Existentialism

The only absolutes are things of physical essence as pointed out by Aristotle in "The Metaphysics". Anything else is abstract. We can rewrite how math works and still make it work. We can make numbers have different values and rewrite everything, and it still be the same (though we would have to learn a whole new system for it). And he forgets how we make up these "transcendal ideals": through interaction with other objects with physical essence. How do we know 1+1 equals 2 for sure? We first had to observe it "physically" to make sure. And we use diagrams and etc to show how these elements based of physical essence correlate to the elements of abstractity that can change anytime. Einstein didn't just make up E=mc2 off the top of his mind. He had to observe and use things of physical essence to define it. This is called "empirical knowledge", the main thing we as organisms do to survive and learn. My opponent foolishly (not as an insult) claims without evidence, that only our thoughts and abstractity can come from God. He states this: "Though I don't understand abstract thought, I will claim it came from an abstract source of which I can't prove". Is this reasonable or logical? No it is not. Plus my opponent has slipped away from the argument concerning existentialism to bring up the case of God to explain everything. God has no part in this argument, and God is not falsifiable. There is no way to prove that God didn't just make us 15 seconds ago with all our memories. BUT! It can be reuted by simple evidence that has brought us to conclusions about our universe. You know the theory of the "multiverse" is technically transcendal since it works outside of our existence? But how did we come to it then? By, again, using "real physical measurements and evidence", scientist came to that conclusion. There is evidence for the multiverse: there is none for God or any other transcendal concept my opponent will bring up. And if we go about this how Newton did with his "Flaming Sword Analogy", it is not worth our while to discuss something that cannot be proven or disproven other than with your personal and biased reasoning like my opponent has done for his first explanation. And even after I have given evidence showing moral is subjective such as a killer believing it is good to kill and a citizen sees it bad, he claims to still say there is an absolute created by a God with which he holds no evidence for except his own faith. Again, I thought this was a discussion concerning existentialism, not whether God is real or not. AND HERE IS THE IRONY! HE CLAIMS TO SAY SINCE GOD IS REAL, THAT THERE IS BOUND TO BE OBJECTIVISM! BUT HE HAS NO PROOF FOR THIS EXCEPT HIS "OWN" BIAS LOGIC! IS THAT NOT SUBJECTIVE????? THE IRONY! NOT EVERYONE WOULD AGREE WITH HIM OR HIS IDEALS, PROVING MY SUBJECTIVISM! AND AGAIN HE MAKES AN ARGUMENT WITH TRANSCEDAL EVIDENCE THAT CANT BE PROVEN VALID INSTEAD OF PHYSICAL AND VALID PROOF THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE SO! And dude, your last argument literally worked off subjectivism. You used "almost unaimously" meaning not everyone. You used a subject like abortion that is "very controversial and people argue all the time about it being more or immoral". And you used your opinion of the matter saying "is one of the most unethical things one could do". That's your opinion. What about all the other people who protest that it's alright to do it? Or the government giving you the right to do it? If we all saw it as unethical, then why isn't a world wide law for it to be illegal????? Subjective thoughts my friend. Subjective laws, morality, and opinions just like you showed. And some people like sociopaths, or in fact "some normal people" don't see anything wrong with killing. How about the death penalty? Some people agree it's moral, others not. I thought if we were objective, we'd all have the same ideals? Nope. Guess not. We all have different ideals. Literally go up to someone at the store and ask them what they think about life. Youll find some differences in both of your ideologies. And going back to God: I thought God made us without the ability to see right or wrong? That's why when we supposedly ate from the tree of knowledge, we knew it then? But if that ability was passed down through the ages, then how come not everyone sees right and wrong the same? We're all supposed to see right and wrong like God. How come we don't? Does that mean God doesn't see right and wrong objectively either? Does that mean he is subjective??????? And again, you argue that morality isn't subjective because of God. You cannot prove God, so you cannot prove your claim. Make factual claims that you can have "valid evidence" for. And in fact, if you ask many Christians why Adam and Eve messed up in the first place, it's because they claim "God gave them free will" (they have no evidence for that though, but let's go along with it like they did). Let's pretend this is true. Let's also