What I was noting is that if something caused C, when taken as its members, and is not itself caused then that thing is not a member of C; and this is patently true because C contains only real things that are caused—which precludes things that are not caused — Bob Ross
Existence itself is not a property like other properties: you can’t ask “why is there being?” like “why is there red things?”. — Bob Ross
In terms of why do things exist, the question in an infinite regress would be that each one explains the other: that’s no problem to answer. — Bob Ross
As you know, I would say that God is the explanation. The issue is that your argument tries to determine a priori that each cogent solution results in the idea of everything being uncaused; — Bob Ross
The answer is not that F causes C. Its that C is uncaused.
If you agree that sets aren’t real, then you must concede that C cannot be caused or uncaused. — Bob Ross
your proof is supposed to demonstrate all of them leading back to everything being uncaused; and so if there is even on solution that doesn’t lead back to that, then your thesis is void. — Bob Ross
An infinite regression is one such example. — Bob Ross
The implication of a total existence from infinite possibilities is that non-existence is actually unlimited possibility. There’s an idea that nothingness equals no restrictions. — ucarr
On the other side of the coin, we can ask, how existence, being self-contained, can do other than persist as existence. — ucarr
Now we have two posits about the origin of the universe: a) the universe is eternal; b) the universe is self-caused. — ucarr
This leaves us preferring to see the universe as self-caused and eternal. — ucarr
There is no argument for God being unchanging in the context you're using.
— Philosophim
There are several arguments for that. Please see Count Timothy von Icarus post here. By change, I mean going from one state to another state. — MoK
As I use them, the words “true” and “false” are adjectives which describe properties of statements/propositions. The words “truth” and “falsehood” are the noun forms of the adjectives; they identify statements/propositions that have the property of being true/false. — EricH
Any discussion of wisdom, knowledge, belief etc is a separate topic which has no bearing on the semantics of the word “truth”. — EricH
1) Statements are true if they accurately (or as accurately as possible) describe the real world (AKA reality, the universe, existence, what is, etc) This is commonly referred to as the Correspondence Theory of Truth.
2) Mathematical/logical propositions are true if they follow the rules of a particular mathematical/logical framework -e.g. Peano Arithmetic. Any particular proposition can be true in one mathematical system and false in another. — EricH
Mathematics is not true by virtue of being. Mathematical statements/propositions are true or false within the rules/context of a particular framework, but the words “true” and “false” do not apply to the field of mathematics (the manipulation of numbers and symbols). Mathematics is neither true not false. — EricH
If you are using the word “truth” as a synonym for “existence” then the following sentence is semantically correct:
“According to our best scientific knowledge, truth came into existence 13.8 billion years ago” — EricH
Absolutely! That is exactly what you are doing here - you are giving the word “truth” an additional context that converts it into a “wiggle word”. There are already two clear & distinct contexts in which we can use the word “truth”, there’s no compelling need to give it this third definition. — EricH
I would consider “knowledge” and “belief” to be wiggle words - and as I stated they have nothing to do with the point I am trying to communicate. There are endless discussions out here on TPF debating the meanings/usages of these words - and it seems like no two people can agree. — EricH
As long as we remember that belief and knowledge are assessments of what is true, and not 'Truth' itself, its a bit easier to sort out a solid meaning of truth that more easily avoids being a wiggle word.
