Is morality objective or subjective?

[phyllo]

We don't have any pre-BB observations so we don't know which mathematical equations are applicable before the BB.

We don't need any.

You're trying to make a demand for us to introduce a necessity for empirical information into an argument that proves conclusively that the very theory of an actual infinite regress of prerequisites is impossible. But this isn't an empirical argument, and doesn't call on us to have any empirical data beyond what we can observe presently. We know...

A) at present, we can see, every day and in many ways, that we are in a cause-effect universe. There's no other of which we know, or can know, or can fail to be part of the universe.

B) an actual infinite regress of prerequisites isn't even conceptually coherent, and thus it's unsurprising that we have no example of one in the empirical world.

It's up to the objectors, then, to show that either A) we aren't in a cause-effect universe presently, or B) that an actual infinite regress of prerequisites is rationally and mathematically possible, or empirically available.

Can they do either? Let's see them do it, then.

Clearly, cause and effect, as we understand it, does not apply to the origins of the universe. If it did, then there would be no universe at all.

So something that is beyond our current understanding must have happened. That includes beyond our understanding of math and physics. Our current math and physics are simply not applicable.

[Peter Holmes]

The once majority realist views,
1- the earth is flat
2- the Sun revolves the Earth
were based on an evolutionary default, i.e. primal and primitive.
Copernicus exposed the ignorance of those who believe in 2.

Those primal and primitive evolutionary defaulted that still persist at present by the majority as ideology are
a. - God exists as real
b. - the realist absolutely human- or mind-independent reality like yours.

Kant introduced his Copernican Revolution to expose the philosophical ignorance those clinging to b.

As a non-theist you critique theists as delusional;
but you don't realize you are relying on the same [slightly different shade] independent of humans[mind] realism as the theists in claiming your ideology of an absolutely human-independent reality which make you delusional as well.

But we corrected the opinion that the sun orbits a flat earth, by finding out the fact of the matter - something that just is the case - the thing you say is a delusion.

As I had argued, human relied on the human-based science-astrological FSERC to confirm the Earth orbits the Sun.
Without humans, there is no way we can realize and confirm the Earth orbits the Sun.

So what? This is trivially true. 'If there were no humans, then humans couldn't know the earth orbits the sun.' Well, der. Point is, the earth does, in fact, in reality, orbit the sun. That's a feature of reality that just is the case, and would be the case if there were no humans to know it's the case. So your argument is empty.

There is no way to confirm there is "something that just is the case" without grounding contingently any claim of reality on a human-based science-astrological FSERC with its specific constitution.

Rubbish. The natural sciences produces descriptions of things that just are the case, such as that the earth orbits the sun - which it would if there were no humans to know and describe it.

This is the complain by deflationists that the inflationists [like you] are simply inflating facts with something extra[illusory] that is substantial and do not exists as real.

There's no reason to think that our descriptions and explanations are about things that are illusory. On the contrary, that claim is completely irrational.

The fact that human knowledge and descriptions of reality change is not evidence that there is no reality beyond what humans know and describe. On the contrary, it's evidence that there is.

The change is only relative to the prior human-based FSERC fact upon discover of newer and more convincing empirical evidences.

This is just blather - trying to keep an argument going that's going nowhere.

As such, the latest fact [FSERC] is merely a more-polished-conjecture than the previous one without any need to contrast it against any reality beyond the empirical.

There's no reason to think that our empirical evidence - including empirical evidence of the way our sensory apparatus processes sense data - is not evidence of reality-as-it-is. On the contrary, it's rational to think it is - because our theories are confirmed experimentally. Or if they're not, we change the theories to account for the new empirical evidence.

It is never the task of science to confirm there is "something that is the case" outside is framework, system and scope.
What certain [not all] science [antirealism] does is to ASSUME there is a mind-independent reality out there awaiting discovery.

And that's a rational assumption. And by contrast, the antirealist claim that there is no human-independent reality 'out there' is irrational. For one reason, there is no 'in here' and 'out there'. There's nothing in reality that distinguishes humans from the rest of reality.

