Good or bad?

maxx

i just gave my proof. children have to be taught to be good. If not, they will naturally do bad@Galvanise

maxx

it is a debate. you just are not debating it. Parents have to teach very young children what is right or wrong.@Galvanise

Dee

@maxx


The burden is with you , all you've done is make a statement you've offered zero proof for , you do it every time as in your " prove me wrong" 

Holder of the burden 

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1] This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard.[2]

While certain kinds of arguments, such as logical syllogisms, require mathematical or strictly logical proofs, the standard for evidence to meet the burden of proof is usually determined by context and community standards and conventions.[3][4]

Philosophical debate can devolve into arguing about who has the burden of proof about a particular claim. This has been described as "burden tennis" or the "onus game".

You want to play the onus game it seems, right?

Shifting the burden of proof

One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true.[8][9]

Courtesy of Wiki 

So make your case please , what do you have to support your assertions 

maxx

i just gave proof. if parents did not teach children through words or punishment, then thye will fight and steal from each other.@Dee

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: They Just Don't Get It

@maxx
Dee and Nomenclature/Galvanise know nothing about debating.  However, they're good at hate speech, personal insults, antisemitism, and bashing Americans.

maxx

this is about my topic. here is an example. place a toy or snack between a couple of 2 year olds. they will both want it, and fight over it untill they are taught to share.@JulesKorngold

Dee

@maxx

But you clearly stated....humans are naturally born to do what we call bad, and have to be taught to be good

How do you go about demonstrating that? 

Dee

@JulesKorngold

@maxx
Dee and Nomenclature/Galvanise know nothing about debating.  However, they're good at hate speech, personal insults, antisemitism, and bashing Americans.


Maxx correctly told you this is his topic,  there are 3 people involved in a debate here  if you want to continue trolling do it elsewhere please.


Kornfed reported  for trolling 

Dee

@JulesKorngold

Reported yet again for trolling , bullying and harassment. Please stop targeting me and others in the middle of a serious debate it's pretty childish even for you 

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Reported To ADL Too

@aarong
I reported the following hate speech by Dee on April 10 to the Anti-Defamation League:
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/162718/#Comment_162718

When german soldiers gave kike woman a hard fu-king up their obliging b-tts the b_tches always farted,,they had a problem with gas

I have to agree with that one Kornfeds mother has the most gold medals for s-cking German d-ck ( a family specialty )  , she has no equal rumour has it she has plenty more ......gas in the tank

Confirmation of submission:
"Thank you for reaching out to ADL, and for joining us in working towards making our communities, country and world a safer place for all.

A member of our team will review your report. If more information is required, we will follow up as soon as we can."

John_C_87

@Dee
Max said the teaching proccess is our proof meaning we must lear to be good. He may not of said it a clear as it need be explaned to you nor galvi...but the proof was introduced.

John_C_87

He introduced no proof. He made a claim and supported it with absolutely nothing. If making unsupported claims constitutes proof then this sentence proves you have an IQ of 65.

It was an introduction to debate a starting point which is directing the nature of descussion...your funny.....It is a curtacy made on descussion to allow a person to prepare for debate.

The words used above are proof of trying to establish that an IQ is consistent and infowlable and fixed for everyone who takes a test otherwise the context might be more insulating then just vague. There is proof made by words and it is the person to whom facts are directed who has a problem in identifying by intelligence what is being set as a rule. It is truly sad how many people are just poor witnesses due to legal coaching paid for as education.

Max said, and I quote:  "and have to be taught to be good."

Off Topic is all I have to say.

jack

maxx said:

Yet, humans are naturally born to do what we call bad, and have to be taught to be good..

Hello m:

Nahh...  Humans are born good, and learn to be bad. 

excon

Dee

@JulesKorngold

You're still stalking , trolling and hijacking debates did you also mention to the ADL your vile Anti Irish and Palestinian hate pieces? 

Don't fret I've done it for you where you can actually be prosecuted in the US 
Reported yet again for trolling 

Dee

@JulesKorngold

Actual statement from Kornfeds " source " .......

Confirmation of submission:
"Thank you for reaching out to ADL, ( YET AGAIN)  and for joining us in working towards making our communities, country and world a safer place for all.

Could we ask you your waist size? It's just so our team can purchase you a pair of big boys trousers and maybe try them on for a few days?

A member of our team will review your report

Can I ask were there many tears? Also do you require the jumbo jar of our salve for your constant b-tt hurt?

. If more information is required, we will follow up as soon as we can.

In the meantime  could you look up the term hypocrite in a dictionary  ( we can supply if you cannot afford one) you seem to think that vile hate speech against IRISH AND PALESTINIANS DOES NOT COUNT , WHYS THAT?

ZeusAres42

maxx said:

They are both human concepts and only exists with in how we perceive it. Yet, humans are naturally born to do what we call bad, and have to be taught to be good..Our basic animal instincts tend to lean to fighting, stealing, and so on. we are all born with the concept of what we call bad. prove me wrong.

@maxx Any chance you can elaborate on this piece a bit more, please? I feel like your argument is incomplete as there are some important questions that are left with your readers such as :

• Can you explain how we're born with concepts and of what good and bad are as opposed to them being developed?
• How our basic instincts are only limited to that which you have defined, and how our instincts lead us to do what only is bad at least in the way that you have defined the notion of what bad is according to your concept of how all of us humans perceive the idea of what bad is?
  

maxx

We are not born with concepts. We are born with animal instinctive behaviors.  It is genetic and unless we are taught to be good,  especially young children. We would continue acting in a manner of what we perceive bad to be. Anyone who raises children,  knows that they have to be taught to not fight and yell or take things from others. @ZeusAres42

maxx

Ever raise a child.? Ever hear of the terrible  twos? Thus is the age area of teaching them to understand what we consider good is. It's simple psychology.  We have to teach children to reason ans to share and behave. If you believe otherwise,  then let me hear your logic. @jack

Dee

@maxx

But you claimed we are born to do " bad", how did you determine this?

That's by any standard a sweeping generalisation 

jack

maxx said:

We have to teach children to reason ans to share and behave.

Hello again, m:

Yes, children need to learn how to behave..   If anything, that proves they're blank slates, NOT that they're bad.

excon

ZeusAres42

maxx said:

We are born with animal instinctive behaviors.  It is genetic and unless we are taught to be good,  especially young children. We would continue acting in a manner of what we perceive bad to be. Anyone who raises children,  knows that they have to be taught to not fight and yell or take things from others. @ZeusAres42

We are born with no concept at all of what right and wrong are. Animal instincts also extend far greater than just fighting, yelling, stealing, etc; much of what we would also perceive as good in terms of evolutionary survival. In fact, one could argue that this is all good at the very root due to it being beneficial for survival.

Striving for survival which is part of our biological mechanism is not what I perceive as being bad. We nowadays also achieve this by learning (modeling, also instinctive) from our parents/guardians, and other adults around us who tries to help us behave in a way that is acceptable at least within the society we reside in. Instead of fighting we negotiate, instead of stealing we make exchanges, and so forth.

Without the guidance of any adults when we are children we would continue to behave in a way that I would say is striving for survival. Some things here might be seen by some as bad, and some by others as good, and then there are some that might even perceive a mixture of both. After all, concepts of good and bad are to do with morality which for the most part is subjective.

@maxx

maxx

They instinctively lean to basic animal behaviorisms. Which is to take what they want, or fight over what they want.@jack

maxx

No. I never anywhere said we are born to (DO bad. I said we are born with out knowing good, and do the opposite of what we consider is good, until they are taught differently.  We are born and  children will naturally fight or steal from each other, unless elders teach them.@Dee

jack

maxx said:

They instinctively lean to basic animal behaviorisms. Which is to take what they want, or fight over what they want.@jack

Hello again, m:

Ok..  It's an unprovable assertion..  You may very well be right..

excon

maxx

We are not born a blank slate. We are born with specific traits inherited not only by our direct ancestors,  but by all humans through out history.  One which is probably universal,  is greed. Children until taught differently. Will, be geeedy,  wanting notonly the toy in front of him but the one in front of his sibling.  He doesn't consider it wrong. @jack

maxx

In today's society,  most of the yelling,  stealing, the tantrums children throw, and so on is what we consider bad. Yes, most of it is due to our ancient survival.  We inherited these things and it is not acceptable today in most situations
 Sowe are born leaning towards what society sees as bad, and do not change until taught differently. @ZeusAres42

Dee

@maxx

●●●No. I never anywhere said we are born to (DO bad.●●●

Again I prove you wrong using your own statements against you .....

You clearly stated " Humans are naturally  born to do what we call bad " 

You admitted we " are naturally born to do what we call bad " now you're saying you "  never said that anywhere " ???????

That's in your opening statement why do you lie and  pretend you said otherwise?

This is the part you ( as usual ) fly into a tantrum because as always I beat you using your contradictory arguments against you 

just_sayin

Argument Topic: If evil exists, it proves God's existence.

If objective evil exists, then there must be some objective lawgiver beyond individuals or groups.  While one individual can say it is wrong to rape and kill a child, the child rapist can simply disagree.  If you think it is wrong to kill Jews like the Nazis did during the Holocaust, we have to recognize that the Nazis did not agree.  One group thought it was OK to kill someone just for being Jewish.  So if there is true evil that is more than just something you think is wrong, but is wrong and evil, no matter what someone else claims, then there must be some objective lawgiver who is greater than individuals and groups.  Evil can only be known when it is compared to that which is ultimately good.  Otherwise it is just your opinion.

ZeusAres42

just_sayin said:

If objective evil exists, then there must be some objective lawgiver beyond individuals or groups.  While one individual can say it is wrong to rape and kill a child, the child rapist can simply disagree.  If you think it is wrong to kill Jews like the Nazis did during the Holocaust, we have to recognize that the Nazis did not agree.  One group thought it was OK to kill someone just for being Jewish.  So if there is true evil that is more than just something you think is wrong, but is wrong and evil, no matter what someone else claims, then there must be some objective lawgiver who is greater than individuals and groups.  Evil can only be known when it is compared to that which is ultimately good.  Otherwise it is just your opinion.

@just_sayin

I give this a strong argument vote as it is at least a good argument from the religious side to have. However, it is predicated on the assumption that we are already aware that God is real and know how he defines what good and bad are, and thus act accordingly. Of course, if you accept these premises then everything else follows. However, there is currently nothing of any substance to suggest these premises are true.

ZeusAres42

Galvanise said:

@ZeusAres42

I give this a strong argument vote as it is at least a good argument from the religious side to have.

Don't make me laugh. It's both a non-sequitur and a complete contradiction of itself. 

Number one, even if evil does exist, that's no indication it was put there by any god. @just_sayin simply asserted that without providing any evidence or reasoning.

Number two, his own examples suggest that evil isn't objective and universal, but interpreted in different ways by different people. 

Number three, even if evil does exist, and it is objective, and god put it there, then that only proves that god created a world with evil in it. 

Hence, either we have no god, or a god who created evil, created us in his image, but who gets angry when we follow the instincts he himself gave us. 

If none of this seems to make any logical sense, it's because it doesn't make any logical sense. All of these silly religious arguments are born of a delusional belief that humanity is somehow special in the eyes of the universe.

@Galvanise

I do not agree here. And I would like to engage in why that is the case with you. But in able to do that would you be able to quote my actual argument in its entirety instead of a single sentence? I don't see the point in continuing a debate where one only focuses on just little bits relevant to what they want to talk about instead of addressing the argument in its entirety, relevant to what the actual argument was trying to convey.

just_sayin

@Galvanise
How can you claim evil is objectively true without an ultimate lawgiver? What someone or some group may call evil, another individual or group can call good.  Only if there is an ultimate lawgiver can anyone claim something is evil - otherwise it is just a person's subjective preference and not an objective thing. 

