Is God necessary for morality?

[Immanuel Can]

Unless or until an infinite Universe can be falsified

If you believe in math, it has been...decisively.

[Belinda]

Bit of a non sequitur there Bel as one is not automatically the consequence of the other and its also rather idealistic too
Quality education does not guarantee reason and what is reasonable anyway is open to interpretation
Happiness is a psychological state not necessarily linked to living standards but is also very ephemeral
And so it can not last whereas contentment which is rooted in pragmatism is actually more sustainable
Contentment also accepts the human condition whereas happiness does not and so there is that as well

Your objections are true but are not sufficient reasons for not acting to help people to have more personal autonomy

Have as much autonomy as you like as long as you do not impose it upon others

Autonomy is the antithesis of imposing of control upon others.

[-1-]

If you go say 100 numbers a day each day then in inifinite number of days you can cover the entire length of the number progression

A computer processing at 99 . 99 per cent light speed all the irrationals between 0 and I would never reach the end even if it had infinite time
Not only that but it would not actually get past the first irrational because it would like all the others after it have an infinity of decimal places

Don't you give me this crap. We go by integers. And you have no clue what light speed is. It is a distance covered in a given time. A
computer speed is not measured in light speed. No need to infinity of decimal places when you go in intervals of 1 (one). Your post is crap.

[-1-]

If you go say 100 numbers a day each day then in inifinite number of days you can cover the entire length of the number progression

This is false because even with an infinite number of days you would still never get to the end
And so there is no such thing as the end of infinity because if there was it would just be finite

There is no end of infinity. That's why you don't get to he end. But you can cover infinity in infinitely long time.

You are being an asshole by not being logical.

I almost died one day due to a heart attack by reading the incredibly stupoid posts here by incredibly stupid people. Why do stupid people post on philosophy board? Because they don't realise they are stupid. So this is a social experiment: I am telling all stupid people that come my way, that they are stupid, and see what happens with that.

[-1-]

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.

It was never started, because it has gone on since time infinite.

You've forgotten that it's a regress.

A "regress" means that X cannot happen until X-1 has already happened. And X-1 cannot happen until after X-2 has happened, and so on. But if the causal regress chain is infinite, then no number of the sequence can happen until X-∞ has already taken place.

But since X-∞ diminishes infinitely, and so is forever lost in the infinite past, and is, in fact, not a "point" at all but an infinite sequence of prerequisites, there is no starting point for the causal chain...and nothing at all could ever happen...infinitely. For causality means that X-23 must cause X-22, which it cannot do if it is not before X-22. And so on.

Having no starting point does not mean it cannot exist.

That's exactly what it means, and it's mathematically certain. That is, provided causality is true.

What you point out correctly is that it never startred.That is true.

It cannot be. We can be certain of that.

Regarding your math progression of "not being able to say an integer number before saying the one smaller by one previous to it". You insist that if we make that rule, no number could be uttered, since you never end going into the past needing to name a one smaller integer. (Negative integers.)

That posit is only true if you restrict yourself to a FINITE amount of time going backward into the past.

The opposite is actually true -- it's true because you're positing an infinite past of causal prerequisites.

Because you can't pin it down, you insist it can't be done.

Actually, it's because of mathematics. It's not even really a matter of "imagination" at all, except the "imagination" to understand the mathematics. It's actually an absolute certainty...an "infinite" certainty, if you like.

You are repeating your incredibly stupid line of reasoning. You are not saying anything new. You only assume I did not read or comprehend what you had written earlier.

You are beign stupid. You can't help it, because you are too stupoid to realize how stupid you are. The best thing for you to do woudl be to shut up, but of course you'll never do that.

[-1-]

Straw man! The authority we need and should aim for is neither supernatural nor human dictator , but is the authority of reason with universality of reason. Universality of reason must be accomplished by quality education for all, which in turn requires basically happy living standards for all.

Reason may be a false idol for all we can know, but it is the best resource we have.

The law follows after received morality whatever be the source and nature of the moral system.

I'll buy what you just wrote here. But in your first post, whcih I criticised, you wrote something incongruent to this. I am glad you clarified your stance... why the quizzical, ambiguous post previously? NO need to answer, just wondering.

To refresh you rmemory, previously you wrote that in non-democracies people need a god or other authority, and in democracies, the politicians are corrupt. And that's where your post which i criticised, ended.

In this post you wrote things I fully agree with, but it has a completely different content. Which is fine, I have no problem with that.

[Belinda]

Straw man! The authority we need and should aim for is neither supernatural nor human dictator , but is the authority of reason with universality of reason. Universality of reason must be accomplished by quality education for all, which in turn requires basically happy living standards for all.

Reason may be a false idol for all we can know, but it is the best resource we have.

The law follows after received morality whatever be the source and nature of the moral system.

I'll buy what you just wrote here. But in your first post, whcih I criticised, you wrote something incongruent to this. I am glad you clarified your stance... why the quizzical, ambiguous post previously? NO need to answer, just wondering.

To refresh you rmemory, previously you wrote that in non-democracies people need a god or other authority, and in democracies, the politicians are corrupt. And that's where your post which i criticised, ended.

In this post you wrote things I fully agree with, but it has a completely different content. Which is fine, I have no problem with that.

I appreciate your clarification and query.

1. In the cases of non- democratic regimes such as tribal, feudal, or dictatorial regimes the elite rulers need to maintain the rule of 'law' by reference to a some supernatural authority, spirits of place, or ancestral traditions.

