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 NIHILISTS

I presented a rigorously defined conditional statement.

Please be slightly more specific.

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.

Please explain how the concept of god(s) in any way contradict "nihilism".

Well elaborate means to add further explanation and/or information.

Specifically if by thinking being an expression of existence means more than "when I have a thought that thought exists" would like to know exactly what it does mean and perhaps even what it means for a thought to exist at all.

I invite you to elaborate then.

If this is not just another way of saying I think therefore I am would you care to elaborate?

Heaven

You can’t prove a negative that’s not how logic works.

Because subjectivity is emotional not logical.

It’s the same thing you have an appeal of emotion for family and you’re trying to convince me of that same emotion, one can very well not care about your family (hence why there attempted to be harmed).

Me defining morality as justified logic has nothing to do with subjective morality, try again.

Because you’ve basically described the same thing your unwillingness to provide an example proves this.

Come around from what? My position remains consistent.

...Okay, so give me an example of both.

And that’s how I define it.

...Seriously what’s the difference?

You said it yourself “You can use logic to justify your morality if your goal is happiness for example” no explanation from me necessary.

The substance of your arguments is inherently fallacious, how’s that for bad faith?

So give me an example when they are fallacious, I don’t see why I need to explain anything after you claimed to know what appeal of emotion fallacy is, but by the looks of it apparently not. Google is free look it up.

Robots aren’t the standard of logic, at the end of the day robots don’t exist without us.

Sounds like an emotional argument to me, and you know what emotional arguments are?

Doesn’t make it any less fallacious.

You can make a case for it but it can’t lose sight of what it stems from and that’s logic.

Fallacies are also inter subjective which is the ultimate sign why it should be dismissed.

Okay, so what if the narrative was the death penalty? Whatever argument you make for or against it I’m sure is based on your emotional appeal for human life, that was my point, just because we didn’t cover the base of a specific issue doesn’t make my argument any less valid.

Only if there’s a God to verify, in that case emotion can still be there but it stems from logic (wanting to go to heaven) if not it’s all emotional and inherently fallacious.

Morality in a purely subjective sense.

You didn’t, I was just generally speaking not you specifically.

Not if the other communicated subjects is supported with something other than emotion.

Nothing because as far as I’m concerned it doesn’t exist.

Because deeming something as “moral” is an argument,

and since that argument is regulated by emotion than that’s what you’re attempting to appeal to which is manipulative.

I somewhat agree but before we go any further are you an atheist?

I do

I don’t know too many instances where murder as self defense is a necessary decision,

considering there’s many ways to get the upper hand on an opponent without killing them but I hear what you’re saying, context matters in regards to morality which I agree but in order for that to be proven true there has to be some outside force other than humans that validates that belief otherwise there’s no case you can make for it other than an emotional (fallacious) one. 

I’m not obfuscating, I wouldn’t have initiated the word if I didn’t know what it meant, what I want to know is what made you come to that conclusion? Because that’s a call you’ve yet to answer.

I had a hard time following that, are you saying good circumstances are different from bad ones?

Clearly it’s not that obvious if you can’t even explain yourself, and how am I acting in bad faith (another unproved assertion)?

Yeah sure even though I don’t see the difference between those two definitions.

I know that it’s one the many examples of fallacies, if you took your own advice and did a quick search you would find that appeal of emotion is a fallacy.

It doesn’t matter, because I never argued that either. As for the last question it’s through God but if God doesn’t exist neither does objective morality and if you’re an advocate of subjective morality you would have to prove it’s existence.

If you truly believe this morality is inherently fallacious considering appeal of emotion is a fallacy, and like I’ve said many times before nihilism would by definition be true.

That’s not applicable to anything I’ve said, in terms of morality if there’s no proof it’s objective or subjective then the only logical conclusion to draw from that realization is it’s nonexistent ergo nihilism.

P1. If atheism is true, our sensory perception and cognitive faculties were not designed to fulfill a specific telos, namely, the acquisition of truth and discerning of reality as it actually is, but rather, evolved through processes which aimed solely at the passing on of the creature's DNA. 

P2. The passing on of the creature's DNA does not necessarily entail truth. 

P3. Therefore the atheist's sensory perceptions and cognitive faculties do not necessarily yield truth.

P4. Therefore if atheism is true,  there is no justification for believing anything to be true.

P5. We intuit some things are in fact true, and do so with proper justification.  

P6. Therefore atheism is false.

Do you ever cause harm when your intentions are morally pure?

Do pure intentions (or ignorance of the law) absolve an agent from unintended (or unforseen) consequences?

Please provide a specific example.

Deontological ethics would not dictate that specifically.

I would phrase it as a conditional statement (IFF) you claim that lying is always evil (thou shalt not bear false witness) (THEN) lying is always evil (regardless of the consequences)

CONSEQUENTIALISM IS INCOHERENT BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PREDICT THE FUTURE (ON MORAL SCALES).

YOUR PERSONAL ABILITY TO PERFORM A MORAL ACTION SHOULD NOT BE CONTINGENT ON YOUR ACCESS TO A SOOTHSAYER.

The key point about deontological ethics is not a specific code (this old book says this or that).

The key point about deontological ethics is that your (personal) ethical code must be coherent.

Deontological ethics does not necessarily mean all lying is bad-wrong.