>>509264467
you keep oscillating between two contradictory claims.
>nothing matters objectively (pure nihilism)
>but we still subjectively prefer not to hit ourselves with hammers (pragmatic meaning-making)
you can't have it both ways.
if nothing matters, then pain doesn't either.
you say 'hitting yourself with a hammer hurts, so why do you do it?' but in a purely materialistic meaningless universe, pain is just nerve signals, there's no reason to avoid it, just biological programming. your preference against suffering is arbitrary. if elon prefers attention over hikes, that's equally valid. you can't call his life worse without borrowing a moral standard you deny exists.
you're smuggling in value judgments (enjoying life is better than begging for attention) while claiming value is imaginary.
you say 'we attribute meaning subjectively,' but where does that impulse even come from?
if we're just matter in motion, why do humans universally seek meaning, justice, and purpose?
why does 'happiness feels better than pain' carry any persuasive weight? (a rock doesn't care)
Christianity explains this, we seek meaning because we're made in God's image (Ecclesiastes 3:11). your own argument depends on borrowed capital from a worldview you reject.
if hard determinism is true, your choices are illusions, you don't 'decide' to avoid pain, you're a biochemical puppet.
debating morality would be pointless under hard determinism, you're just reciting preprogrammed reactions.
yet here you are, arguing as if your preferences should matter to me. why?
you admit Christianity is at least a live option (since you're engaging with it) so let me ask:
if Christianity were true, would you want it to be?
if not, is your rejection emotional or logical?
right now, your worldview can't even justify why we're having this conversation, yet mine can.