Because we are primates.
Ever watch documentaries. The higher class or dominate primates through birth rank get the best fruit and highest tree positions and eat first. It is then shuffled down from there. Sometimes a primate will change their birth rank.
@rat_spit is making the spurious assumptions that morals are an objective standard, when theyâre clearly not.
To a society based on Nazi ideals mass murder was not immoral.
Chimpanzees live in societal groups and have evolved the ability to differentiate between moral and immoral acts, to make that possible.
Try explaining your concept of morality is absolute to a chimpanzee, or telling an evolutionary biologist that chimpanzees are amoral.
Could be worse! HahahahaâŚ
Matthew Hayward, associate professor of conservation biology at the University of Newcastle, Australia, explained to Africa Check that macropods have strong control over their pouch muscles and one of the anti-predator responses in females with larger young is to relax their pouch muscles so the joeys drop out.
The young will lay writhing and hissing on the ground, attracting the predatorâs attention, while the mother escapes. âThis makes evolutionary sense because the mum is a proven breeder, whereas the young may be infertile,â says Hayward.
Then you donât know shit about physics. The initial singularity that developed into the big bang was nothing but energy and heat. Lots of energy, and the calculated temperature was 1000 trillion degrees Celsius soon after the rapid expansion began. Iâm not going to waste my time explaining the process to you, but hint: Einsteinâs Theory of General Relativity indicates matter can be converted into energy (nuclear bomb) and vice versa.
Another argument from ignorance.
And what theory is that?
Provide proof, name the theory.
Youâre going to have to rephrase that sentence. If you want an honest reply.
Hereâs my answer in any regard. Paul Daniel literally performs illusions using all manner of prop and deception.
And thatâs where you lose me. A human cannot conjure the illusion of matter to the degree that an audience member is able to get up touch the object - juggle it in his hands - take a bite out of it etcetera.
Like I said; please rephrase the question. Youâre putting words in my mouth and Iâm not playing that game with you.
The Only One. What do you want Sheldon? A name.
If youâre asking if heâs one of the ones from polytheistic religions, then no.
To be more precise, he is the one acknowledged by the Jews, Christians, and Sikhs and Muslims.
If you ask âhow many mountains are the highest?â The answer is âthe oneâ. There are not two highest mountains. 8849 meters. Called Mount Everest. It is the single highest mountain in the world.
Likewise. If you ask âWhich God is the God you refer too?- because there are many.â
Arakish is not here with his list. The God I refer to is the highest one. The pronunciation of his name does not matter. He stands alone. On the top. No other thing can compare.
Has that been cleared up?
Yes. God endows us with it.
I didnât say that evil wasnât subjective. I said that âshameâ was an outcome of evil. At least in those who have a conscience.
Why do you want three more absolutes?
Tedious as always. I will provide you again with the sense impressions I received from God - you will declare these as insufficient - you will press further. I will not relent. My sense impressions of God are my proof of God. Just as many people are capable of believing that âblack swans existâ because they have simply seen them.
But you will continue along your skepticism line of questioning until you feel comfortable calling me a troll.
What exactly is your hesitation in accepting the word of someone who has seen, heard, smelled and known a certain thing? Why is that always insufficient for you?
Give me hard evidence that Dark Energy and Dark Matter exist. The scientific community believes it and yet no one can see it and none of the detection devices can measure it. Is it really there?
And you define good versus evil as a culturally determined artifact.
So enslaving a population of people is evil for the people but perhaps good for the slave owners.
Morality should reward good and punish evil. That is the only way a moral system can have any meaning.
If we believe what you say, there is no need for the term morality. Weâll just call good and evil whatever the majority of people decide it to be.
Garbled anecdotal claims? Now youâre just being mean.
Double standard? Again with the straw manâs.
You saw a video? Was it faked? Can you give me a YouTube link?
I havenât said that mermaids donât exist. The probability of them existing is a different type of probability than the existence of God
It is. Unless proven otherwise. Iâm not trying to have it both ways.
I know you donât believe in mermaids. I will suspend my belief until I see that video or hear that anecdote.
Are they invisible? Are they omnipotent? Are they Omniscient?
I havenât got the slightest clue. Youâre the one suggesting these things. But of course! It is I who have shifted the goal posts!
Iâm a little naive, Old Man Shouting. When someone tells me they have a thousand bucks in their wallet, I donât automatically demand to see the money.
So, if you want evidence - then I submit my argument for the insufficiency of a Godless Universe versus the criteria for ANY universe requiring a) an unconditioned element and b) said element with the potency to give matter purpose and function.
My evidence is a philosophical logical argument. Can anyone still arrive at the truth using logic and a love of knowledge - or has truth been confined to the laboratory?
Notice how this can also be read as: âI donât respond in that vein only to piss him off - of course it does delight me entirely to do so âŚâ
A response from you, Sheldon - would seem incomplete if it didnât include some kind of round about insult.
If morals do not comply with an objective standard then we are dealing with moral nihilism.
Good should be rewarded. Evil should be punished.
That is not the case in this world, because this world is unjust.
And the origin of said energy and heat need no explanation?
Iâve never seen it given a name. Sartre asked the philosophical question âwhy something instead of nothing?â in his work âBeing and Nothingnessâ. I was 16 when I realized the world is absurd in its origins.
Since I arrived at the conclusion on my own I can name it âSomething from Nothing Paradoxâ.
Like I said. I came to the conclusion on my own. That same conclusion could be as old as civilization. I wouldnât know.
In physics, not really (as long as it doesnât violate dE/dt = 0). You might discuss the probability of such a thing happening, but this probability isnât 0.
In crackpot, armchair, apologetics metaphysics, (at least the nutters who come here) claim it does need an explanation; but then they claim god doesnât need an explanation. 
Can you direct me to further reading on this particular topic?
I will pose to you a weird shibboleth:
What is the 2nd derivative with respect to t, of ⏠ln(t) dt dt ?
I know that sounds shitty; but if you canât answer that in like 2 seconds; the whole thing WILL go over your head. Then youâll just shrug your shoulders and go back to your nonsense; having successfully wasted my time. You know; one of the ways you troll people here.
Iâll tell you what: you come up with the answer (using any method you can, including asking others), and Iâll discuss it further. I guess Iâm not willing to commit to anything so long as I believe you are just going to say ânuh-uhâ; you know, what you did in the past?
Off the top of my head those two derivatives should cancel out those two integrals and we arrive at - bodda bing bodda boom âŚ
ln(t)
Right? 
Wow, awesome!
How is it possible you understand that, but not:
@ rat_spit
Oh, and could you confirm for others; that my question was a âfairâ question. In that it was super easy if you understand the concepts (you donât need to take your shoes off to answer it)? Iâve been accused of âambushingâ people with questions like that.
No. I get calculus.
But thatâs an equilibrium equation if Iâm not mistaken.
So Iâm wondering about the thermodynamics of the Big Bang.
Or, I donât know.
dE/dt = 0
Means no change in energy over time. So, a closed system with conversation going on - but Iâm missing something.
If I created 10 joules of energy AND -10 joules of energy, would that violate dE/dt = 0?
Oh yeah. Fair play, for sure. If it was any harder I wouldnât have got it 
Very interested. I will get back to this. But itâs my Friday and my shift has ended and I need to get the fuck out of this shit hole and get my drink on.
Cheers!!!
No. It would not. Are we still talking about the early universe?