Our most basic axioms

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 1,302
Topic's author
#661
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
I thought morality=punishment/reward=meaning?
That’s the consequence and how it’s proven not what it is intrinsically.
What do you think that equation proves and what specifically are the consequences?
We ought to try to be objectively moral.
HAHAHAHAHAHA .. oh. You're serious. Ok how does one go about being objectively moral without a well defined standard?
This ENTIRE conversation has been about whether meaning is contingent on objective morality or not.
Okay my bad but what is “meaning” to you?
I don't know what you are asking at this late stage on the game. You have disqualified what people find meaningful from being "real" meamong in a stunning display of the no true scotsman fallacy. 
#662
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
HAHAHAHAHAHA .. oh. You're serious. Ok how does one go about being objectively moral without a well defined standard?
Maybe there is a standard we just need to figure out what it is.

You have disqualified what people find meaningful from being "real" meamong in a stunning display of the no true scotsman fallacy.
It’s only no true Scotsman if you proved meaning and I denied it but you haven’t proven a thing.

What do you think that equation proves and what specifically are the consequences?
I didn’t create that equation you did, and the consequences is in YOUR equation.

Topic's author
#663
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Maybe there is a standard we just need to figure out what it is.
Ok. How?
It’s only no true Scotsman if you proved meaning and I denied it but you haven’t proven a thing.
I understand that you have a definition and you are sticking with it but I haven't proposed anything unobservable. I am ever so sorry for ever suggesting that what people care about might be and has been referred to as meaningful but whatever you call it people do care. Why would there need to be some greater meaning?
I didn’t create that equation you did, and the consequences is in YOUR equation.
So create your own equation. I would be delighted if you actually said something concrete.
#664
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok. How?
I don’t know, but I never claimed to know that was never my argument, nihilism was also a part of the if proposition but the conversation stopped dead after I mentioned ignorance.

Why would there need to be some greater meaning?
Because it would be an answer as to why we care.

I would be delighted if you actually said something concrete.
...I did, how many times do you want me to repost my argument?
Topic's author
#665
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Ok. How?
I don’t know, 
Ok great. So I guess we are done then. 

IF neither of us knows of a method of determining any objective morality THEN it is INDISTINGUISHABLE from there not being any.
Because it would be an answer as to why we care.
ANY GIVEN POSSIBLE ANSWERS are not necessarily CORRECT ANSWERS. The universe doesn't owe us any answers. All the answers we do have come from rigorous application of the scientific method and science does not address WHY only HOW.
I did, how many times do you want me to repost my argument?
Please do not repost anything. You said you are not arguing FOR objective meaning. Neither am I. Unless something changes about your argument or mine then we have defacto agreed that there isn't any objective meaning. 

#666
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
THEN it is INDISTINGUISHABLE from there not being any.
That assumes we’re the end all be all in terms of knowledge and there’s another side I argued that you’re not addressing and that’s nihilism.

ANY GIVEN POSSIBLE ANSWERS are not necessarily CORRECT ANSWERS.
It is IF it’s in the form of a greater meaning.

All the answers we do have come from rigorous application of the scientific method and science does not address WHY only HOW.
In that case if there’s no why then there’s no sense in caring.

we have defacto agreed that there isn't any objective meaning.
No, just because I don’t argue in favor of something that doesn’t mean I’m not in favor of it.
Topic's author
#667
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
THEN it is INDISTINGUISHABLE from there not being any.
That assumes we’re the end all be all in terms of knowledge
It doesn't assume anything. Our knowledge IS the end all be all of our knowledge necessarily. 

IF there is some knowledge or truth or fact that we don't have access to THEN it is exactly the same for us as if there is no such knowledge. 

How does that help?
and there’s another side I argued that you’re not addressing and that’s nihilism.
IF none of us is a nihilist BUT nihilism is "correct" THEN .. what? What exactly are we to conclude from this?
ANY GIVEN POSSIBLE ANSWERS are not necessarily CORRECT ANSWERS.
It is IF it’s in the form of a greater meaning.
Ok IF there is some greater meaning but we don't have any way to assess it or even determine it exists THEN ???
All the answers we do have come from rigorous application of the scientific method and science does not address WHY only HOW.
In that case if there’s no why then there’s no sense in caring.
We observably care even if there is no sense in it. So...

IF there is no sense in caring and IF humans still care about (some) things THEN ???

we have defacto agreed that there isn't any objective meaning.
No, just because I don’t argue in favor of something that doesn’t mean I’m not in favor of it.
Sorry but what does that even mean in practical terms? I mean do you even understand why the nul hypothesis is useful in logic?

If you believe in every proposition that cannot be disproved then you will start to believe all sorts of discordant and contradictory nonsense. For example

IF you believe in objective morality BECAUSE it cannot be disproved THEN you must in order to be consistent in your methodology also believe in the flying spaghetti monster* BECAUSE it cannot be disproved. 

