Existentialism

Again, creator of this philosophy was christian, so it doesn't conflict. And when you said "different interpretations", that means subjective. Thanks for concurring with me. And if there is a universal moral sense, I wonder why Id rather kill God then help a little boy. Huh. Weird. That doesn't sound right. Anyway, you brining up "secular methods" is just a strategy to make voters think I'm crazy and don't know what I'm talking about when I'm not even using my own logic, but the ideals of many intelligent men before me that have received critical acclaim. Wouldn't be well received without a reason. But then again, do you need a reason to believe anything now adays? Because my opponent believes in transcendal ideals without any fool proof evidence. So I don't know. It's a funny thing this subjective world. He only believes the world is objective because of the beliefs he was raised upon. I was raised wth similar ideals, but I changed because I remain unbias and change my beliefs to the evidence. To remain to ur ideals after you have been disproven or refuted is dogmatist. Being dogmatist means u are holding on to subjective ideals that have no further support. Kind of bad on my opponents part. Honestly, I don't care what you guys pick to win. Cause your going to pick whoever is along your line of beliefs. We are just biased like that; aka subjective. My opponent saying "different interpretations of morality" is like saying there's different interpretations of color. Which there are. Red. Pink. Grey. Orange. And there are also different interpretations of philosophy. Reigion, Buddhism, Platonism, etc. all subjective though. If we were all objective, we'd of all agreed on something now. We haven't though. That's just how it is. And yea there is evidence for the multiverse. Here's a website. Check it out guys. http://www.math.columbia.edu... And this isn't even a God debate. It's philosophy. And as far as I'm concerned, God hasn't played a major roll in developing philosophies such as Platonism, Utilitarianism, and etc. Man created philosophy. Philosophy is variant meaning it's source must be variant. This is subjectivity. The only reason my opponent argues with this is because he does not wish for his God to be refuted. If this was not a philosophical debate, I'd show him how God "is dead" in a sense with play on words. And yea you can rewrite math. The values are the same, but what symbols the values are attributed to change. Like 4 now equals 5. Or sphere is now the word for what we identify as rectangular. It's just switching values and definitions up. The values are still there. Just different symbols. And he ten claims that math is beyond the physical world? Uh.....I don't see any evidence for that. And I'm pretty sure man was the one who created math to comprehend reality. And I don't think my opponent has finished reading the "Metaphysics" by Aristotle fully through to understand what he is trying to explain. Aristotle says man uses empirical methods to attain knowledge. That means through the senses, and the senses only are aware of "physical essence" as Aristotle points out. That's why if there is a God, we can't know for sure. And my opponent will argue because we don't know for sure, God must be the only explanation. And apparently he knows God's ideals on existentialism even though he's never talked to God with his "empirical senses". Ironic. He contradicts emoircal senses and how we attain knowledge. We aren't born with knowledge. We have to attain it through empirical means. We ask abstract questions, and we get physical (and if the topic is abstract, we get abstract answers such as with morality) answers. It's just how the metaphysics works. But I'm going to be honest: I don't want to continue this debate, not because I'm afraid of loss, but because I have been on this website too much, that it's taking time out of my life to be free and responsible agent for myself. My opponent can continue to think transcendal ideals. I don't care. It's his life. He's an existentialist because he chose to believe that mumbo jumbo. But to me, this debate is not worth my time when I have a job and work to do. My opponent will see it as a win; I will see it as a "condemning to freedom" as Jean Paul Sartre would put it. Either way, if my opponent comin urs to argue his ideals based of his bias psychology, beliefs, and etc, so be it. Just proves subjectivity. Even if morality was set up like different interptations like my opponent says it is, those interpretations are still subjective. So I'm done. I wish u all good luck, and to stay non dogmatist. Dogmatism is "the devil at work" as Nietsche might of said.