Science by its definition cannot affirm 'there is an objective mind-independent reality out there"; the most it can do is to ASSUME it for its convenience and guide.

If there were no reality independent from what humans know and describe, our knowledge and descriptions could never change. Anti-realism is incoherent, and absurdly anthropocentric.

Ditto above.
Antirealism is based on whatever the empirical evidences support as grounded on the respective FSERC and do not speculate nor assume beyond what is empirically available and possible.

Nope. Philosophical antirealism is the claim that there is no reality beyond what humans perceive, know and say about reality. And that's patent nonsense.

Realism speculates and 'inflates' there is something beyond what is empirically possible.
What is beyond the empirical is merely a speculative illusion.
This is why I charge your 'what is fact' is illusory, false and not true.

Question. Why is the empirical itself not speculative illusion? Where's the dividing line between empirical evidence which is not illusory, and the reality of which it seems to be evidence, which you say is illusory?

Sorry, but this argument collapses into confusion, contradiction and incoherence.

[Immanuel Can]

Clearly, cause and effect, as we understand it, does not apply to the origins of the universe.

You say that's "clear." I know of nobody but you who thinks that. So I think I'm justified in asking you what you think makes that "clear" to you.

But the sequence of cause and effect that we now observe on every side had to have a starting point, too. And if, as you imagine, there was no science or mathematics implicated before the Big Bang, then you'll need to explain how the "rules" of the "game" suddenly got changed at the BB.

Good luck. I'll be most interested in whatever you have to offer on either issue.

[phyllo]

You say that's "clear." I know of nobody but you who thinks that. So I think I'm justified in asking you what you think makes that "clear" to you.

But the sequence of cause and effect that we now observe on every side had to have a starting point, too.

The way that we understand cause and effect is that everything has a cause and a starting point.

But that can't explain the existence of the universe. There is no way for the cause of the universe to spring into existence.

And if the universe is eternal, then where it it come from? There would have to be a cause for it.

So cause and effect fail for both a created universe and an eternal universe.

And if, as you imagine, there was no science or mathematics implicated before the Big Bang, then you'll need to explain how the "rules" of the "game" suddenly got changed at the BB.

I didn't say that there was no math or physics before the BB. I don't what math and physics was applicable.
And it seems certain that our current math and physics is insufficient to understand or model the origins of the universe.

[Will Bouwman]

Please consider reading "Personal Knowledge."

That's not my responsibility. If you believe my understanding is faulty, it is for you to cite passages that support your claim. If I were to suggest you read a work until you see it my way, I would fully expect you to tell me to fuck off, although you might not use that precise wording. I might add that like everyone with a finger in the philosophy of science pie, Polanyi was influenced by Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Knowledge which came out four years after Personal Knowledge. You might consider reading his final book, Meaning, for a more nuanced understanding of Polanyi's mature work.

I understand the argument and, unlike you, I understand why it is unsound.

If you understand it, then why does your "refutation" of the point miss the target completely?

Pointing out that an argument is unsound is not a refutation. I have no need to prove your argument wrong, it is enough that you can't prove it.

Premise 1: an actual infinite regress of causes cannot exist, because in an infinite regress, the causal chain never starts, but rather "recedes" into a supposed infinite past. (Mathematical and deductive)

We both accept that eternal entities are logically coherent. The only argument you have that there could only be one is the woeful ontological argument. Well, that and the fact that it says so in a book you happen to favour.

Premise 2: the universe is a product of a chain of causes. (Presently observable and scientific)
Conclusion: the universe cannot be infinitely old. (Corollary: it must have an original cause).

The block universe hypothesis is one example of eternalism. Good luck refuting it.

[Immanuel Can]

Polanyi was influenced by Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Knowledge which came out four years after Personal Knowledge.

That's very funny. I don't know how many people there ever were who were writing BEFORE the person who allegedly influenced them. Isn't it usually AFTER? I know Polanyi was a great scientist, but I'm not sure he had a time machine. It was the reverse, if anything. http://polanyisociety.org/TAD%20WEB%20A ... 24-pdf.pdf

I've read Kuhn, too. Kuhn's more of a crude popularizer of a related idea, rather than the innovative inventor of one. And it's not actually quite the same idea as Polanyi, as the above article points out.

