I disagree that it is an ontological fact that nothing has intrinsic value. I’m not an atheist anymore.

I disagree that it is an ontological fact that nothing has intrinsic value. I’m not an atheist anymore. — Noah Te Stroete

So to have a philosophical discussion about this, you'd need to plausibly support how there can be intrinsic value. Support just what it's a property of, just how it would obtain, etc.

You were the one who claimed that your moral reasons were based on your “feelings”. Why should your personal feelings count more than others’? — Noah Te Stroete

Why, because they're mine, of course! :lol:

Why would I take someone else's feelings over mine, unless I found them more persuasive? What's funny is that you're no different than me in this regard. You go by your own thoughts and feelings unless persuaded otherwise, and so do I.

I believe through faith that the universe was created for the purpose of beings with reason or rationality. Thus, I don’t see how it doesn’t follow that there are no necessary truths regarding conduct. You, on the other hand, believe through faith that there is no purpose for the universe.

Anyway, notice how Noah Te Stroete has evaded some of my key points against his position? In light of that, I'm definitely under no obligation to address anything that he says which is intended as an argument against my position.

I believe I have addressed your position. I believe I gave an adequate answer that both of us are basing our worldviews on faith.

I believe through faith that the universe was created for the purpose of beings with reason or rationality. Thus, I don’t see how it doesn’t follow that there are no necessary truths regarding conduct. You, on the other hand, believe through faith that there is no purpose for the universe. — Noah Te Stroete

I don't believe through faith that there is no objective purpose. I believe through the complete absence of evidence that there is no objective purpose. The only evidence for purposes suggests that they're something that individuals do (in other words, a way that individuals can think about things).

How does it follow that if the universe was created for the purpose of beings with reason or rationality, then there are necessary truths?

It seems not impossible logically that if the universe was created for the purpose of beings with reason or rationality, then there are contingent truths.

What's the argument for the former rather than the latter?

I’m not denying the existence of contingent moral truths (Kant’s hypothetical imperatives). I am claiming there are at least some necessary moral truths (Kant’s categorical imperatives).

I’m not denying the existence of contingent moral truths (Kant’s hypothetical imperatives). I am claiming there are at least some necessary moral truths (Kant’s categorical imperatives). — Noah Te Stroete

Sure. And I'm questioning how you believe that necessary (moral or any) truth follows from the notion that the universe was created for the purpose of beings with reason or rationality, because that seems like a non sequitur to me.

A complete lack of evidence? How is it that the human mind can discover laws of nature, for example? Is that just a happy coincidence?

(1) Laws of nature do not have anything to do with purpose. They have to do simply with what is the case.

(2) I don't believe that we do discover laws of nature. I'm not a realist on natural law (in any sense). I'm not a realist on an abstracts. I'm a nominalist. And the evidence suggests that laws of nature are a way that we think about what we experience rather.

There is reason to the universe and there is reason to the human mind. I don’t believe that is a coincidence. I believe that is at least one piece of evidence that the universe was created for rational beings. We can also be rational about conduct because if the universe was created for beings like us, then we have a moral obligation to preserve human life.

don't believe that we do discover laws of nature. I'm not a realist on natural law. I'm not a realist on an abstracts. The evidence suggests that laws of nature are a way that we think about what we experience rather. — Terrapin Station

That sounds like idealism. I thought you were against idealism.

I believe I have addressed your position. I believe I gave an adequate answer that both of us are basing our worldviews on faith. — Noah Te Stroete

You didn't even properly address my very first reply to you. You instead switched focus to my position with a string of questions.

Allow me to refresh your memory. You said that in light of your understanding that humans are considered animals by biologists, and that we are animals at the top of the food chain, it is therefore not immoral to eat animals, however much.

I replied that that doesn't follow, and that it is based on a hasty generalisation. Humans are unique among animals, in that, for example, they are capable of moral agency, and are capable of thinking things through in ways that no other known animal is capable of, and in that we can take advantage of the technological advancements all around us in ways that no other animal can.

Remind me, how did you address that criticism? Oh, that's right...

And then there was my point about an objective moral standard. I asked you a direct question. What was your answer? Oh, that's right...

And no, lol, to simply assert out of the blue that both of us are basing our world views on faith is far from adequate.

That sounds like idealism. I thought you were against idealism. — Noah Te Stroete

Some things are mental-only--like ethics/morality and value in general, some things aren't mental-only, they're objective/real/external to us.

I'm not a realist on any abstracts. Not being a realist on any abstracts is a brand of nominalism (which is part of how I'm a nominalist). I'm a realist on particulars instead.

