Can Mercy and Punishment go hand in hand?

From my early debate:

“SALVATION: If the person offering you salvation is also the one threatening you with punishment, its not really salvation. It’s terrorism and Extortion”

ME:   God ordained free will only to the human being and asked to follow His command willingly in order to hv a peaceful atmosphere. He didnot created us as angels and this earth is not heaven. We have to use our intellect properly if not the consequences ll be against us. This way God testing our obedience. Happiness, Sufferings, struggle, pain are the subjects of this earth. This world is our testing ground. He is merciful and He is just. Mercy is meaningless without justice. Everyone must pay for their actions. This is more logical than showering mercy at everyone irrespective of criminals and Good people.Someone body is cheating, killing, raping and some one is protecting these misdeeds cannt be put on the same plate.. 

Markus Richters The very definition of mercy is the suspension of Justice. You can not logically be just and merciful. 

ME:  Mercy is for the mistakers who understand he made something wrong. Who repents for his mistskes  . Justice. Merciful, sastainer, all r conducive to good.

 Szebasztián Sejer The wrong doers? You're kidding, right? RAPE or owning slaves are not wrongdoings in the Bible. Not believing in God however is unforgivable. That's all I have to say about this God's "justice"

 ME: Leave Bible and Quran aside for time being and now u tell me why do u call it rape when it is common practice among our ancestors, I mean among chimps? Where from ur morality is coming?

 Szebasztián Sejer It is wrong because it hurts people. Rape is doing something to another person that they don't want, without any good reason, that's why it is bad. We do not need a supernatural power to see why such a thing is wrong. If we allowed people to do whatever they want to each other, then communities could fall apart, and we wouldn't be as successful. Therefore, it is advantageous for us as a species if we set up rules like we shouldn't hurt each other.

ME:  I see u don’t need any super natural power to guide u cuz u think u r intelligent and can be rational. Ok let’s find out the biopsy report of your rationality and reasoning.

Starting from Max Weber. Ok before going to Max lets we see its psychological impact. Wot Ruth M.J. Byrne said on it? He said “Humans are rational in principle but they err in practice” or “their performance is limited by various factors”. (Byrne, R.M.J. & Johnson-Laird, P.N. (2009). 'If' and the problems of conditional reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences).

A.C. Grayling, “a good rationale must be independent of emotions, personal feelings or any kind of instincts.” But we know Cognitive science and neuroscience tells that no human has ever satisfied this criterion, except perhaps a person with no affective feelings, for example an individual with a massively damaged amygdala or severe psychopath. So in order to become fully rational you have to abandon your feelings. Lol how can you satisfy your wife without it? Can you go to bed with your rational approach?

Now let’s examine Max Weber’s Wert rational type of rationality. OMG!! He said rationality is religious and other motive oriented. His third type of rationality is feelings and emotion oriented and fourth one is human tradition oriented.

Richard Brandt suggested to make someone accurately rational he needs Psychotherapy? Hahaha he must be admitted in any mental hospital.

Szebasztián Sejer I don't see how that is related. I never said we abandoned are feelings. That's completely impossible, unless someone is a psychopath. I'm just saying when we want to find out if something is true or not, we must rely on objective evidence and logical reasoning. You claim a supernatural, inobservable entity created the universe. And not only that, but you specify it was the Christian God. That's a huge and massively extraordinary claim, and as such would require a lot of convincing evidence for me to believe it.

  ME:  “I'm just saying when we want to find out if something is true or not, we must rely on objective evidence and logical reasoning.” How can you be logically reasoned? You are erroneous. Things appear different from different scales of observers. That’s is why Charles Eugene Guye said, “It is the scale of observation which creates a phenomenon". There is one immense harmonious phenomenon on a scale which in general escapes man because of the structure of his brain, a structure that divides things into arbitrary compartments cutting them into their antithetical parts”. Cral Jung and Bergson admitted it.

When reason outgoes its own bounds it lands in ludicrous futility. Reason can at best take note of a vague intimation of the mysterious infinite; but for it to attempt to gauge the magnitude of infinite and to spell out its shape and size would be a fruitless adventure.
It is not by accident that German materialist Ernst Haeckel was constrained to admit the existence of “Nous” or spirit. Intuition led Russell at times to a faith in what he called ‘the very mysterious infinite. We are not the we wot we think about us.

According to uncertain principle none of we can see or observe anything accurately. 

