Wich law? Human or God?

I think he and his imaginary friend left already. As long as they are not
willing to accept that not everyone believes in their religion, society hasn't evolved. Government and religion do not match and never should!

I brought a definite proof and a scientific source, but you only use words far from politeness and sarcasm. Unfortunately, you do not follow the basics of discussion. You have no scientific reason for your words and you just keep repeating your claim without any reason. Don't worry about God's law, at least obey the moral laws.
I think there is no point in discussing science with you unless you come up with a reason and stop being sarcastic.

Are you sure you don't know? So maybe your words are wrong! In the meantime, I remind you that the moral obligation in the discussion is to reject the reason I gave.
Also, you just repeat that I don't know, but you are unaware that this repetition does not prove your content. Please give reasons and stop repeating.
Also, what do you do in your first and second language? Why are you running away from content? If you don't have a reason, don't waste other people's time and don't make excuses.

Unfortunately, you have a negative mindset towards this issue from the beginning and this prevents your understanding. But if you want the reason, see the messages on the previous pages. I gave a reason with an example. I'm waiting for your criticism, but unfortunately you don't even read the forum's messages completely, then how do you ask others to comply with the moral obligation?

Unfortunately, you only repeat, you can't! But you are unaware that repeating your words does not prove your point. I brought evidence and witnesses to prove my claim. Please be brave and give reasons for your claim and not just repeat.

Thank you for your courtesy I wish other members would discuss like you. Unfortunately, some people become obnoxious in religious debates. I think that religious belief cannot be forced by others.

Society evolves when we respect other people's opinions, think about them and don't judge quickly and respect others.

Well, considering that the opposing group did not give a reason, I will not take up the time of the other members of this conversation any more and I will summarize the discussion: I gave proofs, evidences and examples for my conversation, but others only made assumptions and repeated their words without giving proofs. Some people were rude and cursed. I think the truth has been found and it is time to end the discussion. I thank all members and friends😉 for waiting and reading the texts. In my opinion, a mind that does not have prejudice and reads the messages of this conversation will find out the truth and understand who had a reason and who just repeated their claim. Thanks to all dear ones

You have no cause to feel offended; my words have been civil. You show up here and claim that there is a distinction between "God's Law" and human law and suggest that you wish to discuss the point. A discussion may involve points of view which differ from yours. I disagree with your claim. I think it much more likely that they both originated from the same source...the human mind.

Law filled a need in our development as a social species. As did religion, which still has a functional role in regulating much human behavior. Social control isn't necessarily a bad thing – it's often a practical necessity. As church and state began to separate they divided this job of social control between themselves; religious figures coined the term "God's Law" because it makes obedience to the religious narrative a sacred duty. Nowhere is a divine origin indicated – or needed. Humans wrote the story and invented the gods to go with it.



But you're not interested in science or the scientific method. You have not brought "definite proof and a scientific source". You provide "evidence" by referring us to the works of philosophers and ethicists, not scientists. This is called argumentum ab auctoritate. Descartes was a great thinker and is still worth studying – like Aquinas and Aristotle – but his scientific knowledge was greatly limited by the ignorance of the age in light of the discoveries which occurred over the next three centuries.

No you haven't! There is no proof or evidence of your God. You can believe in whatever you like to as long as you don't sell it to others as fact.

Religion should be a private matter, it should be within your own thoughts and belief, but don't think for a minute that others share your thought process.

I have announced the end of the discussion, so I have no desire to continue the discussion, but I will only say this one sentence in response to you: Unfortunately, you stated your claim again without mentioning the reason. You only say your analysis of reality, but you don't know that this is your analysis, not reality! think more and bye.

I'm sorry for you too, you just make your claim but you don't provide any reason. I am really surprised by this way of discussion! Saying the claim without saying the reason! Good luck and goodbye.

In addition to philosophers, many scientists have proved the existence of God. It is better to research and study more.

you lost This is the God-believing scientist: for example: 1. Wolfgang Smith says: "To me nothing is more obvious and certain than the existence or reality of God. In fact, I am inclined to the view that the existence of God is the only absolute certainty, because he is, in the last analysis, the only real absolute existence."

You lost again.

2. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz) says: "Especially in the sciences... we see God's wonders... His power, wisdom and goodness... For this reason, I have devoted myself to the sciences that I loved since my youth."

Study more...

Why yes, building on St Anselm's ontological proof in his Proslogian, there's the nonpareil logic of Gödel's ontological proof of god's existence using mathematical logic.

Some logicians have quibbling qualms about the kwality tho.

I thought you said you were done here.

You lost again.

3. William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin, inevitably proved the existence of God to explain the stability of atoms.

Read more books....

You lost again.
Next Scientist:
4. Fred Hoyle says:
"Science has been ready to destroy religious beliefs while not replacing them with anything satisfactory to society."

Work more on your comments....

You lost again.
Fifth scientist:
5. Arthur Leonard Schawlow says:
"The question of origin should be pursued as carefully as possible, to the extent that the interests and abilities of scientists allow. But the answers are never final, and to answer deeper questions, one must finally refer to religion." He goes on to say: "In my opinion, when we are faced with the wonders of life and the world, apart from the question of how, we should also ask why, because only religion can answer them... I need God in the world and in my life." He also said: "The foundation of religion is a good foundation for scientific works... Therefore, scientific research is an act of worship; Because it reveals many wonders of God's creation."

Now who is really prejudiced? me or you? Admit that you were wrong....

You lost again.
The sixth scientist:
6. Polkinghorn says:
"Science without religion is incomplete and It cannot reach the deepest layers of understanding. That is, the amazing insight that science gives us about the understandable works of the world, calls for a deeper explanation than what it gives itself. Religion, while maintaining its claim to be the soul of God's creation, must humbly learn from science how the world actually is.
It's better think about it...