Is God necessary for morality?

[Immanuel Can]

I would have thought the Cosmological argument was applicable to all Christian denominations.

Of course.

Aristotle was the first philosopher to formulate a Cosmological argument.

Well, to think that makes us Aristotelians would be to make the genetic fallacy. We're not.

So, how does an infinite regress prove the existence of God? As far as I know an infinite regress is a fallacy. It is like an elephant holding up the world while standing on top of a giant turtle. We then ask what is holding up the giant turtle? The answer is, of course, another giant turtle. If we ask what is holding up that turtle the answer becomes another giant turtle. It is turtles all they way down and so on ad infinitum. The fallacy occurs when we rely on itself for its own explanation.

You're absolutely right. There is no such thing as an actual infinite regress. And that's the start of the mathematical argument for the existence of God. I see you have a little familiarity with the particulars, so I won't go over the whole thing.

Really there are only two things one has to know: firstly, that time is linear, not cyclical; and that's empirically evident, so that part's easy. The second thing you need to know is the idea of causality...and of chains of cause and effect. Again, the evidence of the existence of such is empirical, so that's also easy. But if both are true, then it is impossible to have an infinitely regressing chain of causes. Such a chain, if we were on one, would never have gotten started -- and that's very easy to demonstrate mathematically.

But we are on a finite causal chain. So there must have been a starting point for that causal chain. But whatever started the chain cannot itself have a cause; because if it did, we'd have infinite regress again. So we know, whether we're secularists or Theists, that the linear, causal sequence of time had to have an uncaused starting point.

What could that be? That's the next part of the question. But I'll pause there, to see if you're with me so far.

If you don't believe me read the Republic.

Done.

[Ginkgo]

I would have thought the Cosmological argument was applicable to all Christian denominations.

Of course.

Aristotle was the first philosopher to formulate a Cosmological argument.

Well, to think that makes us Aristotelians would be to make the genetic fallacy. We're not.

So, how does an infinite regress prove the existence of God? As far as I know an infinite regress is a fallacy. It is like an elephant holding up the world while standing on top of a giant turtle. We then ask what is holding up the giant turtle? The answer is, of course, another giant turtle. If we ask what is holding up that turtle the answer becomes another giant turtle. It is turtles all they way down and so on ad infinitum. The fallacy occurs when we rely on itself for its own explanation.

You're absolutely right. There is no such thing as an actual infinite regress. And that's the start of the mathematical argument for the existence of God. I see you have a little familiarity with the particulars, so I won't go over the whole thing.

Really there are only two things one has to know: firstly, that time is linear, not cyclical; and that's empirically evident, so that part's easy. The second thing you need to know is the idea of causality...and of chains of cause and effect. Again, the evidence of the existence of such is empirical, so that's also easy. But if both are true, then it is impossible to have an infinitely regressing chain of causes. Such a chain, if we were on one, would never have gotten started -- and that's very easy to demonstrate mathematically.

But we are on a finite causal chain. So there must have been a starting point for that causal chain. But whatever started the chain cannot itself have a cause; because if it did, we'd have infinite regress again. So we know, whether we're secularists or Theists, that the linear, causal sequence of time had to have an uncaused starting point.

What could that be? That's the next part of the question. But I'll pause there, to see if you're with me so far.

If you don't believe me read the Republic.

Done.

I'm not suggesting you become an Aristotelian, I was just pointing out there is a link.

Ok, I'm with you so far.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not suggesting you become an Aristotelian, I was just pointing out there is a link.

Well, there are some fundamental distinctions that cannot be easily overcome. For example, Aristotle's anthropological assumptions might be made to work from a Catholic anthropology; they don't work at all for Protestant anthropology. And without agreement on those, his ethical program becomes utterly implausible.

Ok, I'm with you so far.

Good. Well, then what we know is that time is linear, and that we are on a causal chain. Let's go forward with the mathematical reasoning.

We can model the mathematical argument for ourselves this way.

* * *


Imagine I ask you to say the number "4." But just before you do, I say, "Wait: you can't say '4' until after you've said '3'."

"Okay," you say, "I will say..."

"Wait!" I shout. "Before you say "3," you have to have already said '2'."

"Okay," you say. "So before that, I'll say..."

"Wait!" I shout again. "Before you say "2", you have to say '1'."

"I get it," you say. "But that's the first number, and zero's not actually a number, so now I'll say the whole sequence."

"But wait," I say, "You've forgotten that before zero comes -1. And before that comes -2, and before that, -3..."


* * *

So now, here's the question: if we play that game, when will you actually get to say the number "4"? Of course, the answer to that is "Never." If there is always a number prerequisite to the others, then the whole sequence will never get started. There are always an infinite number of numbers that must come before any other you might try to say. So no numbers are ever said.

That's the "infinite regress" problem, very simply illustrated. And you're quite right: the idea that there can be an infinite regress is a fallacy. There cannot, and we can now see very simply why there cannot.

But now, if we apply that realization to the problem of a causal chain, we see the issue. A "causal chain" is, by definition, a sequence in which something must always come before something else, so as to be its cause. If the something comes with or after the something else, then it is, by definition, not its "cause." (So, for example, we don't say your son or grandson could ever be the "cause" of your existence, for the very simple reason that he came after you, not before, so could not possibly be the cause of your birth.)

But if all events in the cosmos are on a causal chain, then that chain cannot possibly be infinite. If it were, there would be no things in the universe, and no universe itself at all; for the causal sequence to bring it about could mathematically never have commenced.

So here's what we know...and no part of this argument depends on you or I being a Theist: there must have been an Uncaused Cause at the start of the causal chain. We don't yet have to say what that Cause was, but we both can know with absolute certainty that there must have been one.

Still with me?

[Belinda]

I'm not suggesting you become an Aristotelian, I was just pointing out there is a link.

Well, there are some fundamental distinctions that cannot be easily overcome. For example, Aristotle's anthropological assumptions might be made to work from a Catholic anthropology; they don't work at all for Protestant anthropology. And without agreement on those, his ethical program becomes utterly implausible.

Ok, I'm with you so far.

Good. Well, then what we know is that time is linear, and that we are on a causal chain. Let's go forward with the mathematical reasoning.

We can model the mathematical argument for ourselves this way.

* * *


Imagine I ask you to say the number "4." But just before you do, I say, "Wait: you can't say '4' until after you've said '3'."

"Okay," you say, "I will say..."

"Wait!" I shout. "Before you say "3," you have to have already said '2'."

"Okay," you say. "So before that, I'll say..."

"Wait!" I shout again. "Before you say "2", you have to say '1'."

"I get it," you say. "But that's the first number, and zero's not actually a number, so now I'll say the whole sequence."

"But wait," I say, "You've forgotten that before zero comes -1. And before that comes -2, and before that, -3..."


* * *

So now, here's the question: if we play that game, when will you actually get to say the number "4"? Of course, the answer to that is "Never." If there is always a number prerequisite to the others, then the whole sequence will never get started. There are always an infinite number of numbers that must come before any other you might try to say. So no numbers are ever said.

That's the "infinite regress" problem, very simply illustrated. And you're quite right: the idea that there can be an infinite regress is a fallacy. There cannot, and we can now see very simply why there cannot.

But now, if we apply that realization to the problem of a causal chain, we see the issue. A "causal chain" is, by definition, a sequence in which something must always come before something else, so as to be its cause. If the something comes with or after the something else, then it is, by definition, not its "cause." (So, for example, we don't say your son or grandson could ever be the "cause" of your existence, for the very simple reason that he came after you, not before, so could not possibly be the cause of your birth.)

But if all events in the cosmos are on a causal chain, then that chain cannot possibly be infinite. If it were, there would be no things in the universe, and no universe itself at all; for the causal sequence to bring it about could mathematically never have commenced.

So here's what we know...and no part of this argument depends on you or I being a Theist: there must have been an Uncaused Cause at the start of the causal chain. We don't yet have to say what that Cause was, but we both can know with absolute certainty that there must have been one.

Still with me?

As original cause of creation, God is not a temporal but an eternal cause. That means He is always causing; He itself is cause; this temporal creation is His.

So it is confusing to say God was "at the start of creation" as God is omnipresent.

[Ginkgo]

I'm not suggesting you become an Aristotelian, I was just pointing out there is a link.

