Nihilism

I also appologize for forfeiting round 2, there were real life issues that came up. In this argument I will rebutalling my opponent's statements against math and science, and I will be less semantic this time. Here is my opponents argument's against empiricism and metaphysical laws: 1) Scientific laws (i. e. gravity) are constructed via empiricism. Metaphysical laws (i. e. math) are constructed via rationalism (or empiricism; this is debatable, but is besides the point). (2) Thus both scientific and metaphysical systems are necessarily contrived by man. (3) Conclusion: both scientific and metaphysical laws are subjective and therefore necessarily not objective. What I"m saying in statement (1) is that the core of all laws is empiricism and/or rationalism. Maybe I should explain what these are. Empiricism is the belief that data derived from the sensory inputs is necessarily the foundation of all knowledge, and that there is no other way to obtain knowledge (i. e. empirical evidence; scientific method, etc. ). The system of epistemology which directly contradicts empiricism is rationalism. Rationalism basically states that knowledge can be obtained outside of empirical data (i. e. logic). Statement (2) is saying that both scientific and metaphysical must then be contrived by man. Both rationalism and empiricism are epistemological belief systems. Belief systems are necessarily contrived by man and therefore subjective by definition. Thus (3) because there is no basis by which we hold empiricism, rationalism or any other belief system to be necessary objective truths. Therefore, any system (i. e. math, science, etc. ) whose validity is derived from an epistemological system (which are necessarily subjective), cannot ultimately be objective. For something like math to be considered completely objective, the logician must assert assumptively that some system of epistemology (i. e. Rationalism) is objective. The conclusion established above directly negates my opponent"s science and mathematics argument, which blatantly asserts that math and science are objective. I agree that math and science can be objective under certain subjective confines, but these ideas ultimately require intersubjective assertions in order to ignore the non-objective system(s) (i. e. epistemological beliefs) at its core. Rebuttals: 1)This a true statement 2) It is true that scientific and metaphysical systems are contrived by man, and so is Nihilism. Being contrived by man, however, does not mean it is subjective. In fact, science and math tries to be as objective as possible in explaining things, being free from personal feelings and focusing on explaining fact, such as the law of gravity and 2 2=4. 3) The argument here is not if something is completely objective, but it is that it is the most objective, and math and science have been the most objective system, because it is the most free of personal feelings and has the most facts. Argument: Objective - not influenced by personal feelings or opinions when considering or representing facts[1] 1)Mathematics is more objective than Nihilism 2) An example of mathematics is 2 2=4 3) 2 2=4 is a fact. 4) 2=2=4 is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions 5) Nihilism is a philsophy, not a statement of fact. 6) Nihilism is influenced by the personal feeling/opinion that nothing has an objective purpose or intrisic value 7) Mathematics is a statement of fact without being influenced by personal feelings or opinions, while Nihilism is not a statement of fact and is influenced by personal feelings or opinions 8)Therefore Mathematics is more objective than Nihilism.