Szebasztián Sejer So wait... What you are saying is no human is capable of logical reasoning, and that's the reason why we must rely on ancient books written in the iron-age by mostly illiterate people for guidance? Because if that's the case, this argument will not go anywhere productive...
First you establish ur logic before going to abuse anything.
 Negation must be replaced with logically well-balanced alternative. U r still hypothetical and still don't know the root cuz of energy. Even not yet clear about the hues and colours of singularity then why r u throwing stones at others when u r staying inside  glass house?
 It's not me saying it's the reality
You must know reason has its basis on intuition or instinctive faith. The laws of science like Causation, uniformity of nature are based on intuitive faith. Albert Einstein said about cosmology, “There is no logical path to see these laws; only intuition resting on sympathetic understanding of experience can reach them”.

Suppose we are confronted with a brown rectangle table, which appears to be smooth to touch and produces a sound when rapped with finger. Now as regards color, it may, and indeed, it does differ different at least in intensity to different persons according to the distance from the table and angle vision.

Even from the same point ,the color may be different to different people as per the amount of light is concerned, their retinas are consuming and the reflections even upon the health of thier retina and their neurotransmitters again it ll depend either they are seeing with naked eyes or through colored glass.Whatever it is, the table exists but the conception to believe about the table shall change. Thus, rationality varies.When rationality varies, it is lost in emptiness.

Similarly in the case of texture. The table, which appears smooth and even to the naked eye, will prove rough and uneven under microscope. From all these situations it is evident that the real table, if there is any, is not the same as we can immediately see. Thus, Russell asked two questions. Is there any such thing as a physical object: and if so, what is its nature?
Therefore those who like to depend on their senses are living in illusions. I shall refer to see the optical illusions. Bertrand Russell admits it illusory dream. Even Berkley, Leibnitz had assumed independent existence of external objects. The quantum mechanics is hypothetical idea and can be called as relativity.

 Szebasztián Sejer I'm not throwing stones at anyone. I'm explaining my position, that's it. For all I care, everyone can believe whatever they want to. One thing I will agree with you, there is no certain way to disprove the idea of a deity, I'm not arguing that, all I'm saying is that I think it is unnecessary to believe in one, because of the lack of evidence. I could dismiss all the scientific evidence in the world, and still wouldn't find a single reason to believe in the Bible, or any other religion. 

My only problem with these religions are the horrendous amounts of suffering they have been causing to people throughout our history by maintaining moral systems corrupted with sexism, racism, and homophobia.

 ME:  Common brother u still cud not understand me. There is not yet any scientific evidence tat God does not exist. Even there is no scientific evidence that universe is created from nothing. There is no scientific evidence that energy has a cusual affect. Darwinism is still a speculative formula. It is not sceince but some scientists interpretation of scientific probabilities. Can u say me for sure genetic mutation is not genitic distortion? Why are u stick with this earth go to the universe. Tell me the evidence of singularity.  Bro as I requested at first stop showing ur hatred about Bible or Quran. First eastablish your Godless universe with science and logic.
 Look u said raping or killing hurt the person do it is wrong. It says you have a aesthetic urge. You feel bad when some one is hurt. This is your altruism. This is humanity nos let’s see wot humanity is:: The word humanity has not come without any human intervention. This is a part of human language and therefore it has its own etymology. Read me carefully. Each and every human word has its own etymology. That’s why those words need to understand from that perspective. But if anyone wants to invent some newer dimension or new concept then he must be academically recognized wot we can say, he must present a thesis wot is to be well granted. Its same like any scientific innovation wot needs to be proved. Unless otherwise it is unethical.
Anyway, the meaning of humanity is sometimes conflicting and self-contradictory.


Well if we take humanity as a virtue then we have to know wot virtue is. Is humanity platonic form of virtue or Abrahimic? I have huge reason to think that u may profess on platonic form of virtue as humanity. Or ll u try to profess some different kind of virtue? 

Virtue is a positive trait as per Plato, he brought two major elements in the field of virtue. Prudence and wisdom as parts of cardinal virtue.
In wisdom one essential element is insightness. Without insightness wisdom is lame. Insight power largely depends on intuition and intuition is such a faculty in human mind wot comes without any interference. 

We cn can call it as eureka effect. This is solely a part of esoteric domain, it can neither be empirically verified or rationally justified .
Some people tried to define it as gut feelings but ironically embarked at truthiness, wot is nonsense and vicious to me. Oh yes prudence is mingled with Nicomachean Ethics… a try to synthesis between Aristotelian ethics and Christian theology, so religion is there too.

I have landed on intuition and none of the atheist so far managed to provide sufficient arguments to falsify my arguments on intuition. Wot is this? Were the homo sapiens full of intuition? They were homo machines descended from large apes and they had no intuition at all.

 Szebasztián Sejer
No, I completely understand what you are saying. You are saying there is no way to disprove God and I agree with that. But that is not enough reason to believe it, I have to see evidence, or else I could just as well believe in an invisible leprechaun as the creator of the universe, because there is no scientific evidence that it was not the case. 

You are talking about intuition and emotions and other things that we don't fully understand yet, but then again that's not a reason to believe they are not perfectly natural traits. Back in the days people used to believe lightning is the wraith of gods because of a lack of a better explenation but now we know the natural mechanism behind it.

I don't have to prove anything, I'm not making the extraordinary claim. To imply there is a supernatural realm is extraordinary because we haven't ever witnessed or accurately described such a thing, or anything to point in the direction that it exists.

What I'm claiming: We don't yet fully understand how the universe came into existence and how seemingly unexplainable phenomena like emotions and intuition evolved, but science is working on it. However, there is no evidence yet to point in the direction that the origin of all of this is something supernatural.

What you are claiming: The Christian God created the universe, morality, intuition, emotions, and everything else.

Therefore, the burden of proof lies on you.

Szebasztián Sejer We can debate evolution all day long, it's absolutely pointless to the question at hand.

Even if you managed to come up with compelling evidence that evolution was false, it wouldn't prove the supernatural, let alone the Christian God.

 ME: “You are talking about intuition and emotions and other things that we don't fully understand yet, but then again that's not a reason to believe they are not perfectly natural traits.”

If still, “we don't fully understand yet” then how can u say for sure, “that's not a reason to believe they are not perfectly natural traits.”? According to you still we cannot fully understand it then how u understand ,” they are not perfectly natural traits”? Is it not preoccupied faith?

You said, “We don't yet fully understand how the universe came into existence and how seemingly unexplainable phenomena like emotions and intuition evolved, but science is working on it. However, there is no evidence yet to point in the direction thatthe origin of all of this is something supernatural.”
When u r saying, “We don't yet fully understand how the universe came into existence” It means we still don’t have accurate evidences how universe came into existence.
But you are self contradicting yourself by saying, “there is no evidence yet to point in the direction that the origin of all of this is something supernatural.” Lol then how do u get evidence not “to point in the direction that the origin of all of this is something supernatural”?

Since yet we dont have evidences about the universe.

 Ok now for your future study I am posting the so called genetic mutation. If you can refute creationists then automatically your evidences ll refute the existence of God. You have to establish Human being is from bacteria through mutation.