Could you give examples of objective evil that are evil even if individuals or groups don't agree with that assessment?  And if so, on what basis are they objectively evil?  I'm sure you won't be like the banned one, and will support your claim with some facts or examples.

just_sayin

@Galvanise

Number two, his own examples suggest that evil isn't objective and universal, but interpreted in different ways by different people. 

Your comment reminded me of this guy, his name's not important and he's banned now anyway.  The obvious always alluded him.  If there is objective evil, then if remains objectively evil if individuals and groups say it isn't.  That's what it means to be objectively evil.  If I'm going to fast for you let me know.  So, if there are things that you'd claim are evil, even if others would disagree, then there must be some objective standard by which evil is defined - that would be an objective lawgiver.   

Number three, even if evil does exist, and it is objective, and god put it there, then that only proves that god created a world with evil in it. 

Uh no.  You have made a categorical error.  Evil is not an actual thing that takes up mass and space.  Evil is more like a shadow.  It is only revealed and the degree known by the amount of light.  Evil is not a thing on its on, it is the opposite of good.  It is the absence of good.  Much as darkness is not an actual thing, but the absence of light.  So it does not necessarily follow that God created a world with evil in it.  God could have simply created a world with good in it, with individuals with free will.  Since individuals have free will, they could then choose to reject that which is good - and there actions would be evil actions.    Evil is the deprivation of good.  It only exists and has meaning as it compares to that which is objectively good. But it doesn't logically follow that God created evil, since it is the deprivation of good and has no meaning apart from it.

Dee

@just_sayin

 ●●●Evil can only be known when it is compared to that which is ultimately good.  Otherwise it is just your opinion.●●●

Right , so how would a baby who dies in birth and according to believers goes straight to heaven know good from evil ?

Apparently Heaven is a place of perfect goodness so how could a baby know good from evil?

If god is the source of all morality and says killing Muslims is good does it become so?

JulesKorngold

The question of whether good and evil are objective or subjective is a longstanding philosophical and theological debate. There are different viewpoints on this issue, and it ultimately comes down to one's personal beliefs and values.

Some people believe that good and evil are objective concepts that exist independently of human perception or opinion. This view suggests that there are universal moral principles that transcend cultural or individual differences, and that some actions are inherently good or evil regardless of the context.

Others argue that good and evil are subjective concepts that depend on individual or cultural perspectives. This view suggests that what is considered "good" or "evil" can vary widely depending on context, personal beliefs, and cultural norms.

Some philosophers also propose a third way- a combinatory approach- which holds that good and evil have elements of both subjectivity and objectivity.

Ultimately, the question of whether good and evil are objective or subjective may depend on how we define and conceptualize these terms. While there is no easy answer to this question, it's an important issue to consider as we navigate our moral values and ethical principles.

maxx

you need to learn to interpret words better. not to mention the entire post. dont pick at one word or sentence. understand the post. we are born with no knowledge of what we consider is good. we are born with basic animal instincts. therfore we naturally act out these instincts until we are taught differently.  one universal trait in all humans is greed and greed is what humans consider bad. little children will want. thye will want other kids toys, snacks; what they see in stores, will throw tantrums because they can not get what they want. they will act in this way because of the animal traits we are born with. to take what is not theirs, because that is how animals operate. acting out these animals behaviorisms is what society considers bad and we have to teach them to do what we consider good. lack of this teaching, and the child will continue acting in such a bad manner. That is what i mean when we are born to do bad; to act out their basic instincts in a way society does not deem to be good.@Dee

Dee

@maxx

you need to learn to interpret words better

Really? I caught being dishonest and  such is your raging ego you pretend  you weren't caught by me and @Galvanise, let's re-visit.......

You clearly stated ....
.
No. I never anywhere said we are born to (DO bad

Yet you also claimed .....

