A nonfiction explanation about Genesis? Part 1 � The Future of Consciousness/The Future of Everything/Can We Finally Explain It?
I'm thinking about writing a second book which will describe the key points of my book, Genesis. I have had so many complaints from readers about its unclarities. I will start with blogs. I haven't known the best title for the first part. While reading this, you will find out the connections with the scenes in Genesis and why it is very important that all beings know this.
I will start by telling you the different concepts of God:
A. God is the benevolent leader. This God rules over all that occur so this God doesn't need to rule, or even lead. This God is in and beyond the universe. This God doesn't care for right or wrong. This God doesn't have a cause behind it. This entity is the cause behind all that have existed, exist, and will exist. This God can be:
1. Justice and this God sees to it that consciousness survives. According to this God, life and existence is important. This God provides afterlife after life ends. I don't know why this God can't create heaven in the first place and thus sparing us the mortality and the cruel universe which is the reason why we should work and evolve and not drink salt water or enter the outer space without a suit and save resources to survive.
2. Not justice and is only responsible for the creation of the universe and the occurrence of life. According to this God, life and existence is not important. This God doesn't have any role in our survival. This God provided 'the raw materials' for life and existence and let life and existence vanish.
B. God is not the benevolent leader. This God is in but not beyond the universe. This God's power is limited. There is limited seating in this God's heaven. Something happens beyond this God's power. We and this God have to work together. This God is either bound by time and reality that happens in sequence, or not bound by time but isn't capable of changing our reality very much. This God is bound by a law because this God's existence is not beyond the law. This God is not Justice itself, but instead this God urges that justice be done. This God serves a 'higher God' which is Justice (Justice is above this God). Suffice it to say that this God is like our government. Look to your left and right and up and down, you will see presidents, kings, queens, prime ministers, legislative councils, judicial councils, party leaders, CEOs, CFOs, COOs, managers, gang leaders, the leader in our families, executioners, the alphas in groups of animals. This God is like them. This God can be:
1. The strongest of us all, thus it is true that this God's power has a quantity. Its power is not beyond existence. So this God can be stronger than everything else combined. This God can demand something or everything. This God can rule. This God can demand order, worships, patience.
2. Weaker than the opposite force that is: evil, arbitrary, pro-chaos (order is love and life so this opposite force is pro-hate, pro-fear, pro-destruction), keen to destroy lives, pretty much the strongest version of the dark side. This God is afraid to go out. This God watches. I don't know what makes this God God, maybe this God isn't bound by time, maybe this God is like Professor Hawking � very smart but not very strong. This God has remarkable plans that will work out in the end: this God will win in the end.
Which God do you believe in? Pick one or combine them. Or make a new one. You may change the word 'God' with 'I' and see where 'I' is.
There is a reason why I mainly talk about Christianity because I know about it a lot, and I can say that the God in the Old Testament is B1, and the God in the New Testament is mainly A1 (sometimes combined with B1). In order not to alienate a single group, I'd like to write about other religions too: I guess that the God in the Quran and Torah is B1, the God(s) in Hinduism is (are) A1 and/or the combination of B1 and B2, the 'Gods' in Buddhism and natural religions are B2.
Some of the people might think that what I'm saying is not important. On the contrary, it is of the ultimate importance because it is very important for everything we know: love, tears, joy. Because what I told you about the nonexistence of good and evil has been shown to work eternally. Because this has been our past, this is our present, and this is our future. Because there is no harm in knowing all of it; there is harm in claiming that you know when the fact is that you haven't even tried. Because some of us still believe in these Gods, and there are people who believe in God A1 and A2 and still think that they have the RIGHT TO RULE others. Because some of us still believe in good and evil and are very proud to be good (or bad). Because almost all of us count on the concept of afterlife while this concept is doing nothing for our current survival, if anything, the concept of afterlife aggravates the destruction of our beautiful Earth and the destruction of life itself through greed and what I call first-order hedonism (self gratification: riches and laziness) and second-order hedonism (self destruction). Because by 'us' I mean Homo sapiens and not the other species who/which have been extinct or are still living. Because this is what happens in the present time:
PEOPLE, THE LESSER GODS (GOD B1&B2) AND THEIR DISCIPLES, THE DEVIL, DEMONS, AND ALL BEINGS IN ALL DIMENSIONS STILL THINK THAT THEY ARE RIGHT (GOOD) AND THE OTHERS ARE WRONG (EVIL).
