Read his hilarious essay, "Confessions of a Computer Hater", which contains this delicious line: "My name is Peter and the Hell of Gates will not prevail against me.”)

Thank you for the link, Brandon. I actually have very little sympathy for technophobes, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading that.

I think that the worst flaw of this article isn't those considerations left outside of it as you said. But Kreeft not being able to reply you here, since he is an scholar on these matters. Kreeft wasn't defining Conscience as "concrete entity" as you mean, but «intellect applied to morality» as Kreeft said, and I add «The meaning of conscience in the argument is knowledge and not just a feeling; but it is intuitive knowledge rather than rational or
analytical knowledge, and it is first of all the knowledge that I must always do right and never wrong, the knowledge of my absolute obligation to goodness, all goodness: justice and charity and virtue and holiness; only in the second place is it the knowledge of which things are right and which things are wrong. This second-place knowledge is a knowledge of moral facts, while the first-place knowledge is a knowledge of my personal moral obligation,» It's in the article. We may tend to say that Conscience is anything but «intellect applied to morality», it will be wrong and counterintuitive to say that conscience is actually «the instinct's for group survival» (left outside the fact that we have moral obligations to ourselves) or a «extremely fuzzy set of mental phenomena».

The bible fully accepts that slavery will be practiced. Scorched earth policies of war were not only approved but glorified.

Please compare what right had an slave according to the Old Testament in comparison with the surrounding cultures at that time. You see that that word don't mean what we might think at first, as the slavery of two or three centuries ago. "Scorched earth policies" according to your understanding of scripture or according to the interpretation of a trained Theologian or even from the Interpretation of the Catholic Church? I'll recommend to you Paul Copan's book

Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God to read, so both can have some understanding of these dense sections of Old Testament scripture.

We don't need anything to have a conscience. It can be all human nature and culture.

That is circle reasoning. You try to explain some specific aspect of the human nature using the very human nature to explain it (or culture, which is just a group of individuals having what we mean to explain in first place). I cannot even explain why @disqus_HOKynBthUD:disqus and @disqus_xYWVllyPLU:disqus up voted you without noticing what you did there in first place. (or may I miss reading you (because language barriers), and you mean that Conscience can be the combination of human nature and culture, which I'll disagree with anyway)

We've come a long way, and religious organizations haven't always been at the helm. In fact they have opposed more often than they have supported moral
progress (this is not to diminish the very real contributions of some religious folk and organizations).

Well, just to reinforce some aspects of your point and taking out the everlasting Catholicisms out of that fuzzy group of "religious organizations" I'll say to words: RERUM NOVARUM

Ah yes. The stage is much too big for the drama. And for the limited idea of god that most people hold; a god that thinks just like them.

I will call your response an example of the argument from incredulity and move on, and this mostly because you have just accused me of not discussing the issue honestly, of "trying to confuse the jury." If you cannot participate in a discussion with me where you don't explain away my response by imagining my motives or what I really mean, then really there is no point in continuing further.
Good day.

Just following up with this image if you want something awe
inspiring

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Ultra-Deep_Field

You should really download the big one from the NASA site and view it on a computer but what you see is approximately 10,000 galaxies (not stars! Each galaxy has approximately 100,000,000,000 stars on average. The visible universe has also roughly 100,000,000,000 galaxies making a grand total of around 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. Strangely our brain also has roughly 100,000,000,000 neurones if you like cosmic coincidences.

So to plagiarise Feynman again why ? Why do you need that many stars to run a morality play on earth ? Surely you need only two. The sun and the star of Bethlehem ? What is the point of all the stars we can't see in the non-visible part of the universe.

Like I said the other two times "no". Usually it makes me think: "Anyone who thinks this has something to do with a god interested in humans has no idea of how vast the universe is" or as Feynman said

“It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions, and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil - which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama.”

Speaking as someone who has mild OCD and anxiety I've learnt not to place too much trust in my "feelings". It turns out regularly for example that my overwhelming feeling that I have to go back and check that the door is locked is wrong.

Hi Michael,
I guess i'm not trying to prove everything about God by looking at a beautiful scene in nature, just that the beautiful scene convey's something of the divine. explaining it away as why it looks a certain way, can only serve as a distraction from what it speaks to your soul (if you have one, and naturally i believe you do just as much as i have one). if you view the stars at night for example, doesn't that convey something to you? does not not move you to ponder something?