Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
My argument is that it’s not, unless you have another valid option.
Valid to whom? Validated by what? See there is a difference between valid and possible. I can suggest other possible options but value/validation would seem to me to be subjective and I need to know what standard you are applying before it is a sensible question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Only you can answer that. Are you actually making an argument at all? If so what for or against? Is it worth trying to explain to me?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
We are using your preferred definitions here. If you define meaning as reward and punishment then you have supplied your definition again not any conclusion.
You have essentially said A = A. I am looking for a full syllogism.
Something like
IF we agree that human wellbeing is something we would both like to foster THEN we can agree that some actions and attitudes are more likely to foster wellbeing than others (and possibly also disagree about some) and agree to treat each other in accordingly.
See IF and ONLY IF we agree to one THEN we can reasonably agree to the other. This implies an IF NOT.
So from the top.
IF there is morality/punishmen/reward/meaning THEN ???
IF there is no morality/punishment/reward/meaning THEN ???
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Those are not workable syllogisms. You have created a definitional tautology instead.
I think we can fix it though.
I already know you believe that punishment and reward = morals = meaning. I don't think I actually accept that the three are the same or even contingent but just like all the other concerns let's put that aside for now.
Finish these syllogisms and maybe we can get to the root of what you are trying to say.
IF there is morality/punishmen/reward/meaning THEN ???
IF there is no morality/punishment/reward/meaning THEN ???
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I'm not really sure what you are asking but we can circle back to it in just a bit if you like. First however if you wish to continue having this conversation please complete the following syllogisms
IF there is meaning THEN ???
IF there is no meaning THEN ???
Created:
-->Polytheist-Witch
Religions have as much to do with how we live as when we die. There is no way to prove a soul/ spirit or lack thereof. Your opinion is as solid as anyone else.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Well yes but dominoes don't as a rule skip a domino when falling in a chain. I understand that all events have a single cause in this hypothetical but it would still be a chain reaction that we are observing unfold and one would expect it to unfold in the same order regardless. Like saying a tree doesn't make a sound if no one can hear it. Whether you can call it a sound without a listener or not the fall does create vibrations in the air or at least classic logic would seem to hold. Perhaps I'm overthinking it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If that’s how you feel then why are you so hell bent on asking questions about it?
This whole conversation has been about our answer to the question "what is your most basic axiom". Your most basic belief from which you build your world view is "maybe there is meaning but maybe there isn't"?
That isn't a very actionable belief. Maybe but maybe not isn't even an answer to the question it is just a reframing of the question.
My most basic axiom concerns believing with certainty only that which I can demonstrate to myself. Everything else builds from that. If my most basic axiom stopped at maybe what I'm experiencing is real and maybe it isn't and I didn't follow the logical syllogism of IF my experience is real THEN anything I can demonstrate within the framework I am experiencing can be believed provincially.
That's a really fancy way of saying testing is believing but it is just a logical extension of my skepticism.
Now let's compare.
IF my experience is real THEN testing is believing.
Now yours.
IF the universe has meaning THEN ???
See how it isn't a whole syllogism? Now my axiom demands that I don't believe there is meaning even if my experience is real but it doesn't even matter if you cannot finish the syllogism.
In fact I think it can be useful to reverse the syllogism too. It can say almost as much about what you are suggesting.
I'll demonstrate with my own.
IF my experience is merely an illusion THEN I am unable to know what is real but I can still learn about the laws that govern the illusion (the laws of physics) and testing is still believing (just not knowing)
So it couldn't hurt to finish this syllogism too.
IF there is no meaning THEN ???
I want to be very clear. You are not obligated to explain anything to me or to justify your beliefs but I am truly mystified that your axioms, such as you have chosen to share them with me, have any power to guide your decision making process or answer what is morally correct or incorrect even if anything actually is morally correct in the way you are describing. I've explained my axiom exhaustively and I am only asking that you do the same. Is that really unfair?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If you cannot demonstrate it then it is INDISTINGUISHABLE from undemonstrable. It is unfalsifiable within the context of this conversation. If you cannot demonstrate it then the answer is B. Now just so as to not put words in your mouth I will not assume B but instead ask you to confirm this one way or the other.
