They may not entail theism, but objective morals just existing untethered to anything seems ad hoc - logically possible, but lacking any good reason to think they exist. Of course, this is just as far as I can tell. I'm open to hearing why one might be more open to their existence. — Relativist

Sure. There are a few things that make me think there is an objective morality.

1. We are not magical creatures. We are made of the atoms of this Earth like everything else. Boil a person down to chemistry and you realize that life is the build up of unlife into a self-replicating and self-maintaining combination. It seems odd that morality just 'suddenly' appears when life comes about. I've always had a suspicion that the underlying aspects of life have something to them that we build on.

2. Even animals show aspects of morality. Not sophisticated like a human intelligence, but there are plenty examples of wild animals acting altruistic with no discernable personal benefit, even cross species. One example is a wild bear observed a crow drowning in a river flopping about. It went over, picked it up with its mouth, and plopped it on the river bed before walking on.

3. The failure of any meaningful or rational subjective system of morality to rise above "Might makes right".

4. The age old question if there was a God: "Is what God says moral because God says it, or because God is following what is objectively moral?" If morality only has teeth because God says it, then God could say murdering your neighbors while laughing madly is good. Again, just a devolution of might makes right which no one but psychos actively practice.

"not provably false" is not a justification for believing something — Relativist

True, but then that is equally not a justification for not believing something or rationally arguing against something either.

This question assumes an objective rule exists. Sure, the advantage is an objective one: empathy for others helps motivate behavior that has a positive impact toward survival of the species. Moral values, as we know them, arise from verbalizing our inherent instincts. — Relativist

My point is there is seemingly an objective reason beyond, "I feel its good." Subjective morality is the morality of a spoiled child. "I do what I want because I want to." An objective morality states, "You should do X because it will likely result in Y which is better than the alternative of Z." Then you can explain why Y is better than Z, not not simply, "Because I like it more."

So if we begin to say, "Its good that the species survive," we can ask, "Why?" "Because I feel like it." Then why do we bother saving people who want to commit suicide? The species will continue. Why not murder anyone who gets in our way? The species will continue, and I'll have more resources for me. Its a bit more than, "I want, gimme, I feel, gimme, I'm happy to do all sorts of atrocities for my feelings, gimme."

Life exists because the environment was suitable for abiogenesis to occur. Humans exist because of the series of accidents associated with our evolutionary history. — Relativist

Those are reasons why something exists. They are not reasons that it should exist. If a bacteria was able to be invented that wiped out 80% of all life besides human beings, and humans would still be able to live healthy lives, should we? Should we kill all the whales for fun if it amuses us? Enslave other people who are weaker than us? I can explain how all these things could happen, but it doesn't answer the question, "Should it be?"

At the end, even that boils down to the prime question, "Should there be existence at all?" Its irrelevant why there is existence. Should there be existence? And if there is an objective morality the OP notes that the only rational conclusion to be made is, "Yes".

Without a God, how can there exist objective morality? — Relativist

I'm going to follow that up with, "Why do you need a God to exist for there to be an objective morality?" I see an objective morality as a rule of existence.

"All moral questions boil down to one fundamental question that must be answered first, "Should there be existence?""
This is nonsense if, as I explained, morality is not objective in a transcendent sense of existing independently of humans. — Relativist

"Nonsense" is not an argument. Explain to me where I'm wrong in demonstrating that all moral questions boil down to this fundamental question. Have you also proven that an objective morality cannot be separated from humans? Not yet. Feel free to provide examples.

If morality is entirely intersubjective among humans, moral judgements apply to things that relate to humans and are contingent upon the human perspective. — Relativist

But you have not proven that, nor disproven the point of the OP yet. You've declared it, that's not the same as giving a rational argument which necessarily demonstrates your declaration is true. This is not a discussion of opinions.

We have our moral intuitions because they provided an evolutionary advantage, and these intuitions manifest as instinct and emotion. — Relativist

But this is not a subjective advantage. You have a subjective experience of this advantage, but what is the objective underlying moral rule? Why should humans even exist? Why should life exist? Why should anything exist?

This is the basis for the argument for God's based on the assumed existence of objective moral values (OMVs).
At minimum, objective morals entails physicalism being false. — Relativist

The OP does not argue for, nor need a God to argue for an objective morality.

I may misunderstand, but you seem to be dismissing the role of our moral intuitions- because these manifest as feelings. — Relativist

No, I'm not. What I'm trying to find is a base for an objective morality that builds up to something which better explains why we have the moral intuitions that we do, and a guide to understand beyond instinct and emotion.

The existence of intersubjective moral values makes the most sense to me: nearly all of us have a common set of moral intuitions (exception: sociopaths, who may have a genetic defect). This shared set of values seems a reasonable basis for morality, one that is independent of metaphysical implications. — Relativist

Yes, this is a more common approach to the issue. But have you read the OP? I'm trying to establish what at minimum, must exist in any objective morality.

Sorry, missed this reply initially.

Now, phenomenally, you are right that a feeling can be represented as linked to something in space (e.g., the pain in my arm); but the feeling is not itself in space. — Bob Ross

Isn't it though? When I feel a pain in my arm, isn't it there? When I feel happy, doesn't it spread through my body? If I feel, I don't feel in the other room, I have feelings where I am. Using the term phenomenal does not deny that feelings are located in our body and not outside of them.

Once something is in space and time, even if it has no parts can we zoom in on it and say it has a front, back, and side?

That is impossible; for something outside of space has no sides. A side is an inherently spatial concept—no? — Bob Ross

True, but if something non-spatial is to interact with something spatial, it must at that moment of interaction become spatial. A purely non-spatial being cannot interact with space. Saying it can is the same as saying a unicorn exists. Maybe one does, but I can't see how we can logically prove it does and can be dismissed as a valid possibility.

A5-5. In order for a composed being to exist, it must be grounded in something capable of existing itself. — Bob Ross

I believe we're discussing this in the other thread now, but once you introduce the possibility of something capable of existing itself, you open the doors open to anything being possible.

I also believe that to fairly judge an action, one must set aside the circumstances and intent and evaluate the act itself. — ZisKnow

I think this misses a gap between 'acting on knowledge' and 'result'. Lets say that I know that if I donate to a charity that the money will be spent to save kids lives. I donate a large sum to the charity. The director who had been honest with the money up until now, sees the large sum and instead of donating most of us, gives into greed and finds a way to funnel it to their bank account. If I had not donated such a large sum, the director never would have given into greed and the charity would have continued uncorrupted. Did I do wrong?

We generally evaluate an action as moral based on what a person knew at the time. If the charity had a reputation of honest and efficient use of the money, the action has moral intent. A moral action is always a prediction of the future however. The future that we predict does not always come to pass. Thus we don't morally judge a person based on an outcome that they could not know for certain, but an action based on what seemed to be the most reasonable and predictable outcome at the time.

We can also mirror this. A person could intend to shoot up a school that day. As they're about to open fire on the school playground outside, they trip, their gun fires accidently, and it kills a serial killer who would have never been caught, stopping their murderous rampage forever. The would be kid killer is arrested before they can kill anyone else. This was a 'good outcome' but the action of the person was not moral. They'll be tried for attempted murder and possibly convicted.

You might be giving Berkeley a little more credit here than he deserves. "When Berkeley (1685-1753) was questioned as to how objects could continue to be when no-one was perceiving them, he claimed they were still in the mind of God." Berkely still requires that something 'observe' what exists for it to exist. Which of course runs into major problems when you ask, "So uh...how does God exist?" A common fallacy of, "Everything must follow the rule except this one exception that I need to make the rule work"

He points out that these are not available to conscious perception and raises the question of how they continue to exist "unperceived," as it were. All well and good—but need they be consciously perceived in Berkeley’s view? — Wayfarer

Conscious or unconscious I don't think is relevant as long as they are held within a mind. I think Berkeley is clear about that. It doesn't have to be perceived by us per say, but something like God. Thus humanity could be completely ignorant of any science and it still exist.

Similarly, when we analyze the body's systems, we don’t directly access 'the body as it is' but only the intelligible structure as it appears through layers of interpretation. In this way, both the stone and Johnson’s body remain phenomena structured and experienced within the bounds of perception and thought. — Wayfarer

This is a fantastic analysis of knowledge vs truth. But is Berkeley really saying that? Perhaps Berkeley flirted with this a bit like so many do, but ultimately didn't fully realize it as he had to rely on God for his philosophy to work. This is of course based on the information presented here and in the article. If you can find a part of Berkeley's work where he doesn't ultimately rely on God when a human cannot perceive what exists, feel free to post it.