Well, there are some fundamental distinctions that cannot be easily overcome. For example, Aristotle's anthropological assumptions might be made to work from a Catholic anthropology; they don't work at all for Protestant anthropology. And without agreement on those, his ethical program becomes utterly implausible.

Ok, I'm with you so far.

Good. Well, then what we know is that time is linear, and that we are on a causal chain. Let's go forward with the mathematical reasoning.

We can model the mathematical argument for ourselves this way.

* * *


Imagine I ask you to say the number "4." But just before you do, I say, "Wait: you can't say '4' until after you've said '3'."

"Okay," you say, "I will say..."

"Wait!" I shout. "Before you say "3," you have to have already said '2'."

"Okay," you say. "So before that, I'll say..."

"Wait!" I shout again. "Before you say "2", you have to say '1'."

"I get it," you say. "But that's the first number, and zero's not actually a number, so now I'll say the whole sequence."

"But wait," I say, "You've forgotten that before zero comes -1. And before that comes -2, and before that, -3..."


* * *

So now, here's the question: if we play that game, when will you actually get to say the number "4"? Of course, the answer to that is "Never." If there is always a number prerequisite to the others, then the whole sequence will never get started. There are always an infinite number of numbers that must come before any other you might try to say. So no numbers are ever said.

That's the "infinite regress" problem, very simply illustrated. And you're quite right: the idea that there can be an infinite regress is a fallacy. There cannot, and we can now see very simply why there cannot.

But now, if we apply that realization to the problem of a causal chain, we see the issue. A "causal chain" is, by definition, a sequence in which something must always come before something else, so as to be its cause. If the something comes with or after the something else, then it is, by definition, not its "cause." (So, for example, we don't say your son or grandson could ever be the "cause" of your existence, for the very simple reason that he came after you, not before, so could not possibly be the cause of your birth.)

But if all events in the cosmos are on a causal chain, then that chain cannot possibly be infinite. If it were, there would be no things in the universe, and no universe itself at all; for the causal sequence to bring it about could mathematically never have commenced.

So here's what we know...and no part of this argument depends on you or I being a Theist: there must have been an Uncaused Cause at the start of the causal chain. We don't yet have to say what that Cause was, but we both can know with absolute certainty that there must have been one.

Still with me?

As original cause of creation, God is not a temporal but an eternal cause. That means He is always causing; He itself is cause; this temporal creation is His.

So it is confusing to say God was "at the start of creation" as God is omnipresent.

Do you have any evidence to backup these claims?

[Ginkgo]

I'm not suggesting you become an Aristotelian, I was just pointing out there is a link.

Well, there are some fundamental distinctions that cannot be easily overcome. For example, Aristotle's anthropological assumptions might be made to work from a Catholic anthropology; they don't work at all for Protestant anthropology. And without agreement on those, his ethical program becomes utterly implausible.

Ok, I'm with you so far.

Good. Well, then what we know is that time is linear, and that we are on a causal chain. Let's go forward with the mathematical reasoning.

We can model the mathematical argument for ourselves this way.

* * *


Imagine I ask you to say the number "4." But just before you do, I say, "Wait: you can't say '4' until after you've said '3'."

"Okay," you say, "I will say..."

"Wait!" I shout. "Before you say "3," you have to have already said '2'."

"Okay," you say. "So before that, I'll say..."

"Wait!" I shout again. "Before you say "2", you have to say '1'."

"I get it," you say. "But that's the first number, and zero's not actually a number, so now I'll say the whole sequence."

"But wait," I say, "You've forgotten that before zero comes -1. And before that comes -2, and before that, -3..."


* * *

So now, here's the question: if we play that game, when will you actually get to say the number "4"? Of course, the answer to that is "Never." If there is always a number prerequisite to the others, then the whole sequence will never get started. There are always an infinite number of numbers that must come before any other you might try to say. So no numbers are ever said.

That's the "infinite regress" problem, very simply illustrated. And you're quite right: the idea that there can be an infinite regress is a fallacy. There cannot, and we can now see very simply why there cannot.

