Arguments for Atheism based on Dr. Quentin Smith's argument that Infinite Spacetime and Moral Realism Imply Moral Nihilism

*MORAL REALISM AND INFINITE SPACETIME IMPLY MORAL NIHILISM 1. INTRODUCTION I argue that if the future is infinite, as contemporary astronomers believe it is, then moral nihilism is true if both moral realism and aggregative value theory is true. Usually, moral nihilism is defined as meaning nothing has value. But I am a moral realist, indeed a global moral realist, since I believe everything has value. I argued that everything is intrinsically valuable in my 1997 Ethical And Religious Thought In Analytic Philosophy Of Language. Nonetheless, I believe the recent astronomical discovery that future time is infinite implies that it does not morally matter what we do. This is what I mean by moral nihilism. It does not matter what actions humans or other agents perform. My derivation of moral nihilism has as one of its premises that moral realism is true. So this is a different approach from that of emotivists such as A. J. Ayer or relativists such as Nagel, Nietzsche and Sartre, who derived moral nihilism from moral anti-realism. The summary of my argument has three premises. My argument is: 1. Necessarily, global moral realism is true. 2. Necessarily, aggregative value theory is true. 3. Contingently, it is true that future time is infinite. 4. Therefore, moral nihilism is contingently true. For those interested in the philosophy of religion, I will later show that this argument implies that God does not exist. It may be of interest to note that this is a new kind of argument for atheism. Usually, atheists argue that the arguments for theism are unsound and that the argument from gratuitous evil is sound (whether this be spelled out in terms of the probabilistic argument from evil or the deductive argument). But I argue from moral nihilism to the non-existence of God. A further interesting twist is that I reverse the usual argument for nihilism. Traditionally, it is argued that nihilism is true because God does not exist. I argue the converse; God does not exist because nihilism is true.* This is the abstract and is an argument that refutes the idea of meaning. What I personally disagree with is that Dr. Quentin Smith then in other interviews argued that if one believed that moral nihilism were true then nothing would be worth doing. But that's a logical fallacy. Meaning as described is something that must be imposed from someone on the outside, but since there is no outside because of infinite spacetime life is inherently meaningless in the context of service to a being greater than one's self. But who I am as a human being is the context of me and if meaning existed I would be equal to that meaning. In that sense that means that Islam as submission is logically incoherent. Things are only meaningful if they're limited, not limitless. Limitations imply closure. If I do the dishes because I want a clean environment, then the feeling of satisfaction that I get from doing the dishes once I recognize that the dishes are clean personally then that is personally satisfying. But what if I'm expected to do the dishes but I'm not able to do the dishes because I'm limited in some manner that prevents me? Does that also mean that I'm "meaningless" because I didn't fit the proscribed idea of meaning as defined by a being greater than myself? If the answer is yes then life is still meaningless for me unless I shift my attention from what others expect of me and if I work within a limited set of desires of what I can do, and not focus on what I can't. This is a well established psychological phenomenon. Just because I might be paid well doesn't mean I'll do the job well. There's no necessary correlation between reward and competence. Reward might incentivize someone to do a good job if they're already motivated to do a good job, but being paid well doesn't make someone good at their job. It's also sound in operant conditioning. I'm more likely to do well if the activity itself is rewarding and if I enjoy the activity because it's fun. If I focus on money as a form of security and not on the activity as a source of satisfaction, then I would do a less competent job. This is why people's opinions are actually not something to focus on as much. If I'm focused on someone's opinions for a source of security then I'm not focused on my humanity as a source of integrity. That's my logical argument for integrity. Integrity recognizes integrity through action and commitment that inspires communication. Opinions are only a guide for variable change, but not a guide for what's right or wrong. My critique of Dr. Peterson's insistence on meaning is that his views seem to exclude integrity and his views on meaning aren't necessarily what's good for children either. Children with a strong internal locus of control tend to have less stress than those who are taught to depend on something greater than themselves. If children are taught to be independent and to accept the consequences of their actions then that internal locus of control creates a higher likely-hood of a stress free and competent life. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/moments-matter/201708/locus-control The infinite spacetime of infinite future events as a memory can be found in a memory. Let's say Voldemort is really a sane human being who found himself in a ridiculous magical world that lacks integrity or strength. In the end when he feels sunshine when he walked into Hogwarts for a brief moment there was sane sunshine. For the briefest of moments. Imagine if he witnessed himself being able to be at a bar 30 years later and he felt clean and normal again. If that's satisfying for him and if he has the strength and ability to do so then no argument for meaninglessness could ever influence him to be sane or not be sane again. That's a choice based on satisfaction, competence, wisdom and personal strength based on an internal locus of control. If he was waiting for someone else to do that for him then his life would be hopeless. He was Voldemort after all and outside of Bellatrix and perhaps a strange in love feeling between him and Dumbledore, he didn't really have any friends in Hogwarts. (As an aside, is it possible that Dumbledore never actually understood love in it's essence beyond his occasional infatuations with dark men and his objective insights of love's effects on others? This is an interesting question because there's no satisfying answer to that question. Love is an internal locus of control thing. No one can outwardly make love meaningful. Paradoxically it means love is only meaningful in a meaningless world.) The argument is thus: 1. According to theories of meaning, life is only meaningful if someone else deems someone as meaningful. 2. But love is an internally driven thing and no one can designate love as meaningful. 3. Therefore love is only meaningful if love is real from an internal locus of control. 4. Therefore love is meaningless because it can't be designated or dictated or controlled from a benevolent dictator. 5. But life can't exist without love. 6, Therefore life is logically meaningless because life excludes meaning and includes love. 7. Therefore love is only possible if every human being is a master of his or her own house. 8. Love exists. 9. Therefore everyone is capable, even if temporarily hindered, of being a master of his or her own house, and if morality is real, then everyone has a moral obligation to be a master of his or her own house. 10. But Dr. Peterson argues that people aren't masters of their own house. 11. Therefore Dr. Peterson is wrong and is either consciously or unconsciously advocating to be a benevolent dictator. 12. It's more logical for me to give him the benefit of the doubt for the sake of reconciliation, but it's a logical contradiction to violate love for the sake of reconciliation. (Just because his internal motivations are logically compatible with love, I can only interact with what's being offered to me, not with what I wish to be true. I can hope for the best but until his best is apparent, I exclude his worst.) This argument from an interpersonal scale means that relationships and love is a logically deductive phenomenon based on logical certainty, not faith. Pragmatically faith might be useful when one's humanity is that same logical deduction for what one can't see directly, but it isn't a free pass. The price is continued clarity. Look I don't think he's a dictator. When he survived the New York Times peacefully he crossed the line from dictator to citizen. But it does mean he's living a contradiction. This also is obviously not projection because I believe that a person's internal locus of control can be traced to a material singularity in the body, and isn't necessarily the brain. Free will through that relationship is more powerful than power. That's the source of individual consciousness in my experience. In that memory I remember how Jamie had more weight and more power than me in 2017, but when I appealed to free will she had to willingly let me go. People can choose free will or close the lid on themselves, but that isn't my choice. It's theirs. Just like it's my choice to keep my own lids open for my own private relationships to flourish. For example this man interviewed Dr. Quentin Smith. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5n4mJkVivs He begins by being unsatisfied with answers. But answers provided from someone else is inherently unsatisfying. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_YDDlZQMyk In this the interviewer becomes stronger and prefers to be skeptical of religious experiences that provide him more personal autonomy. There's a direct correlation with feelings of powerlessness and hopelessness and theism and feelings of confidence and control and respect with those who identify as atheists. If life is meaningless It's still satisfying to be human. In a direct note, it seems to me that Dr. Peterson is confusing principles of variable change in that the universal constant of human interaction can't be violated with illusions of omnipotence and a personal sense of powerlessness. If he became more atheistic he could be more in control of his feelings and not place the blame elsewhere. His sense of anxiety and feelings of powerlessness and blame is consistent with a theistic profile. I never claimed to be personally omnipotent. I only express my individual right to survive and love as an individual human being. That's why I'm an atheist. Life is a loving and meaningless enterprise and that's why I love life.