Is God necessary for morality?

Tell us a little about yourself.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Ginkgo
Posts: 2606
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Ginkgo »

Immanuel Can wrote:
A quantum state obviously isn't a "nothing." It's a state OF something. For example, if it's a state "of matter," then we're back to the infinite regress problem, because the "matter" in question needs a causal explanation of its own. In that case, we would be positing that the quantum state was a state through which things passed, travelling from a prior cause to a subsequent effect, but it would then not be the original state.

So do you think the quantum state had any prerequisite state or prior cause?
I think you are asking what came before the quantum state. Is that correct?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8732
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Ginkgo wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 11:27 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
A quantum state obviously isn't a "nothing." It's a state OF something. For example, if it's a state "of matter," then we're back to the infinite regress problem, because the "matter" in question needs a causal explanation of its own. In that case, we would be positing that the quantum state was a state through which things passed, travelling from a prior cause to a subsequent effect, but it would then not be the original state.

So do you think the quantum state had any prerequisite state or prior cause?
I think you are asking what came before the quantum state. Is that correct?
Well, two things: what is the quantum state a state of, materially speaking, in your opinion, and do you suppose it exists as causeless?
Ginkgo
Posts: 2606
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Ginkgo »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:20 am
Ginkgo wrote: Tue Aug 04, 2020 11:27 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
A quantum state obviously isn't a "nothing." It's a state OF something. For example, if it's a state "of matter," then we're back to the infinite regress problem, because the "matter" in question needs a causal explanation of its own. In that case, we would be positing that the quantum state was a state through which things passed, travelling from a prior cause to a subsequent effect, but it would then not be the original state.

So do you think the quantum state had any prerequisite state or prior cause?
I think you are asking what came before the quantum state. Is that correct?
Well, two things: what is the quantum state a state of, materially speaking, in your opinion, and do you suppose it exists as causeless?
Basically a quantum state is what's called the quantum form. This foam is made up of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence in extremely tiny fractions of a second. These particles that fleetingly come into existence are causeless. I don't know if this answers your question.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by -1- »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 4:27 am 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.

Having no starting point does not mean it cannot exist. What you point out correctly is that it never startred.That is true. You go on thinking from there that it never existed. You have this incredibly iron-clad belief that if something exist, it must have had a starting point of existence. Yet it does not.

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. But if you throw away that restriction -- and you should throw away that restriction -- then your objection is nullified. If you can go back INFINITELY long into the past, then you can do the progression. And why could you not go back infinitely into the past? It is not impossible to do so, since the time past is infiite long too! If you have a string that is two feet long, you can go back two feet. If you have a string hundred feet long, you can go back hundred feet. If you have a string infinite long, you can go back infinitely. You just can't pin it down to a certain yardage when it's infinite. That's all.

Because you can't pin it down, you insist it can't be done. But that is wrong, illogical reasoning. 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.

If you ask a dog or a monkey to build a motor car, and somehow could explain to the dog or monkey what you propose, it will tell you, if it could speak its thoughts, "no, that can't be done." Yet it can be done, only the dog or the monkey is incapable of visualizing it prior to getting it built. You are that thinker in a similar sense, who, because he can't imagine something possible as possible, declares the thought impossible.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: To whom and why is god necessary for morality?

Post by -1- »

uwot wrote: Thu Jul 02, 2020 10:53 pmLeaving aside the question of whether Jesus really existed (he didn't), does anything he said amount to any more than 'be nice to people'? I mean, it's a great message, but do you need the son of god to convince you?
At the time of the life of the alleged Jesus you did need to be the son of god (or did need to convince others so they believed you that it comes from the son of god) because at the time this idea was coined, it was a wholly revolutionary idea. The zeitgheist of the times accepted slavery, that only the rich and powerful are entitled to goods (including men over women), that the population's bulk was crap, dirt, shit, and everyone had bought into that. It was Jesus, or the shadow of a conglomerate of preachers, who stood up and said, "hey, everyone has a soul". That was the revolution of the existential philosophers of the time. "WE all have a soul, and the soul of each and every one of us is going to be judged for the way they live their lives." THIS needed to be said by a son of god, and along that saying was imbedded the message, "be nice to others".

Without the "son of god spake so" forced illusion, the entire idea never would have got off the ground.

So yes, at the time when the idea was first borne in a serious enough way, to "Be nice to others", it needed the currency of the decree of a god to make it punch-worthy enough as an argument.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2888
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by -1- »

Belinda wrote: Wed Jul 01, 2020 8:48 am A divinity or other incontrovertible authority such as a dictator or a dictatorial regime is still necessary when there is no democracy.
For democracy to bite the electorate has to be sufficiently educated to resist inefficient or immoral politicians.
What you wrote is a bit of a circular reasoning, if we are generous enough in the first place to call it reasoning.

I somehow understand that what you say is "you need authority to make behaviour moral, and we can't trust our leaders to provide that authority, because they tend to be immoral themselves." Ergo, you need a different authority (unspoken conclusion) which is god (unspoken conclusion).

The problem is that most immoral acts are illegal. People therefore tend to mix them up big time. And if you try to pin down the essence of morality, the best you can come up with is "Be good." Which is not a moral statement; it is a code of behavriour. If that is morality,, a code of behaviour, then you can make any code of behaviour, upon concensus, into morality. And people do that precisely, those people who live in societies. "Don''t kill" code can be converted into "do kill". Who is to stop us? "Be nice" can be converted to "be nasty". Is it more inherent for a behaviour to be moral if it is GOOD or if it corresponds to the rules of society? I say the latter, and then there goes the moral code, "politicians need to be moral", because in effect they don't. If the social value is to be nasty, then the immoral politians who want good for everyone, are essential, despite being immoral. (By displaying morally unsupported behaviour, by being good.)
Belinda
Posts: 3848
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Belinda »

-1- wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:16 am
Belinda wrote: Wed Jul 01, 2020 8:48 am A divinity or other incontrovertible authority such as a dictator or a dictatorial regime is still necessary when there is no democracy.
For democracy to bite the electorate has to be sufficiently educated to resist inefficient or immoral politicians.
What you wrote is a bit of a circular reasoning, if we are generous enough in the first place to call it reasoning.

I somehow understand that what you say is "you need authority to make behaviour moral, and we can't trust our leaders to provide that authority, because they tend to be immoral themselves." Ergo, you need a different authority (unspoken conclusion) which is god (unspoken conclusion).

The problem is that most immoral acts are illegal. People therefore tend to mix them up big time. And if you try to pin down the essence of morality, the best you can come up with is "Be good." Which is not a moral statement; it is a code of behavriour. If that is morality,, a code of behaviour, then you can make any code of behaviour, upon concensus, into morality. And people do that precisely, those people who live in societies. "Don''t kill" code can be converted into "do kill". Who is to stop us? "Be nice" can be converted to "be nasty". Is it more inherent for a behaviour to be moral if it is GOOD or if it corresponds to the rules of society? I say the latter, and then there goes the moral code, "politicians need to be moral", because in effect they don't. If the social value is to be nasty, then the immoral politians who want good for everyone, are essential, despite being immoral. (By displaying morally unsupported behaviour, by being good.)
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.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by surreptitious57 »

Belinda wrote:
Universality of reason must be accomplished by quality education for all which in turn requires basically happy living standards for all
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
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by surreptitious57 »

Belinda wrote:
Reason may be a false idol for all we can know but it is the best resource we have
Something that has practical application such as reason cannot be a false idol as long as it is not treated as such
This is why science should not be worshipped but simply used for its purpose which is to study observable reality
Belinda
Posts: 3848
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Belinda »

surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:56 pm
Belinda wrote:
Universality of reason must be accomplished by quality education for all which in turn requires basically happy living standards for all
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
You are too pessimistic. Your objections are true, but are not sufficient reasons for not acting to help people to have more personal autonomy.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by surreptitious57 »

1 wrote:
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
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 8732
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by Immanuel Can »

-1- wrote: Thu Aug 06, 2020 6:46 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 4:27 am 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.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by surreptitious57 »

1 wrote:
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
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by surreptitious57 »

Belinda wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Belinda wrote:
Universality of reason must be accomplished by quality education for all which in turn requires basically happy living standards for all
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
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Is God necessary for morality?

Post by surreptitious57 »

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
Post Reply