I'm positive there is no meaning in meaninglessness.

I do, in all sincerity, believe that the universe operates mechanically. Forever bound by its intrinsic laws of physics,

It has no meaning. Nothing has meaning, other than to exist

The laws of physics are rules by which all constituents follow, and fulfill.

That is a question I cannot answer. By all means, humanity has pondered this question for a long time. Anything that brought this universe into being must have itself come from somewhere foreign.

And where did thought and will originate from?

And from which foreign place did it come from?

And where did God come from?

So everything has always existed. I concur with that statement

I concur with this statement as well.

We have very different ideas of the universe, I presume. From origin, I do not believe that the universe came from somewhere, but that it has existed. I also do not believe that something could have created it, as the universe has no beginning.

It is contradictory.

Exactly. Hence, nothing could create it

Then how, I ask, could God have brought it into existence?

I was not active yesterday.

Is God conscious?

Is he conscience in the way that humans are aware of our surroundings, or conscience in the way that he draws the universes and powers the physics behind our world?

*billions

A book based on human's interpretation of God.

Precisely.

You concur to what exactly?

Our method of thinking is grounded on Earth. Our human minds are, indeed, limited to what they can do, and understand. But what we do understand and what the universe is and what we believe are fundamentally different. No matter how much you wish to believe something, it may not concur with your beliefs. I reject the notion of a God, based on my interpretation of the laws of physics as the mechanisms that drive the universe. Nothing could have come before the universe, not time or any foreign being.

I like the idea that the Universe is God. I've had a similar idea before, until I abandoned the notion of God altogether.

I think that predestination and free will are incompatible together.

I like that idea. But free will does not exist on its own. Something has to determine what gives us the mentality and comprehension of free will. Hormones, chemical receptors, etc. They are constituents and components that determine the activity in your brain and what your brain does. That is not free will to me if I do not choose what my brain does.

I want to be authority.

I believe that a democracy is a slow government. And without proper education, it should not be employed to common people. Although, I do not like the idea of an oligarchy or aristocracy.

Pure, raw authority. Not limited authority, or delegated authority, but authority. Authority of Government.

Based?

How so?

Unless it was delegated. Then it could easily be stripped away by a superior.

I disagree. Using force is an effective and simple method to surpass your contemporaries.

Also, murder, assassination, incarceration, etc

I agree that we are equal in the common sense that we are human.

What doesn't?

I claim that force is justified because I want to use it to achieve my goals. It is, again, a simple and effective method to command others. Tell me why force over others isn't justified.

Precisely.

I have an ego, yes. But I do not see how that ties into wanting to do things my way.

I see myself as separate from my contemporaries, but that isn't the reason why I want to achieve my goals. Now tell me then, why is force not justified?

Passive action isn't the only method to get your way. Manipulation is another that doesn't require force.

It could certainly use it to advance its agenda, but it isn't a necessity.

I'm not naïve to this. But I'm saying that manipulation is passive in the sense that it doesn't require physical force to apply itself.

Manipulation doesn't just cover the morally questionable methods. Getting others to support a charity to get orphans a home by showing sad pictures is a form of manipulation.

I would put forth the argument that religion is a form of manipulation.

Using communicative methods in order to achieve an underlying goal is manipulation

*an underlying goal*

Not the presented goal.

You can choose to refuse it and feel bad later because those poor, poor children did not receive help from you.

What an evil monster you are for not donating.

That is subtle and implied, not presented.

In honesty, I do not believe that I deserve ruling. I would abuse and confer it the moment I attained it. It is purely a selfish goal with no purpose other than to fulfil the goal. That is all I can confess. I want to gain and use power.

Anyway, people's opinions are certainly a force. A crowd against a man, who will win in convincing the other or beating the other into a pulp if he does not submit?

Individual discovery? I like that idea.

I do not concur or like where this is heading.

That explains a lot.

Morally, yes.

But morality is a social construct.

Morality is subjective. I do not believe that morality is ingrained or instituted naturally.

Natural law is not moral, it completely disregards it.

Anything that you do today will be forgotten eventually.

We are biologically animals.

I concur.

We could pour gold down your throat.

That should be satisfactory.

Not particularly. And, no.

I haven't.

From what I gathered it will not be pleasant to look at, so I will not.

Ah, I thought you meant natural law as in survival of the fittest.

I still believe that morality is subjective. Natural law is objective based on human behaviors.

Morals can be interpreted in different ways based on one person's beliefs, but natural law is the general moral behaviorism of all humans.

That is a subjective observance.

Observation of human behavior is objective, but the method of interpretation of observation of nature and how nature functions and what drives it is subjective. It is a subjective logic.

There is such a thing as 'my logic' and 'your logic'. This is subjective logic. There is also an objective logic that is universal in truth, based on science.

(and mathematics)

Of course.

I'm saying that moral law is subjective because it ties into the idea that there is a God. It ties into the idea that moral law is ingrained into humans, which I disagree with. That is not objective. I'm not trying to evade your point.

It is a *perceived* law of the universe. It is not inherently objective because people believe it is a universal law.

How can it be proven, in a logical fashion that follows science or mathematics, that it is objective?

Adios

I do believe that morality is a socially influenced thing that is created by humanity.

Those are societal norms and morals. Whether they are frowned upon is based on what culture you were born in, and you are likely to believe what society indoctrinates you with.

Brah

No human would?

Polygamy isn't acceptable?

Not where you are born. In other places it's possible.

Whether it is right is based on what culture you grew up in. 'Right' and 'Wrong' are socially implicated and implemented.

What is right is a facet of what you and your contemporaries believe is right.

Some people say that homosexuality or sodomy is immoral and wrong, and other's don't.

It's true for all things we find acceptable.

Possibly isn't a decisive answer.

No, a right or wrong is not universal. Polygamy isn't right in some cultures, because of the sanctity of devotion to a single person. A 'universal truth' is one based on one's own individual sense of right or wrong. And then these get influenced by the group's right or wrong, and so on. Then people argue and fight and kill over their rights and wrongs, because they must be right at all costs. There is no other right than theirs.

You certainly don't want what?

Others would kill you or imprison you to get their points across.

Neither am I, but the world isn't due to being what you are a fan of.

Some humans are plain stupid, and violent. They care not for your concessions, only theirs.

Morality is subjective.

It is something not objectively observable.

It would have been done due to what their culture wanted.

Feral in the animalistic sense?

That is immoral to me.