Is God necessary for morality?

[Skepdick]

Go and get yourself an infinite number of toothpicks.

If infinities are empirically impossible, how the hell would I do that? Perhaps you can explain to us what experiencing infinitely many toothpicks might be like?

Now you're getting it!

Put one on your kitchen table, then try to set another before it, and another before that, and call me back when you've finished the sequence.

In a universe that contains infinitely many toothpicks, you think there's any space for a kitchen table?

Now you're getting it for sure!

QED.

if you "got it" then why are you making me explain transfinite numbers to you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfinite_number

In mathematics, transfinite numbers are numbers that are "infinite" in the sense that they are larger than all finite numbers, yet not necessarily absolutely infinite.

[Immanuel Can]

if you got why are you making me explain transfinite numbers to you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faQBrAQ87l4

[Skepdick]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faQBrAQ87l4

Precisely! So if you are "getting it" the why is it that you don't understand that some infinities are larger than others?

And if you are "getting it", then why are you exemplifying your "understanding" with the smallest infinity there is?

That of the integers/toothpicks/Hilbert's hotel.

Absolute infinity is uncountable, but then you give me a countable infinities as examples. Almost as if you don't know anything about Cantor's God.

[Immanuel Can]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faQBrAQ87l4

Precisely! So if you are "getting it" the why is it that you don't understand that some infinities are larger than others?

Who said I don't understand that idea? I was under the impression that maybe you don't...or else you'd already have agreed with me. But if you're fine with realizing there is no infinite regress of causes, then I guess we are agreeing.

[Skepdick]

Who said I don't understand that idea? I was under the impression that maybe you don't...or else you'd already have agreed with me.

You are demonstrating your lack of understanding. You are flip-flopping between countable and uncountable infinities, but you haven't really made up your mind.

How can I possibly agree with you when you don't even know where you stand?

But if you're fine with realizing there is no infinite regress of causes, then I guess we are agreeing.

It depends on whether you are making an epistemic or an ontological claim.

Ontologically, infinities aren't a problem. Epistemically - they are. You can't know infinity!

Ontologically, I am not even sure if causes and effects are discrete things.

[Immanuel Can]

You are flip-flopping...

Nah. You are evading.

But if you're fine with realizing there is no infinite regress of causes, then I guess we are agreeing.

It depends on whether you are making an epistemic or an ontological claim. [/quote]
Ontological. "Actual" infinities of regressive causes.

Ontologically, infinities aren't a problem.

Actual infinite regress of causes. There are four terms there. You don't seem to understand more than one, and are making the mistake of thinking that because you can conceive of the idea of an "infinity" mathematically, something makes an infinite regress of causes actually possible.

It doesn't.

Ontologically, I am not even sure if causes and effects are discrete things.

Well, if you don't believe in cause-and-effect, then you cannot rationally believe in science, obviously.

Science always looks for the causes of effects. The alternative to that is nothing by magic...things starting to happen "for no cause." And it would be impossible to say why, if such a thing were possible at the Big Bang, similar causeless events shouldn't be happening all the time, right now. And then science itself wouldn't work, because it would have no predictive or interpretive power anymore.

But it does work, because cause-and-effect are a reality.

[Skepdick]

Ontological. "Actual" infinities of regressive causes.

How would you know anything about infinity given your finite epistemology?

Actual infinite regress of causes.

Yeah? And? Why is it a "problem"?

If causality is true, then something happened before The Big Bang - we don't know what.

There are four terms there. You don't seem to understand more than one, and are making the mistake of thinking that because you can conceive of the idea of an "infinity" mathematically, something makes an infinite regress of causes actually possible.

It doesn't.

That's pretty ironic. It sounds to me as if you are conceiving the idea on an "impossibility" and you are mandating that your conceived impossibilities are actual impossibilities.

Please furnish a proof of impossibility

Well, if you don't believe in cause-and-effect, then you cannot rationally believe in science, obviously.

I don't "believe in" science - I use science. It's a cognitive instrument. Like Maths.

Science always looks for the causes of effects.

It doesn't. Sounds like you haven't done a day of science in your life.

The alternative to that is nothing by magic...things starting to happen "for no cause."

And it would be impossible to say why, if such a thing were possible at the Big Bang, similar causeless events shouldn't be happening all the time, right now. And then science itself wouldn't work, because it would have no predictive or interpretive power anymore.

But it does work, because cause-and-effect are a reality.

You are exceptional at spinning bullshit. Congratulations. you are an exceptional philosopher.

But you don't know a thing about science.

[surreptitious57]

Well if you dont believe in cause and effect then you cannot rationally believe in science obviously

Science always looks for the causes of effects

Cause and effect is not something you believe in but something that you observe
Science is not something you believe in but something that you study or practice

Science is the study of observable phenomena that includes cause and effect but not absolutely so
Because something can be studied without cause and effect being relevant to that particular study

[Immanuel Can]

Well if you dont believe in cause and effect then you cannot rationally believe in science obviously

Science always looks for the causes of effects

Cause and effect is not something you believe in but something that you observe

If you know neuroscience, or even if you read Kant, you know that "what we observe" is internal phenomena, really, our neurons dancing. Whether or not they are dancing well...that's a different question.

In order to trust our reason, we have to believe they are, and that they're dancing in response to something real "out there"; but...how do we KNOW they are?

We don't. We just believe it. We have no choice.

[Immanuel Can]

Ontological. "Actual" infinities of regressive causes.

How would you know anything about infinity given your finite epistemology?

Can do mathematics and logic. See Hilbert's Hotel.

Actual infinite regress of causes.

Yeah? And? Why is it a "problem"?

If causality is true, then something happened before The Big Bang - we don't know what.

Right. And the BB wasn't the final explanation of cause for the universe. So we're back to the infinite causal chain problem.

Well, if you don't believe in cause-and-effect, then you cannot rationally believe in science, obviously.

I don't "believe in" science - I use science. It's a cognitive instrument. Like Maths.

You "believe" in maths, too. After all, nobody proved to you that this "2" represents this: * * You just believed them when they told you that.

Science always looks for the causes of effects.

It doesn't.

It does.

Congratulations. you are an exceptional philosopher.

Praise is unnecessary.

[Skepdick]

Can do mathematics and logic. See Hilbert's Hotel.

Q.E.D you can't! Hilbert's hotel is only about countable infinities. They are like little babies.

Uncountable infinities are orders of magnitude bigger.

Right. And the BB wasn't the final explanation of cause for the universe. So we're back to the infinite causal chain problem.

What is this "problem" you are talking about. Why is the BB (as a starting point of events) a "problem" for you?

Seems you are just inventing problems for no good reason.

You "believe" in maths, too. After all, nobody proved to you that this "2" represents this: * * You just believed them when they told you that.

I don't believe in maths either. I use maths. I am perfectly comfortable in number systems in which "2" is not a valid word.

It does.

Why do you believe in causality?

Congratulations. you are an exceptional philosopher.

Praise is unnecessary.

I know. Be sure to remind me if I ever praise you.

[Immanuel Can]

Hilbert's hotel is only about countable infinities. Uncountable infinities are orders of magnitude bigger.

That makes the problem much worse, not better, for the opposing argument.

Do you know whose side you're on?

Right. And the BB wasn't the final explanation of cause for the universe. So we're back to the infinite causal chain problem.

What is this "problem" you are talking about.

It's above: infinite causal regress.

You "believe" in maths, too. After all, nobody proved to you that this "2" represents this: * * You just believed them when they told you that.

I don't believe in maths either. I use maths.

I get it. You don't like the word "believe." Nevertheless, it's applicable. You can't "use" what you don't think works...i.e. that which you are not willing to believe works.

Why do you believe in causality?

Hilarious!

Do you realize you just asked for the "cause" (the "why") of my belief in causality?

Apparently, you believe I should answer. But I think you've already answered for me, by the question.

[Skepdick]

That makes the problem much worse, not better, for the opposing argument.

Do you know whose side you're on?

What is this "problem" you keep speaking of?

Indeed. Making up problems is as bad as it gets. Way worse than manufacturing opposition. It's self-sabotage.

It's above: infinite causal regress.

Infinite causal regress is infinite causal regress. Why is it a "problem" for you ?

I get it. You don't like the word "believe." Nevertheless, it's applicable. You can't "use" what you don't think works...i.e. that which you are not willing to believe works.

I don't need to "believe" something works, when it I can see it working. Then I know that works.

"Belief" is not necessary.

Perhaps "belief" is one of those made up words you use? Like "problem"?

Hilarious!

Do you realize you just asked for the "cause" (the "why") of my belief in causality?

You are welcome to call it a "cause" if it pleases you, but don't let that derail you from addressing the question.

Why you are at it, let me know why you believe in belief. Might help you abandon first order logic for something more practical.

[surreptitious57]

Well if you dont believe in cause and effect then you cannot rationally believe in science obviously
Science always looks for the causes of effects

Cause and effect is not something you believe in but something that you observe

If you know neuroscience or even if you read Kant you know that what we observe is internal phenomena really our neurons
Whether or not they are dancing well thats a different question

In order to trust our reason we have to believe they are and that they are dancing in response to something real out there
but how do we KNOW they are ?

We just believe . We have no choice

But we do have a choice which is between between believing or thinking [ they are not the same ]
We have to trust our reason and perception since that is all we have but we can still apply scientific rigour to the process
We do not have to accept without reservation that the reality we experience is in any way definitive [ we know it is not ]

[Immanuel Can]

Cause and effect is not something you believe in but something that you observe

If you know neuroscience or even if you read Kant you know that what we observe is internal phenomena really our neurons
Whether or not they are dancing well thats a different question

In order to trust our reason we have to believe they are and that they are dancing in response to something real out there
but how do we KNOW they are ?

We just believe . We have no choice

But we do have a choice which is between between believing or thinking [ they are not the same ]

The former is a subset of the latter.

We have to trust our reason and perception since that is all we have but we can still apply scientific rigour to the process

To do that, we have to believe there's an external world out there to be tested, and that the empirical results we produce are caused by our experiment, and that our experiment is correct.