Moral Compass

[Harbal]

things that begin always have a cause

Does God's existence have a cause?

Well, if you understand the same thing that Christians and Jews mean when they say the word "God," then you would be understanding it as the concept of an eternal being. Having no beginning, He has no cause. Nobody thinks that eternal things had a cause: by definition, they cannot have had one.

That's my point; you believe it is possible for something to be eternal.

If God can exist without having a beginning, then we have to deduce that such a thing is possible, in which case we also have to recognise the possibility of the universe having no beginning, and so not having a cause, either.

Non sequitur: it does not follow, logically. If God is eternal, it does not at all imply that the universe is.

No, it doesn't imply it, it just means it could be. The human brain is limited, or at least mine is, I can't conceptualise anything not having a beginning, so I feel completely unable to say that it is possible. You, on the other hand, do seem to be able to conceptualise it and believe it possible.

In fact, it implies the opposite: that the universe is a contingent entity, not a necessary or eternal one.

I don't see how it implies that.

And the universe, we also know, had a beginning. We know it not just deductively, but empirically, because of entropy. Entropy is observable, measurable, and quantifiable.

But we have never empirically observed a universe coming to an end, have we? You are deducing that the universe will end because you can't think of a reason why it shouldn't, but you can't know for sure that there is no reason. Alternatively, maybe God also suffers from entropy, if entropy is always inevitable.

So both logically and scientifically, you can be as certain as you can be of anything, that the universe was not eternal in the past, and cannot be eternal going forward. As such, it had a cause.

But as you often say to me; science can't tell us everything.

[Iwannaplato]

And the universe, we also know, had a beginning. We know it not just deductively, but empirically, because of entropy. Entropy is observable, measurable, and quantifiable.

But we have never empirically observed a universe coming to an end, have we? You are deducing that the universe will end because you can't think of a reason why it shouldn't, but you can't know for sure that there is no reason. Alternatively, maybe God also suffers from entropy, if entropy is always inevitable.

Not only this there is no consensus that the universe must end in Science. IC is a great example of the 'a little knowledge....' saying. He cherry picks science that supports his beliefs, or seems to. We now about entropy in closed systems. We don't know if the universe goes through cycles. We don't know if whatever set things going (in what may be the latest cycle or a local events by universe standards) happens regularly. There are all sorts of positions on what may cause the birth of new universes and no consensus on what happens to the whole thing. But IC will pretend that there is consensus and 'we' know what he wants 'we' to think.

Beware the smug wielders of the ill-defined we.

[Immanuel Can]

Does God's existence have a cause?

Well, if you understand the same thing that Christians and Jews mean when they say the word "God," then you would be understanding it as the concept of an eternal being. Having no beginning, He has no cause. Nobody thinks that eternal things had a cause: by definition, they cannot have had one.

That's my point; you believe it is possible for something to be eternal.

There's no reason why not. If the universe is contingent and caught up in a cause-effect chain, particularly an entropic one, then it's inevitable that there has to have been a First Cause. That's a mathematical absolute. So it's one of the few things of which we can be 100% certain.

So which is it you don't like? Empirical science, deduction or mathematics?

If God can exist without having a beginning, then we have to deduce that such a thing is possible, in which case we also have to recognise the possibility of the universe having no beginning, and so not having a cause, either.

Non sequitur: it does not follow, logically. If God is eternal, it does not at all imply that the universe is.

No, it doesn't imply it, it just means it could be.

It doesn't, actually. The universe is manifestly, demonstrably not eternal.

In fact, it implies the opposite: that the universe is a contingent entity, not a necessary or eternal one.

I don't see how it implies that.

Because the universe is manifestly an entity that had a beginning point. It could not be part of an eternal back-chain of cause and effect, because such a chain never gets started!

See it? You can't have an infinite regress of causes. It's conceptually impossible. It's mathematically unworkable. It cannot exist in reality.

And the universe, we also know, had a beginning. We know it not just deductively, but empirically, because of entropy. Entropy is observable, measurable, and quantifiable.

But we have never empirically observed a universe coming to an end, have we?

