Nihilism

In his opening argument, my opponent has stated how he reached his Nihilistic ideological conclusion, using the example of the Christian religion. My argument against Nihilism shall be divided in three parts: Rebuttal against the Religion argument, analysis of my opponent's conclusion, and my case in favor of science. Rebuttal against Religion argument: How does a religion objectively justify defining good and bad? According to the Christian religion, objective morality depends on God, and thus God defines good and evil, with God being the source and the definition of good and Satan being the source and the definition of evil. This is how Chrstinaity objectively justifies defining good and bad, through God and Satan. Why is Heaven good and Hell bad? Heaven is good because God resides in Heaven. Since God is the source of objective goodness according to Christinianity, Heaven is good. Hell is bad because in Hell humans are completly seperated from God, the source of good. Without God, there is no good, and therefore there is only bad, which is why Hell is bad. This is why Heaven is good and Hell is bad. In his first conclusion, my opponent states that: "Everything is, in some way or another, subjective." In order to support this claim, my opponent uses the following examples: 1) Religion is subjective because it appeals to subjective inclinations such as happiness and life and pain and death. 2) Moral values are subjective because they appeal to our species' inclination for survival 3) Universal laws are subjective because " universal laws are arbitrarily constructed on empiricism" 4) Metaphysical laws "(ie math) are subjective because they are signicantly constructed" as universal laws. From these examples, my opponent arrives at his second conclusion: 1) "Everything we understand as human beings are subjective and therefore objectively insignificant" 2) Thus Nihilism is the most objective philsophical position, (through the process of elimination) The challenge: "Prove me wrong." In order to prove you wrong, here is a rebuttal of the concluding statement: It appears that everything is, in some way or another, subjective. Essentially, this claim states that everything is subjective. This claim is ironically an objective claim. Thus there is bound to be some objectivity, at least in language. Religion appeals to subjective inclinations toward (eternal) life and happiness and subjective aversions toward pain While Religion does appeal to subjective inclinations, it also has objective standards of morality. In the example of Christianity, God is the source and definition of good, thus God objectively defines goodness and badness, and morality is defined by God, thus morality is objective in Christianity. Moral values appeal to our species inclination for survival. While this statement may be true, it fails to support how morality is subjective, and thus must be dismissed. In fact, many philsophers, theologians, and thinkers think that morality is objective. An example of this is that murder, genoicide, rape, and slavery is morally wrong forever and always, regardless of society's values. Another example of objective morality is the claim that all people have the same natural rights (ie the right to live, the right to be free, the right to a fair trial, etc.) These natural rights are protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: ( http://www.un.org...) By protecting and recognizing natural rights, the UDHR indirectly states that morality is objective, rather than subjective. Even universal laws are arbitrarily constructed on empiricism. Arbitrary: "not planned or chosen for a particular reason : not based on reason or evidence" Merriam Webster How are universal laws arbirtary? Universal laws are based on science. The entire purpose of science is to objectively explain the universe around us through the use of the scientific method. The scientific method is a way to gain new knowledge and to correct or affirm old knowledge through the use of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses." -Oxford Dictionary Thus the scientific method is based on mesaurable and empirical research and evidence. Since universal laws are based on on evidence derived from empirical methods, universal laws cannot be arbitarily constructed on empericism. Metaphysical laws (i.e. math) are similarly constructed. Arbitrary: "not planned or chosen for a particular reason : not based on reason or evidence" How is mathematics arbirtary? Mathematics is the language of science, and is built upon reason, or logic. http://www.personal.psu.edu... A famous example of mathmatical logic is modus pones If P then Q. P Therefore Q. In mathematics, A and B are understood as variables, something that represents unknowns. Combined with one preposition, (Ii) two variables (A and b) and two adverbs (then, therefore) there is a logical statement. A famous version of the modus pones statement is the Socrate's argument. If Socrates is a man, then he is mortal Socrates is a man Therefore Socrates is mortal This modus pones is an example of a valid argument. Arguments such as these are vital to the proof theorem of math. If mathematics is based on reason, the mathematics is not arbitrary. Mathematics is based on reason Therefore mathematics is not arbitrary If mathematics is objective, then it is not subjective. Mathematics is objective Therefore mathematics is not subjective. These arguments are supported above. It can be concluded then, that science and mathematics are objective. I shall be arguing that that science and mathematics are superior objective bodies of thought than Nihilism. (Side note: My opponent claims in his conclusion that : "everything we understand as human beings are subjective and therefore objectively insignificant." This statement has several problems: This statement is itself an objective statement and is something that we understand as human beings Everything includes this statement We understand this statement as an objective statement, The statement states that everything we understand as human beings are subjective Thus this statement negates itself.) My case for science and mathematics being more objective than Nihilism: Objective - not influenced by personal feelings or opinions when considering or representing facts Nihilism - a system of belief whose core tenet is that nothing has objective purpose, meaning or intrinsic value Science:"The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment" -Oxford Dictionaries Mathematics: "The abstract science of number, quantity, and space." -Oxford Dictionaries Nihilism is a belief, while science is the pursuit of fact, and math is the language of science. Since Nihilism is a belief, it is an opinion on life. Thus a Nihilist would be more influenced by the belief that nothing exists than a scientist or a mathamatician. This is because the goal of scientists and mathamaticians is to not be influenced by feelings or opinions when considering or representing facts, thus trying to be as objective as possible. In fact, the entire purpose of mathematics and science is to objectively investigate and explain the universe through facts by discovering and revising facts. Thus, math and science are more objective than Nihilism, and mathematics and science are therefore superior to Nihilism in terms of objectivity.