But if you don't read Polanyi's most famous and celebrated book, you'll never know, of course. If you do, I think you'll see it for yourself.

The block universe hypothesis...

If you deny causality exists, then of course you've eliminated the regress-of-causes argument. No causes = no regress. Simple.

My argument itself is premised on the claim that causality exists, just as we so routinely observe that it does. But if you manage to deny causality, you also end up denying science itself. So if you want to eliminate both science and rationality from the field, then you can accept any "hypothesis" (i.e. undemonstrated, unprovable, purely speculative theory). But that merely renders one a speculative thinker, not an observer of facts.

Quite a price to pay.

[Immanuel Can]

You say that's "clear." I know of nobody but you who thinks that. So I think I'm justified in asking you what you think makes that "clear" to you.

But the sequence of cause and effect that we now observe on every side had to have a starting point, too.

The way that we understand cause and effect is that everything has a cause and a starting point.

But that can't explain the existence of the universe. There is no way for the cause of the universe to spring into existence.

Right! Good lad. You've figured it out.

If the universe were the product of an eternal chain of causes, it would not exist right now! But it does exist right now, so it's not the product of an eternal chain of causes. Very good.

That means that one thing we know for certain is that the universe is the product of some Cause which itself was not caused by anything. That's what we call "the First Cause," with capital letters, because there cannot have been anything before it (or rather, before Him).

And if the universe is eternal, then where it it come from? There would have to be a cause for it.

Absolutely true. The universe is not an eternal entity. It's a contingent one. And we can observe that scientifically, because everything in it is subject to entropic decline. That's like us having a clock that tells us (approximately) when the whole thing had to start, and that it DID have a start.

And if, as you imagine, there was no science or mathematics implicated before the Big Bang, then you'll need to explain how the "rules" of the "game" suddenly got changed at the BB.

I didn't say that there was no math or physics before the BB. I don't what math and physics was applicable.

That wouldn't change anything. We're not using some special maths from before the BB. We're using the mathematics that works perfectly well in the universe as we have it. And our conclusion is deductive and as certain as anything can possibly be: that the sequence of events that produced our contingent (non-eternal, non-necessary) universe had a specific beginning point.

And you and I are not eternal either...at least, not in the past. We have an original cause. It's called our parents. And they had one, and they had one, and they had one...and somewhere back in the past, that sequence also stopped, and had its origin point. That's about as certain as anything we actually can claim to know.

[phyllo]

Right! Good lad. You've figured it out.

Don't be an ass.

That means that one thing we know for certain is that the universe is the product of some Cause which itself was not caused by anything. That's what we call "the First Cause," with capital letters, because there cannot have been anything before it (or rather, before Him).

Yes, a First Cause is invented which does not explain anything.

It's a pure wave of the hand which tries to sweep away the basic problem. Unsuccessfully.

We're not using some special maths from before the BB.

There are lots of maths. Which math are you using to model pre-BB?

We're using the mathematics that works perfectly well in the universe as we have it.

You don't know if the maths we use now correctly model the pre-BB state.

And our conclusion is deductive and as certain as anything can possibly be: that the sequence of events that produced our contingent (non-eternal, non-necessary) universe had a specific beginning point.

You can't make the deduction because you don't know if the current physics was applicable to the pre-BB state.

It's pretty certain that current physics is inadequate because it requires causes and there seems to be a "missing cause" for both the created and eternal universe cases.

If current physics and math explained it adequately, then you wouldn't need to invent a God as a First Cause.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Hmmm...you're not a very good reader, are you? It does not say "there must be a starting cause," or anything like that, though indeed the conclusion shows that there would have to be. But that's only in the conclusion, not P1. P1 says that an actual infinite regress of causes cannot exist. And the reasons for that are mathematical.

Don't be too sure of yourself, i.e. your ignorance. You are missing a lot of nuances.

"Mathematics nuances"? Do carry on.

