Please see my reply to Steven at https://strangenotions.com/tough-questions-about-objective-morality/#comment-1116984310

Thanks Ben. When debating theists I am always reminded of the H L Mencken quote "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

This is very well put. I have been railing against the attempts that have gone on in this argument series to define God into existence, but haven't manage to explain the problem nearly as neatly.

Joe, I thank you for sticking around to respond to comments. Back to the substance:

The form is snarky but the content is a deathblow to your case. The reasoning in your analogy fails, the reasoning in your 'argument' fails for the same reason. You illustrated with the analogy that you don't actually have a good argument.

"Short answer: you're mistaken, and not even making an argument. Just another over-confident assertion."

Since I occasionally work with infinite series, whose behavior is dictated by the rules of logic, I can say with some confidence that they aren't logically impossible.

The per se , per accidens distinction isn't clear and doesn't get you anywhere.

"The effect of leaf C being suspended in the air is due to the cause of twig B suspending it in the air: it's a single action, considered in two ways. And of course, twig B relies upon the existence of branch A, etc.

A, B, and C aren't a sufficient causal account for the suspension of C. They're dependent upon the trunk which must be simultaneously existent: if it were cut down, A, B, and C would cease to be suspended."

Again, you don't understand physics. Keep going: the trunk sits on the crust, the crust sits on the mantle, the mantle sits on the core, the core sits on... Oh wait, the core, the earth as a whole doesn't sit on anything. The very notion of opposing downward gravity with some base has gone away and you missed it because you don't understand the limitations of your reasoning. In reality, the leaf, the twig and the earth are in equilibrium. One does not ultimately support the other, but the forces between them are balanced. If you chop out the trunk, you disturb the equilibrium and a new balance will be reached. This doesn't happen instantaneously. Take away the trunk and the leaf moves relative to the earth. Take away the leaf and the trunk moves (albeit imperceptibly). Your entire notion of things 'that possess[es] causal power inherently', is unphysical and illogical. The 'causes' are the rules of physics that describe how the 'things' relate to one another. Causality does not reside in beings, only in the whole.

"Second, because the causes and effects exist simultaneously, you'd need an actually existing infinite, which isn't possible."

This is a bald assertion which all our experience points against. Space appears infinite. Reality appears infinitely divisible. Mathematics regularly deals with and categorizes infinities. How do you propose to prove that an infinite thing can't exist? Also, God is allegedly infinite so you're not even being consistent.

"Third, this would require the twig's suspension of the leaf to be the "infinitieth" step in the chain, a mathematical and logical impossibility."

Well, as I showed, the leaf's position isn't the result of an infinite chain, nor is it resting on some sort of absolute base, because the assumptions you started down the chain with were no longer applicable. But there is nothing illogical about a specific point in an infinite series existing, nor is there anything wrong about an infinite series with a definite terminus at one end. Pi is an infinite series when written in decimal form, but its first member is definitely 3. Heck, an infinite series can terminate at both ends, just look at the real numbers between 0 and 1. You are like someone who doesn't know that Zeno's paradox was resolved.

Joe, you're not using set theory, just repeating yourself. As I said, if one doesn't understand physics, you really shouldn't presume to be demonstrating metaphysics.

Physically, the cars don't need an origin of motion, they were always moving.

Motion is relative.

An engine does not explain it's own motion.

Until you understand this you don't understand the issues at hand. You need to move beyond a folk understanding of physics and causality before you are qualified to discuss 'deeper' issues. Now you want to move the goalposts from 'one car pointing to another' to 'why are there cars moving'. But that's just another version of the same argument. The reality of physics demonstrates that this type of argument isn't sound. You will keep having to make up a set of ad hoc metarules and metaquestions trying to get to the answer you want, but they will all be as arbitrary as the first.

Well, I think 'bad' is definitely more broad than moral evil. Otherwise, there's nothing bad about natural evils. You might take moral and natural evil to comprise 'badness', in which case the experience of agony per se would probably be a natural evil (though it could be inflicted in someone by an agent).

Personally, I take badness to be even more fundamental than natural and moral evil because there seem to be things that are bad but not evil, naturally or morally. But, this latter point doesn't seem important for the question at hand.

I anticipated the accelerating example in the comment you are replying to. It only makes the analogy worse.

You can't make the is-ought problem redundant I'm afraid. As for my position:

I don't agree that final causes exist. It's not even clear what you think the term means. But, for the sake of argument, I could allow that some such thing exists, whatever it is.

This would not provide an objective standard of good.

I don't disagree that one could in principle have an atheist who affirms that objective morality would require God. Nor am I unaware that some atheists subscribe to various theories of objective morality. If you pay close attention to my comments you'll find that I've already mentioned this fact. Why wouldn't some have incompatible views on morality? This observation only works against the idea that only theism can objectify morality.