So yeah, you could say that it's idealism about physical laws, but it's not any kind of overarching idealism. Presumably everyone thinks that some things are mental-only, unless they're simply denying that we have minds, thoughts, etc. at all...... In which case they're literally telling us that they're mindless. ;-)

Remind me, how did you address that criticism? Oh, that's right... — S

I addressed it by agreeing to moral reasoning. Remember me granting you that eating too much beef is wrong? I thought we agreed on that. I was asking questions as a dialectical tool to get you to give your basis for morality, which you said were based on the primacy of your personal feelings. I then gave reasonings for denying that. Some of my reasons were addressed to TerrapinStation. I assumed you read those, too. Your basis that the universe has no purpose is based on faith as is my basis of intrinsic human value is based on reasoned faith.

Well, I’m not sure what nominalism is. I’m not familiar with that. I believe there are real abstracts. I don’t think that idealism or mental-only implies not real in a propositional sense.

A traditional distinction is between real and ideal, which at least roughly correlates to objective/subjective, or external/internal (internal a la mentality). That's not the only way to use the terms "real" and "ideal," obviously, but it's one traditional way to use the terms, and pretty much whenever you see a philosopher say that they're an antirealist on such and such, they're simply denying that such and such has any external or objective existence.

Re nominalism, it's worth reading a bit about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nominalism-metaphysics/.

Well, I don’t believe in the mental-only/objective-mind-independent dichotomy. I believe they are intertwined inextricably. Hence, my belief that there is reason to the universe (it is rational) and the human mind is rational. The two cannot be extricated or separated.

I don’t think I believe in abstract objects, but I do believe in universals.

There is reason to the universe and there is reason to the human mind. I don’t believe that is a coincidence. — Noah Te Stroete

You rule that out because you don't like it, and you believe it all fits together perfectly, clearly indicating a God, because of wishful thinking.

And yet, you were the one only moments ago grasping at straws to undermine the role that emotions play in our ethical stances.

You've got it backwards. You should have a clear head on metaphysical matters, and listen to your heart on ethical matters.

No, you’ve got it backwards. I don’t believe in God through purely wishful thinking, but rather on reasoned faith. I will grant that you have reasons for believing that there is no purpose to the universe (and I’m not denying that some of them may be good reasons, just that I feel like I have good reasons for my belief). However, you don’t even know what my conception of God is, and your reasons are just as much a faith belief as mine.

I believe there are universal feelings for non-psychopaths that indicate moral truths.

I addressed it by agreeing to moral reasoning. Remember me granting you that eating too much beef is wrong? I thought we agreed on that. — Noah Te Stroete

How does that relate to my criticism of your reasoning? You seem to have missed the point. I wasn't disputing your conclusion by suggesting that it's false that it's not immoral to eat animals, however much. I was criticising your reasoning on the basis that it's fallacious. And that's what you haven't addressed. Do you accept my criticism or not?

Your basis that the universe has no purpose is based on faith as is my basis of intrinsic human value is based on reasoned faith. — Noah Te Stroete

Reasoned faith is an oxymoron. :lol:

No, like Terrapin, I don't believe that the universe has a purpose because there is insufficient evidence to support that theory.

However, you don’t even know what my conception of God is. — Noah Te Stroete

I'm willing to bet that it's a load of baloney. :snicker:

I believe there are universal feelings for non-psychopaths that indicate moral truths. — Noah Te Stroete

And I believe that the existence of horses indicates the existence of magical flying unicorns.

How is it that we can discover natural laws? Is that not a good reason to maybe believe that we are in tune with nature? And if we are in tune with nature, is it such a stretch to believe that rational minds had to necessarily arise in nature? And I think that is reasoned faith. Your denial of these reasons is also reasoned faith.

Obviously I didn't catch what was supposed to answer that question then. Whatever you took to answer it must not have seemed like an answer to it to me. Are you attempting to communicate with me so that I understand an idea I didn't previously or are you trying to just be disputatious and antagonistic? — Terrapin Station

Im not trying to be antagonistic, answering questions with more questions seems evasive. Especially when you do that instead of addressing the points I raised. Its not like im posting lengthy, obfuscating responses.
Now Im not sure how to respond, since trying to communicate towards understandung is what I am indeed attempting but you have found it offensive.

Why are you so combative? Did your parents threaten you with eternal damnation and hellfire if you didn’t accept God? Personally, I don’t have a problem with atheists. I was one for much of my life. I had good reasons for being one. I now also have good reasons for not being one. Why do atheists have such a problem with all theists? I don’t share that feeling towards atheists.

Why are you so combative? — Noah Te Stroete

Because I get a perverted kick out of it. If you don't like that, then you can report me to the political correctness enforcement squad. :wink:

It doesn’t seem very moral, as it seems like you are denying theists’ humanity and dignity.