— Philosophim
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. You’ve capitalized ’Truth’. Are you asserting that there is this, umm, thing out there called Truth? — EricH
I asked for the argument for God being unchanging. I didn't ask whether God is immortal or not. — MoK
What is the argument for God's essence to be immutable? — MoK
By unchanging I simply mean that it never moves or changes. God could have existed since the beginning of time and by unchanging I don't mean that. — MoK
P1) The act of creation is caused by an agent so-called God
D1) This act is defined as an act of creation of something from nothing — MoK
FC) Therefore, God changes — MoK
So, is your answer that you are talking about A and A = C? — Bob Ross
In the case of an infinite regress of causality, the scope would be capturing everything causally
But this isn’t true for a first cause, F, of C; such that if there is a first cause then C != A. — Bob Ross
In a finite set we ask, "What caused A to be?" and there is no prior causality
This “A” that you refer to here—which is an existent thing and not a set—cannot be a member of C if it is uncaused. — Bob Ross
Sets are not caused—ever. The members of the sets may be caused. Again, you are conflating sets with real things. Sets are not real. — Bob Ross
1. The Gem God would not be a member D; nor is the Cobalt God a member of T. — Bob Ross
There is no situation in this case where anything that exists is uncaused. Your response is: “but what about the set itself?”. The set isn’t real. It is not a real thing which is caused or uncaused. — Bob Ross
E.g., if T is an infinite regression of caused cobalt, then the reason each cobalt exists is explained by the previous leaving no room to need to explain anything else. — Bob Ross
It can’t be the case that F causes C and that F is a member of C — Bob Ross
Sometimes you say you are talking about the totality of caused things, and then say it is the totality of what exists. Which is it? — Bob Ross
EDIT: in other words, asking "is C caused?" presupposes that C could be a caused thing which would entail it is not C but rather a member of C (viz., it is not the set of caused things but, rather, a caused thing that is in that set). — Bob Ross
Your idea of U just muddies the waters, since you are trying to argue that ontologically we can determine that all causal things are uncaused by way of abstraction of the totality of caused things (C). — Bob Ross
A set of infinitely regressive causality could itself be just as real and lack any explanation for its existence as a set of finite regressive causality.
The members would be real, the set would not; and your argument depends on the set itself being treated as real like its members. Again, and to which you never responded, the members sufficiently explaining each other makes the entire set sufficiently explained; and, thusly, the set itself is not uncaused in the sense of causing the members. — Bob Ross
Lol, I really can't take that seriously though, not only is it non sequitur from sentence 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 but 2 and 3 aren't questions of should. — DifferentiatingEgg
Existence doesn't need to be justified before asking a moral question, — DifferentiatingEgg
In your argument morality define existence because of it being ao easily reduced to absurdity from the ambiguous definitions which you use Is Ought fallacies to achieve which we can see because good should be is. — DifferentiatingEgg
I know I know, you're going to attempt an appeal to emotion via the fallacy of equivocation through taking your definition adjectival good and substituting it for the noun of a moral good with your example of murdering a child... but that's just another fallacy you use to move the goalpost switching between definitions through equivocation. — DifferentiatingEgg
I easily showed how we can reduce your argument to absurdity by the ambiguity of your definitions by line 2 of your OP. — DifferentiatingEgg
1. Good should be
2. Existence is
3. Morality evaluates Good
4. Existence should be
Ok, so 1,2 and 3 are definitions. Again my definition of 1 is not "Good should be" its Good - "What should be"
You're also omitting a fairly important step, "Assume an objective morality exists." Because this is part of the argument that leads to the conclusion of 4. I conclude 4 as part of an entire argument, not simply from the definitions of 1,2, and 3.
So, no ambiguity of definitions, just set definitions and an argument that leads to the conclusion. I have yet to see you address the actual argument. That's steps c-g. That's how I conclude 4. This argument of ambiguous definitions is over unless you point out where there is ambiguity specifically, as well as this argument that I'm just concluding 4 from the definitions alone.
— DifferentiatingEgg
5. Thus, Existence = Good (cause 1&4)
6. Thus, morality evaluates existence (3&5) — DifferentiatingEgg
7. When in truth you evaluate existence to define morality not the other way round. — DifferentiatingEgg
But in your model, since existence is only good (5) all morality is good (because 7 logically morality is a subset of existence), thus even killing under your model is good, as it is also a subset of existence... — DifferentiatingEgg
Complete utter nonsense. — DifferentiatingEgg
Furthermore, from your presupposition of objective morality in line 1, we may presuppose the objective morality as:
"Assume the objective morality is that all humans must die, because all humans are mortal"
then its not necessarily that existence should be... making line 2 an occasion sentence. — DifferentiatingEgg
Instead of a big post, that I had, we're going to take this 1 step at a time. Starting completely over. — DifferentiatingEgg
I assume from presupposition that an objective morality exists. — DifferentiatingEgg
But your seemingly multiple leaps in logic prevent me from seeing how point b is possible.
That existence should be.