That is, mathematics is fundamentally grounded on human consensus implicitly.
An octopus with 8 tentacles if it has self-conscious would have a different mathematical system.

You are arguing for no infinite regress so you can bring in your first starting point, the first cause.

Even were you right, my motive is utterly immaterial, if the argument is sound. You might not like it, but that doesn't even remotely give you reason to think it's wrong. To beat P1, what you have to prove is that an actual infinite regress is possible.

Let's see you do that.

An 'infinite regress' is merely a human invented idea which has no reality at all, i.e. illusory.
Thus it is moot or a non-starter to even to raise it as a hypothesis thus no possibility of proof at all.
The point is we start with the empirical and makes claims as far as the empirical evidences with rationality can support the claim.

Mathematics' 'most certainty' is based on humans-in-consensus

Mathematics has nothing to do with "human consensus." 2+2 will always = 4, regardless of how many people know it. That's the beauty of maths.

As had stated formal mathematics is only valid within a human agreed system where the axioms and conditions are pre-agreed implicitly or explicitly.

In the case of synergy, 2 + 2 = 3 which can be tested empirically.
In another scenario with different conditions 1 drop of water + 1 drop of water = 1 drop of water [albeit bigger]; with a micro drop of water, you would not be able to see the difference in size.

Mathematics are true within its closed formal system and do not represent reality as it is.

If that were true, then the disciplines known as "physics" and "engineering," would be impossible. But not only are they possible, they're two of the most successful and "hard" disciplines at the university.

Physics and engineering works and it relies on a formal human-based system of mathematics.
As I had stated, mathematics merely represent one aspect of reality, i.e. the Quantity factor not the whole of scientific reality which must be processed within the formal human-based scientific Framework and System.

If you claim "1 cat plus 1 cat = 2 cats with certainty', that is mathematically certain and true,

More importantly, you can demonstrate mathematically that an infinite regress of prerequisites (such as causes) is impossible.

There is no question of infinite regress in this case.
Science-biology confirms and justify what is a real scientific cat, while mathematics provide the quantity [number] of cats.
There is no question of infinite regress in this case.

I can show that, with mathematics. Can you make an actual demonstration of the opposite...namely, can you show an actual infinite regress of prerequisites? Hint: you'll find you simply cannot.

As I had stated, the idea of infinite regress is an illusion.
Where there is X number of cats [biologically defined] they can be countered when the evidence is brought forth.

I can see how you could relate infinite regress mathematically to real empirical cats at all?

[Veritas Aequitas]

But we corrected the opinion that the sun orbits a flat earth, by finding out the fact of the matter - something that just is the case - the thing you say is a delusion.

As I had argued, human relied on the human-based science-astrological FSERC to confirm the Earth orbits the Sun.
Without humans, there is no way we can realize and confirm the Earth orbits the Sun.

So what? This is trivially true. 'If there were no humans, then humans couldn't know the earth orbits the sun.' Well, der. Point is, the earth does, in fact, in reality, orbit the sun. That's a feature of reality that just is the case, and would be the case if there were no humans to know it's the case. So your argument is empty.

I have opened a thread to discuss this point;
viewtopic.php?t=42291&sid=a7a54120c0160 ... 56d30f6ee5

There is no way to confirm there is "something that just is the case" without grounding contingently any claim of reality on a human-based science-astrological FSERC with its specific constitution.

Rubbish. The natural sciences produces descriptions of things that just are the case, such as that the earth orbits the sun - which it would if there were no humans to know and describe it.

I have argued what are scientific facts are contingent to the human-based scientific FSERC.

It is impossible for "things that just are the case" to exists as things-in-themselves with reference to any human-based FSERC.
see my argument; no humans = no human-based reality
viewtopic.php?t=42291&sid=a7a54120c0160 ... 56d30f6ee5

This is the complain by deflationists that the inflationists [like you] are simply inflating facts with something extra[illusory] that is substantial and do not exists as real.

There's no reason to think that our descriptions and explanations are about things that are illusory. On the contrary, that claim is completely irrational.

It is your claim based on an ideology of realism, i.e. that an absolutely independent reality exists regardless of humans, that is illusory.
Descriptions and explanations are about things that emerged and is realized along with humans.
There are no things that pre-existed independently awaiting humans to describe and explain them.

The fact that human knowledge and descriptions of reality change is not evidence that there is no reality beyond what humans know and describe. On the contrary, it's evidence that there is.

The change is only relative to the prior human-based FSERC fact upon discover of newer and more convincing empirical evidences.

This is just blather - trying to keep an argument going that's going nowhere.

What? this is a rational explanation.
The change is any scientific fact is merely a better polished conjecture than the previous one.

As such, the latest fact [FSERC] is merely a more-polished-conjecture than the previous one without any need to contrast it against any reality beyond the empirical.

There's no reason to think that our empirical evidence - including empirical evidence of the way our sensory apparatus processes sense data - is not evidence of reality-as-it-is. On the contrary, it's rational to think it is - because our theories are confirmed experimentally. Or if they're not, we change the theories to account for the new empirical evidence.

First there is no fixed mind-independent reality.
Reality is always changing in relation to the human realization of reality.
There is no mind independent reality-as-it-is.
Whatever is human-based reality [that emerged and is realized] is always conditioned to the human condition.
see my argument;
no humans = no reality

It is never the task of science to confirm there is "something that is the case" outside is framework, system and scope.
What certain [not all] science [antirealism] does is to ASSUME there is a mind-independent reality out there awaiting discovery.

And that's a rational assumption. And by contrast, the antirealist claim that there is no human-independent reality 'out there' is irrational. For one reason, there is no 'in here' and 'out there'. There's nothing in reality that distinguishes humans from the rest of reality.

The antirealist [Kantian as Empirical Realists] do claim that there is human-independent reality 'out there' BUT antirealists do not adopt it as an ideology that there is an absolute human-independent reality 'out there' regardless of humans exist or not.

Science by its definition cannot affirm 'there is an objective mind-independent reality out there"; the most it can do is to ASSUME it for its convenience and guide.

If there were no reality independent from what humans know and describe, our knowledge and descriptions could never change. Anti-realism is incoherent, and absurdly anthropocentric.

Antirealism is based on whatever the empirical evidences support as grounded on the respective FSERC and do not speculate nor assume beyond what is empirically available and possible.

Nope. Philosophical antirealism is the claim that there is no reality beyond what humans perceive, know and say about reality. And that's patent nonsense.[/quote]
You missed my point; Again;
The antirealist [Kantian as Empirical Realists] do claim that there is human-independent reality 'out there' BUT antirealists do not adopt it as an ideology that there is an absolute human-independent reality 'out there' regardless of humans exist or not.

Realism speculates and 'inflates' there is something beyond what is empirically possible.
What is beyond the empirical is merely a speculative illusion.
This is why I charge your 'what is fact' is illusory, false and not true.

Question. Why is the empirical itself not speculative illusion? Where's the dividing line between empirical evidence which is not illusory, and the reality of which it seems to be evidence, which you say is illusory?

Sorry, but this argument collapses into confusion, contradiction and incoherence.

The empirical is the reality you get from what you observed and cognized.
This process must be verified and justified to be credible and objective; the human-based scientific FSERC justification is the gold standard of 'what is real' empirically.

There is no dividing line at all between what is scientifically [FSERC] real and a supposed reality existing independent out there which is illusory.
Because that mind-independent reality out there is illusory, it is a false thing thus should be taken as absolutely unconditional real regardless of whether human exists or not.

I have argued why you are thinking in the realists' reality in absolute sense is due to an evolutionary default which drive you to hold that belief of human-independence as an IDEOLOGY. This is a psychological issue.

[Immanuel Can]

Don't be too sure of yourself, i.e. your ignorance. You are missing a lot of nuances.

"Mathematics nuances"? Do carry on.

That is, mathematics is fundamentally grounded on human consensus implicitly.

No, it isn't. 2+2=4, regardless of how many people agree or disagree. That's reality.

