Proof of God's existence! 1 million dollar challenge at the end! Randi better pay-up!

[Beleth]

So you are saying that heaven contains evil. Hell certainty can’t because everyone there is suffering and no one has the chance to committee evil.

Wow. I never thought about it that way before.

This led me then to think this:

Justice is good, right?
Hell is full of evil souls being justly punished.
Therefore...
What's going on in Hell is good.
And the existence of Hell is therefore also good. It's good to have a place where the punishment half of justice is carried out.

Likewise, Heaven is good. It's good to have a place where the reward half of justice is carried out.

So both Heaven and Hell are good places.

But, according to MM, you can't have good without evil.
So where's the evil? Only Earth?

 

[Franko]

Beleth:
It's cause and effect. Control causes an event; prediction is caused by an event.

If you can say what someone will do with 100% accuracy, all I have to do to determine whether you were predicting or controlling is determine is whether you are interfering with that someone in any way. If you are influencing the person, you have control. If you are not influencing the person, you do not have control, and are therefore predicting.

Most impressive. You are suggesting that "feedback" is crucial to the equation?

But if I can predict an individuals actions with 100% accuracy, and I tell that individual my predictions … won’t that alter their behavior?

Suppose, that over the course of some time you noticed that I was making highly accurate predictions about YOU. One day I tell you, “Beleth, don’t go near the intersection of 4th Street and Maple today around 7:20 pm. If you do you will be seriously injured in a Car crash.” Now, assuming that I have a sustained prior history of making totally accurate predictions for you like this … are you going to be anywhere near 4th and Maple at 7:20 pm?

Tides are predictable with 100% accuracy. Eclipses likewise. That does not mean that any human controls the motion of the moon.

That’s right. Check this out … every day for over a year in this forum, I predict that no A-Theist will ever present any evidence for their “free willy” god. So far I have been 100% accurate on this prediction. Am I controlling the A-Theists, or am I just predicting their behavior? I’m telling them about my prediction, but they just seem unable to avoid that intersection. Perhaps, A-Theists are just like the moon and the Tides … non-conscious?

 

[Franko]

Tricky: (A-Theist ntwit)
Just because we don't become vulgar and abusive when we disagree doesn't mean we rubber-stamp each other's opinions.

Yeah, well I could say the same thing about me and Wraith, Jedi, Muscles, etc.

Tricky: (his name says it all)
By the way. You still have not identified my actual sock puppet. Maybe you could ask your omniscient goddess.

You A-Theists are all alike to me anyway Trixy. I treat you all like sock-puppets.

The reality is I respond to the words that people post, the name at the top of the screen barely enters into my mind in most cases. Dishonest A-Theists (like yourself) have made that an irrelevant piece of information in almost all cases here.

 

[Ossai]

Franko

If You and I are all that exist, and I can predict your actions with 100% accuracy then I would be Omniscient from your POV and this is a valid argument in ALL possible cases.

While you could predict my actions you couldn’t predict the actions of those I interact with. You basic example needs to be expanded.

Apparently Franko is just very good at running away.

What of the remote controlled car?

Ossai

 

[muscleman]

muscleman
Exactly god is condemning someone for something god did. Is that in any way justice?

When you drive a car, a car goes as you will it (as God is omnipotent.). But when you hit a car, the car gets WRECKED AS WELL and the driver also gets hurt..

The driver doesnt get wrecked, and the car doesnt. Both do..

Just as Jesus died for your sins and suffered for you. GOD IS NOT HIPOCRITE WHO DOESNT PRACTICE WHAT HE PREACH..

The car maybe totally wrecked forever, but the driver may get healed (because the driver got a higher intelligence than the car..)

who is the master? The driver or the car? who is in control? The driver of course..Too bad car, you were created to be a car, not to be the boss.

Who is the master? you or God?

So you are saying that heaven contains evil. Hell certainty can’t because everyone there is suffering and no one has the chance to committee evil.

Your loosing it.. Your atheists faith is slowly evaporating...LOL

No, you are saying that the man’s family life is meaningless. If god deliberately created him to be generous, it would not matter how he was raised because he must be generous because that is the will of god.

As I was saying. Lets leave God out of the picture for a moment..

Atheists believe that we existed from amino acids, and some forces we dont know (Quantum the invisible physics.). Then our parents hands down our dna traits on the way they live their life...

So if you blaim God because of your own actions.. Why dont you blaim amino acids and your parents of your own actions..
IN FACT, by your way of thinking, we should just then remove the word "FREEWILL" and "RESPONSIBILITY" for after all, amino acids and our parents created us, and its not our fault we are the way we are....

