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.

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.