Then lets look deeply:Atla wrote
I spent most of my life looking for answers, and think that you are misguided. You wanted a simple and dramatic answer, but ethics is also irrelevant in the grand scheme. There is nothing to explore there for me, except the psychology of annoying wishful thinking.
We aren't born to suffer and die. Yes there is birth, much suffering and death, those are all parts of the whole happening, but we are probably here for some wildly different, non-anthrophic reason. Yes whatever is going on here, we are caught up in it, the nature of our mind plays a central role in the happening, but still, the deep down reason is probably non-anthropic. It's easy to fall for the illusion of an anthropic reason, but you have to look deeper.
But what is anthropic? This is an empirical idea, and as such it fits among the many, the contingent. Metaethical thinking reveals something absolute and carries with an injunction that issues from this. The religious God is a contrived figure, but imagine if it were not, putting aside the complaints of silliness. What is it that God would have that would be so extraordinary? It would be that God would present into the human condition and that of all things, an absolute. The existential core of God is not about any of the, what I call the incidental things in a popular religion, but about an analysis of the material basis of religion, material meaning existential, there, in the fabric of things, no more dismissible than hurricanes or metamorphic rocks, but then, as an absolute, far more real, that is, far more imposing on belief. as logically logical form in the way of tautologies andn contradictions are the most coercive imaginable. Trouble is, they are also vacuous. Here, were Godto actually exist, it would constitute an epistemic imposition that issues from reality and not from abstract logic. The difference is momentous.
Now remove the silliness, and just consider the material (existential, a word that may be off putting) gravitas of God: a presence in the world that is actual and absolute, myths and narratives and metaphysics in abeyance.
Then we move toward what this "presence" is. Here, we invoke Wittgenstein and others. Especially John Mackie, who argues that there is no such thing as objectivity at the metaethical level of analysis. But then, are you reading with interest? Do you have any thoughts, specific ones that go to the way the argument is proceeding? Now is the time. Of course, if interest has dissipated I understand.