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.

So, I want to focus for second on the fact that you believe both a finite series
with an absolutely simple first member and an infinite series of rotating gears are impossible. — Bob Ross

Sure, I'm not saying they aren't impossible generally, and I definitely am not a fan of infinite regress, but I think they are impossible with the examples given here so far. I've agreed with you since the beginning that the infinite gear regress is impossible. What I'm noting is your example of a simple being outside of time and space powering 'the first gear', is also impossible.

1. There is no example we can give of a being that exists outside of space and time and yet can still interact with things in space and time.
2. Therefore, it is impossible.

That is, ironically, an argument from ignorance—that’s a God of the gaps style argument. — Bob Ross

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 would like you to focus on providing me with a sound argument for why it is impossible; because that’s the crux of your argument. — Bob Ross

Because what is possible must be known at least once. Plausible is something we can think might be true, like a horse with a horn on its forehead. But it doesn't mean its possible.

Just like the infinite regress defies everything we know in physics, therefore we declare it to be impossible, a simple being that exists outside of time and space cannot interact with time and space. To affect time and space, the thing must touch time and space, and must be in it at the point of interactivity. Its simple physics, just like it is simple physics that an infinite regress of gears cannot power itself. You can't apply known physics in one example, then not allow it to apply in another.

I am not arguing that there is an absolutely simple being at the beginning of a finite series (or an indefinite series with a starting point—i.e., a potential infinity) of gears moving. As a side note, Aristotle would argue that, by analogy, the gears are an infinite series that are rotating each other and the pure actualizer is the external cause for that rotation. I don’t want to get into his argument from motion because it detracts from the OP (which is about composition). — Bob Ross

But you use the argument from motion to show the infinite regress of gears is impossible. Again, the same standards must be applied to both arguments. And if you're not arguing that there is a simple being powering the first gear of regress, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

My argument is from composition: it is the idea that an absolutely simple being that is purely actual is the start of the chain of causality for the existence of things in terms of their composition. — Bob Ross

How is this any different from a simple being starting the first gear in the chain of causality? Are you just noting, "There is a first cause"? When you get specific with the idea of a simple being, then this specific first cause needs to make within the chain of causality.

This doesn’t matter if the OP succeeds in demonstrating that an absolutely simple being needs to exist to account for the existence of contingent beings. Again, you keep shifting the goalpost to questions about how this absolutely simple being actualizes the existence of things instead of whether or not the OP succeeds at proving there is such a being that actualizes them. — Bob Ross

It doesn't succeed in demonstrating this because you need a simple being to be understood in terms of real causality just like the gear example. Without understanding what a simple being is, and how it could begin this causal chain, you can't prove your OP. You already brought the real world into it with the gear analogy. You can't suddenly remove physics and physical examples when you want an alternative outcome. Otherwise I could simply state that an infinite simple regress has existed forever and powers itself, and by consequence explains everything else. Put the gears analogy in, and it shows it doesn't work. Same with your simple singular being argument.

I agree that consciousness can be reduced to our bodies; but that is a red herring to what I said. It is uncontroversially true that your thoughts have no concrete, proper parts. — Bob Ross

Its not a red herring, its to show that thoughts are parts. If I think of the color red, then green, are these not two parts of my entire thought? A simple thought would just be red, and nothing else. A simple being would be like that, 'red' and nothing else. I can't be an intelligent thinking being that designs things, as an intelligent being if it has thoughts, has parts.

but I am going to deny that because the OP demonstrates such a being must exist; so it must be the case that not all forms of intelligence are reducible to physical parts. — Bob Ross

The correct statement here is that forms of intelligence reduce to physical parts, so there is a flaw in your OP.

20. Intelligence is having the ability to apprehend the form of things (and not its copies!).
21. The purely simple and actual being apprehends the forms of things. (19)
22. Therefore, the purely simple and actual being must be an intelligence. — Bob Ross

21 doesn't make any sense. Thoughts are parts, therefore a simple being cannot have thoughts. A thought, an aspect, etc. But not multiple. This means a simple being cannot be intelligent.

If a thing has parts, then it can be distinguished from other things. An absolutely simple being has no parts, so it is impossible that this ‘mono’ thing you referred to as having ‘their own parts within themselves’ is absolutely simple. — Bob Ross

I never said a monobeing has parts within them. I noted that two mono beings would be different, and could be parts of something greater. A simple being of red, a simple being of green for example. If a being has both green and red, it is no longer simple. If a being can think, it is no longer simple. You're noting a simple being, and a simple being would have severe limitations because it has no parts within it. A god of intelligence in no manner of logical thought is simple.

Likewise, you just blanketly asserted that we can have two different ‘monoparts’ when that’s literally what are supposed to be providing an argument for. You basically just said:

1. An absolutely simple being is ‘mono’.
2. There can be two different monoparts.
3. Therefore, it is false that two absolutely simple beings cannot exist.

That just begs the question. — Bob Ross

This was in reply to your assertion that only one simple being can exist. A simple being is one, it has no other parts. There could be another simple being that also has no parts, and that would not contradict the first simple being. Therefore it is not true that two simple beings cannot exist.

Sorry, I am not trying to disappoint you; and I will re-read your OP and respond in that thread sometime soon so we can discuss that as well. — Bob Ross

No rush, your ideas first. :)

They are features of our feelings but they are not synonyms to feelings. — MoK

I don't understand what this means, can you go more in depth?

For the rest of your replies MoK, I'm just seeing restatements of assertions, not reasoning behind them. Believe whatever you want, that's fine. :) But if we're going to continue a reasonable discussion, you'll need to think a little deeper to back those assertions. At this point the only argument you've given is, "Good and evil aren't facts, what we feel is good, I feel this is right, so I am." If you want to add more we can continue, otherwise there's nothing to really discuss.