See we don't have to have a reason not to believe in something that we can't demonstrate. In fact that would be backwards since the demonstration is the reason for justified belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Not that it is reversed but that it is behaving differently than normal. It doesn't answer why the looking determines the outcome instead of the outcome determining what we see.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
It seems interesting but in addition to being unfalsifiable it seems to be unactionable. That is it doesn't really explain why the causal chain seems reversed from our perspective if it is true. Like sure it means that information doesn't have to go faster than light but it doesn't explain the apparent contradiction of the falling dominoes of the universe suddenly knocking down the dominoes behind them rather than in front of them. Unless I'm missing something which does sometimes happen. Like when you set up dominoes you are determining the fall of the last domino at the moment you knock over the first but it still doesn't ever fall backwards in order.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Isn't that just regular hard determinism though?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I think I understand. Not reverse causation but all simultaneous causation of all events at some unspecified time in the past. Is that correct? I honestly hadn't even considered that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Oh i see what you are saying. There are false dichotomies and true ones. An example of a true dichotomy is
There is demonstrable reason to believe A versus there is no demonstrable reason to believe A.
You do get that right?
Is objective morality demonstrable or is there no demonstrating it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well I know the way I answer this question.
B there is no reason to believe in objective morality or meaning.
Now your turn. A or B?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
If the result of the observation was already causally determined
Would you care to elaborate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Correction, for the sake of discussion I’m not claiming either (no matter how hard you try to force me into that corner) just acknowledging that only one is true.
Forget about nihilism for the moment. Let's just focus on this as a single true false question. False doesn't need an extra name we can just say false.
The basic question "is there some objective meaning or morality that exists independent of humanity?" The ONLY possible answers are yes, no and I don't know.
In as much as the nul hypothesis urges us to dismiss any argument for something that is unknown, such as arguments that aliens abduct people, the answer I don't know is functionally identical to a no. It becomes the answer "there is no reason to believe so".
So bare bones I'm giving you two possible answers.
The question: Does objective morality and meaning exist independently of humanity?
Your answers are limited by the nul hypothesis to either
A) Yes it demonstrably exists
or
B) no there is no reason to believe that it exists
So are you an A guy or a B guy?
Created:
Posted in:
So the universe is weird huh?
I mean look at this. Measuring the effects of an event after it has happened will change the effect of the event?
What are we to make of this? Perhaps it means that both things have happened and there are many universes. Perhaps it means reverse causation (that effects can precede causes) is not just possible but ordinary. Maybe it just means we don't really understand what is going on at all. That in so much as we have observed cause and effect it is emergent of other factors rather than a logical necessity.
I cannot begin to demonstrate any particular viewpoint but I must confess that I think reverse causation makes the fewest assumptions. It is in fact even compatible with the other possible positions.
What are your thoughts on this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I’m arguing that either objective morality or nihilism is correct question is which one is it?
While I consider this a false dichotomy I must remind you, yet again, that unless you are arguing for objective morality then you are conceding that there is none.
Your current argument does not support objective morality unless you alter it somehow.
IF your only two options are objective morality and nihilism and IF you are not claiming objective morality THEN you are left with nihilism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You are not however arguing that there is any god or any objective morality. You were very clear on those points.
Unless you are actually arguing that there IS objective morality in which case you will have a burden of proof to support.
So here we are at your most basic axiom despite your struggling so hard against revealing it.
Are you claiming that some objective morality exists and therefore assuming a burden proof for that claim or are you conceding that your very best attempt to discern right from wrong is a fallacy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
For the purposes of this conversation you have defined nihilism as being true if there is no objective morality and conceded that there is in fact no objective morality.
For the purposes of this conversation you have in effect argued that nihilism is true.
Your current position unless something about your argument changes, is that your very best attempt at discerning right from wrong is a fallacy.