How does point b necessarily follow if hypothetically an objective morality exists? — DifferentiatingEgg
Starting with human centric morality, a question might be asked, "Should I lie to another person for personal gain?" But to truly answer this objectively, I must first have the answer to the question. "Should I exist at all?" Yet this goes further. until we arrive at a fundamental question of morality that must be answered before anything else can. "Should there be existence at all?" — Philosophim
Assume the objective morality is that all humans must die, because all humans are mortal then existence necessarily should not be... and it's the case that because you think existence is good, that it ought to be... — DifferentiatingEgg
"Existence should be" is at best an occasion sentence. — DifferentiatingEgg
Existence is
Morality defines good
Good should be — DifferentiatingEgg
Existence should be (thus existence is also defined as good)
Morality defines what should be
But good is also what should be, but also existence should be...so morality defines existence...which defines good which defines morality which defines existence... — DifferentiatingEgg
Definitely not envious of perpetuated delusion. — DifferentiatingEgg
"Good should be"
Starting a premise with a conclusion begs the question why good should be. Which you never answer without is ought. — DifferentiatingEgg
And the adjectival form of good is not what should be. Simply something desired. Should be assumes entitlement to what is good. — DifferentiatingEgg
More of less it's an argument from presupposition that good should be which begs the question of how you derive at the notion of why good should be and everyone of your moving of the goalpost examples of why good should be ends up pointing back to several fallacies. — DifferentiatingEgg
You cannot state logically why the noun "Good" "should be" — DifferentiatingEgg
1. All moral questions boil down to one fundamental question that must be answered first, "Should there be existence?"
Starting with human centric morality, a question might be asked, "Should I lie to another person for personal gain?" But to truly answer this objectively, I must first have the answer to the question. "Should I exist at all?" Yet this goes further. until we arrive at a fundamental question of morality that must be answered before anything else can. "Should there be existence at all?" — Philosophim
This thread would get 0 action if you didn't bump it so much... because it's just complete fallacy that you continue to bump in other posts. — DifferentiatingEgg
You're literally just pushing "Plato" but philosophy has moved considerably beyond Plato though — DifferentiatingEgg
If we are to take that good is, "What should be", then we can take at a base level that there should be existence over nothing.
— Philosophim
Literally right there in your reply to 180 proof... Is-Ought. — DifferentiatingEgg
This is because any morality which proposed that existence should not be would contradict itself. — Philosophim
Trying to worm your way out of pretending it's anything other than Is Ought is a farce. — DifferentiatingEgg
↪Philosophim Another fallacy equivocating the adjective for the noun. — DifferentiatingEgg
This "good should be" opinion of yours is the conclusion to a fallacy. Which you use as your first premise here, which begs the question, which always points back to the is-ought fallacy. — DifferentiatingEgg
↪Philosophim "Good should be" EQUATES in language to = Existence is, thus Good should be, and bad shouldn't.
Doesn't matter how you word it... — DifferentiatingEgg
Fact is you simply cannot address the is ought fallacy along with your circular reasoning and throw it out as hogwash every time it's brought up through some other fallacies you commit. — DifferentiatingEgg
You know full well your concept is predicated in fallacy and continue to defend it is disingenuous, and more or less a passive insult to everyone who participates in this discussion. — DifferentiatingEgg
Fallacies and circular logic. You can't let it go either. — DifferentiatingEgg
"Good should be" = Existence is, thus it ought to be Good. — DifferentiatingEgg
It all depends on how causally linked things are in what you can see in the moment, not with hindsight — ZisKnow
I think we’d all agree that words can have different meanings depending on the context. When I use the words “true” or “truth” they have one of two different meanings. — EricH
“1+1=2” is only true within the context of a mathematical framework - e.g. Peano Arithmetic. — EricH
I don’t think you’re saying that we can use the word “truth” in place of using the phrase “what simply is”. If that were the case then there are much better words - “reality”, “the universe”, existence”, etc - which do not have any additional implication. — EricH
Not much to talk about other than your argument being predicated in fallacy. Especially the Is-Ought. That you've perpetuated the farce of this discussion for over 12 months is poor form and circular reasoning to insanity. — DifferentiatingEgg
↪Philosophim Ah, see, I knew there was an Is Ought Fallacy in there somewhere... "Existence is, thus it ought to be good." — DifferentiatingEgg
↪Philosophim I read the entire post. Regretfully. — Relativist
↪Philosophim I read it. It doesn't have an example of a "should", and in no way addresses my broader issue: — Relativist
Yeah, so, you do use Is-ought fallacy as per post 1. Nothing more to really discuss here. — DifferentiatingEgg
What I'm saying is that in order for there to be something good, there must be something. If there is nothing, there is no good, but that doesn't necessitate it being bad. It just means the weight of nothingness is undefined, but not that it's zero. To be zero presumes a scale, but we presume no scale in nothingness. — Hanover
How is my abstraction invalid?