That is why you don't have to necessarily make the positive claim that something doesn't exists to dismiss it.  On the other hand we don't just assume the existence of things we can't demonstrate especially if they aren't even being argued for.

* and also bigfoot, leprechauns, lochness monster and alien abduction.


#668
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
IF none of us is a nihilist BUT nihilism is "correct" THEN .. what? What exactly are we to conclude from this?
You’ve asked this already.

Ok IF there is some greater meaning but we don't have any way to assess it or even determine it exists THEN ???
You’ve asked this already.

IF there is no sense in caring and IF humans still care about (some) things THEN ???
Humans are ignorant, I’ve said this already.

If you believe in every proposition that cannot be disproved
Why are you saying this? I DON’T believe in every proposition that cannot be disproved.
Topic's author
#669
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
Humans are ignorant
Ok... so what?
I DON’T believe in every proposition that cannot be disproved.
Why not? Think about that. Seriously why believe in some things that can't be demonstrated or disproved and not others?



#670
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Ok... so what?
If you’re admitting to ignorance then that puts the conversation at a halt, I rest my case.

Why not? Think about that. Seriously why believe in some things that can't be demonstrated or disproved and not others?
The only way you can possibly know it can’t be demonstrated is by knowing what happens when you die, which you don’t.

Topic's author
#671
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Humans are ignorant about almost everything. If that means we should all just give up then why haven't you?

#672
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
When did I say that ignorance is a reason to give up?

Topic's author
#673
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
When did I say that ignorance is a reason to give up?
Then what about our mutual ignorance necessarily halts this conversation?
#674
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I didn’t deem it mutual.
Topic's author
#675
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
The only way you can possibly know it can’t be demonstrated is by knowing what happens when you die, which you don’t.
I know that it hasn't been demonstrated and I know that it doesn't do us much good for the purposes of this conversation if it can be demonstrated after we are dead. 
Topic's author
#676
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
I didn’t deem it mutual.
Well it is.
#677
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I know that it hasn't been demonstrated and I know that it doesn't do us much good for the purposes of this conversation if it can be demonstrated after we are dead. 
How do you know?

Well it is.
Then what’s the point?
Topic's author
#678
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
I know that it hasn't been demonstrated and I know that it doesn't do us much good for the purposes of this conversation if it can be demonstrated after we are dead. 
How do you know?
Because you haven't demonstrated it and because dead people don't appear to know anything, do anything or talk about anything.
Well it is.
Then what’s the point?
The point of what? 
#679
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
because dead people don't appear to know anything, do anything or talk about anything.
Maybe it’s because their souls left their body.

The point of what?
This discussion if you’ve established we’re both ignorant on the subject.
Topic's author
#680
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Maybe it’s because their souls left their body.
Maybe it's because they are dead. 
#681
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I was referring to their soul not there body.
Topic's author
#682
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
I was referring to their soul not there body.
Let me stop you right there. You know how we have had this whole conversation about how objective meaning cannot be demonstrated? Ok so that but with souls. 
#683
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I don’t remember ever agreeing to that, the former or the latter.
Topic's author
#684
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
Unless you can demonstrate one then we can dismiss it for the purposes of this conversation. I'm not even going to ask you to define it adequately since you still haven't really defined any of your terms leading up we will just skip that part and assume that you can't or won't define soul either.
#685
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
for the purposes of this conversation.
I love how you want to make this clear now, but you didn’t keep that same energy several posts ago.
#686
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,269
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Sounds like assumed morality to me.

And nihilism sounds like an arbitrarily applied subjective label......Rather like your assumed morality.
Topic's author
#687
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
for the purposes of this conversation.
I love how you want to make this clear now, but you didn’t keep that same energy several posts ago.
This is what I mean by pedantic. Did you forgot about making that distinction because there are some posts in which I do not specifically remind you? Now just so we are clear no souls right? Because you can't demonstrate one so you can't propose one as a cause solution for anything?
#688
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
And nihilism sounds like an arbitrarily applied subjective label
How so?
#689
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Because you can't demonstrate one so you can't propose one as a cause solution for anything?
I didn’t I prefaced my comment with MAYBE that’s the difference. I respect the circumstances of this discussion that’s why I’m not arguing definitively in regards to my beliefs, but YOU are so it’s only fair if I ask how you know which you haven’t given me an adequate answer to.

Topic's author
#690
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tarik
How so?
In as much as you are using it to MEAN no intrinsic meaning exists instead of just saying no intrusive meaning exists. I mean if you are going to slap a label onto the concept of something not existing I don't really see how it is other than arbitrary.

Now for some fun with word salad!

Arbitrary is an arbitrary label. It just means no specific reason exists. It is what it is right? You could as easily say "for no reason". Fun right?