Comments

  • The logic of a universal origin and meaning
    Not a worry Bob! We may not agree on these points but I always respect your honest engagement and viewpoint.
  • The logic of a universal origin and meaning
    Bob I'm not even too sure where to start with this one at this point. I feel you keep making this needlessly complicated and introducing aspects that I'm not including. I would read Ucarr's reply and my response to him to reset on the right track. Let me see if I can sum up your issues and get us back on a clearer path again.

    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 causedBob Ross

    No, this is not what C is. C is the entire sum of all scoped causality. So by consequence if A causes B, then C does not cause A. If nothing causes A, then there is no prior causality that caused A. That's all part of the scope.

    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

    Why can't I? That fits in the scope. You'll need to explain why this question cannot be asked logically. For example I can say, "There are red things because light reflects off of them at a particular wavelength that we label as 'red'". That's a more narrow scope, but the scope of causality can be expanded further to the point of encapsulating everything. If it cannot, please point out in the OP where I make this mistake and why.

    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

    What caused the infinite regress? Again, what caused it to be an infinite regress of diamonds versus garnets? What you're doing is limiting the scope, but you can't give me a logical reason why I can't expand it farther.

    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

    What caused God?


    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

    This doesn't address the point at all. I don't know what you mean by sets not being real, nor how this addresses the logic of something uncaused.

    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

    Correct.

    An infinite regression is one such example.Bob Ross

    No, because you have yet to demonstrate how an infinite regression is caused by something prior instead of uncaused.

    Again, read Ucarrs post and my reply before responding Bob. I think that will help reset us on the same page again.
  • The logic of a universal origin and meaning
    Good to see you again Ucarr! Great write up, let me see if I can justifiably answer your points.

    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

    This is the one area that I think you misinterpret from me. I am not saying "Something is formed from nothingness". Nothingness does not cause somethingness. Nothing and something are two very different things that do not cause each other. My point is only that existence has no outside cause for its being. There could be something that already exists for example, then something else appears elsewhere without prior cause. Arguably there's nothing to stop an overlap besides the statistically insignificant odds of it happening if something can appear anywhere at any time.

    On the other side of the coin, we can ask, how existence, being self-contained, can do other than persist as existence.ucarr

    It persists as existence because the causal beginning point "It simply is" formed an existence that did not have anything within itself that it would cease to exist. There is nothing preventing an existence that formed and would only last for 12 seconds before ceasing to exist. The existence we have today has lasted for billions of years, but that doesn't mean that it has to. Statistically, its likely that the tiniest aspects of existence which are not composed of other existence, may very well fade out over time as one could last 1 billion and one seconds, 1 billion and two seconds, etc. In addition, these small aspect of existence may simply form at any time as well. Its an interesting cosmology to think about.

    Now we have two posits about the origin of the universe: a) the universe is eternal; b) the universe is self-caused.ucarr

    These are not mutually exclusive. It is one possibility that the universe is both eternal, and does not have any prior cause that made it eternal.

    This leaves us preferring to see the universe as self-caused and eternal.ucarr

    And it can also be the case that the universe is not eternal and has no prior cause that explains why it started to begin. So if what I've noted is true, both are equal possibilities with none being more necessary than the other.
  • God changes
    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

    My point is that's a gross misunderstanding of the text and quite frankly, stupid. If someone holds that argument don't even waste your time.
  • The Real Tautology
    Hi EricH, I wanted to say first of all I love your light hearted style of posting, much appreciated. :)

    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

    I agree with this.

    Any discussion of wisdom, knowledge, belief etc is a separate topic which has no bearing on the semantics of the word “truth”.EricH

    This is a common mistake among newer philosophers. Any discussion of true and false must involve the context of belief and knowledge in some sense of the discussion. Its because there are a few questions that always pop up? "Do you believe it is true, or do you know it is true?" "What is truth apart from our beliefs and knowledge?" Often times when speaking about 'truth' people mistakenly blend in belief or knowledge and conflate the two. So the division is actually pretty important.

    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

    No objection here either. What's important here is that you have clearly established that we are talking about truth as a state of reality, not a belief or something we know.

    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

    Almost, we just have to clarify the context. Is it true that 1 captures 'an identity'? Is it true that 1+1=2? Is it a belief, or is it a known truth? After all, we just don't believe that 1+1=2, we know that 1+1=2. 1+1=3 would be false, but this is because we know it to be false. So true and false do apply to mathematics, its just when we have correct math its 'true' and incorrect math is 'false'. Is it a truth apart from knowledge and belief, or is it true in virtue of the knowledge that created math?

    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

    Close! If there was no existence, then that would be the truth of 'what is'. In this case, 'what isn't'. If it helps, think of the state of A vs not A. A if false if it doesn't exist, and A is true if it does. But if A does not exist I can also say, "It is true that A does not exist". So the same if there was no existence all those years ago.

    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 don't think it is wiggly though. Truth is, "What is". In the first two cases it is 'what is' apart from belief and knowledge. In the second case it can also be 'What is" despite belief and knowledge. I'm noting that some people also use truth to say, "Its true that I believe X" and "Its true that I know y." In the case of these statements however, it doesn't mean that what one knows or believes is true itself, its that its true that you know or believe it.