No, I am saying that morality is not based on any moral facts since there is not any moral fact. — MoK

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. So if a person murdered your friends and loved ones reasonably, what they did was good on their part. If you conflict, all they have to do is end you and they are ultimately right. Might and emotional desire make right basically.

Correct. We cannot justify any action if there is not any moral fact. — MoK

You also cannot justify forbidding any action either. MoK, this is when armchair philosophy fails. You know darn well that if someone stole from you, you would want society to agree with you that it was wrong, despite what others feel. You know that even if a majority thought it was good to murder an entire group of people in a concentration camp, that would still make it wrong. I can't take a person seriously who does not consider these realities.

Good and evil exist even if there is not any moral fact. — MoK

No, because it would have to be a fact that they exist. If good and evil are not facts, they don't exist. Even if you claimed, "Good is what I like", then you are asserting that as a fact. If its not a fact, then its only an opinion, and therefore nothing anyone has to agree with.

The evil person who commits these actions does not think they are wrong. — MoK

Of course not, but if I think that a magical rain dance made it rain, it doesn't mean I'm correct.

The right action, good or evil, is what we should do and the wrong action, good or evil, is what we should not do. — MoK

Alright, we're getting somewhere now. How do we know what we should or shouldn't do? You noted:

These actions look evil to the majority of people and people who think otherwise try to avoid them because of social constraints yet these actions are not right or wrong perse. — MoK

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.

I have to say that our conclusion that the punishment in certain situations is right is not based on moral facts but on our conscience, belief, and the like. — MoK

Again, this is summarized as feelings. Not reason. Not facts. Just how we feel that day. So if I feel like killing someone this morning its good? Tomorrow I don't so its evil? I feel like staying married today so I don't divorce my wife, but tomorrow I feel tired of her so its good for me to divorce her without consideration of the real consequences for tomorrow? What separates your claims of good and evil from the actions of a child?

The very existence of conflicts between people for their rights is an indication that there is no moral fact. — MoK

How so? That's just an assertion, not a reasoned explanation. My point that if there are no moral facts there are no rights stands. But saying that because there is conflict over something, that something cannot be a fact is absurd. If my wife and I fight over who gets the last cookie, is there no cookie? :D

I have been thinking about morality for a very very long time and I think I am correct in saying that there is no moral fact therefore morality is subjective. — MoK

What you think isn't philosophy or a reasoned discussion. That's just a belief. Like me believing the pink elephant dancing in the corner of my room's name is Fred. We all think we're correct in our own beliefs. Philosophy and reason is about putting those beliefs out there and being open to challenging them, questioning them, refining them, and sometimes changing them. "I think I'm correct therefore I am," is not thinking, that's feeling.

We say happiness and pleasure are good because we like them. Other feelings which we dislike I call evil. — MoK

Then good and evil are just synonyms for feelings. At that point why even have the words? You haven't differentiated them from feelings, you've simply labeled them as feelings.

I defined what is good in my first comment in this post. We should do what is right and should not do what is wrong. So good and evil are features of our experience whereas right and wrong are features of our acts. — MoK

So we both agree that good is what we should do, while evil is what we should not do. If that's the case, then we have the same definition of good and evil. Lets analyze the word, "should" next. There is another word, 'want'. Want is an emotional desire to commit an action. Should is a question of whether following that desire results in an optimal outcome.

For example, I may want to pet a puppy. The outcome is that both the puppy and I will be happier without any cost. That's a positive outcome, so when faced with the choice, we should vs walking away. In this case what should be done aligns with our desires.

But sometimes we desire things that aren't good. A kid may be curious about the holes in the wall that we know as electrical outlets. They want to stick a metal object in there to see what's inside. The result will be electrocution and possibly death. Should they stick a metal object into an electrical outlet? No, because the outcome is much worse then them doing almost anything else.

Good is what should be. And what should be is a right action. Evil is what shouldn't be. And what shouldn't be is a wrong action. Good is not what we want, good is an action that leads to a right outcome. Evil isn't what we dislike, evil is an action that leads to a wrong outcome.

There is no question that morality can be subjective, as everyone has different views of what they consider a right or wrong outcome. The paper is noting however that this does not also rule out an objective morality. If there is an objective morality, the argument concludes that its most basic premise must conclude that faced with the option of there should be any existence vs there should be existence, the only logical conclusion is that there should be existence. If an objective morality does not exist, then of course it doesn't matter. Burn it all. :D

I have never said that there is a moral fact. — MoK

But you have replied in a way that indicates there is one. A person can claim that plants don't need water to live, but then proceed to water their plants during a drought saying, "I do it to make them more comfortable, they'll die if they're not comfortable." Its not saying, "Plants need water to sustain life," but implicit in the action and belief there is the understanding that they'll die without it. After all, you're not playing them music for comfort. =P

Silly analogy aside, reason relies on facts. If you say that morality is determined partially by reason, then you by consequence are saying it relies on facts. If morality truly has no facts, then no amount of reason can justify any good or evil action. At that point, good and evil don't exist. If this is a fact, then reasonably every action is permitted, and no action is restricted. The concentration camps were not evil, kicking a baby and laughing at its cries of internal bleeding and pain are fine to celebrate.

Be careful to really understand that an armchair conclusion is not the same as a real world decision. Would you actually behave in real life as if good and evil were simply opinions, or would you think it was a fact that a person of sound mind is evil and should be stopped who laughed at killing innocents, raping women, and blowing up property for fun? Because there is not a single person in the world across all cultures who wouldn't call that man evil.

Pain is a subjective experience so it could be good for a masochist and evil for normal people. — MoK

There is a condition that a person can have where they feel no pain. Many of them die early, and have terrible scars and disfigurements the longer they live because the lack of pain doesn't allow them to detect when they're injuring themselves. For example, as kids they'll put their hand on a hot stove and burn their flesh away not realizing the damage they're causing. If a person with this condition wouldn't like the feeling of pain, isn't it still good to have pain as a warning that something is hurting your body? The objective answer is: Yes. It is irrelevant to whether a person likes it or not.