We haven't observed your beginning or your end either. But we can deduce both, from premises we don't have any means to doubt. And at this very moment, we can scientifically measure your personal decrepitude, both its quantity and its rate...which we can also do for the universe.

So both logically and scientifically, you can be as certain as you can be of anything, that the universe was not eternal in the past, and cannot be eternal going forward. As such, it had a cause.

But as you often say to me; science can't tell us everything.

No; but it can tell us this.

[Janoah]

No, you're asking me to agree with your statement, that matter "obeys" God, without specifying what it is you mean. And since I don't know what you mean, I'm not able to know whether or not I agree.

Once again, do you agree that matter obeys God in the sense in which You understand this obeyance?

I'm agreeing with you.

NOT WITH ME, this is not my private statement, just as “twice two is four” is not my private statement.

(You can Google "matter obeys God" and you'll see a bunch of people saying this).

[Harbal]

Well, if you understand the same thing that Christians and Jews mean when they say the word "God," then you would be understanding it as the concept of an eternal being. Having no beginning, He has no cause. Nobody thinks that eternal things had a cause: by definition, they cannot have had one.

That's my point; you believe it is possible for something to be eternal.

There's no reason why not. If the universe is contingent and caught up in a cause-effect chain, particularly an entropic one, then it's inevitable that there has to have been a First Cause. That's a mathematical absolute. So it's one of the few things of which we can be 100% certain.

I am very reluctant to be 100% certain about anything. There is always the possibility of being mistaken, and also that of there beings factors of which we are currently unaware.

So which is it you don't like? Empirical science, deduction or mathematics?

There is value in all three, and I don't dislike any. If you want to provide me with an option that I am able to dislike, you could add religion to the list.

The universe is manifestly, demonstrably not eternal.

Not so, apparently. A bit of quick research informs me that, "The question of the universe's eternity remains an open and actively debated topic in cosmology."

In fact, it implies the opposite: that the universe is a contingent entity, not a necessary or eternal one.

I don't see how it implies that.

Because the universe is manifestly an entity that had a beginning point. It could not be part of an eternal back-chain of cause and effect, because such a chain never gets started!

But it can't be known for sure that the universe isn't eternally cyclical. I know that our understanding of logic says that isn't possible, but even if the universe did have an actual starting point, I have a feeling its origins will involve something our logic is unable to deal with.

See it? You can't have an infinite regress of causes. It's conceptually impossible. It's mathematically unworkable. It cannot exist in reality.

Yes, it seems to be conceptually impossible, but our inability to be able to conceptualise something might be more to do with our mental limitations than with what is actually possible. Surely, God is also mathematically unworkable, and unable to exist in reality, yet you believe he does.

But we have never empirically observed a universe coming to an end, have we?

We haven't observed your beginning or your end either. But we can deduce both, from premises we don't have any means to doubt. And at this very moment, we can scientifically measure your personal decrepitude, both its quantity and its rate...which we can also do for the universe.

My end doesn't have to be observed in order to know it is inevitable, because the process has already been observed countless times in entities exactly like me. Nobody has ever observed a universe coming to an end.

So both logically and scientifically, you can be as certain as you can be of anything, that the universe was not eternal in the past, and cannot be eternal going forward. As such, it had a cause.

But as you often say to me; science can't tell us everything.

No; but it can tell us this.

Except science doesn't actually say it has to be that way.

[Immanuel Can]

Once again, do you agree that matter obeys God in the sense in which You understand this obeyance?

I'm agreeing with you.

NOT WITH ME,

Then my answer is that as far as I can tell, I'm not agreeing with you, or with anybody else who makes such a statement: but maybe I am, depending on what is intended by the poser of the question.

[Immanuel Can]

That's my point; you believe it is possible for something to be eternal.

There's no reason why not. If the universe is contingent and caught up in a cause-effect chain, particularly an entropic one, then it's inevitable that there has to have been a First Cause. That's a mathematical absolute. So it's one of the few things of which we can be 100% certain.

I am very reluctant to be 100% certain about anything.

How about mathematics? Are you 100% certain that 2+2=4?

The universe is manifestly, demonstrably not eternal.

Not so, apparently. A bit of quick research informs me that, "The question of the universe's eternity remains an open and actively debated topic in cosmology."