By your way of thinking, we should remove every prisoners because it is not their fault, its their parents fault (they created them) and the fault of amino acids..

AFTER ALL, IF THEY HAVE NO PARENTS, THE CRIMES WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN COMMITTED.

YOUR WAY OF THINKING IS TO REMOVE THE WORD "RESPONSIBILITY" IN THE DICTIONARY...

Correct that would mean that god is malicious. God has the ability to make the world better, or to have created it perfectly to begin with and didn’t. God deliberately caused suffering, evil, rape, murder, etc. Malicious.

Your way of "perfection" is to remove knowledge of good and evil (the tree in the garden, sybolic for desires in the heart.), THE DESIRE OF INDEPENDENCE.

If there were no good, there will be no evil..

The way you look at perfection is IF WE ALL LIVE LIKE PLANTS AND VEGETABLES, INCAPABLE OF DOING ANY GOOD, OR ANY EVIL..

YOU WISH GOD CREATED YOU TO BE A VEGETABLE... WHY? BECAUSE YOUR TOO STUPID TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR YOURSELF?

You are not God, you were created, ALL YOU ARE IS A LITTLE WHINING CHILD WHO CANT ACT RESPONSIBLY, BUT CLAIM EVERY CAUSE IS THE FAULT OF THE SOURCE, SO MIGHT AS WELL PUT YOUR PARENTS TO PRISON INSTEAD, IF U KILLED SOMEONE. AFTER ALL, THEY BROUGHT U IN THIS EARTH...

And you are only good at denial..just like the rest of your cults....

I’ve already explained this once. If we take responsibility for our own actions then we deny god’s power. Atheists, on the other hand, take responsibility because for their actions because they deny god’s power.

Ossai

NO NO NO... BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION OF "FREEWILL" AND "RESPONSIBILITY"...THE 2 WORDS DONT EXIST,,

 

[Penrich]

The reality is I respond to the words that people post

How do you understand the words that other people post if you do not accept the dictionary definition of those words?

In other words, the Editors of Dictionaries basically take a "poll" to determine the listed meaning of the words. Are you claiming that just because your grandma uses a term with a specific connatation that is a logical proof?

You do realize that Logical Proofs are not based on majority vote or popular opinion? If that were the case the Earth would probably still be Flat.

No - not a poll. They tend to list a variety of possible meanings for the word. Compare the dictionary entries for sub- and omni-. Sub- (the prefix) has 4 possible meanings listed, but omni- has only one.

And what does logical proof have to do with a dictionary? I am merely requesting that you use semantic structures that the rest of the world can understand.

Besides, if majority vote determines the Truth in reality, then A-Theism is DEFINITELY wrong my little friend

1. Correct, we would probably all be Buddhists (hmm aren't they kind of like atheists?) Or would we still be worshipping the Sun God as he races across the sky in his Chariot? (That was probably a majority opinion at one time).
2. You are quite happy to change the form of the word atheist to A-Theist, presumably to imply that is has a different meaning (to you) to the dictionary meaning.
3. Do not condescend to me.

 

[scotth]

Besides, if majority vote determines the Truth in reality, then A-Theism is DEFINITELY wrong my little friend ...

Christianity certainly would not get a majority vote either.

And?

When has correct and most popular ever been determined to be inseparable?

There are countless moments of discovery when 1 single person on the planet knew the correct answer and the rest of the planet was wrong.

Another example of throwing meaningless statements into ring as if they had some kind of importance.

This time, besides just being meaningless, the implication (that obviously Christianity would win a majority vote) is factually false as well.

 

[Franko]

if majority vote determines the Truth in reality, then A-Theism is DEFINITELY wrong …

scotth:
Christianity certainly would not get a majority vote either.

1) I am not a Christian.
2) God would still get more votes than “Non-God”.
3) The Christians, the Muslims and the Jews, all worship the same God, so …

When has correct and most popular ever been determined to be inseparable?

There are countless moments of discovery when 1 single person on the planet knew the correct answer and the rest of the planet was wrong.

do tell?

Another example of throwing meaningless statements into ring as if they had some kind of importance.

This time, besides just being meaningless, the implication (that obviously Christianity would win a majority vote) is factually false as well.

You completely misunderstood my point.

The A-Theists in this forum seem to think that since they are the largest and most vocal Religious cult represented here, that their majority somehow makes them correct in all debates on this forum. In other words, the A-Theists will often offer the argument that since the majority of people here (A-Theists) agree with them, they must be correct – Truth by majority vote – it’s a logically fallacious argument.

 

[Franko]

How do you understand the words that other people post if you do not accept the dictionary definition of those words?

I always ask people to define their terms (something you will notice that A-Theists utter hate and dread to do), I ask them specific questions about how they are using those terms, and I ask them to provide me with analogies or examples of how they actually apply the terms. I am also able to infer a large amount of evidence for how people are using their vocabulary from the context of the post.

In other words, the Editors of Dictionaries basically take a "poll" to determine the listed meaning of the words.

No - not a poll. They tend to list a variety of possible meanings for the word. Compare the dictionary entries for sub- and omni-. Sub- (the prefix) has 4 possible meanings listed, but omni- has only one.

Technically it is not a poll, but essentially that is what they are doing. The words in a Dictionary are not there because they are concise and logically defined, the meanings of words is determined by the Editors by taking a survey of the words usage in printed materials from the previous year.

In other words, Editors of Dictionaries look at how the word has been used in society over the past year, and that usage becomes the Dictionary “definition”.

That’s great if you are reading a book, and you come across a word you are unfamiliar with, but you can’t use a Dictionary as the basis of a formal language, and you certainly couldn’t use the Dictionary as the basis for a programming language. Ergo, if you want to have a logical discourse regarding metaphysics or general philosophy, the Dictionary is not going to be of much help. You are going to spend most of your time arguing semantics.

And what does logical proof have to do with a dictionary?

Since Dictionaries are not Logical by necessity – not much. That was my point.

I am merely requesting that you use semantic structures that the rest of the world can understand.

I do, that is why I always precisely define my terms.

The problem is that even though I specify the precise definition and meaning I am assigning the term A-Theist object (strawman) merely because I am using the term differently then the divinely inspired inerrant Dictionary.

To me, Dictionaries are no more inerrant than any other book.

 

[Beleth]

Most impressive. You are suggesting that "feedback" is crucial to the equation?

I wouldn't use the word "feedback;" it implies interference in both directions, instead of one-way interference from controller to controlled.

But if I can predict an individuals actions with 100% accuracy, and I tell that individual my predictions … won’t that alter their behavior?

Yep, and as soon as you tell that individual anything, you have interfered, and move from being a predictor to being a controller... and you can therefore no longer claim that what you said ahead of time was a prediction.

Suppose, that over the course of some time you noticed that I was making highly accurate predictions about YOU.

If I am aware of the predictions, you have interfered, and are not predicting any more; you are controlling.

One day I tell you, “Beleth, don’t go near the intersection of 4th Street and Maple today around 7:20 pm. If you do you will be seriously injured in a Car crash.” Now, assuming that I have a sustained prior history of making totally accurate predictions for you like this … are you going to be anywhere near 4th and Maple at 7:20 pm?

If you have a history of telling me things that later turn out to happen, then you are interfering, and you are a controller, not a predictor.

Control causes events.
Predictions are caused by events.
They are not the same thing.

Check this out … every day for over a year in this forum, I predict that no A-Theist will ever present any evidence for their “free willy” god. So far I have been 100% accurate on this prediction. Am I controlling the A-Theists, or am I just predicting their behavior?

From what I recall from your previous posts, you have defined your terms (A-Theist, free-willy god) in such a way that there's no chance of anyone possibly contradicting that declaration. And a declaration that an absurd event will not happen is neither control nor prediction.

 

[Franko]

Read carefully this time because I know how you are just dying to try and make this more complicated than it is. (that way no one will be able to understand what we are talking about)

We are reducing things down to the least number of elements possible. That way we can see what is really going on.

Franko:
IF YOU AND I ARE ALL THAT EXIST, and I can predict your actions with 100% accuracy then I would be Omniscient from your POV and this is a valid argument in ALL possible cases.

Ossai:
While you could predict my actions you couldn’t predict the actions of those I interact with. You basic example needs to be expanded.

No. There is no one else for YOU to interact with.

YOU AND I ARE ALL THAT EXIST.

Do you understand this phrase, or do we need to get the inerrant Dictionary?

Apparently Franko is just very good at running away.

Ohhh, I never need to run away from anything A-Theist. Least of all You.

What of the remote controlled car?

What about it?

TLOP controls YOU controls REMOTE TOY CAR

From God’s POV you are a remote controlled toy car.

 

[scotth]

1) I am not a Christian.
2) God would still get more votes than “Non-God”.
3) The Christians, the Muslims and the Jews, all worship the same God, so …


do tell?



You completely misunderstood my point.

The A-Theists in this forum seem to think that since they are the largest and most vocal Religious cult represented here, that their majority somehow makes them correct in all debates on this forum. In other words, the A-Theists will often offer the argument that since the majority of people here (A-Theists) agree with them, they must be correct – Truth by majority vote – it’s a logically fallacious argument.

Appearently then, you agree that truth by majority is bogus, so 1,2, and 3 don't really need to be addressed.

Addressing "do tell?"
Sir Arthur Eddington leaps to mind right away. He was the first to realize the Sun "burned" by the fusion of hydrogen to helium.

Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Einstein, Newton, or anyone else associated with a revolution in scientific thought could be used. Granted that arguements could probably be made about several that they weren't the ONLY person on the planet that held their opinion at the time, they would certainly be in a very tiny minority.

Finally, I think you are incredibly wrong in your assertation that Athiests (among others) on this board feel that they are correct because they are in the majority.

This board is a tiny fraction of those alive on this planet. The vast majority of Athiests correctly understand that in the grand scheme of things they are a distinct minority. Clearly, "being in the majority" should not and does not influence most of their opinions.

 

[Franko]

Beleth,

I wouldn't use the word "feedback;" it implies interference in both directions, instead of one-way interference from controller to controlled.

Feedback is another term for recursion. You provide an input to run an algorithm. The algorithm generates an output. You take that output and use it as the input and run the algorithm again – that’s feedback.

Franko:
But if I can predict an individuals actions with 100% accuracy, and I tell that individual my predictions … won’t that alter their behavior?

Beleth:
Yep, and as soon as you tell that individual anything, you have interfered, and move from being a predictor to being a controller... and you can therefore no longer claim that what you said ahead of time was a prediction.

That depends on whether or not I can also predict what the individual will do based on the new information I have given them.

Franko:
Suppose, that over the course of some time you noticed that I was making highly accurate predictions about YOU.

Beleth:
If I am aware of the predictions, you have interfered, and are not predicting any more; you are controlling.

Really? If I you show me your lottery ticket, and I accurately predict that it is a winner, how can you claim that I am not predicting?

If you have a history of telling me things that later turn out to happen, then you are interfering, and you are a controller, not a predictor.

I’m both. If I’m telling you what’s going to happen, and it does, then I am predicting your behavior. Either that of we are using different definitions of the term “predict”.

Control causes events.
Predictions are caused by events.
They are not the same thing.

Predictions are not “caused by events” (although I think I understand what you are saying). Predictions are notions about future events based on past events (memories, knowledge, stored information, previous experiences)

From what I recall from your previous posts, you have defined your terms (A-Theist, free-willy god) in such a way that there's no chance of anyone possibly contradicting that declaration. And a declaration that an absurd event will not happen is neither control nor prediction.

As best I can tell there is no logically consistent definition of the term “free will”. It is a meaningless concept invented by A-Theists as an alternative to “God”.

I am a Fatalist.

Fatalism = The belief that events occur as part of a logical sequence (unbroken chain of cause and effect) for logical reasons based on a fixed set of logical rules.

Now I understand to some degree what people “mean” when they say they have “free will”. What they mean is they hold a view opposite to the definition of Fatalism I have listed above. If you are claiming to possess “free will” then essentially you are telling me that you believe the opposite of Fatalism is more likely True.

 

[Penrich]

*snip*
Technically it is not a poll, but essentially that is what they are doing. The words in a Dictionary are not there because they are concise and logically defined, the meanings of words is determined by the Editors by taking a survey of the words usage in printed materials from the previous year.

In other words, Editors of Dictionaries look at how the word has been used in society over the past year, and that usage becomes the Dictionary “definition”.

That’s great if you are reading a book, and you come across a word you are unfamiliar with, but you can’t use a Dictionary as the basis of a formal language, and you certainly couldn’t use the Dictionary as the basis for a programming language. Ergo, if you want to have a logical discourse regarding metaphysics or general philosophy, the Dictionary is not going to be of much help. You are going to spend most of your time arguing semantics.

*snip*

To me, Dictionaries are no more inerrant than any other book.

OK - I know I am flogging a dead horse here, but one cannot just let this kind of random rewording go. Most people (atheist or otherwise) generally agree on the terms in the Dictionary. If I was reading a book, and came across the word omnidirectional, I look it up and the dictionary tells me "all directions". Not "most" directions - ALL directions. If I was reading a book, and came across the word omnipotent, I look it up and it tells me that it means "all powerful". No mention of "most-powerful", or "kind of powerful", or "just a little bit more powerful than you or me". Why should reading the same word in an online discussion cause the word to have a meaning any different to the one in the printed book?

