I apologize for getting back to this so late. I also agree:
If few people care, then there's no use in having them toss a thought for the sake of it. Of course, there are those who care, but would rather listen, than speak.
That is also well and good.
My faith is based on both observation and logic... and hope. Dont believe that because I do believe in a Christian God that I do so whimsically. I did not always believe in God, I havent always believed in the Christian God.
The initial "problem" arose for me in trying to figure out the origin of everything. I have no doubt that the universe is expanding outward as that has been scientifically proven... but it must have started from somewhere. Along with this, in that instant the universe began an enourmous (to put it lightly) amount of matter came into existence. Some people tried to explain this away by saying that it just came into existence, some said that it came from another dimension... some said we really dont exist at all, etc. But nobody ever gave me a plausible explanation for its existence. The fact that I dont see this sort of thing every day (or in fact never) lead me to believe that what happened was supernatural. The reason that I have chosen to believe in God is because it is so much easier than believing one shaky event led to the next... and these shaky events have never been witnessed since. I have seen no more big bangs, the missing links of evolution are still missing, and so on. So the choice to me was rational.
So the missing links of evolution means that evolution didn't happen, or wasn't possible? Nothing before you leads you to believe, even with gaps, that evolution happens?
Or are you merely speaking of evolution in the sense of how the universe initially came into existence?
Regardless, as I said, I can understand how one can believe in a supernatural entity. Calling it "God," and pretending that you know what His will is, and taking faith that the Bible is the true word is a totally different case.
Logically, one can argue for the existence of a god. There is absolutely no manner, save faith, that one can argue for a Christian God.
If I were to believe in God, it wouldn't be "God," but rather a god.
We are both Egoists Dante, so let us view this from the aspect as if we were God. (btw, if there is no God, then we are in fact Gods, though merely Gods of Illusion and nothing else. Ask the ants.)
If I spent my time working hard to create a painting, a beautiful masterpiece at that, what would I do once it was completed? Would I hide it away where no eye would ever see it? Or would I showcase it to the world? You can be certain that I would do the latter.
If I were God I'd do the same. However, being that I dont see him/her/it jumping up and down on the dome of the Vatican yelling "Paaaaarty" I have to assume that he his priorities are slightly different.
I'm not certain how this supports your argument.
I'm glad we both agree that something cannot come from nothing, it at least gives us a foothold in our arguments.
I am not able to say whether consciosness is possible apart from existence. If the matter were as simple as being able to pull the answer from a physical aspect one would have to say no. However, if there is a God then there are qualities that seperate it from what we are. I cannot begin to guess or put limitations on what those could be. As to consciousness... do you mean was he able to interact with other things besides himself, or do you mean was he able to think. If a God did indeed create the Universe then we would have to give him at least some small measure of intelligence, it is a daunting task. Look at us, we think and yet we are still trying to understand it.
Anyways, I will agree that existence has always existed. To what degree I could speculate on but no more.
Essentially, your argument gets down to this:
God exists, but an explanation for His being lies outside the confines of human comprehension. That would be fine and dandy, if one merely avered, "I believe in a god."
It is quite different when one uses that argument based on faith (and it does fall down on faith alone), when stating this god to be the God of the Christians (or whatever religion).
If so is the case, how could you argue against someone who stated that the God (or gods), of their religion were the only true ones----especially if you both started from the premise that something cannot come from nothing.
If it is subjective though then why do I have to have the desire to promote society or better anybody. What if I have no other desire than to spend my life designing a weapon capable of destroying the earth becaue I want to end humanity? If I allow society to dictate my ethical context then I would be a Britney Spears clone, and truthfully would rather be incinerated by an earth destroying weapon.
We have both agreed though that society does not dictate ethics though. If society does not dictate the ethics though then we must choose an alternative:
Is it Hedonism (yo NT! )... sensual gratification should be the goal of all actions.
or
Egoism - Pretty much rational hedonism. Self interest propels all goals.
or
Utilitarianism - Do only what is best/right for the greatest number of people.
or
Situationism - The most loving thing should be the goal of all actions.
What I am merely asking is - Whose result are we trying to achieve?
Yes, it cannot be society that dictates anything, as "society" is merely a social construct, and nothing more than a conglomeration of individuals. "Society" does not breath on its own.
It boils down to self-preservation. You may believe it is in your best interest to destroy the world, whereas most will not.
Most will act to preserve their life. The question is, what type of life are they trying to preserve, and at whose expense.
Ultimately, laws and ethics were created with self-preservation in mind. That leads us to ask:
What type of life, or structure of living, will allow me to get the most out of my existence. If one says "stealing and raping," then they have to know that a society that lived by those rules would also place that person in harm, as well.
Dog eat dog, literally. If someone stole for a living, and everyone else did as well, what would there be to steal when there was no longer and incentive to produce.
Thus, there is a rational way for people to live, and to progress. Over a period of time, people unite (forming a "society"), that wishes to live by these rules. As I stated with my example of Communism, if people wish to achieve a certain end through illegitimate means (meaning that cannot properly achieve their ends), it is immoral.
