can you proove there isn't a deity?

[outhouse]

What I said above is a true as truth gets

.

No it is not.

It is your personal opinion, and nothing more. :sarcastic

Scientifically your god does not exist as there is nothing to test for. Nothing can be attributed to him in nature. And creation so far is a myth outlawed from most public schools while evolution is taught as higher learning world wide.

The Exodus has not been substantiated or proven
Jerico walls have been prove to be uninhabited when it was suppoosedly there in scripture.
Moses has no Historicity
Abraham has no Historicity


And Greenleaf based his evidence soley on the fact it was written down in a bible was good enough for him to be considered evidence. He is correct, but it doesnt make it credible evidence, it just means it should be looked at. He was not a historian or a scholar, and new nothing of archeology or any other factual matter on the case.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The question was not if anyones code was violated. I asked for evidence it was actually wrong. You basically said that moral wrongs are defined as any act done against any persons preference. Does that sound the least bit helpful or true?

You can have secular ethics, but there is no such thing as secular moral truths.

This was known all the way back in Roman times. They had two types of laws. Mallum en se', and Mallum prohibitum. One was concerned with acts against social ethics or morays. The other was acts against objective moral truths. We are discussing the latter not the former.

Malum in se refers to actions that violate the natural, moral or public principles of a civilized society. At least, according to all the legal definitions of it. Sounds kinda secular to me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We do all realize that slavery still goes on today right?? Um....hello.

Unfortunately, it does.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You really misfired here. We were discussing Egyptian slavery not Hebrew slavery. I have no motive to soften Egyptian slavery. I kind of have the motivation to do the opposite. Yet I chose instead to interpret words accurately and with no slant.

For someone who has no motivation to soften Egyptian slavery, you sure did a good job of it.

Did you say this, or not?

1. The original language use was applied using a pre 18th century idea about slavery. ANE slavery was closer to servitude than chattel slavery.
2. The term used was interpreted far later by the English word slavery and is taken in the context of chattel slavery which it wasn't.

 

[Ingledsva]

For someone who has no motivation to soften Egyptian slavery, you sure did a good job of it.

Did you say this, or not?

1. The original language use was applied using a pre 18th century idea about slavery. ANE slavery was closer to servitude than chattel slavery.
2. The term used was interpreted far later by the English word slavery and is taken in the context of chattel slavery which it wasn't.

Yep. Plus he keeps ignoring the "Bible" texts people post to show they had real slavery.

They could own slaves FOREVER, passing them down as an inheritance. They could breed those slaves and own FOREVER the resultant children.

This "real" slavery, also included sex slaves, such as concubines whom are bought for sex purposes - and also could never leave.

Here are some of those verses. In the first two note the difference between "hired" "indentured" servants, - and slaves.
*

Lev 22:10 There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing: a sojourner of the priest, or an hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing.

Lev 22:11 But if the priest buy any person with his money, he shall eat of it, and he that is born in his house: they shall eat of his meat.

Note that in 22:10 they have a hired servant – a sakiyr. In 20:11 it is a bought slave.
*

They also always bring up the 7 year Jubilee freeing of servants - however - this is just Hebrew MALE indentured servants.


A Hebrew MALE's time was limited, not Hebrew women used for sex, or foreign slaves, or concubines, sex slaves, etc.
*


Exo 21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.


Lev 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.


Lev 25:46 And you shall take them for inheritance to your sons after you, to hold for a possession; you may enslave them forever. But on your brothers, the sons of Israel, one over another, you shall not rule over him with severity.


So they were owning slaves for life and passing them on in inheritance, and breeding more slaves by giving female slaves to male slaves - just like in the old south.


*

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yep. Plus he keeps ignoring the "Bible" texts people post to show they had real slavery.

They could own slaves FOREVER, passing them down as an inheritance. They could breed those slaves and own FOREVER the resultant children.

This "real" slavery, also included sex slaves, such as concubines whom are bought for sex purposes - and also could never leave.

