I like to think being Clever is the best real-world tool to have over Intelligence or Wisdom. In some ways it is the product of the two. Wisdom allows one to solve problems involving morals, emotions, culture, interpersonal relations... Intelligence allows one to solve problems involving logic, puzzles, quandaries... Cleverness addresses all of the above.

All i can picture is an army of internet-dancing-hamster men slowly marching across the plains in formation blaring that hamster dancing song on mega-speakers destroying everything in their path.

While i agree with you that one might want to consider the community's force against you when applying extreme relativistic "gray" moral principles, the fact of the matter is, all things ethical are indeed gray. One thing's good can be another thing's bad (just use your imagination a bit). As soon as you say there are absolute morals of any sort, you are implying there is some absolute judgement, which of course there is not. Your perceived sanity is also relative. And, other animals breed/use animals for food all the time (in horrific ways humans will hopefully never realize themselves).

I totally agree. Also, if I felt someone who is creating suffering sentient mutants needed to be killed, I *could* do that.

But seriously, all morals are obviously relative. I mean what if it turns out humans are to be a very bad addition to the universe. Like all other intelligent aliens out there are magnitudes more peaceful and we are like the equivalent of Species 8472. So, any actions leading to the destruction of the human race would be considered a "good" thing.

The problem is that creationists, atheists, and agnostics are all missing the bigger picture and missing the point (but, if we must assign a winner, agnostics come closest.) The question as to whether there is a creator is nonsensical as far as we can fathom. Consider the two possible scenarios: 1) "There is a creator; call it god. Some entity created everything." 2) "There is no god. Nothing created the universe; it just came into existence." Neither of the only two possible scenarios makes any sense. They both fail in the same way: you can't have something come from nothing; whether that be the universe or the creator that made the universe. You don't need to be a philosopher or particularly logical to see this. In fact, you could argue that atheists are creationists since they believe the universe created itself. So, what are we left with? I can think of two things. But, first I'd like to point out that a true agnostic is one who sees the paradox and futility in taking a position on this. At least that is what I term an Agnostic; one who doesn't know (anything about the origin of the universe) and doesn't care (because they know its futile, not because they are apathetic). So what can we conclude if our two seeming scenarios are ludicrous? 1) The first is simplistic... there is an explanation and it is beyond any semblance of what we deem as logical. Or even asking the questions of why and how the universe exists is not even the right question. How else would you overcome a paradox? By changing the rules of the game. This means that our language, our thoughts, our logic, etc DO NOT APPLY. We are either too simplistic, lacking the proper whatever to understand what is going on. 2) The one I like the most is this: In a more philosophical bent, it can be argued that the universe (in the most encompassing definition of the word) can not be 'explained' since there can always be an explanation for the explanation; always a viewpoint from outside to that which you have just explained; similar in concept to the paradox that you can always divide something in half to get something smaller. The universe by its very definition of encompassing everything means nothing can be outside of it. It can't be explained or else it couldn't exist. Basically, its a paradox as far as we can see it.

I'm not sure what you mean, but my point was that there is no argument to be had. We can't even have the discussion because we can't even ask the right questions. Our questions make no logical sense.

If you can step outside of the system then there now is definitely something more and hence we don't understand the universe. So, you keep stepping out further... for arguments sake, if at some point you can absolutely no longer step outside further, well then you can't understand the universe. Or, you've just determined that the system is closed. I can't fathom a universe with boundaries. Seems like a paradox any way you cut it.

Right, that is the typical argument. It makes no sense. A leap of faith. Religion is trivially dismissed.

This is an interesting point and I agree at face value. But are you implying or do you think that there is an absolute truth to be known? Thats a big assumption. My philosophical point was that the universe can't be 'known' else it could not exist. How can you close the system? So say we figure it out. Then what? Thats it? End game? Play again? Twiddle thumbs for eternity? Again I'll say that the questions we are asking don't even make sense.