Does a dictionary contain errors? Probably. But not glaring omissions such as a major definition of one very important word. Not in every version of every dictionary ever published.

One only tends to ague semantics when one party cannot accept the given defintion of a word.

No, I maintain that you change the meaning of words to fit your own specific purpose. I judge you by your actions, too, not just your words...

EDIT - almost forgot - a dictionary IS the basis for formal language - where else does the language get formalized?

 

[c4ts]

Funny you should mention this being that You, MRC, UpChurch, CWL, evildave, c4tv, Akots, aardvark, etc. etc. etc. never ever disagree about anything.

Even by your own definition you are the King of all Trolls here Trixy.

LOL If you're going to accuse me of being a sock puppet, at least spell my name right. Also, you're completely wrong.

 

[Tricky]

LOL If you're going to accuse me of being a sock puppet, at least spell my name right. Also, you're completely wrong.

I made him say that.

 

[Akots]

I made him say that.

So... all his post are belong to you?

 

[Ossai]

muscleman

When you drive a car, a car goes as you will it (as God is omnipotent.). But when you hit a car, the car gets WRECKED AS WELL and the driver also gets hurt..

The driver doesnt get wrecked, and the car doesnt. Both do..

Just as Jesus died for your sins and suffered for you. GOD IS NOT HIPOCRITE WHO DOESNT PRACTICE WHAT HE PREACH..

Straw man. Jesus died only once. What about the other billions of people alive now not to mention all those that have lived throughout time. The fatal flaw is that god then just hops into another car and speeds off while leaving the wrecked one by the side of the road waiting for the tow truck to carry it off to the dump. As for being hurt, since the car (person) is being driven it is the responsibility of the driver (god) to control and watch out for obstacles. But since god controls everything there aren’t any unknown obstacles.

who is the master? The driver or the car? who is in control? The driver of course..Too bad car, you were created to be a car, not to be the boss.

Who is the master? you or God?

Then god is a malicious sadistic bastard.

Your loosing it.. Your atheists faith is slowly evaporating...LOL

Actually the truly sad part is I was merely paraphrasing your position for clarification and you apparently didn’t recognize it.

So if you blaim God because of your own actions.. Why dont you blaim amino acids and your parents of your own actions..
IN FACT, by your way of thinking, we should just then remove the word "FREEWILL" and "RESPONSIBILITY" for after all, amino acids and our parents created us, and its not our fault we are the way we are....

Another straw man argument. No one has claimed that their parent’s are omnipotent. Yet another demonstration of you inability to answer a question in an honest manner.

If there were no good, there will be no evil..

Another deceleration, awaiting some presentation of evidence or better yet a logical proof.

YOU WISH GOD CREATED YOU TO BE A VEGETABLE... WHY? BECAUSE YOUR TOO STUPID TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR YOURSELF?

Your person attacks have become rather redundant, at least try to spice them up a bit.

You are not God, you were created, ALL YOU ARE IS A LITTLE WHINING CHILD WHO CANT ACT RESPONSIBLY, BUT CLAIM EVERY CAUSE IS THE FAULT OF THE SOURCE, SO MIGHT AS WELL PUT YOUR PARENTS TO PRISON INSTEAD, IF U KILLED SOMEONE. AFTER ALL, THEY BROUGHT U IN THIS EARTH...

Actually you aren’t following the path back far enough and are giving the wrong entities (parents) the power. God – ultimate creator, ultimate power, ultimate responsibility. And all minor responsibility is removed because of the ultimate power. It isn’t within a human’s ability to go against the will of god.

NO NO NO... BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION OF "FREEWILL" AND "RESPONSIBILITY"...THE 2 WORDS DONT EXIST,,

Now you are lying, not just a personal attack. I have merely been restating your position and carrying the consequence through to it’s logical conclusion. It seem you are unable or more than likely unwilling to do so because that would challenge your security blanket.


Franko

What about it?
TLOP controls YOU controls REMOTE TOY CAR
From God’s POV you are a remote controlled toy car.

Now god is responsible for the actions of the remote control car. Or to put it bluntly, I’m innocent and god is a malicious sadistic bastard who passes the blame for god’s actions onto others.

Ossai

 

[c4ts]

I made him say that.

What you say!!