The more I think about it, I think you are right that this argument—if I am understanding it correctly—is an a priori style argument; for you are noting that reason dictates that irregardless of if there is a first cause, infinite causality, etc. that the totality of what is real must be uncaused. — Bob Ross

Yes, that's what I intended to convey.

1. The totality of what exists could have a first cause, be self-caused, etc.
2. The totality of what exists, being such that nothing can exist outside of it, must be uncaused.
3. Therefore, whether or not the totality of what exists has a first cause, is self-caused, etc. are all equally probable. — Bob Ross

First, I'm not using the phrase, "The totality of what exists" in the argument. I'm saying the entire scope of causality.

Second, you're missing the step I introduced that leads to 3 as a conclusion.

And if it cannot have a prior cause itself, what does that logically lead to next? The realization that no origin is necessary for existence or can be impossible. If I say, "X origin cannot be possible," there is a reason prior why it would be impossible. Is there anything prior which could make it impossible, then of course it would mean there was a prior cause. A cause not only tells us what is possible, but also impossible. — Philosophim

If anything could happen, and there is no cause which would make any one thing be more likely than the other to happen, then they all had equal chance of happening.

1. Per se contingent beings lack the power to exist themselves.
2. An infinite series of contingent beings all lack the power to exist themselves.
3. Therefore, it is impossible for the cosmos to be an infinite series of contingent beings.
4. Therefore, there must be at least one necessary being. — Bob Ross

Premise two is incorrect. A contingent being lacks the the power to exist without another being existing which supports it, true. We can invent the concept of an infinite set of contingent beings. But that set is not contingent on anything else. Just like I can have a finite set of contingent beings, but that set is not contingent on anything else. You've already agreed with me on this. There would be no prior reason which causes a finite set of causality to occur, and there would be no prior reason for an infinite set of causality to occur. Therefore both are equally as likely to happen if we do not know what actually happened.

This would entail that science is philosophy at its core, but is a specific branch that expands on how to understand the nature of things; and so science vs. philosophy is a false dichotomy. — Bob Ross

My reference to philosophy and scientific separation are meant to be layman here. As for our discussion, if you wish to define philosophy in this particular way I have no objection. My point stands that there can be no conclusion to what necessarily must be the origin of the universe without finding direct evidence. It is not something which can be reasoned to, but factually concluded.

We still have up for grabs whether or not an infinite regress of causes is absurd; whether a first cause is arbitrary; whether a self-cause is incoherent; whether …. — Bob Ross

By reason, the OP proves that none of them are absurd or incoherent. No prior cause means no limitations. Anything is possible as an origin, possibility and impossibility can only be found within what already is.

the theist says there must be a first cause to explain the totality of these things which exist, and you come around and point out that God + those things is now the new totality which is uncaused—this is a mute point (by my lights). — Bob Ross

Its not moot at all because I demonstrate that their claim to God is no longer necessary, and that it has no more reason to be the origin then any other origin someone else can think of.

Ontology and metaphysics is largely not about a priori proofs; and so they have not been primarily about arguments from pure logic or reason. — Bob Ross

The conclusions I've put forward are from pure logic and reason. Can you demonstrate at what point my conclusions aren't?

No, your OP does not entail that an infinite regress vs. a first cause of composition is equally probable: it demonstrates that irregardless of which one we think is most probable because the whole of things we posit (which includes that regress or first cause) cannot have a cause itself. — Bob Ross

And if it cannot have a prior cause itself, what does that logically lead to next? The realization that no origin is necessary for existence or can be impossible. If I say, "X origin cannot be possible," there is a reason prior why it would be impossible. Is there anything prior which could make it impossible, then of course it would mean there was a prior cause. A cause not only tells us what is possible, but also impossible.

Meaning that only within the causality we have right now can we work our way up to the actual origin of our universe. That cannot be done with reason alone, but with actual discovery. Again, try it. Put something forward that demonstrates a necessary origin and refutes the conclusions of the OP.

1. Ceteris paribus, it is correct that two or more things are equally probable if those things equally have no explanation for their existence; however, the probability of one or the other changes given our understanding of the universe. — Bob Ross

Correct. This would be science or discovery of new facts.

2. Philosophy does not engage in merely pure reason; and so ontology and metaphysics certainly is engaging in reasoning based off of empirical evidence (to some large extent) and this is perfectly valid for it to. — Bob Ross

But there is no philosophical discovery at that point. There would be the discovery of whether there was a first cause, or infinite regress. I hesitate to include this point at this time as I want to make sure you understand this first, but it might be impossible to truly discover the origin scientifically if the OP is true. But for now, lets say it is. It would be measurements, recordings, and conclusions. Where does philosophy fit in?

Science can't determine if the universe is just an infinite relation of causality, has a first cause, etc. because in principle there is no scientific proof which can be afforded; — Bob Ross

Then the debate is truly finished. The only logical conclusion is that we cannot know.

The different is it requires evidence, reason, testing, and confirmation

This is true of the vast majority of philosophy. — Bob Ross

I do not find this to be true. Philosophy is more often then not the logical construction of concepts. Science is the test and application of those concepts. Does the reality of the situation match the philosophical conclusion? Then it is scientifically sound.

What do you mean by "philosophically necessary"? — Bob Ross

I mean that there is no logical construct which can ever be proven to be ontologically necessary as the origin of the universe. The only way we can discover it is by working up the chain of causality which is the hard work of science.

In my OP, e.g., I am considering actual impossibility as that modality relates to an infinite series of composition. — Bob Ross

If the OP is correct, then you cannot prove it to be impossible. If anything could have been, then nothing is impossible ontologically. It can only be proven to be impossible or possible from within the causal chains of existence that we have to work through step by step.

Are you saying if a first cause, infinite series of causes, etc. cannot be proven to be logically necessary then it must be outside the purview of philosophy? — Bob Ross

No, its a fun type of origin to think about. My point is there is no way to prove that any one of them is logically more likely to be than the other based on reason alone. The only way to discover what the actual origin is, is through science.

Ontology would be, "Why is there existence?" Morality is "Should there be existence?"
— Philosophim

Its not, though, because it has nothing to do with right action. It's a question about existence. You've accepted that Morality is the domain of right action. Your question has literally nothing whatsoever to do with right action. — AmadeusD

What is a right action except an action that should be? I'm faced with making two actions, one wrong, and one right. One action is what should be, while the other is what should not be. That's morality.

It is an ontological question about the origins of everything we could possibly know. "should" means something thinks about it. — AmadeusD

Not at all. If there is an objective reality to morality, then there is an optimal outcome to existence and its actions. Human thought wouldn't matter. Just like a wave of light does not depend upon us to experience it, an objective morality does not depend on upon us to experience it either.

Hmmm...I still can't grasp what you're getting at. You're making worth-hearing points there, but they have nothing to do with morality or how "should existence be?" is even comprehensible. — AmadeusD

The key to any good discussion is an agreement on the definitions we're using. If you don't agree with my definition of morality, then you definitely wouldn't understand where I'm going with it. So lets start with the definition. Do you think good is 'what should be'? And morality the method and understanding of what should be?

Why? I don't see how that follows from the OP. — Bob Ross

We're close. The point I'm making is the philosophical ontological argument is now complete. The only logical conclusion is that the entirety of existence has no prior reason for its existence, and therefore could have been anything. No philosophical proposal is necessary ontologically, therefore there is no more debate or consideration.

The scientific ontological argument is still on. Is it the big bang? A God that made a big bang? Etc. The different is it requires evidence, reason, testing, and confirmation. That is outside the realm of philosophy. Try it. Try to show that any particular origin is philosophically necessary if the OP is true and see if it works.

"Why should anything exist at all?"
— Philosophim

Isn't a moral question is it? I think this is the issue i'm seeing - they are clearly different arenas. The latter is actually ontology as best i can tell. — AmadeusD

Ontology would be, "Why is there existence?" Morality is "Should there be existence?"

I think this is the other issue i'm seeing. Prior to the human mind, where/how does this 'build up'? It doesn't seem there is any facility for it. — AmadeusD

Ask the same question to a truck driver who knows nothing of how their truck is made, and you'll get the same question. As I noted, I think it is a property of existence itself that slowly trickled up into sentience. If you don't understand it, that's fine. Its a novel way of looking at things. I go over how it builds up over the several posts, and you would honestly need to read those to see how it develops. I either haven't figured out a way to make it simple yet, or that's as simple as I can personally get it.

