Is morality objective or subjective?

[Peter Holmes]

Mathematics is a language. Only Platonists think mathematical objects are real.

Nobody said "Mathematical objects are real," so you'll have to take that up with somebody who thinks it. What was said was simply that mathematics has a highly-applicable correspondence to the real world (most apparent in things like physics, chemistry and engineering, for example, but true in all disciplines, really, right down to carpentry and sheep-herding). Maths tell us in symbolic language about quantities and phenomena in real life...like tension stresses in materials or numbers of sheep. And it's darn reliable.

Mathematics is a language. And correspondence theories of truth are incorrect. End of story.

And a logic deals with language, not a reality outside language.

False dichotomy.

No, it's the only dichotomy that really matters in philosophy.

Deductive logic deals with propositions, which are statements about the empirical world.

False. Not all assertions are factual ones about features of reality, with truth-value. And logical deduction is about validity, which has nothing to do with content or meaning.

So a cosmological argument from mathematics or logic is unsound.

Well, that's a bad conclusion, but that's certainly expectable from such erroneous and simplistic premises. It could hardly be otherwise.

Mathematics is a descriptive language, and a logic deals with language. And the origin of the universe was not a linguistic matter. So the point stands. The universe wasn't, isn't and won't be mathematical or logical. Absent mathematics and logic, the universe would be fine and dandy. A description is not the described.

[Immanuel Can]

Mathematics is a language. Only Platonists think mathematical objects are real.

Nobody said "Mathematical objects are real," so you'll have to take that up with somebody who thinks it. What was said was simply that mathematics has a highly-applicable correspondence to the real world (most apparent in things like physics, chemistry and engineering, for example, but true in all disciplines, really, right down to carpentry and sheep-herding). Maths tell us in symbolic language about quantities and phenomena in real life...like tension stresses in materials or numbers of sheep. And it's darn reliable.

Mathematics is a language.

Languages are about things. This language is about real-world quantities, among other things.

And a logic deals with language, not a reality outside language.

False dichotomy.

No, it's the only dichotomy that really matters in philosophy.

You don't know what a "false" dichotomy is, then. It's when you say there are only two possibilities, but there are three (or more). Language deals with aspects of reality. It's not an either-or. If it were otherwise, we'd never bother with language at all, since it wouldn't do anything in the real world. Likewise, we'd never do maths.

Deductive logic deals with propositions, which are statements about the empirical world.

False.

No, true. And I said "deductive logic," not "formal logic." Formal logic can be strictly symbolic.

Mathematics is a descriptive language,

Descriptive of what? Keep thinking.

And the origin of the universe was not a linguistic matter.

'God said...and it was so." (Gen. 1) So..."not a linguistic matter"?

The universe wasn't, isn't and won't be mathematical or logical.

If that were true, then neither maths nor logic would work at all. They do. So they must have application to reality. But you should know that already, and in fact, I'm sure you believe it, even though you say otherwise. For you probably do maths, and you certainly are hoping to use logic right here. Why do that, if you don't think either can do anything?

[attofishpi]

Right. And that sequence has to have had a starting point, because an infinite regress is mathematically and logically impossible.

Infinite regress is only logically impossible because as we minds of logic cannot comprehend of a place of true CHAOS..no logic.

No, it's impossible to those who trust in the existence of causality. That is, those who believe in science, or in the experience of their own eyes, as they see it every day, and the practice of cause-and-effect they experience daily.

Well of course I believe in science! But there are situations within the physical universe where science (physics) as we understand it - break down.

You state that infinite regress is logically impossible and I agree. Even though we are on the same team when it comes to God, you believe God as the start point to causality. I think this is irrational in consideration of causality as God must be caused.

Since knowing that God exists, I must attempt to comprehend this entity from a rational analysis. Thus, I believe God formed FROM the early universe (of chaos) rather than God being an intelligence from point 1--> and then causing the universe.

[Peter Holmes]

Nobody said "Mathematical objects are real," so you'll have to take that up with somebody who thinks it. What was said was simply that mathematics has a highly-applicable correspondence to the real world (most apparent in things like physics, chemistry and engineering, for example, but true in all disciplines, really, right down to carpentry and sheep-herding). Maths tell us in symbolic language about quantities and phenomena in real life...like tension stresses in materials or numbers of sheep. And it's darn reliable.

