Is God necessary for morality?

[Ginkgo]

For Immanuel Can.
As stated previously I have two main problem with causal chains. Firstly, If we try to trace the process of cause and effect to find a first cause we find that it disappears into the myriad of causes and effects of unlimited interaction. Your idea of causal chains is too simplistic for a complicated world of cause and effect.

Secondly, as you point out, cause and effect are verified empirically. This reminds me of the problem of induction, as made famous by David Hume. Hume would tells us it is not a contradiction to say there are effects without a cause.

[Immanuel Can]

I presume you have never seen a virtual particle yourself so this is all outside your own experience

I presume you have never seen an atom so that is also outside of your own experience

You are correct. And the atomic model we were taught in school also turns out to be errant. "Atoms" apparently don't "look"at all like the tightly-proportioned diagrams we were shown, and are composed mostly of space, not of "matter."

Many things exist beyond human experience but experience is the only means of verification for there is knowledge too
There are also things that exist beyond both experience and knowledge so a lack of either does not imply non existence

But that's exactly my point with regard to quantum physics.

To say that something, especially something as odd as quantum physics, exists without causality is thus a non-sequitur. It's only possible to say that at this point we don't happen to know what causes the effects we observe, if anything does. It does not justify us asserting that the quantum level exists without causality; just that we don't presently know exactly what's going on there. And that's hardly surprising.

[Immanuel Can]

The quantum level you posit is something so unusual and non-physical that even if it were true that it was
non-caused, our daily lives go on by way of an entirely different principle, that of normal causality.

Our daily lives are not the criteria which determines whether or not something actually exists

No. But they establish the baseline for what we expect; and it's any departure from that that needs explanation.

To posit that the quantum world simply exists without causality is problematic because the quantum level is supposed to be an explanation for the observable level. But if it is, how come causality appears to exist and be universal at the observable level? Why doesn't the observable level look as "random" as the quantum level, from which it is said to emerge, seems to be?

That needs explaining. And until it's explained, we naturally go with causality. For causality is observable, and whatever is producing the quantum world is admittedly not understood at the moment. We don't actually know if the quantum level is genuinely "uncaused," or whether we just don't presently understand what DOES cause it to behave the way it seems to.

Meanwhile, we DO observe causality at the macro level. So we're weighing what we DO observe against what we CANNOT presently observe.

[Immanuel Can]

it is impossible to have an infinitely regressing chain of causes

You are using logic to determine whether or not infinity can exist empirically

Imprecise. Nobody denies that eternity can exist going forward. Time is a ray, a line with a starting point but no end point.

What we're denying is that it is impossible that a causal chain commenced in the eternal past, because that, by definition means that THERE NEVER WAS A STARTING POINT. For any point you pick, you've just denied eternal regress. You've fixed a beginning, which is, by definition, not eternity.

So the idea is really simple: it's "That which begins has a cause," (Premise 1), and "Causal chains are, by definition, not eternal in the past, because that's impossible." (Premise 2)

Premise 1 is basic causality. Premise 2 is mathematically absolute. So we've got two undeniable premises in hand.

Making assumptions about observable reality without first testing them is entirely unreliable and is why science exists

We are testing.

Run the test of regressing numbers which I've now laid out twice in this thread, and you will discover empirically, for yourself, that the mathematics on that are correct.

[Immanuel Can]

For Immanuel Can.
As stated previously I have two main problem with causal chains. Firstly, If we try to trace the process of cause and effect to find a first cause we find that it disappears into the myriad of causes and effects of unlimited interaction.

If I trace that sentence, I find it disappears into a puddle of jargon, actually.

What you should see is this: if we try to trace back the chain of cause and effect, and suppose it's eternal, then we discover that the chain never begins.

Hume would tells us it is not a contradiction to say there are effects without a cause.

This is actually NOT what Hume claimed. Hume claimed we cannot know beyond possibility of doubt, that is, non-inductively, that a particular cause is the cause of a particular effect. He did not say that there are effects without a cause.

He's talking epistemology, not ontology. That humans have trouble "knowing" a thing, especially in an absolute way, does not answer the question of whether or not the thing exists. It only suggests human beings are having trouble getting a handle on it.

To illustrate that point easily, the fact that you, perhaps, don't know where the deepest point in the ocean is does not imply the ocean has no deepest point. Logically, we know it still must.

[Immanuel Can]

If truth and meaning are different concept then what does it mean for meaning to be true?

They're not.

"Meaning" refers to teleology, which can be correctly or incorrectly imputed.

Is that true?

Yes. And "teleology" means "the study of the ends toward which particular things are aimed or directed."

You can have "false meaning" too, so "true" is not redundant.

So what's the difference between a true meaning and a false meaning?

Exactly the same as between a true fact and a false fact.

However, you do (inadvertently?) point out a serious problem -- a fatal problem, in fact -- with the idea of any "human-based meaning."

Sounds like you are arguing for nihilism now....

Not me. I'm not a proponent of "human-based" meaning. That's a totally Atheistic perspective, and yes, if followed out with any degree of logic, it issues in nihilism about meaning. But most people are too terrified to follow that logic rigorously, so they continue to pretend that human-based meaning can be rationally asserted.

But they're manifestly wrong. And not because I say so, but because of the logic of their own suppositions. I think maybe only Nietzsche called their bluff on that. (One can say many negative things about that man, but he wasn't really a coward; he was perhaps the most logically courageous Atheist in modern philosophy.)

[Skepdick]

Yes. And "teleology" means .....

I'm not a proponent of "human-based" meaning...

Apparently people who contradict themselves are not worth listening to.

[Immanuel Can]

Yes. And "teleology" means .....

I'm not a proponent of "human-based" meaning...

Apparently people who contradict themselves are not worth listening to.

There's no contradiction. In fact, "human-based" meaning is the OPPOSITE of teleology.

In a world in which only human beings construct their "meanings" for themselves, there IS no actual teleological goal they could be aiming at...all there is, is their preferred delusion of one. But no such thing objectively exists, if "human-based" is all that meaning is.

[surreptitious57]

That which begins has a cause

Causal chains are by definition not eternal in the past because thats impossible

Were I to ask you what caused the very first cause you would say that it was God
Were I then to ask you what caused God you would say that he is eternal and therefore has no cause
But this is not acceptable because a scientific question should never be answered using metaphysics
Less you can provide actual evidence that God created a finite Universe that answer remains invalid

[Immanuel Can]

Were I to ask you what caused the very first cause you would say that it was God

We're not there yet, but ultimately, for me that will be true.

Were I then to ask you what caused God you would say that he is eternal and therefore has no cause

You are hurrying far too fast. We're only to the point of asking, "Did there have to be an original Uncaused Cause?" And the answer, regardless of whether one is a Theist or Atheist is "Yes: mathematically, that is inescapable."

But as to the exact nature of the Uncaused Cause, we have not gone further. Are you not going to tell me that maybe the Uncaused Cause could be something impersonal? Have you no thought for that possibility? Why not?

Meanwhile, something eternal is the only thing that cannot possibly need a cause. That's why whatever the Uncaused Cause may be, one thing we know for sure about it is that it has to be eternal. Anything else would need a causal explanation, and that would create the infinite regress of causes again...and then nothing would exist, because no thing would have a starting point.

So we are not using metaphysics at all. We're using pure, straightforward mathematics and logic. Nothing else.

Do you want to dismiss the possibility of an original Uncaused Cause out of hand? Because if you do, you're back to the problem of the infinite regress. And what's your solution for that?

[surreptitious57]

I think from both logical and empirical perspectives that an infinite Universe is more probable than an uncaused cause
Infinity is a very counter intuitive concept but any finite distance in time or in space can be split up into infinite parts
So then infinity already exists not only mathematically but physically whereas for God there is precisely zero evidence

[Skepdick]

There's no contradiction. In fact, "human-based" meaning is the OPPOSITE of teleology.

Then how do you know what "teleology" means?

In a world in which only human beings construct their "meanings" for themselves, there IS no actual teleological goal they could be aiming at...

What do you mean by a "teleological goal" if all you have at your disposal is human meaning?

all there is, is their preferred delusion of one. But no such thing objectively exists, if "human-based" is all that meaning is.

So, objectively - what is the non-human meaning of "teleology"?

[Immanuel Can]

I think from both logical and empirical perspectives that an infinite Universe is more probable than an uncaused cause

It's not probabilistic. It's deductive, and certain. The mathematics will simply not grant that there could ever be an infinite regression of causes. It's a certainty.

Infinity is a very counter intuitive concept but any finite distance in time or in space can be split up into infinite parts

But we're not talking about "infinite distances." Those are mathematically possible. But an infinite regression of causes is not mathematically possible at all. Don't let the word "infinite" confuse you; it's an adjective there, and is fine when applied to distances. But a regression of causes puts an infinite series of prerequisites before the present moment, so an infinite series would have to already be complete (i.e. "not infinite") before the present moment could even happen -- meaning that the present moment cannot happen if the past is composed of an infinite regression of prerequisites (i.e. causes).

So an infinite regression of causes BY VERY DEFINITION can't exist.

for God there is precisely zero evidence

Well, that's a completely gratuitous claim, a wish not a fact.

All you can mean is that personally, you've seen no such evidence, which if true, is fair enough. However, you can't possibly mean that you know what evidence others have seen, and know for yourself that none of it includes God. In fact, many claim to the contrary; and really, it's not even plausible to believe knowing otherwise is possible to you...unless you're God, in which case, God exists.

[Immanuel Can]

There's no contradiction. In fact, "human-based" meaning is the OPPOSITE of teleology.

Then how do you know what "teleology" means?

Because "teleology" is a comprehensible, defined word describing a concept, one of the stock one's in philosophy. And while teleologies themselves are not created by human wish, the concept or idea of one can be, just as human beings can know what "unicorn" and "deer" mean, even though the former is only a concept and the latter is real.

Either teleology refers to a real thing, or it does not. That's the point of debate. If teleology is merely a human concept, and does not refer to a reality, then it is merely a fictive concept. If it does refer to the fact that we are created for some goal, purpose or outcome, then it refers to something real.

That's what we've been debating.

In a world in which only human beings construct their "meanings" for themselves, there IS no actual teleological goal they could be aiming at...

What do you mean by a "teleological goal" if all you have at your disposal is human meaning?

We don't. Either human meaning describes some reality, or it does not. Like "unicorn" versus "deer." Some words do, and some do not.

[uwot]

"Atoms" apparently don't "look"at all like the tightly-proportioned diagrams we were shown, and are composed mostly of space, not of "matter."

Well Mr Can; as Erwin Schrödinger put it:
What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space.
That wasn't far off a hundred years ago and, frankly, if any version of materialism, including dualism tells us how reality is, then that's still about the best anyone can say. As someone who thinks maths is a productive tool for providing truths about reality (I'm thinking your impossible infinite regress argument here), surely you can appreciate Lawrence Krauss' insistence that mathematically, zero is the sum of plus and minus. Of course I'm messing with ya, Mr Can. There's no way you will accept that mathematical truth above the mathematical truth you do accept, for the simple reason that one supports what you wish to believe and the other is noncommittal.