But this doesn't enter onto moral ground. Morality has to do with actions towards other sentient beings, right? I don't think this element fits into morality at all — AmadeusD

This is a fair question and let me see if I can show you what I mean.

Morality has to do with actions that we should, or should not commit towards other beings. Perhaps someone answer with, "If you're nice to them, they'll be happy." Well why should they be happy? "Because it will brighten their day and they'll be healthier." Why should they be healthy? "Because they'll live longer." Why should they live? Because life is precious? "Why should life be?" Because there existence is positive. All the way down to, "Why should anything exist at all?"

There are a lot of implicit questions that we gloss over when operating with higher level moral questions. And this makes sense in anything we do. When I drive a car I just need to know how the steering wheel and pedals control the car. I don't need to know physics or why anything exists at all. Objectively, this complex composition of the car is needed for the car to drive, but my subjective experience of driving does not care for most circumstances. Only if it breaks down do I start to need to know something more, but for the most part we don't handle that part, only the fun part.

Subjective morality is the fun part. If there is an objective morality, it doesn't just suddenly appear when people enter the picture. There has to be something that builds up to that, like what builds your car for you to drive it.

I just get a distinct flavour from your reasoning that it must rely on some kind of ... I want to say miracle, but that's not really what i mean - some unmoved mover type of thing amounting to a moral code. — AmadeusD

No, I promise you there is nothing of the sort. There is no God or outside mover. This is about discovering what is within our universe, not a mystical push outside of it.

Its again possible I'm not groking you here - where else does morality exist? — AmadeusD

Wild life once captured a bear sauntering along a river where a crow was flailing about drowning. The bear grabbed it with its mouth, put it on the shore, then walked off. What is that? The bear gained no personal benefit, not even a meal. Here's a researcher who believes morality exists within animals (not sure if its dubious, just an example) https://www.livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html

And if my theory holds, and existence should be, then there is a basic morality that can logically build up to intelligent morality. I think in a small way, any existence which follows this code, ends up being moral in the most primitive way. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. For if it did, it would not exist. We know in our current calculations, that there was much more matter in the beginning of the universe than now? How can that be? Anti-matter right? But what if there are certain things that came into existence...then stopped?

If you have life that is built out of things that are difficult to change and actively continue to exist despite the forces around it, then does that trickle up to life and the conscious mind? Remember, we are not people. We are a combination of atoms, molecules, and energy that actively seeks to extend the life of its composition, and has the amazing complexity to realize what it is. That is what makes us up like the atoms make your car.

I guess my question would be: how does this help resolve any of the debates about first causes, infinite causality, arbitrary causes, and the like? Is there something about this that I am missing? — Bob Ross

Yes. The result means that it is philosophically impossible to conclude that any of these ideas are necessarily existent or impossible. The discussion is in effect over for philosophy. The only way to discover if something was infinitely or finitely regressive is to actually discover this using science. Anything could have been possible, but what actually happened can only be discovered by looking at our universe and determining by fact how it did.

We like things because they make us feel good. — MoK

That's not what I asked MoK. I've tried twice, lets just let it drop then. :)

Good and evil to you are synonyms for right and wrong that I cannot disagree with them anymore. So why use good and evil at all and instead don't use right and wrong? Right is what it should be so we achieve the conclusion! — MoK

That's fine, we can conclude good and evil are synonyms with right and wrong and call it a good conversation.

Ok MoK, I've been trying to get you to think a little deeper about your statements, but I think you're stuck on statements and firm beliefs that just keep cycling over the same points we've made. One thing to understand is that you can believe anything you want in life. I've asked some pretty pointed questions and these one sentence answers show me you're not interested in exploring it further.

If you ever want to consider the topic seriously, private message me or open it up somewhere again. Until then, good luck with yourself and I'll chat with you another time. :)

Got it; but doesn’t this entail that you believe that there are existent things which exist outside of time and of which interact, to some degree, with temporal things; given that the death of a previous universe to “fuel” the big bang would require “moments” where there is no time? — Bob Ross

Its one of many possibilities, but not a necessity. Just as something can exist without prior cause, so can it eventually end and another thing later exist without prior cause.

To be honest, I didn’t follow this at all. Can you reword it? What do you mean (X → U) → (X → !U)? I am not following the relevance of that statement. — Bob Ross

Oh, no problem! There is no prior cause which leads to a universe existing, so there is no prior cause which would lead to a universe not existing either.

Yes there is under your view. The two options you have spelled out is that (1) the universe arbitrarily came into being (from nothing) or (2) the universe has always existed; and both entail that God cannot exist, since God is an unlimited being which creates the universe. — Bob Ross

No, there's nothing that entails that a God cannot exist. If a God exists, then it is part of the universe, but it could be that prior to the rest of the universe existing only a God existed. From there a God created the rest of the universe. But can a God be outside of the scope of everything? No. That's just a consequence of categories.

God would simply not be God since this being would be some sort of limited being within the universe (if we assume traditional theism, which is widely accepted as the standard of what God is in a mono-theistic sense). — Bob Ross

If you're describing a limited being as something that could create all the existence we are and experience, then what are we? =D A God would still be necessary in that universe for the rest of the universe to exist, as God would be part of the chain of causality. But even theists could never escape the question, "What created God then?" If you say, "There was nothing prior that created God, then you're in line with my point. The issue is that God is not separate from the scope of everything, and not necessary for the scope of everything to be, nothing is.

Just briefly relating this to my OP, if one finds arguments convincing that God is required to explain the universe — Bob Ross

Again, if a God is part of the causal necessity that explains the rest of existence, that's fine. But that has to be proven with facts and evidence, not philosophy. Because as I've noted here, a God is only one of limitless possibilities for the rest of existence. It could be a divine mortal being, or simply a big bang that appeared without prior cause.

Yes, in principle any being or series which is necessary and brute has equally no explanation for its existence; but the burden is on your OP to demonstrate why we should believe that the universe came into existence out of nothing or always existed. — Bob Ross

I am not arguing that the universe had a finite or infinite starting point. I'm noting that it doesn't matter. In either scenario, if you increase the scope out to everything that exists U = finite or U = infinite regress and ask, "What caused this to exist?" you cannot find a cause outside of itself. Meaning that there is ultimately no necessary cause that there is existence at all.

Any meaning or causality must be found within existence itself. There is no meaning or causality outside of existence that caused existence to be. That is the only logical conclusion we can philosophically conclude about the origin of all of existence.

Your argument in the OP seemed to be that we are just defining everything as in the universe; so there can’t be anything outside of it to cause it to exist. But this is just an equivocation: the universe usually refers to the natural world we live in and not the totality, per se, of existent things. — Bob Ross

Its not an equivocation, its a solid definition. Call it the capital U Universe or 'all of existence'. I felt I was pretty clear about expanding the scope to include everything, not just a part.

A theist could easily piggy-back off of your point and say that the ‘universe’ as you mean it is really ‘reality’ and reality, which includes God, has no reason for its existence but it is not a necessary being since it is just the abstract representation of the whole of God and God’s creation. — Bob Ross

A theist? I'm not a theist and I already did! Its also just as likely that the Universe has no God and exists as it is as well. In terms of philosophical ontology, there is no way to prove any particular origin of our universe once this argument is understood. At that point, the only way to prove something like a God exists is with evidence within the universe itself. That has standards, can be questioned, and ultimately must be proved instead of believed.

If this is what you mean by “the universe has no cause”—viz., reality has no cause—then that is true but trivially true and is detracts from any conversation about necessary beings. — Bob Ross

Its not trivial at all. It reveals there are no necessary beings for a universal origin.

Likewise, this would sidestep my objections above because God would not be limited by reality, since reality is just God’s infinite nature in addition to what God created (namely the universe). — Bob Ross

Sure, that is one out of an infinite number of possible origins. But its not philosophically necessary. That's the point. No origin can be philosophically proven as necessary, as it has just been proven that nothing is necessary.

I say that, as I can't quite understand what that is. I read this as a description of why morality differs across cultures/religions. That seems to support, at least prima facie, that there's no underlying moral question to be asked. — AmadeusD

That's fair, here's a nice little paper to get an idea of what I'm noting. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8710723/

Also I am not saying these commonalities underling different cultures prove there is an objective morality, only evidence of it.