Let's group these beings and give the group a name. Let's call them the A-holes, because they build a hole in the place where God A presides. These A-holes are lesser Gods that can have flaws, and they do have flaws, they don't know better and the systems that they try to establish will crumple.
You have read my book and my blogs. There is no good or evil as there is no right or wrong. I've been waiting for a counterargument for this. I'll just tell you: one can counter this with: Yes there is no right or wrong in the universe but consciousness (we, the devil, God B1 & B2 and their disciples, demons, all the beings in other space-time continuums) is able to distinguish right and wrong.
You are mistaken. Let me elaborate:
1. There is no free will. If you think that consciousness posits the existence of free will, and therefore the existence of right and wrong, you are mistaken. Two reasons (you actually only need one of these to prove that free will is nonexistent):
- Let's take a look at an animal, a wild dog, for instance. This dog reacts to a rabbit when it's hungry. It chases the rabbit and eats it. Over time, another rabbit develops abstract thinking, it can sense what is not there yet. The rabbit becomes attuned to its surrounding and develops the first form of abstract thinking which is foreknowledge, and it succeeds in not being eaten because of this. The dog also learns and develops abstract thinking, its abstract thinking is way more advanced than the rabbit's, it is the next form of abstract thinking, it is conceptual thinking. The dog doesn't react to its concrete thinking (hunger and the existence of the rabbit) instantly but instead the dog plans, it says to itself that it should refrain from attacking directly, it has learned that attacking directly (or succumbing to its primal instinct) will mean failure to eat and survive. And voila, using abstract thinking, the dog succeeds in eating the rabbit. Several years pass and human beings start to domesticate rabbits, and the dogs learn that if they kill the rabbit for food, the dogs will get slaughtered by the humans, and now the dogs develop the next form of abstract thinking which is self-restraint.
If any of you thinks that this abstract thinking is free will, you are totally mistaken. If any superior entity holds this against you and says that you have free will while it is clear that our survival is our own responsibility and there is no help whatsoever from above (species went extinct and we will too if we don't learn), then this superior entity is being unreasonable and we must at the very least not listen to them.
- The second one is the arrow of time. Time happens for a being when that being perceives nothingness as a sequence. Everything has direct and indirect causes and direct and indirect effects; nothing in existence can free itself from these. There is no 'will that is free'. If you choose to hurt something, one of the causes of your deed is the existence of that thing (you can blame it on that thing), and you will get the effect of your deed. If you choose to not hurt something, again one of the causes of your deed is the existence of that thing, and again you will get the effect of your deed.
2. This is how the universe is: there are infinite direct and indirect causes for something to happen. If you say that something is right, the universe can easily prove to you that that something is wrong, and vice versa. It is too easy for the universe to prove to you that the path you choose is the wrong one, or the right one, at the time the path is chosen. Two beings get into a fight and Being 1 claims that he is the right one and ends the life of Being 2; the entire species also think that Being 1 is right and support the decision to end Being 2. Now, after that, as fast as a lightning strike or as slowly as continental drift, the universe can easily make Being 1 the reason for the death of a whole clan of beings and prove that Being 1 was after all the wrong one. Why? Because there are infinite factors that can lead to a single event.
So, now we've established that: right and wrong is nonexistent, as much as good and evil is nonexistent.
Want another proof?
Let's go back to the group, which comprises us, the devil, the lesser Gods (God B1 & B2) and their disciples, demons, all the beings in other space-time continuums who still think that right (good) and wrong (evil) exist.
When this group formulates, builds, establishes any systems to define right or wrong (these systems can be ANY types of governments, punishment, hell, ethics, maxims, principles, relationships), the system will crumple.
***
So, what can we do if there is no right or wrong?
We can try to realize God A1's heaven. Let heaven come down to Earth. Let the true sovereignty of the true God rule over us. It's already clear in my past blog that the 'There is no right or wrong, there should be no death or dearth' will bring us toward Moral Excellence and Utopia and the Peace Forever.
Can we finally explain it?
Yes.
Do we finally have the key to secure peace?
Yes.
Can we defeat death?
Yes. The second part of the blogs will be about whether the benevolent God is A1 or A2, what consciousness is, and whether it is possible to make heaven on Earth (no death or dearth). I need research for this. Science will bring good news. Science, philosophy, and religion shouldn't be separate. They should be one.
I will give you a preview of the second part of the blogs. One of the things I will write is whether this sentence above "When this group formulates, builds, establishes any systems to define right or wrong (these systems can be ANY types of governments, punishment, hell, ethics, maxims, principles, relationships), the system will crumple." extends to the laws and theories in natural science (mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, geoscience).
It is very important that all beings know the first part of the blogs first, so I should refrain from publishing the second part of the blogs before all beings know the first one. Please help telling others by liking or posting a comment below.
I will start by telling you the different concepts of God:
A. God is the benevolent leader. This God rules over all that occur so this God doesn't need to rule, or even lead. This God is in and beyond the universe. This God doesn't care for right or wrong. This God doesn't have a cause behind it. This entity is the cause behind all that have existed, exist, and will exist. This God can be:
1. Justice and this God sees to it that consciousness survives. According to this God, life and existence is important. This God provides afterlife after life ends. I don't know why this God can't create heaven in the first place and thus sparing us the mortality and the cruel universe which is the reason why we should work and evolve and not drink salt water or enter the outer space without a suit and save resources to survive.
2. Not justice and is only responsible for the creation of the universe and the occurrence of life. According to this God, life and existence is not important. This God doesn't have any role in our survival. This God provided 'the raw materials' for life and existence and let life and existence vanish.
B. God is not the benevolent leader. This God is in but not beyond the universe. This God's power is limited. There is limited seating in this God's heaven. Something happens beyond this God's power. We and this God have to work together. This God is either bound by time and reality that happens in sequence, or not bound by time but isn't capable of changing our reality very much. This God is bound by a law because this God's existence is not beyond the law. This God is not Justice itself, but instead this God urges that justice be done. This God serves a 'higher God' which is Justice (Justice is above this God). Suffice it to say that this God is like our government. Look to your left and right and up and down, you will see presidents, kings, queens, prime ministers, legislative councils, judicial councils, party leaders, CEOs, CFOs, COOs, managers, gang leaders, the leader in our families, executioners, the alphas in groups of animals. This God is like them. This God can be:
1. The strongest of us all, thus it is true that this God's power has a quantity. Its power is not beyond existence. So this God can be stronger than everything else combined. This God can demand something or everything. This God can rule. This God can demand order, worships, patience.
2. Weaker than the opposite force that is: evil, arbitrary, pro-chaos (order is love and life so this opposite force is pro-hate, pro-fear, pro-destruction), keen to destroy lives, pretty much the strongest version of the dark side. This God is afraid to go out. This God watches. I don't know what makes this God God, maybe this God isn't bound by time, maybe this God is like Professor Hawking � very smart but not very strong. This God has remarkable plans that will work out in the end: this God will win in the end.
Which God do you believe in? Pick one or combine them. Or make a new one. You may change the word 'God' with 'I' and see where 'I' is.
There is a reason why I mainly talk about Christianity because I know about it a lot, and I can say that the God in the Old Testament is B1, and the God in the New Testament is mainly A1 (sometimes combined with B1). In order not to alienate a single group, I'd like to write about other religions too: I guess that the God in the Quran and Torah is B1, the God(s) in Hinduism is (are) A1 and/or the combination of B1 and B2, the 'Gods' in Buddhism and natural religions are B2.
Some of the people might think that what I'm saying is not important. On the contrary, it is of the ultimate importance because it is very important for everything we know: love, tears, joy. Because what I told you about the nonexistence of good and evil has been shown to work eternally. Because this has been our past, this is our present, and this is our future. Because there is no harm in knowing all of it; there is harm in claiming that you know when the fact is that you haven't even tried. Because some of us still believe in these Gods, and there are people who believe in God A1 and A2 and still think that they have the RIGHT TO RULE others. Because some of us still believe in good and evil and are very proud to be good (or bad). Because almost all of us count on the concept of afterlife while this concept is doing nothing for our current survival, if anything, the concept of afterlife aggravates the destruction of our beautiful Earth and the destruction of life itself through greed and what I call first-order hedonism (self gratification: riches and laziness) and second-order hedonism (self destruction). Because by 'us' I mean Homo sapiens and not the other species who/which have been extinct or are still living. Because this is what happens in the present time:
PEOPLE, THE LESSER GODS (GOD B1&B2) AND THEIR DISCIPLES, THE DEVIL, DEMONS, AND ALL BEINGS IN ALL DIMENSIONS STILL THINK THAT THEY ARE RIGHT (GOOD) AND THE OTHERS ARE WRONG (EVIL).
