Is God necessary for morality?

[surreptitious57]

Do you believe things can begin without causes ? Are there things for which no prior explanation of cause is even possible ?

What would an example of such a thing be ?

Virtual particles are caused into existence by quantum fluctations arising from a quantum vacuum state
This is something coming from nothing and furthermore is a very regularly occurring phenomena as well
The law of cause and effect is a law of classical physics so one that does not apply at the quantum level

[Belinda]

Do you believe things can begin without causes ? Are there things for which no prior explanation of cause is even possible ?

What would an example of such a thing be ?

Virtual particles are caused into existence by quantum fluctations arising from a quantum vacuum state
This is something coming from nothing and furthermore is a very regularly occurring phenomena as well
The law of cause and effect is a law of classical physics so one that does not apply at the quantum level

Does that mean a quantum event could have been otherwise than it was?
It's more likely that time can go backwards as well as forwards, and that it is this malleability of time that rubbishes causality.

[Ginkgo]

So you do not believe that cause-and-effect are real?

Yes. I introduced my quantum concept a bit too early. I will return to that later. So, please go on with your argument.

This is actually an important point. We must make it clear.

Do you believe things can begin without causes? Are there things for which no prior explanation of cause is even possible?

What would an example of such a thing be?

No. The only example would be in the quantum world but not in the physical world. See surreptitious57 quote.

[-1-]

{1}Really there are only two things one has to know: firstly, that time is linear, not cyclical; and that's empirically evident, so that part's easy. The second thing you need to know is the idea of causality...and of chains of cause and effect. Again, the evidence of the existence of such is empirical, so that's also easy. But if both are true, then {3}it is impossible to have an infinitely regressing chain of causes. {4} Such a chain, if we were on one, would never have gotten started -- and that's very easy to demonstrate mathematically.

{1} IS TRUE. {2} IS TRUE. {3} DOES NOT FOLLOW FROM {1} AND {2}. YOUR EXPLANATION, AS GIVEN IN {4} IS ILLOGICAL. SUCH A CHAIN WOULD NEVER HAVE STARTED, TRUE, BUT WHAT YOU IGNORE, OR WHAT YOU CAN'T IMAGINE, IS THAT THE CHAIN HAD NO NEED TO HAVE A STARTING POINT, SINCE IT EXISTED FROM FOREVER PAST. INFINITY DOES NOT HAVE A STARTING POINT. SO IF SOMETHING EXISTS FROM INFINITE PAST, IT NEVER STARTED TO EXIST, IT JUST KEPT ON EXISTING. THAT INCLUDES A CHAIN OF EVENTS.

YOUR ARGUMENT HINGES ON THE INABILITY OF THE READER TO IMAGINE THAT SINCE PAST IS INFINITELY LONG, A THING IN IT NEVER NEEDED TO HAVE STARTED TO EXIST YET IT CAN EXIST.

THIS IS A DIFFICULT CONCEPT, I ADMIT, AND I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO FULLY FATHOM IT. WHICH YOU HAVE ALREADY SHOWN OTHERWISE YOU WOULDN'T HAVE PUT UP THIS ARGUMENT.

SORRY ABOUT THE OVERUSE OF CAPS. MY KEYBOARD IS SICK.

[Immanuel Can]

I did not claim Popper and Kuhn were relativists, and don't know whether they were or not.

Well, it's pretty evident neither was.

As long as there are living people who belong to a culture that culture changes through time.

It's more than that. People can abandon their own ideological "culture" if they want, and convert to something else.

Culture is not fate. If you were born a Catholic (as you say), then you are under no predetermination to stay one, if you find that it fails to meet your standards of belief. That's quite routine. So you've done nothing unusual, if you decided to think more Pantheistically later. People change their minds all the time.

[Immanuel Can]

Virtual particles are caused into existence by quantum fluctations arising from a quantum vacuum state
This is something coming from nothing and furthermore is a very regularly occurring phenomena as well
The law of cause and effect is a law of classical physics so one that does not apply at the quantum level

Well, there are a few problems with this.

First of all, to say that something happens by way of a cause we might not, at this moment, fully understand, is quite different from being certain that something happens uncaused. Secondly, I presume you have never seen a "virtual particle" yourself, so this is all outside your own experience. Thirdly, and most tellingly, if something can happen at the quantum level uncaused, why can't something happen at the conventional physical level uncaused? Why don't unicorns or pixies, or armchairs or fire hydrants just pop into existence uncaused all the time? But if your allegation of non-causality only applies at the level of quantum theory, and not at the level of the real, physical world or the level of your own experience, then you'd have to say that causality does indeed work in all normal matters, and your "non-causality" is only applicable at the level of quantum imagination.

In other words, causality is still the rule for everything we normally know. 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.

[Immanuel Can]

{1}Really there are only two things one has to know: firstly, that time is linear, not cyclical; and that's empirically evident, so that part's easy. The second thing you need to know is the idea of causality...and of chains of cause and effect. Again, the evidence of the existence of such is empirical, so that's also easy. But if both are true, then {3}it is impossible to have an infinitely regressing chain of causes. {4} Such a chain, if we were on one, would never have gotten started -- and that's very easy to demonstrate mathematically.

{1} IS TRUE. {2} IS TRUE. {3} DOES NOT FOLLOW FROM {1} AND {2}.

Actually, it does. If 1 and 2 are true, then 3 is mathematically unavoidable. For as you say...

SUCH A CHAIN WOULD NEVER HAVE STARTED, TRUE,

Then you make your mistake:

BUT WHAT YOU IGNORE, OR WHAT YOU CAN'T IMAGINE, IS THAT THE CHAIN HAD NO NEED TO HAVE A STARTING POINT, SINCE IT EXISTED FROM FOREVER PAST.

Actually, that is the impossibility that we can rule out with absolute certainty, mathematically. An infinitely regressed chain of causes has no starting point. And that makes it certain that if such a thing were posited it never started.

You can test it yourself, by trying the numbers test I suggested earlier in this conversation. Go ahead, and see if you can write any number while depending on an infinite stream of prerequisite numbers. Write the number "2" for example, but don't write it until you've already written 1, and don't write that until you've written 0, and don't write 0 until you've written -1, and don't write -1 until you've already written -2...and so on, to infinity.

When do you get to write "2"? The answer will turn out to be "Never."

SORRY ABOUT THE OVERUSE OF CAPS. MY KEYBOARD IS SICK.

No problem.

[surreptitious57]

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
And yet they are objectively real because you and every organism and object known to exist are actually made of them
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

[surreptitious57]

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
And so how unusual that thing is from our everyday perspective is of precisely zero relevance

[surreptitious57]

Many things exist beyond human experience but experience is the only means of verification for there is knowledge too

Accidentally ommitted a word from that sentence which should actually have said :
Many things exist beyond human experience but experience is not the only means of verification for there is knowledge too

[surreptitious57]

it is impossible to have an infinitely regressing chain of causes

You are using logic to determine whether or not infinity can exist empirically but for that you can only use empiricism
Making assumptions about observable reality without first testing them is entirely unreliable and is why science exists

But in any case any two points in space and time are composed of infinite parts and so infinity already exists
If infinity already exists between two finite points then it is not illogical to presume it exists beyond them too
But the only way of determining it would be to demonstrate it exists empirically which is physically impossible
Because to demonstrate empirically that the Universe had no beginning would require an infinite period of time

[surreptitious57]

Even if it could be demonstrated empirically that the Universe was finite infinity would still be true
Because there would have to have been an infinity of nothing before something came into existence
But that could not be possible because it has been empirically demonstrated that nothing cannot persist at the quantum level
And therefore if nothing cannot persist then it follows both logically and empirically that something must always have existed

[surreptitious57]

Christians and Muslims believe the Universe is finite because in order to create it God had to exist before it did
But this presumes that there is merely one infinity when mathematically there is actually an infinity of them
Is it not possible then that there is an infinity of infinities that physically exist and this can never be falsified

[surreptitious57]

Virtual particles are caused into existence by quantum fluctations arising from a quantum vacuum state
This is something coming from nothing and furthermore is a very regularly occurring phenomena as well
The law of cause and effect is a law of classical physics so one that does not apply at the quantum level

Does that mean a quantum event could have been otherwise than it was ?
Its more likely that time can go backwards as well as forwards and that it is this malleability of time that rubbishes causality

Quantum events cannot be determined in space and time the way that classical ones can
They can be determined in space only or in time only but not both which makes them more unpredictable
There is no evidence that time can go backwards but no reason as to why it cannot so it is not known why

[Skepdick]

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? And if it is, then what does it mean?

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

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

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....

And then you're right: "true" and "meaning" would have no relationship to one another.

Or we could say that "truth is meaningless"....