Here are some of those verses. In the first two note the difference between "hired" "indentured" servants, - and slaves.
*

Lev 22:10 There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing: a sojourner of the priest, or an hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing.

Lev 22:11 But if the priest buy any person with his money, he shall eat of it, and he that is born in his house: they shall eat of his meat.

Note that in 22:10 they have a hired servant – a sakiyr. In 20:11 it is a bought slave.
*

They also always bring up the 7 year Jubilee freeing of servants - however - this is just Hebrew MALE indentured servants.


A Hebrew MALE's time was limited, not Hebrew women used for sex, or foreign slaves, or concubines, sex slaves, etc.
*


Exo 21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.


Lev 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.


Lev 25:46 And you shall take them for inheritance to your sons after you, to hold for a possession; you may enslave them forever. But on your brothers, the sons of Israel, one over another, you shall not rule over him with severity.


So they were owning slaves for life and passing them on in inheritance, and breeding more slaves by giving female slaves to male slaves - just like in the old south.

*

Exactly. That is not servitude, that is flat out slavery. The defense of, and justifications for it are quite unsettling.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I read your excerpt. I found it agreeable and logical but I can't figure out its purpose. To what end was that snip it intended?

I think my claim left off with this.

Prove killing every human on earth by me is actually wrong without God.

If you don't see how the snipit is really relevant then I don't think you will. I guess one last shot wouldn't hurt.


If we claim a "moral truth" then we have to first provide a victim of that "moral truth". Without the victim then it would be impossible to even postulate a moral anything. If you killed every human on the planet and those humans considered it a moral wrong based on their innate conscious then I would then in turn infer that it was a moral truth from their standpoint. A rock doesn't have a moral truth because as far as we know it isn't sentient. IT doesn't have a way to feel wronged or be a victim of anything.

 

[McBell]

Prove killing every human on earth by me is actually wrong without God.

done.

next question for you to ignore the answer to please.

 

[1robin]

It would go against the secular moral code of those that you killed at the very least. You can have secular morality. There is nothing inherent about morality that is inherently non-secular.

Why in the world is going against the secular moral codes of others actually wrong without God? Many times in history and in more than a billion cases going against the secular moral beliefs of others has been called the highest act of valor possible. The Wehrmacht's secular moral codes should have been opposed with bullets. Were we wrong to do so? If my secular moral code was that everyone should worship me your system would make you wrong. If Stalin had taken over the world and enforced everyone to adopt his secular morals or killed them. By your standards it would have been wrong to resist his purges and gulags'.


You did not tell me why something was actually wrong. You gave me the basis for a group's not preferring it occur.

Let me try and save you some time. Some of the wrong tactics are to indicate something is against popular opinion, something is preferred, something is detrimental to human flourishing, it feels good, etc.... They won't work.

Your argument above is at it's core a popular opinion argument. If X is against popular opinion it is wrong. To show how bad of a standard that is if used it would have condemned Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, but would have approved of German socialistic race superiority ideals within Germany. It does not work as an intellectual foundation and it would actually produce evil in many cases.

Please try again.

Prove any act what so over is actually wrong without God.

You would save yourself a lot of time if you just admitted as most atheistic professors do that moral truth without God is an illusion or unknowable.

MORALITY AS AN ILLUSION

IS MORALITY 'NO MORE THAN A COLLECTIVE ILLUSION FOBBED OFF ON US BY OUR GENES FOR REPRODUCTIVE ENDS?' [1] (Ruse1986)
MORALITY AS AN ILLUSION JUD EVANS - ATHENAEUM LIBRARY OF PHILOSOPHY

In short, society defines whatever it believes is right and wrong. That is, of course, value relativism where nothing is right or wrong—absolute morality doesn’t exist according to Dawkins.


The interviewer noticed this, and when prompted to respond Dawkins replied “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right?”.
More on Dawkins and Morality-No absolutes | Frames of Reference

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is , at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A. E Housman put it:

For nature, heartless, witless nature
Will neither care nor know

DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.
Atheist Affirms Existence Of*God | With All I Am



Or one rung up from this moral nihilistic insanity is Harris's (neuroscience) claim that objective morality does exist but admits he has no source for it but simply assumes it.