Do you have anything to add or reconsider?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So, and just to be clear, your very best attempt at discerning right from wrong is a fallacy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I kindly ask you to take the concept I have referred in this conversation as moral intuition (ones personal idea of what a good person is like) and supply the term that best describes it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Yeah well you also said thisyou and I are both nihilists
What other conclusion am I supposed to think you are reaching when you say that nihilism is the only aalternative to a universal system of punishment and reward that we are agreeing to dismiss for the purposes of the conversation. I thought you were calling us both nihilists. If we can agree that neither of a nihilist then I'm sure we can forget about any perceived mislabeling.
That out of the way I kindly ask you to take the concept I have referred in this conversation as moral intuition (ones personal idea of what a good person is like) and supply the term that best describes it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I told you that I do not self identify as a nihilist. At the beginning of the conversation.
I can agree to let you self identify if you afford me the same courtesy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No, I’m gonna have to stop you right there, you can speak for yourself but don’t speak for me, I am NOT and I repeat NOT a nihilist, and that’s regardless of whether or not nihilism is true. But if it turns out I’m wrong and it is true than I guess you were right all along and I’m just too OBTUSE to understand and/or accept it.
Then on what grounds do you assert that I am a nihilist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
are you asking why they killed Jesus?
That some end times preaching religious dissident was executed by the Roman government it is not unreasonable. It is further not unreasonable to assume it was for spreading dissidence. I don't have a problem with that part of the story. I'm not sure I would be as aggressive as Steve but I don't in principle agree with your position any more than he does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Remember that the Bible is a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends.
So you are saying that the bible can be mostly dismissed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
no, morality is objective
Bald assertion.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
That us an entertaining post. Thank you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
Does the Bible really support slavery?The answer would seem to be that parts of the bible do support or at least condones slavery and even provides a system under which slavery "should" be practiced and parts of the bible arguably are against slavery. It seems odd from a book that can be considered a perfect divinely inspired guide to morality but it makes a lot of sense if it was written at various times by various people for various reasons and they were not all morally perfect people.
Fun fact did you know that the bible was quoted by both northern abolitionists and southern slave owners in the years leading up to the civil war both secure in the knowledge that (parts of) the bible supported their view?
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
May as well define truth too
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Please define Catholicism.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Please supply your most preferred definition of the word fact as used in this context.
Created:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
all other religions are wrong[1], faith does lead to the truth and the truth IS catholicism[2]
[1] bald assertion. Ad hominem attacks on uninvolved third parties.
[2] bald assertion. Circular reasoning.
I remain unconvinced of the logical strength of your conclusions and I find your methodology inconsistent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I think I may be able to cut right to the chase by reviewing where we are at at this moment in your argument. Maybe not but it is worth a try.
You are not arguing that there is a god so I can safely dismiss the idea as the default on any undemonstrated claim can be dismissed and you are disinclined to prove it. Remember that is part of my most basic axiom.
You are arguing that if there is no god there can be no objective morality and I have already dismissed god so I can also dismiss objective morality.
The alternative to objective morality is to you definitionally nihilism. If nihilism is logically necessary (and your argument so far supports that) then you and I are both nihilists. Which does not stop you from trying your best to be your own personal idea of what a good person is like, which is clearly not a moral opinion so I'm not sure what to call it. You clearly fall short of that idea and you don't think the idea you have is perfect but you are trying. These are also not moral opinions and I'm not sure what it makes them.
It also does not stop me from trying my best to be my own personal idea of what a good person is like, which I maintain is a moral opinion unless you can otherwise explain the phenomenon. I clearly fall short of that idea and I don't think the idea I have is perfect but I am are trying. These are also, I maintain, moral opinions unless you can explain what it is they in fact are.
I am not advocating for anything I can not prove exists I am just being told that I am using the wrong words. I kindly ask you to take the concept I have in this conversation as moral intuition (ones personal idea of what a good person is like) and supply the term that best describes it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I am not trying to prove there is no god I just don't believe there is one. I don't have to prove I don't believe it. That is in fact my whole point. You have been very critical of my language in this discussion (surely for the sake of clarity and not just being difficult) I am just trying to do you the same service.
