david f – don’t you see how moral relativism (your position) gets you tied in knots? I have also read a book about Jägerstätter – I don’t recall if it is the same one you mention – so I am familiar with his life story. It seems your position leaves you saying that for doing the same actions he was both an immoral and moral person simultaneously – immoral in the eyes of the majority of Germans and moral in your eyes. Presumably though you think that you are right and the Nazis were wrong – but why would that be so? Or do you think that both you and the Nazis are both right? Does that make any sense?

By the same reasoning, Hitler genuinely was both a “good” man and a “bad” man for the exact same things he did. It seems to me that “moral”, “immoral”, “good”, and “bad” lose all meaning at this point.

You note that different societies choose different moral values, eg, some societies allow the majority to enslave a minority. Does another society which rejects slavery have any right, in your thinking, to criticise those societies that allow it? If so, why? After all that is what the majority in that society want.

You say, “I have not decided between free will and determinism”. As I noted earlier, by saying that you think you can make decisions, you are saying you already believe in free will. If determinism is true we make no decisions.

You say that you have seen no reliable evidence for the existence of God. As I have said to another person on this thread, we really have only two options: either this incredible universe including the world and humanity came into existence by chance or it was deliberately made by someone; either there is meaningful objective morality or meaningless relativism; either we are free agents or we are deterministic robots; either our lives are ultimately meaningless and valueless or they have meaning and value. In the end I believe God is a better explanation than lifeless, unconscious chance.

Thanks David,

I posted that last night, when I returned from a "night out" with friends, it was somewhat intemperate of me, but no excuse. Therefore I will retract what is inappropriate comment towards Josephus.

p/s A good night out it was indeed, much singing and dancing, and a little drinking as well.

Dear All,

I feel we mostly just restate our opinions and don’t examine ourselves and our motives. Paul1405 is one of the rare persons who have done so.

I feel the workings of nature are wondrous, and that wonder doesn’t need the intervention of a deity. The workings of nature are not mere chance. They follow scientific principles. Darwin said it well.

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

In the above Darwin doesn’t make a judgment on the original forms of life. Others have done so.

https://www.science.org.au/curious/space-time/origins-life-earth

Science has discovered what seem to be the earliest traces of life on earth. We cannot reproduce the conditions in which those forms appeared. I feel they proceeded from natural causes. Others may feel they are due to the work of a God. Take your choice.

Josephus,

Article 36 of the Chinese constitution says that citizens “enjoy freedom of religious belief.” It bans discrimination based on religion and forbids state organs, public organisations, or individuals from compelling citizens to believe in—or not believe in—any particular faith. China's five officially sanctioned religious organisations are the Buddhist Association of China, Chinese Taoist Association, Islamic Association of China, Three-Self Patriotic Movement and Catholic Patriotic Association. It surprises me that religion practice is tolerated in China, but it is. In 2018, the Chinese government declared that there are over 44 million Christians in China. More Christians in China than in Australia.

North Korea is another john dory, I don't know much about that state, none of us do.

When someone describes something to us, their description usually compares the unknown with something we do know.
They use analogies to describe size, colour, weight, use, and so on.
An explanation also usually follows logical steps, leading to a conclusion.
So understanding descriptions relies on us knowing about a lot of stuff already.

Were we to pluck a person out of a crowd from 100,000 years ago, and were somehow able to communicate with him, we might find it hard to describe to him the use and functions of a modern mobile phone.
In our turn, if we don't have a framework of ideas to which we can relate descriptions, we might be hard pressed to follow a new line of thinking.
Difficulty absorbing a new idea does not mean we not intelligent.
It means we have not yet developed a suitable 'mental framework' to support that understanding.

If I say to you that matter didn't come from anywhere because it was always here, is that hard to accept?
If I say to you that matter doesn't fill space, it creates space?
That where there is matter there is space, otherwise there is nothing at all, not even unused 'space'.
That zero is a mathematical quantity only, and in reality doesn't exist?
That one over zero (infinity), whilst infinitely great, is thus also limited?

Those ideas are not some new revolutionary theory.
They are merely ideas which I am using to demonstrate that new concepts are not always easy to grasp.
I am sorry if I haven't expressed this all very well.
I do admire those who can think ahead, break new ground, develop new ideas, and do so without a clear path to follow.

david f – you say, “The workings of nature are not mere chance”. As far as evolution goes it does rely on chance, or at least there is no intentionality in what happens. The key element of evolutionary change is mutation. Offspring can vary slightly from the parent because mutations occur in the genes.

When mutations occur they do not do so with any intention or plan to cause a creature to evolve into something different. They just simply happen, with the vast majority of mutations being either neutral or detrimental in their effect.

“Nature” is not a force and neither is it trying to achieve anything, be that change or even survival. If atheism is true then the living world with its incredible beauty and complexity, along with the humans who have consciousness, intelligence, language and culture are just fantastic flukes that just happened to arise from mindless physical laws.

As you say, take your choice. (Again I would point out that we can only make choices if we have free will and free will is incompatible with atheism.)

Yuyutsu – the best I can make of what you are saying is that you believe that God is everything/ everything is God. Is that right?
If so, then it would seem to follow that God is both the rapist and the person being raped. That God is both evil and good.

I have probably misunderstood you but you seem to write in riddles. Is it possible for you to set out a simple, clear outline of your beliefs?