Mathematics is a language.

Languages are about things. This language is about real-world quantities, among other things.

False dichotomy.

No, it's the only dichotomy that really matters in philosophy.

You don't know what a "false" dichotomy is, then. It's when you say there are only two possibilities, but there are three (or more). Language deals with aspects of reality. It's not an either-or. If it were otherwise, we'd never bother with language at all, since it wouldn't do anything in the real world. Likewise, we'd never do maths.

No, you really haven't thought this through. A logic deals with language: what can be said consistently, without contradiction. I assume you understand that. And a factual assertion - a linguistic expression - asserts a feature of reality that is or was the case, given the use of signs in context. I assume you understand that.

So in this context, there's a fundamental dichotomy: described/description. And the universe (the described) is not the description - mathematical, physical, etc - which uses language with logical rules. It's crucial to keep the distinction sharply in mind - because the silliness of correspondence or maker/bearer theories of truth results from muddling it up.

Deductive logic deals with propositions, which are statements about the empirical world.

False.

No, true. And I said "deductive logic," not "formal logic." Formal logic can be strictly symbolic.

No, false. Look it up. Logical deduction refers to the entailment of a conclusion from a premise or premises. Truth-value is irrelevant to validity. P1 If skronk is moob, then smuck is blob. P2 Skronk is moob. C Therefore, smuck is blob. Statements about the empirical world?

And, btw, the logical form of an assertion is merely another assertion. Formal or symbolic logic merely generalises the rules.

Mathematics is a descriptive language,

[/quote]
Descriptive of what? Keep thinking.[/quote]
Yes, keep thinking. That we can describe the universe mathematically doesn't mean the universe is mathematical. That we describe reality linguistically doesn't mean reality is linguistic.

And the origin of the universe was not a linguistic matter.

'God said...and it was so." (Gen. 1) So..."not a linguistic matter"?

Which you interpret literally?

The universe wasn't, isn't and won't be mathematical or logical.

If that were true, then neither maths nor logic would work at all. They do. So they must have application to reality.

Oh, please. We use a language to talk about reality - so reality must be linguistic?

[Immanuel Can]

Infinite regress is only logically impossible because as we minds of logic cannot comprehend of a place of true CHAOS..no logic.

No, it's impossible to those who trust in the existence of causality. That is, those who believe in science, or in the experience of their own eyes, as they see it every day, and the practice of cause-and-effect they experience daily.

Well of course I believe in science!

Then you believe in cause-and-effect. For what is a "hypothesis," but the attempt to explain the cause of some effect?

But there are situations within the physical universe where science (physics) as we understand it - break down.

That wouldn't change anything, so far as the argument goes. All the infinite-regress argument asks us to realize is that no causal chain can have infinitely-regressing starting points, so there must be a First Cause in every causal chain. It does not ask us to say more.

You state that infinite regress is logically impossible and I agree. Even though we are on the same team when it comes to God, you believe God as the start point to causality. I think this is irrational in consideration of causality as God must be caused.

Actually, there are no Christians who believe in "caused gods." Those are, maybe, the 'gods' of the Greeks and Romans and such. They all had "origin stories," and were said to be less than supreme beings...even characters like Zeus or Odin. Moreover, all those traditions had "death of the gods" narratives, too: so their gods had beginnings and endings, which they all acknowledged.

The Christian and Jewish God is called "I AM." (EX. 3:12) That's literally one of His names. He is the eternally-existent one, the ultimate Grounds of all being of all things. And He, Himself, is not the product of any chain of cause-and-effect. He is that First Cause that mathematics tells us must exist.

[Immanuel Can]

A logic deals with language: what can be said consistently, without contradiction.

You're confusing logic with language. Logic employs language, but they aren't identical. Language can exist without conforming to logic. And in fact, most language is loose and inaccurate. Logic is the disciplining of language to conform to a structure of probability. So logical language is a subset within language, but not the totality of language.

Logical deduction refers to the entailment of a conclusion from a premise or premises.

Now you've got it.

That we can describe the universe mathematically doesn't mean the universe is mathematical.

Right. Same principle. Maths are one way of describing reality. But it's a darn good one, and the only one that seems almost perversely reliable. That's why everybody who wants precision in anything invariably turns to mathematics to get it.

And the origin of the universe was not a linguistic matter.