 

[1robin]

Because you dont know the proof...because you havent ventured out to others religions...thats where it hides.

I have spent more than enough with other faiths to give them up completely. They are either incoherent nonsense, speculative meta-physics, self contradictory, historically unjustifiable, or philosophically unsound. Christianity is no 1 for a reason. It has be many times over the most and best evidence and the most philosophically, comprehensive, and largest explanatory scope by far. There is not even a distant second and its textual tradition is greater than any text of any kind in ancient history. I tried to compare religions back when I was lost and stumbling around in the dark and found no comparison.

 

[1robin]

Because when we are all gone, there is no more moral conscience, and the memory of Jesus is forgotten.

That is a complete assumption without even a possibility of evidence, ever. It even contradicts evidence in many categories. The Bible and most of the great faiths in history posit and afterlife where things are remembered. I do not understand why you find value in complete speculation devoid of even the potential of ever having verification. Even if your guess was right you would never know it, ever. BTW that had nothing to do with my claim anyway. Shalom,

 

[1robin]

No it is not.

It is your personal opinion, and nothing more. :sarcastic

Scientifically your god does not exist as there is nothing to test for. Nothing can be attributed to him in nature. And creation so far is a myth outlawed from most public schools while evolution is taught as higher learning world wide.

The Exodus has not been substantiated or proven
Jerico walls have been prove to be uninhabited when it was suppoosedly there in scripture.
Moses has no Historicity
Abraham has no Historicity


And Greenleaf based his evidence soley on the fact it was written down in a bible was good enough for him to be considered evidence. He is correct, but it doesnt make it credible evidence, it just means it should be looked at. He was not a historian or a scholar, and new nothing of archeology or any other factual matter on the case.

Your last statement was such an attempt to hand wave away a scholar of imminent stature using complete non-sense I can no longer find a motivation for continuing this discussion. Resent away without me for now.

 

[1robin]

Malum in se refers to actions that violate the natural, moral or public principles of a civilized society. At least, according to all the legal definitions of it. Sounds kinda secular to me.

In the context you are trying to interpret this in it becomes self contradictory. Nature and humans do not create morals. As Jefferson said the only source of morality is the God of nature. It was not creation by the a civilized society intended by that terminology it was apprehension by a civilized society that was meant. That renders the statement a consistent whole, yours turns it into a philosophical train wreck. Here is a better interpretation that bears this out. The distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum offenses is best characterized as follows: a malum in se offense is "naturally evil as adjudged by the sense of a civilized community,"

However lets pretend this society that was firmly committed to all kinds of deities for a minute. They believed certain things were wrong (I mean actually wrong) in and of themselves. Even if people in that relatively ignorant age did not state in that legal dictum that God was the source for that dichotomy, that would still be the only way what they said was true. Unless a transcendent standard exists no natural evil ever can exist. Exactly what molecule or atom is the moral law giver? Which mountain, planet, or force dictates what is evil or good? Nature never has, never can, and never will produce moral truths. It does not have the capacity. Even if (and I do not for a minute agree it was) that the pagan Romans thought natural evils are evil because nature dictated it they would have been wrong about the source but not about the existence of evil.


In summary.

1. The Romans knew that some things were actually evil or good.
2. Even if they (and they did not) ascribe that to nature as causal, they were wrong as so many have exhaustively proven.
3. They were either thoroughly pagan, Christian, or a combination of the two and ascribed almost everything to a God's action so there is almost no chance they thought nature created morals.


It is very very easy to prove me wrong if you were right.

Prove that any act what so ever is actually wrong is God does not exist.

 

[1robin]

For someone who has no motivation to soften Egyptian slavery, you sure did a good job of it.

Did you say this, or not?

