Its long, you may not want to read all. But answer whatever you want.
That is a mere assertion. You have stated that with no evidence based only on a disbelief that the opposite can be true.
(1) well, its actually a law in science, I have heard it used before called the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It states something very similar to the statement you were claiming was an assertion.
So I wasn't just assuming it, there is proper scientific evidence for it.
(2) There is either God or chance (e.g. a multiverse). The only two explanations.
Some opt for the latter. Others, like myself opt for the first - because of (1)
You probably very familiar (hopefuly you are) with the fine tuning of the universe and the arguments that go for both sides.
Another jump in logic. Why does a beginning to space in time imply any of that?
Well then explain with evidence, how something can come out of nothing in off itself?
But it is a beginning.
Who says there is an absolute morality? Morality IS subjective. Morality is defined BY people. Morality has always been extremely malleable, and is constantly changing with time. Even murder is acceptable in times of war[1]. Morality concerning monogamous sex is historically not even the norm outside christendom. The overarching moral concept of 'do unto others ... blah blah' is merely an evolutionary construct[2]designed to protect the individual by protecting the group, and vice versa.
Even if a god had created us, why would it demand our absolute subservience unless it was some kind of petty control freak? If ever I was to discover there was a god (and I won't) I would say 'that is an interesting piece of trivia, now excuse me while I get on with life'.
If morality is subjective, why does society as whole (corporately) think that murder is wrong?
If it is purely subjective, then the means of administrating justice and law, becoming meaningless or even questionable? If I can justify why I am doing is right, by my own definition. There needs to be a standard. Why can people even agree on a standard of morality?
Why were there so many protests against starting wars? Why should we stand up for the unprivileged if the only reason is to benefit ourselves?
[1] What justifies one side for example in war being better than the other, particular if in bold, murder is acceptable.
(what you really need to say if that if 'I murder less people, am I better than that person over there?' - the answer is no in case you were wondering).
Under what circumstances would you justify the murder of another human being?
If you value your life, you would surely values others.
[2] If absolute morality did not exist, then how would justify yourself as being right'er than anyone else. How does then subjective standards become comparable, based on the majority, but what if the majority is bent on doing wrong, while a few are not? What about the people being persecuted, their persecutors obviously think it is okay, we obviously think it is okay because we don't speak against injustice.
Really the reason to do good then can become reduced to 'selfish reasons' to protect YOURSELF rather than to protect OTHERS, even if harms you.
The reality is there is a god* But what is that god*? (*I am questioning whether 'g' is appropriate here)
For some people, it is money.
For other people, it is scientific reason
For others still it is chance.
Yet still for others, its God, a being that is way beyond ourselves, and that is outside of time and space and yet created time and space. Some who believe that his being is the one who determines what is right and wrong.
Even still others, who know only believe (the line above) but also believe that this God came down and interact with his creation, to experience the sufferings they were going through, to die (and then only to rise again), to restore the broken relationship with God and man (because of man's arrogance and rejection of God).
Lets consider a controversial example: abortion.
Scientifically, at what point is a baby considered an individual, is it
(A) When conception, when in the womb. Then it is a human life, and the "evolutionary construct" would not be to kill the baby, since murder is wrong, and you value life (I hope you do)
(B) When exit the womb. Then it is DEPENDENT on the mother, and your overaching moral of 'do unto others ... concept applies. Therefore you would not kill the baby.
(But who exactly said that? 'Do unto others...' - thats rhetorical)
Second example: what makes your life more valuable than anyone elses? What right then do you have to end anyone else's
If there was no standard by which to judge morality, then how to pursue justice?
Who then is right in a court of law if someone is being accused. Do then say, I had good motives? Sometimes, you can't prove that.
No of course not, if someone does something wrong, then justice is needed.
Now how is justice served, if the world/universe is subject to chance? What reason then is to have hope in humanity, we all live and we all die. We don't benefit the labours of our works, and we have no assurance that those who are still here when we die, will even appreciate our labour.
What about the futility of so many things? We just worked up over many little things e.g. someone cut us off when driving etc.
Or the fact that really your schooling for an ATAR, people don't bother remembering what ATAR they got 10 years down the track. What about the fact, that people indulge, binge etc.? They are not satisfied with the world that is there.
What about people who are grieving and suffering? Their pain will never die out. Is the purpose of life, just to live and die, to experience pain?
I am telling you that life would suck if the only reason we are living is to work the sweat of our brow and then die?