Could not be included in main note so writing the rest in comment section.
 Sequence of DNA is like replicating. Recombination occurs during meiosis so I better say repairing is mutation. Just to be clear, I propose that mutations, which r changes in the sequence of DNA due to errors in replication or repair, cannot produce the information, I mean adding change necessary for Darwinian evolution.
Recombination is meant to be transcription and replication. So I shall stand on replication to void your recombination anyway. Wot I said above is macro-evolution but it can’t generate replicated full information thus mutation doesn’t mean cloning the same DNA. Then hw cn it be healthy evolution? It doesn’t match with the Darwin’s hypothetical tree of life.Absolutely so my above mentioned comment vilifies the nature of definition of mutation by the Darwinists. Migration or genetic drift or other natural selection formulas r verified as wrong becuz if we human’s to be the common ancestor of apes as the product of changed mechanism then the mutation must hv larger amount of information.All cells possess those enzymes, they attempt to minimize the number of mutations.
These pre-replicative enzymes are all formation of unusual structures and immature enzyme cn never carry any code of full information. Clear and out. I am not scarthing any thing those are much healthier than the average and u know tat , come to the point. I am stressing on information to say that without information a DNA is an empty faggot. DNA is DNA cuz it carries information to build a life. 
Why changing colour ll need additional information? There are the information within for its colour changing mechanism. I am talking about a new DNA to for a man from ape. Mutations to duplicate or inverse or delete cn never produce new information for macro-evolution. It cn be scrambling, not another high profiled new DNA. It is necessary for another DNA same as the previous one and this is not possible by distorted mutation. But why r u only taking about mutation? Their formula of mutation is backed up with insufficient information of evolution. Wot is the difference between deletion and mutation? Deleting some chromosomes and adding some other typo chromosomes are the life line of your evolution.
Definitely mutation plays a vital role in evolution. Regarding mutation you hv to come to one point. Shaping up totally a different thing like a snake into tiger, tis is impossible. This is your rubbish. If I do agree in evolution then I hv to say it occurs I mean evolution occurs by the change of genetic material. Genes are inherited. It is the segments of DNA and the information of the DNA can be changed by mutation. Thus is it possible to change the fin into legs not a tiger into a falcon? So it needs additional information not deleting or scrambling.
Darwin said all life descends from a common ancestor. This is crystal clear. But he did not or cud not say about genetic mutation cuz he was not aware of it. He was invested on natural selection that is fins are changed into legs. Ok cn u explain hw changes in allele frequencies cn change a fish into bear and hw mutation cn provide new unknown structure tat was not existed before?
 Not necessarily a new species ll be formed in the change of allele frequency. It cn even get changed as a cyclic response during the period of drought or due to crisis population. Like diabetics or blood pressure, therefore it is not mutation. So no way to convert microbes to man. I am talking about thrifty genotype.
Gene is composed of chromosomes and chromosomes are divided by DNA. So I shall go directly to the DNA. DNA carries the information and it passes generation to generation so if my DNA was from apes then I wud be an ape not a human being. On the other hand if mutation is to be considered then it cn at best can be said as distortion. If there is the same mutation of the DNA then it is carrying the same amount of information but if there is another replica of the original DNA then it can never carry the healthy information from a weak DNA.It cn be called as noise or entropy and entrophy in physics is from usefulness to uselessness. Noise can never give better sound but it decreases the sound then how the DNA of a Chimp started to give magnificent information tat formed human DNA?
Rasheed Hasan In order to gene transcription there must hv some other ingredients like guanine-cytosine base pairs,It also pairs with cytosine in other strand and tat other strand may be hydrogen bond and may contain a phosphate.

 Good luck my bro Szebasztián Sejer

 Szebasztián Sejer
I understand how gene translation and transcription works, I study medicine, I am fully aware of the nuances of it, and indeed it is a magnificent system.
The definition of a mutation is a change in the genetic composition that is going to be inherited. There are various types of mutations. Nucleotides can be changed, there can be mismatches between the two DNA strands, genes could get deleted, duplicated, or inserted into other positions. 

When a new mutation occurs, the consequences will vary, and they depend heavily on the effects. If the mutation is very drastic, it will most likely result in the death of the cell. 
Dawkins was stumbled at the question because most mutations don't result in information gain, but only information change. 

However, in the micro world, we can see plenty of other forms of information gain. For example, it is well known that bacteria can exchange genetic material between each other, and viruses can also integrate their genetic information into the hosts.
I'd have to be an evolutionary scientist to establish how exactly humans evolved from early bacteria.
I'm not saying I can disprove God. I'm not saying that with a hundred percent certainity there is no such thing as a god, or a creator. All I'm saying is there is no real reason to believe there is one. 

Again just because we don't understand something, doesn't mean it is supernatural. I fail to see how that argument is contradictory. 

Can you disprove that an invisible, immaterial leprechaun created a universe? No you can not. Then why don't you believe that? You don't believe that because there is no evidence whatsoever for this ridiculous claim. The only difference between me and you is that I view the possibility of the Christian God or any other god exactly the same way: There is no evidence, therefore it can be dismissed for the moment. 

 ME: The threat is for the wrong doers. God is not only merciful but he is also just. Without justice there is no peace.

Tom Fox Thank you for your insight brother but until your God can speak on his own behalf and not rely on his fallible human mouthpieces, then it's all hearsay
 ME:  Bro Tom Fox do u expect a God who is a matter and occupy a space? Whose voice shall be carried out by sound waves and ll strike at your eardrum? Light ll be reflected and ur retina ll catch the image of God? 
 Is it possible for a person like us to sustain the infinite ,above from time and space to watch? 
Tom Fox Do you think your God has restrictions? It's a simple request tell him to say hi or have an interview or take a picture. That's what's so frustrating brother you're a good man I can tell but these ideas are delusional until they manifest into something real for everyone to experience equally know what I mean
ME:  Good question. Now tell me did we see our mother when we was born? Or she gave birth?How do we know she is my mother cuz she said it and we believe her. How r we sure it was Shakespeare who wrote Othello? Cuz we have chain of references. God communicated with prophets and all of them were trustworthy. On the other hand do u logically can believe something is created without a creator? This is forensic science not empirical sceince
 J.B.S. Haldane said, If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true…. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. 