1. The original language use was applied using a pre 18th century idea about slavery. ANE slavery was closer to servitude than chattel slavery.
2. The term used was interpreted far later by the English word slavery and is taken in the context of chattel slavery which it wasn't.

I did not say I did not interpret the word used in the Bible for slavery in a "softer" way than people post 18th century US slavery have. I said I had no motivation to do so unless it was true. I have no desire to soften Egyptian slavery towards the Jews. If I had any motivation beyond truth it would be in the other direction.

 

[outhouse]

Christianity is no 1 for a reason. It has be many times over the most and best evidence and the most philosophically, comprehensive, and largest explanatory scope by far..

Chistianity is not based on evidence, it is based on faith.


Evidence shows us, Jesus divinity in relationship to the god concept was settled in a hearing, and Constantine forced the vote to literally define god and jesus.


Evidence shows us the god concept was compiled from at least two pervious deities that existed before Israelites did.

There is not even a distant second and its textual tradition is greater than any text of any kind in ancient history

Rediculous

Islam is almost equal to Christianity in size and popularity.

I tried to compare religions back when I was lost and stumbling around in the dark and found no comparison

Personal opinion that hold no credibility for a global comparison.

 

[outhouse]

Nature and humans do not create morals.

.

You have no business posting something you cannot back! to be true.

That is your opinion and your personal opinion ONLY!

Factually, only humans have created morals.

The morals you know from your religion ALL existed prior to your religion existing, yet you discount their god as being credible.

 

[outhouse]

Your last statement was such an attempt to hand wave away a scholar of imminent stature using complete non-sense I can no longer find a motivation for continuing this discussion. Resent away without me for now.

Complete Nonsense?

You cannot refute what I posted so you run. The difference between you and me is I BACK WHAT I POST

The Exodus has not been substantiated or proven
Jericho walls have been prove to be uninhabited when it was supposedly there in scripture.
Moses has no Historicity
Abraham has no Historicity, nor Isaac or Jacob
Noah has no historicity
No global flood has taken place scientifically.

Moses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That means an exodus of the scale described in the Torah would have been impossible.

the figure of Moses as a leader of the Israelites in these events cannot be substantiated

the tradition of Moses as a lawgiver and culture hero of the Israelites can be traced to the Deuteronomist source, corresponding to the 7th-century Kingdom of Judah

This means moses is thought to have been created by Deuteronomist during the 7th century.

Wall of Jericho - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

. They did not find substantial evidence for renewed occupation in the late Bronze Age at the time of Joshua, which in general agreed with the earlier statement by Watzinger that "in the time of Joshua, Jericho was a heap of ruins, on which stood perhaps a few isolated huts".

This means it did not happen as written.


Abraham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the beginning of the 21st century, and despite sporadic attempts by more conservative scholars such as Kenneth Kitchen to save the patriarchal narratives as history, archaeologists had "given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible 'historical figures'".

The two works largely responsible were Thomas L. Thompson's The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (1974), and John Van Seters' Abraham in History and Tradition (1975). Thompson's argument, based on archaeology and ancient texts, was that no compelling evidence pointed to the patriarchs living in the 2nd millennium and that the biblical texts reflected first millennium conditions and concerns; Van Seters, basing himself on an examination of the patriarchal stories, agreed with Thompson that their names, social milieu and messages strongly suggested that they were Iron Age creations

This means they have no historicity


Noah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The earliest written flood myth is found in the Mesopotamian Epic of Atrahasis and Epic of Gilgamesh texts. Many scholars believe that Noah and the Biblical Flood story are derived from the Mesopotamian version, predominantly because Biblical mythology that is today found in Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Mandeanism shares overlapping consistency with far older written ancient Mesopotamian story of The Great Flood, and that the early Hebrews were known to have lived in Mesopotamia

What part of flood myths, don't you understand?

Flood myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The flood myth motif is widespread among many cultures as seen in the Mesopotamian flood stories, the Puranas, Deucalion in Greek mythology, the Genesis flood narrative

FLOOD MYTH

Genesis flood narrative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Genesis flood narrative is a flood myth in the Hebrew Bible


FLOOD MYTH

 

[1robin]

Yep. Plus he keeps ignoring the "Bible" texts people post to show they had real slavery.