"Humans are naturally  born to do what we call bad " 

That's in your opening statement why do continue lie and  pretend you said otherwise?


. not to mention the entire post. dont pick at one word or sentence.

I quoted you and caught you in a lie , I suggest you think before you type , this is why I soundly thrash you in every debate using your own arguments against you 


understand the post. we are born with no knowledge of what we consider is good.

Yet you claimed we are born to do bad , you really are confused 


 we are born with basic animal instincts. therfore we naturally act out these instincts until we are taught differently

Where are your case studies that determined we are born to do bad? 

.  one universal trait in all humans is greed and greed is what humans consider bad. little children will want. thye will want other kids toys, snacks; what they see in stores, will throw tantrums because they can not get what they want. they will act in this way because of the animal traits we are born with. to take what is not theirs, because that is how animals operate. acting out these animals behaviorisms is what society considers bad and we have to teach them to do what we consider good. lack of this teaching, and the child will continue acting in such a bad manner. That is what i mean when we are born to do bad; to act out their basic instincts in a way society does not deem to be good

Nonsense , studies have demonstrated that kids are not born selfish as they display altruistic behaviours from a very young age , please  stop making  stuff up 

Dee

@Galvanise

He does it everytime, I always beat  him using his own arguments and exact works against him , the guy has a split personality and doesn't even realise it 

just_sayin

@Galvanise

I didn't claim evil is objectively true, but if it were objectively true then why couldn't it be a natural product of the universe?

True, you never really made any point at all.  If there is no God and only the universe, then anything that happens is just due to natural processes.  Natural processes aren't good or evil, they are just the way nature works.  How again could that be objective evil?  Want to explain that?  It would be nice if you actually made a point in your responses for a change.

But your own examples imply that there is not objective evil, so you're completely missing the point.

Not at all.  I am comfortable saying that the Nazis killing the Jews was objectively evil.  Those who say there is no God are the ones who can't make the claim.  Its just someone's opinion in their mind, otherwise if they make that claim there is no rationale for it.  I am quite comfortable saying it is objectively evil to target and intentionally kill defenseless Israel children as Hamas does.  I pity those who can't see that as true evil.

You can't define objective evil if it exists outside of what "individuals and groups"

Not everyone is good with logic, but I'll try again to explain it to you.  Again, there is no objective evil if you look to individuals or groups to determine it. My argument, which you apparently weren't paying attention to, is that objective evil can only exist if there is an objectively good law giver - God.  Did that help?

maxx

You have no science nor logic at all. It is a fact we evolved from other primates and still have the insticts of them . Look it up. Animals have no concept of property,  they do not consider it wrong to take from others. It is a survival process that has been passed on into humanity. We are born with the same pattern and society considers it bad, and children have to be taught differently.  Anyone who had children,  know that they have to be taught to share, get alo g with others, not bully or fight,  nor steal. They have to be taught to be good. If you believe otherwise,  then it is obvious you never raised kids. @Dee

Dee

 @maxx ;

You have no science nor logic at all

Really tell that  to the scientists that support my contentions , regards logic you think a blatant lie you told is " logic"


l. It is a fact we evolved from other primates and still have the insticts of them

I know what instincts are thank you and how we evolved 


 . Look it up. Animals have no concept of property,  they do not consider it wrong to take from others

You're  starting to ramble stay on point , also you 're wrong again chimps have a sense of right and wrong , please stop making nonsense up

. It is a survival process that has been passed on into humanity. We are born with the same pattern and society considers it bad, and children have to be taught differently.

You still have no demonstrated children are born to do bad , I and fellow scientists disagree with your bunk 


  Anyone who had children,  know that they have to be taught to share, get alo g with others, not bully or fight,  nor steal.

You " had " children seriously?  Dear oh dear .

Yes I know children can be taught your claim was they are born to do bad , prove it?

 They have to be taught to be good. If you believe otherwise,  then it is obvious you never raised kids. 