Where's your attribution for that quotation? Did you expect me to believe it because it was typed, or were you planning to cite your source at some point?

Let me do better:

"The theorem proved in that paper is amazingly simple. Its proof does not go beyond high school mathematics. But its implications for the beginning of the universe are very profound. . . . With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), pp.174-76

I don't see how it implies that.

Because the universe is manifestly an entity that had a beginning point. It could not be part of an eternal back-chain of cause and effect, because such a chain never gets started!

But it can't be known for sure that the universe isn't eternally cyclical.

Yes, it can.

The "cycles" themselves cannot be part of an actual infinite regress of causes. So no matter how many one guess at (and now we're nowhere near empirical science with such a supposition), one has only pushed back the question one step: what started the cycles?

I know that our understanding of logic says that isn't possible, but even if the universe did have an actual starting point, I have a feeling its origins will involve something our logic is unable to deal with.

Like God, you mean?

Funny that that would be the only "something our logic is unable to deal with" that you'd deny was possible, even while embracing belief in "something our logic is unable to deal with" to replace Him.

But we have never empirically observed a universe coming to an end, have we?

We haven't observed your beginning or your end either. But we can deduce both, from premises we don't have any means to doubt. And at this very moment, we can scientifically measure your personal decrepitude, both its quantity and its rate...which we can also do for the universe.

My end doesn't have to be observed in order to know it is inevitable, because the process has already been observed countless times in entities exactly like me. Nobody has ever observed a universe coming to an end.

But you just conceded the point, anyway. You believe in something you haven't observed, on the basis of what you observe now.

[Harbal]

There's no reason why not. If the universe is contingent and caught up in a cause-effect chain, particularly an entropic one, then it's inevitable that there has to have been a First Cause. That's a mathematical absolute. So it's one of the few things of which we can be 100% certain.

I am very reluctant to be 100% certain about anything.

How about mathematics? Are you 100% certain that 2+2=4?

2 of what, plus 2 of what else?

Not so, apparently. A bit of quick research informs me that, "The question of the universe's eternity remains an open and actively debated topic in cosmology."

Where's your attribution for that quotation? Did you expect me to believe it because it was typed, or were you planning to cite your source at some point?

I asked ChatGPT, and I imagine it references numerous sources. I didn't post it in the expectation, or even the hope, that you would accept it, but only in order to demonstrate what I accept.

Let me do better:

"The theorem proved in that paper is amazingly simple. Its proof does not go beyond high school mathematics. But its implications for the beginning of the universe are very profound. . . . With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), pp.174-76

But you haven't done better, because I suspect you have specifically looked for a source that says what you want saying.

But it can't be known for sure that the universe isn't eternally cyclical.

Yes, it can.

The "cycles" themselves cannot be part of an actual infinite regress of causes. So no matter how many one guess at (and now we're nowhere near empirical science with such a supposition), one has only pushed back the question one step: what started the cycles?

I obviously don't know how many people will agree with you, but I will be generous and assume it to be everyone in the whole world, except me, of course. Therefore, I will revise my statement to: it can't be known for sure by me that the universe isn't eternally cyclical.

I know that our understanding of logic says that isn't possible, but even if the universe did have an actual starting point, I have a feeling its origins will involve something our logic is unable to deal with.

Like God, you mean?

In principle, of course, but how seriously one would take that suggestion would very much depend on how "God" was defined.

Funny that that would be the only "something our logic is unable to deal with" that you'd deny was possible, even while embracing belief in "something our logic is unable to deal with" to replace Him.

Whenever I have referred to God in a conversation with you, it has been in reference to what I understand your particular concept of God to be, not any possible interpretation of what the word, "God", might mean.

My end doesn't have to be observed in order to know it is inevitable, because the process has already been observed countless times in entities exactly like me. Nobody has ever observed a universe coming to an end.

But you just conceded the point, anyway. You believe in something you haven't observed, on the basis of what you observe now.

You've lost me. What is it that I believe in that I haven't observed, on the basis of what I observe now?

[Immanuel Can]

I am very reluctant to be 100% certain about anything.

How about mathematics? Are you 100% certain that 2+2=4?

2 of what, plus 2 of what else?