Even were you right, my motive is utterly immaterial, if the argument is sound. You might not like it, but that doesn't even remotely give you reason to think it's wrong. To beat P1, what you have to prove is that an actual infinite regress is possible.

Let's see you do that.

An 'infinite regress' is merely a human invented idea which has no reality at all, i.e. illusory.

A "regress" is not a "human invented idea." It's a feature of reality, where cause and effect are in play. But that one can be "infinite," yes, that's a delusion. But that's exactly my point.

If that were true, then the disciplines known as "physics" and "engineering," would be impossible. But not only are they possible, they're two of the most successful and "hard" disciplines at the university.

Physics and engineering works and it relies on a formal human-based system of mathematics.

No, it works on the correspondence between mathematics and reality.

Science-biology confirms and justify what is a real scientific cat,

So...you think Biology is utterly reliable, but Physics is not?

Why am I wasting time even talking with you? Never mind...that's a question for me, and I'm about to answer it.

[Peter Holmes]

It is impossible for "things that just are the case" to exists as things-in-themselves...

First there is no fixed mind-independent reality.
Reality is always changing in relation to the human realization of reality.
There is no mind independent reality-as-it-is...

The antirealist [Kantian as Empirical Realists] do claim that there is human-independent reality 'out there'...

Erm. This is a contradiction.

1 There is no human-independent reality 'out there'.
2 There is a human-independent reality 'out there'.

And the rider that antirealists don't maintain the existence of a human-independent reality as an ideology is bs.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Mathematics nuances"? Do carry on.

That is, mathematics is fundamentally grounded on human consensus implicitly.

No, it isn't. 2+2=4, regardless of how many people agree or disagree. That's reality.

Are you sure?
2 + 2 = 4 is only mathematically true, i.e. contingent within the rules and axioms of mathematics.
It is not real in the real-sense, i.e. of which scientific reality is the most credible and objective.

Demonstrate to me empirically 2 + 4 = 4 is absolutely true regardless of conditions and humans.
If you take 1 piece of sand plus another piece of sand that is equal to two pieces of sand,
1 piece of sand + 1 piece of sand = 2 pieces of sand, i.e. 1+1=2 which is ONLY mathematically true and within common sense as agreed by humans.
but in other senses,
1 piece of sand + 1 piece of sand = 2 pieces of sand cannot be absolute because
1 piece of sand + 1 piece of sand = 2 molecules of silicon dioxide, or SiO2
1 piece of sand + 1 piece of sand = 2 clusters of Silicon and Oxygen atoms
1 piece of sand + 1 piece of sand = I clusters of Silicon & Oxygen & other atoms in the air.
1 piece of sand + 1 piece of sand = 1 'soup' of particles like this where there is no fixed quantity of particles or waves.


My point is there is no absolute answer to 1 + 1 = 2 regardless of humans.
The ultimate answers depend on which human-based model is chosen.

Even were you right, my motive is utterly immaterial, if the argument is sound. You might not like it, but that doesn't even remotely give you reason to think it's wrong. To beat P1, what you have to prove is that an actual infinite regress is possible.

Let's see you do that.

An 'infinite regress' is merely a human invented idea which has no reality at all, i.e. illusory.

A "regress" is not a "human invented idea." It's a feature of reality, where cause and effect are in play. But that one can be "infinite," yes, that's a delusion. But that's exactly my point.

Hume had argued, there is no absolute cause and effect but rather it is contingent to the human conditions of constant conjunction, habits and custom.
Therefore a 'regress' from cause and effect is a human-based idea.

If that were true, then the disciplines known as "physics" and "engineering," would be impossible. But not only are they possible, they're two of the most successful and "hard" disciplines at the university.

Physics and engineering works and it relies on a formal human-based system of mathematics.

No, it works on the correspondence between mathematics and reality.

I stated, "Physics and engineering works and it relies on a formal human-based system of mathematics" i.e. mathematics is merely its quantification feature and do not contribute the reality as the main factor.

