Morality without Absolute Morality

Hans Blaster · 2025-11-12T22:42:27-0600

Fervent said:
I understand the absurdity, but the absurdity is in the idea of an infinite regress to begin with because everything drains away to nothing in an infinite regress

There are some speculations about how the current epoch is initiated. Some like eternal inflation were random bits will stop inflating and form a new "universe" with that start as a big-bang-like event. Others have cyclical sequences of bangs or bangs and crunches. There are other models, but I don't care which one is true if any. An infinite past is not a problem.

Fervent said:
Nope, at least not when "subjectivity" and "objectivity" are properly understood.

Incorrect. Dependence on a person certainly is subjective when "subjective" and "objective" are properly understood. It is the literal discrimination between the two. Dependent on a person = subjective.

Fervent said:
Uh huh, that's just your belief.

Is there not an eternity in your worldview? Is not your "source" eternal? An infinite past not to mention an infinite future of punishment?

Bradskii · 2025-11-12T22:47:12-0600

Hans Blaster said:
An infinite past is not a problem.

Especially if time didn't start until the BB. But I vote cyclical.

Fervent · 2025-11-12T22:50:21-0600

Hans Blaster said:
There are some speculations about how the current epoch is initiated. Some like eternal inflation were random bits will stop inflating and form a new "universe" with that start as a big-bang-like event. Others have cyclical sequences of bangs or bangs and crunches. There are other models, but I don't care which one is true if any. An infinite past is not a problem.

Speculative models are speculative models, not any sort of evidence. But infinite regress is an absurdity, for multiple reasons that basically boil down to the fact that everything drains away to nothing and that there is no way to get to the present moment.

Hans Blaster said:
Incorrect. Dependence on a person certainly is subjective when "subjective" and "objective" are properly understood. It is the literal discrimination between the two. Dependent on a person = subjective.

Not quite, because grammatical objects don't really apply to God. God is more like a verb than a noun, not subject to such predication.

Hans Blaster said:
Is there not an eternity in your worldview? Is not your "source" eternal? An infinite past not to mention an infinite future of punishment?

Eternal is terminal, it is the beginning and the end. Not an infinite regress, but a single, ultimate cause.

Hans Blaster · 2025-11-12T22:53:57-0600

Bradskii said:
Especially if time didn't start until the BB. But I vote cyclical.

Might as well just vote. I doubt it can be worked out evidentially. Personally I'm voting that it appeared spontaneously next Tuesday and we only remember because of spontaneously implanted memories.

Stopped_lurking · 2025-11-13T00:04:04-0600

Hans Blaster said:
Might as well just vote. I doubt it can be worked out evidentially. Personally I'm voting that it appeared spontaneously next Tuesday and we only remember because of spontaneously implanted memories.

Next Thursday?! I see we are working with closed time curves here I think it will be found to be caused by the "oorsakad" phenomenon. We won't know how it works, but it will explain everything. No I won't try to justify it, but please know that I'm right.

Stopped_lurking · 2025-11-13T02:00:10-0600

Fervent said:
I understand the absurdity, but the absurdity is in the idea of an infinite regress to begin with because everything drains away to nothing in an infinite regress

Why do you believe that infinite regress to be vicious? Not all infinite regresses are vicious, some are benign.

If you don't believe it to be vicious, what do you mean with drain away to nothing?

Fervent · 2025-11-13T07:43:27-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
Why do you believe that infinite regress to be vicious? Not all infinite regresses are vicious, some are benign.

"Local" regresses can be benign, but an infinite regress of causes is global. The idea that it is turtles all the way down is an absurdity and we are left without any explanation for why there is anything at all.

Stopped_lurking said:
If you don't believe it to be vicious, what do you mean with drain away to nothing?

I mean that if there are supposedly an infinite regress of causes then there ultimately is no such thing as causation, all causative force ultimately amounts to nothing. Any explanatory value also ultimately drains away to nothing under a claim of infinite regress, because whatever our current explanation we are left without explanation for the earliest fact that we can explain and every fact prior to that to an infinite degree.

Stopped_lurking · 2025-11-13T08:32:33-0600

Fervent said:
"Local" regresses can be benign, but an infinite regress of causes is global. The idea that it is turtles all the way down is an absurdity and we are left without any explanation for why there is anything at all.

From my reading of philosophers, it seems that question is not conclusively answered with regards to the cause of the universe.

If you want to be convincing you need to explain why you find it an absurdity not you just stating it so, and why that would mean that we are left without explanation.

