As Ive observed you for a long time now (and vice versa) and tried my best to develop a mutual understanding with you, Ive reached the exasperating conclusion that youre displaying the confirmation bias that you desire to fit everything into your rigid, dogmatic, judgemental, highly idealistic (and unrealistic) belief system which lacks sufficient degrees-of-freedom to allow you to understand and fully appreciate others your belief that theres some absolute truth, God, or morals. You might think vice versa that Im favoring a confirmation bias for Nihilism or decentralization.
...
I reject that notion of an absolute truth as unprovable and necessarily untestable, because of the necessity of relativity (of even information) as I have explained numerous times. My belief is not Nihilism.
...
I have explained numerous times (that omniscience is impossible because spacetime is not collapsed into an undifferentiated past and future light cones).
...
Theres no right answer about what to do in life, except the one that each person chooses. Yes there are consequences, but theres no absolute truth by which to measure those outcomes consistent throughout (all space and time and metaphysical dimensions).
...
The sheep dont entertain all the information nor attempt to assimilate as much information as is possible. Therefore, Im not a sheep.
I... try to contemplate which patterns of culture have been successful. I am information based, not ideologically biased
...
This isnt Nihilism because I believe partial orders do allow observable consequences
Perhaps one reaches peace when they realize they dont have to get anyone elses approval for their beliefs, when one is comfortable in their own philosophy even if no one else pats them on the back or joins with them.
Hello Hyperme.sh since you have decided to take our friendly banter public I think some background information would help readers understand what we are talking about.
The above private message exchange was sparked by my post of Ben Hunt's essay titled.
Sheep Logic - This Is The Age Of The High-Functioning Sociopath
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg22652426#msg22652426I actually have little desire for theological debate. So I will instead post some friendly queries.
You report the following beliefs.
1) You reject that notion of an absolute truth. You also categorically state that omniscience is impossible.
2) You argue that there is no right answer about what to do in life, except the one that each person chooses.
3) Your argue that your belief that actions have observable consequences make your beliefs a separate entity from nihilism.
These are the questions I have for you given your stated positions.
Question 1: God according to all of the major monotheistic religions is omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence(unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), and had an an eternal and necessary existence. As you have chosen apriori to believe that there is no absolute truth and that omniscience is impossible how can you reconcile these views with a belief in God, Jesus, or religion of any kind?
Question 2: You argue that there is no right answer about what to do in life, except the one each person chooses. How is your view anything other then a conclusion that the ends justify the means?
Question 3: You mention evil several times but seem to have adopted a set of assumptions that precludes the existence of evil. How do you define evil? Can evil exist under your assumptions? If the only thing that matters is observed consequences why is it wrong to steal from or kill my enemies if I can get away with it or to take from the weak because that is the natural order of things?
Question 4: You mentioned that your belief that actions have observable consequences makes your views a separate entity from nihilism yet a belief in cause and effect is entirely compatible with nihilism. The foundation of nihilism is the belief that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Nihilists also assert that there is no inherent morality, and that accepted moral values are abstractly contrived. When you say that your beliefs are not nihilism are you saying that you disagree with the nihilist on these issues or simply that you have reached the same conclusions via different means?