I understand mathematics is critical for more sophisticated physics, but
one can still do Physics without mathematics at the basic level:
From AI [wR]:

you can still explore some fascinating concepts of physics without diving into equations. Here are some examples:

Everyday observations: Notice how a ball thrown in the air follows a curved path? That's gravity! Or how inflating a balloon makes it rounder? That's pressure! Physics is all around us, and you can understand these basic concepts without equations.
Thought experiments: Imagine yourself in a spaceship. How would things move or behave differently in zero gravity? Thought experiments allow you to explore physics concepts qualitatively.
Qualitative descriptions: You can learn about the basic properties of light, like reflection and refraction, without needing the equations behind them.

Science-biology confirms and justify what is a real scientific cat,

So...you think Biology is utterly reliable, but Physics is not?

I had stated the scientific Framework and System [at its best] is the gold standard of credibility, reliability and objectivity.
But between Physics, Chemistry and Biology, there are varying degrees of credibility, reliability and objectivity.
Whether Physics or Biology is more reliable, credible or objective will depend on the subject matter of Physics or Biology.
In Physics' dealing with natural science its conclusions would be more reliable than its speculative theories, like the Big Bang, etc.
It is the same with Biology, i.e. comparing the more reliable facts of say the human organs to the lesser reliable Evolution Theory.

Why am I wasting time even talking with you? Never mind...that's a question for me, and I'm about to answer it.

You are trying to run when I present what is really real.
There is no way you can equivocate the human-based theories of science with the illusory idea of God.

Re Morality, theists [Christianity] has 'moral luck', in that some [not all] of its commands that impose believers to act do happened to align with is moral facts [FSERC] intuitively, believers ought to 'love all, even enemies,' give the other cheek and other pacifistic commands.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is impossible for "things that just are the case" to exists as things-in-themselves...

First there is no fixed mind-independent reality.
Reality is always changing in relation to the human realization of reality.
There is no mind independent reality-as-it-is...

The antirealist [Kantian as Empirical Realists] do claim that there is human-independent reality 'out there'...

Erm. This is a contradiction.

1 There is no human-independent reality 'out there'.
2 There is a human-independent reality 'out there'.

And the rider that antirealists don't maintain the existence of a human-independent reality as an ideology is bs.

Note,

• In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, - WIKI

1. There is a human-independent reality 'out there', in the Empirical Realist sense
2. There is no human-independent reality 'out there', in the Ultimate Transcendental Idealism sense.

The above are at the same time, but in different senses,
therefore there is no contradiction [as defined above].

And the rider that antirealists don't maintain the existence of a human-independent reality as an ideology is bs.

Not sure of your point?

If this is what I think is your point;
In both cases above 1&2, the belief is contingent to the human-conditions, thus is open and so cannot be absolute and ideologically dogmatic.

[Will Bouwman]

Polanyi was influenced by Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Knowledge which came out four years after Personal Knowledge.

That's very funny. I don't know how many people there ever were who were writing BEFORE the person who allegedly influenced them.

Well, perhaps you are unaware of Polanyi's post Structure work, culminating in his final book Meaning, in which Polanyi shifts from his Personal Knowledge era position that science is a pursuit of truth, towards the view that we give science meaning. There is no doubt that, as Kuhn acknowledged, Polanyi was a great influence on Kuhn, but influence isn't always just a one way street.

The block universe hypothesis...

If you deny causality exists, then of course you've eliminated the regress-of-causes argument. No causes = no regress. Simple.

My argument itself is premised on the claim that causality exists, just as we so routinely observe that it does. But if you manage to deny causality, you also end up denying science itself.

I don't happen to believe in a block universe; like you, I think causality is a thing. The point is that science would not look any different in a block universe, nor an idealist universe, nor a simulation, nor if we were Boltzmann brains, nor any other underdetermined hypothesis you fancy.

So if you want to eliminate both science and rationality from the field, then you can accept any "hypothesis" (i.e. undemonstrated, unprovable, purely speculative theory). But that merely renders one a speculative thinker, not an observer of facts.

Quite a price to pay.

The point about facts is that we give them speculative meanings, which Polanyi understood. It is a fact for instance, that Piltdown Man was a fraud. To you this means all of human evolution is a fraud. To me it just means some people are fraudsters.