If the law of self-preservation is tossed to the side so that "society" dictates what you can and can't do, divorced from logic, you have every right to live as you please, doing whatever it takes to remove yourself from their persuasion.
But that again leads us to question: What is one trying to preserve, and is their idea of how a life should be lived, logical, or not.
How would you answer a man who said, "My preservation depends entirely on being able to take what I want, by force. How am I wrong?"
But why should people follow society? If we are all going to die anyways, and if there is no afterlife, what does anyone care about making things better for people to come? They are just cattle mooing as they graze upon the fields of life. Without any redeeming value.
What if I am in a gang here in the US, and our goal is to rape and pillage as often as we can. The gang is my society, even more so than being a US citizen is (no, not really in a gang. Homie, haha. Er, my bad, back to the discussion). What if someone doesnt want to be a part of society anymore and follow its rules and regulations? We lock them up preferably. However, where do these virtual borders end? Are they ascertained by land? Are they decided by power and who can enforce them? Ethnic group?
To me it leaves too much to chance, if ethics are based simply on utilitarianism then there really isnt any common ground for people to accept a certain set of ethics anyhow. Because by and large we are self motivated creatures.
That reminds me of a conversation my friends and I were having once... just kinda relaxing and I was just listening for the most part. One of the guys says "I think that everything is acceptable in sex, as long as it doesnt hurt the other person." To which another responded "Why should I stop there though, I want to give some pain with it." And thats it really. If you ask any two people out there what is right and wrong, they are going to have two different opinions. Everyone on earth does. So to say that we should do right for society is to say that we should do what is right in our own eyes. Which is basically whatever pleases us.
Which is what any humanism based ethics break down to. Do what is right in your own eyes.
Your example of your friend, and sex, is miserable. "Do what is right," then tell me, a person who believes that a person in a sexual relationship can do whatever the person, with consent, asks for----isn't that quite different from someone who says, "I'll do whatever the hell I want, regardless."
What if the other person is into S&M. Where can one rationally draw the line. I have an idea, but I'll see where the argument takes me.
Getting back to what I said earlier, if we wished to live like that, then we'd also have to understand that not only will we be asserting our will upon others, regardless, but others will do the same to us.
I'm sure your friend wouldn't appreciate it if another man raped him.
Think about self-preservation again, and how we live today is so far removed from how we lived in the past (setting aside the obvious problems with our current state of society).
Would it be possible for the majority of us to live a relative life of luxury (compared to thousands, if not hundreds of years ago), if we just did whatever the hell we wanted.
At some point in time, we recognized that our will to live, our will to self-preservation, coincided with that of others.
Then the question is, again: What were they seeking to preserve, and how.
Estentially all we are anyway is a bundle of cells strewn together in a solid fashion. When you consider that all of our bodies are mostly space anyway and that if our atoms simply sped up we would literally fall apart it kind of makes you wonder. I don't believe it is exclusively a physical thing either, but the concepts of a metaphysical world are very hard to grasp.
Makes you wonder what.
Intelligent design? That assumes, then, that without a conscious order (from a deity), there would be chaos.
If existence always existed, in whatever form, then it had property/identity, as did whatever objects it contained.
The statement that somebody can be both right and wrong is a violation of the law of non-contradiction. I'll go more into that later... but for instance: Three people are sitting in a car and two of them are arguing about a song that just played on the radio. One says - "That was 4X4 by Metallica" the other says "Noo, that was You Rascal You by Louis A.". After they are arguing a bit, the third person chimes in "Will you too shut up, you're both right." So, are they both right? But how can you subjectively determine that right/wrong is subjective in one situation but objective in the other.
By the way, that didnt actually take place... just figured there was enough of a difference between the two to make it seem preposterous.
So if I am Chinese, or Austrlian or something (Haha, couldnt resist), would the fact that I am from a different culture change the fact that the songs name is 4x4 or You Rascal You? Hrmm... I wouldnt think not.
Then how do you know what is right or wrong. What do you rely on in order to determine this.
Don't say, "logic," as then I'll ask, "and what is logic,"
And there you hit the nail on the head Pony... is it God or man that determines our ethics? Are we just a bundle of cells? If so, then we can have no value but that which is unto ourselves and must accept reletavism.
However, one who bases their actions on reletavism often desires those around them to treat them objectively. Its funny like that
That is indeed funny. "Everything is relative, there is no right and wrong." However, you will never find a man who truly lives as though he doesn't have opinions, that are in his mind a truth.
But God versus man is a false presentation of choices. If it was God, you're left with, "because he said so."
If it's man, you are again left with "because they said so." If we're just a bundle of cells, there's no point in even debating any of this.
Are there objective human properties, and desires, that lead us to recognize that there is a right and wrong way to pursue our will of self-preservation?
Of these desires, can some be considered rational, or irrational? If so, then how. If not, then why.
Something to think about, and again I apologize for being late.
Take care.
)... sensual gratification should be the goal of all actions.
all these looonngg posts and all 
