Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

Did you break IC?

Wasn't me, guv.

I am unbroken...

I have no idea why anybody would think I would be. There's not much of serious moment going on here, right now. I'm busy on other threads.

[phyllo]

You're also not showing the experiment that proves your point.

Reminder:

There's nothing at all improperly formed about the recognition of the impossibility of an infinite regress. It is provable in pure mathematics, and also in empirical terms. You can perform the experiment right now, if you wish.

[Skepdick]

You're also not showing the experiment that proves your point.

Reminder:

There's nothing at all improperly formed about the recognition of the impossibility of an infinite regress. It is provable in pure mathematics, and also in empirical terms. You can perform the experiment right now, if you wish.

When you figure out that theism internalizes this fact - come back to the dialogue. That's why God's eternal, but reality isn't.

God is the set of necessary conditions (whatever they are) for everything (us included) to be right here. Right now.

Finite or infinite - doesn't matter. This is defined in the finite English expression "the set of necessary conditions". Whether those conditions are finite; or infinite - it makes no difference to the discourse.

Your God's finite?
Mine's infinite.
Your God is infinite? My God is the most infinite God there is. My God is absolute infinity itself.

Translation into English: My philosophical dick is not just bigger than yours. My philosophical dick is the biggest philosophical dick there is. No philosophical dick is bigger than mine.

In computer science these sort of abstract objects are called "Generic types". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_programming
God's anything you want it to be. You can instantiate it however you want with whatever parameters you want.

God's a theorem.

[phyllo]

What does that have to do with running an experiment that proves the impossibility of infinite regress????

[Immanuel Can]

You're also not showing the experiment that proves your point.

Reminder:

There's nothing at all improperly formed about the recognition of the impossibility of an infinite regress. It is provable in pure mathematics, and also in empirical terms. You can perform the experiment right now, if you wish.

Easy.

Let's call the BB, or Creation -- whatever you wish to designate it, the "0", the zero-point of the universe's origin.

From the 0 point to the first subsequent event (like the banging of the first two molecules together, or whatever you wish) is +1. The second event after the 0 point is +2, and so on. So we can put the cause-and-effect story together this way: the 0 event caused the +1 event; the +1 event was the immediate cause of the +2 event, the +2 event was the immediate cause of the +3 event...and so on, to the present moment.

But wait: if there is no such thing as an "uncaused cause," then the 0 event was itself caused. We don't even have to know what it was that caused the BB or Creation, or whatever. Whatever it was, we simply mark as the "-1" event. Whatever caused the -1 event, we now call the "-2" event...and so on.

But what does "cause" mean? It means that an event cannot happen without its cause having existed first. It would be, for example, utter nonsense to say, "I am the child of my great grandson." That's utterly impossible: if you are the grandfather, you can't possibly be the progeny of your own grandson. Likewise, if we say "the gasoline caused a fire," we must mean that before there was any fire, there was gasoline. This is surely frightfully obvious, but we need to make it plain here: a thing can't "cause" another thing, unless it came before that thing: never at the same time, and never afterward. If it came at the same time or afterward, then it was certainly NOT the cause of the event. Clear enough?

So something caused the BB or the Creation, the "0 point" event, whatever we consider it to be. And that something was the "-1" event. It was caused by the "-2" event...and so on.

So we've got a string of causes that looks like this: -3, -2, -1,0, 1, 2,3,...potentially to infinity, perhaps.

But notice this: that's only possible at the right-hand end of the string. We cannot have an infinite string of digits to the left of the sequence. And why? Because -3 had to come before -2, and -1 had to come before 0, and so on.

Here's the clincher: if the sequence was infinite to the left, that is, "infinitely regressive," then IT WOULD STILL BE WAITING TO BEGIN. When could it begin? Never. Because an infinite chain of prerequisites is required in order to arrive at the 0 event: and infinity, running backward, never begins.

Thus, if our universe were dependent on a regressing chain of causes, and that chain were infinite, THE UNIVERSE WOULD NOT EXIST. It couldn't ever get started. Its prerequisite conditions would recede infinitely, never finding a starting point.

And you can test it by using the chain we constructed to model the situation. Ask yourself this: if I stipulated to you that you could not write down "0" until you had written "-1" already, and couldn't write "-2" until you'd already written "-3", and so on infinitely, at what point would you get to put pen to paper?

The answer, of course, is "never." Just so, there would never be a universe if the causal sequence that produced it had to be infinitely regressive.

