I think I mean 'spontaneously' as instead of the First Cause having always been—as a true Fundamental that never gets made or appears, being unmakeable and unbreakable due to having no parts. I favor the latter case as mandatory because the alternate of 'Nothing' is not the case nor could 'Nothing' even have being or even be meant as an opposite option. — PoeticUniverse

Logically, why could there not be "nothing"? Doesn't nothing exist now? The fact that something can appear while nothing remains around it is not far fetched at all, considering we have many things that exist with mostly nothing around it.

But to your point, I am also not denying such a fundamental could also be an existent alpha. That is perfectly possible, but so would an alpha appearing for five seconds, then disappearing without a trace.

1) Can a statement be true or false if it is not possible to determine which it is, even in principle? — T Clark

I want to clarify this. Do you mean we have an idea that we can conceivably prove to be true or false, but we don't currently have the means to do it? Or do you mean an idea that we have no conceivable means of even trying to prove it true or false?

So for example, someone might say, "Tomorrow I may die." In this case, you have to wait until tomorrow to come for you to figure out if you do indeed die tomorrow.

However, if I say, "Tomorrow I will die in my sleep.", will you ever be able to confirm that? I'm assuming of course that in your sleep you would not be conscious of your death. So if you died, you would never know. But lets say you don't die tomorrow, but go into a deep coma. You then die the following day. In this case, it was impossible for you to confirm whether your statement was true or false.

No hard disagreement here. I think this is easy to understand.

Perhaps the part you do not understand is that what is good is independent from something with power.
— Philosophim

I have no idea what that means. — Bartricks

And that's the entire problem your argument runs into. Morality is a set of constraints on what we should or should not do, independent of our power. An omnipotent being could change it, or defy it, but then it wouldn't be perfectly good. That is the part you are missing.

God makes morality. — Bartricks

Then God is not an Omnibenevolent being. Its a being that simply creates laws for others to live by. If God says, "It is good to torture your babies and eat them," then that's a law. It doesn't mean God is perfectly good. What is good is independent of God, that is why God is omnibenevolent. God follows what is good, despite being all powerful.

You are speaking in terms that are not omnibenevolent. You are saying morality is "might makes right". If you create an all powerful being that makes rules for humanity live by, and punishes them because that's what the God wants to do, that's not an omnibenevolent being. It would be just as disingenuous as if I started limiting God's omnipotence or omniscience. If you do that, you're not understanding that the God in the problem of evil is all powerful, all knowing, and all good.

It seems that an existent as a First Cause can’t come into being spontaneously, for the Possibility of this happening would be even more Fundamental, making for untold numbers of First Causes appearing. — PoeticUniverse

Just checking by what you mean by spontaneously. If you mean "By some numeric random chance", you are correct. We can't put numbers or predictions of a things appearance that has no prior cause.

I have not done that. God is omnibenevolent and there is no problem of evil. Clear? I am not denying that God has any of those properties. — Bartricks

Yes, you are denying the property of omnibenevolent. Perhaps the part you do not understand is that what is good is independent from something with power. Might makes right means you presume there is no morality. If you presume no morality, you have an omnipotent, omniscient being. That could just as easily be a devil that enjoys torturing even the innocent for their own pleasure.

You seem to want to say

A good, all powerful being would not suffer innocent people to live in ignorance in a dangerous world. — Bartricks

And you are forgetting that an omnipotent being would also not have to cause suffering to create good. An omnipotent being doesn't have to punish evil. It can simply change evil without causing suffering.

You also seem to be assuming that only your perception of what is good is correct. The point of introducing Christianity was to show you there is a view point of a God that is good that is far better than your own. If you believe Christianity was invented by man, then that means there are people who have a view point of good that is far better than your own. The desire to inflict suffering upon others for its own sake, even upon people who have done wrong, is a human desire, and considered evil by many people.

You are describing what is omnibenevolent as something less than perfect. Which means its not omnibenevolent. Which means you have not solved the problem of evil.

I have made an argument. To be clear: if there is evidence of God's existence, then that evidence is evidence of our guilt. — Bartricks

Incorrect. That is evidence that if a God exists, it cannot be a combination of the 3 omni's. What you must show is that a God could be a combination of the 3 omni's, and not have it be a contradiction. But as I've demonstrated, a perfectly good being would not cause undue suffering on the wicked, especially if they did not remember or know what it was they did wrong. Your argument is not sufficient enough to fit omnibenevolence, so it does not solve the problem.