Let’s call the set of caused things C, the set of all things A, a first cause to C F, an infinite circularity O, a self-cause of C S, a necessary cause of C N, and an infinite regression R. — Bob Ross
The debate in metaphysics, ontology, which your OP claims to solve, is about C not A. — Bob Ross
What you are doing is conflating A with C. You are noting that irregardless of who is right about how causality works, the totality, A, of all things is uncaused; and this is trivially true and has nothing to do with the debate. — Bob Ross
A being that is uncaused is something which is real and lacks any explanation for its existence; whereas a set of real things is not itself real and lacks the ability to require any explanation in the first place — Bob Ross
Thusly, if we say that R is A — Bob Ross
If the answer is that it would good for there to be no existence and bad for there to be existence, then the best scenario would be for there to be no good because once you eliminate all existence, you eliminate good too. — Hanover
↪Philosophim, so are you by saying "good should be" is more along the lines of maximizing good but minimizing bad? If so then I can see what you're saying. — DifferentiatingEgg
Why can't you just give me an example of a "should" that doesn't involve minds, as I asked? Seems like a simple request. — Relativist
If Bad shouldn't exist then niether should Good since they're linked. You can't deny half the equation and expect to exist. — DifferentiatingEgg
You can't even detail a system of good without the bad. You use circular reasoning in your logic to assume Good and Bad can exist without the other. — DifferentiatingEgg
1. If only good should exist, and bad should not exist
2. Then in that scenario bad does not, and good has no contrast and begets no meaning — DifferentiatingEgg
You're deriving "ought" without properly addressing "is". — DifferentiatingEgg
You had said, "The 'should' is entirely logical." I'm trying to understand what that means. So I gave you an example which you rejected with a reason that I can't understand. What is a "positive state of existence"? What makes one state more positive than another?
You referred to your second post. In that post, you said,
"If we are to take that good is, "What should be", then we can take at a base level that there should be existence over nothing. This is because any morality which proposed that existence should not be would contradict itself." — Relativist
It sounds like you might say "an electron should be attracted to a proton"? — Relativist
This is my issue: "should" typically connotes an outcome that is contingent upon a choice. — Relativist
That is precisely what I've been challenging! The very point you're responding to is such a challenge! Your response should be to explain how "should" applies to objects that lack minds. — Relativist
I'm glad to hear you say "there is no contingency for existence", because it sounds like you're agreeing with me that existence is metaphysically necessary. Is that correct? — Relativist
However, if existence is metaphysically necessary, how does "should" apply? — Relativist
There are no discrete odds only because your premise implies there are infinitely possible initial states. This translates to an infinitesimal probability - but it's still a probability. — Relativist
I have accepted your premise that moral imperatives exist, but I've argued that everything in a contingent universe is therefore contingent - including a wavelength of light and any moral imperative that happens to exist. Do you agree? If not, why not? — Relativist
If EVERYTHING came out of randomness then this includes all moral imperatives. — Relativist
You've repeated it over and over, but you haven't explained how it is reasonable for a random moral imperative is an OBJECTIVE moral imperative. — Relativist
Having objective EXISTENCE does not entail there being something objective about the moral imperative. — Relativist
I've said that a moral imperative pertains only to choices made by things that can make choices. I don't think you've stated either agreement or disagreement. — Relativist
I've been trying for quite some time, and I've brought to your attention the reasons I think your premises are incoherent. — Relativist
I infer that you're saying your basic premise doesn't account for all moral values that most of us accept — Relativist
I presume that you're only saying that moral values which are entailed by your premise are objective values. Is that correct? — Relativist
And you said be = exist.
Thus
good should exist
bad should not exist
You have a fundamental problem because bad exists. — DifferentiatingEgg
How can bad not exist when what is good and what is bad is determined by what is within us? You can't reconcile the devaluation of Good by removing the valuation of what's bad. — DifferentiatingEgg