Fact is you simply cannot address the is ought fallacy along with your circular reasoning and throw it out as hogwash every time it's brought up through some other fallacies you commit. — DifferentiatingEgg

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

You know full well your concept is predicated in fallacy and continue to defend it is disingenuous, and more or less a passive insult to everyone who participates in this discussion. — DifferentiatingEgg

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

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

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

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

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

I do not present this argument anywhere in the OP. Therefore you are wrong. It should be a simple enough thing to admit, "Yeah, ok," and try another tact. That's a thinker. You and I both want to view yourself as one, so just be cool, ask questions, try different tactics, and drop the derogatory remarks.

The main problem is that congress is also under the control of Republicans. The one failure of the founders was to not realize that congress actually has an incentive to give up its own powers to allow the responsibility to rest on the executive or judicial branches. This will likely be the weakness that allows America to fall.

It all depends on how causally linked things are in what you can see in the moment, not with hindsight — ZisKnow

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

I think we’d all agree that words can have different meanings depending on the context. When I use the words “true” or “truth” they have one of two different meanings. — EricH

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

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

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

I don’t think you’re saying that we can use the word “truth” in place of using the phrase “what simply is”. If that were the case then there are much better words - “reality”, “the universe”, existence”, etc - which do not have any additional implication. — EricH

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

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

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

Belief is a claim that "X is true" through intent, emotion, and limited rationality. Knowledge is a tool, a process of logic and application that results in what can most reasonably be asserted at the time by anybody in the shoes of that person. In either case, what one believes might be true, and what one knows might be false. Belief, knowledge and truth are not the same thing. Belief and knowledge are assessments of truth, and as such often poorly get equated with truth or falsehood themselves. As long as we remember that belief and knowledge are assessments of what is true, and not 'Truth' itself, its a bit easier to sort out a solid meaning of truth that more easily avoids being a wiggle word.

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

Finally your poem made me laugh, so its a success in my book. :D

Not much to talk about other than your argument being predicated in fallacy. Especially the Is-Ought. That you've perpetuated the farce of this discussion for over 12 months is poor form and circular reasoning to insanity. — DifferentiatingEgg

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

2. I never insulted you for your criticism and treated you with respect, asked for follow ups when I didn't understand, and tried to answer your questions honestly. Your accusation of this being a farce is immature, disrespectful, and uncalled for after committing a clear logical fallacy. If you're here to discuss for your personal ego, leave. I'm here for intelligent people who want to think and talk respectfully to one another.

↪Philosophim Ah, see, I knew there was an Is Ought Fallacy in there somewhere... "Existence is, thus it ought to be good." — DifferentiatingEgg

You came to an older post that was not trying to prove a point but explore a hypothetical and use that against my newer post which does not do this? If we're talking fallacies, this is as straw man as you can get. If you want an honest discussion, chat with me on my new post about the logic there.

↪Philosophim I read the entire post. Regretfully. — Relativist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is of course up to you. Perhaps you're bored with the topic, or its gone to a place you just don't want to go. It is as always an opportunity to think, to stretch your mind, and to consider a new possibility for morality.

↪Philosophim I read it. It doesn't have an example of a "should", and in no way addresses my broader issue: — Relativist

If you didn't want to read it, that's fine. Have a good one Relativist.

Yeah, so, you do use Is-ought fallacy as per post 1. Nothing more to really discuss here. — DifferentiatingEgg

I don't get how you draw that from my last reply, but if you're not interested in continuing the discussion, have a nice day.

What I'm saying is that in order for there to be something good, there must be something. If there is nothing, there is no good, but that doesn't necessitate it being bad. It just means the weight of nothingness is undefined, but not that it's zero. To be zero presumes a scale, but we presume no scale in nothingness. — Hanover

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

We seem to be going round and round on this one Bob. :)

How is my abstraction invalid?

Let’s call the set of caused things C, the set of all things A, a first cause to C F, an infinite circularity O, a self-cause of C S, a necessary cause of C N, and an infinite regression R. — Bob Ross

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

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

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

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

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

What you are doing is conflating A with C. You are noting that irregardless of who is right about how causality works, the totality, A, of all things is uncaused; and this is trivially true and has nothing to do with the debate. — Bob Ross

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

A being that is uncaused is something which is real and lacks any explanation for its existence; whereas a set of real things is not itself real and lacks the ability to require any explanation in the first place — Bob Ross

A set of infinitely regressive causality could itself be just as real and lack any explanation for its existence as a set of finite regressive causality.

Thusly, if we say that R is A — Bob Ross

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

If the answer is that it would good for there to be no existence and bad for there to be existence, then the best scenario would be for there to be no good because once you eliminate all existence, you eliminate good too. — Hanover

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

So if you're saying, "There should be no good," what you're saying is, "It should be, there there should not be." Which means "It should not be, should not be." meaning its nonsensical.

↪Philosophim, so are you by saying "good should be" is more along the lines of maximizing good but minimizing bad? If so then I can see what you're saying. — DifferentiatingEgg

Its about states of existence. As a very simple example imagine a state of existence where someone is murdered, vs where they are not murdered. The good state is what should be, the bad state is what should not be. This is at a very basic level again, which the OP goes over. The link at the end of the OP goes onto the second part.

Oh, I didn't realize there was a misunderstanding. The link you went to was a reference I posted earlier to detail the logic that extends from the notion that the universe is uncaused.

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

Why can't you just give me an example of a "should" that doesn't involve minds, as I asked? Seems like a simple request. — Relativist

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

If Bad shouldn't exist then niether should Good since they're linked. You can't deny half the equation and expect to exist. — DifferentiatingEgg

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

You can't even detail a system of good without the bad. You use circular reasoning in your logic to assume Good and Bad can exist without the other. — DifferentiatingEgg

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

1. If only good should exist, and bad should not exist
2. Then in that scenario bad does not, and good has no contrast and begets no meaning — DifferentiatingEgg

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

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

No I'm noting that what good is, is what ought to be. What evil is, is what not ought to be. I don't understand the issue.

You had said, "The 'should' is entirely logical." I'm trying to understand what that means. So I gave you an example which you rejected with a reason that I can't understand. What is a "positive state of existence"? What makes one state more positive than another?

You referred to your second post. In that post, you said,
"If we are to take that good is, "What should be", then we can take at a base level that there should be existence over nothing. This is because any morality which proposed that existence should not be would contradict itself." — Relativist

Have you read the entirety of the second post? Do you understand the example of atoms versus molecules that I put forward?

It sounds like you might say "an electron should be attracted to a proton"? — Relativist

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

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

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

That is precisely what I've been challenging! The very point you're responding to is such a challenge! Your response should be to explain how "should" applies to objects that lack minds. — Relativist

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

I'm glad to hear you say "there is no contingency for existence", because it sounds like you're agreeing with me that existence is metaphysically necessary. Is that correct? — Relativist

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

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

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

There are no discrete odds only because your premise implies there are infinitely possible initial states. This translates to an infinitesimal probability - but it's still a probability. — Relativist

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

I have accepted your premise that moral imperatives exist, but I've argued that everything in a contingent universe is therefore contingent - including a wavelength of light and any moral imperative that happens to exist. Do you agree? If not, why not? — Relativist

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

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

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

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

You've repeated it over and over, but you haven't explained how it is reasonable for a random moral imperative is an OBJECTIVE moral imperative. — Relativist

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

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

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

I've said that a moral imperative pertains only to choices made by things that can make choices. I don't think you've stated either agreement or disagreement. — Relativist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your remaining points I've already answered or you'll need to read the next post. And I do appreciate your engagement in the conversation.

And you said be = exist.
Thus
good should exist
bad should not exist

You have a fundamental problem because bad exists. — DifferentiatingEgg

"Should" does not mean "does". If what is bad exists, it should not exist. If what is good does not exist, it should exist. Does that address your issue?

How can bad not exist when what is good and what is bad is determined by what is within us? You can't reconcile the devaluation of Good by removing the valuation of what's bad. — DifferentiatingEgg

I'm a little lost. Good is defined as what should be, bad is defined as what shouldn't be.

P1:All concepts of evaluation require contrast between opposites.

P2:Good and bad are opposites that define each other — DifferentiatingEgg

I encourage you to review several posts back where I agreed with your points 1 and 2 and laid out that your conclusion did not not make sense. I'll be more explicit here again.

↪Philosophim You've not presented a counter argument.

Make a p1 and p2 and C that necessarily follows. — DifferentiatingEgg

P1:All concepts of evaluation that have opposites require contrast between opposites.

P2:Good and bad are opposites of each other

Therefore good is what should be and bad is what should not be.

"Should" only applies only to choices made by beings that can make choices. — Relativist

I have several times noted that 'should' does not involve beings. If you are saying it does, and I'm presenting the entire argument that it does not, you need to challenge my point why I say it does not. You have not done that. You are creating a straw man by stating, "Should requires a being, therefore you contradict yourself," when I have noted, "Should does not require a being, but a logical state of existence."

If I was noting that an objective morality requires a being, you would have a point. But I haven't, I won't, and its not going to change. So this criticism does not counter my point. If you merely insist that it requires a being, please point out logically why it does while keeping within the definitions I listed. If your argument is, "Morality is only subjective, therefore it requires a being," that's just circular logic. You're going to have to first note that an objective morality could exist, and why it would require a being for it to exist. If your argument is instead just another roundabout way of saying, "I insist morality is subjective," that's not a viable argument.

Everything's existence is contingent. Nothing had to exist.
— Philosophim
If there is an uncaused first cause, how could it have NOT existed? What accounts for its contingency? What is it contingent UPON? — Relativist

You may want to read my post on this here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15722/the-logic-of-a-universal-origin-and-meaning/p1 I go over the logic of uncaused origins and what it entails. I'll try to summarize the point here.

When thinking upon the fact that the universe was ultimately uncaused by anything else, you realize that anything could have happened. Odds are calculated based on contingencies. There are four jacks in a deck of cards, which is why if we don't know the shuffle order we say pulling a card bling has a 4/52 chance of being a jack.

An uncaused universe has no odds. It has no reason that it should have formed, and it has no reason that it should not have formed. There is no limit as to what could form, and no limit as to what could not form. There is no cause behind it, so there is no rule behind it besides the fact that it now exists. How it exists is where further causality and rules of the universe are made. It is contingent upon nothing prior.

Even if you believe the actual uncaused first cause is contingent, how could there be a state of affairs of nothingness- an absence of anything at all? Existence itself (the fact SOMETHING exists) is metaphysically necessary entailed by the fact that we exist and something cannot come from nothing. — Relativist

How could there be a state of affairs that there is existence at all? The same as a possible state of affairs in which there is no existence at all. There is no contingency for existence. No prior causation. It simply is, and it had no reason to be or not be. We believe something cannot simple 'be' without prior cause in the universe, but logically, its the only conclusion that works.

Now if you are talking about, 'what is', that's a different story. And that's my point on an objective morality. It is 'what is'. We do not include any reference to a prior cause of the universe because that's pointless. An objective morality if it exists is within the universe that is, just like everything else. It does not exist on some outside intention, but would be an existent thing in the universe just like a wavelength of light.

Your op only claims "existence should be". You haven't explained how that entails the moral imperative "don't steal". — Relativist

Correct. Thus why your point is a straw man. If you want to figure out what I ultimately conclude on that, you'll need to read the next section. I've mentioned several times the limited scope of this particular OP, and noted that if you want to answer some of your other questions that go beyond the scope of this OP, you'll need to read the next section.

Secondly, you had referred to moral imperatives being the product of randomness- and THAT is the basis of my claim that each moral imperative could have come out as its converse. If that is not the case, then explain what you mean by "randomness" in your context. Why couldn't this imperative have come out as "do steal"? — Relativist

No, I clearly stated that everything came out of randomness. So saying that the universe had no intention or causation behind its 'origin' of existence is the same argument that be applied to anything in the universe. Since an objective morality does not require an intention or prior causation, it is a logical part of existence if it exists. I've stated this again and again. Perhaps you just can't comprehend it, it is very different from the normal subjective argument of morals you're likely used to. Bend your mind a bit. And if you still can't understand it, just go with the basic premises of the OP for now and read more. Maybe you'll understand better, have your questions answered, and be able to make a point that demonstrates I'm wrong. Read on to find out why eventually I can make a reasoned conclusion that "do steal" is not an objective moral notion.

1) it's existence is contingent. It didn't have to exist. — Relativist

Everything's existence is contingent. Nothing had to exist. This is not an argument against the existence of an objective morality. A red wavelength of light never had to exist, yet its still an objective classification. You have not answered this counter point the last few times I've pointed this out and only repeated your own. If you simply list the same argument again without answering this I will assume at this point that you understand the point and are unable to adequately challenge it.

2) it's value is contingent. Its converse could have existed. But if "don't steal" could have randomly come out as "do steal", there is no objective reason to follow it. — Relativist

No, it could not have. First, you don't even know if this initial point leads to whether stealing is right or wrong. Second, the OP's claims is only about whether there should be existence. That's the entire point of the OP, to demonstrate an objective morality has a logical and certain answer to this question. An objective morality cannot exist that states "Existence should not be" as that is a logical contradiction. Go back to the OP and bring up the points if you wish to counter this conclusion.

My man, I proved it logically in my P1 P2 C statement. — DifferentiatingEgg

And I presented to you a counter that you have not fully addressed. So until then, my point stands.

It's idealic, you're pretending good should be and thus bad wont be. — DifferentiatingEgg

Alright, that's one part, but you didn't provide your own definition.

First, I'm not defining good and bad as you think I am.

Good - What should be
Bad - What shouldn't be

Its not that good WILL be and bad WON'T be, its that good is a more favorable reality then bad.

That's not idealic, because I'm noting there is possibly an objective evaluation and means of measuring this. Thus its not an ideal based on human emotion or desire, but rational thought.

What do you think is wrong with that definition, and do you have an alternative?
— Philosophim

The highest presentment of humanity seems always to be through crime.

Oedipus, Prometheus, Adam and Eve. — DifferentiatingEgg

That didn't answer the question. If you don't give an answer to that question, then that means mine has every reason to stand.

No, because this means what shouldn't exist is "bad." — DifferentiatingEgg

I think that's fine. What do you think is wrong with that definition, and do you have an alternative?

Oftentimes the overbearing weight of what is good creates bad. A certain tyranny and oppressiveness is formed out of its axioms in a sort of choking sense. — DifferentiatingEgg

That's why we're careful here in our definitions. Is good what should be, and is bad what shouldn't be at its very basic? Do you feel we've reached an assessment of the definitions which allows you to continue on with the rest of the OP?

They exist together or not at all is my point. — DifferentiatingEgg

And we agree!

And what's good for me may be bad for you. — DifferentiatingEgg

True. A subjective morality is merely opinion though while and objective morality would be a reasoned fact. If you're starving without alternative, its good to steal food. If I'm not starving and have money, its bad for me to steal food.

Perhaps you mean, what is good should be what we manifest into reality? — DifferentiatingEgg

Good is what should be. "Be" is exist.

Cause Good and Bad are concepts behind actions. — DifferentiatingEgg

That would be a moral decision. So for example, I might have the intent at an outcome, but fail. So I may intend to do good by donating to an organization, but it turns out that organization was corrupt. I may have had the intent to do good, but the money ended up not being used the way I intended. What should be is that I donate money to an organization and they use it as promised. What is bad is the organization not using the money as promised. My intentions, or moral action, was good, but the outcome was not good because the organization lied.

An objective morality would be a reasoned methodology that allows an assessment of what is good and bad beyond subjective emotional experience. With a subjective morality, we can never reasonably state that an organization scamming a person's donations is bad. With an objective morality we can.

If there is a first cause, F, then it would be outside of the set of causality. — Bob Ross

Considering the first cause would be the first part of causality, A -> B, isn't A part of the set of causality?

If you were to say something like “why F has no reason for its existence: it is necessary”, then you would be correct; and there’s nothing about it that is similar to an infinite regress: a regress would entail that there is an infinite series of sufficient explanations. — Bob Ross

But what I'm doing is looking at the entire set. In the case of U1, the first cause is the first part of the set. So when I ask, "What caused U1?", the answer is that the first cause existed without prior causation, then caused other things. In the second case there is no first cause, but there is still the question of "What caused U2?" The answer is that its entire infinitely regressive existence exists without prior causation.

I think you think such an infinite series of sufficient explanations doesn’t have a sufficient explanation because you are invalidly abstracting out the entire series and treating it like an object. — Bob Ross

Lets focus on this part then. How is my abstraction invalid? If I'm expanding the scope of the universal evaluation to include everything, don't the U1 and U2 examples each capture this accurately?

The whole error of the OP is in your definition of "good." — DifferentiatingEgg

It's merely an occasion sentence.
Further morality also measures what is bad too.
And what is bad is often overcome in specific circumstances and labeled as Good.[/quote]

Ok, I appreciate this critique. First, what is an 'occasion' sentence? Second, the evaluation of what is good by consequence includes the evaluation of what is bad. If good is what should be, bad is what should not be. Third, if good is what should be, then what should be must involve the context of the situation. So for example, if a person is starving and will die, the objective morality I ultimately conclude here would say stealing food to live is good. In the case of a person who can buy food and just doesn't want to, it would be bad. An objective evaluation requires careful evaluation.

Fact is you have yet to make an argument where the premises are true such that the conclusion necessarily follows. — DifferentiatingEgg

This is a fantastic argument, and I'm glad we've started here. Without an agreement on the definitions, there's no point in moving to the next steps.

P1:All concepts of evaluation require contrast between opposites.

P2:Good and bad are opposites that define each other

C:Therefore, all evaluations should be based on good and bad and can not exist as "good" alone. Thus, good is not what should be, but rather good and bad. — DifferentiatingEgg

I agree with points 1 and 2. But wouldn't the conclusion be that good is what should be and bad is what shouldn't be? That is what I conclude here.

Your logic in the Op was based on the assumption that objective morality exists. I'm showing that morality that is the product of a random existence cannot be objective; it's logically impossible. If you want to assume there are objective moral values then you need to drop the assumption that they are a "random addition". — Relativist

The problem with this statement is that you haven't just declared that an objective morality cannot exist. This statement declares that nothing objective can ever exist. Its the same thing as saying, "An objective evaluation of light waves can never occur because its completely random that light waves were made."

Your central argument here is you think how something came to be as the same as its possibility to be. That's false. Morality as I've noted, does not come from an intelligent being. It doesn't come from outside of what exists. It is found within existence. So whether that existence formed is random or not is irrelevant to its existence. Same with a wavelength of light. My point is that if existence is, there is a rational initial proposal to objective morality that we can reasonably look at and explore.

Are you willing to move on Relativist? This doesn't mean you admit that I'm right. But for the last time, I will ask that I would like someone as keen as yourself to look at the next steps that I'm proposing. I think it would help you understand a bit more what I'm talking about overall, where I'm going with this, and possibly give you the ammunition you need to point out issues with it that I'm not seeing as I move along with this. You may have an underlying point that you're not quite able to communicate because you're coming from a stance that from my viewpoint, is limited in understanding what I mean by a non-entity pushed objective morality. I look forward to it as I think you're one of the few people who can understand and evaluate what I'm doing.

A moral imperative that is a "random addition" is not an objective moral value, it's a random value whose converse could have instead come to exist. In effect, the universe flipped a coin, and "do not kill" won. — Relativist

No, I don't think so. If I'm right in the logic put forth, in at least any universe we can imagine, 'existence should be' is the necessary base answer to any objective morality. Second, all objective conclusions are within the universe that exists. This 'arbitrary' argument is pointless, which I've noted several times now. You still think morality comes from something else. I'm noting its a property/consequence of existence itself. It doesn't matter how that existence formed.

Now we've gone around on this point for a couple of posts, and I've noted that if you want a better understanding, its best you read the second post linked in the OP. I'm not sure there's anything to add either way from what's been noted in the OP at this point. If you're willing to think on something new and explore, I think you'll enjoy it, for the novelty at least. If you're here only to insist I can't do what I'm doing, you really don't have the understanding you need to convince me at this point. Not that I can't be convinced in later arguments, I'm quite willing to admit I'm wrong and adapt where needed. But I feel we've reached the limits within this particular post.

How do you get a relevant* moral imperative from an undesigned universe composed of matter and energy and evolving deterministically? — Relativist

Everything comes from an undesigned universe that evolves 'debatably' deterministically. I don't want to sidetrack too much, but if an undesigned universe can incept without prior cause, what's to stop other things from also happening later in the timeline? Such things would be completely unpredictable. Again, not a design intent, just random additions.

So if everything comes from this, what do you mean by relevant? Everything is relevant to that. As I've been noting, from the logic I've established above I hypothesize that morality at its base is the result of matter that has existed without cessation for 13.8 billion years. It is this unexplainable continued existence that is the base of all morality. Its not that there is a want, or desire, or conscious impetus. Just like there is no want or conscious impetus behind atoms grouping into molecules, molecules grouping into DNA, and ultimately creating life. I believe it is simply a consequence of 'eternal' matter. This is of course completely my musing after exploring the topic more fully and I genuinely wonder what you'll think after looking at the whole thing as well.

One major problem at this point is you're trying to figure out everything from my one little post noting that at its base IF there is an objective morality, existence is good. I've just told you 1+1=2 and you're asking me how its possible calculus can come from that. You're not really going to understand until you go through the rest. I'm not trying to trick you or do some, "Gotcha!" at the end. I'm genuinely exploring an idea that no one has ever had before. And I need other people to give it a genuine look. Your criticism has been understandable and the questions good, but you'll probably do better if you keep reading. For all I know my continued reasoning from this point is like most philosophers, "A solid start that loses steam midway through".

You're not confessing I'm right by moving on. I hope these explanations give you a 'good enough to explore it more' vibe and keep going. So if you don't mind, would you read the next section and point your criticism there? I'm not sure there's much to explore in this post at this point, and I would love it if someone with a keen mind took a look at where I go from here.

You refer to "shoulds" - which sounds to me like a moral imperative. Correct me if this is not what you mean. — Relativist

Right, this is the logic. Morality is what should be. If there is an objective morality, then we boil every moral question down to what should be implicitly answered first. "Should there be existence?" And by existence we mean, "Something vs nothing". So not any one particular set of existences, only existence vs nothing at all. The OP concludes that if there is an objective morality, the only answer which would logically make sense is "There should be existence".

I used the word "arbitrary" to highlight the fact there is no reason for these cosmic morals to be what they are. There can't be a reason unless there is some intent behind them- and intentionality entails a mind. — Relativist

Does a red wavelength of light have intent behind it? No. Is a red wavelength an objective entity? Yes. My intent is to find a morality that exists like a wave of light. We may subjectively interpret it in different ways, but its something underlying that we're all observing.

This is relevant to your question about the implications of there being objective morals. If objective morality is rooted in a mind, it would have different implications than if there is no mind. — Relativist

I've mentioned this a few times, and will do one more time in case you have any fears I'm going to recant later on. There is no mind that intends morality. There is no God. This is not my opinion or way to shape you into doing what I want. This is an objective exploration into the nature of morality as existence itself. You may note that my positions may be incoherent in the next post and you might be right. As I've noted, I need other people to look at it besides myself. But I feel its fairly clear hear that it is not.

Arguments from brute facts in cosmology are almost always extremely ad hoc. Yours is no exception. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Normally I would agree with you. It is an exception here because we're talking about a rational limit to causality. If I'm wrong, point out where in the argument my point fails please.

No doubt, if Penrose's hypothesis for why the entropy of the early universe was so low, or any of the others, was borne out by more evidence and became the consensus opinion of cosmologists, it would not make sense to rebut the new theory by stating: "no, it's just is. No explanation is possible." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I understand your concern, but that's not what I'm trying to do here. This is not an attempt to shut down further examination into why things work the way they do in our universe. This is not to shut down the causality that exists. Learning these things can only be helpful and should be encouraged. My point is 'the limit'. One day we may, or may not find the limit. But logically, we can determine there is one. Ultimately that limit is something that is uncaused by something else.

Knowing this we can determine that any proposal to a necessary universal origin without evidence is 100% wrong. If the limit is something uncaused, then necessarily anything could be the limit in an ontological theory. This doesn't mean it actually is anything we can imagine, only that without knowing the origin, we know this at least must be true. Thus we are left without any other means of discovering the actual origin besides science, research, and evidence.

Consider: if new stars appeared across the sky tonight that clearly spelled out "Allah is the greatest," would that be evidence of a creator? Well, on the brute fact view the emergence of the new stars, and the timing of their light reaching Earth, is all just the result of brute fact laws and initial conditions. If the advocates of such a view are consistent, they will declare: "We cannot assume that this happening is any more or less probable than anything else, since the laws and initial conditions just are, for no reason at all." — Count Timothy von Icarus

No. Within existence we have causality. There would be a reason why the stars aligned that way. Anyone who said, "It can't be Allah" should be dismissed. Same with anyone who said, "Maybe its aliens or a government trick." The only way to determine the truth would be through evidence. My point is not that 'everything is arbitratry', my point is that the origin of the universe is ultimately uncaused. That doesn't mean things within aren't caused by other things within it.

Do you not see how "well other people might not have logic and reason on their side, because people sometimes have irrational beliefs," is not a good response to: "We reject the premise of the univocity of being." — Count Timothy von Icarus

My point was only intended to criticize the notion that a unity of people believing something leads any credence to the accuracy of that belief. It is not intended to convey anymore than that.

A. Cosmologists are in no way unanimous that the universe even has a begining. Cyclical theories are still posited. — Count Timothy von Icarus

And my conclusion determines this is a viable possibility, as is anything.

Space and time do not exist prior to creation. God is not in space or time. God is not a being. — Count Timothy von Icarus

God is an uncaused being. But I've noted that if something can be uncaused, there is no limit as to what could be uncaused as an origin. Meaning rocks being uncaused is just as possible as a God being uncaused. My point does note that a God is a possibility, but it is only one of an infinite amount of options, and not logically necessary.

Sure, you are correct. Provided that we accept that "it just is, for no reason at all," is as good an explanation of things as any other, this would indeed render any other explanation "unnecessary," and imply that there "[should] be no more debate or consideration." After all, such an explanation can be proffered for literally anything we might inquire about. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The grass is green because light bounces off grass at a particular wavelength that we interpret as green. It is not, "Just because". Again, my argument is talking about the very specific scenario that the ultimate cause of our universe is uncaused. Everything else within it follows from the causality of its integrated existence. So not only am I not specifically saying this argument can be applied to everything, I'm pointing out it would be wrong to.

Your argument in your OP you said is arguing that there is no cause for the totality of causal things and that a first cause would be in that totality; but this contradicts what you just said above.

No contradiction. Let me see if this helps.

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

What caused U? In both cases the answer is, "Nothing". There is no prior cause for U1 or U2. But the causality within U1 and U2 are true. U1 has a first cause, A. U2 does not. U2 simply exists like A simply exists in U1.

If nothing caused U1, and nothing caused U2, then there is nothing which would prevent their formation either. Since there is an equal weight for both for or against the U's existing, both U1 and U2 have an equal chance of being or not being.

We are talking about if they are in space—not if you feel them in space. — Bob Ross

If I feel them in space, aren't they in that space? When I prick my finger, I feel the pain locally to the wound, not in my foot. Its not some other dimension. The most simple way of understanding that is that pain is tied to places in time and space.

Ok, then you are using the term ‘interaction’ much more strictly than I was. E.g., the gravitational pull of the sun on the earth is an interaction (in a looser sense) without there being touch. — Bob Ross

Good point actually, I hadn't considered that! My understanding though is that gravity is a bending of space from matter. So there is some interaction at the touch point of matter that spreads out. We still don't know how it all works though, so this is a pretty good approach to the idea of indirect touch. Still, gravity originates at a point in time and space, so we still don't have a good example of something outside of time and space.

Yes, that is true; and I am saying you haven’t demonstrated why it is incoherent to believe that something outside of space and time cannot have some connection with things which are spatiotemporal. — Bob Ross

Can you give an example of how a being outside of time and space creating existence would work? We can invent any combination of words and concepts we desire. The only way to know if these words and concepts can exist outside of our imagination is to show them being applied accurately to reality. This is the point of the unicorn mention. There is nothing that proves the concept of a unicorn is incoherent. A magical horse with a horn that cannot be sensed in anyway passes as a logical amalgamation in the mind. But its impossible to demonstrate it exists in reality, therefore its not a sound concept to use when talking about reality.

The same with an entity that does not exist in time and space. If I were to say a unicorn uses its magic to keep the world rotating, this is again not necessarily incoherent, there's just no way to show this exists. The same with saying a being outside of time and space interacted with and created time and space. You've invented a being that cannot be shown to exist that did something which violated the currently known laws of time and space or 'magic'.

Material implication does not create a biconditional: A → B just means that when A is true, then B is true as well—it does not mean that when B is true A must be true. — Bob Ross

True, but we're talking about causation. You're telling me an A exists and creates a B by essentially magic. You haven't shown that A must necessarily exist for B to exist, so you need something more to show that A can exist and must exist.

If there is a first cause, then it has no prior causation for its being; so, by your own logic, it resides outside of the totality of causal things (viz., outside of causality). — Bob Ross

Correct, its formation would be outside of causality. However, what it caused next would be within causality. The issue here is not that the being you describe is impossible. The point here is that once such a being formed, how do we reconcile that the universe necessarily came from this being? At that point we need causality, and we need some explanation for how A caused B. This is of course if we're trying to prove that A is a necessary existence for B to be. If we're just saying, "Its an option", I have no qualm with this as anything imaginable and beyond could be an option.