You seem just to be ignoring the case I have made. What I have said about the relationship between morality and God was not to address the problem of evil, but to correct the idea that morality operates as some kind of external constraint. — Bartricks

The title of your topic is "Solving the problem of evil". The problem of evil is a very specific problem defined by the contradiction inherent in the three omni's in one being. If you remove omnibenevolence as a restraint, then all you have is an omniscient, omnipotent God. Boom, problem avoided.

But avoiding the problem is not solving the problem.

When it comes to the problem of evil, I have shown that it involves a presumption of innocence. — Bartricks

No. As stated earlier, if you know about Christianity, in it God sacrifices themselves to forgive the sins of humanity. He declares them all guilty, but forgives them. Are you saying this is evil?

If you are trying to redefine what good is, you're not going to make that case. Revenge is not considered the height of virtue. Forgiveness of the repentant is. Also, lets say that we are guilty of some crime we committed, but we do not remember it. In what world would that be considered just? At that point, you just want to hurt something for your own satisfaction of destroying something. That's pretty darn evil.

I think you're confusing the philosophical puzzle of the problem of evil, with your own desire to redefine what is good. Perhaps a better topic title would be called "Redefining evil". But at this point, I think we've strayed from solving the problem of evil.

I already have something to stand on, and I don’t care about one X. — Mww

Well, the argument does. If you're trying to say causality doesn't really exist, but I can post even one instance that it does, then my point stands.

That said, fingers cause the keys to be struck, but do not on that account alone, cause the words. — Mww

Right. But they're part of the causal chain correct? Did you smash your keys with an ax, or a feather, or your fingers? It doesn't really matter. The proof is in the fact that those words would not have appeared on the screen without some cause. Isn't that a perfectly reasonable thing to logically grant?

How many clues do you need, to see where this inevitably leads? — Mww

I don't see where this inevitably leads at all. Please point out where this leads to, and also point out why this counters the OP.

It has energy and so it can't be still, else naught would have further come forth. — PoeticUniverse

Maybe. It might also just be inert floating amongst other things. I would assume that some came into existence with momentum however, as otherwise we wouldn't have our current universe.

Random action, since no design could have been imparted? Or some default for the simplest? — PoeticUniverse

Once a thing forms into existence, it could very well follow rules and patterns. In this, it might not be random. I think only true randomness can happen when there is no prior cause, or when an alpha appears. Once its appeared, we could try to figure out how it functions.

How much of it would there be? — PoeticUniverse

Great question. This is again, completely random. That means it means they could appear anywhere between just above 0% frequency, to just below 100% frequency. Calculating this would be difficult in the fact that you mentioned, which is what are comparing the frequency of this by? Space? Nothingness? Simply our universe? I don't think we can do that. So in the end I'm not sure we can calculate the frequency that something which is truly random could appear.

Is this what you were talking about? Yes, this is part of cause and effect. Cause and effect are ways to measure the reason why a state changes from one to another over time.
— Philosophim

I think you would benefit from doing some reading about causation (and disabusing yourself of the notion that there is only one kind and everyone agrees on what it is), explanation, grounding. When you have all these mixed up as you do, you end up with the kind of muddle that you have in your OP. — SophistiCat

I am not going to go into the entire literary history of philosophy of causation for a forum post to a general audience. I am using the general understanding of cause and effect with precision given as needed. If people have asked for clarification on what cause and effect means for the OP, I have given it with clear examples and evidence. If they countered these, examples they could give me definitive evidence showing it is flawed.

If you have done all of that reading and can see the flaws in the examples, feel free to point them out. Confidence that the OP is wrong does not logically prove it. So far those challengers have abandoned the argument after I've made a counter point. Which is fine. Many people get frustrated when they realize they cannot counter a particular point, and revert to insults, talking down, and ignoring that counter point in their follow up posts. The good ones love the challenge, and make great conversation. Sometimes, they win, and I admit to it. Those are the real philosophers and thinkers that make my heart race, set my mind alight, and force me to things I've never thought of before.