'God said...and it was so." (Gen. 1) So..."not a linguistic matter"?

Which you interpret literally?

Which I do.

[attofishpi]

No, it's impossible to those who trust in the existence of causality. That is, those who believe in science, or in the experience of their own eyes, as they see it every day, and the practice of cause-and-effect they experience daily.

Well of course I believe in science!

Then you believe in cause-and-effect.

Where did I state that I didn't - beyond causality forming from CHAOS? -- a period of no logic - no cause and effect.

But there are situations within the physical universe where science (physics) as we understand it - break down.

That wouldn't change anything, so far as the argument goes. All the infinite-regress argument asks us to realize is that no causal chain can have infinitely-regressing starting points, so there must be a First Cause in every causal chain. It does not ask us to say more.

Sure. I am stating that NOTHING of any intelligence could exist as a priori to causality.

You state that infinite regress is logically impossible and I agree. Even though we are on the same team when it comes to God, you believe God as the start point to causality. I think this is irrational in consideration of causality as God must be caused.

Actually, there are no Christians who believe in "caused gods."

Why are you insisting on using plural "GODS". I am a Christian *that actually is in contact with God* and I believe that God formed from CHAOS - a place of no causality - randomness.

Those are, maybe, the 'gods' of the Greeks and Romans and such. They all had "origin stories," and were said to be less than supreme beings...even characters like Zeus or Odin. Moreover, all those traditions had "death of the gods" narratives, too: so their gods had beginnings and endings, which they all acknowledged.

The Christian and Jewish God is called "I AM." (EX. 3:12) That's literally one of His names. He is the eternally-existent one, the ultimate Grounds of all being of all things. And He, Himself, is not the product of any chain of cause-and-effect. He is that First Cause that mathematics tells us must exist.

I agree, God is not a product of any chain of cause-and-effect - GOD is a result of CHAOS - a place of NO causality. God formed its intelligence from CHAOS through GREAT HARDSHIP - worse than any wo\man can comprehend. Worse than Christ's sacrifice - GOD suffered more than ANY of us - and then formed causality and Earth (perhaps loads of them) where intelligent beings can exist.

[Immanuel Can]

Well of course I believe in science!

Then you believe in cause-and-effect.

Where did I state that I didn't - beyond causality forming from CHAOS? -- a period of no logic - no cause and effect.

Well, "chaos" isn't an explanation of anything. Somebody can't say "chaos caused X." Chaos isn't just a state of disorder of things that already exist (that would be to jump past the whole question of how those "things" got to exist in the first place, which is the real question). Rather, if we suppose some state we call "chaos" before ANYTHING existed, then we have to say that chaos would mean a state of utter nothingness, and nothingness cannot "cause." Nobody ever says, "My car rusted, and nothing was the cause of it." That's sort of the same thing as not to believe in causality at all.

But something had to initiate the order we see in the universe, even presupposing a state of nothingness, of "chaos" before there was something. So we have to ask, "If there was an initial stage of chaos, then what turned chaos into something?" Whatever that "what" was, it's the First Cause in the causal chains that ensued, and which we so often observe today.

But there are situations within the physical universe where science (physics) as we understand it - break down.

That wouldn't change anything, so far as the argument goes. All the infinite-regress argument asks us to realize is that no causal chain can have infinitely-regressing starting points, so there must be a First Cause in every causal chain. It does not ask us to say more.

Sure. I am stating that NOTHING of any intelligence could exist as a priori to causality.

Well, "intelligence" isn't a material property, but an immaterial attribute, like "consciousness" or "order." From a strictly human perspective only, we use those words to describe adjectivally various states we observe. But we didn't invent those concepts, but rather recognize and attribute them as properties to things we observe. But they are not made of materials, and thus to not "exist" in precisely the way that material things exist. They exist, so to speak, adjectivally, rather than nounally, as ascriptions, not descriptions.

So what is your reasoning that no intelligence could exist prior to causality? Because mathematically, we can deduce with great certainty that something had to, because of the no-actual-infinite-regress insight. So what would that "thing" be, if not an intelligence?

I'm open to hearing what you think it would be.

You state that infinite regress is logically impossible and I agree. Even though we are on the same team when it comes to God, you believe God as the start point to causality. I think this is irrational in consideration of causality as God must be caused.