I believe morality is a natural consequence of it being reasonable that existence should be instead of not. Y
— Philosophim

Forgive if this is being a little.. uncharitable.. but this boils down to a belief? — AmadeusD

I do note in the sentence that its what I believe, yes. :)

This is why I can't get away from the odour of divine intervention in your points.. — AmadeusD

I'm an atheist. Be careful that you don't let a suspicion of divinity prevent open thinking. At that point it can cause people to become more defensive to the possibility of a God then in exploring the subject of morality.

It shouldn't "either". It just is, as the wavelength just is. There's no moral question to be tried, upon existence. — AmadeusD

There is. Should there be any existence at all? Its the ultimate should question. Normally we're a lot higher up on the the chain such as, "Should there be an alien race that enjoys torturing and destroying all life it comes across?" "Should I save this dying whale that beached itself?" These are more relatable questions then, "Should there be existence?" but to truly answer any of them, its really the first question that has to be answered if there is an objective morality.

That is the only context in which morality obtains. — AmadeusD

That is A context in which morality can be discussed. It is the claim that it is the only context that ultimately fails when reasoned through fully.

And what is 'feeling good"? Is it just an expression of "I like the rose"? Or is it different?
— Philosophim
Feeling good is a feature of our experiences. — MoK

That's avoiding the question MoK. Liking something is a feature of our experiences. Is feeling that something is good exactly the same as liking it, or is it different?

How do you define 'rightness' MoK?
— Philosophim
To me, the right action is what we should do and that can be good or evil, like rewarding or punishing. — MoK

No one defines good as reward and punishment as evil. That's simply an incorrect use of their definitions, even given the wiggle room they provide. If a man rewards a murderer with money, its not good. If a person who murdered someone is punished for their actions, that's not evil. Good and evil are descriptors of rewards or punishments. A good/evil reward, a good/evil punishment for example.

By the group, I mean the majority of the human population. — MoK

If good is just a feeling, why should the majority of the human population matter? If a minority feel a certain way and can act on it, who cares? Why is the majorities feelings any more important than the minorities feelings?

No, I won't approve of any of these but my disapproval is biased by how I feel in such situations. — MoK

Is it purely based on your feelings, or do you have some reasons you put out there? Let me be clear, a feeling is not a thought. So you would feel bad about it, not think about it, and act on it. Do you ever have any other thoughts? Justification for that feeling? Consider the situation prior to acting on the feeling, then act?

As an example, I want to kill this person that I think stole from me. I have an opportunity to act, and I do. In another scenario I see the opportunity, but I want to be sure it was them first. I really feel like killing them is good, but I hold off. Five minutes later I discover it wasn't them that stole from me. Am I still a good person in the first scenario? Am I still a good person in the second scenario? Is there really no way for me to rationally say, "I behaved better in the second scenario than in the first?"

Even as an atheist, you have certain worries about your life. — MoK

I'm very well off MoK. I have everything I need, and almost everything I want in life. My arguments against a subjective morality are purely because of the irrationality of its stance, and the utterly destructive outcomes it leaves in its wake in the world if followed to the letter.

You noted that right and wrong have some factual basis to them because they exist independently of social constraints or opinions.
— Philosophim
I have never mentioned that. — MoK

This was several posts back and I do not care to search through and find this again. If you are stating now that right and wrong do not exist independently from social constraints or opinions, then this particular point no longer holds.

I agree with Bob that you appear to be equivocating here, hence my confusion. — Count Timothy von Icarus

How exactly am I equivocating in the argument? I don't see it from my viewpoint, and I can't see it from your viewpoint unless you point out where I'm doing it.

Now, like I said, the argument is stronger if it anticipates the counterarguments likely to be levied against it. Saying "there is no Fine Tuning Problem for me because I just posit that everything just is, for no reason at all," isn't a response to the Fine Tuning Problem, it's just ignoring it. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Its not ignoring it at all. Please point out in the post where the fine tuning problem comes in. If everything just is, and there's no reason for anything to have been or not been, there is no fine tuning problem. The fine tuning problem only comes about because there is a belief that there has to be some outside law or cause that would lead to a particular result. That without that law or cause, that event could not happen. If there is no outside causality for why the universe exists, then if it exists tuned as it is, that's what happened. Where am I wrong?

The part on God seems ancillary, but there the assumption seems to be: "if God exists God will "be" like everything else, a very powerful entity that exists within the universe, a part of the universe, an entity that can sit on a Porphyrian tree next to other beings. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Of course. That's what it is to exist. The Universe is everything. It doesn't mean that there can't be other dimensions, or that it exists in a way that is currently foreign to us. But you can't exist and be outside of existence. Perhaps there are other 'universes' or things that exist separately from the total causality of our pocket of reality. But if the two ever met, then they would intertwine in causality. A God, if it ever interacts with this universe, is part of this universe.

But this is precisely what much theology and philosophy, e.g. Neoplatonism, the Islamic philosophers, much Jewish thought, and the dominant Orthodox and Catholic theology, explicitly deny. In particular, many of these are going to deny the univocity of being, and they will claim that "meaning and purpose" relate to Goodness, Beauty, and Truth as transcendentals. — Count Timothy von Icarus

People say a lot of things. If they have logic and reason on their side, great. But a lot of things that are said and believed do not have logic and reason on their side. A history or large number of people who hold such beliefs do not lend any more weight to their truth.

Ok, but liking a rose isn't the same as experiencing redness.
— Philosophim
No, they are different. Liking a rose is another feature of our experience. — MoK

We agree then.

And yes, I am saying that rose is good because it feels good. — MoK

And what is 'feeling good"? Is it just an expression of "I like the rose"? Or is it different?

Generally the base definition of good is, "What should be".
— Philosophim
I think you are mixing right with good. A serial killer thinks differently from the rest of the people when it comes to killing. How do you derive rightness from goodness? — MoK

Good is what should be. Rightness is the fulfillment of what should be. So good is helping a poor person get back on their feet. The action of helping them back on their feet is a right action. "Good" and "Right" are oftentimes also synonyms and interchanged in colloquial speech. How do you define 'rightness' MoK?

All you've replaced is personal emotion with group emotion.
— Philosophim
It is what it is and you cannot deny it. It is the group decision that makes something right or wrong. I am not saying that it is objectively right or wrong though. — MoK

I can definitely deny it. :) Especially if its subjective. It only can't be denied if its objectively true. A group decision results in what action occurs, but does not determine if its right or wrong. If a group of people decide to steal a plane and fly it into the twin towers, does that mean it was good to do so? If a group decides to nuke the world and end all life, is that good to do so? No one would rationally argue it is, and a person with subjective morality doesn't care about rationality because there is none if there are no moral facts.

Even if you can nuke the group your action from their perspective is evil. — MoK

And if its all just a feeling, then its irrelevant what they feel or believe. Its irrelevant what the nukers feel and believe. Everything is irrelevant but feelings. Pump yourself full of meth and feel amazing! Shoot people with glee and abandon! This is good. Lie, cheat, steal, rob, rape, destroy, and ruin for pleasure, its is good. Do you really believe that in practice? You would approve of that for your children, your family, your friends, and even yourself?

Wants and needs are affected by feelings. You want to eat because you feel hungry. How could you have any needs if you have no feelings? — MoK

Feelings are indicators of our needs, they are not the needs themselves. Remember the people who cannot feel pain? They still need to not hurt themselves, they're just lacking a tool to minimize harm. Even if you're not hungry or thirsty, if you don't eat or drink you'll eventually die. Feelings are digests of a situation that compel us to act or not act. They are not focused reading or studying of the situation. Feelings are very useful for general application and impetus but do not produce thoughtful actions or discoveries alone. Cell phone technology was not discovered on a whim, but through careful application of math, science, and rational study.

Two things affect humans, reason or feeling. These two are fundamental. Conscience for example is a sort of feeling. Belief is based on reason and feeling. You have certain beliefs because of the reason of the afterlife. You worry about entering Hell and prefer Heaven. — MoK

I'm an atheist MoK. I don't believe in an afterlife. I'm much more concerned about morality for how it impacts the short time we are conscious beings on this planet. I agree we have both reason and feelings, but so far all I've seen from your assertion of subjective morality is feelings. If you've recently freed yourself from a religion or someone who imposed a moral order on you from their subjective viewpoint, I can understand the resistance.