pretend that we all saw morality the same as well. If this is the case, all the "unrighteous people" in history such as Hitler, Napoleon, and etc all did evil because why? They "choose" to. If we didn't have free will, does that mean God is controlling us right now???? Does a controlling God who forces someone like Hitler to kill thousands of people sound like the God of Christianity????? I believe many of you would respond no. Even animals have free will. They decide where their homes will be. They decide where they will go hunting. They decide who they mate with. I don't believe God or nature forces them to do this. There's no evidence for it, and as far as I'm concerned we have minds that we use "ourselves" to make us act our will. My opponent tries to attack me concerning my "metaphor" of God is dead. First off, it's not "literally" saying God is dead. It's just saying you don't "have to believe in God anymore". You can still choose to believe if you want. It's your right and within your will to still do so. You are an existentialist. My opponent also tries to invalidate my "subjective morality", which he did so based off his own "ethics and view points" concerning in how he thinks and how "he thinks other people think". Another bias claim. I thought we left opinion outside of debates? HMMM??? He claims people on death row are regarded as "evil" by the rest of humanity. But is not evil subjective? When a man of the Nazi party is put on in jail and on death row for killing a Jew, some people will see him as bad. But what of his own party and friends????? Do they not support his decision to kill te Jewish individual???? It's subjective. That's why we are "in fact debating a topic right now!!!" It's subjective to both of us!!!! The proof is the conversation itself. The fact that we debate about what is right and what is wrong is enough to show we all are subjective. If we weren't, we'd all think the same. A "loop hole" in my opponents argument. And actually, rationality is also subjective as my opponent might not be aware of. When a captain sees his ship sinking, he thinks of himself first (desire). He uses logic and reasoning to make his desire rational and jumps overboard instead of staying on the ship. To another person with the intent of "staying" on board, he uses his "own" logic and reasoning to make his desire rational. So he stays. EVEN IN THIS DEBATE WE ARE DOING THAT RIGHT NOW!!! WE ARE USING LOGIC AND REASON TO RATIONALIZE OUR SIDES!!!!! PROOF OF HOW LOGIC CAN BE VARIANT AS WELL! But in this matter, my logic and reason has more "evidence and support" to it then my opponent with his "transcendal and biased" logic. And by the way, my opponent saying existentialism is false, he's saying you don't have a choice in life. He's saying that you don't make yourself get out of bed in the morning. He's saying you don't make yourself work your butt off to achieve your dreams. He's saying that you don't choose to not believe in God, so if he is real he sends you to hell because you couldn't choose to believe in him. He's saying you don't choose to help others. He's saying you don't choose "anything" in life. That you are a puppet being controlled by a God or some deity. Do you readers of faith "believe this"? And if you don't believe this, is that because you are being "forced to" like my opponent is alluding to????? By saying existentialism is false, he is saying you have no free will. But you do have free will. You choose what you believe. You choose what is right and wrong. You choose what God to believe in. You choose what you want to do today. You choose. And you do. It's your mind. And whether you believe God gave you your mind or if it was developed biologically, it's still yor mind. No one else's. And you are the only one who has born privelage to it. No one else. By saying existentialism is false, your saying that all of our choices are false. That who we are is false because we didn't choose to make the decisions that made us: they were made for us. Free will is not an explanation for allowing you to do thinks as my opponent said: free will explains why you "are able" to do thinks you allow for yourself. Your actions and thoughts are consequnces of your will. As long as my opponent continues to argue with Transcedal evidence and without actual observable evidence, physical evidence, historical evidence, and evidence that isn't biased, it is clear that he has no valid arguments. And just in case he tries the moral thing again: in Africa there is a tribe that believes the moral thing is to hurt others, cheat, lie, and steal. When they first were told the story of how Judas betrayed Jesus, they clapped for Judas. Shows how morality is subjective. We all want what is moral for the world, but we can't agree on what is moral. The irony of it all. Either way, my points go unrefuted: morality is subjective, and people decide how they live with the options they give themselves and the options given to them.