Is nihilism the logical extreme of atheism?

[genkaus]

When someone repeats what you say, to me that's assent.

Then you must have misread the argument because I didn't repeat what you said.

I would start to try if I thought you were on the same page.

I'm a few pages ahead of you and I already know how this chapter ends - but I'm simply playing along here. So go ahead, pretend that I'm on the same page and give it a try.

That's the proof. If the logic follows for 'different', which you've just acknowledged, then it also follows for 'better'. Wider moral latitude = more information = more informed decision.

This point was already proven incorrect in a previous argument:
Wider moral latitude =/= more information.
More specifically, if your wider moral latitude results in inclusion of fantasies, lies, misconceptions and misinformation then the result is less information.
The same way inclusion of pseudoscience =/= more science.

If you don't successfully challenge 1 or 2, then the conclusion stands.

I don't have to disprove anything that hasn't been proven in the first place. Since you have simply asserted it, asking you to prove it is challenge enough.

1. If you can't ever know sufficiently of someone's guilt, then you can't make a moral judgement. We're talking about ultimate justice here. The ability to know thoroughly a persons motivations for their every thought and deed.

Are you saying that only "complete knowledge of a person's motivations" can be sufficient knowledge? If so, prove it.
And we are talking about justice here. I have no idea what the phrase "ultimate justice" is supposed to mean.

2. No human can know that they have sufficient knowledge of another persons guilt.

Why not?

These are indisputable fact.

Yet here I am, disputing them.


For the record, my position is that complete knowledge of all motivations is unnecessary - just the knowledge of primary motivations relevant to the crime itself constitute sufficient knowledge. And that is knowledge that humans can and do have.