Do you see the difference between "there are no gods" and "I don't believe in any gods"?
How about the difference between "there are no opinions regarding morality" and "I don't believe there are any opinions about morality"?
And hey is the statement "morality is as cool as the Fonze" an opinion or not? Am I allowed to think that morality is as cool as the Fonze or not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If you cannot prove it then you cannot meet your burden of proof that it is impossible.Negative claims don’t have the burden of proof.
Yrs they do or the statement there is no god requires no burden of proof but I was just picking on you and returning your attitude of obtuse and pedantry so it isn't really important right now.
Why can't you (not me you) have opinions about morality?
Because it’s not an opinionated subject, next question.
Subjects are not opinionated people are. I have a hunch that isn't really what you mean. I really don't want to put words in your mouth but I feel like the progression you are following is this one.
You cannot have opinions about morality because morality is not a thing you can have opinions about. This is circular and so does not explain your statement. Why is morality a thing you cannot have opinions about?
"Morality is cooler than the Fonze" is not an opinion? Or it is an opinion and I'm not allowed to think so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If you cannot prove it then you cannot meet your burden of proof that it is impossible.
Still I'll admit to a bit of morbid curiosity so I'll play along for perhaps a few more posts.
Why can't you (not me you) have opinions about morality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
But in this case you CAN’T have an opinion on morality, that’s the difference
Prove it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Prove that you are not this obtuse? I can't only you can. If you really truly can't separate an opinion about something from the actual thing then you are very obtuse and if you can then you are pretending not to understand that when I say you have moral opinions these opinions are not objective morality. Indeed so far we are engaged in a discussion where neither of us is even arguing that there is any objective morality.
I can have an opinion about a tree. The opinion is not a tree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Because I do not believe anyone could be this genuinely obtuse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I no longer believe you are trying to have any honest discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I guess we'd have to stage some sort of pure hearted "sincere-off" battle royale or something.
Interesting idea. I'll get the super duper sincerity measuring slide rule.
Created:
Posted in:
-->@Tarik
I’d like to think so but I’m not perfect.
This constitutes an opinion about morality. Arguably two if thinking you may have room for improvement is an opinion rather than a human truism.
You have moral opinions. An entirely different concept from objective morality so whether objective morality exists or not we have opinions about morality.
Please point out any flaw in my logic or offer a (necessary and demonstrable) counterfactual.
Sorry for the minor typo. Here is my post resubmitted with the necessary correction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
OBJECTIVE MORALITY = WE MUST ALWAYS DO WHAT WE THINK IS RIGHT
What if we think different things are right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I’d like to think so but I’m not perfect.
This constitutes an opinion about morality. Arguably two if thinking you may have room for improvement is an opinion rather than a human truism.
You have moral opinions. An entirely different concept from objective morality so whether objective reality exists or not we have opinions about morality.
Please point out any flaw in my logic or offer a (necessary and demonstrable) counterfactual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Then stop making claims you can’t support, people don’t have moral opinions if you’re gonna claim they do then yes you have to prove it otherwise you leave me no choice but to dismiss the argument.
Do you know right from wrong? Perhaps that is too strong. Hmmmm what will you accept that has the correct meaning... you do or don't do certain things because you believe that they are probably moral or immoral right?
Created:
-->
@janesix
There is definitely a human standard for what is preferable mostly based on our need for community.
We are forced to live together and isolation can have pronounced and permanent effects on mental health.
Even if nothing is real and nothing matters we may as well try to be nice to each other and live our best lives. What else did you have going on today?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I don't need objective morals to determine what kind of world I would like to live inWhen did I say you did? Please quote me.
Great! Excellent! Glad we agree. So I don't need any objective morality to self actualize or to determine what is morally correct for myself in exactly the same way that you are forced to. This is true whether there is some god(s) or no god(s) and whether it is a "moral" god or an "antimoral" god.
Created: