khaled

Ask them to put their argument in premise-conclusion form with clear definitions such that not one word is mentioned that is not clearly defined

Not if you don't make a case, to begin with. If you actually want to cooperate please do so. If you don't leave. This is an open forum, you are expect...

I sent you 3 texts. The first one was begging you to stop trolling me IN THREAD and to instead do it in pm. The second was expressing how I saw the si...

You take rationality as a pivot. If someone does not your argument breaks down. That is the point. You continuously conflate my claim of an objective ...

I won't talk about PMs here because that's what the P in PM stands for What do you do with people who do not have this common sense? You just admitted...

I am weary of replying to you but I'll try in case you don't troll anymore. Idk which comment you're talking about so I'll assume it's my discussion w...

Descartes proposed an "evil deceiver" that twists his reasoning so that 2+2 might actually be 5 but the evil deceiver keeps changing it to 4 in Descar...

Define "glimpsed objective reality". How could the buddha possibly know that what he saw was the end all be all of reality?

this guy is your man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ORH1dXLUx0. That is a logical conclusion. Not wise to use those when the big bad devil is trying...

This is the critical point. You say "I just find out through the same senses that make me aware of there being a coffee pot" but if someone (a schizop...

There is a bit of nuance here. I do not define objective as impossible for anyone to disagree with I defined it as "What exists regardless of what any...

The reason I chose logical verification is very pragmatic. It is because it is shared by everyone. The rules of logic can be taught and used by everyo...

What do you mean "shrug it off". I haven't shrugged anything off. I said: It makes a difference only because I decided it would and my decision it wou...

There ARE people that doubt the "therefore" in "therefore I am" and they make a pretty good case doing it.

But in your world why is there something wrong with murder? If you murder someone nothing will oppose you or tell you you shouldn't have. Also, just b...

I'm not sure which affect you mean but if you mean "emotion or desire as influencing behaviour" then I'd say that IS in the domain of philosophy espec...

yes and if I happened to choose I want to make some tea I wouldn't be wrong either. And if I happened to choose to denounce all culturally defined mor...

I am aware that that is the start of the rabbit hole but the problem is a non-logical way of verifying premises is fundamentally subjective. That does...

Here I'll be assuming an objective reality exists and showing how that still doesn't matter to a nihilist Assumptions that are not definitions so I co...

That is the initial assumption in my argument and is restated in P2. I use premise and conclusion interchangeably because they are ontologically the s...

Who defines "better" and "worse" I didn't have one. I'm not trying to discuss relativism in this thread unless you insist

Premise: A sensical statement with a truth value of true or false that is verifiable logically Self evident: A premise that suffices as evidence for i...

no point. It's just that you're the first to willingly admit that. I recognize it's not really significant as most people do end up adhering to logic.

it's still not math because it's 1 am here and I'm in bed and I still don't know what I'm doing but hoping this makes slightly more sense for now Assu...

I'd put "accepting what we have" as nihilism and "throwing a tantrum" as suicide/passive nihilism. Nihilism as I define it is just that accepting what...

it sounds to me like you're admitting of a relativism even as far as one's choice of using logic.

how is there an ethics in logic?

nihilism is accepting the uncertainty. It has no bearing on how we deal with it as there is no should in nihilism. Nihilism doesn't say: it all doesn'...

Please elaborate on this "if". What do you mean nothing is distinguished from anything else. More like: The most objective thing we have found so far ...

ok cool :up: . I'm fine with the possibility of an objective morality existing just haven't found proof yet

P1: The application of logic requires premises P2: Any conclusion the application of logic leads to is true if the premises are true P3: There is no w...

it would be helpful if instead of effectively saying "You're a fucking idiot" that you say "No because X" or "Here is a link explaining why you're wro...

I never said it cannot be done. I said there is more that one way to do it and thus any distinction you come up with between those ways cannot be labe...

I am doing so and you are the only person here not helping. If all you do is attack people personally then I won't reply to you any more. I am so very...

I agree with everything you wrote except: You have to do a bit more than "verbally" deny something in the case of pain. I'm pretty sure the guy tiptoe...

You cannot deny the existence of experience (without being logically inconsistent at least) but you CAN deny certain aspects of it with your choosing....

"Why should one believe his experience of sensing objects (as you defined them) is reliable" is a question unanswerable neither by the existence of ob...

Also just found this if you're looking for something a bit more poetic In the end there is a why to which no answer is possible. In fact, from why to ...

Here is the long not so formal but a bit more formal version P1: The application of logic requires premises P2: Any conclusion the application of logi...

another situation is abortion. For abortion to be legal or illegal requires we determine the rights of a fetus. Is a fetus a human? There is no easy a...

no BUT they would ALSO believe that anyone who doesn't believe in their God is wrong ergo they still effectively believe in objective morality

ok Killing baby Hitler Pro: you save millions of lives Con: you take an innocent life Which one of these is OBJECTIVELY better? Neither. People debate...

give me a moral situation that you think offers no room for disagreement

I'm perfectly fine with the operational definition but trust me most people are not (because most people are religious) since the operational definiti...

yes. Morality entails objectivity. Ask a religious fundamentalist about morality and they tell you theirs is the only correct one. Ask a law maker abo...

there is room for disagreement in all moral situations thus far* sorry

there are already universal "ises" such as "something exists". It is impossible to disagree there. There could be a universal ought. There is no reaso...

how so?

I haven't found one yet but bingo I don't think it exists (which is why I told you to go check that title, I'm a nihilist :joke: )

yes