it, and this is not a physical hindrance, like hunger.

Have you ever written a story? A real story, not some little puff of words.

Oh, I'm working on gathering evidence of various branches, but again, I don't have as much time, so it'll come more slowly. Sorry I couldn't make a very good response right now, I know this one sucks.

Okay, maybe my showing of this video is a bit excessive, but it covers a lot.