Let's group these beings and give the group a name. Let's call them the A-holes, because they build a hole in the place where God A presides. These A-holes are lesser Gods that can have flaws, and they do have flaws, they don't know better and the systems that they try to establish will crumple.
You have read my book and my blogs. There is no good or evil as there is no right or wrong. I've been waiting for a counterargument for this. I'll just tell you: one can counter this with: Yes there is no right or wrong in the universe but consciousness (we, the devil, God B1 & B2 and their disciples, demons, all the beings in other space-time continuums) is able to distinguish right and wrong.
You are mistaken. Let me elaborate:
1. There is no free will. If you think that consciousness posits the existence of free will, and therefore the existence of right and wrong, you are mistaken. Two reasons (you actually only need one of these to prove that free will is nonexistent):
- Let's take a look at an animal, a wild dog, for instance. This dog reacts to a rabbit when it's hungry. It chases the rabbit and eats it. Over time, another rabbit develops abstract thinking, it can sense what is not there yet. The rabbit becomes attuned to its surrounding and develops the first form of abstract thinking which is foreknowledge, and it succeeds in not being eaten because of this. The dog also learns and develops abstract thinking, its abstract thinking is way more advanced than the rabbit's, it is the next form of abstract thinking, it is conceptual thinking. The dog doesn't react to its concrete thinking (hunger and the existence of the rabbit) instantly but instead the dog plans, it says to itself that it should refrain from attacking directly, it has learned that attacking directly (or succumbing to its primal instinct) will mean failure to eat and survive. And voila, using abstract thinking, the dog succeeds in eating the rabbit. Several years pass and human beings start to domesticate rabbits, and the dogs learn that if they kill the rabbit for food, the dogs will get slaughtered by the humans, and now the dogs develop the next form of abstract thinking which is self-restraint.
If any of you thinks that this abstract thinking is free will, you are totally mistaken. If any superior entity holds this against you and says that you have free will while it is clear that our survival is our own responsibility and there is no help whatsoever from above (species went extinct and we will too if we don't learn), then this superior entity is being unreasonable and we must at the very least not listen to them.
- The second one is the arrow of time. Time happens for a being when that being perceives nothingness as a sequence. Everything has direct and indirect causes and direct and indirect effects; nothing in existence can free itself from these. There is no 'will that is free'. If you choose to hurt something, one of the causes of your deed is the existence of that thing (you can blame it on that thing), and you will get the effect of your deed. If you choose to not hurt something, again one of the causes of your deed is the existence of that thing, and again you will get the effect of your deed.
2. This is how the universe is: there are infinite direct and indirect causes for something to happen. If you say that something is right, the universe can easily prove to you that that something is wrong, and vice versa. It is too easy for the universe to prove to you that the path you choose is the wrong one, or the right one, at the time the path is chosen. Two beings get into a fight and Being 1 claims that he is the right one and ends the life of Being 2; the entire species also think that Being 1 is right and support the decision to end Being 2. Now, after that, as fast as a lightning strike or as slowly as continental drift, the universe can easily make Being 1 the reason for the death of a whole clan of beings and prove that Being 1 was after all the wrong one. Why? Because there are infinite factors that can lead to a single event.
So, now we've established that: right and wrong is nonexistent, as much as good and evil is nonexistent.
Want another proof?
Let's go back to the group, which comprises us, the devil, the lesser Gods (God B1 & B2) and their disciples, demons, all the beings in other space-time continuums who still think that right (good) and wrong (evil) exist.
When this group formulates, builds, establishes any systems to define right or wrong (these systems can be ANY types of governments, punishment, hell, ethics, maxims, principles, relationships), the system will crumple.
***
So, what can we do if there is no right or wrong?
We can try to realize God A1's heaven. Let heaven come down to Earth. Let the true sovereignty of the true God rule over us. It's already clear in my past blog that the 'There is no right or wrong, there should be no death or dearth' will bring us toward Moral Excellence and Utopia and the Peace Forever.
Can we finally explain it?
Yes.
Do we finally have the key to secure peace?
Yes.
Can we defeat death?
Yes. The second part of the blogs will be about whether the benevolent God is A1 or A2, what consciousness is, and whether it is possible to make heaven on Earth (no death or dearth). I need research for this. Science will bring good news. Science, philosophy, and religion shouldn't be separate. They should be one.
I will give you a preview of the second part of the blogs. One of the things I will write is whether this sentence above "When this group formulates, builds, establishes any systems to define right or wrong (these systems can be ANY types of governments, punishment, hell, ethics, maxims, principles, relationships), the system will crumple." extends to the laws and theories in natural science (mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, geoscience).
It is very important that all beings know the first part of the blogs first, so I should refrain from publishing the second part of the blogs before all beings know the first one. Please help telling others by liking or posting a comment below.
date
newest »
newest »
Hi, Mr. Bentley. Thank you for your comment, sir.I'd like to make this a discussion. A debate is seldom to be fruitful but a discussion is useful. So, these techniques can be useful: let each of us present the thoughts as 'thoughts' and not 'our thoughts', and then let's disprove each thoughts with counterarguments.
I don't really know how to respond to the thoughts in the comment, because I have had many better counters to the thoughts in the blog (all of which I have successfully disproved) and pardon me, the thoughts in the comment aren't one of them.
Pardon my systematic approach, sir, but for the sake of the truth, this is the best way to put forth what I mean:
1. The thoughts in the comment doesn't disprove the thoughts in the blog, at all.
2. Each of the sentences of the thoughts in the comment will work � at its very best, merely to evoke an emotional response � only if presented as a packed paragraph. If we check them carefully, each of them doesn't have any meat and/or is totally inaccurate:
- It is wrong to say good and evil and right and wrong don't exist. -> The thoughts start with a deduction, deduction from where? While we can understand that an arguer's tendency to start an argument with a deduction can hint toward the psychological state of the arguer being 'not very sure about whether he/she will succeed in proving that deduction', this strategy to start an argument with a deduction can be construed as an effort to steer the emotion of the readers toward that deduction, well, this is not a problem if the deduction is followed by reasonings. It is important for readers to understand that so far in this instant, this is an invalid statement.
- They do but in equal quantity -> there is no meat in this statement. How can you be sure that they are equal? I don't believe anyone has dared to measure the number of any particles in the universe.
- as much as everything that exists has a positive and a negative -> No. This is a clear no. I can't even believe this was written.
- and to the best of our ability we can make what we want of it in any given set of circumstances. -> let's split this phrase into two, they contradict each other: "to the best of our ability" , "we can make what we want of it in any given set of circumstances."
Can we make what we want of it at any given set of circumstances, if our ability is very, very, very limited?
- How are we to be judged? By our conscience which we have to live with. -> We can't be judged, sir. Please re-read my blog above. Anytime we say that something is wrong, that something can easily turns out to be right, and vice versa. Shall I give you 1000 examples? And to think that we can defy the universe's decisions with our conscience � we can't even defy one of the weakest forces in the universe which is gravity.
- A child is born with the ability to behave well or wickedly and it soon learns what is best appreciated by others and behaves accordingly. So you could advance the theory that it is in man's general nature to be good since the repercussions of being bad is likely to receive bad back in return -> the dog in the thoughts in the blog does this too.
- So you could advance the theory that it is in man's general nature to be good since the repercussions of being bad is likely to receive bad back in return -> Why does this matter again? This isn't exclusive to humans. An adult dog does this better than a human baby, does that make the dog special?
- so it is this balancing act of conscience that is the voice of God -> wow the universe we are living in must be stronger than the God here. I don't see any balancing act of conscience acting as the voice of the universe. We can try yelling "I'm good, I'm good" to a falling rock and see whether the rock stops.
- if we are to believe in God as an essence of nature in a universe that although seemingly cruel is in fact well balanced -> nature is cruel, and not well balanced.
- since if it was not [well balanced] it would come crashing down and so not exist. -> If the universe is balanced (e.g. has the same number of matter and antimatter), the universe will come crashing down. Imbalance is what the universe needs in order for something to exist!
- It is the intelligence that maintains this balance that is God -> I believe I have said there must be imbalance. Balance can only exist outside of time and therefore it never exists; I believe this was one of the parts of quantum mechanics that angered Einstein.