That's the great thing about maths: it doesn't matter. The answer's still the same.

Not so, apparently. A bit of quick research informs me that, "The question of the universe's eternity remains an open and actively debated topic in cosmology."

Where's your attribution for that quotation? Did you expect me to believe it because it was typed, or were you planning to cite your source at some point?

I asked ChatGPT,

Lovely. That explains the lack of any citation. You asked an algorithm to make something up for you, then you believed it.

Let me do better:

"The theorem proved in that paper is amazingly simple. Its proof does not go beyond high school mathematics. But its implications for the beginning of the universe are very profound. . . . With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006), pp.174-76

But you haven't done better, because I suspect you have specifically looked for a source that says what you want saying.

Well, "I suspect" there's no pleasing some folks. I even gave you the source.

I will revise my statement to: it can't be known for sure by me that the universe isn't eternally cyclical.

Well, unless you've stopped the process called "learning," you can't even know that much. All you can safely say is that you don't know the answer at this particular minute...but you could learn it in the next ten seconds.

Funny that that would be the only "something our logic is unable to deal with" that you'd deny was possible, even while embracing belief in "something our logic is unable to deal with" to replace Him.

Whenever I have referred to God in a conversation with you, it has been in reference to what I understand your particular concept of God to be, not any possible interpretation of what the word, "God", might mean.

That doesn't seem a particularly relevant objection. I don't think you understand the concept of God, but if you did, you certainly couldn't be sure you know what mine is.

My end doesn't have to be observed in order to know it is inevitable, because the process has already been observed countless times in entities exactly like me. Nobody has ever observed a universe coming to an end.

But you just conceded the point, anyway. You believe in something you haven't observed, on the basis of what you observe now.

You've lost me. What is it that I believe in that I haven't observed, on the basis of what I observe now?

You believe in your own end. You haven't observed it. But you believe in it anyway. What you can observe is your own entropy: that if you're a rational person, that tells you everything about the fact that you had a birth and will have a death.

It's not a terribly complex realization. The same is true for the universe. It's entropic, too...and we can observe that it is, and measure the exact rate of decay. So that tells us it had a beginning, and will have an end...just as you and I will.

[Harbal]

How about mathematics? Are you 100% certain that 2+2=4?

2 of what, plus 2 of what else?

That's the great thing about maths: it doesn't matter. The answer's still the same.

So would 2 elephants plus 2 giraffes equal 4 elephants, or 4 giraffes?

I asked ChatGPT,

Lovely. That explains the lack of any citation. You asked an algorithm to make something up for you, then you believed it.

I asked it a question, and I got an answer.

But you haven't done better, because I suspect you have specifically looked for a source that says what you want saying.

Well, "I suspect" there's no pleasing some folks. I even gave you the source.

You can't be sure you didn't please somebody.

I will revise my statement to: it can't be known for sure by me that the universe isn't eternally cyclical.

Well, unless you've stopped the process called "learning," you can't even know that much. All you can safely say is that you don't know the answer at this particular minute...but you could learn it in the next ten seconds.

Okay, I'll say that, then.

Whenever I have referred to God in a conversation with you, it has been in reference to what I understand your particular concept of God to be, not any possible interpretation of what the word, "God", might mean.

That doesn't seem a particularly relevant objection. I don't think you understand the concept of God, but if you did, you certainly couldn't be sure you know what mine is.

Okay, the next time you mention God to me, I will ask for a full definition before I comment.

You've lost me. What is it that I believe in that I haven't observed, on the basis of what I observe now?

You believe in your own end. You haven't observed it. But you believe in it anyway. What you can observe is your own entropy: that if you're a rational person, that tells you everything about the fact that you had a birth and will have a death.

Yes, because, if nothing else, I have witnessed it happening to others like me.

It's not a terribly complex realization. The same is true for the universe. It's entropic, too...and we can observe that it is, and measure the exact rate of decay. So that tells us it had a beginning, and will have an end...just as you and I will.

We only know of one universe, so we cannot make a prediction about its future based on our observations of other universes, and as the universe is not a biological entity, it cannot be assumed that it will be subject to the same processes of decay that I am subject to.