But now, if we apply that realization to the problem of a causal chain, we see the issue. A "causal chain" is, by definition, a sequence in which something must always come before something else, so as to be its cause. If the something comes with or after the something else, then it is, by definition, not its "cause." (So, for example, we don't say your son or grandson could ever be the "cause" of your existence, for the very simple reason that he came after you, not before, so could not possibly be the cause of your birth.)

But if all events in the cosmos are on a causal chain, then that chain cannot possibly be infinite. If it were, there would be no things in the universe, and no universe itself at all; for the causal sequence to bring it about could mathematically never have commenced.

So here's what we know...and no part of this argument depends on you or I being a Theist: there must have been an Uncaused Cause at the start of the causal chain. We don't yet have to say what that Cause was, but we both can know with absolute certainty that there must have been one.

Still with me?

Yes, I'm still with you.I think I know where this is going.

[Immanuel Can]

As original cause of creation, God is not a temporal but an eternal cause. That means He is always causing; He itself is cause; this temporal creation is His.

So it is confusing to say God was "at the start of creation" as God is omnipresent.

Well, you'll note that I did not say God was "at the start of Creation," although so long as Creation had a "start," which clearly it did, it would not be wrong to say that, since an omnipresent being is...well, ever-present...even if you find thinking about that "confusing."

So I'm not sure of your point there...

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, I'm still with you.I think I know where this is going.

I trust that "this" isn't really "going" anywhere but to whatever logical conclusion the math compels.

So let's pause there: are you satisfied that the cosmos must necessarily have had an Uncaused Cause to start the causal chain?

If you're not, then what makes you uncertain of the maths on that? Have you come to doubt that time is linear, that cause-and-effect work, or that an actual infinite regression of causes is mathematically impossible?

If you have, feel free to express your doubts about any of those premises before we move forward. I will be happy to respond.

[Dontaskme]

I trust that "this" isn't really "going" anywhere

Nothing never goes nowhere. There's nowhere for nothing to go.

[Dontaskme]

Is God necessary for morality?

Answer is yes, for God is all knowing, and all meaning. Without which the concept morality would be a meaningless and unknown concept.

[Belinda]

As original cause of creation, God is not a temporal but an eternal cause. That means He is always causing; He itself is cause; this temporal creation is His.

So it is confusing to say God was "at the start of creation" as God is omnipresent.

Well, you'll note that I did not say God was "at the start of Creation," although so long as Creation had a "start," which clearly it did, it would not be wrong to say that, since an omnipresent being is...well, ever-present...even if you find thinking about that "confusing."

So I'm not sure of your point there...

I am pointing to the sorts of causes there are. From one point of view the cause of creation is God. Okay. From the point of view of eternity God never ceases to create as He is immanent cause.He is both the algorithm itself and also the products of the algorithm.

[Immanuel Can]

I am pointing to the sorts of causes there are. From one point of view the cause of creation is God. Okay. From the point of view of eternity God never ceases to create as He is immanent cause.He is both the algorithm itself and also the products of the algorithm.

Not following you, B.

Was there a point?

[Systematic]

Well, of course not.

comments?

I have more of an issue with what Christians consider to be sins. You don't have to be Charles Manson to be a sinner. You might just be homosexual. You might just be a woman using birth control.

I also think it's weird that monogamy is not the answer, it's abstinence.

But if you own a corporation, treating people like wage slaves is allowable. No sin therein.

So Christianity doesn't seem so interested in morality as they are in personal suffering.

[Ginkgo]

Is God necessary for morality?

Answer is yes, for God is all knowing, and all meaning. Without which the concept morality would be a meaningless and unknown concept.

Do you have any evidence to backup these claims?

[Ginkgo]

So let's pause there: are you satisfied that the cosmos must necessarily have had an Uncaused Cause to start the causal chain?

If you're not, then what makes you uncertain of the maths on that? Have you come to doubt that time is linear, that cause-and-effect work, or that an actual infinite regression of causes is mathematically impossible?

If you have, feel free to express your doubts about any of those premises before we move forward. I will be happy to respond.

Basically, what you are developing is a cosmological argument. I have a problem with causal chains. In the quantum world particles can go backwards or forwards in time. Also, also effects can come before causes. See Feynman diagrams. The quantum world impacts on our physical world, so causal chains are not as simple as they appear to be.