User blog comment:Diexilius/Forsaken/@comment-25226524-20170311193157/@comment-25947144-20170311200842

First, I'm a bit bothered because you simply disregarded my arguments down there instead of countering them. I also don't exactly know what you implied with that "longer than you've lived" comment. Are you implying that it makes you automatically right in that discussion? Or does it only mean that you're more likely to be right? Because likely right doesn't equal completely right.

First, let me ask you something. You claim that I'm wrong because I've been programmed to think that way. What about you Jay? You came to a completely different conclusion, have you somehow been programmed to think that? It doesn't make much sense to me since it makes you wish the species dead. Or is it in spite of your instincts? So it is possible to believe something in spite of instincts? In that case, you seem to claim that your conclusion is the only conclusion that can appear in spite of your instincts. How can you be so certain about that, Jay? And how can you be so sure that only a conclusion in spite of your instincts can be right? How can you be sure, Jay?

I said below that absolute objectivity would lead to no decisions ever being taken. You can't choose to be born, you can't choose your feelings. Again, you could take no decisions without natural instincts and biases. And what if some children would want to be born? Or is the decision to not the only real and valid one, again, Jay? Should we ignore those who want in favor of those who don't?

You came to the conclusion that your nihilistic view is the right one, but you yourself claimed that we can't claim to have the right answers. Or is it just the most likely possibility based on the facts, Jay? Because again, statistical likeliness doesn't automatically point out the right answer. If you choose the most likely choice out of a bunch it doesn't mean that choice is the right one.

And let's talk about the God thing. I do tend to believe there's a creator (not necessarily in the religious sense, maybe something like the simulation theory). What if there is? What's his existence like? Is he endless? How is he endless? It seems impossible for something to always have existed forever (there's a specific name for that kind of infinity), isn't it also likely that he'd have an end?

I wouldn't oppose your points in this way if you'd just express your personal opinion as it is (only a personal opinion), but you claim to have the absolute true conclusion. After all that, I ask you again, how can you be so sure, Jay?