Ahh right anyone who disagrees with your contention  " we are born to do bad " never raised kids , seriously?

just_sayin

@Galvanise

And why exactly can't evil be a "natural process"? You haven't explained that part.

Actually, you made the claim and the responsibility lies with you to make the argument.  I get it though, like that guy who was banned couldn't measure up, not all debaters can perform when needed.  I'll answer your question since you couldn't answer it yourself.  Nature has no intentions - malevolent or for good. It merely exists.  An earthquake has no mind to have intentions.  It is merely the reaction of the earth's crust movement.  It would be wrong to ascribe to it motive.  

Are you even aware of every natural process in the universe? 

No.  I'm not.  You were suppose to tell me how nature can be evil.  You couldn't answer the question when asked.  Some people just don't measure up to their claims.  Am I right or am I right?

Yes, entirely. Your own examples, which illustrate how people frequently disagree about what constitutes good and evil, undermines your argument that they are objective concepts in the first place. 

The only way objective evil exists is if there is an objective lawgiver.  I've made this point since the beginning and you seem to not be aware of it.

 What you are comfortable saying is entirely irrelevant, because the very fact that the Nazis disagreed with you proves irrefutably that your claim is not objective. 

Uh - no.  if there is an ultimate law giver then, something can be right or wrong regardless what Nazis, Hamas, or socialists say about it.  I keep repeating this point.  I hope you will reflect on it.

maxx

Are you seriously trying to tell me that you donnot have to teach children the difference between right or wrong? That if we do not teach them what is good, then they will behave anyway? Where is your counter evidence? All so farcyou have done is claim i am wrong. Thats not proper debate.  Show me how children will behave without being taught. And speaking  of chimps dee, i also want you to show me how young chimps will not automatically fight each other, bully one another and steal from each other until the adult stops it. @Dee

just_sayin

@Galvanise

There's nothing to "measure up" 

I agree, you certainly didn't rise to the occasion.  You posit that objective evil could arise from nature and then when asked to prove your claim, you go limp.  Claims that nature can create objective evil, are extraordinary and demand that those who make such claims "measure up".  Which of course there is nothing to measure.

This is absurd and dishonest straw man argumentation. I did not say nature could be evil. 

You said "but if it were objectively true then why couldn't it be a natural product of the universe?"  I answered the question for you.  You threw that out there and it just went limp.  You did not provide evidence for that position.  

That objective form could not have arisen naturally, without being put there by a sky fairy.

That is logically deduced from the observation that individual opinion or group opinions can not set what is objectively evil.  If you can't measure up, don't fall behind also.

bjinthirty

Well, think about this. Before everything we know now, im talking back to the very first humans that walked the earth that knew absolutely nothing. They didnt even know they were probably alive and had to learn to eat foods and pick which ones are good and others poisoned them. As an example, lets put you in an alien world u know nothing about and have to slowly learn everything from scratch. In every situation the same concept will apply. Survival and punishment. If you dont do this I will tear your body limb to limb etc... Punishment is what has made human beings naturally resort to behaving good. Survival is the basis of the concept. Not all humans are naturally born bad so your assumption is incorrect. All humans are naturally good out of the basis of there species needed to survive. The fear of punishment is what sets humans good from bad but it doesnt scare everyone. This can be another primary reason why it could have possibly lead to the story of Jesus and the written bible. Punishment if not good in this life will be destined in the after life judged by in this life. 

If you put a toy between two children they will not fight for it. Initially the very first thought is curiosity and wanting it. It isnt until something gets between you and your interest that becomes a problem. Both want the same thing but its not called bad for fighting. The natural instinct of survival is to get the reward. I think your perception of bad when introduced to modern era only applies in the world of domesticated humans. In the wild it is not considered bad to survive.


If you think about it all we are as a species are humans in funny clothes. Thats all we are. Just humans in funny clothes.

Dee

@maxx

Are you seriously trying to tell me that you donnot have to teach children the difference between right or wrong?


I never said that so please stop attributing things to me I never said., you on the other hand said children are born to do bad which is utter nonsense


 That if we do not teach them what is good, then they will behave anyway?

