Jeremy Walker the nihilist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-05-2014, 04:20 PM
RE: Jeremy Walker the nihilist



#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2014, 04:21 PM
RE: Jeremy Walker the nihilist
(15-05-2014 02:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  It is not arbitrary at all if God's decrees issue forth from His nature as a Holy, Righteous God. What He decrees are in accordance with His nature and are the expressions of His desires for His creation.

Far from being arbitrary, they are what they are by virtue of who God is.

It's one of two things:

1) It's something due to God's nature, therefore, he has no control of it and he is not omnipotent.

2) It is under God's control, therefore, it's arbitrary.

You can't have it both ways.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RobbyPants's post
15-05-2014, 05:18 PM (This post was last modified: 15-05-2014 05:29 PM by Charis.)
RE: Jeremy Walker the nihilist
Which came first?

God's righteousness or that which is right?

How can one have righteousness unless there is an already-existing sense of morality for a being (mortal or immortal) to adhere to and thus be "righteous?"

If "righteous" is "what God is," then does an already-existing morality determine God and his righteousness or does God determine morality? If God determines morality, according to his own will (duh), then... well that's pretty convenient if you're going for the "righteousness" card.

And that would bring us back to Robby's post above... if it's up to God, it's all arbitrary.

A person very dear to me was badly hurt through a misunderstanding and miscommunication. For this, I am sorry, and he knows it. That said, any blaming me for malicious intent is for the birds. I will not wear some scarlet letter, I will not be anybody's whipping girl, and I will not lurk in silence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Charis's post
15-05-2014, 05:34 PM (This post was last modified: 15-05-2014 05:59 PM by ivaneus.)
RE: Jeremy Walker the nihilist
If i may have a tl;dr moment here, i'm at page 19 of this thread and i have already seen:

Circular definition
False equivocation
Special pleading
Non-sequitur
Appeal to authority
Appeal to emotion
Appeal to personal incredulity
Confirmation bias
Edit: Strawman fallacy

All from Jeremy E Walker

We should have played logical fallacy BINGO on this thread.


If you don't want a sarcastic answer, don't ask stupid questions. Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 11 users Like ivaneus's post
15-05-2014, 06:08 PM
RE: Jeremy Walker the nihilist
Nihilism argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value, it also argues that there are no moral truths.

This does not mean that a Nihilist doesn't value continuing with their own life, and it does not mean that a Nihilist cannot arbitrarily assign a purpose for themselves if they choose to do so. It does not mean that a Nihilist cannot see personal value in things.

Obviously Jeremy is personally uncomfortable not having a purpose defined for him rather than by him, and moral rules defined for him rather than by him.

When I was a child my parents defined my purpose (somewhat) and defined "moral" rules for me. When I grew up I got rid of the idea of purpose and replaced it with transient goals, I got rid of the idea of morality and replaced it with balancing my immediate needs with the long term personal consequences. Essentially I became an independent adult, accountable for my own decisions and actions.

I am comfortable being self sufficient. There are people whom are not comfortable and require the safety of guidance and rules. I would imagine that for an adult who has spent their life under the safety of guidance and rules that it would be scary to go it alone. I know I was nervous when I left home but now I would loath the idea of moving back in with Mum and Dad.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
15-05-2014, 06:09 PM (This post was last modified: 15-05-2014 09:25 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jeremy Walker the nihilist
(15-05-2014 02:13 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 02:06 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  This is quite ironic, given the thread subject. Any such distinctions God makes are arbitrary. God is [holy], and as such he hates X. Because he is [righteous], he deems that X deserves to be met with Y. So when Got meets X with Y, it is [just].

God could have arbitrarily decided that eating a tuna fish sandwich should be met with blessings of twinkies or running red lights should be met with a bullet to the knee. He just happened to not weigh in on those issues and instead say that male on male homosexuality should be met with stones to the face not being admitted to the kingdom of God (according to the Old New Testament).

Not only is the rule and punishment system quite arbitrary, it's entirely unnecessary, given that he can see the future and is the "author of all things".

It is not arbitrary at all if God's decrees issue forth from His nature as a Holy, Righteous God. What He decrees are in accordance with His nature and are the expressions of His desires for His creation.

Far from being arbitrary, they are what they are by virtue of who God is.

Which begs the question "Where does that come from ?"
You can't answer the question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

Your response that your deity has a "nature", means it is limited to one, and not something else, (thus not infinite). If it has a "nature" it is subject to (only part of) Reality, and and cannot be the creator of reality. Such meaningless drivel you people spout.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
15-05-2014, 06:22 PM
RE: Jeremy Walker the nihilist
(15-05-2014 05:18 PM)Charis Wrote:  Which came first?

God's righteousness or that which is right?

How can one have righteousness unless there is an already-existing sense of morality for a being (mortal or immortal) to adhere to and thus be "righteous?"

If "righteous" is "what God is," then does an already-existing morality determine God and his righteousness or does God determine morality? If God determines morality, according to his own will (duh), then... well that's pretty convenient if you're going for the "righteousness" card.

And that would bring us back to Robby's post above... if it's up to God, it's all arbitrary.

Now, just because Jeremy argues that we inevitably need a creator to exist, a higher purpose to have meaning, and an outside standard to have non-subjective morality, you can't just go around willy-nilly applying that same kind of logic to god. If you did, we would enter a logic loop of infinite regression from which we could never escape.

Even if we could understand such things, it would be futile. "There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”

Jesus is my Stalker: He has graced me with his unconditional love, but if I reject it and refuse to love him in return, he will make my life Hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like djhall's post
15-05-2014, 06:25 PM
RE: Jeremy Walker the nihilist
(15-05-2014 06:22 PM)djhall Wrote:  Now, just because Jeremy argues that we inevitably need a creator to exist, a higher purpose to have meaning, and an outside standard to have non-subjective morality, you can't just go around willy-nilly applying that same kind of logic to god. If you did, we would enter a logic loop of infinite regression from which we could never escape.

Those are very good points, and you seem like a clever young man, but I'm afraid it's turtles all the way down.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like cjlr's post
15-05-2014, 06:29 PM
RE: Jeremy Walker the nihilist
I like cheerios.

A person very dear to me was badly hurt through a misunderstanding and miscommunication. For this, I am sorry, and he knows it. That said, any blaming me for malicious intent is for the birds. I will not wear some scarlet letter, I will not be anybody's whipping girl, and I will not lurk in silence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Charis's post
15-05-2014, 06:34 PM
RE: Jeremy Walker the nihilist
(15-05-2014 06:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 06:22 PM)djhall Wrote:  Now, just because Jeremy argues that we inevitably need a creator to exist, a higher purpose to have meaning, and an outside standard to have non-subjective morality, you can't just go around willy-nilly applying that same kind of logic to god. If you did, we would enter a logic loop of infinite regression from which we could never escape.

Those are very good points, and you seem like a clever young man, but I'm afraid it's turtles all the way down.

Ah, well, I should have known such an obvious observation would already have an established name. I googled the phrase since it didn't seem to make sense.

I run into that a lot here. Things I've thought and tried to describe usually end up having a name for it and an established line of reasoning already accumulated about them. Which makes sense, really, but you just don't run into much of it in popular culture.

Jesus is my Stalker: He has graced me with his unconditional love, but if I reject it and refuse to love him in return, he will make my life Hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like djhall's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: