Why would Plato agree with the claim that there are not any universally valid moral values? Or where can I find information that supports this claim?

I know many philosophical positions today are often similar to Greek philosophical positions. Is there any Ancient Greek Philosophy that seems to correspond or relate to postmodernism?

There's no rational argument to prove the existence of God. St. Thomas d'Aquinas' famous "God is that of which nothing greater can be thought" is, to my knowledge, the most rigorous attempt to apply reason to the subject of supernatural existence--but it achieves exactly the opposite of what it purports to achieve: it shows merely the limits of reason, rather than the existence of God. This said, and as a consequence, reason can't provide any arguments against the existence of God, either. For that which can't be proved, can't be disproved either. (And, in fact, can anyone think of any law of physics or rational argument which disproves the existence of something? Non-existence is "disproved" on mere empirical basis--and it is thus never certain). Therefore, the only rational (which does not mean necessarily: correct) position regarding God is agnosticism. Any thoughts? Thanks

After a protracted and painful crisis of faith, I have seized upon the idea that if the origin of life could be shown to be possible only through nature and natural processes without the influence of a creator/god, then that could do away with any pragmatic need for the existence of a deity. Is this a tenable position?

I read all the questions and responses related to determinism, quantum mechanics and chaos theory that you have posted, but I am still unclear exactly how they relate. Supposedly, quantum mechanics and chaos theory refute any hard case for determinism, but I am still unclear as to how. Could anyone add to this or suggest some reading on the subject?

Mill seems to think that the same action could be a right action in one set of circumstances and wrong in another. Would his theory be considered relativistic ?

If something logically exists (or logically does not exist) in one possible world, why is it necessary for that same something to logically exist (or logically not exist) in all possible worlds? I do not have any background in modal logic and I am trying to understand the argument for the nonexistence of time as described in Yourgrau's recent book on Gödel and Einstein.

I am a master's student in philosophy and my marks at least, show that I'm doing quite well. I'm also very interested in the subject even if it can get really difficult. My university is offering me a teaching post, but lately, I find myself contemplating on shifting to social work (and doing it full time) because I have this feeling that it's my "calling". How do you know that you are for professional philosophy? Do you think one can meaningfully practice philosophy outside the academe? Thank you very much.

Do chimpanzees really enjoy eating bananas?

If I see some innocent lady being beaten to death and, though I could easily stop the robbery, I CHOOSE not to intervene just because I'm sure the guy will eventually be punished for his crime, does that make me a bad person?