As I mentioned good and evil are features of our experiences and have nothing to do with right and wrong. — MoK

Then what is right and wrong? Generally what is right is synonymous with a good action, while wrong is synonymous with a wrong action.

Are you asking whether taking their own life is "right"? In my view, that is not based on any moral fact; any person has all right to his/her life. — MoK

Did you know that rights are moral assertions? A right is a statement that no one else has moral justification in taking something away from you. Freedom of speech for example is a considered good, or what should be, because the exchange of ideas in a free and comfortable area allows a situation to be thought through on all sides, encourages creativity, helps solve solutions most effectively, and lets societies grow. All of this is a moral assertion that such things are good. There are lots of individuals who don't like the freedom of speech. They say, "I don't like when someone insults me or my favorite politician. That's wrong because I don't like it, and should be thrown in jail." If your assertion is there is no moral fact, then there are no rights.

A serial killer is evil to us since the act of killing is not pleasant to us. Killing to a serial killer is good since he gets pleasure from it. — MoK

But we've already demonstrated the problem with 'good = what I want". It leads to contradictions and anything is allowed. At that point, how do we handle a conflict of likes without moral facts? I could kidnap my neighbor, torture him because he dared start building a fence 1 inch on my property, then kill him 30 days later after inflicting as much pain as possible on them. And no one could say I was factually wrong, just, "I don't like that you did that." And if I didn't like that they said that, I could do the same to them as well and no one could reasonably say I was wrong to do so either.

Everything else is a repeat. Think about this for a while and don't respond immediately if you don't mind. All good philosophy is about considering with seriousness anything that could counter our initial beliefs. Try to prove that I'm right, then if you see contradictions if I am right, point them out.

But nothing about the OP is mystical nor does it cite anything mystical. I challenge you to show me which premise in the OP is making an argument from ignorance. — Bob Ross

To clarify, I'm addressing my personal opinions on infinite existence. This actually wasn't a criticism of your point. :)

Like I said before, the problem is that you are positing an infinite series which is contradicted by what we know exists; so it is impossible. The idea of such an infinite series ceteris paribus, to your point, is possible. — Bob Ross

I think you misunderstand still. I'm noting that if you apply the same approach to your idea of a simple being being the start of it all, you run into the same impossibility. If that is so, and you are noting that something impossible is possible, then an infinite series is equally impossibly possible.

The OP is just establishing that an absolutely simple being must be the underpinning (ultimately) for the actualization (composition) of the composed being: how it scientifically works is separate question that digresses from the OP. — Bob Ross

Its not a scientific question, its a question of what an absolutely simple being would be. Are you just inventing a word placeholder or does it have some concrete functionality? Again, you're coming up with specifics in an infinite regressive causality of gears, then noting its impossible, but you're not doing the same for this one part interacting with a finite set of gears to power them. What you're saying is there is essentially one gear that gets powered, then powers all the others. How can that be 'perfectly simple'? What does that mean?

Wouldn't a part of the immutable being need to interact with that part?

No, because there is no parts to the simple being; but, yes, it does ‘interact’ with what it actualizes insofar as it keeps it in existence. — Bob Ross

This makes no sense then. If a single gear powers the others, it powers it by transferring energy from itself to the rest of the gears. If not, then how does it transfer? If there are no parts, how does it push the first gear in the series? Again, its holding this example to the same standard of the infinite gears.

No, because there is no parts to the simple being; but, yes, it does ‘interact’ with what it actualizes insofar as it keeps it in existence. — Bob Ross

If only a part of it interacts with the rest of the gears, then it is not purely simple. If its entire being interacts with the first gear, then what separates it from the gear itself? In which case what separates an entire infinite simple being from interacting with an infinite set of gears all at once for eternity?

Energy is just the ability to do work; so I am not following what you mean here. Energy doesn’t have parts just as much as space itself has no parts; however, it is worth noting that they are not absolutely simple concrete beings. — Bob Ross

Energy is the entire impetus of anything. No energy and we have timeless matter without movement. Energy is transferred between matter, like energy starts the first gear in a line of gears. If there is a simple thing that started the first gear, it must have transferred energy right?

I don’t see why it couldn’t in principle. By partless, we are talking about in concreto parts. My feeling of sadness and my thought about maybe eating ice cream later are not parts of my (in concreto) being. — Bob Ross

They actually are. You can tie those feelings to your brain, which is many multiple parts. A person can be lobotimzed to the point that they cannot think about ice cream nor feel sad anymore.

I am more than happy to discuss that in this thread if you want or in that thread; but the same issues I have voiced before still seem to be there. E.g., the term ‘cause’ is being used entirely too loosely. — Bob Ross

Not a worry, it was only referenced if it would help you to understand what I was getting at. I wrote it specifically to detail 'cause' more, so I am a bit disappointed you think its not detailed enough. After were done here it would be kind if you would point out where you think its still lacking.

Here’s a simple way of demonstrating my point with the gears:

I have learned how you think enough at this point that you are missing my point and I don't think explaining my side again would help. Not a worry, let me go back to your original premises at this point as I think talking in your thought process will help communicate the issue better.
— Bob Ross

8. An uncomposed being (such as an uncomposed part) is purely simple, since it lacks any parts.
9. Two beings can only exist separately if they are distinguishable in their parts.
10. Two purely simple beings do not have any different parts (since they have none).
11. Therefore, only one purely simple being can exist. — Bob Ross

Lets address what a simple being is. Just because we can piece two words together in a sentence, it does not meant its a coherent existent example.