They could own slaves FOREVER, passing them down as an inheritance. They could breed those slaves and own FOREVER the resultant children.

This "real" slavery, also included sex slaves, such as concubines whom are bought for sex purposes - and also could never leave.

Here are some of those verses. In the first two note the difference between "hired" "indentured" servants, - and slaves.
*

Lev 22:10 There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing: a sojourner of the priest, or an hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing.

Lev 22:11 But if the priest buy any person with his money, he shall eat of it, and he that is born in his house: they shall eat of his meat.

Note that in 22:10 they have a hired servant – a sakiyr. In 20:11 it is a bought slave.
*

They also always bring up the 7 year Jubilee freeing of servants - however - this is just Hebrew MALE indentured servants.


A Hebrew MALE's time was limited, not Hebrew women used for sex, or foreign slaves, or concubines, sex slaves, etc.
*


Exo 21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.


Lev 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.


Lev 25:46 And you shall take them for inheritance to your sons after you, to hold for a possession; you may enslave them forever. But on your brothers, the sons of Israel, one over another, you shall not rule over him with severity.


So they were owning slaves for life and passing them on in inheritance, and breeding more slaves by giving female slaves to male slaves - just like in the old south.


*

If my page after page after page of data on OT slavery and the dozens of links has not resolved the issue by now and explained it in the context of a moral God having to deal with a wayward mankind by now I don't think any additional information will help. I have already responded to everything you mentioned several times each. I will do so one last time very briefly.

1. God did not desire slavery. That is why it does not exist in anyplace where he no longer has to allow for human fallibility. If he liked slavery why is it not in heaven and why did Christ claim to free the captives as his mission?
2. Like divorce, death, suffering, and many other ills we call evils (at times) God allowed slavery of a sort because of our problems, not his.
3. Of every known law pertaining to slavery in the ANE, Israel had the most benevolent by far. In Babylon it was against the law to not turn in a runaway slave. In Israel it was against the law to do so.
4. every known record of an actual slave in Israel is of voluntary slavery usually a debt arrangement.
5. Enslavement for life was apparently very rare but look at why it occurred. If a place was defeated there were four choices of what to do with the people left homeless. Most of he time they were sold into actual chattel slavery and worked to death (literal death). Second they were at times all killed. Third the homeless and desperate masses were left to plague everyone they came into contact with and often stole to survive. Or in Israel they were enslaved, but in Israel as God had made sure, slaves had property rights, they DID have rights to their children they just could not take them off somewhere else, they were paid, they had to be supplied very liberally with food and other goods. They were set up better than 95% of prisoners of war in warfare of them time. That also applies to slaves bought from foreign slave traders.

In summary it was a form of welfare mandated by necessity. The same God that made his chosen people leave a portion of the grain behind for anyone who was hungry, saved mankind by paying the price 100% himself, and was the chief hope of slaves in actual chattel slavery was not what you wish him so bad to be. Which is why not one person who has brought up slavery to me has actually spent much time whatever looking up what the original words used meant. If anyone actually wanted to know what the truth was that is the very first place they should start but I can't even get most of the non-theists to even accept the meanings I looked up for them. I have to conclude it is because they do not want an explanation. They want an excuse to dismiss the only eternal hope that is possible for some bizarre but common reason.

I am done with this issue, as everything relevant and that would satisfy anyone actually looking for the truth (instead of an excuse) has been said over and over. I have given links to site after site from experts on ANE customs. I can't even see any evidence they were even glanced at. I have no reason to continue this futile discussion with people who are trying to rationalize their desires.

I will discuss anything original that has not been beat to death already, however.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Why in the world is going against the secular moral codes of others actually wrong without God? Many times in history and in more than a billion cases going against the secular moral beliefs of others has been called the highest act of valor possible. The Wehrmacht's secular moral codes should have been opposed with bullets. Were we wrong to do so? If my secular moral code was that everyone should worship me your system would make you wrong. If Stalin had taken over the world and enforced everyone to adopt his secular morals or killed them. By your standards it would have been wrong to resist his purges and gulags'.


You did not tell me why something was actually wrong. You gave me the basis for a group's not preferring it occur.

Let me try and save you some time. Some of the wrong tactics are to indicate something is against popular opinion, something is preferred, something is detrimental to human flourishing, it feels good, etc.... They won't work.

Your argument above is at it's core a popular opinion argument. If X is against popular opinion it is wrong. To show how bad of a standard that is if used it would have condemned Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, but would have approved of German socialistic race superiority ideals within Germany. It does not work as an intellectual foundation and it would actually produce evil in many cases.

Please try again.

Prove any act what so over is actually wrong without God.

You would save yourself a lot of time if you just admitted as most atheistic professors do that moral truth without God is an illusion or unknowable.

MORALITY AS AN ILLUSION

IS MORALITY 'NO MORE THAN A COLLECTIVE ILLUSION FOBBED OFF ON US BY OUR GENES FOR REPRODUCTIVE ENDS?' [1] (Ruse1986)
MORALITY AS AN ILLUSION JUD EVANS - ATHENAEUM LIBRARY OF PHILOSOPHY

In short, society defines whatever it believes is right and wrong. That is, of course, value relativism where nothing is right or wrong—absolute morality doesn’t exist according to Dawkins.


The interviewer noticed this, and when prompted to respond Dawkins replied “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right?”.
More on Dawkins and Morality-No absolutes | Frames of Reference

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is , at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A. E Housman put it:

For nature, heartless, witless nature
Will neither care nor know

DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.
Atheist Affirms Existence Of*God | With All I Am



Or one rung up from this moral nihilistic insanity is Harris's (neuroscience) claim that objective morality does exist but admits he has no source for it but simply assumes it.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "morality" is. There is the idea that there is a universal morality but that only exists as a concept within the scope of humans. What is moral or not is from the point of view of the victim and our connection with them through apathy. Its a functional concept rather than simply an abstract "truth".

 

[1robin]

You have no business posting something you cannot back! to be true.

That is your opinion and your personal opinion ONLY!

Factually, only humans have created morals.

The morals you know from your religion ALL existed prior to your religion existing, yet you discount their god as being credible.

Since I am done with your attempts to hide you rejection in the most incapable of verification of possible Biblical books you could choose from, and the refusal to discuss the books that have the possibility of resolution, I will only respond to this moral issue. If anyone actually wanted to know if the Bible was true they should start with original language use and the parts most accessible to verification. You are at the opposite end of the spectrum. I can only conclude that biblical truth is not your goal.

1. Negative claims have no burden of proof. That is why no one asks you to prove there is no God, because the absence of something has no evidence to meet a burden.
2. It is almost a universal agreement that no actual moral truths can exist without a transcendent standard and source. Even among atheists this is all but unanimously admitted.
3. The more honest and rational of scholars on your side admit there is no actual objective moral truth because it is true. I can respect a man that can do that even if I do not respect his position. As the statement I gave from Harris, Dawkins, and Ruse suggest morality is an illusion without God.
4. I do not have to prove the absence of a thing until you can produce a source capable of generating the thing in question. Just as certainly as nothing has no causal potential for the natural, humanity and nature have no causal potential for actual moral truths.
5. We can contrive some ethical ideals but we no more no if they are true than we know why there is something instead of nothing in existence without God.


As I have said dozens of times and have never been taken up effectively, there is a very easy way to prove your right and I am wrong (which is kind of rare for theological concepts).

Prove any act ever committed or theoretically capable of being committed is actually evil (objectively wrong or immoral) without God?

There exists no easier way to prove anything than that. If there was even a hint that moral truths exist without God then I gave you the most liberal test possible to show it so. Good luck, no one in human history has managed it yet.