Yeah....about that. What caused the words? And PLLL—EEEEEZZZEEE...don’t say my fingers caused the words. Finite causal regression writ large. — Mww

Your fingers. :D

Am I wrong? Simple things are often all that are needed to prove a point. Demonstrate to me that your fingers were not one X in the chain that caused those words to appear on the screen, and then you'll have something to stand on. For the purposes of my OP, I merely need an X, or a prior existence that causes the Y we're analyzing. To show that the OP is wrong, you have to show that X doesn't exist for anything. If I can show even one X, then the point stands.

Also, alphas are not sacred. If you think this is about religion, it is not. If anything, this argument is likely an incredibly harsh counter against religion. But I find when people start worrying about where the argument is going, versus worrying about the argument itself, they make lot of mistakes in reasoning.

But an omnibenevolent being would never choose to do wrong, even if they could.
— Philosophim

I never said otherwise. My point is that an omnipotent being determines what's right and good. My point wasn't that they will sometimes do what is wrong and bad. — Bartricks

If you are claiming that what is good is what a powerful being decides, then you are not using the word omnibenevolent to describe that being. At that point, you are removing the idea of good and evil entirely, and simply stating that a being's judgement of what is just goes because they have the power to do so. This does not solve the problem of evil. The problem of evil assumes God is also omnibenevolent, meaning while God could change what is good and evil, God does not.

If you're not including the 3 omni's, you're not talking about the problem of evil. At that point you're simply proposing another type of God. In your case, its simply a powerful God that decides what is right and wrong through its might. I find there are other problems with this, but again, its not the problem of evil. To confront the problem of evil, you need to explain why all 3 omnis, which are defined as having zero limits, can coexist in a God of creation while there still being evil in the world they created.

Consider: if your mother hates herself for what she did, that would be good, not bad, would it not? — Bartricks

No. I don't want her to hate herself. I want her to learn and be a person that would never do that again. Emotions themselves are not moral or immoral. It is the actions we do despite those emotions that make it moral or immoral.

Still, it remains that no singular object of perception, in and of itself, can inform as to its cause, nor that it even had one. — Mww

Perception combined with proper science can however. What caused the words that you wanted to type appear on your screen? Are you saying there was no cause? Computer science would say otherwise, that there are clear inputs that cause that output to appear on your screen. It can be easy for us to get lost in the abstract, and forget the very things we use daily. Open a door. Now shut the door. What caused the door to open? What caused the door to close? Can you honestly say there was no cause? Of course not.

To clarify once again, we can look for cause and effect, and not find any, be inaccurate in our assessment, but also be accurate in our assessment. Accurate cause and effect is testable and repeatable, because it accurately describes reality. That is why it is not a false dichotomy. Though fist bump for jinx on using false dichotomy!

It has been demonstrated that causality does not happen at the atomic & sub-atomic level. — EricH

I think you misunderstood the OP. The OP concludes that there must exist things which have no prior explanation for their existence. If there is nothing prior to the sub-atomic level, then it is an alpha that I've been showing must exist. Do one more review on the OP and you'll see you are agreeing with me if you claim this to be true.

All I am saying is that you do not know if what you are describing is actually an alpha, or if we have not simply discovered what the prior cause is yet.

But even beyond that - and here is a question I'm really curious about. I'm fascinated by this behavior. Why is this so important to you that there must be a first cause? — EricH

To answer a simple philosophical question. Is there infinite regression or finite regression. It turns out its a false dichotomy. I find solving puzzles like this fascinating! I have some follow up thoughts on what it means if there alpha's are logically necessary in the post above. Feel free to chime in your thoughts.

What is the nature of the First Cause, given that it has no input? — PoeticUniverse

That is an interesting topic! And perhaps one I'll make after this dies down. There are a few claims that could be made that I think are interesting.

1. There is no reason for an alpha to to last any period of time. It could exist from X to infinite seconds before not existing anymore.
2. There is no reason to believe there is only one alpha.
3. Alphas would seem to be incredibly small. Anything that can be divided or seen as parts is not an alpha, but a complex object. Now it is possible that two alphas could form or collide at the exact combination needed to make a new object. Considering the odds, it would seem like a ridiculously low chance that anything complex would form.

I think these are the most interesting. Do you think I'm off in my musings here?

You're putting the cart before the horse. An omnipotent being determines what is right and good, for otherwise they would not be omnipotent. — Bartricks

But an omnibenevolent being would never choose to do wrong, even if they could. That's part of the contradiction of the problem of evil. if God chooses to do evil, then they aren't omnibenevolent, period. Omnibenevolent is not talking humanity level good. We're talking about perfection level good.

Because our source of insight into what is good and right is our reason and it is from that information that we can glean something about God's character. — Bartricks

Are we omnibenevolent? No. We are imperfect beings that do a lot of immorality for our personal self satisfaction. Revenge for example.

A good person doesn't care unduly about what evil people do to one another; doesn't give them the same attention they give to the innocent, and so on. — Bartricks

No, you're wrong here. Sometimes evil people need special attention from good people. Sometimes good people can help a person who is being selfish, or angry at the world for nothing, come around to understanding they don't have to be that way.

A good person does not indiscriminately want others to be happy - not if you consult your reason. — Bartricks

No. I don't want them being happy off of doing the wrong thing. I don't want them profiting off of doing the wrong thing. What I want is for them to turn their life around, and do the right thing. If you have any knowledge of Christianity, God essentially dies for all of humanities sins. Not for all the good people, but for the bad people too. So we have examples of Gods doing great things for bad men. There are also examples of people helping to reform people with an evil streak in their heart in life. I'm sure an omnibenevolent God would want the same.

It is no more than God communicating to us that He wants some to come to harm for harm's sake. And that does not imply God is bad, for the people in question are gits. — Bartricks

No, that is revenge for personal satisfaction. Why would an all powerful omnibenevolent being want revenge. More to the point, far more important than this conversation, is your desire that hurting people for revenge is somehow right. Before you think I don't understand, I do. A part of me absolutely despises my own mother. She betrayed me when I was younger for nothing more than spite. Every so often, I think about what she did to me, and the long term ramifications of that stupid spite, and I can't help but feel hate and wish ill on her. And no, its not some teenage angst. I have permanent scars on my body that I will never be rid of.

She's an alcoholic. I had the desire to never see her again. But I decided to reach out anyway. We talk every few weeks, and I see her every few months. We've talked about the past. I help her with little things. She's learned, and grown a little. In some ways she may never, as long as she stays on that bottle. There is still a part of me that will always hate her. But I choose not to. And am I a better person for it? Yes. And is she a better person for it? Yes. Surely an omnibenevolent God would do greater than both of us.

Not what you said. Y has a cause, even if the cause is unknown.

That which has an unknown cause is a Y. That which has no prior cause, is an alpha.
— Philosophim — Mww

As I stated before, you were the second person to interpret that the wrong way. That tells me I need to revise this section to be more clear. The way I clarified it in my last post was the way it was always originally intended. Of course it would be silly for me to say something has no cause, but also has a cause. The "unknown" cause was meant to mean, "You do not know whether Y has a cause."

Which is fully on me for not thinking the sentence through. I can see how you would think "unknown cause" means there is definitely a prior cause that we don't yet know about, so no worry. Now that you understand the way its intended to be read, you can see the contradiction never existed.

because the topic ultimately reduces to the principle of cause and effect, which in and of itself, because it is a only a mode of human cognition, has nothing to do with experience. Experience is certainly required for its objective validity, but not for its constructions a priori, re: Hume’s mistake. — Mww

I am also under no obligation to follow Kant's definitions of knowledge. I do not agree that you can know about cause and effect apart from experience. The idea boils down to whether there is a state prior to another that caused that secondary state to be. This is something that exists in reality, external to our construction of it. All you have to do is type a reply on your keyboard, press "Post Comment" and you will have caused the effect of responding to my message. Our language that we use to describe cause and effect can only exist because the world exists with cause and effect independent of our realization of it.

I already explained several times, including in the remainder of the post that you quoted. I don't feel like spending more of my time on this. — SophistiCat

Assuming that the world regresses infinitely into the past, if there is an explanation for that, that explanation doesn't in any way negate the premise. Nor does the absence of an explanation. — SophistiCat

When you stated premise, I assumed you spoke about the OP. Our previous conversations seemed to lean to the idea that you found the solution uninteresting, but sound. So if the premise of the OP is not negated, I assumed you had no issue.

"Cause" is sometimes used in a loose sense, synonymous with explanation, reason, grounding. In that sense, one can ask about the "cause" of time - meaning a reductive scientific account or a metaphysical ground, for example. — SophistiCat

Is this what you were talking about? Yes, this is part of cause and effect. Cause and effect are ways to measure the reason why a state changes from one to another over time. The cause is the reason for the effect. There is not a false equivocation here, and entirely intended in the argument. If this had presented a problem to the argument, I did not feel you pointed this out properly.

I was not merely referring to your posts alone. When I talk about the thread, I'm referring to its entirety. — Artemis

Understood.

Nahhhh.......you couldn’t pay me enough to agree with that, if I’m being honest. The same thing cannot both have an unknown cause and no cause at all. — Mww

I'm not claiming a thing can have both an unknown cause and no cause at all. That which has an unknown cause is a Y. That which has no prior cause, is an alpha. Someone else had this same confusion earlier. I told them if it makes it easier, a Y that is proved to have an X could be called a "why" (Because of X). A Y is merely a state that has the question of whether there is an X or not. No X, alpha. Has X, why. Does that make it more clear?

I agree that the changes you observe all have causes, I just think that's apriori knowledge.
— frank

No, this is not knowledge at all. That is belief.
— Philosophim

And with that little tidbit of philosophical wonderment.....I’m out. I recognize a dead horse when I see one. Sorry. — Mww

I clearly pointed out why it is not a priori knowledge. If you cannot refute it, my point stands. And if you wish to leave it that way, that is fine.

but it is not knowledge.
— Philosophim

It's Kantian knowledge. — frank

A priori knowledge is that which is independent from experience. You cannot conclude that everything must have a prior explanation for it being based upon experience, because you have not experienced every prior cause to every prior thing. Not that there aren't flaws with Kant's theory of knowledge, nor am I using Kant's model, but you haven't accurately ascribed what a priori knowledge is.

I'm not overly concerned with mattering — frank

Then your point will not matter.

You need the answer to come from the dismantled clock. It's not there. — frank

This sentence is nonsense. If you want your point to matter and make sense, use your example and point out where the OP is wrong.

everything has convinced me of both infinite causal regression and the impossibility thereof. — Artemis

I have not stated that there could not be a chain of infinite causal regression. All I've stated is there can be no prior reason as to why there exists a chain of infinite causal regression. Meaning the cause for why there is a chain of infinite causal regression is the fact that it exists, and nothing else. So far, I have not seen any one provide a valid counter argument to this claim.

I already gave you the link. Here it is again. Sub atomic particles pop into existence with no prior "cause".

There are also many, many other quantum effects which also have no preceding cause - the decay of radioactive atoms, e.g. — EricH

There is a difference between not knowing if there is a cause, versus knowing there is not a cause. At one time atoms were thought to be the smallest indivisible objects in the universe. This was not knowledge, but belief. If we learn from history, we should avoid doing that again here.

People much smarter than you & I have proposed theoretical frameworks that preserve causality, but to date these frameworks have all been dis-proven by experiments. — EricH

I am not concerned with preserving causality, when I have yet to have anyone show me its broken.

So just to repeat, to the best of our current knowledge there are measurable physical events in the real world that have no prior cause. These events do occur with statistical regularity - modern technology is based on this. — EricH

Statistical regularity can only occur because there is an underlying rule which produces said effects. Just ask yourself, what causes this statistical regularity? Perhaps it is self-explained, but perhaps it isn't. Its a Y, but we do not know if that Y has an X, or an Alpha.

Arguably, even if we discovered an entity which was self-explained, we might not be able to actually prove it. There would always be the question of whether there was something prior to it. Further, a self-explained entity joins causality once formed. We could use that causality to move backwards and predict that some event caused the alpha, when in reality, we are only predicting that there must have been some prior force to generate its existence.

That is why this argument is important. It may be impossible to ascertain by evidence if something is self-explained or caused by something prior. Perhaps some alphas would fit into a provable context, but I could see just as many not. With a logical certainty that alphas must exist, perhaps it can help us ascertain reality better when we arrive at situations that appear to occur without prior cause.

I agree that the changes you observe all have causes, I just think that's apriori knowledge. — frank

No, this is not knowledge at all. That is belief. For it to be knowledge, you must demonstrate that all changes you observe have causes. It is a strong and very useful belief, but it is not knowledge.

Either all things have a prior cause for their existence, or there is at least one first cause of existence from which a chain of events follows.
— Philosophim

To the best of our knowledge this statement is false. — EricH

Please demonstrate how this is false. I can go around saying a lot of things are false, but it must be shown to be false, not merely believed to be false.

And this where faith comes in - to believe in the a god or gods or the supernatural requires a leap of faith. — EricH

This argument has nothing to do with faith or God. I often find theists and anti-theists become completely unreasonable when they suspect an argument is going for or against their personal belief. Please eliminate that inclination, and take the argument for what it is.

a way out of the OPs conundrum is to note that cause and effect are bound together, two sides of one coin. — frank

I fail to see this. Mind using this to demonstrate how this dismantles the OP? Anything can be claimed, but for it to matter, it must be logically shown.

The two alternatives here being necessity and possibility? — Mww

Lets clarify what necessity and possibility are.

Logical necessity is a logical conclusion that cannot be contradicted within the system. For example, if you define yourself as "the thing that thinks about what I am". You then say, "Either I exist, or I do not exist." Then if you think about what you are, it is logically necessary that "you" exist because you have eliminated the possibility of "you" not existing. You can expand the definition of "you", but then its a new system that has new considerations.

We could expand the scope of what "you" are into the realm of possibility. For example, you could say, "I like cherries, I like ice cream, I will probably like cherry ice cream." This is not logically necessary, but logically possible. Cherry ice cream exists, therefore you might like it. The flaw in the argument of possibility is the idea that liking cherries or ice cream has any bearing on whether you'll like cherry ice cream as many times a combination of foods we do not like creates a taste we do like.

As you can see, the OP is not an argument about logical possibility, but logical necessity.

It follows that if the validation given by experience is continued in kind into the infinite range of effects contingent on causes, it is logically impossible for there to be a cause that is not itself an effect. — Mww

I never claimed first causes are outside of cause and effect once they exist. The opposite in fact. While I stated an alpha is an entity that does not have an X, I did NOT state that an alpha could not have an X. The implicit (which perhaps should have been made explicit) understanding is that an alpha can, or cannot have a Z. And as we know, cause and effect are measuring tools of perspective. That which we are measuring to have been caused, is effected. This can of course turn around. Just as we can say the cue ball caused the 8 ball to move, we can state that the 8 balls acceptance of the force transfer from the cue ball, caused the cue ball to slow down substantially.

The only hard rule for an alpha, is that its initial existence for being has no X. I find it logically necessary that at least one alpha must exist in any chain of causality. If this clarifies the idea, do you agree that the argument fits the criteria for logical necessity?

We don’t know there is a first cause, yet we conclude logically there must be one. What we know today is that, in our experience, every change has a cause. So it is the case that what we know from limited experience contradicts what we logically conclude regardless of experience. — Mww

I don't think that's quite correct. What I did was take cause up to its logical conclusion. There are only two alternatives. If one is logically eliminated from actually being possible, only the other remains. Now where the theory could fail is if some third alternative arrives. Of course, I also think that's impossible. Its like saying the number 3 could exist in binary. If we include a 3, its not really binary anymore.

So I've proven with the information we have, that a first cause is necessary. And in that, I think that's new. Its not a "maybe", its a "logical certainty". The question of applicability and needing evidence is only in what form it would take.

there’s nothing to which a complementary negation doesn’t equally fit — Mww

Unless of course you can negate the argument. Currently its what I'm waiting for to hear from people. Because if people don't, then philosophically, this debate and any debate about finite vs infinite regression is concluded.

This for me is walking on thin ice ... Even worse, walking on the air; I get dizzy! :grin:

What I can do though is to try in my own way to prove or disprove your thesis: A first cause is logically necessary, which anyway, as I already told you, I find it quite interesting ...

Anyway, thank you a lot for your willingness to clarify things! — Alkis Piskas

I'm glad you're enjoying the challenge! If I've given you something to think and wonder on, whether it ends up holding true or false in the end, it is one of the greatest compliments I could receive. Feel free to keep asking for clarification where needed, and keep challenging it as your thoughts arise.

I remember years ago in a current continental philosophy class, being was described as that which could interact with another. I remember this struck me as odd, because "a" being always had to be identified in relation to "another". I remember not liking it at the time, but there was something undeniably powerful about the statement.

Having gained more knowledge over the years, I think there must always be another for "being", because something can only know what it interacts with. While in theory, there could be a single entity of "some thing", it would forever be unknown to anything. If a being falls in a forest of nothingness, it makes no sound.

A being is what exists, and we can only define what we are able to glean exists. We do this through some form of interaction, indirect, or direct. So beings will always be known in their interactions with other. For our purposes, it is when we can define a meaningful enough "thing" that creates an observable unique interaction from what is around it. The word "being" is a generic word meant to capture this concept. Words like "being" are formulas that can expand or contract as we shorten or widen the scope.

If you are looking for a definition of being that fits all scopes, then "that which interacts with something besides itself" is about all you can get. If that is unsatisfying, that is the nature of broadly scoped generalities. They have a very small sense of truth that will endure through more narrowly defined scopes, but will rarely reveal anything meaningful or useful for specific circumstances.

I suffer from anxiety and for the last 10 or so hours I'm having an episode — TheMadFool

No good! I know it might not help much, but I think you're a pretty cool person who's kept this forum interesting. I hope it settles down soon, and you can get some rest. When the suffering seems unbearable, just remember that it will pass, like it always does.

My short answer to this is people can say anything they want when there are no consequences for it.
"I would sacrifice my life and run into a burning building to save a baby." Sitting here at home with no real risk of this happening, I can feel very good about myself as I run the imagery through my mind. But then a real fire happens. There's a baby crying. Suddenly there are real consequences. If I die, who will take care of my dog? Maybe the building will collapse before I get out, and we'll both die. Maybe...

Lots of people can sit on their couch and talk about how moral and ethical they'll be. Then one day when you're walking down the street, a bank car overturns and millions of dollars fly out the back. Before you are several hundred dollars that could easily pay this months rent, and let you pay off some debt. There are tons of people in the street collecting money already. There's no way you'll get caught, or arrested, or even blamed. Heck, if you started collecting it to give you back, people would probably think you were a fool. Do you actually not steal in this instance?

Torture is about fear of loss. On paper you wouldn't do it. But then you don't know if that guy has information that could get some of your people killed. That bastard is an enemy who attacked us, with the intent to murder us. If we don't torture him, more people might die. Am I willing to let my own people die for some murderer who is here to kill my family and friends?

Sorry you've experienced it by the way. I'm not saying it was right. What I'm trying to say is being moral isn't just about knowing what is moral, it is about having the courage and conviction to follow it. Many people will have the former, fewer will have the later.

I think the biggest issue with this is you need to condense and clarify your points. When you define something such as autonomous morality, you should clearly define it, then use examples to demonstrate that definition.

This is an act that no human would say "it is amoral, it is immoral". To all this is a truly moral act. — god must be atheist

Not one of the components are learned, inasmuch as the reaction to immediately risk the self in a rescue mission is not learned but automatic, and the elation-guilt reward-punishment system is not learned and furthermore can't be circumvented or avoided by the individual. — god must be atheist

But then you later say,

There are a few other examples of autonomous moral behavior.

One is the moral obligation to kill your rival if you find him or her in an intimate act with your spouse. — god must be atheist

But not everyone would react this way. Some would kill their partner. Some might find it arousing. I think you were trying to imply that that autonomous morality was the emotions within the individual that compel you to do actions of a social nature? And these emotions would be innate, not learned from society correct? Every example you give should reinforce your clear definition, and leave room for doubt or error. We all struggle with this, its not just you. But I believe you start taking societal moral norms and applying them to autonomous morality, and it makes it confusing.

Non-autonomous morals are always social or societal. Biological evolution made it possible in humans to have the moral effect programmed by societal pressure. Educators in societies shape behavior, or at least attempt to, to make people act according to the rules of their host society. — god must be atheist

Here I think you do better. Non-autonomous morals are those placed by 1 or more people on others. This might coincide with one's autonomous morals, but it also may not. A society generally enforces it ethical model on people, and those who have an autonomous mismatch of a certain threshold are punished by society.

The far-reaching effect is our logical ability to reject the theories attempted to be built by all previous moral philosophers to date, up to, but not including, moral system theories by evolutionary theorists. — god must be atheist

That's a neat claim, but why? I didn't really get that from your paper.

There you go again making the same basic mistake. You just can't seem to get over the cause/explanation equivocation. — SophistiCat

Feel free to better explain how I am making this equivocation then. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just not seeing where you are coming from.

Yeah, well, you know. I want to know stuff. That first causes are logically necessary tells me not a damn thing about stuff. — Mww

Its not science, its philosophy. Philosophy helps us come to logical conclusions apart from application, so we can let our mind wander to possibilities that perhaps could one day be applied. For example, if it is the case that first causes are logically necessary, we can also conclude that there is no need for there to be only one, and that one could happen at any moment. This leads to questions about why the universe isn't loaded with them. Check the last paragraph of my reply to Bob Ross to see some of the things of consequence I've been thinking of.

Thing is....there’s no possibility of demonstrating a failure in pure logic predicated on universals alone, all particulars in succession must be substituted to falsify the proposition/theory, which effectively reduces the logical necessity for first causes to a worthless tautology. — Mww

Perhaps you think tautologies are useless, but they can help narrow questions of scope. The debate between infinite regression and finite regression has existed for quite some time. This give a definite answer to the idea of a first cause. The conclusion of a long debate in philosophy can be useful, and opens up further ideas as I've already mentioned.

...Because, however, the mere form of a cognition,... — Mww

Of course. You have to take your idea and apply it to reality to determine its real. You can logically predict things about reality, test them, and find them to be true however no? Scientists predicted the big bang purely through logical consequences. Does that mean its proven? Of course not. Does that mean its interesting and makes us think on further possibilities? Absolutely. The quest for philosophy is to find the limits of logical consequences with ideas. If we can apply and test them, they become science. I am not doing science, but creating an idea that is logically sound. While I may fail at science, do I fail at philosophy here?

We are not justified in saying “that is just how reality is” because there may very well be exceptions to the rule we have not reached, in which case, we really didn’t know just how reality is at all. — Mww

No disagreement here. But we can only conclude logic with what we know today correct? Your assertion can be applied to every single bit of knowledge mankind has ever gleaned from the world. It doesn't mean I've done anything wrong here. :)

I never wandered from it. I support the logical necessity of first causes; followed by a great big fat gigantic....so what? Even if true, we can do nothing with it, it makes no difference in The Grand Scheme of Things, and as an intellectual exercise, ended as soon as it began. Anyone with a modicum of metaphysical prowess already knew all about it, and no one else cares.

Still fun to play with, though, so...thanks for that. — Mww

I have had fun thinking about it as well. Perhaps you may have fun thinking of the next stage that I started with Bob Ross. Its been a great conversation regardless.

Y is an object that we believe has an X, but we do not know if it does
— Philosophim
But you have established that "X represents an existent prior causality to Y". So, if we know that X exists, how can we not know that Y has an X? — Alkis Piskas

No, I am saying that we don't know. Perhaps there is an X for a Y, or perhaps there is not. If there does not exist for a particular Y, then that Y is an alpha. Basically a Y without a X. I suppose I don't change Y to something else when we know there is an X for that Y, which I could see causing confusion. If I said a Y that we knew had an X was called a "why", would that help? :D

So then a Y may or may not have an X.
An Alpha is a Y that does not have an X.
A Why is a Y that does have an X. (Why? Because X. I can put a little levity here right?)

With that in mind, see if you can continue the rest of the argument. Part of asking for feedback from the forums is so it could be rewritten and amended better to be clearer. So your feedback is welcome!

This is such an old and commonly discussed topic that I am at a loss as to what to recommend. See Agrippan (Munchhausen) trilemma, principle of sufficient reason, metaphysical grounding. — SophistiCat

Hm, I don't think those conclude the same thing that has been concluded here. But, I appreciate your input to the conversation.

It all starts on a more precise understanding of the Self, how the Self comes to mind and how we create categories and concepts. Happy to talk this in a Tertulia if you join us to Discord's Philosophy Bookclub. — Raul

Certainly Raul. Fantastic contribution here and discussion. Thank you.

If there exists an X which explains the reason why any infinite causality exists
— Philosophim

This would only stand up if you proved that such an X actually exists. This is a condition you set up which is not shown or proven to be true. — god must be atheist

Let me clarify the point. I am saying "if" there exists an X. If there does not, then the infinite regress's cause for existence, is the fact that it exists. There can be no prior reason for its existence, but itself. The only way this cannot be is if an X exists for that infinite regress. And if that is the case, we repeat the process ad nauseum, still arriving at the same conclusion of the OP.