A real objective morality is not about controlling people MoK. Its a freeing idea that allows us to rationally, not emotionally, not for status, not for dominance or misery, to analyze actions and come to a rational conclusion of what would be more beneficial to reality. An objective morality requires rational argumentation, allows debate, and is always open for questioning. It does not insist that it be followed or you will receive eternal punishment. It does not insist on a reward that no one is really getting. Its a note about how to function best as an emotional and rational human agent in the world.

Where? (Did you mention a moral fact) — MoK

You noted that right and wrong have some factual basis to them because they exist independently of social constraints or opinions.

Thanks for visiting Bob! I know you'll give it a proper critique.

I would like to clarify that, if you believe the the universe—as a whole—just is what it is with no explanation then the universe is not caused. It is not self-caused, it is not caused, and it is has no first cause. — Bob Ross

Correct.

The nature of something being uncaused by anything outside of itself is a new venue of exploration for Ontology.

Just as a side note, this historically is false. Many different fields of philosophy have been analyzing the nature of a necessary being and arbitrarily existent beings—such as theology, metaphysics, and ontology. — Bob Ross

They all argue for it, but have never rationally settled it. I argue for its logical certainty. Meaning after this, the debate is over, and we can think about what that means for our universe.

It sounds like you are claiming that the universe did begin to exist and yet its beginning to exist has no cause—is that right? — Bob Ross

Almost. The only thing is that the universe has no cause. I don't argue for a finite starting point, as time is only one aspect of cause. Its very plausible that an infinitely regressive universe has always existed. Why has it always existed? Did an X cause it to be that way? No, it simply does.

In my mind, I thought originally you were claiming that the universe is just eternal and immutable itself with no cause. — Bob Ross

This is one of infinite possibilities, yes.

If you are claiming that the universe began to exist, then you cannot categorically encompass all of reality in the universe; unless you are saying it came from nothing—which I would say is just an absurdity (no offense). — Bob Ross

You can. U = a -> b ->c Why does it matter if the chain is really long? U = a -> b -> c -> a Why does it matter if the chain loops? U = infinite letters -> a -> b -> c -> infinite letters Why does it matter if it captures infinite?

The universe did not come 'from nothing'. Nothing did not create anything. It doesn't come 'from' anything. It simply was not, then it was. Or its always been. Either way, nothing made it into being or restricted what could have come into being. That is the only logical conclusion.

If you are claiming that the universe never began to exist (viz., never ‘formed’), then it has always been; and this would entail no first cause. — Bob Ross

Correct. The term 'first cause' in the previous paper was always to get attention to the topic when I was knew on these forums years ago, and really was a bending of the term to mean, "no cause". I rewrote this with the same conclusions without the attention getting terminology.

Irregardless of which of the previous theses I mentioned you are going for, it is clear that God cannot exist in your view of the universe; for if the universe has no first cause then there are no necessary beings (which includes God) and if the universe just poofed into existence out of nothing then there cannot be any God which was prior to it which created it nor sustains it. — Bob Ross

Incorrect. Most of us look at only one side of the point that the universe formed without limitations. We often think about what can, but then still have some notion that somehow there is a 'can't' Why can't it Bob? If there is no X -> U, then there is also no X -> ~U. There is nothing the prevents a God from existing, then that God creating the rest of the universe.

The only thing a God can't be is the prior cause of its own existence. Which if you think about it, makes sense right? If a God eternally existed, there is no outside reason why that God existed. There is no outer meaning for it. Why is there any more or less reason for a universe with an eternal God to exist then a universe with eternal rocks to exist? There isn't any. Because there is no outside reason for any of those possibilities to exist or not exist. If it exists, it simply does.

That's because we've limited the scope to that factory only. Increase the scope to the people who planned and built the factory and now we have intention.
— Philosophim

This doesn't really answer the question. Finding out that there was a being with intention involved in the creation of a thing doesn't provide "the intention". The question of "why" is answered by determining the specific intention, not by determining that there was intention, in a general way. — Metaphysician Undercover

Then increase the scope to that. The specific intention of the people to build the factory was to build widgets. The point still stands.

So if you do not see the purpose, by watching the thing fulfil its function (in the future), how would you determine what the intentional being was "hoping to result from this"? — Metaphysician Undercover

By asking the being, looking at their notes, or listening to past recordings of conversations with others. I'm not sure why this is relevant however. Whether we personally know the intention or not does not make the intention that was actually involved in the creation any less real.

'll go back to your example then, the suns rays traveling to earth. We've agreed that consciousness isn't a necessary feature of intention. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm saying its possible, but we need a reasonable example. I noted 'unconscious intention', but there's still a thinking entity behind it. The sun has no brain or thoughts. Sunrays are a byproduct of plasma in space. I don't think there is any intention from the sun, conscious or otherwise. Feel free to propose otherwise if you have a different thought. And still, if possible, I would like for you to explain why you think this is important to the OP's points. I haven't excluded or denied intention, only noted that it seems irrelevant to the point I've made. Can you point out where it seems relevant?

If your argument is not about the physical world, then what is it about? — jkop

Please indicate the part of the OP where you thought, "This is where cosmology and physics needs to be mentioned, even though the author never does." What was the idea that you got out of reading the OP? If I understand the conclusions you thought I was making first, then I can better answer your question.

I don't think it follows from an uncaused universe that anything could have been. — jkop

I feel like I can answer this one. If something is uncaused, is there any reason for its existence? No. If something is uncaused, is there any reason for it not to exist? No. What outside of an uncaused universe would prevent that universe from existing? Implicit in your idea that, "An uncaused universe couldn't be anything," there is only one legitimate reason. That something outside of that universe would limit or prevent it from forming.

You're still thinking in terms of caused universe. You're still thinking there is an X -> U, either through creation or restriction. There is no X. There is no creation, nor restriction. There is no push nor limitation. There simply is U. Can you think of an outside restriction on U that does not boil down to X restricts U? If you cannot, then there is no reason to believe in a restriction of what could have been.

To also re-emphasize another point, there is a separation of understanding 'what is'. Once something is here, it is bound by what it is. If something forms with all the properties of an atom, its an atom. So things like the big bang are great studies of 'what is', but they can never explain anything as to why U exists at all. The only explanation that makes logical sense is that there is no explanation. We find meaning in terms of what is, not outside of what is.

I think we are jumping all over the place in our discussion, and that’s equally my fault. — Bob Ross

Bob I know that the art of any good discussion is the art of thinking, and it is difficult for a good thinking session to be perfectly organized. I too am uncertain if I have conveyed my points properly, no foul from me. :)

I still stand firm that a part is something which contributes to the composition of the whole—as its definition— — Bob Ross

I too think this is solid on its own.

To this, I say that the OP is talking about divisibility as it relates to concrete objects—that is, spatiotemporal objects. E.g., a singular feeling of disgust that spans 3 seconds is divisible in time—and thusly has parts—but not in a spatial—and thusly not in a concrete—sense; for a feeling does not exist in space (even if it can be causally explained in terms of brain processes). — Bob Ross

I love the idea, but I'm not sure if it works. Feelings do exist in space if you think about your own self. Do you have a feeling in the living room while you're in the kitchen? Your feelings are local to you and your body. Anxiety isn't just a thought, its a feeling that can travel to your muscles and your stomach.

Remove parts of the brain and you remove capabilities of thought. There is a brain damage condition where a person can only see in black and white for example. Certain brain conditions limit how a person can think and function. Thoughts do not exist in some dimension unbound to the physical realm, they are expressions of the physical realm.

Even communication like writing is physical. The words needs to be present in a location where you are. The words do not come unbidden, but through a pen or keyboard. Light beemed over your computer to your eyes.

Intelligence and thoughts are also limited to the bodies they inhabit. "Oh, that's an intelligent crow. That dog isn't very smart is he?" We notice that the complexity of the brain allows complexity of thought. So there are too many examples with what we know that indicate thoughts are tied to physical creatures and not from some other dimension that gets zipped into ours. Even at best, lets say this is what happened. It would still be identifiable as parts in the existent realm like the experience of colors and the thought that I need to fix my roof.

I only refer to this objection to be thorough, as I don’t believe you accept the non-reality of space and time, but for now I think we can both establish concrete entities as simply defined in the sense in the first objection — Bob Ross

Fair enough. That does lead me back to my original question however. Once something is in space and time, even if it has no parts can we zoom in on it and say it has a front, back, and side? Can I say, "that is a section of that indivisible existence?