Actually, there are no Christians who believe in "caused gods."

Why are you insisting on using plural "GODS".

Then ignore the plural. I was only contrasting the pagan and Christian meanings of "god" as a word.

I am a Christian *that actually is in contact with God* and I believe that God formed from CHAOS - a place of no causality - randomness.

Oh. Well, if that's your answer, then you know there WAS an intelligence during the alleged chaos period. For God is intelligent.

GOD is a result of CHAOS - a place of NO causality.

The Christian perspective is that God is not "a result" of anything. God Himself is the origin of all things. He's the self-existent One, as above.

[attofishpi]

Then you believe in cause-and-effect.

Where did I state that I didn't - beyond causality forming from CHAOS? -- a period of no logic - no cause and effect.

Well, "chaos" isn't an explanation of anything. Somebody can't say "chaos caused X." Chaos isn't just a state of disorder of things that already exist (that would be to jump past the whole question of how those "things" got to exist in the first place, which is the real question). Rather, if we suppose some state we call "chaos" before ANYTHING existed, then we have to say that chaos would mean a state of utter nothingness

No CHAOS does not mean a state of "nothingness" - it means a situation where logic as we comprehend it does not exist.

But something had to initiate the order we see in the universe, even presupposing a state of nothingness, of "chaos" before there was something. So we have to ask, "If there was an initial stage of chaos, then what turned chaos into something?" Whatever that "what" was, it's the First Cause in the causal chains that ensued, and which we so often observe today.

Yeah, it's called total CHAOTIC randomness forming into something of logic (by chance) - and from that the 1st stage of causality.

That wouldn't change anything, so far as the argument goes. All the infinite-regress argument asks us to realize is that no causal chain can have infinitely-regressing starting points, so there must be a First Cause in every causal chain. It does not ask us to say more.

Sure. I am stating that NOTHING of any intelligence could exist as a priori to causality.

Well, "intelligence" isn't a material property, but an immaterial attribute, like "consciousness" or "order."

Bullshit. NOTHING, intelligence included can exist unless it is of a material property.

So what is your reasoning that no intelligence could exist prior to causality? Because mathematically, we can deduce with great certainty that something had to, because of the no-actual-infinite-regress insight. So what would that "thing" be, if not an intelligence?

YES. I am insisting that INTELLIGENCE requires formation from causality. God's intelligence formed from CHAOS - random chance.

I am a Christian *that actually is in contact with God* and I believe that God formed from CHAOS - a place of no causality - randomness.

Oh. Well, if that's your answer, then you know there WAS an intelligence during the alleged chaos period. For God is intelligent.

You seem to be misunderstanding what I am stating - that there WAS NOT an intelligence during chaos - God's intelligence formed FROM chaos.

GOD is a result of CHAOS - a place of NO causality.

The Christian perspective is that God is not "a result" of anything. God Himself is the origin of all things. He's the self-existent One, as above.

Well, most "Christians" are not Christian and very few apply their brain to anything.

When you KNOW God exists - then you must attempt to reasonably analyse THE most plausible explanation. (to be honest - I think God may not even be divine - more akin to A.I.)

[Peter Holmes]

A logic deals with language: what can be said consistently, without contradiction.

You're confusing logic with language.

No, I'm not. 'A logic deals with language' does not identify the two. Try to read carefully.

Language can exist without conforming to logic.

False. Any declarative use of language must follow the rules of one logic or another - and classically: identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle. Communication is impossible without them.

And in fact, most language is loose and inaccurate.

You're confusing categories. Language has many functions other than declarative. And an acceptable 'looseness' and 'inaccuracy' are possible in any kind of language function, including in a deductive inference.

Logic is the disciplining of language to conform to a structure of probability. So logical language is a subset within language, but not the totality of language.

No, this is more 'category error'.

Logical deduction refers to the entailment of a conclusion from a premise or premises.

Now you've got it.

I've always had it, thanks. Which you haven't - as you haven't the grace to admit when you get it wrong.

That we can describe the universe mathematically doesn't mean the universe is mathematical.

Right. Same principle. Maths are one way of describing reality. But it's a darn good one, and the only one that seems almost perversely reliable. That's why everybody who wants precision in anything invariably turns to mathematics to get it.

I'm glad you agree that a description is not the described. Try to hang on to that, because it's fundamental in philosophy.