What is a being? It is something existent. We are able to divide in into parts. You believe its possible there is a being that cannot be divided. I have no issue with that. As you noted.

Nothing which is spatiotemporal can be absolutely simple (i.e., an ‘aristotelian atom’); for everything in space and time is divisible. — Bob Ross

So we know this thing cannot exist in space or time. You also noted:

for a part is a word which refers to a thing’s relation to another thing and not what some other thing may be in relation to it — Bob Ross

Further, using the gears analogy, I believe we can represent the first gear being powered by the simple being. This would entail that the simple being was a part of the entire chain of gears, the start which powered it all. But how can something which does not exist in space or time power the first gear? Is it powering all the gears at once? But how is that any different from there being an infinite regression of gears being powered all at once?

Now lets address 9. Two beings are distinguishable from each other's parts, not from their own parts within themselves. A simple part is mono, meaning it cannot be multiple. Meaning we can have two different monoparts. They would be distinguishible because one mono part would not be the other monopart.

Can you give an example of a monopart that exists apart from space and time yet is able to interact with the space and time of a gear to start it all? Of course not, its impossible, yet we say its possible anyway. And once we start saying the impossible is possible, we can no longer say, "That impossibility is possible, while this other one isn't."

10 and 11 also doesn't conclude. A monopart is one, therefore there is nothing preventing another separate one from being. They don't have any parts in themselves, but they are separate beings. They could interact and become part of something else.

Let me know what you think.

A definition of a moral fact! :D
— Philosophim
Are you looking for a definition of moral fact? I defined it in OP. — MoK

My point is that you were stating a moral fact, but declared there was none.

Is it a fact that they are necessary, or simply a feeling and thus only an opinion?
— Philosophim
Think of pain that is evil. That is a sign of injury in your body. You look for a cure when you are in pain. Without pain, you could harm yourself more. People who don't feel pain have shorter life expectancy. — MoK

So is pain good or evil? If people who don't feel pain live less, is that good or evil? Is a shorter life expectancy good? Why? What if a person is depressed or sad at a loss and doesn't want to live? Is taking their own life good because they want to?

When you include things like reasons, you include facts.
— Philosophim
Not moral facts since there is none. But other facts are involved in a decision like a thief wanting to rob but he is aware that he might be arrested and sent to prison. — MoK

Then this would be a moral fact. If a moral decision is included through reason, then it is a deduced fact.

We have four things when it comes to morality, good, evil, right, and wrong. Good and evil are features of our experiences and we are different in telling what is good or evil in some situations like the example of the serial killer who feels good when he kills while others feel it to be evil. An act might be good but wrong and vice versa. An act might be good and right and vice versa. We mostly depend on our conscience, reason, etc. when we want to decide in a situation. — MoK

All of this boils down to a feelings and reason, and reason would be a fact of what is good and what is not. You're being abstract, so lets drill in and make it defined. Why is the serial killer evil, even though he wants to kill and believes he is good?

The majority of people think that the serial killer's act is evil and wrong. He does not. — MoK

I thought you said whatever I like is good. If more people like something than not, does that make it good? If more people liked murdering babies, would that be good then? Or if a majority of the population approved of sending Jews into a concentration camp to be gassed? If the majority liked enslaving another race of people?

I already differentiated between good and right in my previous comments. Something might feel good but it is wrong. — MoK

I missed this then. How is it wrong if there are no moral facts?

I disagree. Good is just a feature of our experience. — MoK

So is everything about our experience. How does good differ from happiness, sadness, like, dislike, etc? If good is not what should be, then is it what shouldn't be?

Morality - a method of evaluating what is good
— Philosophim
Morality is a method of finding what is right and wrong. — MoK

Semantically I think we're on the same page here. :)

1. All moral questions boil down to one fundamental question that must be answered first, "Should there be existence?"
— Philosophim
I don't think so. Morality is about given that intelligent creatures exist whether there are moral facts that we can derive what is wrong or right. — MoK

We'll have to come to an agreement on the definition of good first. Obviously if we have different definitions, we'll have different conclusions. So lets start there and then we can go back to your other points. What is your definition of good, right, and wrong? How does it divorce itself from an underlying assumption that if something is good, it 'should be'?

A god of the gaps argument is an argument for God’s existence by appeal to ignorance. — Bob Ross

Its more than that. Its a reference to creating an argument of mysticism to fill in when there's a problem that's difficult to solve. I find the belief in the infinite mystical, and used to dodge the question of universal origin.

This ‘energetic and powerful’ entity which has no prior cause that keeps things existent would be the absolutely simple being. As the OP demonstrates, the existence of composed objects necessitates an absolutely simple being at the bottom. — Bob Ross

If it were an absolutely simple being, no parts, then how does it power a thing that has parts? Wouldn't a part of the immutable being need to interact with that part? A gear has teeth for example, and they much touch teeth to push the other gear. Energy itself is a part, so it would have to impart some to another thing. The problem is a definition of a partless immutable entity powering everything else contradicts how causation and power work.

I do not hold that a thing can appear and then actualize everything: I hold that there is an eternal and immutable being which is absolutely simple and purely actual. — Bob Ross

That would be an infinite regress by time though. This is the same as an infinitely existing bar spinning itself. What powers this infinite existing being? It also can't be partless if it is to have agency, intelligence, and infinite existence.

In other words, whatever being you are positing here as having the energy to power everything would have to be absolutely simple; and then you end up looping back around to the idea God exists (: — Bob Ross

No, absolutely simple and something like a God do not fit. God is complex and can be identified in parts by expression at the least. Something perfectly simple would have no parts, no expression, and agency, no will. What I'm positing is that if there is an origin, it is not caused by something else. If it is not caused by something else, then it has no rules or reason for its origination of existence. Such a thing is not bound by logic in its existence. But if this is the case, there is no logic preventing an infinite regress from existing either, as it too would have no rules or reason for its origination of existence.

