-->
@secularmerlin
forming sound and reasonable arguments that is sufficient to meet your challenge.
Are you saying I did this? Why thank you.
Our most basic axioms
Posts
Total:
1,302
-->
@Tarik
No you have not. You have merely pushed me back to ONLY you would seem to decide what is meaningful to you and ONLY I seem to decide what is meaningful to me.
As a discussed previously that is my answer regarding alien abduction and santa claus as well. In other words I know that I can decide what is meaningful to me and the idea that anything else could decide for me is exactly as plausible to me as Santa claus.
-->
@Tarik
Are you suggesting that even if I have no idea if a specific action will be rewarded or punished, it is still meaningful?Meaning isn’t predicated on one’s ignorance.Is that a "YES"?I don’t know but it probably depends on the action.
What if I live my entire life just trying my very best to be a good person but I never believe in ghosts or angels or heaven?
-->
@Tarik
ONLY you can decide what is meaningful to you and ONLY I can decide what is meaningful to me.Prove it.
What you personally find meaningful is a matter of OPINION.
What I personally find meaningful is a matter of OPINION.
I can prove that you find some things personally meaningful that I personally find meaningless.
I can prove that I find some things personally meaningful that you personally find meaningless.
It only takes one example to falsify the claim, "we both agree 100% on the meaningfulness of all things" (please either agree or disagree with this claim).
You find your belief in a god meaningful.
I find my belief in a god meaningless.
-->
@secularmerlin
forming sound and reasonable arguments that is sufficient to meet your challenge.
So what did you mean by this?
-->
@3RU7AL
Please explain how the concept of god(s) in any way contradict "nihilism".
“(IFF) NIHILISM = NOT-THEISM (AND)
(IFF) NIHILISM = UNACCEPTABLE AND MUST BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS (THEN) THEISM = TRUE
THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE (TINA).“
Do you want to reply to the substance of my argument or not?
-->
@3RU7AL
personally find meaningful
Meaning isn’t personal.
-->
@secularmerlin
I'm afraid that any problem with soft nihilism (the idea that one cannot prove any intrinsic message or value) you think I must grapple with are not really resolved in any way by appeals to some god and also that even if we definitionally equate nihilism with religiosity theism and nihilism are not the only possible positions (atheist Buddhists for example) nor are they mutually exclusive (a deists for example might believe in a god but not in intrinsic meaning and value) so this is in all ways a false dichotomy.
You’re right. If only you gave what 3RU7AL said the same level of critique.
-->
@Reece101
Do you want to reply to the substance of my argument or not?
Please be slightly more specific.
-->
@Tarik
personally find meaningfulMeaning isn’t personal.
Ok.
I think I've detected our core conflict.
-->
@3RU7AL
Please be slightly more specific.
You created a false dilemma.
-->
@Reece101
Please be slightly more specific.You created a false dilemma.
I presented a rigorously defined conditional statement.
-->
@3RU7AL
I presented a rigorously defined conditional statement.
In which it exists inside a vacuum.
-->
@Reece101
I presented a rigorously defined conditional statement.In which it exists inside a vacuum.
(IFF) NIHILISM = SUBJECTIVE AXIOLOGY (AND)
(IFF) GOD = OMNIPOTENT OMNISCIENT OMNIPRESENT CREATOR (AND)
(IFF) GOD ALONE DETERMINES OBJECTIVE AXIOLOGY (AND)
(IFF) GOD DOES NOT MAKE OBJECTIVE AXIOLOGY OBVIOUS TO HUMANS (AND)
(IFF) HUMANS SINCERELY DISAGREE ABOUT AXIOLOGY (THEN) ALL HUMANS ARE DE FACTO NIHILISTS
-->
@Tarik
forming sound and reasonable arguments that is sufficient to meet your challenge.So what did you mean by this?
Only that I am justified in rejecting the idea that any higher power exists or necessitates any objective meaning of any kind even if semantically speaking I can't be objectively certain.
Even if there is some god(s) only I can determine what I personally find meaningful. Even if some higher power has an opinion of the subject I am under no obligation to adopt their standards and in fact will be quite unable to if they disagree with my personal opinion about what has meaning and what that meaning is.
Would you agree with that?
You should ask 3ru7al about the difference between quallia (meaningfull but abstract) >>the sun is beautiful<< and quanta (measurable but lacking any intrinsic meaning) >>the sun emits solar flares<<.
-->
@Reece101
You’re right. If only you gave what 3RU7AL said the same level of critique.
(IFF) NIHILISM = SUBJECTIVE AXIOLOGY (AND)
(IFF) GOD = OMNIPOTENT OMNISCIENT OMNIPRESENT CREATOR (AND)
(IFF) GOD ALONE DETERMINES OBJECTIVE AXIOLOGY (AND)
(IFF) GOD DOES NOT MAKE OBJECTIVE AXIOLOGY OBVIOUS TO HUMANS (AND)
(IFF) HUMANS SINCERELY DISAGREE ABOUT AXIOLOGY (THEN) ALL HUMANS ARE DE FACTO NIHILISTS
I see no readily apparent logical flaw with this and it each dichotomy included is a true dichotomy.