[Immanuel Can]

2 of what, plus 2 of what else?

That's the great thing about maths: it doesn't matter. The answer's still the same.

So would 2 elephants plus 2 giraffes equal 4 elephants, or 4 giraffes?

Please yourself.

I asked ChatGPT,

Lovely. That explains the lack of any citation. You asked an algorithm to make something up for you, then you believed it.

I asked it a question, and I got an answer.

So...yep.

You've lost me. What is it that I believe in that I haven't observed, on the basis of what I observe now?

You believe in your own end. You haven't observed it. But you believe in it anyway. What you can observe is your own entropy: that if you're a rational person, that tells you everything about the fact that you had a birth and will have a death.

Yes, because, if nothing else, I have witnessed it happening to others like me.

So you believe things you learn from the experiences of others, too? That's a lot more faith than merely believing what you, yourself have experienced, but okay.

It's not a terribly complex realization. The same is true for the universe. It's entropic, too...and we can observe that it is, and measure the exact rate of decay. So that tells us it had a beginning, and will have an end...just as you and I will.

We only know of one universe, so we cannot make a prediction about its future based on our observations of other universes,

I never mentioned any "other" universes. Like you, I don't even believe in such. I'm just taking about what any scientist and any ordinary person can observe about THIS universe. Just as you observe yourself and know you have an expiry ahead, you can observe entropy and know that this universe has one.

[Harbal]

We only know of one universe, so we cannot make a prediction about its future based on our observations of other universes,

I never mentioned any "other" universes. Like you, I don't even believe in such. I'm just taking about what any scientist and any ordinary person can observe about THIS universe. Just as you observe yourself and know you have an expiry ahead, you can observe entropy and know that this universe has one.

There are people far better qualified than I who also don't feel able to just assume that is the case, so it would be inappropriately arrogant of me to think that I could. I don't know the reason for it, but I have noticed that some people have a problem with fence sitters. That's not my problem, though, and I can't change my nature, anyway. What does it matter what happens to the universe? it's not like either of us will be here to experience it.

[Immanuel Can]

We only know of one universe, so we cannot make a prediction about its future based on our observations of other universes,

I never mentioned any "other" universes. Like you, I don't even believe in such. I'm just taking about what any scientist and any ordinary person can observe about THIS universe. Just as you observe yourself and know you have an expiry ahead, you can observe entropy and know that this universe has one.

There are people far better qualified than I who also don't feel able to just assume that is the case,

Name one.

What does it matter what happens to the universe? it's not like either of us will be here to experience it.

Does it matter what happens with you?

[Harbal]

I never mentioned any "other" universes. Like you, I don't even believe in such. I'm just taking about what any scientist and any ordinary person can observe about THIS universe. Just as you observe yourself and know you have an expiry ahead, you can observe entropy and know that this universe has one.

There are people far better qualified than I who also don't feel able to just assume that is the case,

Name one.

I'm afraid I can't do that without their permission, it would be unethical.

What does it matter what happens to the universe? it's not like either of us will be here to experience it.

Does it matter what happens with you?

Yes, but my attention is mainly on the immediate future, rather than eternity.

[Age]

The 'Universe', when defined as all-there-is, totality, or everything, at any given moment is made up of, exits as, or is either, one of four things.

1. One infinitely compressed solitary singular piece of matter, which is infinite in size.

2. One infinitely compressed solitary singular piece of matter, within a distance of infinite size of nothing around it.

3. Pieces of matter with distances between and around them.

4. Absolutely nothing, of infinite size

Now, in order for absolutely anything, with the ability to comprehend and to be considering these four things here, only one of the four could exist.

There exists some thing not just comprehending and considering here but also conscious of all of what is going on here, now.

Therefore, the one and only one of the four is what exists.

And, because that one is not able to be caused from either of the other three, nor from absolutely anything else, this means, irrefutably, that the Universe is not just spatially infinite but temporally eternal as well.

This cannot be refuted. Unless, of course, one can show and prove how the Universe, Itself, is fundamentally made up in some other way

Now, until then and one can grasp and understand the above, then 'we' move onto 'looking at', 'seeing', understanding how the 'moral compass' works and where it comes from or exits, exactly, also.