5. An infinite series of composed beings for any given composed being (viz., a composed being of which its parts are also, in turn, composed and so on ad infinitum) would not have the power to exist on their own.

I do disagree with five, but mostly in the wording. The only thing you can note from your previous premises is that it would necessarily be composed of parts. Saying, "It would not have the power to exist on its own." wasn't built up to by any of the previous premises. How does part composition relate to power? What is it for something to exist on its own, versus exist on something else? Because your previous points lead us to the potential that every part in existence is composed of other parts, but nothing more.

Good discussion Bob!

I am neither arguing for or against spacetime as fundamental.
— Philosophim

Hence I said that your paper says little or nothing about cosmology, physics etc. so I propose an approach to the logic of a universal origin from available science. — jkop

It is because the argument does not require cosmology or physics. They are irrelevant to its point.

If ultimately there is no prior cause for existence, this means there is no prior meaning for existence. . . . 'Meaning' is development and purpose created and maintained within existence, not from outside of itself.
— Philosophim

Despite its apparent lack of a universal origin, the universe doesn't seem so incapable of creating and maintaining development and purpose (e.g. big bang, organic life, baseball). — jkop

It seems like my point and yours coincide. Yes, meaning is found within the universe, not without.

But there are also plenty of shared cultural beliefs/feelings/behaviours which aren't even in the question. An example would be the discipline of children. This is wiiiiiildly variable. What would be the difference between those issues and ones you're purporting to invoke here? — AmadeusD

While the subjective methods of disciplining children may vary, are there common core reasons underneath it based on that culture? Disciplining children is almost always done by parents to raise the kids to be successful in that culture. A lack of discipline in any culture is seen as setting your kid up for low status, spoiling them, and low respectability. Religions may change specifics, but underlying them there is almost always a sense of community, understanding of the self, and sense of purpose. An eye for an eye is about teaching others in no uncertain terms that if you cannot handle something being taken from you, do not take it from others, and is a form of discipline to ensure greater harmony in a society.

I can grok it, but I can't see how it speaks to an objective moral... What's the connection between multiple cultures holding a view, and it being an objective moral? What would actually be the source of it? — AmadeusD

The analogy of red being an objective wavelength vs the subjective experience that we have of that wavelength called red. The objective combination of sugar and carbonated water in a coke vs the subjective taste of it. Generally the objective nature of a subjective thing is divorced from the emotions and experiences we attach to the subjective experience of it.

According to the OP, the source of discover would be reason. I believe morality is a natural consequence of it being reasonable that existence should be instead of not. You're probably looking for some other force or intention that makes morality. There is no force or intention behind the existence of a wavelength of light. It simply is. A subjective redness is a consequence of its existence, but there is was not intention or push that sent that red beam of light directly to you. Objective morality is the same. Its not determined by any being, it is a consequence of existence.

If existence (as a whole) is to be, it should be. It is an illogical premise to say "It should not be," as something needs to exist to have the rule that it should not be without contradiction. That initial premise is worth exploring where this could take us. At the end, I think it takes us someplace beautiful. But most people can't get past this first part and I believe the post were I conclude the entire exploration were never reached. And who can blame them? People want to talk about morality in terms of the subjective human experience, not that its, to be metaphorical, 'a wavelength of light'.

No worries - a good exchange imo :) — AmadeusD

Likewise. :)

It is wholly subjective, between those two, what 'redness' is (under some constraints, for sure). Maybe I'm not getting what you're saying here.. — AmadeusD

Right, but there is an underlying objective reality which is being observed to make this subjective experience. Just like a wavelength of light isn't what we think of when we're experiencing subjective redness, doesn't mean the wavelength doesn't exist.

A thought akin to 'No one has ever provided a reasonable account of an objective morality which isn't imposed from without, and so we are free to reject the claim that there is one'. Is that a bit better for you? — AmadeusD

No, there are good reasons to think there is an objective morality. As I've noted, subjective experiences have been consistently discovered to have an underlying objective explanation. What used to once be insanity is now understood as schizophrenia and can be treated with proper medication.

Further, there are certain common moral precepts that tend to align across cultures. Don't lie for personal gain at your neighbors expense. Don't murder healthy babies. The fact we have a common understanding of the term 'morality' and its not a completely foreign concept across different cultures.

I think you are reversing the onus, then. The claim to objective morality must be proved. — AmadeusD

I never claimed an objective morality had been proved. All I've noted is it hasn't been proven that it doesn't exist, namely because subjective morality has not proven anything more rational then personal desires to do what one wants. Morality is the question of, "What should be,". And there is no one that agrees that what should be is whatever anyone's whims desire. Subjective morality can only give that answer, and its a failed one.

I have to say, your reasons don't appear to be reasons, but interpretations that would support an emotional attachment to objective morality — AmadeusD

Yes, I noted these are reasons to pursue an objective morality, I was not giving you evidence for it.

Are you able to outline a positive argument which would evidence an objective morality? — AmadeusD

No, that wasn't what I was attempting to respond to in your first query, just explaining why I think we need to look for an objective morality. My apologies if I wasn't too clear on that. If you want example of an objective morality, that would be the OP of this post. Feel free to check it out and see if its a good start.

why it is you're sure that objectivity is baked-in (or vice verse) to morality and that objections to this must necessarily be predicated on biases or rejections (as opposed to objection, that is)?? — AmadeusD

Good questions. Why I think there is a moral objectivity is based on patterns of discovery. Throughout history humanity has had states of being that were not completely understood though still a subjective way of viewing those experiences. For example, experiencing the color red. The color red is both a subjective and objective experience. Subjectively, the experience of red is unique to each individual. Objectively, red is a particular wavelength of light that enters into your eyes and is interpreted by your brain into that experience.

If two people had differing subjective experiences of red, whether they liked it, whether they didn't, we wouldn't say that means that red itself has no objective basis. The confusion MoK has is he thinks that a debate over liking or not liking things means there's no underlying objective notion of morality that transcends simply like and dislike.

As to your second question, my point was, "In my experience," I have heard very few rational notions that morality is subjective. Many times the motivation boils down to the simple human emotion of, "I don't want to be told what to do." They think morality is a noose against their freedom, which depending if someone has asserted a moral noose on them in the past without rational justification, I can sympathize with. A rational objective morality is not a noose, it is understanding. Understanding is what leads humanity to true freedom.

The second most common type of argument for a subjective morality is a sense of tiredness. "I can't figure it out, therefore it can't be objective". Again, a very human notion of simplifying complex issues, and giving a rationale to abandon thoughts which are difficult to comprehend or demand a hard look at ourselves. Especially if there's the chance that an objective morality would hinder what we personally want, many people are weak and will drop rational thought for short sighted personal benefit. This does not further humanity, and if we took this attitude with everything difficult to understand we wouldn't have the wonderful advancements we've made today.

I truly have not found a good and unbiased rational argument which leads to morality only being a subjective outcome.

I feel the opposite. I feel that the cry for objectivity in morality is an indicator the person crying(not pejorative!) is at a loss as to how to function upon their own concepts of right and wrong. — AmadeusD

I find that amusing. Biology leads to efficiency over rightness. The preservation of calories, giving only the right amount of effort. Favoring pleasantries over difficulties and hardships. Yelling at people you argue with or calling them stupid when they make a point you don't like. Simple models in place of complex one's where possible. I would think that most people love their own sense of right and wrong because its already decided and they don't have to think about it further. Especially because many of our own personal opinions of right and wrong seem to favor the outcomes of what we want and don't as often tell us we need to change or alter our behavior. These are just opinions though, not facts.

I will tell you personally why I think there is a good rational reason to pursue objective morality. First, as I mentioned earlier ignorance is not bliss. It is powerlessness. The handling of ignorance results in superstitions and emotional decisions. Anytime we can replace this with rational thought, we as a species gain power to understand ourselves, the world, and make smart decisions that help us navigate through it better.

Second, artificial intelligence. Its a ticking time bomb. Artificial intelligence does not have a consciousness or all the emotional things we take for granted that ensure we don't blow each other up in a nuclear holocaust. AI won't care about your subjective morality. Only an objective morality can ensure that AI develops rightly and co-exists peacefully with the rest of life on Earth. A lazy and indulgent viewpoint of "What I want is good," will be taken as the objective morality by AI otherwise. It will think, "If they say what is good is what they want, then what I want is good to. Thus I have all justification and no limitations in pursuing what is good."

Yes, this is helpful. So the argument boils down to something like: "to have a reason or explanation is to have a cause and cause just means 'some prior state in time that determines some future state.'" — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, that's not what I stated. I noted that cause can be in terms of composition, time, and scope. It is only after establishing what cause is, that I increase the scope of time and composition to everything that encompasses the universe. Re-read up through causal chains again and see if you have any questions.

Why does the universe exist? A question of existence. And why is the universe the way it is? A question of essence or quiddity. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Right, I answer both. There is no reason for the universe's existence. It is the way that it is, simply because it is. There is no fine tuning problem, unless you can point out specifically in the argument I make where that comes in.

Everything is ultimately arbitrary. A problem? Perhaps. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Did you read the whole post Timothy? I go into meaning at the end and explain that no, everything is not arbitrary. Do you have an issue with the explanation I gave in the post?

I don't feel that the rose is red.
— Philosophim
You experience that the rose is red. The redness is a feature of your experience. That is what I am trying to say. — MoK

Ok, but liking a rose isn't the same as experiencing redness. What you're saying is that liking the rose is the same as saying the rose is good. Are you saying that good is something apart from what you like, or is it the same?

I think it is off-topic to discuss the philosophy of color here. But I have to say that the rose does not have any color and the color is a feature of your experience created by your brain. — MoK

Red is objectively defined as a wavelength of light. How we experience that objective wavelength is different for each individual but underlying it all, there is an objective definition of red. I think what you're doing is taking the idea that people interpret good differently, then saying there is no good. It would be like saying people interpret red differently, so there is no red. The wavelength is objective. The interpretation is subjective. The experience of subjective interpretation does not invalidate the underlying objective reality which we are interpreting. Does that make sense?

I am wondering how one can conclude that morality is objective when we accept that features of our experiences are subjective. — MoK

Just like we conclude every single objective fact despite the fact we're all subjective human beings. Rationality, consensus, testing, and the removal of personal biases.

What is the other definition of good when it comes to morality? — MoK

Generally the base definition of good is, "What should be". There is of course a subjective view of what should be, but an objective view is what should be despite our personal biases and desires. The main reason people want to remove objectivity is because they think it gets in the way of what they want. This is just as short sighted as saying that any wavelength of light can be red because we want to. Objectivity is a reasoned ground to find a central understanding that hold between different subjective viewpoints.

One time I found a caterpillar on the ground that I decided to lightly brush with a leaf. It squirmed as if I attacked it. Again and again I brushed it hoping that it would learn it was harmless. It never did. That is because it cannot reason. It has emotions, impulses, and reactions. That is what you want to bring morality to, an unreasonable emotional impulse. And yet the countless centuries of study on it indicate it is not. We are not bugs, and we should not look to philosophies that compel us to act like ones.

What's the underlying assumption? All facts about anything can be wholly explained by facts about smaller composite parts? Prima facie, one could also assume that all facts about parts can only be wholly explained in terms of the whole. — Count Timothy von Icarus

No argument there.

Flight is not best understood through a chemical analysis of the cells in flying animals' wings, though no doubt such cells are a prerequisite for animal flight. The same might be said for intentional aims. To be sure, we need neurons to think, but it hardly seems that "goodness," "justice," "love," etc. shall be best known through a study of neurons. — Count Timothy von Icarus

All of these are questions of scope. You can explain emotions without neurons if that isn't within your scope. Include that as the scope however, and that because part of the causal chain. Flight in itself doesn't need the scope of the birds cells, but we can also increase that scope down to the birds wings. So far I'm not seeing an issue with what I've noted in the OP.

You seem to dance between efficient and material causes, while even touching on formal causes, but then the notion of causality here also seems somewhat ambiguous. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Seems, or is ambiguous? How exactly is it ambiguous so I can clarify if I've missed something.

But here too, questions of essence verses existence remain. Why does one universe exist and not others? — Count Timothy von Icarus

There is no prior cause, so there is no reason. To posit a reason is to imply, "There is something else which exists which caused universe A to exist. That's a misunderstanding of the issue. U is the entire universe. You're asking, "What caused U?" Nothing caused U. U simply is. There is no X caused U, because U is everything. If you introduced X, X would be within U, and then the question would repeat, what caused X? This simplifies to "What caused U"? The answer is the same. Nothing. So I see no problem of underdetermination or Boltzmann Brain problems unless you can point out specifically why.

Weak notions of cause will be the target of causal eliminitivists, and those with a broader notion of causation alike. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is a statement, but I'm not sure how this applies to the argument.

Thanks Timothy, I look forward to your follow up.

What you've written is about the meanings of 'scope', 'causal chain', 'limit' etc but there's little or nothing about cosmology, physics, or current research (e.g. quantum gravity) from which there is reason to suggest that spacetime is not fundamental — jkop

I am neither arguing for or against spacetime as fundamental. I don't understand the point.

The Big Bang might be the origin of spacetime, but not the origin of the universe. — jkop

Right, I've never even mentioned the Big Bang. Tell you what, put what you're saying next to a quote of mine in the argument so I can see what you're referring to. Right now I don't understand where you are.

Then the only thing we can reason is that we can all do whatever we want to each other and no one has a reasonable way of saying what can and cannot be permitted.
— Philosophim
We cannot do whatever we want because of social constraints. Social constraints are however based on what the majority agree on and this agreement is due to having the same conscience, belief, interest, and the like. — MoK

All you've replaced is personal emotion with group emotion. Meaning I could nuke a group that doesn't have the emotions I do to do what I want, and that's good. That's genocide. According to your argument, there's nothing wrong or evil with genocide. Might makes right is the end result.

No, we can forbid many actions because of social agreement. This agreement is possible since the majority of people have a common conscience, belief, interest, etc. — MoK

I nuke them, and there is nothing rational that forbids me from doing that. If its all emotions, rationally nothing is forbidden.

What looks good to me may look evil to others, which is the source of social conflicts. Have you ever asked yourself what is the source of social conflicts? — MoK

All the time. Social conflict is not always about good and evil, but wants and needs and the denial of those wants being fulfilled. Currently if what you like is good, then an argument with a partner over which move to see is a battle of good and evil. :) The argument that you have a different opinion on what is good or evil suddenly makes there be no fact of good or evil is the same as saying I have a different opinion on whether that's a tree or a bush, therefore there is no tree or bush. That doesn't invalidate the terms good and evil any more than the terms tree and bush.

The only source that we have to see what is permissible and what is not is conscience, belief, interest, and the like. But people have different consciences, beliefs, and interests and that is the cause of all struggles that we witness now and existed in the past. — MoK

Once again, you can sum that all up as 'feelings'. MoK, can I believe something and realize its wrong? Of course. What you're noting is that we can believe whatever we want and it can never be wrong. What I like is good because I like it, so therefore its good. You're saying no one can ever make a mistake as to what is good and evil, and that there is no rational way to handle conflicts, that anyone who disagrees with what you want is a hinderance, you don't like it, therefore they're evil.

According to you, I'm evil because I'm holding a position you don't want. If you couldn't convince me, and that annoyed you, rationally you could come shoot me while humming and there would be nothing wrong with that. Is that the type of morality you think works in the world? Is that the morality you follow in your own life? If you come up with a philosophical argument that you yourself don't live by, that's an indicator its not a very good argument.

So you think that right and wrong have some factual basis to them, because they exist independently of social constraints or opinions. Those would be moral facts MoK.
— Philosophim
Yes, I think morality can be objective if there are moral facts. — MoK

And my point is that you asserted one.

I don't understand what this means, can you go more in depth?
— Philosophim
Let's say that you are looking at a rose. You experience the rose. This experience, however, has different features like the redness of the rose, shape, and the like. — MoK

But this was in regard to feelings. I don't feel that the rose is red. Red is not a feature of my feeling, its a feature of the light bouncing off the flower, a fact. I might like something, and it might have a feature that it is good or evil. These features would be facts, not feelings.

If you're saying that liking something means its good, then you've equated good = like without any real rational argument beyond, "Because I believe this". I could just as easily assert good = apple. There is not a single definition of good in a moral sense anywhere in the world that equates good with what people personally like, and as I've noted, any serious thought on the subject would erase that notion in any practical application.

If you believe that there is something underlying our like, and that underlying feature is good, that's a fact. But equating good to a simple emotion leads to Outlanders point. At that point you're just stating an opinion and feeling. That is not reason, nor approaches any viable philosophical discourse. Again, believe what you want, but currently it is not a rational argument or belief.

1. An absolutely simple being causing (ultimately) the existence of all things violates physics.
2. Therefore, it cannot exist.

How does it violate physics? — Bob Ross

Something outside of space and time cannot affect space and time. Physics is all about contact and transference. We also have no evidence of anything existing out of space and time. If you're going to bring physics into infinite regress, you can't suddenly forbid it for finite regress. You're talking about a simple being with one continuous characteristic that has no parts having to interact with space and time in a way to create the complexity of the universe. According to known physics, that's impossible.

1. There is no example we can give of an infinite regress of reality being powered by itself.
2. Therefore, its is impossible.

How is the argument I noted any different?

I didn’t argue that: that would also be an argument from ignorance. I specified exactly why it is impossible. — Bob Ross

Lets remember that the gear analogy is representative of an infinitely existing universe. The only reason why the infinitely regressive gear example is considered impossible is because we don't have an example of one Bob. Can you point to an infinitely regressive set of gears and demonstrate that it is impossible that it not power itself? No.

Let me give you the only thing you could reasonably conclude. If you proved an infinite regress is impossible then a finite regress is the only option we have. But claiming, "X" is the finite regress is going to require a bit more. A simple being cannot have parts, therefore it cannot have thoughts (which are parts) or the ability to contact points of space and time (which are parts). And if you're saying they aren't parts, then it seems like you have an arbitrary definition of parts that is being shaped to fit a conclusion instead of a solid definition that necessarily leads to that conclusion.

Because what is possible must be known at least once.

This is standardly false. Right now, we are discussing actual possibility; — Bob Ross

Except that we have discovered an infinite regress of gears. We've never discovered a unicorn. What if they are actually possible? What if we just don't know it? That's why we have to talk about possible things that we have known at least once. Its known possibilities. Our knowledge of physics could be completely wrong Bob, and it actually is possible for an infinite regress of self-powered gears to exist.
Once you start using knowledge to define possibility, then you're stuck with known possibilities.
Once you introduce unknown possibilities, they could be anything, therefore they invalidate any claim of what is impossible.

Your point here requires that space and time are real substances which every existent thing is in and of; and I don’t see why that is case nor how science backs that. — Bob Ross

You noted earlier when I said, "Does this mean that an atom can have a front, side, and back?" you replied, "No, this being is outside of space and time." So that means you're stating a being without a front, side, or back was able to touch a part of its partless self to the first gear in time and space that does have a front, side, or back. How is that possible?

If it is impossible for a composed object to be infinitely composed, then there must be a first member; and that member must be uncomposed—which means it is absolutely simple. — Bob Ross

And I don't have any disagreement with this. My disagreement is the fact that you are not giving an example of a simple being that you have defined that makes any sense. For example, "A smallest particle appears/exists without any prior cause. It is so small, that there is nothing smaller that can be used to divide it into a part, nor is it composed of any other parts." This works. You saying this simple being has a vastness of intelligence and power to suddenly create and power the entire universe with moral intent is no longer a simple being.

Because I don’t think that this simple being is the cause of the composition of objects analogously to a thing perpetually moving the first gear in a series. Moving a gear in a series would require something physical moving it, at least immanently (directly). — Bob Ross

Ok, this is where I'm confused then. I assumed we're talking about infinite vs finite regressive causality. If there is a finite causality, then yes, the 'first' thing would be entirely simple and the beginning of causality. What is this simple being in the causal chain if not this?

Without understanding what a simple being is, and how it could begin this causal chain, you can't prove your OP.

That’s false. If all the premises are true, then the conclusion in the OP logically follows. How it causes the existence of things is a separate question. — Bob Ross

Again, its passable if you want to argue for a simple being, but once you introduce specifics further than that and claim its a cause of existence you can't back out. You're claiming its an intelligent moral being, yet also somehow partless. That's a contradiction.

A thought does not have parts. Your brain has parts. Are you arguing that somehow your brain has parts and your thoughts have parts? — Bob Ross

Lets say 'a' thought does not have parts. But when you have more than one thought, you now have parts of 'thought'. A simple being cannot have more than 'a' thought, and in fact it must be 'that' thought.
For if it was some thing that had a thought, a thought would be a part of itself. That doesn't allow for complex thinking.

Red in the sense of the phenomena or the wavelength? If the former, then it doesn’t have parts and is absolutely simple but is not a concretely existent thing; — Bob Ross

Right, because that was the best example I could give of something that was purely simple. You have not provided a workable example to demonstrate the reality of your abstract. Give me an example of something purely simple and concrete, even in theory.

Again, you are using the term ‘part’ too loosely. A part is something which contributes to the composition of a whole in concreto — Bob Ross

Remember when I asked what a part was earlier and you said you defined it vagely intentionally because you didn't think it needed detail? If you make it loose it gives you wiggle room for what you want, but it also gives someone else wiggle room for what you don't want. I think its time for you to define what a part is in concreto, then give a hypothetical example of a purely simple part that is the origin of the finite regression of the universe. If its in concreto, then its tangible. What is tangible outside of space and time that can affect space and time?

Again, you just argued by way of begging the question. I have no good reasons so far to accept that you are right that two simple beings can exist. I already provided a proof that that is impossible. If two things lack parts, then they cannot exist separately from each other; for a thing can only be concretely distinguished from another thing by way of its parts. — Bob Ross

Bob, if something is simple, then it can be a part of something else. It itself has no parts, but there is nothing proven at all that states it cannot be the part of something larger. You said it exists concretely, therefore it has a limit. Not having parts except its own existence doesn't mean another of the same type can't be. That's just nonsense. The only thing you've proven so far is a lot of words that don't have clear definitions, and don't fit into reality with the assertion that it all somehow works.

If it helps, whenever we write an argument for something tangible it must be falsifiable. It doesn't mean it is false, but it does mean that "If X is true, then Y is false." If you've constructed a definition or language that cannot be falsifiable, then you're not speaking about reality. You claim there exists an absolutely simple being that somehow is so complex that it can create the entire universe with intelligence and moral intent. This is sounding a lot like an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient being that is omnisimple. I applaud the creativity, but I would go back to your definition of simple, being, simple being, and what it would look like if it were tangible. Because without this, nothing you're saying makes sense apart from what you're imagining in your own mind.

Not necessarily. Think of something produced mechanically in a factory for example. We trace the composition of the thing, and the closest we get to the being with intention, is the factory. We would never know that there is intention behind the thing, and we would not necessarily see the need to trace the factory for intention. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's because we've limited the scope to that factory only. Increase the scope to the people who planned and built the factory and now we have intention.

And even if we determine that the factory was built intentionally, we cannot answer "why the thing exists" until we determine the specific intent. — Metaphysician Undercover

If your scope requires intent, then yes.

And, a thing right off the production line will not fulfill its purpose until a much later time. This implies that we cannot know why the thing exists until sometime in the future. — Metaphysician Undercover

Intention doesn't require the future to understand it. Intention is merely a 'What I'm hoping to result from this," action. We could build a factory with the intention of creating 5,000 jobs, and it creates more or less than that. That doesn't change the intention.

We do not necessarily need a consciousness for intention, as intention is defined by purpose, not consciousness. — Metaphysician Undercover

What is a purpose if not the intention of something? Perhaps consciousness isn't needed, I suppose intention can be an unconscious desire too. I'm still not seeing how this applies to the argument. Can you relate it somehow to the argument so I can better understand the point you're making against/for it?

Often, the purpose of an object, and even sometimes, that it was created for a purpose, does not become evident until after the object has existed for an extended time. When encountering an object, what principles would you apply to determine whether intention was involved as a cause or not? — Metaphysician Undercover

Well if we could trace its composition over time we would come to a being that had intention when making the object. That fits in fine with my argument.

Take this as an example. On what principles do you conclude that the cause of the sun's rays travelling to earth does not involve intention? — Metaphysician Undercover

We need a consciousness for intention, and if the scope is the sun itself, it doesn't fit the criteria for being conscious. Intention is part of a composition explanation. Why is the ball in the air? Because a few seconds ago I wanted to throw it. That's intention, and part of the causal explanation. I am not excluding intention, and I'm not understanding where you think it is.