Is God necessary for morality?

[Immanuel Can]

Infinite causal regress is infinite causal regress. Why is it a "problem" for you ?[/quote]
It's not. It's a problem for anyone who believes the universe is infinitely old, and came into existence without a cause.

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.

No, then you "believe" your eyes, and you "believe" that it will continue to work, and perhaps will work in other places and applications. But you don't know.

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.

It's not if it pleases me...it's because it is what you asked.

And when you did, you either essentially answered your own question, or rendered any answer impossible. You asked me for a cause of my belief. That means you assumed cause was involved; for if you didn't, you could never ask me "why" I did anything. But if you just misspoke, and still don't believe in cause-and-effect, then how can you ask anybody "why" anything happens?

So which way is it? Do you want to abandon the assumption behind your question, and revert to saying that cause isn't real, or do you want now to insist there must be a cause for my belief, if my belief is rational, and that I owe it to you?

How do you want to go? If you want to ask "why," then you assume the very premise my answer requires for yourself. You've done yourself in.

So amusing.

[Skepdick]

It's not. It's a problem for anyone who believes the universe is infinitely old, and came into existence without a cause.

OK, but why are you avoiding addressing the issue? Why do you think it's a "problem"?

What sort of properties/qualities would a "non-problematic" conception exhibit?

No, then you "believe" your eyes, and you "believe" that it will continue to work, and perhaps will work in other places and applications. But you don't know.

Naturally. I don't know, but I can find out by trying.

It's not if it pleases me...it's because it is what you asked.

And when you did, you either essentially answered your own question, or rendered any answer impossible. You asked me for a cause of my belief.

That means you assumed cause was involved; for if you didn't, you could never ask me "why" I did anything. But if you just misspoke, and still don't believe in cause-and-effect, then how can you ask anybody "why" anything happens?

So which way is it? Do you want to abandon the assumption behind your question, and revert to saying that cause isn't real, or do you want now to insist there must be a cause for my belief, if my belief is rational, and that I owe it to you?

How do you want to go? If you want to ask "why," then you assume the very premise my answer requires for yourself. You've done yourself in.

So amusing.

Yes, but I also know how to play the "everything you say fits my (mis?)interpretation" game. It's the dumbest trick in the philosophy textbook.

If causality doesn't exist, then it's impossible for me to ask you a causal question now, is it?
So which is it, do you want to pretend you've successfully framed the narrative, or are you ready to abandon that strategy?

[surreptitious57]

WHY do you think its a problem ?

In order for God to have created the Universe it has to be finite
An infinite Universe removes the need for any creator and so cannot be accepted
So his objection is therefore metaphysical rather than scientific or mathematical
An infinite God is causeless and so conveniently does not require any explanation
Nothing you will say will convince him of the fallacy of such an irrational position

The fact of the matter is that no one knows what happened before the Big Bang or if there was a before
The current laws of physics break down at that point and what is needed is a theory of quantum gravity

There is no scientific reason as to why the Universe cannot be infinite
But at the moment there is no way to determine whether or not it is

[Skepdick]

WHY do you think its a problem ?

In order for God to have created the Universe it has to be finite
An infinite Universe removes the need for any creator and so cannot be accepted
So his objection is therefore metaphysical rather than scientific or mathematical
An infinite God is causeless and so conveniently does not require any explanation
Nothing you will say will convince him of the fallacy of such an irrational position

The fact of the matter is that no one knows what happened before the Big Bang or if there was a before
The current laws of physics break down at that point and what is needed is a theory of quantum gravity

There is no scientific reason as to why the Universe cannot be infinite
But at the moment there is no way to determine whether or not it is

You aren't answering my question. Why is it a "problem"? What is a "problem"? Explain to me your conception of a "problem" in relation to a "non-problem". Can you do so without appealing to an "ought"?

An infinite universe would be causeless too. What caused the cause of the cause of the cause of the Big Bang? It's causes all the way down.

What is so "problematic" about that? Is just recursion.

[Immanuel Can]

It's not. It's a problem for anyone who believes the universe is infinitely old, and came into existence without a cause.

OK, but why are you avoiding addressing the issue? Why do you think it's a "problem"?

What do you understand when you read the words, "It's not"?

No, then you "believe" your eyes, and you "believe" that it will continue to work, and perhaps will work in other places and applications. But you don't know.

Naturally. I don't know, but I can find out by trying.

Too late. By the time you've tried, you've lived or died with the results. So how do you know you should try?

If causality doesn't exist, then it's impossible for me to ask you a causal question now, is it?

Well, certainly the question "why" is out. If there's no causality, there's no reason for anything, no "why" at all.

But I see you don't believe that, since you asked "why" in the first place.

[surreptitious57]

Explain to me your conception of a problem in relation to a non problem

An infinite universe would be causeless too

What is so problematic about that ?

In science a problem is a phenomena for which there is no rational explanation based upon pre existing knowledge
In reality it is not a problem simply the perception of one as all phenomena do actually have explanations for them

An infinite Universe would be causeless but could never be determined as there is no potentially falsifiable hypothesis that could do this
[ because one would need an infinite amount of time to confirm the hypothesis were it actually true and so it is essentially unknowable ]

I have zero problem with an infinite Universe - Immanuel Can however does because it invalidates his God

[Skepdick]

What do you understand when you read the words, "It's not"?

Immaterial. What do you mean by the words you used right after that?

Too late. By the time you've tried, you've lived or died with the results. So how do you know you should try?

Why is it "too late"? If my instruments stop working then I'll look for alternatives.

If it ain't broke - don't fix it.

Well, certainly the question "why" is out. If there's no causality, there's no reason for anything, no "why" at all.

But I see you don't believe that, since you asked "why" in the first place.

Only if you insist that a "why?" question mandates a causal answer, which it clearly doesn't as the "Why is it too late?" question demonstrates. Post hoc fallacy...

I guess you've chosen to pretend you've framed the debate then. Do you enjoy sabotaging yourself by lying to yourself?

[Immanuel Can]

What do you understand when you read the words, "It's not"?

Immaterial. What do you mean by the words you used right after that?

Read the earlier parts of the thread, and you'll know.

Too late. By the time you've tried, you've lived or died with the results. So how do you know you should try?

Why is it "too late"?

As above.

Well, certainly the question "why" is out. If there's no causality, there's no reason for anything, no "why" at all.

But I see you don't believe that, since you asked "why" in the first place.

Only if you insist that a "why?" question mandates a causal answer,

...which yours does. It means "What evidence or line of reasoning causes you to say what you say?" If you mean to ask me otherwise, you must not require me to give you any reasons.

Did you want reasons or not?

[Skepdick]

In science a problem is a phenomena for which there is no rational explanation based upon pre existing knowledge
In reality it is not a problem simply the perception of one as all phenomena do actually have explanations for them

I am not looking for a particular scientific conception of a "problem".

I am looking for a general/qualitative one.

What is a "problem" outside of the scientific framework?

[Immanuel Can]

What is a "problem" outside of the scientific framework?

Why "outside of the scientific framework"? Do you suppose that's the right way to answer the question, "Is the universe eternal or not?"

Well, you can answer that one empirically (i.e. scientifically) or mathematically; and either way, the answer is, "It's not."

[Skepdick]

...which yours does. It means "What evidence or line of reasoning causes you to say what you say?" If you mean to ask me otherwise, you must not require me to give you any reasons.

Did you want reasons or not?

*yawn*

Telos is not causal. It's Equifinal. If anything - it's retrocausal.

[Skepdick]

Why "outside of the scientific framework"? Do you suppose that's the right way to answer the question, "Is the universe eternal or not?"

Well, you can answer that one empirically (i.e. scientifically) or mathematically; and either way, the answer is, "It's not."

Because the scientific framework rests upon on a bunch of non-causal "Why?" question.

WHY do you want to know if the universe is eternal or not?
WHY do you want to know the origin of the universe?

To give a causal answer here would be the height of stupidity IMO. Whatever causal answer you furnish would also have to account for causing the question.

And then there be your actual confusion: how would you determine an infinite ontology from a finite epistemology?

[Immanuel Can]

...which yours does. It means "What evidence or line of reasoning causes you to say what you say?" If you mean to ask me otherwise, you must not require me to give you any reasons.

Did you want reasons or not?

*yawn*

Telos is not causal. It's Equifinal. If anything - it's retrocausal.

So..."No" is the answer, then.

[Skepdick]

So..."No" is the answer, then.

I guess you've chosen to pretend you've framed the debate then. Do you enjoy sabotaging yourself by lying to yourself?

[Immanuel Can]

WHY do you want to know if the universe is eternal or not?

I don't "want to."

I can do maths and logic. I know it isn't.