2. Under democratic regimes the law makers and enforcers i.e. the elite group are in theory authorised only by the electorate*so the electorate needs to be strong enough to moderate the elite group. Hence the need for the electorate to be well educated, at least enough to establish and support trade unions, and to be able to disinterestedly curb any excesses of the TUs.

* the bit in the 1954 American pledge of allegiance that says "under God" is deeply suspect.

[Immanuel Can]

You only assume I did not read or comprehend what you had written earlier.

I know you read it. And I meant no insult by pointing out the faults in your objections. However, it would seem I'm justified in thinking you don't understand it's implications, because your objections provide evidence of that, and someone who really did understand would necessarily, mathematically and logically have to agree with it.

There really is no other alternative.

But ad hominems, like "you are stupid" add no information to the situation at all, so I would distain to employ such language. I would also know that even a "stupid" person can accidentally speak truth, on rare occasions. So what you need to figure out is whether or not what was said is actually true or not. If it's not, there will be reasons and evidence -- not mere insults -- that show that it is.

Further thought is in order, if you still disagree.

[Ginkgo]

Unless or until an infinite Universe can be falsified it will remain a valid propostion
The fact that it is not logical is irrelevant as logic and empiricism are not the same

Actually, you are correct. We now know we live in a flat universe (in 2 dimensions). Everything is moving away from everything else;
the outer most galaxies are moving way from us faster than the speed of light. The best calculations so far point to a universe that will expand for ever.

[Immanuel Can]

Everything is moving away from everything else; the outer most galaxies are moving way from us faster than the speed of light. The best calculations so far point to a universe that will expand for ever.

A ray, a line with a definite starting point and an infinite trajectory, is not an empirical impossibility. This is why the Big Bang was posited; we can observe the movement of the universe outward, and this implies an original explosion.

But being itself a "caused" event, the BB is only one link in the requisite chain, and is not itself the ultimate inception point. For it has a causal explanation, something like "noble gasses and plasma floating in space somehow combined to explode." But gasses, plasma and space are already taken to exist, and their existence will also need a causal explanation, as will the forces producing their sudden explosion on the occasion of the BB.

This is the model of the universe that is linear and causal. But therein lies the problem.

Infinite causal regress -- our explanations moving backward in time, that is, seeking out causal explanations indefinitely -- is impossible to achieve. It has no inception point. It never started, in other words.

Again, if we just try it, we can see. Both logically and empirically, it simply cannot be done. So this mathematical proof hits both the empirical and the theoretical.

[surreptitious57]

I almost died one day due to a heart attack by reading the incredibly stupid posts here by incredibly stupid people . Why do stupid
people post on philosophy board ? Because they dont realise they are stupid . So this is a social experiment : I am telling all stupid
people that come my way that they are stupid

You almost died because of an emotional reaction to signifiers on a computer screen ?
You are telling everyone who fundamentally disagrees with you that they are stupid ?
Telling people they are stupid while making elementary [ corrected ] spelling mistakes is not a very good look now is it ?
Would you like a white cat ? They cannot really help with the spelling but they are very good for the old blood pressure
No increased heart rate was recorded during this post and I dont even own a cat but hope your heart can take the strain when your eyes read this

[Dontaskme]

I almost died one day due to a heart attack by reading the incredibly stupoid posts here by incredibly stupid people.

Well that was a stupid thing to do wasn’t it. Why would you be so stupid as to do something like that?

[Ginkgo]

Everything is moving away from everything else; the outer most galaxies are moving way from us faster than the speed of light. The best calculations so far point to a universe that will expand for ever.

A ray, a line with a definite starting point and an infinite trajectory, is not an empirical impossibility. This is why the Big Bang was posited; we can observe the movement of the universe outward, and this implies an original explosion.

But being itself a "caused" event, the BB is only one link in the requisite chain, and is not itself the ultimate inception point. For it has a causal explanation, something like "noble gasses and plasma floating in space somehow combined to explode." But gasses, plasma and space are already taken to exist, and their existence will also need a causal explanation, as will the forces producing their sudden explosion on the occasion of the BB.

This is the model of the universe that is linear and causal. But therein lies the problem.

Infinite causal regress -- our explanations moving backward in time, that is, seeking out causal explanations indefinitely -- is impossible to achieve. It has no inception point. It never started, in other words.

Again, if we just try it, we can see. Both logically and empirically, it simply cannot be done. So this mathematical proof hits both the empirical and the theoretical.

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.

[Skepdick]

If you go, say, 100 numbers a day, each day, then in inifinite number of days you can cover the entire length of the number progression. Your reasoning fails because you can't imagine that it can be done. It is your own limitation of reasoning power or imagination that renders the task impossible, not the inherent impossibility of the task itself.

Dumb Philosopher. If you aren't going to change your mind when you are provided with counter-examples to your claims, then fuck off and die already.

If you had infinite time you will ONLY count the integers.
You will not be able to count the real numbers.

You don't actually understand the difference between countable and uncountable infinities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard%2 ... escription

[Skepdick]

Infinite causal regress -- our explanations moving backward in time, that is, seeking out causal explanations indefinitely -- is impossible to achieve. It has no inception point. It never started, in other words.

As uwot would say, your ontology and epistemology are arguing with each other.

Tell your ontology to shut up because it doesn't know anything.