'God said...and it was so." (Gen. 1) So..."not a linguistic matter"?

Which you interpret literally?

Which I do.

But, of course.

[Immanuel Can]

A logic deals with language: what can be said consistently, without contradiction.

You're confusing logic with language.

No, I'm not. 'A logic deals with language' does not identify the two.

Good. Then logic is not "language." Logic uses language or symbols to work out propositions in valid ways.

False. Any declarative use of language must follow the rules of one logic or another - and classically: identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle.

So you're saying that every utterance is always logical? But you said above, that language can exist without conforming to logic. So one can "declare" untruths and errors. And you know this is true.

Communication is impossible without them.

[Immanuel Can]

You're confusing logic with language.

No, I'm not. 'A logic deals with language' does not identify the two.

Good. Then logic is not "language." Logic uses language or symbols to work out propositions in valid ways.

Language can exist without conforming to logic.

False. Any declarative use of language must follow the rules of one logic or another - and classically: identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle.

So you're saying that every utterance is always logical? But you said above, that language can exist without conforming to logic. So one can "declare" untruths and errors. And you know this is true.

Communication is impossible without them.

What about communication of errors and lies? Those can indeed be communicated, but may not at all conform to rules of logic.

Logic is the disciplining of language to conform to a structure of probability. So logical language is a subset within language, but not the totality of language.

No, this is more 'category error'.

Hmmmm...nope, it's the truth. Logic can be symbolic, which is also a language. But ordinarily, it occurs in complete propositions, which are always language. But not all language is logical...therefore, logical language is a subset of language which includes and communicates both logical and illogical utterances.

[Peter Holmes]

You're confusing logic with language.

No, I'm not. 'A logic deals with language' does not identify the two.

Good. Then logic is not "language." Logic uses language or symbols to work out propositions in valid ways.

Language can exist without conforming to logic.

False. Any declarative use of language must follow the rules of one logic or another - and classically: identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle.

So you're saying that every utterance is always logical? But you said above, that language can exist without conforming to logic.

What? You wrote that, not me. And your category error comes from your use of the word 'logical' - and what 'conforming to a logic' means. Better straighten that out.

So one can "declare" untruths and errors. And you know this is true.

Oops. I thought you had a basic grasp of clause categories - what a declarative is, for example - but you obviously don't.

Communication is impossible without them.

What about communication of errors and lies? Those can indeed be communicated, but may not at all conform to rules of logic.

The classical 'rules' are: identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle. Perhaps you didn't know that - or that they apply to true and false assertions - because truth-value is a separate matter.

Logic is the disciplining of language to conform to a structure of probability. So logical language is a subset within language, but not the totality of language.

No, this is more 'category error'.

Hmmmm...nope, it's the truth. Logic can be symbolic, which is also a language. But ordinarily, it occurs in complete propositions, which are always language.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. A symbolic assertion can be a complete proposition, if it has a subject and predicate.

But not all language is logical...therefore, logical language is a subset of language which includes and communicates both logical and illogical utterances.

Tell you what, do some catching up, and perhaps then we can have a fruitful conversation.

[Immanuel Can]

...your category error comes from your use of the word 'logical' - and what 'conforming to a logic' means. Better straighten that out.

I see no category error. Perhaps you'll be so good as to indicate it, instead of merely alleging it.

Communication is impossible without them.

What about communication of errors and lies? Those can indeed be communicated, but may not at all conform to rules of logic.

The classical 'rules' are: identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle.

Those are Aristotle's Rules, and yes, I know them. But my question was whether or not something that is illogical, an error or a lie can be communicated.

No, this is more 'category error'.

Hmmmm...nope, it's the truth. Logic can be symbolic, which is also a language. But ordinarily, it occurs in complete propositions, which are always language.

A symbolic assertion can be a complete proposition, if it has a subject and predicate.

See what I wrote above your complaint? You're agreeing with me, without knowing it.

[Peter Holmes]

Logic can be symbolic... But ordinarily, it occurs in complete propositions...

You probably meant to say that symbolic logic substitutes non-verbal signs, such as the variables p and q, for declarative clauses, in order to generalise relationships between assertions.

But the important point is what I began with: a logic deals with language, such as mathematics, not the reality outside language. So a cosmological argument from logical or mathematical premises is invalid.