- And man has much to learn from it -> If 'it' here means 'God', I agree to this, we can try, I believe I'm making us one step closer toward understanding the mind of God. Religions and maxims and all systems of right and wrong don't even care to invent a flashlight to look for any creature in the black room, they shouted "I found a black cat". The truth is, it isn't a black cat that is in the black room. How do we know? Because of this: religions and maxims and all systems of right and wrong will fail. I can give you 1000 examples again. Ok, I'd like to throw in two. We say "It is evil to steal." The universe, scratch it, a mother of two sons says "It is good to steal a first-aid-kid to save my two sons in an accident." Let's make the second example longer. We say "It is evil to steal a blanket from a little baby whose mother and father have been good in the past and have passed away and who only has two hours to live in the cold winter and without the blanket the she'll only have twenty minutes to live, while in the future this baby will be the one that can save humans in the future from global warming." The universe says "The death of the baby is good. Because of this, people set higher standards for the wellbeing of adults and their babies, and this will save another baby whose babies' babies will invent spaceships, and the babies' babies' babies later will find two more planets."
- without harmony only disaster will result. -> Could you tell me what 'harmony' is here? I can say the opposite: without harmony, disaster won't result. An example of harmony is living cells. Without harmony, a comet can leave its orbit and strike a planet and that planet crumbles, but without harmony, there'll be no life, and if there's no life, this planet destruction is not a tragedy, it's just something.
I can't thank you enough for your comment, sir.
Please ask more if you're still wondering.
The following comment is just for fun, sir :), a measure to save the world, if you will.For any beings who responds better to emotional statement, please read these words to the people who bombed Jakarta or Paris:
Fuck you, the teachings of good (right) and evil (wrong). Fuck you. If everybody reads my book, none of this bombing would've happened because YOU CAN'T EVER ACT ON WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG, EVER, BECAUSE RIGHT AND WRONG IS NONEXISTENT, YOU DEFINITELY CAN'T DEFINE IT, YOU DEFINITELY CAN'T ACT ON IT.
You can't possibly say that something is right or wrong or good or evil. If you say this (just as the devil says that he is evil and and the god says He is good), you will fail, or even fucking worse, if you act on this by doing anything such as walking the other path, hurting your enemy, or worse, sending any being to hell, you CAN be proven to be wrong, and if you live long enough, you WILL be proven to be wrong.
So what can you do when defining right or wrong and acting on right or wrong will be completely fucking useless? This should be your question!
Is life (and thus resources) the only thing that matters, just like what God A2 says? Or does an afterlife exist so even life doesn't matter, just like what God A1 says? This is what I'm trying to find out for the second part of my blogs.
If you say that something is good or evil, or worse, if you act on it, you can be proven wrong, and if you live long enough, you WILL be proven wrong. Good or evil is nonexistent. You say that God acts in mysterious ways and good people often suffer calamities. Well now when I give you the non-mysterious explanation, you still want to argue with me, take the road less traveled, take the other road, hurt someone who is wrong, love someone who is right, bomb someone who is wrong, bomb someone who is more wrong, send someone wrong to death, send someone wrong to hell, send any wrong being to hell?
Any of you who does this is a minion of the ones that acted on right and wrong and bombed Paris or Jakarta.
Fuck you :)
Another minion of those will come to your door and fuck you :)
When you said that one of the implications of "we can't define right or wrong or good or evil" is "any system will fail", I talked about it to my colleagues and we decided to study the phenomena in economics. Using it, we can somehow see the big picture of how things work. We can somehow predict market behavior using some formulas and provide several solutions to our current problems. Thanks to you.I understand that you have written your points very clearly, but if I may clarify something: what is written above about how a reaction toward an evil act can be good (for example: when a baby die, another baby will rise up), this is merely the scenario where good triumphs over evil, is it not?
Hi Josephine. Thank you for the question.You're welcome. Do you work in the marketplace? Please know that a system can evolve but whatever system you try, it will fail in the future. Law and economics can easily be two of the most nonsensical fields in existence.
Now. Let's see your question.
A happens, and because of A, B happens instead of C.
A --> B
Can you say which is evil and which is good?
No.
You can't say which is which without you first making an example, can you? A is merely a letter. What happens here is: you already condemn A as evil. This is where you are mistaken in the first place.
This is how people's minds work. I don't have any difficulty in proving that right or wrong is nonexistent. I have difficulty in making people change their mind because of the inability of the mind to comprehend some things. When something becomes too hard to comprehend, humans tend to love what they think they know (and say that it is good/right) and fear what they can't know at the time (and say that it is evil/wrong). This is what makes people write rules. Some of these rules are classified by some people as myths because these rules fail (people have known better now). Some of these rules are classified by some people as holy scriptures because these rules offer peace of mind, and now people are wondering why there are so many holy scriptures. They then pick one scripture and live and die with it, even though this means condemning other people to whatever is needed to secure their peace of mind.
