Is God necessary for morality?

Tell us a little about yourself.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 2:06 pm There's a very good reason that story is told as a mockery. It's impossible. But I'm not sure how to assist you in understanding that, so I'll leave it there for now.
Your proof of impossibility is still outstanding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Belinda »

Ginkgo wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 11:23 am
Belinda wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 9:30 am Recent exchanges between Immanuel Can and Ginkgo are interesting and I wonder what God's agency in the creation of nature has to do with right and wrong.
Probably nothing.
I get the impression that you are a pantheist.
I like pantheism.
I also like the explanatory power of the Manichean Heresy.

Definition
A dualistic heresy initiated in the third century by a Persian named Mani, Manes, or Manichaeus (215-75). He was considered divinely inspired, and he gained a large following. In the Manichaean system there are two ultimate sources of creation, the one good and the other evil. God is the creator of all that is good, and Satan of all that is evil. Man's spirit is from God, his body is from the devil. There is a constant struggle between the forces of good and those of evil. Good triumphs over evil only insofar as spirit rises superior to the body. In practice Manichaeism denies human responsibility for the evil that one does, on the premise that this is not due to one's own free will but to the dominance of Satan's power in one's life.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 3:03 pm Your proof of impossibility is still outstanding.
Yes, it is an outstanding proof. :wink:

It's maths, plus logic. If you understanding the idea "infinite causal regress," then you already know that none can be "actual."

If you don't understand the maths and the logic, I'm at a loss for further argument.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 3:45 pm
Skepdick wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 3:03 pm Your proof of impossibility is still outstanding.
Yes, it is an outstanding proof. :wink:

It's maths, plus logic. If you understanding the idea "infinite causal regress," then you already know that none can be "actual."

If you don't understand the maths and the logic, I'm at a loss for further argument.
Yes the proof of IMPOSSIBILITY is outstanding.

The proof of POSSIBILITY is right here. It's actual - it satisfies the Mathematical/Logical notion of proof.

Code: Select all

regress = lambda n=0: regress(n-1)
We have a proof of possibility.
The proof of impossibility is outstanding.

Q.E.D
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 3:49 pm The object which I have produced as evidence is the Kolmogorov complexity of infinite regress.
You don't understand the words "actual" or "causal." If you did, you'd know that it's impossible.

That's the difference between writing the symbol for "infinity," which anyone can do...it looks like a sideways "8"...and creating an actual infinite regress of causal prerequisites, which neither you nor any computation can do.

That's certain. That you are having a problem understanding it is also certain. I have no solution for you.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 4:04 pm You don't understand the words "actual" or "causal." If you did, you'd know that it's impossible.
You don't understand the word "understand".

That's why you don't understand infinite regress.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 4:04 pm That's the difference between writing the symbol for "infinity," which anyone can do...it looks like a sideways "8"...and creating an actual infinite regress of causal prerequisites, which neither you nor any computation can do.
I didn't write a symbol. I gave you a computational model of infinity.

It's consistent with the laws of quantum physics - therefore it's possible in the empirical meaning of "possibility".

If you don't accept recursive regress by -1, then what sort of regress would you accept to infinity?
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 4:04 pm That you are having a problem understanding it is also certain.

Not only do you not understand understanding.
It's obvious that you also don't understand certainty.
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 4:04 pm I have no solution for you.
Precisely! So until you produce a solution it cannot be said that infinite regress is impossible.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 4:08 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 4:04 pm I have no solution for you.
Precisely! So until you produce a solution it cannot be said that infinite regress is impossible.
Again, you left out the words "actual" and "causes." That shows you're still not getting it.

I can spell it out for you, but I can't understand it for you. That's your choice.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 4:36 pm I can spell it out for you, but I can't understand it for you. That's your choice.
You can't even understand it for yourself.

If you understood understanding, infinite regress wouldn't be so confusing to you.
Skepdick wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 11:36 am There is no First Cause - it's turtles all the way down. Infinite regress.
Infinite regress is the foundation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion_theory
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 4:38 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 4:36 pm I can spell it out for you, but I can't understand it for you. That's your choice.
You can't even understand it for yourself.
Conversation circling drain.

Over and out.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Skepdick »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 5:26 pm Conversation circling drain.

Over and out.
Q.E.D you confuse infinite regress for a "drain". Your mistake should be plain obvious now!

I can't understand understanding for you.

Finite messaging (a.k.a communicable ideas) only go this far.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by seeds »

Ginkgo wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:20 am Well, of course not.

comments?
Admittedly, I have not read all of the replies in this thread, so I apologize if the following has already been mentioned.

With that being said, if we consider the possibility that God may indeed be the Creator and sustainer of the universe, then the notion of God not existing would mean that neither would there exist any suns, or planets, or brains, or minds.

In which case, that would also mean that there would not exist any context of reality in which such things as morality can play-out.

Therefore, the obvious point is that if God is necessary for our very existence, then to suggest that God is not necessary for the subsequent mental processes that arise as a result of how we and the universe were designed to operate - is pure materialistic nonsense.

And lastly, Ginkgo (just out of curiosity), why in the world did you initiate this thread in the “Introduce Yourself” section of the forum?
_______
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Ginkgo »

seeds wrote: Fri Aug 21, 2020 10:56 pm
Ginkgo wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:20 am Well, of course not.

comments?
Admittedly, I have not read all of the replies in this thread, so I apologize if the following has already been mentioned.

With that being said, if we consider the possibility that God may indeed be the Creator and sustainer of the universe, then the notion of God not existing would mean that neither would there exist any suns, or planets, or brains, or minds.

In which case, that would also mean that there would not exist any context of reality in which such things as morality can play-out.

Therefore, the obvious point is that if God is necessary for our very existence, then to suggest that God is not necessary for the subsequent mental processes that arise as a result of how we and the universe were designed to operate - is pure materialistic nonsense.

And lastly, Ginkgo (just out of curiosity), why in the world did you initiate this thread in the “Introduce Yourself” section of the forum?

I don't accept any of your arguments because I am an atheist.

BTW I clicked on the wrong option when I initiated this thread.
_______
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Ginkgo »

Immanuel Can wrote:
But then, by definition, it's not science. It's philosophical speculation, just as the critics have already said. And I think we are unwise to pronounce in advance that empirical evidence will appear in the future. After all, how would we know, absent any empirical evidence? :shock:


The difference between philosophical speculation and scientific speculation is that with scientific speculation the empirical evidence is out there. Scientific speculation is usually know as a hypothesis.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Ginkgo wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 3:20 am The difference between philosophical speculation and scientific speculation is that with scientific speculation the empirical evidence is out there.
"Out there?" :shock: "Out there?"

How do you know what's "out there," with no empirical evidence? I mean, the proponents of the 10 or so current quantum theories are asking us to believe that evidence they admit they do not currently have will magically appear eventually. Why should we believe that?

Heck, why would THEY believe that? :shock: This is why it starts to look ideologically-driven.

Believing in things that are completely non-evidentary is superstition. Scientific hypothesis requires at least a basic "apple" to fall on a basic "Newton's head" in order to justify a theory. But QM is pure speculation. How can anyone seriously suggest we take their blind hope for a promissory note that evidence is "out there" and will appear later?

There just isn't justification for that much faith. And why that much faith is even necessary should set our alarm bells off. We're being sold the Brooklyn Bridge...except in this case, Brooklyn itself isn't even known to exist.

But let us grant, for argument's sake, that QM evidence eventually appears. If it turns out to be a "something" rather than a "nothing," then it hasn't done anything to abate the seriousness of the infinite-actual-causal-regress problem. So then, it just turns out to be irrelevant to the question of whether or not a First Cause is necessary.
seeds
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by seeds »

Ginkgo wrote: Sat Aug 22, 2020 3:08 am I don't accept any of your arguments because I am an atheist.
Since when do atheists and theists on a philosophy forum have to accept each other’s arguments in order to respond (negatively or positively) to each other’s assertions?

Ginkgo, if you would have indicated in your OP that you only wanted to hear from people who completely agree with you,...

(i.e., only from those who confirm your personal biases)

...then perhaps I would have refrained from offering a reply.
_______
Post Reply