An infinite regress doesn't mean that everything is unexplained, it means that the number of explanations are infinite. It is not at all clear why it would be vicious.

Fervent · 2025-11-13T08:38:18-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
From my reading of philosophers, it seems that question is not conclusively answered with regards to the cause of the universe.

Desperation from philosophers to preserve an absurdity doesn't make it defensible. If an infinite chain of people borrowed sugar, the existence of the sugar is not explained at all.

Stopped_lurking said:
If you want to be convincing you need to explain why you find it an absurdity not you just stating it so, and why that would mean that we are left without explanation.

I've stated the absurdity, because there is no explanation of why anything exists at all. It's magical thinking that somehow everything exists, but none of it is sufficiently explained. The question is why would we entertain it, not why it should be regarded as absurd.

Stopped_lurking said:
An infinite regress doesn't mean that everything is unexplained, it means that the number of explanations are infinite. It is not at all clear why it would be vicious.

It certainly does, regress in such a situation can only explain relationships but all explanatory power drains away because we are left with an infinite chain of suspended explanations being promised that can never be delivered upon.

Stopped_lurking · 2025-11-13T09:12:34-0600

Fervent said:
Desperation from philosophers to preserve an absurdity doesn't make it defensible. If an infinite chain of people borrowed sugar, the existence of the sugar is not explained at all.

I've stated the absurdity, because there is no explanation of why anything exists at all. It's magical thinking that somehow everything exists, but none of it is sufficiently explained. The question is why would we entertain it, not why it should be regarded as absurd.

It certainly does, regress in such a situation can only explain relationships but all explanatory power drains away because we are left with an infinite chain of suspended explanations being promised that can never be delivered upon.

No, you're only restating your position. What is the argument that it is correct?

Fervent · 2025-11-13T09:24:10-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
No, you're only restating your position. What is the argument that it is correct?

What is the argument that it isn't? How can an infinite regress possibly provide an explanation?

Stopped_lurking · 2025-11-13T09:28:22-0600

Fervent said:
What is the argument that it isn't? How can an infinite regress possibly provide an explanation?

I don't know. I have not presented any argument that presupposes an infinite regress so I'm not well read on it. Hence my statement that it seems inconclusive for now.

Fervent · 2025-11-13T09:29:20-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
I don't know. I have not presented any argument that presupposes an infinite regress so I'm not well read on it.

Then why do you presume there is one?

Stopped_lurking · 2025-11-13T09:30:18-0600

Fervent said:
Then why do you presume there is one?

I do? Where?

Fervent · 2025-11-13T09:31:37-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
I do? Where?

In your first post in this particular exchange, where you state that some infinite regresses are benign.

Stopped_lurking · 2025-11-13T09:45:01-0600

Fervent said:
In your first post in this particular exchange, where you state that some infinite regresses are benign.

From my understanding and when I first heard of it, truth regresses of the type of P is true, then the statement "it is true that P" is also true, repeat ad nauseam are benign. That would be an example of a benign infinite regress, and quick googling shows that everybody that have expressed an opinion also seems to think so. So if there exists at least one infinite regress that is benign it makes sense whether a presented infinite regress is benign or vicious. That was why I wondered why this infinite regress was vicious. Also I knew that philosophers still discussed the question in regards to the cosmological argument.

Fervent · 2025-11-13T09:49:08-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
From my understanding and when I first heard of it, truth regresses of the type of P is true, then the statement "it is true that P" is also true, repeat ad nauseam are benign. That would be an example of a benign infinite regress, and quick googling shows that everybody that have expressed an opinion also seems to think so. So if there exists at least one infinite regress that is benign it makes sense whether a presented infinite regress is benign or vicious. That was why I wondered why this infinite regress was vicious. Also I knew that philosophers still discussed the question in regards to the cosmological argument.

Semantic regress isn't genuine regress, nor does it show that regress of an ontological or explanatory variety can be benign. Given that we weren't discussing semantics, but ontology and epistemology, it remains to be shown that such regress is truly possible to be benign.

Stopped_lurking · 2025-11-13T10:00:09-0600

Fervent said:
Semantic regress isn't genuine regress, nor does it show that regress of an ontological or explanatory variety can be benign. Given that we weren't discussing semantics, but ontology and epistemology, it remains to be shown that such regress is truly possible to be benign.

It remains to show that all infinite regresses in ontology and epistemology are vicious. Or that this one is at least.

Morality without Absolute Morality

I march with Sherman

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Well-Known Member

I march with Sherman

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency