Is God necessary for morality?

[Skepdick]

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

Then you can tell us how big it is.

[Immanuel Can]

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

I guess you've chosen to pretend you've framed the debate then.

I haven't "framed" a thing. The thread question is above. I didn't post it. It's not my "frame."

[Immanuel Can]

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

Then you can tell us how big it is.

Why would it follow that I could?

[Skepdick]

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

Then you can tell us how big it is.

Why would it follow that I could?

Because the way to KNOW that an ontology is finite is to finish counting all of it.

[Immanuel Can]

Then you can tell us how big it is.

Why would it follow that I could?

Well the way to KNOW something is finite is to finish counting all of it.

Non-sequitur. The decisive refutation to the idea of the infinite age of the universe is the absolute impossibility of there being a causal chain of infinite length. And infinite means "eternally uncountable," obviously.

It's actually my attempted refuter, like yourself, perhaps, who needs to do the counting-back.

[Skepdick]

Non-sequitur. The decisive refutation to the idea of the infinite age of the universe is the absolute impossibility of there being a causal chain of infinite length.

What proof-system are you going to present your impossibility-proof in?

And infinite means "eternally uncountable," obviously.

For somebody who insists you understand logic/maths you don't even know what "uncountable" means.

It's actually my attempted refuter, like yourself, perhaps, who needs to do the counting-back.

Sure. let me help you help yourself. What's first real number before 1?

[Ginkgo]

Don't forget, the Big Bang was not an explosion, it was an expansion...Remember? An explosion occurs in space while an expansion is the creation of space.

The BB is not actually the creation of space. The theory holds that "things" existed prior to the BB, such as gases and plasma. So it's not the original explanation of the universe, meaning "all things that ever existed," just a latter stage of it.

But it won't matter anyway. An infinite causal regress is both mathematically and empirically impossible, so it's impossible as evaluated by either of those two ways.

This is not actually correct. Nothing existed prior to the Big Bang except a quantum state, in classical physics this would be explained in terms of a singularity. There were no gases or plasma prior to the Big Bang, all of these "things" (as you call them) were created after the Big Bang. The Big Bang was the creation of time and space, as explained by the inflation period.

[Ginkgo]

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

We now have mathematical proof that the Big Bang was caused by a quantum fluctuation. We also know that we live in a flat universe. The outermost galaxies are moving away faster than the speed of light. At the moment the evidence points to a universe that will expand forever.

[surreptitious57]

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 ?

In general terms a problem is something that cannot be solved but that actually needs to be solved
The first step is to identify why it cannot be solved and the second is to try any potential solutions

[surreptitious57]

And infinite means eternally uncountable obviously

This is false and demonstrably so too as an infinite set can be either countable or uncountable

Countable sets have a one to one mapping with the integers while uncountable ones do not [ they are larger than the integers ]
Anything smaller than aleph null [ the infinite set of positive integers ] is countable while anything larger than it is uncountable

The infinite sets of negative integers and postive integers and primes to name but three are all examples of countable infinities
An infinite Universe would also be a countable infinity with a one to one correspondence [ between each year and each integer ]

[Immanuel Can]

Nothing existed prior to the Big Bang except a quantum state...

A quantum state is not a "nothing."

So even if we postulate just that, we get a "something" that needs explanation. Why that "something" behaved in the way it is said to have done, in the absence of any materials, time, space or laws needs accounting. That is, unless we're back to postulating the absurd idea that an absolute "nothing" suddenly created everything, and causality is out the window.

[Immanuel Can]

And infinite means eternally uncountable obviously

This is false and demonstrably so too as an infinite set can be either countable or uncountable.

The request that I should "count" was not mine. It was put upon me by Skepdick, if you look back.

My request to him was to see if it's possible to describe the set of infinite causes prerequisite to the present, using either mathematical placeholders or empirical, physical ones, because it must be an actual infinite regress of causes. And it is not possible.

[Ginkgo]

A quantum state is not a "nothing."

Well, I did say except for a quantum state. However, I take your point, I should have chosen my words a little more carefully.

So even if we postulate just that, we get a "something" that needs explanation. Why that "something" behaved in the way it is said to have done, in the absence of any materials, time, space or laws needs accounting. That is, unless we're back to postulating the absurd idea that an absolute "nothing" suddenly created everything, and causality is out the window.

Funny you should say this, Lawrence Krauss wrote a book called 'A Universe From Nothing." Within the quantum world causality does go out the window.

[Belinda]

It does not matter whether or not a conscious agent created everything---except for one thing which is rather important:

when this conscious agent is believed in and trusted it's a smallish step for some bigwig then to say he's in touch with Him and that He has told the bigwig what's what .

This is why God the Creator is unpopular with free thinkers, and with people who wish to be free of punitive regimes.

I wish we could free our notions of God from this power complex that so many theists believe in and, sadly, trust.

[henry quirk]