    Its false that a pink elephant exists (True that it does not exist)
    Its true that I believe there is a pink elephant.
    Its true that I know there is a pink elephant.

    In every case the term true as 'What is" is the same, its just that belief and knowledge introduce a context in which we have to be careful. Is true targeting the state of the person's outlook on A, or whether the underlying outlook A is true or not?

    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

    Fair enough.

    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

    Hopefully the above clarified the issue. Its basically the difference between the state of our outlooks on A, versus whether A is true or false apart from our outlooks.
  • God changes
    I asked for the argument for God being unchanging. I didn't ask whether God is immortal or not.MoK

    There is no argument for God being unchanging in the context you're using. I'm noting that 'immutable' in this sense is the fact of the eternal nature. You have to be very careful to understand the context and not just use out of context meaning of the words. No one, and I mean no one, is saying that God literally cannot act, think, evolve, etc. Your argument is a straw man. If you want to attack what people are saying, note the fact of God's eternal existence or ineffability.
  • God changes
    What is the argument for God's essence to be immutable?MoK

    My understanding again is this is meant to convey that God cannot be created or destroyed. God always was, and always will be.
  • God changes
    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

    No worry, that's just a misinterpretation of prose to mean God has always existed, or that his standard of good and plan have been known since the beginning. Of course God changes in the act of 'acting'. He even spoke to people in the bible, which requires action and reaction.
  • God changes
    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

    Your second premise contradicts your first. If God created something, then that something came from God, not nothing.

    We can still hold C1, but that only comes from P1 if we assume D1 is false.

    FC) Therefore, God changesMoK

    Yeah, everything else leads to that, no issues here. My greater question would be what you're trying to point out. If you're trying to say that in prose writing someone said, "God is unchanging", do you understand what the term means? Do they mean unchanging as in, "God has never moved and is frozen in time," or "God has always existed." Because its usually the latter, and only the confused cite the former. :)
  • The logic of a universal origin and meaning
    So, is your answer that you are talking about A and A = C?Bob Ross

    No, I'm noting that C involves A, but they are not the same thing. You're the one who introduced A, not me. :)

    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

    The scope captures everything causally because C != A. I've never claimed that it was equal.

    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

    Yes it can, because one of the answers to something causally is that it is uncaused. You seem to be putting this answer outside of causality, when I'm noting its one of the answers.

    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

    We're in complete agreement that sets aren't real. I'm just using it to give a better understanding of what I was trying to get across. This has seemed to add more confusion, so I gave you another example, "What caused existence period?" I never said 'the set' itself is caused, only its members. I am not conflating anything here Bob, I think that's just you.

    1. The Gem God would not be a member D; nor is the Cobalt God a member of T.Bob Ross

    Incorrect. They are part of the causality of that universe, therefore they are part of the scope of causality in that universe. There is no logic in separating them from the causal chain of the universe when they are part of the chain. I think you are misunderstanding what the causal scope is. Take a re-read of the scope section if you need to so that you understand it is not a chain of 'all things' but 'the full scope of causality'.

    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

    No, I'm referring to the chain we've found in the set itself up to the point where we increase the scope to include the question, "What caused existence at all?" Can you answer that question Bob? My answer is, "Its uncaused." Why am I wrong?

    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

    No, because there's still the question, "What caused there to be existence at all?" Further this ignores the question of other possible universes. What caused universe 1 to exist instead of universe 2 once you go up the causal chain within that universe? There is nothing outside of that universe that caused it to be, therefore it is uncaused.

    It can’t be the case that F causes C and that F is a member of CBob Ross

    The answer is not that F causes C. Its that C is uncaused. Which again, we're having problems with the set here instead of you addressing the plain question. "What caused existence?" You didn't reply to this very specific question from the last post Bob, so I think you're avoiding it to refocus on the sets that I've already told you are just a tool to convey this notion. Drop the sets if they aren't helpful to you, I don't care. This question is the question that only has one answer, 'Its uncaused."
  • The logic of a universal origin and meaning
    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

    I am talking about the scope of causality that encompasses all things. You cannot talk about the totality of call causes without the totality of all existence. In the case of an infinite regress of causality, the scope would be capturing everything causally. Its no different from a finite set. The difference is in the locus of the question. In a finite set we ask, "What caused A to be?" and there is no prior causality. In a finite set we ask, "What caused this infinite regressive set to be?" and there is no prior causality.

    Another way to answer this is, "The first cause is explained by itself." "An infinite set of causality is explained by itself." There is functionally no difference between these two at the last scoped question of causality which is essentially, "What caused the set to exist?"

    Again I think the infinite set is the only issue you have. Lets say we have one universe A that is a set of causal interactions between diamonds. That's all the universe is. There is a starting point we call the Gem God. Now there is a universe B which is a universe of cobalt. There is a starting point we call the cobalt God.

    Now imagine the same universes, only there is no gem or cobalt God. Its just a cascading series of gems causing other gem states in C, and just a cascading series of cobalt causing other cobalt states in D. What caused universe C to exist instead of universe D? What caused A or B? Nothing. There is a scope of causality that when we fully extend out, cannot be found. There is no outside force, because anything outside is included in the set. But this last question when the full scope of any universe is reached always has the same answer. Nothing caused that particular universe to be. It simply is if it exists.

    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

    'C' is the scope of all causality. And yes, when you extend the scope of causality out, we ask the last question, "What caused all of this other causality to exist apart from what we can discover?" And the answer IS inside of C Bob. The answer is, "Its uncaused". Its the final piece of any universal set of causality. We find we always come to a question we cannot answer, therefore the only answer is, "Its uncaused." And if its uncaused, then all the other consequences I noted follow.
  • The logic of a universal origin and meaning
    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

    If I understand this correctly, I think the only problem you have is with the idea that an infinite regress of causality has no cause for its being.

    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

    We also seem to have a mix up between my example and your example. Lets pull this back into a better abstract as the specifics aren't communicating the issue that I'm trying to point out. The knowledge of the infinite regress does not make the entire set of causality sufficiently explained. What caused that particular set of infinite regresses? I think a better way to fold it all together Bob, "Why is there anything at all?"

    The answer is that its uncaused. Even a God right? And if there is no prior cause for anything, whether that 'anything' start with a God, a pile or rocks, or has infinite minor causes running back forever, then there is no origin that is logically necessary for the universe to exist.

    If there is no cause which explains why the universe is here, then it didn't need to be here. It could have just as easily not been. It could be that there are other universes. Why not? When we realize the ultimate cause for why there is any existence at all is 'uncaused' there are no limits as to what could have been.

    No matter what you discover about your universe, it will never change this fact. Discovering those origins can tell you a lot about your universe as is, but it will never indicate why it is. It simply is. It did not require anything necessary for it to be, it just is. Therefore if one does not know the full causal chain of their universe by scientific proof it is impossible to philosophically argue by reason alone that any one possible causal origin of that universe was necessary or impossible. Necessary and impossible imply an inviable causality, and since there is none, there is no limit.
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    Bye Egg. Keep working on English and logic, you'll improve with time.
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    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

    You don't think anyone who's lived has ever asked, "Should I be alive?" People commit suicide all the time Egg. Its a viable question of morality that is asked and should have an objective answer. Just because you're simply alive, doesn't mean that objectively you should be alive. "Should" entails that given the option in the next second to continue living or end your life, you should continue living.

    Existence doesn't need to be justified before asking a moral question,DifferentiatingEgg

    This isn't about justifying existence. Whether existence should be or not is irrelevent to the fact it exists.
    I'm wondering if you understand this distinction in my terms, as I think you keep mixing up 'should' with 'is'. You are ironically, committing an is/ought fallacy. Just because something exists, doesn't mean it should exist. So the fact that existence is, doesn't mean we can't ask the question 'But should it?" You precluding asking the question and assuming because it is, its justified in existing...is an is/ought fallacy. I am not doing this. I am separating the fact that existence is from the question of whether it should be.

    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

    This is a run on sentence that doesn't have a cohesive point. Let me break it down for you to see if I can get to what you're trying to say here.

    "In your argument morality defines existence..."

    No, I do not use morality to define existence. Existence is, whether it should be or not. Morality is the question of whether it should be. A separation of the is, from the ought.

    "Easily reduced to absurdity from the ambiguous definitions which you use"

    I've given you clear definitions in a recent post. An assertion without evidence doesn't work in a discussion like this. Maybe you're right that I have something ambiguous, but if you don't point out exactly where it is, I won't know if you are correct or had a question I can easily answer and clarify.

    "Is Ought fallacies to achieve which we can see because good should be"

    Except for the fact that I never note that the fact that existence is, is why it should be. I've told you this several times now and asked you to cite in the OP where I do this. You have not been able to, which means currently you are wrong. Point to the evidence in the OP and give your reasoning.

    Please spend a little more time reviewing paragraphs like these before you post. I'm trying to figure out if this is what you're trying to say instead of you clearly communicating your intentions. Let me know if my assessment captures what you're saying, and if not, clarify more carefully please.

    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 genuinely don't know what you're talking about here. Attacking something you think I'm going to say doesn't really work. If I say it, fine. But I'm not saying that.

    I easily showed how we can reduce your argument to absurdity by the ambiguity of your definitions by line 2 of your OP.DifferentiatingEgg

    What is line two? This? 2. It is unknown whether there is an objective morality. Part b? Please clarify.

    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

    Lets clarify 5. Existence is, and it should be. But I do not make the claim "Because existence is, its good". I make the claim that existence is through parts c-g. 6 I'm not really making. Morality evaluates what should be. But non-existence is on the table. So it doesn't evaluate existence, but also whether existence should be.

    7. When in truth you evaluate existence to define morality not the other way round.DifferentiatingEgg

    Are you saying I do this, or are you saying this is what you believe? If you think I do this, you'll need to demonstrate where this happens in parts c-g.

    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

    No, I never make this claim. Again, as I mentioned last post, this is answering a very specific and base question. "If there is an objective morality, faced with non-existence vs existence, should existence be?" This is existence in the abstract, not quantified specifics. You're predicting where I'm going to go afterward, then criticizing me. That's wrong. If I haven't stated it, then you're arguing against something I haven't said That's a straw man. Only address the logical conclusion made at this time. Is the logical conclusion from steps c-g flawed? That's what you can reasonably criticize.