Science is a method of inquiry to discover cause and effect relationship. There are two types of causes:
 1. Intelligent ( person).
2. Non-intelligent ( natural Process).
There are two types of science. Empirical and Forensic.
 Empirical science studies present events.
 Forensic science studies the past like a crime scene. Empirical science deals how things work. Empirical science uses technology. Forensic science deals with where the universe comes from.  Empirical studies present how things operate. Forensic studies how things orginated. But atheist use empirical sceince to concluded forensic science. Science cannot explain;
1. Logical and Mathematical truths.
2. Metaphysical truthz (external world is real).
 3. Moral/ ethical trughd e.g. murder is wrong.
 4. Aesthetic truths ( beauty)
 5. Sceince itself.
Nobel laureate Atheist Astronomer Fred Hoyle said,” A commonsense interpretation of the factd suggest that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics,as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature “.
 Szebasztián Sejer
Well we can prove she is our mother now because we have genetic tests and in most cases, eye-witnesses, along with medical documentations. So unless it is a huge conspiracy to make us believe she is our mother, which is highly unlikely, we can establish that. And even if we conclude that something created this universe, we need more evidence to believe it was a Christian God, and not a god from some other mythology, or a god that humanity never even described. Religious books can not be regarded as evidence because they contradict each other, and many times, even themselves.
 ME:  I can understand ur logic. Still we have to live with trust. My wife loves me and not hanging around and she definitely conceived my kid . We cannot always stay on logic. You like a certain type of flower is beyond of your logical explanation. Beauty varies person to person .There is no logic. But believing God may hv deductive logic. That's why I asked can anything begin from nothing?

The burden for u to prove me wot is the root cuz of energy and matter? Wot was there in singularity? No no no hypothesis. Cuz u r absolutely denying God instead of saying may be God exits may be not.

In science the assumption is the basis for scientific innovation. It is considered in science as “ prior consideration.

For example in quantum physics there is an unseen article that is called ‘photon’. This photon is a phenomenon, which has no dimension and it, cannot charge. Its mess is zero means no mass. It has no property at all. Its has no moving mass to. The faith on this kind of phenomenon in the quantum physics is not strange. And fundamental. This photon faith has revolutionized in the field of Quantum Physics.

2. The ‘matter wave is another kind of faith and it is nothing but a mathematical artifice. Its cannot be determined by any tools or methods for observation. But to solve problems in nuclear and atomic physics the faith or believe on the matter wave is a must. Einstein spent his last 30 years to find out a “ Unified Field theory” that he believed to be exist. Ws Einstein blind as he believed on an unseen factor?

 ME :
Atheism believes the universe is self propelled, there is no external influence. Humanbieng evovled from bacteria..People are self governed. People in the course of time chalked out laws to get them civilised. Morality varies. Therefore there is no absolute morality, honesty depends on logical interpretation, love is biochemical infatuation.
 So the questions can be raised if morality varies then it says today what we judged as good and "should be" may change in the course of time. So according to their perception today it is judged wrong to sex with mother,sister, sex with animals. it is judged as bad eating human dead body as wrong tomorrow it may not be wrong. Today allowing others to sex with my wife is judged as wrong tomorrow it may change. Today mother loves her kid because she wants her next generation. Their love of kids r biological chemistry. It ll change in the course of time by genetic mutation. Killing a group of people is crime according to the law not because of destruction of humanity because humanity is hypothetical. There is no reason to restrict a mother or father to have sex with their kids because being this is common among their ancestors.
Happily allowing wife to have group sex is not wrong as long as both of them agree on this act. ….. So mother can be pregnanted by her son cuz morality is changeable. Their actions depend on what they like to do today by mutual agreement is right no matter who the person is. Love is logical materialism.Watching a dog dying and seeing a man dying has the same effect in human mind cuz both are from bacteria.

Well if after 30 years or so medical science can predict that the kid a woman is going to give birth ll be a serial killer by detecting his DNA then atheists ll not consider it as a crime to let the kid born and become a serial killer cuz they r favouring homosexuality as their inborn genetic formation.Under this circumstances Hope atheists are going to claim his kills are crime?
If we hv to admit atheism then we hv to think we are just molucular macines and we do not hv any free will we are just reacting according to the physics. Am I RIGHT?