 

[muscleman]

muscleman
Straw man. Jesus died only once. What about the other billions of people alive now not to mention all those that have lived throughout time. The fatal flaw is that god then just hops into another car and speeds off while leaving the wrecked one by the side of the road waiting for the tow truck to carry it off to the dump. As for being hurt, since the car (person) is being driven it is the responsibility of the driver (god) to control and watch out for obstacles. But since god controls everything there aren’t any unknown obstacles.

Then god is a malicious sadistic bastard.

The car being wrecked is just an analogy. Given the fact that this car in actuality is a person who rapes children, kills everybody, and knowing full well what they did is wrong, and can change, but chose not to change.. AND THEY EXIST. what solutions does God have for them?

Hell... And you are defending them..

Your next argument will be "God is malicious for creating evil man".. Well evil cannot exist unless good exist. Where evil is, there is good as well..

SO GOD CANNOT BE JUST MALICIOUS, YOU TOOK IT OUT OF CONTEXT. GOD IS ALSO GOOD BECAUSE HE CREATED GOOD MAN..

YOU MAY SAY "HE IS GOOD AND EVIL IN ONE ENTITY", YOU ARE RIGHT. GOD HAVE PERSONALITY, LIKE YOU AND I, CAPABLE OF GOOD AND EVIL..

SO DONT TAKE IT OUT OF CONTEXT AND SAY "GOD IS MALICIOUS FOR CREATING EVIL MAN.." SAY ALSO "GOD IS GOOD FOR CREATING GOOD MAN"... OK KID'?

Actually the truly sad part is I was merely paraphrasing your position for clarification and you apparently didn’t recognize it.

You are the one not recognizing my points, for this is about the third time i typed it, and I already agreed with your points, THAT THE ONLY THING HERE THAT CONTRADICTS IS YOUR WAY OF "JUSTICE" AND MINE. YOU BELIEVE GOD IS EVIL FOR SENDING EVIL MAN TO HELL WHERE THEY BELONG, WHILE I BELIEVE EVIL MAN BELONG THERE... THATS THE ONLY THING THAT CONTRADICTS, YOUR AN ATHEISTS, AND IM NOT.

And by u saying "God should take responsibility", HE ALREADY DID, HE ALREADY SUFFERED AND DIED.

And now the only thing that contradicts here is that YOU WANT HIM TO SUFFER MORE THAN HE ALREADY DID. YOU WANT TO BE THE BOSS, AND HIM THE SERVANT... AS YOU WANT HIM TO BE THE CAR, AND U THE DRIVER.

IF THE CLAIM HERE IS THAT GOD IS "OMNIPOTENT", THEN HE CANNOT BE IN YOUR LEVEL OF SUFFERING, BECAUSE HE IS THE BOSS, AND YOUR NOT...

Another straw man argument. No one has claimed that their parent’s are omnipotent. Yet another demonstration of you inability to answer a question in an honest manner.

Fine, forget the parents then...Forget God too..

The fact here is that you exist, AND THAT SOMETHING IF NOT SOMEONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR EXISTENCE. SOMETHING IS RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR BEING. SOMETHING..

YOU MAY SAY "ITS PHYSICS THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HUMAN LIFE".. OR "ITS AMINO ACIDS", OR "ITS DNA"... Regardless of what or who is responsible for your existence, ACCORDING TO YOU, THAT SHOULD BE THE ONE TO PAY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS, NOT YOU, BECAUSE YOUR BASICALLY JUST A PRODUCT OF IT..

SO NOW WHO SHOULD U PUNISH FOR THE CRIMINAL'S ACTIONS? CERTAINLY SOMETHING OR SOMEONE IS RESPONSIBLE AND NOT YOU ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN WAY OF THINKING...


EVEN IF U DONT KNOW OR FIND THE ONE RESPONSIBLE, THAT IS STILL NO REASON TO PUNISH YOU BECAUSE AFTER ALL, YO8U ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN ACTION, THE SOURCE IS, THE CAUSE IS.. JUST AS IF YOU DONT KNOW WHO KILLED SOMEONE, YOUR NOT JUST GOING TO ARREST ANYBODY.. THERE MIGHT NOT BE JUSTICE AT ALL UNTIL U FIND THE REAL CRIMINAL (BUT OF COURSE THIS IS JUST A HUMAN ANALOGY, YOUR AN ALIEN, AND THE WAY U THINK OF RESPONSIBILITY IS DIFFERENT THAN THAT OF HERE ON EARTH)...

WELL?