    You see I divided the entire theory up into a few posts. If you look at the end of the OP, I have another section linked. This post is only meant to establish a base. The second is to explore what that means. There I introduce quantity within existence, and demonstrate that some states of existence should be over others. So no, if existence is good compared to nothing, that does not logically lead to the idea that all states of existence are equal and some states cannot be more good than others.

    Complete utter nonsense.DifferentiatingEgg

    Yes, attacking something I didn't say is complete and utter nonsense. Work on your reading comprehension and sentence structure over sweeping assertions meant to belittle. You look like an idiot.

    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

    You could presuppose that, but you can't make a logical argument for it because of sections c-g. The conclusion that existence should be is from c-g, and since you aren't citing how c-g leads to your supposition being logically proven, its not. Please clarify what an 'occasion sentence' means as this is a nonsense phrase and not proper English.

    So in summary, read parts c-g as that's the actual argument, not an argument through definitions alone.
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    Instead of a big post, that I had, we're going to take this 1 step at a time. Starting completely over.DifferentiatingEgg

    Not a worry, we'll tackle it that way then.

    I assume from presupposition that an objective morality exists.DifferentiatingEgg

    Correct, we're assuming there is an objective morality, but we aren't asserting there actually is one. This is not a proof of an objective morality, this is assuming that if an objective morality exists we can find something necessarily true about it.

    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

    Sure, let me go over it.

    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

    My point is, take any moral question and it will have a cascading set of implicit questions that have to be answered first if it is to be objective. If I'm asking whether I should steal for my own benefit, I have to first know whether I should be concerned about my own benefit. Of course, this means that I should also know if I should exist. But for me to exist, there must be matter that exists as well. Should that exist? Until eventually we ask the question, "Should anything exist at all, or should nothing?" If there is an objective morality then there are only two answers as its a binary, yes or no.

    At this point, I have not declared that the answer is yes. That's the remaining letters. Does this clarify what I'm doing at this point? Any problems that you see?

    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

    To be clear, this isn't what we're asking. We're starting at a very simple base right? We can't solve calculus until we start with what the number 1 means, and then 1+1=2. I'm claiming nothing more at this point then the question of, "Should there be existence, or none?" So its important not to take anything more than that in the current OP. I build on it into something more in the second post linked in the OP, but for now, its just this one lone basic question.

    "Existence should be" is at best an occasion sentence.DifferentiatingEgg

    No, its an answer from a very clear yes or no question that was setup through a and b. Reread the other letters to see why "Existence should be" is the only logical answer we can give.

    Existence is
    Morality defines good
    Good should be
    DifferentiatingEgg

    A correction, morality is the methodology used to evaluate what is good. Good is defined as "What should be" "Existence" on its own does not necessitate that it should be. These are the definitions I start with and are not interchangeable.

    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

    None of this follows from my initial definitions, nor do I claim this. Reread it with the proper definitions I've given, not summaries of your own.

    Definitely not envious of perpetuated delusion.DifferentiatingEgg

    And I am not envious of your flaw that you cannot keep a conversation civil and need to insert insults like a monkey throwing poo. I have been polite about your reading comprehension so far because the way you type indicates that English is likely your second language. Your sentences often lack clarity, appropriate detail, and I am trying my best to infer what you mean. A little self-reflection and humbleness that you may not be grasping the full context or communicating accurately what you intend may dispel YOUR delusion that you have any right to be making claims that I'm perpetually deluded.

    Take what I've written here, think about it some more carefully, and write a response that is polite like a basic civilized adult. English as a second language doesn't mean you have to be a piece of trash in conversations. If the next response indicates an obvious lack of reading comprehension, straw man argument, or another monkey throwing poo session for you, my patience and this conversation will be over.
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    "Good should be"
    Starting a premise with a conclusion begs the question why good should be. Which you never answer without is ought.
    DifferentiatingEgg

    Its just a definition. And its that the term is defined as "What should be." I'll ask again, do you have another definition of good? If you have an issue with my definition that's fine. Me proposing a definition that many would agree with is not a logical is/ought fallacy.

    And the adjectival form of good is not what should be. Simply something desired. Should be assumes entitlement to what is good.DifferentiatingEgg

    Ok, now this is something we can discuss. So you think the definition of good is what we desire. So if I desire to murder a child is that good? What is your justification for noting that anything we desire is good?

    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

    Again, this is not an argument of supposition, it is an introduction to a definition and then logical arguments from there. Feel free to disagree with the definition and what you would propose instead. My definition does not fall into the is/ought fallacy as it is merely a definition, but you can propose another we should work with and why you think that's better.

    You cannot state logically why the noun "Good" "should be"DifferentiatingEgg

    Once again, I'm going to type out a more complete representation here. I say the definition of good is "What should be". You have not asked me to justify this until now. Instead of saying, "You cannot state," simply ask me to justify it first.

    At the heart of every claim to good, there is the notion that what is good is a state that is preferable over another. Lets start basic. Good is making a child laugh with joy. Bad is murdering a child for fun. The intent conveyed behind something that is considered good is that good is a 'positive' state, and a positive state is what should be. Of course, knowing objective what a positive state is and how to evaluate it is a tall order. But few disagree that what is good should 'should be' while what is bad 'should not be'.

    This leads me to point 1:

    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

    So, you can feel free to disagree with my definition, but put what you think works best in its place. Can it avoid the decent into asking if there should be existence at all?

    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

    I'm going to try with you one more time. This smacks of a petty ego that is jealous or envious that this post is so popular. Don't. What's important is a good discussion, not a post that has a bunch of replies.

    Again, I have invited you to discuss with me as an equal. I'm listening to your points with respect, asking questions, and trying to answer yours the best I can. And you spit on me. I treat you like an equal, and you act like an inferior. Because only an inferior descends into ego and insults when trying to have a discussion with an equal. This is not Youtube, Reddit, or any other place on the internet. This is a place where people get to discuss intellectual topics and think about things. If you cannot rise to that, then I am sorry I ever thought you could. One last chance. Lose the derision and I will continue to discuss with you respectfully. If not, then I was mistaken and I will end this conversation.

    You're literally just pushing "Plato" but philosophy has moved considerably beyond Plato thoughDifferentiatingEgg

    1. I have never mentioned anything from Plato.
    2. "Moved on" is not an argument.

    If you see something I'm saying is illogical, just point it out, and why its illogical. If you want to note its like Plato, point out how exactly it is like Plato, and why Plato had difficulty with this concept. As it is, this didn't say anything useful to the discussion.

    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

    You only took half the quote in a catered reply to another forum member. You left off the last sentence:
    This is because any morality which proposed that existence should not be would contradict itself.Philosophim

    And what was I referencing? The conclusion of the argument in the OP, not an is/ought. If you want to show that I'm committing an is/ought fallacy, reference where in the OP I do this. Incomplete references to other members out of context is not an honest or viable point. This is the third time I think I've asked you to reference the OP. I'm assuming you're not stupid, so that only means you can't find an actual reference in the OP. Scrounging around anywhere else to try and back a point you find in the OP just confirms to me that you don't have a point. It might be better to admit at this point that maybe I don't have any reference in the OP that leads to an is/ought fallacy and try something else.

    Trying to worm your way out of pretending it's anything other than Is Ought is a farce.DifferentiatingEgg

    Tut tut. Using a straw man argument from another thread or an incomplete quote out of context to make your point is the farce. I'm trying to be more polite about it. I ask you again to be an equal with me and bring that same politeness and respect to the conversation.
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    ↪Philosophim Another fallacy equivocating the adjective for the noun.DifferentiatingEgg

    I'm still not seeing this and your answers are becoming shorter and shorter. There is no reason, no quotes, and no further explanation behind this statement. Its sounds like you're done. If so, I appreciate your second attempt and hope to have another nice conversation another time.
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    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

    I'm starting with the definition that good = 'what should be'. Like in the dictionary. Do you have another definition of good? Then I ask, "Should nothing be, or something be?" You can most certainly disagree with my definition, but I still don't see how I'm making an is/ought fallacy by noting a definition. I'm starting to feel we're having more a linguistic misunderstanding at this point then difference in arguments.
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    ↪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

    I don't see how that is. If good = what should be then bad = what shouldn't be. Thus there should be some states of existence that are more preferential than others right? The OP is noting a very specific instance, the choice between any existence at all and no existence. The conclusion is that if there is an objective morality, the only conclusion is that in this very specific instance, its better for there to be existence than nothing at all.

    The second post goes into more detail in how we can look at existence and break it down into quantities. After breaking it into quantities we can ask if there are certain states which are preferable than other states of existence. And indeed, I do find this.

    But nowhere in the OP am I claiming that 'should be' equates to existence is. Again, if you can quote me or show me where I'm doing this, I would appreciate it. As for myself, I don't see it.
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    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

    I'll try one more time just in case you didn't understand. I don't use any claim in this OP that what ought to be is because it is. Please point out where in the OP if you believe I'm doing this. Use quotes and citation so you can prove exactly where I do this.
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    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

    You may not be aware of this, but the first person to start using derogatory remarks as an argument is the person who has lost the argument and is having a hard time coping. That's you to be clear.

    Fallacies and circular logic. You can't let it go either.DifferentiatingEgg

    I want you to reread the last post where I stated that your is/ought fallacy was correct for my previous post. Read it again. You were correct for that post. See how I'm very willing to admit my shortcomings? Its nothing to be wrong. However this post contains a different approach and content to my previous one. In philosophy it is often that we begin looking at an idea one way, then evolve as we discuss with other people.

    That post was specifically a post directed to explore the idea. It wasn't an assertion of a proof, just a supposition. You are correct, my supposition there could not be a proof as it wasn't intended to be. You could have rightly noted it was an is/ought fallacy for proof, and you would be correct. I have explored the idea much since then, and wrote this paper with a different approach that does not commit the is/ought fallacy. Or if it does, you haven't pointed out where here. If you can, I'll accept it without issue. That requires a good argument from your part about THIS post, not another post with a different argument and approach. If you don't know what a straw man fallacy is, its raising up an argument the poster is not using, beating it, then saying this unrelated argument defeats the argument of the poster. Its a simple mistake to do, but since I've pointed it out, you shouldn't insist on holding it if you're a fair thoughtful person to talk to.