-->
@secularmerlin
only I can determine what I personally find meaningful.
Then you’re gonna have to prove that meaning is personal, otherwise you leave me no choice but to reject your argument.
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) NIHILISM = SUBJECTIVE AXIOLOGY (AND)(IFF) GOD = OMNIPOTENT OMNISCIENT OMNIPRESENT CREATOR (AND)(IFF) GOD ALONE DETERMINES OBJECTIVE AXIOLOGY (AND)(IFF) GOD DOES NOT MAKE OBJECTIVE AXIOLOGY OBVIOUS TO HUMANS (AND)(IFF) HUMANS SINCERELY DISAGREE ABOUT AXIOLOGY (THEN) ALL HUMANS ARE DE FACTO NIHILISTS
Why use the word nihilism? You’re having to almost redefine it to mean its opposite.
-->
@Tarik
Then you’re gonna have to prove that meaning is personal, otherwise you leave me no choice but to reject your argument.
Let's say for a moment that there is a god. Let's further say that you then believe that your behavior is meaningful because you believe you will be judged by your actions. Let's also say that when you die you are judged by the true objective morality of the creator of the universe and it is this. Left handed people are wrong. Being left handed is the only morally incorrect action a person can take. Can you bring yourself to agree with that position?
-->
@Tarik
only I can determine what I personally find meaningful.Then you’re gonna have to prove that meaning is personal, otherwise you leave me no choice but to reject your argument.
Normally, both participants are expected to present arguments that support their claims.
-->
@Reece101
(IFF) NIHILISM = SUBJECTIVE AXIOLOGY (AND)(IFF) GOD = OMNIPOTENT OMNISCIENT OMNIPRESENT CREATOR (AND)(IFF) GOD ALONE DETERMINES OBJECTIVE AXIOLOGY (AND)(IFF) GOD DOES NOT MAKE OBJECTIVE AXIOLOGY OBVIOUS TO HUMANS (AND)(IFF) HUMANS SINCERELY DISAGREE ABOUT AXIOLOGY (THEN) ALL HUMANS ARE DE FACTO NIHILISTSWhy use the word nihilism? You’re having to almost redefine it to mean its opposite.
Feel free to present your own personally preferred definition of NIHILISM at your leisure.
-->
@Reece101
Why use the word nihilism? You’re having to almost redefine it to mean its opposite.
You have defined nihilism not 3ru7al. You did so when you defined all atheists as nihilists. Atheism is not defacto nihilism unless NIHILISM=SUBJECTIVE AXIOLOGY.
-->
@secularmerlin
I don’t know
-->
@3RU7AL
Normally, both participants are expected to present arguments that support their claims.
What claim did make that I didn’t support?
-->
@secularmerlin
Even if there is some god(s) only I can determine what I personally find meaningful. Even if some higher power has an opinion of the subject I am under no obligation to adopt their standards and in fact will be quite unable to if they disagree with my personal opinion about what has meaning and what that meaning is.
Great point.
So, imagine you die and you find yourself in NARAKA.
And you ask whoever's in charge, "why am I here"?
And they explain that thousands of years ago, YAMA codified some perfectly objective LAWS for humans to obey.
And now you are being judged by those perfectly objective LAWS.
It's all very clear and accessible to everyone with an internet connection.
Kumbhipaka (cooked in a pot): A person who cooks beasts and birds alive is cooked alive in boiling oil by Yamadutas here, for as many years as there were hairs and or feathers on the bodies of their animal victims. [**]
YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER.
-->
@Tarik
Normally, both participants are expected to present arguments that support their claims.What claim did make that I didn’t support?
Unsupported claim: meaningfulness is objective.
-->
@Tarik
I don’t know
That can be a hard thing to admit but it is sometimes the only honest answer. Still if you are willing I think we can find out. We just need to make the situation as extreme as possible. Let's say that you die and meet the creator and his perfect objective standard is exactly the opposite of what you consider to be "obvious" that you should murder as many people as possible and lie with every breath and steal everything you can. If you do all that then you are rewarded and if you were kind and honest and didn't cheat or steal you are to be punished. Can you bring yourself to agree with that position?
-->
@secularmerlin
You have defined nihilism not 3ru7al. You did so when you defined all atheists as nihilists. Atheism is not defacto nihilism unless NIHILISM=SUBJECTIVE AXIOLOGY.
In what context did I define them as dualistic?
-->
@3RU7AL
Feel free to present your own personally preferred definition of NIHILISM at your leisure.
I just want to know why you’re set on redefining the word.
-->
@Reece101
Nihilism exists in contrast with the concept of god(s).
You are right. That isn't precisely what you said.