Hey Larry,

Thanks a lot for your time again. Of course I would be interested in your story- you seem to be including a lot of emotive attacks on religious people and making a lot of assumptions and stereotypes about me which have not been true so I sensed there must have been some story to it. Thanks for sharing your story. Sorry to hear Christians haven't been interested in your story, that was my experience while a sceptic as well. Ultimately, I'm not a Christian for Christians but for Christ. Christians are fallen in need of Christ and many so called Christians have no interest in truth or Jesus. They have done and continue to do immoral and horrible things. I won't deny that reality. I am not interested in sugar coating it to you.

False stereotypes of me: being anti evolution, believing to speak God's direct words, having no history of scepticism but looking for evidence to purely support emotional experiences, claiming religious people are good people while atheists are far worse and immoral etc. Please be wary of doing this in the future.

I am going to try and stick to points as my responses were getting a bit long and we need to start summarising. Here's the main reasons why I don't buy your view on morality:

1. You intuitively sense the reality of "objective morals". I see no good reason to doubt this and propose instead morals are not objective.

2. I mention rape of children as something which is objectively wrong as I was asked for an example.

3. We evolve to our environment. Evolution does not explain away objective morals. We evolve to the sun and the air so what is to say we don't evolve in response to "mental air" or underlying mental properties within the universe.

4. Mind is fundamental. Consciousness is fundamental. Eugene Wigner, observer effect etc etc. Read my points to Edward in responses 1 and 2.

5. You don't get a guided, intentional thoughts or principles from an unguided chemical process. It's basic logic. So, no using evolution alone is really not that simple. Try and refute this and you'll be using an intentional mental process not an accidental chemical one. You won't think you're fizzing to accidental chemical processes in your head so why use an unguided chemical process to try explain it?

6. We evolve for survival not truth. If matter is fundamental and mind is an accidental by product, truth is not necessarily a useful concept or something to be known. In effect, this cuts through everything you are trying to say. How can we even know we know truth when we only know things helpful for survival? We can't if we're stuck in the cycle.

7. The question is about if objective morals exist or not, not whether atheists or religious people are good people better or worse than atheists.

Evolution is about DNA propagation and survival of the fittest, not the human flourishing of weak and less evolved humans. Some people are less "human" than others. What's the use of weak or less evolved people "flourishing" if they will reproduce more people who will hold humanity back? Let's not make evolution as if it's some sort of happy for everyone type of game. It's brutal, crushes the weak, only the strongest flourish. There are of course different types of evolution but I am assuming you are a Neo Darwinian not a structuralist.

8. Any assessment of morals or behaviour uses a guided, mental, intentional process and as mentioned explaining this by an unguided chemical process without intention is nonsensical.

9. Any claim we have morally developed or progressed as humans assumes a benchmark to evolve against, in effect assuming an objective moral standard.

10. Mathematics and logic are far more than subjective mental opinions or states of mind. They are uniform, universal, immaterial. Very different to whether someone feels happy or sad within their own random brain chemistry.

11. Focusing on social cohesion (why care about social cohesion of humans anyway? the process behind everything doesn't care so why should we?) again limits immoral behaviour to something not socially acceptable. As mentioned, sandals with socks.

12. You seem to be posing a "logic" form of the Euthyphro dilemma. This has been addressed and refuted by many philosophers of recent times. God and the Good are one and the same. Objective morality flows from God's nature by necessity not choice. Similarly, God is the Logos as the Greek Philosophers spoke about. Logic and order flow by necessity from God's nature. He does not choose rules of logic. The fact there might be "choices" around how this engages with humanity directly does nothing to undermine the core traits and nature (order, logic, goodness etc) driving this choice as that is something which exists by necessity and cannot be altered.

I cover more of these topics in my 200 questions, Harari's Hackable Animals and Human Rights, my 2 responses to Edward Johns etc. I could say a lot more but we need to put a limit on things.

This was very long again. I do apologise. I am genuinely happy for you to leave a closing summary of your views in the comments too. It has been great chatting and I wish you the best in your quest for truth. Should you wish to reach out for a further conversation down the track. Please feel free. Cheers.