But there IS a universe, of course. So that tells you something beyond any reasonable doubt: that the universe is not the product of an infinite regressive chain of cause-and-effect. It had some uncaused causal point. We cannot, at this moment, and without more data, say more than that: but we can say it with absolute certainty.

But can we say more? I think we can. We can start to talk about what kind of an "uncaused cause" is the most plausible candidate for initiating a causal chain that results in the kind of universe we have...and we can move on from there, as well. But this is already a long reply, and it's said enough to establish the certainty of an uncaused cause at the root of the universe. And that's all that was so far asked, so I'll pause here.

[Skepdick]

What does that have to do with running an experiment that proves the impossibility of infinite regress????

Everything. You are conflating epistemology with ontology.

Given that you are a finite being stuck with finite time how would you even distinguish between something infinite; and something whose end you haven't yet reached? Just keep going - either you'll get to the end of it; or you'll die.

And you are also conflating the impossibility of infinite regress with the impossibility of knowing whether infinite regress is possible.

In fact - the standard atheist "attack vector" against theism is "Who created your God?" and "Who created the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of your God?". Amateurs... the ENTIRE INFINITE CAUSAL CHAIN is God.

[Skepdick]

Here's the clincher: if the sequence was infinite to the left, that is, "infinitely regressive," then IT WOULD STILL BE WAITING TO BEGIN. When could it begin? Never. Because an infinite chain of prerequisites is required in order to arrive at the 0 event: and infinity, running backward, never begins.

Then I am really really sad to inform you that you believe in a false God. Your God simply isn't infinite enough.

The One True God. The infinite omnipotent omniscient God can begin a new Universe whenever and wherever he wants to. That some arbitrary point within the absolutely infinite looks like a "beginning" to us - is just a perspective thing. Really - any arbitrary point on the (-∞, +∞) continuum God chooses becomes our "0".

Oh well, it's 2024 - it's about time for a new God anyway.

[Immanuel Can]

Then I am really really sad to inform you that you believe in a false God.

You're not "informing" of anything. Don't you get it?

Do the maths. Or try some logic.

[Skepdick]

Then I am really really sad to inform you that you believe in a false God.

You're not "informing" of anything. Don't you get it?

I do. And it's pretty embarrassing that an imbecile like you is flying the theism flag.

Do the maths. Or try some logic.

It's exactly what I am doing. I am inventing precisely the math/logic necessary to prove the theorems you claim are "impossible".

Logic/deductive reason has been the bastion of the Catholic church since Aquinas; and all the other denominations that splintered followed their error. Problem is we figured logic out... and... uh. it's invented/designed.

So the old shtick of hiding theism behind clever arguments doesn't fly. "Who created the laws of logic..." we did. There goes divine command theory!
It would be pretty embarrassing for your God if I can create the exact same laws as him, surely.

Good thing the Eastern Orthodox tradition didn't make the same silly error and remained true to mysticism and phenomenology. So they can woo-woo their way out of the jaws of science.

So if I am an Orthodox Christian and everything from Catholicism onwards is nonsense where does that leave you?

[Immanuel Can]

Do the maths. Or try some logic.

It's exactly what I am doing. I am inventing precisely the math/logic necessary to prove the theorems you claim are "impossible".

Let me know when you manage it. But I won't be holding my breath -- infinity is a very long time.

[Skepdick]

Let me know when you manage it.

Done!

But I won't be holding my breath -- infinity is a very long time.

No sweat. Time's relative. Infinity's relative. We have many infinities now. Big and small.

And we also have a Mathematical machinery for infinite time computations.

https://googology.fandom.com/wiki/Infin ... ng_machine

You need a bigger God now. Your infinite God's tiny.

[Immanuel Can]

Let me know when you manage it.

Done!

Let's see it, then. What's the first number in an infinite-regress-of-causes sequence.

[Skepdick]

Let me know when you manage it.

Done!

Let's see it, then. What's the first number in an infinite-regress-of-causes sequence.

Your question is tantamount to asking "When's God's first birthday?"

You've failed the Orthodoxy, heretic.

In fact - the standard atheist "attack vector" against theism is "Who created your God?" and "Who created the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of your God?". Amateurs... the ENTIRE INFINITE CAUSAL CHAIN is God.

Henceforth proceeds Genesis.

[phyllo]

What does that have to do with running an experiment that proves the impossibility of infinite regress????

Everything. You are conflating epistemology with ontology.

Given that you are a finite being stuck with finite time how would you even distinguish between something infinite; and something whose end you haven't yet reached? Just keep going - either you'll get to the end of it; or you'll die.

And you are also conflating the impossibility of infinite regress with the impossibility of knowing whether infinite regress is possible.

In fact - the standard atheist "attack vector" against theism is "Who created your God?" and "Who created the creator of the creator of the creator of the creator of your God?". Amateurs... the ENTIRE INFINITE CAUSAL CHAIN is God.

I'm looking at it from the practical point of view.

Let's say you do some sort of experiment to show infinite regress or the impossibility of infinite regress.

If the process in the experiment ends, then all you have shown is that specific process ends. It doesn't show anything about the general case or the specific case of the origins of the universe.

If the process in the experiment doesn't end, then you don't know if you have gone through a sufficient number of cycles to reach the end (if it exists). Maybe you are terminating the experiment too soon.

I don't see any way of getting around this.

[phyllo]

You're also not showing the experiment that proves your point.

Reminder:

There's nothing at all improperly formed about the recognition of the impossibility of an infinite regress. It is provable in pure mathematics, and also in empirical terms. You can perform the experiment right now, if you wish.

Easy.

Let's call the BB, or Creation -- whatever you wish to designate it, the "0", the zero-point of the universe's origin.

From the 0 point to the first subsequent event (like the banging of the first two molecules together, or whatever you wish) is +1. The second event after the 0 point is +2, and so on. So we can put the cause-and-effect story together this way: the 0 event caused the +1 event; the +1 event was the immediate cause of the +2 event, the +2 event was the immediate cause of the +3 event...and so on, to the present moment.

But wait: if there is no such thing as an "uncaused cause," then the 0 event was itself caused. We don't even have to know what it was that caused the BB or Creation, or whatever. Whatever it was, we simply mark as the "-1" event. Whatever caused the -1 event, we now call the "-2" event...and so on.

But what does "cause" mean? It means that an event cannot happen without its cause having existed first. It would be, for example, utter nonsense to say, "I am the child of my great grandson." That's utterly impossible: if you are the grandfather, you can't possibly be the progeny of your own grandson. Likewise, if we say "the gasoline caused a fire," we must mean that before there was any fire, there was gasoline. This is surely frightfully obvious, but we need to make it plain here: a thing can't "cause" another thing, unless it came before that thing: never at the same time, and never afterward. If it came at the same time or afterward, then it was certainly NOT the cause of the event. Clear enough?

So something caused the BB or the Creation, the "0 point" event, whatever we consider it to be. And that something was the "-1" event. It was caused by the "-2" event...and so on.

So we've got a string of causes that looks like this: -3, -2, -1,0, 1, 2,3,...potentially to infinity, perhaps.

But notice this: that's only possible at the right-hand end of the string. We cannot have an infinite string of digits to the left of the sequence. And why? Because -3 had to come before -2, and -1 had to come before 0, and so on.

Here's the clincher: if the sequence was infinite to the left, that is, "infinitely regressive," then IT WOULD STILL BE WAITING TO BEGIN. When could it begin? Never. Because an infinite chain of prerequisites is required in order to arrive at the 0 event: and infinity, running backward, never begins.

Thus, if our universe were dependent on a regressing chain of causes, and that chain were infinite, THE UNIVERSE WOULD NOT EXIST. It couldn't ever get started. Its prerequisite conditions would recede infinitely, never finding a starting point.

And you can test it by using the chain we constructed to model the situation. Ask yourself this: if I stipulated to you that you could not write down "0" until you had written "-1" already, and couldn't write "-2" until you'd already written "-3", and so on infinitely, at what point would you get to put pen to paper?

The answer, of course, is "never." Just so, there would never be a universe if the causal sequence that produced it had to be infinitely regressive.

But there IS a universe, of course. So that tells you something beyond any reasonable doubt: that the universe is not the product of an infinite regressive chain of cause-and-effect. It had some uncaused causal point. We cannot, at this moment, and without more data, say more than that: but we can say it with absolute certainty.

But can we say more? I think we can. We can start to talk about what kind of an "uncaused cause" is the most plausible candidate for initiating a causal chain that results in the kind of universe we have...and we can move on from there, as well. But this is already a long reply, and it's said enough to establish the certainty of an uncaused cause at the root of the universe. And that's all that was so far asked, so I'll pause here.

That's not an experiment.

Mathematically there are an infinite number of negative integers. You're arbitrarily saying that "We cannot have an infinite string of digits to the left of the sequence.". The math doesn't support you.

Sure, an infinite regress universe seems impossible. But an "uncaused cause" also seems impossible.
They are both absurd explanations for the existence of the universe.

The real explanation, now, is that we don't know why the universe exists or how it came into existence. IOW, we don't have a sensible explanation.