Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

Well, I guess we'll see.

Will we? You can't even tell us which God you are talking about.

You'll know Him when you face Him.

[Skepdick]

Well, I guess we'll see.

Will we? You can't even tell us which God you are talking about.

You'll know Him when you face Him.

I doubt that. We'll both be facing my God.

The One True God.

[Immanuel Can]

Will we? You can't even tell us which God you are talking about.

You'll know Him when you face Him.

I doubt that. We'll both be facing my God.

We'll see.

[Skepdick]

You'll know Him when you face Him.

I doubt that. We'll both be facing my God.

We'll see.

There's no need to wait. Logic - use logic, my friend.

If God is the greatest being and my God is more infinite than yours then by definition you worship a false God.

Repent, before it's too late.

[Immanuel Can]

I doubt that. We'll both be facing my God.

We'll see.

There's no need to wait.

And yet...

[phyllo]

That depends on your hypothesis and the structure of the experiment.

OK so tell me about the experiment you have in mind.

No. Failing to prove the impossibility of infinite regress is not proof of the possibility of infinite regress.

OK - it's your experiment! What would be a satisfactory proof *to you* about the possibility of infinite regress?

That's what an experiment is ... concrete.

OK great! So give me a concrete infinite regress and lets prove if it's possible.

You're demonstrating regress.

Correct! You are demonstrating a regress which has not yet ended. Do you have any proof that it will end?

Correction, you're demonstrating finite regress.

You are? Has your regress ended? No it hasn't. Therefore it's NOT finite.

Q.E.D

You can't say that it's infinite.

I can! I have prove the regress is NOT finite.

Isn't that what infinite means? Proving that something is NOT finite is a proof that something is infinite.

I don't have an experiment. I don't think it's possible to construct an experiment for infinite regress for the reasons I have already given.

That's why I asked IC what experiment he had in mind.

But he has nothing.

You don't have proof either way.

It's not possible to prove something infinite in a finite amount of time if we are dealing with something concrete. Time wouldn't be a factor if we were dealing with abstract concepts like pure mathematics.

[Skepdick]

You don't have proof either way.

It's not possible to prove something infinite in a finite amount of time if we are dealing with something concrete.

You appear to be utterly confused about what "infinite" means in practice.
You also have no clue what a proof is.

Your inability to exhaust the thing using finite time proves its infinitude.

Time wouldn't be a factor if we were dealing with abstract concepts like pure mathematics.

Time is exactly the factor. Infinite time means "unable to exhaust in finite time"

You are unable to count all the numbers in finite time - the numbers are infinite with respect to the time available to count them.

[phyllo]

If you don't have enough time to count the money in your wallet, it doesn't mean that you have an infinite amount of money in your wallet.

[Skepdick]

If you don't have enough time to count the money in your wallet, it doesn't mean that you have an infinite amount of money in your wallet.

Imagine you use ALL the time you have available to you; and ALL the time available to your friends; and ALL the time available to your circle of acquaintances; and you use ALL the time available to your society.

Perhaps you took some of the money in your wallet and you paid other people to come count.
You paid a million people, no you paid all 8 billion people on Earth - 8 billion dollars each to come and count the money in your wallet.

If you use up ALL the time of ALL those people - and everyone of them counts as fast as they can - and you still haven't finished counting the money in that wallet - then the wallet is effectively and pragmatically infinite.

The money ALWAYS appears to me "more than X" where X is everything you've managed to count so far.

[Age]

Because that's maths. And we're doing a mathematical demonstration.

Lol

I'm sorry, Age...you're not possible to talk to about anything with any depth at all. I shouldn't have tried. You came to play hockey without a stick, obviously.

lol you are doing a so-called 'mathematical demonstration' to try to prove your belief that the whole Universe was created by a male-gendered being, which shows the imagination and absolute immaturity of this human being.

Just because you cannot count numbers forever/infinitely this in absolutely no way means that the Universe was created, nor that it was created by something else.

To imagine or believe it does just shows and proves how Truly list, confused, deluded, and immature your are really being here "Immanuel can".

The Universe, irrefutably, is infinite and eternal. And, the first cause is blatantly obvious when one knows how to 'look at' and 'see' things for how they Truly are.

[Age]

Well, I guess we'll see.

Will we? You can't even tell us which God you are talking about.

That's a sure way to tell you believe in a false God.

But, "Immanuel can" at least tells us that its God is male-gendered.

Which, speaks for itself about how obviously False that God is.

[Age]

Well, I guess we'll see.

Will we? You can't even tell us which God you are talking about.

You'll know Him when you face Him.

The immaturity shown here speaks for itself.

[Age]

You'll know Him when you face Him.

I doubt that. We'll both be facing my God.

We'll see.

Do not forget that "skepdick's" God far outweighs and overrides your obviously very little and very False God "Immanuel can".

Obviously something that is gendered is only a tiny little part of a much bigger Thing.

[Age]

We'll see.

There's no need to wait.

And yet...

This is all you have got, for your claim about your God. That is; you will find out after you 'die'.

Could you get any more useless and immature in your ability to argue for your belief/s here "immanuel can"?

[Age]

That depends on your hypothesis and the structure of the experiment.

OK so tell me about the experiment you have in mind.

No. Failing to prove the impossibility of infinite regress is not proof of the possibility of infinite regress.

OK - it's your experiment! What would be a satisfactory proof *to you* about the possibility of infinite regress?

That's what an experiment is ... concrete.

OK great! So give me a concrete infinite regress and lets prove if it's possible.

You're demonstrating regress.

Correct! You are demonstrating a regress which has not yet ended. Do you have any proof that it will end?

Correction, you're demonstrating finite regress.

You are? Has your regress ended? No it hasn't. Therefore it's NOT finite.

Q.E.D

You can't say that it's infinite.

I can! I have prove the regress is NOT finite.

Isn't that what infinite means? Proving that something is NOT finite is a proof that something is infinite.

I don't have an experiment. I don't think it's possible to construct an experiment for infinite regress for the reasons I have already given.

That's why I asked IC what experiment he had in mind.

But he has nothing.

You don't have proof either way.

It's not possible to prove something infinite in a finite amount of time if we are dealing with something concrete. Time wouldn't be a factor if we were dealing with abstract concepts like pure mathematics.

What do you mean by 'infinite regress' and by 'time' here.

See, that the Universe is infinite, and eternal, has already been proved and can be proved True to others as well.

Are you open to this even being a possibility?