I never said that  either



Where is your counter evidence?

Counter evidence to arguments I never made, seriously   ? Stop deflecting and running you said children are born to do bad, prove it?


 All so farcyou have done is claim i am wrong.

I said your talking nonsense you are as you haven't offered a single piece of evidence for your made up claims

 Thats not proper debate. 

I know , you started out by lying claiming you never said what you did then you make up more lies by claiming I said what I never said 


 Show me how children will behave without being taught.

But your argument was " they are born to do bad" which is why you keep deflecting as you've zero proof for your gibberish


And speaking  of chimps dee, i also want you to show me how young chimps will not automatically fight each other, bully one another and steal from each other until the adult stops it


And speaking  of chimps dee,

Leave Kornfed out of this 

But I never said that,  I said chimps know right from wrong something you denied 


You taken a dreadful thrashing at least you have the site stalker who's being disciplined agreeing with your every point , must make you feel good two peas in a pod 



. 

ZeusAres42

@just_sayin

If objective evil exists, then there must be some objective lawgiver beyond individuals or groups.

I was a little bit hasty to think of this as a strong argument. I was getting hung up on the fact that this is a logical syllogism. And you are right, it's a perfectly valid syllogism. What I failed to remember is that a weak argument can still be logically valid.

Logical validity alone I should have remembered does not automatically make an argument sound. The reason why this argument breaks down is due to a lack of supporting evidence for this claim.

 

ZeusAres42

Furthermore, this reminded me of one of the most common arguments for God's existence. William Lane Craig used the following syllogism:

If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist
2. Objective moral values do exist
3. Therefore, God exists

Again, this argument is weak due lack of any supporting evidence for either of the predicates.

just_sayin

@ZeusAres42
A discussion of evidences for God is beyond the scope of this debate.  I don't want to hijack it.  I will just briefly point out that the evidence of the universe having a beginning, the fine tuning of the universe, and the complexity of even the simplest life forms to me shows that there is a creator.  I'll cover more in a religion debate.

maxx

bull. you said kids are born good. Do you want me to quote you? therefore if they are born good, then they do not have to be taught to be good. as well, i went through each and every one of your replies and nowhere did you produce any kind of counter evidence. None. You are pontless. also i am talking about kids, from birth to about 4 years old. if they have to be taught to be good, then they are not good in the first place. As for the chimps, i clearly stated that the young chimps will fight , bully , take from each other and so on until they are taught differently by the adult. I asked you to prove that statement wrong and you failed to do so. and before you go into the burden of proof, all one has to do is observe a family of chimps. It is obvious  The same with children. I said we are born to do bad, but only until taught differently. Until we are taught differently, we will act out basic tendencies of acting badly. As for the rest of it, take a good look around the world dee; rape, robbery, war, murder, fights, riots and on and on. This is caused by lack of education and not being able to change their basic human nature.. We are not born with any morals at all; we learn them. Yet if we are not taught good morals we would simply revert and or act out our basic animalistic instincts. Society does not deem such behavior as good. In fact such behaviors in children are considered bad by society, therfore we are born in a way that society says is bad until taught differently. Have you not heard of dina sanichar and other feral children? and dee do not come back with a reply and just state I am wrong. That is not evidence, nor proof that i am. @Dee

just_sayin

@Galvanise

You have continuously attempted to dodge your responsibility to support your statement by attempting to deflect that responsibility onto me, which demonstrates a level of intellectual dishonesty consistent with serious psychiatric illness.

I answered your question the first time by pointing out to you that the universe does not have intent, and therefore can not create objective evil.  You were probably too absorbed worrying over your inability to perform in this debate.  I have sympathy for your debating disfunction and inability to present a firm argument for your point.  Its been disappointing to listen to you to suggest things and then provide no evidence at all for them.  Perhaps you are suffering from performance anxiety.  Here's your chance to prove me wrong though - what is your evidence that objective evil could arise from natural causes?