Note to Uccisore:
Is this as far as the theist/religionist/objectivist etc., need go? They give you their own answer. You don’t accept it. Thus proving that you are incapable of recognizing the truth about God.
Also, cannot those who believe in yet another God, make the same claim of Christians?
That is because my interest in philosophy has now come down to this: “How ought one to live?”
.
.
Of course the objectivists/religionists always get around to reducing all of this down to one or another Ideology or Scripture. Or, re folks like James and Jacob, to one or another TOE.
In other words, we answer the very “it comes down to this” question, and you refuse to hear any such thing while relegating it all to derogatory insinuations simply because it does in fact answer your question.
It is a fact that you and folks like Jacob provide me with an answer. But what I am hearing is only that which you both profess to believe is true “in your head”.
My point is both of you basically claim that what you believe is true in your head constitutes proof enough. You are unable to demonstrate [either to each other or to me] that it is the obligation of all rational/virtuous folks to believe the same.
In fact, both of you can’t be correct, right? “Out in the world” of human interactions going all the way back [so far] to the Big Bang, it is either RM or VO.
And that’s before we get to the thousands upon thousands of conflicting and contradictory assessments from all the other objectivists.
I then speculate that, in pointing this out to them, they will all still insist that their own objective font – God, reason, ideology, TOE, nature etc. – reflects the one true understanding of Existence and/or Human Reality.
It wouldn’t matter who said what to you.
True. We can say anything if it is believed that what we say is confirmed merely because we believe that what we say is true “in our heads”. But how do we demonstrate this to others who say something else is true.
Scientists have been successfully accomplishing this now for centuries pertaining to the “laws of nature”.
And the ethicists?
You are merely a disingenuous nihilist preacher.
Disingenuous: not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
I don’t pretend I know less than all that one would need to know in order to fully explain things like this. I merely make a distinction between the world of either/or and the world of is/ought.
And I certainly don’t preach nihilism. I merely note the extent to which a nihilistic frame of mind [in – presumptuously – a world sans God] precipitated this “in my head”:
If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.
Then I go looking for the arguments of others that might succeed in yanking me up out of it.
And, indeed, wouldn’t it then be all the more miraculous if, in turn, they succeeded in convincing me that oblivion is not to be my fate beyond the grave.
After all, as I keep reminding folks like you and Phyllo, this grim prognosis is not to be your fate, is it?
Or so [here and now] you both now believe in your heads.
You do, don’t you, James?
Or perhaps not? What do you believe here and now that your fate will be after you are no longer a mere mortal?
[let’s see if once again you will simply disappear from an exchange with me]