The problem I'm trying to note is that you need to apply the same criticism against an infinite series of no outside origin to a finite series of no outside origin. I posted a rewrite of my "Probability of a God" example a few days back where I cover this concept. You don't have to post there, but a quick read may clarify what I'm talking about. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/961721

2. Infinite regressive causality has no prior cause. Yet it somehow has all the energy to power infinity to A which powers B which powers C.

This is absurd, and not actually possible. Again, go back to the gear example: you are saying that an infinite series of gears moving each subsequent gear is possible because “somehow the infinite series is such that each can do that”; — Bob Ross

How is it any less absurd then a perfectly simple entity that existed eternally without prior cause and somehow started a chain of causality without anything else involved? Since we've already injected an eternal energy force without prior explanation, its not any less absurd to note the gears run infinitely regressive and share the infinite energy source which makes them run without prior origin. If an energy source can always have existed, then it and the gears could always have existed. The same thinking which allows us the first case, also allows us the second case.

Infinite regressive causality has no prior cause.

An infinite series itself cannot be treated like an object: it would not have any ability to do anything, because it is just itself a series. — Bob Ross

My point is that if we're positing that one thing can exist that seems impossible can exist without prior cause, we draw the line at another thing that seems impossible but can exist without prior cause?

I do not hold that a thing can appear and then actualize everything: I hold that there is an eternal and immutable being which is absolutely simple and purely actual. — Bob Ross

This is no different then the gears besides the fact you've said it doesn't have parts. You're still in an infinite regress. Why has this God existed up until now? We can go infinitely backwards to show how it has existed, and demonstrate why it exists in this moment now. Did this God think? Did it plan? Then it changed in some way.

Lets think further. Why does it need to be immutable? Don't most thing lose energy in a transfer? If the initial push was strong enough, the pusher doesn't need to be there anymore. We also know it can't be simple if its going to push.

Because what I think you are missing is that the gears don’t have the ability to move themselves; so this “infinite power” would have to come from something outside of that series which affects the series — Bob Ross

Does an infinite God which is entirely simple have the ability to move itself? How does that work without contradiction? How is that any different from me saying, "The gears have always existed and always moved?"

You seem to have neglected a very important aspect of causation ("why a state of reality is the way it is"), and that is "intention". — Metaphysician Undercover

That's simply included in the classification of composition and time. If part of the prior reason for an action included an intelligent being, then intention would be one of the part. But when a prior reason does not include an intelligent being, like sun rays traveling to Earth, there's no need to include it.

Are you claiming that intention is somehow separate? That intention cannot be explained over time and through the composition of the intelligent creature's state at those moments? If so can you explain how it does not fit in?

Is that a fact, or a feeling? If its a fact, then we have a moral fact.
— Philosophim
That is just a definition. — MoK

A definition of a moral fact! :D

Good and evil are features of our experiences and they are both necessary. — MoK

Is it a fact that they are necessary, or simply a feeling and thus only an opinion?

Based on feelings, or the situation?
— Philosophim
Feelings together with reasons, teaching, etc. are factors that define a situation. — MoK

When you include things like reasons, you include facts. Meaning you actually believe that morality is based more on feelings, but also reason. What reason guides us to moral conclusions?

A serial killer enjoys killing. So that is one factor, feeling, that plays a role in his/her decision-making. Killing to serial a killer is good and to others is evil. — MoK

One issue this brings up is you've equivocated two separate definitions into one. "What I like is what is good." Doesn't that really just translate to, "What I like is what I should do?" In what discussion of morality would that ever be accepted? Morality is a discussion about what a person should, and should not do and often concerns the consequences of that action, not merely feelings. For example, if a serial killer is unchecked, he could kill an entire small town. Is this good? If the majority of humanity woke up one day infected with a gas that made them want to kill everyone else and enjoy it, this would be good?

There is a temptation to attribute what we like with good, because then we get to justify what we like and avoid anything that tells us, "You might like it, but you shouldn't do that." But a real examination that can abandon this personal desire shows how disingenuous the claim, "Whatever I like is good" is.

A part is something which contributes to the composition of the whole. I keep it purposefully that vague, because I don’t think a more robust definition is necessary for intents of the OP.
To answer your question directly: in principle, there could be a part which is composed or uncomposed—those are the two logical options; and there is nothing, thusly, about a part per se which entails one or the other. — Bob Ross

These seem to be solid definitions, nice.

No, that is a contradiction. Nothing which is spatiotemporal can be absolutely simple (i.e., an ‘aristotelian atom’); for everything in space and time is divisible. — Bob Ross

Agreed.

This means that, similarly to how Aristotle notes that an infinite per se series of things changing do not themselves have the power to initiate that change (e.g., an infinite series of inter-linked gears have no power themselves to rotate each other, so an infinite series of rotating gears is ceteris paribus absurd), forms comprised of other forms comprised of other forms comprised of other forms <…> ad infinitum do not have the power to keep existence (let alone to exist at all). — Bob Ross

So I personally do not like the idea of an infinite regress, and view it as a 'god of the gaps' argument. But for this argument in particular how is this any less 'impossible' then something that has no prior cause having the energy to start and power everything else that comes after it?

If I understand your question correctly as asking why an infinite per se series of a composed being’s parts cannot just be explained as necessary — Bob Ross

I'm not saying that its necessary, I'm just noting that the same logic which concludes:

1. A has no prior cause. A somehow has all the energy to cause B, which causes C, etc.
vs
2. Infinite regressive causality has no prior cause. Yet it somehow has all the energy to power infinity to A which powers B which powers C.

I'm not really defending the infinite regress argument, I'm just noting that I'm not quite seeing how 1 is not absurd while 2 is absurd. If something can appear without prior cause that powers everything, why is it not possible for an infinite series of 'gears' for example that has infinite power spread all over itself to power it all at once?