    "Good should be" = Existence is, thus it ought to be Good.DifferentiatingEgg

    I do not present this argument anywhere in the OP. Therefore you are wrong. It should be a simple enough thing to admit, "Yeah, ok," and try another tact. That's a thinker. You and I both want to view yourself as one, so just be cool, ask questions, try different tactics, and drop the derogatory remarks.
  • The Musk Plutocracy
    The main problem is that congress is also under the control of Republicans. The one failure of the founders was to not realize that congress actually has an incentive to give up its own powers to allow the responsibility to rest on the executive or judicial branches. This will likely be the weakness that allows America to fall.
  • Opening up my thoughts on morality to critique
    It all depends on how causally linked things are in what you can see in the moment, not with hindsightZisKnow

    I agree. Most things require both context, and the result. I believe that a person can only make a decision based on what they know, and with a high certainty that the outcome will result in a positive. We also need a way to evaluate the outcome itself. Thus a person could make what they believed to be a good action, but through no fault of their judgement resulted in a bad outcome.
  • The Real Tautology
    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

    Correct. Its both a blessing a curse that we use the same words for different contexts, and in each context they have a different meaning. Basically we use true for, "True as I know/believe it" and "True despite my knowledge or beliefs"

    “1+1=2” is only true within the context of a mathematical framework - e.g. Peano Arithmetic.EricH

    Agreed. Kant come up with two terms that attempted to capture these differences. Analytic knowledge is true by virtue of being, and synthetic knowledge is true by experiencing the world and finding what fits.

    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

    No, I actually was using it as another synonym. :) You do bring a good point though. Perhaps the word 'truth' has becomes such a broadly applied word in culture that it is difficult to use it in a distinct and clear context. The problem is that if we don't lock it in to clear and distinct contexts, then it becomes what I like to call a 'wiggle word'.

    Wiggle words are often sore spots in communication. In honest usage with clear communication of context, they're fine. But often times a person will use the term in context A when it is convenient for them, then switch, often unintentionally, to context B use of the term when a weakness of context A appears. Its not that context B has suddenly appeared in the conversation, its that the usage of the word for context A has become context B for this brief period of discussion, and will go right back to context A when convenient.

    In my experience, the source of most philosophical issues are poorly defined or misused definitions. So yes, falsehood would be the expression of 'what isn't'. I do think these definitions help clarify the usage better, its just that we get lazy with the terms truth and false. For example, "I know X". It is true that you know X, but it can be equally true that what you know is wrong. The biggest mistake most people make is mistaking 'knowledge' for truth.

    Belief is a claim that "X is true" through intent, emotion, and limited rationality. Knowledge is a tool, a process of logic and application that results in what can most reasonably be asserted at the time by anybody in the shoes of that person. In either case, what one believes might be true, and what one knows might be false. Belief, knowledge and truth are not the same thing. Belief and knowledge are assessments of truth, and as such often poorly get equated with truth or falsehood themselves. 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.

    If you like thinking about concepts like these, I've written a more in depth look at what knowledge is here:
    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1 Following my immediate posts there is a wonderful summary from another poster as well.

    Finally your poem made me laugh, so its a success in my book. :D
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    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

    1. My previous post was an exploration, not a proof. It is a different approach then what I've presented here and my views have changed. Presenting feedback of an is/ought fallacy there would have been good criticism. Going to a previous post and using elements of that there which I do not use or claim here is a straw man fallacy. If you had to go to another post and pull points there that I don't claim here, this only gives me confidence that the points I've presented here are sound.

    2. I never insulted you for your criticism and treated you with respect, asked for follow ups when I didn't understand, and tried to answer your questions honestly. Your accusation of this being a farce is immature, disrespectful, and uncalled for after committing a clear logical fallacy. If you're here to discuss for your personal ego, leave. I'm here for intelligent people who want to think and talk respectfully to one another.
  • A Measurable Morality
    ↪Philosophim Ah, see, I knew there was an Is Ought Fallacy in there somewhere... "Existence is, thus it ought to be good."DifferentiatingEgg

    You came to an older post that was not trying to prove a point but explore a hypothetical and use that against my newer post which does not do this? If we're talking fallacies, this is as straw man as you can get. If you want an honest discussion, chat with me on my new post about the logic there.
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    ↪Philosophim I read the entire post. Regretfully.Relativist

    And absolutely nothing to say after having much to say prior? We moved from existence as abstract into quantity and now have a means of measuring particular states of existence as better based on the initial principle. I thought showing you how good and bad were quantified states of existence would be a prime example of how a should can exist apart from a mind. Such morality does not need intelligent creatures, but is a consequence of the notion that existence is good.

    The quantification of existence also demonstrates that within any set existence, the way their potential and actual combinations can result in more quantified existence in any moment T, thus demonstrating a better vs lesser outcome. I was hoping this would answer most of your five points you wrote earlier.

    1) How does "should" applies to objects that lack minds. IOW, explain what it means to say "X should Y" where X is an object lacking a mind.

    I've explained before I believe the should is simply a logical property of existence. And I showed you an example of that logical property in action through quantification. So you got to see how it works with an example.

    2) You seemed to agree that existence is metaphysically necessary, so how does "should" apply to the fact of a metaphysically necessary existence?

    I never stated existence was metaphysically necessary. I'm noting that for existence to continue, it must exist. And that continued existence is the source of good on the abstract level. The quantification of existence allows us a next step from that abstract into a live example. While its not yet life, life follows the same pattern as the underlying matter. Was that too boring to consider? Did the math through you? I'm genuinely asking this as I've wondered if people can get past this part when most everyone is chomping at the bit to get to the higher level stuff with animals and people.

    I think your 3 and 4 are covered by the above.

    5) Why should anyone pay heed to a moral imperative that is both contingent (see #3) and random (see #4)?

    Lets simplify this. Why should anyone pay heed to a moral imperative that is merely a property of existence, and has no punishment, reward, or someone waiting on the other side to enforce it? We should through reason. Just like we do anything else in life. We didn't have to ride horses, we could have just walked. We didn't have to build cars, we could have just rode horses. Understanding how the universe works allows us to construct and approach methodologies and technologies that drive the human race forward.

    There is nothing to compel us to moral decisions besides the atoms we are composed of. Besides the fact that our bodies work every day to continue this chemical interaction that constantly needs to seek out energy and repair. Whether we like it or not, we are part of the existence in this universe, and the underlying reality that existence is what should be vs not be is what keeps us going. Understanding that and exploring the logical consequences of that can allow us an independent analysis in many situations, especially when conflicts of moral feelings occur.

    If the atomic analysis is not to your liking, the next post linked at the end of that OP goes into how this applies to life, and then ultimately human and social interaction. The plain analysis of matter can be difficult for many to wrap their head around as its a completely new notion and feels disconnected from the moral questions of our subjective existence, so reading ahead might give you the 'aha' you need to go back and see the building blocks how we get there.

    It is of course up to you. Perhaps you're bored with the topic, or its gone to a place you just don't want to go. It is as always an opportunity to think, to stretch your mind, and to consider a new possibility for morality.
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    ↪Philosophim I read it. It doesn't have an example of a "should", and in no way addresses my broader issue:Relativist

    If you didn't want to read it, that's fine. Have a good one Relativist.
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    Yeah, so, you do use Is-ought fallacy as per post 1. Nothing more to really discuss here.DifferentiatingEgg

    I don't get how you draw that from my last reply, but if you're not interested in continuing the discussion, have a nice day.
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    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

    Feel free to move onto my next post where I would indeed say that nothingness is zero. I actually introduce a method to quantify existence and compare whether one state is better than another. These were always meant to be read together, I just split it up so people wouldn't balk at the long read of everything together. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15217/if-existence-is-good-what-is-the-morality-of-non-life/p1
  • The logic of a universal origin and meaning
    We seem to be going round and round on this one Bob. :)
    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

    You didn't need to introduce a new set, as everything was in the U1 and U2 sets.

    The debate in metaphysics, ontology, which your OP claims to solve, is about C not A.Bob Ross

    But I'm not including the set of all things in the U1 and U2 comparison.

    U1 = A -> B -> C
    U2 = infinite regress -> C

    This is the set of all causal relations in the the universe Bob, not set of all things.

    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

    I'm not conflating A, because A does not belong in the above example. I'm noting that if you extend the causality to its entire scope, you will reach a point where it is inevitably uncaused. In the case of U1, its A. In the case of U2, its discovering there is an infinite regress of causality. What caused there to be a universe that had infinitely regressive causality? Nothing. What caused there to be a universe with finite causality? Nothing. There is no prior cause at the end of the causal chain of discovery, therefore it is impossible to note that a finitely regressive causality is anymore necessary then an infinitely regressive causality.

    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 placeBob 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.

    Thusly, if we say that R is ABob Ross

    But I am not saying R is A, so I don't think this applies. Remove A from the notion, which I am not including, and I'm not sure my abstraction is invalid. Try again without A being involved and see if your claim still holds.
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    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

    You're close. The OP notes that if there is an objective morality, then the only answer which isn't a contradiction is that there should be existence. If its good for there not to be existence, then that means that morality shouldn't exist. But if your morality says there shouldn't be existence, then it, itself, shouldn't exist. Thus it contradicts itself leaving the only rational answer being "There should be existence".

    So if you're saying, "There should be no good," what you're saying is, "It should be, there there should not be." Which means "It should not be, should not be." meaning its nonsensical.
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    ↪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

    Its about states of existence. As a very simple example imagine a state of existence where someone is murdered, vs where they are not murdered. The good state is what should be, the bad state is what should not be. This is at a very basic level again, which the OP goes over. The link at the end of the OP goes onto the second part.
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    Oh, I didn't realize there was a misunderstanding. The link you went to was a reference I posted earlier to detail the logic that extends from the notion that the universe is uncaused.

    The post I intended you to go to is at the end of the OP, which is the second part of this. Now I understand why you haven't gone there. :D Here, I'll link it one more time. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15217/if-existence-is-good-what-is-the-morality-of-non-life/p1

    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

    I have, its that link. Once you read it if you wouldn't mind, post in that thread so I can keep this one's ideas separate from that. This should give you a much better understanding of what I'm noting, and we'll continue there if there are further questions and critiques. I look forward to it as I need a lot more feedback on that one. I'm not sure how tight it is, and I would love someone else to critique it.
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    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

    Bad is what should not exist. By virtue of good things existing, there is a state of being that would be a possible negation of that good existence, and should not be. I'm not denying any half of an equation here.

    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

    I've never assumed anything like this. This is your thing, not mine. :)

    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

    I don't understand how you're getting point 2 from what I wrote. Bad and good are direct opposites of one another.

    You're deriving "ought" without properly addressing "is".DifferentiatingEgg

    No I'm noting that what good is, is what ought to be. What evil is, is what not ought to be. I don't understand the issue.
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    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

    Have you read the entirety of the second post? Do you understand the example of atoms versus molecules that I put forward?
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    It sounds like you might say "an electron should be attracted to a proton"?Relativist

    No, should would denote a more positive state of existence. But for there to be a more positive state of existence, it must be at its base that existence is itself good, versus there being no existence at all.

    This is my issue: "should" typically connotes an outcome that is contingent upon a choice.Relativist

    But since you know I've stated repeatedly that it does not require a being, its a state. Compare state 1 and state 2, and one would be logically better than the other. Go. Read. The. Second. Post. :D Heres the link so you don't have to go back to the first page. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15217/if-existence-is-good-what-is-the-morality-of-non-life/p1
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    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

    Then I have misunderstood. First, I've already told you this is not a proof that an objective morality exists. This is IF an objective morality exists. If it exists, we can construct a necessary initial premise, then try to build from there. The 'should' is entirely logical. As I've tried to communicate a couple of times now, my theory is this is consequence or property of existence itself. This is not a proof of an objective morality, this is an exploration into what an objective morality would have to necessarily entail if it existed. That's all it requires from you to explore it. To my mind, if there is an objective morality, this is the best place to start. I have seen no criticism from you thus far that has countered this point.

    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

    No, existence is not necessary in any regards. It exists today, but it was not necessary that it ever existed at all if we're tracing back to an origin.

    However, if existence is metaphysically necessary, how does "should" apply?Relativist

    I explore that in the next post by looking at the idea of existences within existence. This involves identities and quantities at an attempt at some type of measurement. Does a certain combination of basic matter result in overall more existences within a set existence? Again, you'll need to read there, I'm not summarizing an entire post. :)

    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

    Correct. And all probabilities would be equal as there is nothing which would influence one over the other.

    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

    This ironically goes too far for me. I really am only asserting IF an objective morality exists. This is not an assertion or proof that an objective morality exists. I have noted that Subjective morality has many problems, and I don't find it impossible for an objective morality to exist. Therefore we do what we can in philosophy, reason though what would necessarily be if it did exist by noting a fundamental question that all moral systems must answer at their base.

    As for contingencies, I'm not sure what you mean here. My note was that if we are talking about the origin of the universe's existence, the only thing we can conclude is that the ultimate origin is uncaused and contingent on nothing else. What do you mean when you say a wavelength of light is contingent within the context I'm noting?

    If EVERYTHING came out of randomness then this includes all moral imperatives.Relativist

    Correct, I've said that several times now. My note is that this does not diminish its existence if it is real, like it doesn't diminish any other existence if it is real.

    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

    For the same reason that a random appearance of a red wavelength of light is still an objective red wavelength of light. If an objective morality is real, it is as real as a wavelength of light. Do you understand?

    Having objective EXISTENCE does not entail there being something objective about the moral imperative.Relativist

    And I have not made that claim. I'm noting IF such a thing exists, what logically must the answer to the question, "Should there be existence" is.

    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 have told you from the beginning up until the last post that it does not because the logic of the OP does not require a person to make a judgement. Its simply a logical conclusion. I have told you I personally believe it to be a consequence of existence itself, like a property, and informed you that if you read more, you might better understand what I'm trying to tell you. I have noted this first post is a very limited scope argument, and I build upon it in that second post. If you refuse to read that post, when I am telling you that is part of the answer to your question, then insist I'm not answer your question, then don't be surprised if you don't understand it.

    I've been trying for quite some time, and I've brought to your attention the reasons I think your premises are incoherent.Relativist

    And I have answered. Go read the second post. Then continue. If you don't, this conversation will go nowhere as I cannot answer your questions fully from this initial post alone.

    I infer that you're saying your basic premise doesn't account for all moral values that most of us acceptRelativist

    Correct! Its not an inference, I've been telling you this repeatedly. :D

    I presume that you're only saying that moral values which are entailed by your premise are objective values. Is that correct?Relativist

    No. IF there is an objective morality the only thing this post has asserted is that the answer to, "Should there be existence," is yes, because no contradicts itself. I have asserted no more than this at this time.

    Your remaining points I've already answered or you'll need to read the next post. And I do appreciate your engagement in the conversation.
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    And you said be = exist.
    Thus
    good should exist
    bad should not exist

    You have a fundamental problem because bad exists.
    DifferentiatingEgg

    "Should" does not mean "does". If what is bad exists, it should not exist. If what is good does not exist, it should exist. Does that address your issue?
  • In any objective morality existence is inherently good
    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

    I'm a little lost. Good is defined as what should be, bad is defined as what shouldn't be.
×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.