The scriptures are human-made, Josephine. Why else did we end up with so many scriptures? These scriptures are rules made by other babies in order to be able to kill your baby for the sake of their peace of mind (their love for what they know).
You made an example:
A: baby got killed
B: finding other planets
What if we change 'a baby' into 'a neanderthal baby', do you still think that A is evil/wrong?
A is never evil/good/wrong/right. It is you who say that.
Still have doubts, Josephine?
Let's go back:
A happens, and because of A, B happens instead of C.
A --> B
Here, B can be any concept you can think of. It can be zero actions or nonzero actions.
Now, please be honest, can you say that B is wrong and condemning (read: stopping) it will make things work?
You can't.
Can you say that B is right and you can spare him (read: control) what comes next?
You can't.
And here is your bullet: A is also caused by something, or is it not caused by anything?
A now takes the position of B. And before A, there are � in fact � more than one cause that lead to A. The same thing applies here. Can you say that A is wrong? You can't. Can you say that A is right? You can't.
We condemn terrorism, what we don't realize is: we share the same thought process that has created terrorism in the first place, which is the urge to punish something for its 'evility'. It is the terrorists who say that something is evil, because they don't know better. We then say that terrorism is evil (wrong) so condemning terrorism will make things work? The answer is: no. Terrorism is caused by capitalism (democracy). So what if we condemn capitalism as evil and we stop it? Will it work now? The answer is again: no. Try to contain everyone under the shared values of communism and you will find that the system won't work. The thing about the truth that there is no good or evil or right or wrong is that any systems that tries to lead will lead to failure. You said that you've observed this in the marketplace.
Still have doubts, Josephine?
There is also another bullet you can use to defend yourself against they who are ready to convict you, and it is the conversation between an ignorant and an Adequate Being at the Gate of Hell:
An ignorant asks an Adequate Being at the Gate of Hell, "First, if there is a heaven, the fact that I have taken away the happiness and the life and the resources of other people in my previous life should not matter. If A harms B and because of that B dies and goes to heaven, why punish A for sending B to heaven? They gave me the death penalty on Earth for sending your beloved to heaven, and now you're banishing me to hell? Second, if I am banished to hell, my mother or sibling or someone else who is in heaven will be sad of course. Why is there sadness in heaven? At least Mother Theresa will be sad, or is Mother Theresa also a psychopath like your God? You can argue that in heaven there will be no memory of past life so there will be no sadness. Well, where's the justice in that? You wipe a person's memory and say that that person's past life matters in determining where that person will go? What's the matter with you? Third, a being is evil during a time, pick any number: when he was 11-21 years old, during the last 99 years of his 100 years of life, a thousand years, during less-than-eternity time. And now, that being will be punished for eternity because of that? Fourth, I can harm everyone inside heaven and this action won't matter (won't be wrong) in heaven, so why the need to banish me to hell?"
The Adequate Being turns out to be inadequate and says, "That is not heaven, we can't make one, and this in front of you is not hell, this is merely a punishment like the others."
Here, you should pray that the ignorant can find a way to be not ignorant and answer the inadequate being with everything we have discussed about the nonexistence of right or wrong and close it with, "So you can't say that the act of punishing me is right. Who will punish you for punishing me?"
Still have doubts, Josephine?
There is one ultimate bullet that can prove it once and for all that there is no right or wrong or good or evil. But the world is not ready for it yet so I will keep it to myself this time. Meanwhile, please tell the terrorists to stop bombing my country, and please tell the capitalists to stop being so rich.
And also, Israel and Palestine can stop warring now. None of them is right.
How are we to be judged? By our conscience which we have to live with. A child is born with the ability to behave well or wickedly and it soon learns what is best appreciated by others and behaves accordingly. So you could advance the theory that it is in man's general nature to be good since the repercussions of being bad is likely to receive bad back in return, and so it is this balancing act of conscience that is the voice of God, if we are to believe in God as an essence of nature in a universe that although seemingly cruel is in fact well balanced, since if it was not it would come crashing down and so not exist. It is the intelligence that maintains this balance that is God and man has much to learn from it as without harmony only disaster will result.