Forgive me for saying this but nothing you have said makes any sense.
Some morality is ambiguous, others are not.
For example, would a female woman, who owned a farm, which was a habitat for animals, her farm was sustainable and benefited the rainforest, in her farm she gave clean energy from her windmill, and in her spare time, gave away free food to homeless people, and she gave blow jobs to the blind and sex starved people, and she only gave the meat of animals that died of old age or natural causes…how would putting her out of business and shutting down her farm be moral?
morality is a spectrum, some people are 90 percent moral, other people are not. But you cannot nihilize morality and say it doesnt exist. You take the ideal and try to accomplish as many objectives as you can, that’s striving for morality. Noone is 100 percent moral though, some people fail at certain objectives, or are unconscious or averse to the objectives, and we call these bad people.
That’s impossible. Probably you do not know what you have said.
So, james is turtle’s alt account, or are u just calling him a turtle.
Yano, that might be the first time in my life anyone has accused me of “NOT putting too much thought” into something. 
Well hell, I’ve been accused of everything else. 
I dont really think that it requires knowing everything to prove God. But one thing that you DO have to know is the definition of the word “God”. And if there are many, then each one has to have its own proof for those using that definition.
It is not possible to prove or disprove God. That is why he was “created” by humans (or did he “create” the humans?). 
God was defined by humans, not “created by”. The social god types who demand absolute authority over all things, the Godwannabes, constantly attempt to create themselves into God. With technology, they are really excited about how supreme they are and how much more they will become (even so as to now cherish the word “becoming”). That is why they will not change their course - too much PHT blinding them.
I’m afraid it’s all too possible. I can understand your reluctance to accept that you’ve written a load of rambling nonsense but denial isn’t going to help. Maybe you could try thinking before you put down the words, some people find this a very useful strategy. Good luck with your next attempt.
Well, I understood him. So it can’t be all that bad.
All that proves is that it’s not only great minds that think alike.
I have put the word “created” in quotation marks, because I have meant “defined”, yes. We both have had many conversations about that without any misunderstanding.
How about showing us the “greatness” of your mind then? It’s easy to say that something is nonsense, but so far you didn’t provide a single constructive contribution to the subject.
Are you implying that I couldn’t?
What it proves is that when great minds understand each other, they don’t really care what you think.
Or any topic as far as I can tell.
What puzzles me is why you took any notice of me in the first place.
Oh no, I’m sure your time merely hasn’t come yet,… I’m looking forward to the forthcoming event.
Yes, Harbal did not provide a single constructive contribution but a lot of nonsense. He is just a peckish troll.
The question is … why you haven’t.
OK but I’m warning you, when my time does come you’ll be disappointed.