Thirdly, if morality was subjective, then who is right and who is wrong. Truth is certainly not subjective. How do what therefore that was is true is good, and was is false is wrong (in the moral sense)?
I could presuppose that I am always right (which is not true), and that I never do an immoral thing, but when someone else looks at your life, they would think I am a liar.
4. If morality is subjective, then why do people talk about the "greater good of society? or "make the world a better place?". If morality is subjective, then even the idea to advance the human race, benefit the species becomes subjective.
5. Why are we so forgetful of the past? We say the worlds becoming a better place, but is it really. Natural disasters and suffering are pretty objective proof that this life sucks, if the world is really becoming a better place, why have we not fulfilled our goals to halve poverty by 2015? Why do people live in such suffering and poverty, and everyone
just continues on with their lives? Why ironically are they (the poor) seem happier than us, who have every reason to be happy?
----
Quotations are attributed to a wise man, a teacher, who was also very wealthy and had the most glorious life. (His name is Solomon in case you were wondering)
“Meaningless! Meaningless!”
says the Teacher.
“Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.”
"What do people gain from all their labors
at which they toil under the sun?
Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever."
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there anything of which one can say,
“Look! This is something new”?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time...
No one remembers the former generations,
and even those yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow them...
I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind"
[2]
"I said to myself, “Come now, I will test you with pleasure to find out what is good.” But that also proved to be meaningless. “Laughter,” I said, “is madness. And what does pleasure accomplish?” I tried cheering myself with wine, and embracing folly—my mind still guiding me with wisdom. I wanted to see what was good for people to do under the heavens during the few days of their lives...
I undertook great projects: I built houses for myself and planted vineyards. I made gardens and parks and planted all kinds of fruit trees in them. I made reservoirs to water groves of flourishing trees. I bought male and female slaves and had other slaves who were born in my house. I also owned more herds and flocks than anyone in Jerusalem before me. I amassed silver and gold for myself, and the treasure of kings and provinces. I acquired male and female singers, and a harem as well—the delights of a man’s heart. I became greater by far than anyone in Jerusalem before me. In all this my wisdom stayed with me...
I denied myself nothing my eyes desired;
I refused my heart no pleasure.
My heart took delight in all my labor,
and this was the reward for all my toil...
Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done
and what I had toiled to achieve,
everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind;
nothing was gained under the sun."
[3]
"Then I turned my thoughts to consider wisdom,
and also madness and folly.
What more can the king’s successor do
than what has already been done?
I saw that wisdom is better than folly,
just as light is better than darkness.
The wise have eyes in their heads,
while the fool walks in the darkness;
but I came to realize
that the same fate overtakes them both."
[4]
"So I hated life, because the work that is done under the sun was grievous to me. All of it is meaningless, a chasing after the wind. I hated all the things I had toiled for under the sun, because I must leave them to the one who comes after me. And who knows whether that person will be wise or foolish? Yet they will have control over all the fruit of my toil into which I have poured my effort and skill under the sun. This too is meaningless. So my heart began to despair over all my toilsome labor under the sun. For a person may labor with wisdom, knowledge and skill, and then they must leave all they own to another who has not toiled for it. This too is meaningless and a great misfortune. What do people get for all the toil and anxious striving with which they labor under the sun? All their days their work is grief and pain; even at night their minds do not rest. This too is meaningless."
[5]
" Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return."
[6]
" Whoever loves money never has enough;
whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with their income.
This too is meaningless.
As goods increase,
so do those who consume them.
And what benefit are they to the owners
except to feast their eyes on them?
The sleep of a laborer is sweet,
whether they eat little or much,
but as for the rich, their abundance
permits them no sleep.
I have seen a grievous evil under the sun:
wealth hoarded to the harm of its owners,
or wealth lost through some misfortune,
so that when they have children
there is nothing left for them to inherit.
Everyone comes naked from their mother’s womb,
and as everyone comes, so they depart.
They take nothing from their toil
that they can carry in their hands.
This too is a grievous evil:
As everyone comes, so they depart,
and what do they gain,
since they toil for the wind?
All their days they eat in darkness,
with great frustration, affliction and anger."
I will leave it there with the quotes
But two last thing, why should it matter if God exist, it doesn't mean you are going to approve of his existence, let alone listen to him, if he spoke to you (through a written record of his words)?
And finally just a slightly random question from your subjectivity, what determines whether sometime is objective? Is truth subjective?