Its good to chat with you again!

On the logic of a universal origin, my "viewpoint" is that it takes spacetime for origins to be possible, and the universe includes arguably not only spacetime but also a more fundamental domain in which there is no spacetime, but from which spacetime emerges, entanglement of particles etc. — jkop

Which is fine, but I'm asking you how this applies to what I've written. Do you believe this counters the arguments of the OP, agrees with the arguments of the OP, or is it just a comment you wanted to make on your own feelings and it doesn't really have anything to do with what I wrote?

For every effect there must be a cause, except in parts of ithe universe where time has stopped (black holes?), or for a possible origin of spacetime (e.g. qubits), for which it makes little sense to assume a causal origin. — jkop

How does this apply to the points of the paper? I feel like you just chimed in with your own viewpoint on something, but it would be great if you could compare it to the points I made showing why its either an agreement or disagreement with those points.

First, good and evil are features of our experiences. Our actions can also be good or evil depending on how they make us feel. — MoK

Is that a fact, or a feeling? If its a fact, then we have a moral fact. If its a feeling, then what if I feel this is incorrect? Who's right? And that still doesn't counter the base definition I put that good is "What should be".

When it comes to morality both good and evil actions are permissible depending on the situation. — MoK

Based on feelings, or the situation? Which situations are permissible and which are not? If I'm a serial killer and I feel its right to murder people for fun, am I doing good? Why or why not?

Given the definition of good and evil existence is neither good nor evil. — MoK

If you understood the argument correctly, the question was, "Should there be existence?" It is a yes or no question. If one is invalid, the other is valid. If the answer is 'No', then it is good for there not to be existence. But the only way for there to be good, is if good exists. Good must then also cease to be. But if what is good is 'non-existence', and it is good to destroy good, then good is not really what should be, and it contradicts itself. Therefore by proof by contradiction, the answer to "Should there be existence?" is yes. So at its base, any objectively real morality will conclude that existence is good.

If you want to address the arguments specifically, its better that we take the discussion there so I can quote and direct easier. No need, just if you want to continue.

Well what do you think about this then? https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1

Hello again Bob! My busy end of 2024 schedule has relented, so I have time again to properly engage with your posts. I'm always a fan of 'God' origin theories for philosophical exploration, so I'll point out a few issues I see.

What is a part? This seems a very important definition that must be clearly defined before the argument begins. Is there any part that is not also composed? For example, lets say I find an Aristotle atom, or a thing that is 'indivisible'. Could we not look at a part of that and say, "That's the front, back, and sides of the atom?'

In addition, can it be proven that we cannot have an infinite series of parts composing other parts?
Number 5 seems to assume this cannot the case. Can you give an example of a part that isn't composed by another part, or at least prove that its impossible for an infinite set of parts to exist?

You note that something which is not composed of parts must exist on its own. But if it exists on its own, then there is no reason for it to, or to not exist besides the fact that it does. If this is the case, can it not also logically be that there is an infinite regression of parts, and there is no reason for it to, or not to exist besides the fact that it does?

I think this is a good start to settle first before moving on.

Do we know for a fact that there is no moral fact? Do we even need such a claim in your argument?

For example, lets say that God did exist and knew all moral facts. First, we don't know if humans have the intelligence to comprehend something that is omniscient, because we're not. Second, belief in a God that does know all moral facts, does not give us any tools to understand or resolve those facts. So we can conclude as a starting argument that belief in a God that does understand all moral facts does not mean we are able to comprehend them, or have the tools and knowledge to resolve them.

I'm just noting that to reach your conclusion you're adding a lot of other unproven assumptions in there (barring the 'if God exists' assumption of course :) ).

Let me give you an example to see if we can agree with the definitions: A Bulldog is ugly but one can like it. The ugliness is intrinsic and the like is extrinsic. — MoK

Sounds good to me. We can like things even if they're ugly.

To summarize I think your answer is about the extrinsic features of an object rather than the intrinsic features so I think your answer does not address why an object is intrinsically beautiful. — MoK

I see, so you think there is something apart from what causes the emotion of beauty, to instead believe that beauty is something as a property which exists independent of our emotions. To me, this is mostly a semantic difference, but an important one.

I believe that what a person interprets as healthy or conducive to health is objectively what causes the emotion of beauty. But if there were no living beings to experience beauty, the emotion wouldn't exist. Its not that things healthy to life wouldn't exist, and we as feeling beings could ascribe beauty as, 'that which is healthy and conducive to life." But the objective part is the definition, which doesn't need the identity of the word 'beauty' attached.

So what I'm saying is that beauty being intrinsic or extrinsic I don't feel quite captures what beauty is. Beauty yes can have an underlying objective definition, but it is mostly known as a subjective emotional experience. You could use the word beauty with an alien race that doesn't have the emotion, and they would understand objectively what you mean when you use the term 'beauty'. To them, its just a word with an objective definition. To you, it also contains the subjective emotional experience.

So, if we wanted to use the terms 'intrinsic or extrinsic', I think more accurately we're defining beauty as "beauty without the emotional component," and "beauty with the emotional component". Does that make sense?

That is an excellent question that made me think for a while! — MoK

I'm glad! I find that whether I arrive at an answer or not, the thinking about it is sometimes the best part of the process. I've give my answer, though it doesn't mean its necessarily right. See if it sparks something new in your own mind.

There is at least one common marker, at least in evaluating biological creatures, that seems to overlap with beauty. Symmetry. Think of a person with a symmetrical face versus one with their left eye drooping an inch lower than their right eye. Why do we value symmetry in creatures? because it turns out symmetry aligns with health. Health is strength, survival, capability, and energy.

Sexually, beautiful people signal health, which means they can spend the energy and resources to have, raise, and protect a child. Beauty may very in sexual interactions as what is 'healthy' can change based on genetics, culture, or environment. In a culture where food is scarce, heavier people may be seen as more beautiful because it indicates they are capable of getting more resources. In a resource abundant culture, thin people may be more beautiful as it demonstrates their ability to use resources responsibly, will power, and an active amount of work on their appearance.

In nature, beauty may signify a healthy environment. Again, this may be based on what one needs. If you desire little interaction with other living things, a remote area may be beautiful. A lush healthy forest means there's plentiful water and food nearby.

We want to be around beautiful things because we hope to share in that health. If a beautiful person likes us, it means a healthy person with resources is on our side. Being in a beautiful environment gives us what we need and want. Ugly things and places indicate to us a lack of resources, sickness, or possible problems we might have to deal with. Ugly people may look to us to help fix their loneliness, health, or other issues. Ugly places are harsh to survive in. Beauty indicates an easy life, ugliness indicates a hard one.

What do you think?

I think it is a mixture of properties of an object, like symmetry, curvature, color, and the like. — MoK

Fantastic! Can you delve further? Why would symmetry, curvature, etc be beautiful? Is there a combination of object, color and the like which would not be beautiful? Is there a common theme between them?

I think beauty and ugliness are universal features of the experience, whether humans' experience, aliens', or animals'. Something beautiful is beautiful in the eyes of anybody. — MoK

No disagreement here, but what is the underlying aspect that makes something beautiful? My apologies if I'm not volunteering my own thoughts, its more of a primer to take the subject and really philosophically examine it. I want to hear your thoughts.

I think beauty and ugliness are innate parts of a healthy human experience. The more interesting question in my mind is, "What do they mean?" While someone might have subjective views of what is beautiful and ugly, is there there some underlying objective meaning behind those words that transcends subjectivity?

Flat earthers don't often like to prove anything. I'm not that concerned with their psychology to be honest, I'm more concerned with honest thinking peoples approaches to how they'd demonstrate it. — flannel jesus

For the actually honest person without psychological issues that wishes to prove the world is round, there are a host of resources to do so. The people who insist the Earth is flat are mostly deluded people who elevate what they want to believe over truth and facts. Most people do this to a certain extent, but are eventually willing to bend once the evidence clearly shows their belief is wrong. These people are so deep into this that they are unwilling to bend to any evidence that is contrary to their beliefs.

Its mental illness at that point. You cannot reason with mental illness, nor can you reason with someone who refuses to enter into reasonable discourse.

If you went in not knowing about refraction, you would think you've just proven that the earth is flat. — flannel jesus

No, you would have proven that the world is less round then the experts listed. Again, proven off of incomplete information. Testing refraction is the same. Look up how the experts proved refraction, then test yourself.

There is also one other thing you're forgetting. Flat Earthers would also need to prove the Earth is flat. If they are discounting experts due to a lack of physical evidence, they have to discount their own claims due to a lack of physical evidence as well. Deciding, "I don't trust the scientists, but its flat because I say so," is just ignorance masquerading as skepticism.

Absolutely. It's just interesting that, if the earth were the size generally claimed, you would actually expect to see less than you do - that's something that a lot of flat earthers notice, it gives them ammo. "I can see more of chicago than I geometrically should if you were right". They're actually right about that. — flannel jesus

Ever heard of the saying, "Enough knowledge to be dangerous?" The problem with the flat Earthers is they're only taking one part of the equation and not factoring in refraction. Here's an example:

I believe I can't survive under water for more than 10 minutes. I go to a deep diving class and read up to the point that says, "Deep sea divers can survive anywhere from 30-60 minutes underwater..." "Rubbish!" I say. I hold my breath until I pass out. I cite scientific information about brain damage from patients who lack oxygen for 15 minutes. But what I didn't do was continue to read the rest of the sentence on the scuba diving page. "...with a working air tank and diving gear."

Yes, I'm right that people cannot survive 60 minutes without air. But I'm not right people with proper air tanks can't survive underwater for 60 minutes. So again, the flat Earthers are either being willfully ignorant, or refusing to understand the entire justification of the argument for why the Earth is round when observed from X distance away.

Have you heard of this? — flannel jesus

Sure, I'm quite sure the specifics of it are going to be slightly different from my example. My point is the same: Look at how the experts formed their answer, then try it yourself.

First, we can take the claim of scientists and experts and test them ourselves. We can test with measuring shadows like in ancient Rome. We can test by finding flat land and assessing when the visibility of distant objects should vanish according to predicted angles. We can attempt to travel around the world ourselves.

The question of "Pondering flat Earthers" can be more abstractly applied to, "How can we verify our trust in authority?" Good authority will tell you how they arrived at their conclusions and let you test it yourself. Bad authority will refuse to divulge their methods, or proper testing will reveal flawed results.

You shouldn't expect kids with no education and no development in the intelligence to the adult level to be able to tell the analytic truth. — Corvus

That didn't answer my question. Which means you know the answer, but were unwilling to admit it. Of course what the kid states is true, even if they don't know what they're talking about. But if you're starting to avoid direct answers and coming up with odd asides, we've probably reached the end of a decent conversation. Have a good day.

It seems to be getting more unclear. One thing clear with truth is, if one doesn't know what he is talking about, then he cannot be telling truth. — Corvus

What specifically is unclear? Let us say that I tell a young kid, "1+1=2". The kid doesn't know what any of it means. They go up to an adult and say, "1+1=2!" They don't know what they're talking about, but is what the kid said untrue?

Truth is about something concrete, and corresponds to the reality, which all intelligible can witness, verify, understand, share and agree in their minds. — Corvus

Truth is about something concrete, and corresponds to reality. Let me fix this for you:

"A true statement is about something concrete, and corresponds to reality." But that is not the definition of the word 'truth'. Truth is, 'what is'. "A statement about something concrete and corresponds with reality is true, or accruately captures 'what is'.

Truth applied to statements is not the full meaning of truth. Truth does not require statements. Truth does not require your observation. Truth is what is.

(True Statements) are those which all intelligible can witness, verify, understand, share and agree in their minds.

Let me refine this as well. What is true may not necessarily be intelligible. Generally we call these statements "Knowledge". What is known is that which all intelligible can witness, verify, understand, share, and agree in their minds. Even then, there are some things such as subjective experience which can only be known to the individual.

What is the point of saying something is truth, when you don't know anything about it? Isn't it a senseless absurdity? — Corvus

No, its simply noting that things exist apart from what we know or believe.

You seemed to be confusing some mundane unobserved events with truth. — Corvus

Truth is what is whether its observed or not. Whether its mundane or not.

Unobserved events or existence is not in the category of truth. — Corvus

Unobserved events or existence is not in the category of what is known, or knowledge. Unobserved events are true existences despite our knowledge of them.

Truth means statements or propositions which corresponds to the existence or events in reality. — Corvus

We can ascribe statements as being true, but truth is not only ascribed to the realm of statements. Truth is 'what is', and 'what is' exists does not rely on our statements.

Isn't truth property of our judgement on the world? — Corvus

No. Truth is what simply is. Whether you know it or not is irrelevant. Again, you're confusing truth with knowledge. Knowledge is a tool; a logical process by which we encapsulate what is into something meaningful and useable. We do not determine truth, we determine knowledge. And what can hold as knowledge is that which is logically determined to not contradicted by the truth.

Throw a ball in the air, and it returns to the Earth. Knowing gravity is irrelevant. Knowing some languages call it 'a ball' is irrelevant. Believing it won't come back to Earth is irrelevant. Reality, or truth, is that the ball comes back to Earth. It doesn't matter if you're there to witness it or not. Truth is what is, and it is what is regardless of what you know or believe.

You're making a classic mistake in conflating two separate labels. "Knowledge" and "Truth". What is known is determined through a series of logical deductions that leads to one outcome. What is true is 'what is'. Knowledge is a logical attempt to understand 'what is' in a way that we can use to accomplish our goals.

Suddenly knowing that black holes exist doesn't mean that it wasn't true that they existed before. Suddenly knowing you're sick when you cough doesn't mean you weren't sick prior to your coughing. We do not determine reality, we interpret reality in an attempt to understand it in a meaningful way.

Science is looking at a situation, coming up with a hypotheses, then testing it. But in this case, most of the words are all clearly defined.

Philosophy is looking at words we use in our daily lives and trying to figure out their definitions. Words like 'knowledge' for example. What is it really? How do we know? What is 'good'? Its not that we couldn't create definitions that then could be scientifically tested, its the creation and refinement of the definitions to be logical and detailed.

The type of person who questions why they do what they do is most likely to be attracted to philosophy. The type of person who cannot simply exist as part of a cultural process in both language and behavior is most likely to be attracted to philosophy. They do not have to be weird or lonely individuals, only those who suddenly look at what they're doing and ask, "Why?"

First, we need to define 'science'. Science does not claim "x is true". Science claims, "We have a hypothesis that X is true, and every attempt to prove X is false hasn't worked." Then that paper is read by hundreds of other scientists, and other scientists decide to test it too. "Oh, you didn't try THIS method to see if X is false. Also this second technique you tried sounds suspicious."

"Science" is a process and not the citation of one paper. It is multiple papers and attempts to tear down a claim. So it doesn't matter what your initial outlook is. In fact, having an initial outlook to challenge it is the point. If however we challenge it no matter our outlook, and the fact remains that X is true, then x is true.

So what is realism vs anti-realism? Its not as solipsistic as you think. :) One way to really see it is imagine a truck. Well, what is a truck? Its a combination of parts, which is a combination of molecules, atoms, quarks, etc. If we were using realism, we would want to know every single detail of that truck down to its atomic level. Anti-realism allows us to take higher level properties such as, "I press the pedal and it go zoom." as a 'truck'. Notice that anti-realism does not mean a labeling system that is at odds with reality. It just means constructing a notion of reality that does not necessarily involve all of the specifics.

Realism: I speak into my phone and it transmits a microwave radiation out to a cell tower which interprets it, sends it out to be captured by another phone which creates a series of electrical impulses into speakers that emulate my voice.

Anti-realism: I'm talking on the phone with my friend.

Notice that anti-realism does not state, "My cell phone can be used to create a magical unicorn." Its about internal logic and context that fits within the reality a person is currently experiencing. Its useful for summaries, quicker judgements, and surface level communication. The 'depth' that we need about a subject to communicate accurately is variable based on our tools and needs. But we communicate at that depth with logic at that depth, it is not a 'whatever goes' assessment.

Any examples come to mind? — Wayfarer

Sure, insects like an ant. They can think, but I'm pretty sure one has never realized its an 'I'. Thinking does not presume one has ever thought of the self. The phrase is not "think, therefore attempt X for goal" The phrase is "I think, therefore I am". It is the proof of the self which can only be done by the self if that self exists.

He calls this a confusion arising from our notation, and suggests, not entirely seriously, that we could devise a more accurate notation “that makes I think internal to p: we may form the letter p by writing, in the shape of a p, the words I think.” He interprets Kant as saying the same thing: for Kant, “the I think is not something thought alongside the thought that it accompanies, but internal to what is thought as such.” — J

This would be incorrect, as there are thinking things that do not have a sense of self. Kant really means, "I think, therefore I am." If one realizes they have a sense of self through thought, that is the very definition of self. Kant is not saying, "I think p, therefore p". He is stating "I think, therefore I am".