PDA

View Full Version : Teleology And Human Ethics...



Pages : [1] 2

seer
09-06-2017, 08:16 AM
If the human person was created for a purpose then how a man conforms to that purpose tells us if he is good or bad. And example would be a car. If a car runs according to design we could call it a good car, if it always broke down we could call it a bad car, according to design. Moral behaviors that conform to our teleology would be called good (or moral) and those that don't would be called bad (or immoral). But if naturalism is correct there would be no objective purpose for the human person. No design to conform to, no standard to judge specific behaviors. How ever nature just happened to create us just "is."

guacamole
09-07-2017, 05:55 AM
I'm holding off commenting because I think this is more pointed at the philosophical naturalists amongst us. You might get more traction in apologetics?

seer
09-07-2017, 06:35 AM
I'm holding off commenting because I think this is more pointed at the philosophical naturalists amongst us. You might get more traction in apologetics?

I think this is the place for it and anyone can jump in...

guacamole
09-07-2017, 07:29 AM
The literal only solution for the non-theist is subjectivity or appeal to the natural, either of which can conceal monstrous ethical problems.

seer
09-07-2017, 07:43 AM
The literal only solution for the non-theist is subjectivity or appeal to the natural, either of which can conceal monstrous ethical problems.

Agreed...

shunyadragon
09-08-2017, 06:57 AM
The literal only solution for the non-theist is subjectivity or appeal to the natural, either of which can conceal monstrous ethical problems.

What monstrous ethical problems?

stfoskey15
10-01-2017, 09:56 PM
There can still be standards to judge whether or not an action is ethical. Such as whether or not an action helps or harms another.

shunyadragon
10-02-2017, 04:28 AM
If the human person was created for a purpose then how a man conforms to that purpose tells us if he is good or bad. And example would be a car. If a car runs according to design we could call it a good car, if it always broke down we could call it a bad car, according to design. Moral behaviors that conform to our teleology would be called good (or moral) and those that don't would be called bad (or immoral). But if naturalism is correct there would be no objective purpose for the human person. No design to conform to, no standard to judge specific behaviors. How ever nature just happened to create us just "is."


A circular argument for the existence of God, where the assumption is the purpose and intent 'outside nature' must be for humanity to be as humanity is. It sounds a little like the moldy oldie 747 for intelligent design argument

Science does not argue for a just "is" scenario to explain the nature of humanity. There is obviously no objective verifiable evidence for an objective purpose outside nature itself, nor is it found to be necessary that this is the case.

Moldy oldie argument die hard, something like Zombies.

JimL
10-03-2017, 04:24 PM
If the human person was created for a purpose then how a man conforms to that purpose tells us if he is good or bad.
Thats one way to look at it.


And example would be a car. If a car runs according to design we could call it a good car, if it always broke down we could call it a bad car, according to design.
We could also call it a poorly designed car.


Moral behaviors that conform to our teleology would be called good (or moral) and those that don't would be called bad (or immoral).
What do you mean here by teleology? Moral behaviors do serve a purpose, the best interests of the species, of society, and ultimately of the individual members thereof.

But if naturalism is correct there would be no objective purpose for the human person. No design to conform to, no standard to judge specific behaviors. How ever nature just happened to create us just "is."
The objective purpose of the human person is a different question than that of the purpose of moral laws. You're starting with the apriori belief that human beings were designed for a purpose. Thats a biased perspective because you want to believe that you, above all other life forms, are special in this regard. I'm sure that if turtles had evolved brains with the ability to think like human beings, they'd think themselves special as well.

seer
10-04-2017, 05:04 AM
A circular argument for the existence of God, where the assumption is the purpose and intent 'outside nature' must be for humanity to be as humanity is. It sounds a little like the moldy oldie 747 for intelligent design argument

Science does not argue for a just "is" scenario to explain the nature of humanity. There is obviously no objective verifiable evidence for an objective purpose outside nature itself, nor is it found to be necessary that this is the case.

Shuny, I don't care what science says, that is a fact. If atheism is true there is no teleology for humankind, no purpose, not even for survival. But since we are both theists we know that there is a purpose for humankind.

seer
10-04-2017, 05:39 AM
What do you mean here by teleology? Moral behaviors do serve a purpose, the best interests of the species, of society, and ultimately of the individual members thereof.

But there is no purpose for humankind, not even for our survival. Any more than there was a purpose for extinct species.


The objective purpose of the human person is a different question than that of the purpose of moral laws. You're starting with the apriori belief that human beings were designed for a purpose. Thats a biased perspective because you want to believe that you, above all other life forms, are special in this regard. I'm sure that if turtles had evolved brains with the ability to think like human beings, they'd think themselves special as well.

Jim, what I'm saying is that if there is no purpose for humankind, then there is no correct way to live, morally, a way that would serve or line up with that purpose. Even speaking of the best interests of the species is ultimately meaningless since our survival itself is not purposeful.

shunyadragon
10-04-2017, 06:10 AM
But there is no purpose for humankind, not even for our survival. Any more than there was a purpose for extinct species.

Jim, what I'm saying is that if there is no purpose for humankind, then there is no correct way to live, morally, a way that would serve or line up with that purpose. Even speaking of the best interests of the species is ultimately meaningless since our survival itself is not purposeful.

The purpose of living and extinct species remains survival. The reality is changes in the environment, competition between species naturally result in some species to evolve and some species to become extinct. The success or failure of different species is not luck, it is simply a result of natural processes as the objective verifiable evidence confirms that we can observe today. The natural course of life and evolution is not evidence for a coherent argument against natural evolution.

seer
10-04-2017, 07:37 AM
The purpose of living and extinct species remains survival. The reality is changes in the environment, competition between species naturally result in some species to evolve and some species to become extinct. The success or failure of different species is not luck, it is simply a result of natural processes as the objective verifiable evidence confirms that we can observe today. The natural course of life and evolution is not evidence for a coherent argument against natural evolution.

Shuny, there is no purpose to survive. Nature did not purpose or intent our creation or our survival.

Webster, purpose: a :something set up as an object or end to be attained :intention

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/purpose

Oxford, purpose: The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/purpose

shunyadragon
10-04-2017, 07:42 AM
Shuny, there is no purpose to survive. Nature did not purpose or intent our creation or our survival.

Webster, purpose: a :something set up as an object or end to be attained :intention

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/purpose

Oxford, purpose: The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/purpose

Survival of life and the species is the purpose of evolution by definition.

Oxford, purpose: The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.


Purpose for the existence and survival of life and the species does not necessarily have a purpose beyond Natural Law and natural course of the nature of our existence. Creation by an outside 'Source' as the purpose is a theological/philosophical assumption of belief.

seer
10-04-2017, 07:44 AM
Survival of life and the species is the purpose of evolution by definition.

Oxford, purpose: The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.


Nonsense Shuny, natural forces do not do anything for a reason!

shunyadragon
10-04-2017, 07:47 AM
Nonsense Shuny, natural forces do not do anything for a reason!

Nonsense seer read the definition, the reason does not necessarily have the theological purpose by definition.

The belief in a Divine reason and purpose for you and I is a question of belief and not based on 'objective verifiable evidence. If it were a good argument based on evidence it would have merit. Nonetheless the natural explanation based on the objective verifiable evidence is more than adequate to describe the purpose and reason of natural processes behind the nature of our physical existence and evolution by definition you provided.

seer
10-04-2017, 07:53 AM
Nonesense seer read the definition, the reason does not necessarily have the theological purpose by definition.

Shuny, by definition natural forces do not have reasons or intentions or purposes. They did not have a reason for creating life, it could have been just as likely that life was not created on this planet. Remember the definition: The reason for which something is done there is no reason for why life was created!

shunyadragon
10-04-2017, 07:57 AM
Shuny, by definition natural forces do not have reasons or intentions or purposes. They did not have a reason for creating life, it could have been just as likely that life was not created on this planet. Remember the definition: The reason for which something is done there is no reason for why life was created!

Your adding 'intention,' which goes beyond my explanation. The reason and purpose behind the natural evolution of life does not have an objectively verifiable 'anthropomorphic intention.' That is not a part of the definition of purpose you provided and I agreed to. That is a theological assumption, so is the assumption that something must be Created to have a purpose is not valid by definition.

You are being selective as to the definition which I cited. In the definition something does not have to be created to have a purpose. Your missing the 'or' in the definition.


rea·son noun 1. a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.

Nothing in this definition precludes that the reason for our physical existence,life and evolution cannot have very natural 'reasons' for their existence.

seer
10-04-2017, 08:21 AM
Your adding 'intention,' which goes beyond my explanation. The reason and purpose behind the natural evolution of life does not have an objectively verifiable 'anthropomorphic intention.' That is not a part of the definition of purpose you provided and I agreed to. That is a theological assumption, so is the assumption that something must be Created to have a purpose is not valid by definition.

Shuny, "intention" was part of the Webster definition for purpose. So tell me, what was the reason why natural laws created life?

Charles
10-04-2017, 08:30 AM
Shuny, "intention" was part of the Webster definition for purpose. So tell me, what was the reason why natural laws created life?

And what is the reason for God to create a world with so much suffering and people ultimately ending up in hell? You see? Even no reason is more satisfying than the reasons you can point to in Christianity. But of course you would rather not talk too much about that part...

seer
10-04-2017, 08:43 AM
And what is the reason for God to create a world with so much suffering and people ultimately ending up in hell? You see? Even no reason is more satisfying than the reasons you can point to in Christianity. But of course you would rather not talk too much about that part...

Charles, God created human beings to be in relationship to Him, to love Him and Him to love us and for love to have value there must be a free exchange. So we can reject our Creator, reject the moral order He calls us to follow, and that is what you end up with - moral chaos, evil. In other words, God is letting us have our way and this is what it looks like. And since God is the only source for everlasting life if you are not connected to that source you will eventually die. The Second Death.

Charles
10-04-2017, 08:47 AM
And why does that type of love have value. A love that will cause so much suffering. We are not talking death but pain and suffering. No dogmatism can pave your way out of those rather basic questions. It seems the rather sceptical seer buys into quite a lot if it is dogma and not reason.

seer
10-04-2017, 09:12 AM
And why does that type of love have value. A love that will cause so much suffering. We are not talking death but pain and suffering. No dogmatism can pave your way out of those rather basic questions. It seems the rather sceptical seer buys into quite a lot if it is dogma and not reason.

If all men followed the golden rule from the heart Charles, if they followed the law of God, what kind of world would we have? And any love of value must be freely given and received - unless you could value the love of an automaton. Second Charles, I really don't care what you think - if you are correct there is no good or evil, death, suffering are just natural conditions and as meaningless as we ultimately are.

Charles
10-04-2017, 09:21 AM
That is how you usually describe reality. Not me. You just use that description to justify circular claims about goodnes with no foundation.

Charles
10-04-2017, 09:33 AM
If all men followed the golden rule from the heart Charles, if they followed the law of God, what kind of world would we have? And any love of value must be freely given and received - unless you could value the love of an automaton. Second Charles, I really don't care what you think - if you are correct there is no good or evil, death, suffering are just natural conditions and as meaningless as we ultimately are.

Will people escape hell if they follow the golden rule by heart. Where is the freedom in love if you face etarnal or extreme pain if you do not love? I fail to see both the freedom and the love.

seer
10-04-2017, 09:46 AM
Will people escape hell if they follow the golden rule by heart. Where is the freedom in love if you face etarnal or extreme pain if you do not love? I fail to see both the freedom and the love.

That was not the point Charles, the golden rule has to do with human interaction, loving God is how you gain everlasting life. And yes, reject God and face justice and death. There is no other source for eternal life, it doesn't exist, and if you are not connected to that source you will die.

Charles
10-04-2017, 09:51 AM
That was not the point Charles, the golden rule has to do with human interaction, loving God is how you gain everlasting life. And yes, reject God and face justice and death. There is no other source for eternal life, it doesn't exist, and if you are not connected to that source you will die.

And how is that love an expression of freedom? You either love me or suffer etarnal or extreme pain does not sound like freedom to me.

seer
10-04-2017, 09:57 AM
That is how you usually describe reality. Not me. You just use that description to justify circular claims about goodnes with no foundation.

Where do moral questions stop Charles? Who decides?

seer
10-04-2017, 10:01 AM
And how is that love an expression of freedom? You either love me or suffer etarnal or extreme pain does not sound like freedom to me.

You are missing the point, you either love and are connected to the source of everlasting life or you are not. And I don't believe one suffers eternally - they are judged according to their degree of sin and face annihilation. I explained my position to you before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism

JimL
10-04-2017, 10:10 AM
Shuny, there is no purpose to survive. Nature did not purpose or intent our creation or our survival.

Webster, purpose: a :something set up as an object or end to be attained :intention

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/purpose

Oxford, purpose: The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/purpose

All true, and you don't like it. So what? Thats what I meant when I said that you begin with the presupposition that you were created and exist for a certain intended purpose. Not liking the truth, i.e. that there is no ultimate purpose for existing, doesn't make it false.

seer
10-04-2017, 10:14 AM
All true, and you don't like it. So what? Thats what I meant when I said that you begin with the presupposition that you were created and exist for a certain intended purpose. Not liking the truth, i.e. that there is no ultimate purpose for existing, doesn't make it false.

I'm glad you agree that your life or humankind has no ultimate purpose in your worldview.

JimL
10-04-2017, 10:58 AM
I'm glad you agree that your life or humankind has no ultimate purpose in your worldview.

Like I said seer, not liking the way the world seems to be, is not reason in itself to deny it. Everything begins to exist, and everything dies, including universes, because they are only temporal effects within the eternal infinite whole for which there can be no ultimate purpose, it just is. What would you say a Gods ultimate purpose is? Doesn't have one does he? So why do you think you should have an ultimate purpose?

seer
10-04-2017, 11:27 AM
Like I said seer, not liking the way the world seems to be, is not reason in itself to deny it. Everything begins to exist, and everything dies, including universes, because they are only temporal effects within the eternal infinite whole for which there can be no ultimate purpose, it just is. What would you say a Gods ultimate purpose is? Doesn't have one does he? So why do you think you should have an ultimate purpose?

Jim God just is, but the difference between God and not-god bears on human purpose and value.

shunyadragon
10-04-2017, 11:39 AM
Shuny, "intention" was part of the Webster definition for purpose. So tell me, what was the reason why natural laws created life?

Intention was an option and not necessary. I go with the Oxford definition which gave three specific options. Creation was only one option.

Life was not necessarily 'Created.' That is a theological belief.

Definition: Reason - "a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event."

The 'reason' and 'cause, explanation and justification' for the nature of our existence is Natural Laws and natural processes by the objective verifiable evidence.

Charles
10-04-2017, 11:41 AM
Jim God just is, but the difference between God and not-god bears on human purpose and value.

But you cannot build that on something that just is (whatever that means) and does not have purpose. It is a dead end track, seer. Again you seem to avoid the tough questions by just making statements with no justification.

JimL
10-04-2017, 11:57 AM
Jim God just is, but the difference between God and not-god bears on human purpose and value.

Like I said, you have presupposition of purpose for existence. Whats gods purpose?

seer
10-04-2017, 12:14 PM
Intention was an option and not necessary. I go with the Oxford definition which gave three specific options. Creation was only one option.

Life was not necessarily 'Created.' That is a theological belief.

Definition: Reason - "a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event."

The 'reason' and 'cause, explanation and justification' for the nature of our existence is Natural Laws and natural processes by the objective verifiable evidence.

Shuny, I asked a specific question, what was the reason for our creation? If materialism is true there isn't one. Did nature create us to survive or not survive? You can say that the natural forces caused life on earth - but that is not a purpose.

seer
10-04-2017, 12:16 PM
Like I said, you have presupposition of purpose for existence. Whats gods purpose?

Jim, God just is, there can be no other answer. You believe that matter and energy are past eternal - what is their purpose?

seer
10-04-2017, 12:19 PM
But you cannot build that on something that just is (whatever that means) and does not have purpose. It is a dead end track, seer. Again you seem to avoid the tough questions by just making statements with no justification.

That is just stupid Charles, if you believe that matter and energy are past eternal then they just are. You can not assign a purpose to them. So in that case you can not build anything on that.

shunyadragon
10-04-2017, 12:23 PM
Shuny, I asked a specific question, what was the reason for our creation? If materialism is true there isn't one. Did nature create us to survive or not survive? You can say that the natural forces caused life on earth - but that is not a purpose.

That is not the question. This question is answered as a matter of belief in God and Creation, and not objective verifiable evidence concerning the nature of our physical existence, life and evolution, which is the subject I addressed, and you have failed to respond.

seer
10-04-2017, 12:38 PM
That is not the question. This question is answered as a matter of belief in God and Creation, and not objective verifiable evidence concerning the nature of our physical existence, life and evolution, which is the subject I addressed, and you have failed to respond.

Shuny, you said that was a purpose to our existence - there isn't if naturalism is true - period.

Charles
10-04-2017, 12:44 PM
That is just stupid Charles, if you believe that matter and energy are past eternal then they just are. You can not assign a purpose to them. So in that case you can not build anything on that.

You once again fail to adress the point. You want to build purpose on something that "just is" but does not have a purpose. It seems a God who "just is" but has not got an ultimate purpose is good enough for you. How would it differ from anything else that "just is" but does not have an ultimate purpose? You are yet to tell us what kind of purpose this can established this way.

seer
10-04-2017, 12:47 PM
You once again fail to adress the point. You want to build purpose on something that "just is" but does not have a purpose. It seems a God who "just is" but has not got an ultimate purpose is good enough for you. How would it differ from anything else that "just is" but does not have an ultimate purpose? You are yet to tell us what kind of purpose this can established this way.

Charles, God being an intelligent Being had purposes, goals or aims. You seem to be asking for a purpose that is external to Him, some reason for His existence - that is just a stupid question. It is like asking the atheist what is the purpose of the universe.

shunyadragon
10-04-2017, 01:13 PM
Shuny, you said that was a purpose to our existence - there isn't if naturalism is true - period.

This is an assertion of belief on your part, and not supported by objective verifiable evidence.

Charles
10-04-2017, 01:15 PM
Charles, God being an intelligent Being had purposes, goals or aims. You seem to be asking for a purpose that is external to Him, some reason for His existence - that is just a stupid question. It is like asking the atheist what is the purpose of the universe.

If God has no reason to have those purposes, goals or aims then they have no foundation and do not establish anything other than just choice. If you cannot give a reason then we are back to the just making statements approach. And if you have given up when it comes to providing reasons then you are right that asking for reasons is stupid.

seer
10-05-2017, 04:44 AM
This is an assertion of belief on your part, and not supported by objective verifiable evidence.

What do you mean? What is the purpose for our existence according to atheism/materialism?

seer
10-05-2017, 04:48 AM
If God has no reason to have those purposes, goals or aims then they have no foundation and do not establish anything other than just choice. If you cannot give a reason then we are back to the just making statements approach. And if you have given up when it comes to providing reasons then you are right that asking for reasons is stupid.

Just making statements? Like your fictional objective ethics? But again, you are asking an inane question. Is God supposed to have some external purpose? How would one divine a purpose for an uncreated being? What would that even look like?

shunyadragon
10-05-2017, 05:43 AM
Shuny, you said that was a purpose to our existence - there isn't if naturalism is true - period.

Ah . . . no, you are misrepresenting me. By the definitions of purpose and reason, for the nature of our physical existence has purpose and reasonbased on Natural Law, and natural processes. There. of course is no anthropomorphic intent, by definition in the purpose and reason from the scientific perspective. The definitions provided describe creation as an option for purpose, but not the only reason for a purpose. I have previously explained this by the definitions provided. Please cite me properly and completely and do not misrepresent me as you usually do.

Theistic 'ultimate purpose,' reason and intent remains a question of belief, and cannot be justified by the objective verifiable evidence.

You, of course, consider there are no alternative explanations for the nature of our physical existence, life and evolution, but that is a rather unrealistic egocentric view and not supported by objective verifiable evidence.

seer
10-05-2017, 07:19 AM
Ah . . . no, you are misrepresenting me. By the definitions of purpose and reason, for the nature of our physical existence has purpose and reason based on Natural Law, and natural processes. There. of course is no anthropomorphic intent, by definition in the purpose and reason from the scientific perspective. The definitions provided describe creation as an option for purpose, but not the only reason for a purpose. I have previously explained this by the definitions provided. Please cite me properly and completely and do not misrepresent me as you usually do.

As defined purpose requires intent. You can say that evolution is the reason why developed as we did, but there is no purpose in that. Evolution does not purpose one species to survive and another to go extinct. It is a blind purposeless process.

JimL
10-05-2017, 09:08 AM
Jim, God just is, there can be no other answer. You believe that matter and energy are past eternal - what is their purpose?

Thats my point seer, if god can just be, existing for no particular reason, with no intended purpose, then so can the universe and you just be. You presuppose intent and purpose because you want there to be ultimate intent and purpose in your life, but as you can see, just as an uncreated god would have no ultimate intention or purpose for his existence, neither would an uncreated universe. Wanting existence to be a certain way is not a reason that it has to be that way.

seer
10-05-2017, 09:42 AM
Thats my point seer, if god can just be, existing for no particular reason, with no intended purpose, then so can the universe and you just be. You presuppose intent and purpose because you want there to be ultimate intent and purpose in your life, but as you can see, just as an uncreated god would have no ultimate intention or purpose for his existence, neither would an uncreated universe. Wanting existence to be a certain way is not a reason that it has to be that way.

Jim, I'm not arguing that the universe can't just be, only that there would be no ultimate purpose for humankind. And God would not need some external reason or purpose for His existence to create us with a purpose and value.

shunyadragon
10-05-2017, 09:56 AM
As defined purpose requires intent.

You can say that evolution is the reason why developed as we did, but there is no purpose in that. Evolution does not purpose one species to survive and another to go extinct. It is a blind purposeless process.

It is blind to intent, but not purpose and reason by definition. As a noun there is no necessary intent for a purpose,


pur·pose noun 1. the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

seer
10-05-2017, 10:07 AM
It is blind to intent, but not purpose and reason by definition. As a noun there is no necessary intent for a purpose,


pur·pose noun 1. the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

To your definition:


the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.
"the purpose of the meeting is to appoint a trustee"

The reason for why something is done or created. What was the reason or purpose for nature creating life?

JimL
10-05-2017, 10:10 AM
Jim, I'm not arguing that the universe can't just be, only that there would be no ultimate purpose for humankind.
Yes, and that argument, though true, has nothing to do with whether or not the universe was created.

And God would not need some external reason or purpose for His existence to create us with a purpose and value.
You,re missing the point seer, its not whether or not an uncreated god is able to create something with intention, purpose and value, the problem is that an uncreated god would himself have no ultimate intended purpose or value. If god can exist without any ultimate intended purpose, then so could an uncreated universe exist without any intended purpose. Your not being happy with that situation is not good reason that it must be otherwise.

seer
10-05-2017, 10:42 AM
Yes, and that argument, though true, has nothing to do with whether or not the universe was created.

OK


You,re missing the point seer, its not whether or not an uncreated god is able to create something with intention, purpose and value, the problem is that an uncreated god would himself have no ultimate intended purpose or value. If god can exist without any ultimate intended purpose, then so could an uncreated universe exist without any intended purpose. Your not being happy with that situation is not good reason that it must be otherwise.

Of course the universe could exist without a purpose, but this thread is about human teleology and ethics.

JimL
10-05-2017, 11:07 AM
OK



Of course the universe could exist without a purpose, but this thread is about human teleology and ethics.

Yes, and your point seeming to be that unless we were created and designed for a purpose, then our morals have no purpose. That doesn't make sense. Morals serve our purpose, our interests, not the interests of a creator.

seer
10-05-2017, 11:47 AM
Yes, and your point seeming to be that unless we were created and designed for a purpose, then our morals have no purpose. That doesn't make sense. Morals serve our purpose, our interests, not the interests of a creator.

No Jim, what I'm saying is that there would be no correct way to live, morally. Like you said, nothing is really evil, therefore nothing is really good either. You would say that what serves the greater good is good, but why is our very survival a good? If you could get away with taking advantage of you fellow man to feather your own bed then that is a good for you.

JimL
10-05-2017, 12:10 PM
No Jim, what I'm saying is that there would be no correct way to live, morally.
Depends what you mean by correct way to live. If you mean by that to insure through moral laws the best society within which to live, then there are obviously moral laws of behavior that will better achieve that end.
If you mean what behaviors might be good for yourself alone in the short term, then obviously there would be no correct way, but morality isn't about the good of you alone, its about the good of you as part of a larger community.

Like you said, nothing is really evil, therefore nothing is really good either. You would say that what serves the greater good is good, but why is our very survival a good? If you could get away with taking advantage of you fellow man to feather your own bed then that is a good for you.
Its not that there is nothing good or evil, its that there is nothing good or evil in and of itself. Good and Evil are relative to the interests of human beings, and human beings live in community with each other making good and evil relative to human society. The reason that our very survival is good is rather obvious, we have a very strong desire to survive. For us, survival is good!

Charles
10-05-2017, 12:26 PM
Just making statements? Like your fictional objective ethics? But again, you are asking an inane question. Is God supposed to have some external purpose? How would one divine a purpose for an uncreated being? What would that even look like?

What this all shows is that you, as usual, have got no answer. You are just moving the problem one step further away. You want to base purpose on God but you cannot show how that establishes purpose, you have simply got nothing to say in favour of why and how. It is a skin explanation. It is like explaining the universe by claiming it was created by god and then being unable to explain why or how god exists. So, basically, you are not explaining anything but trying to cover the question up in dogma making it seem as if it is irelevant or stupid while the real problem is that you simply cannot answer it.

seer
10-05-2017, 12:34 PM
What this all shows is that you, as usual, have got no answer. You are just moving the problem one step further away. You want to base purpose on God but you cannot show how that establishes purpose, you have simply got nothing to say in favour of why and how. It is a skin explanation. It is like explaining the universe by claiming it was created by god and then being unable to explain why or how god exists. So, basically, you are not explaining anything but trying to cover the question up in dogma making it seem as if it is irelevant or stupid while the real problem is that you simply cannot answer it.

Charles how on earth can one show how or why an eternal being exists? Your question is irrational, like your fictional objective ethics.

JimL
10-05-2017, 12:41 PM
Charles how on earth can one show how or why an eternal being exists? Your question is irrational, like your fictional objective ethics.

Seer, there is no reason how or why an eternal being exists, nor is there a reason how or why an eternal universe exists. Thats basically the point I've been making. Your wanting for there to be a reason and purpose for your existence, is not a good reason for believing there is a reason and purpose for your existence.

seer
10-05-2017, 12:56 PM
Seer, there is no reason how or why an eternal being exists, nor is there a reason how or why an eternal universe exists. Thats basically the point I've been making. Your wanting for there to be a reason and purpose for your existence, is not a good reason for believing there is a reason and purpose for your existence.

Right and that is why Charlie's question is irrational. And just because I want a reason or purpose for life doesn't mean there isn't one. After all belief in the otherworldly seems to be the default position for mankind. Atheism is clearly abnormal.

JimL
10-05-2017, 01:15 PM
Right and that is why Charlie's question is irrational. And just because I want a reason or purpose for life doesn't mean there isn't one. After all belief in the otherworldly seems to be the default position for mankind. Atheism is clearly abnormal.
Default position or not, your argument is irrelevant with respect to what is real or not. Just because you want there to be a reason or purpose for your existence is not a legitimate reason, i.e. a reason based on logic, to believe there is a purpose either. Btw, the majority of the people in the world are not Christians, shall I conclude from that fact alone that christianity is abnormal?

seer
10-05-2017, 01:22 PM
Default position or not, your argument is irrelevant with respect to what is real or not. Just because you want there to be a reason or purpose for your existence is not a legitimate reason, i.e. a reason based on logic, to believe there is a purpose either. Btw, the majority of the people in the world are not Christians, shall I conclude from that fact alone that christianity is abnormal?

But you should see atheism as abnormal, perhaps we have such a strong pull towards the spiritual because we have an intuitive knowledge of its reality. Just saying... And I'm not sure what you mean by logic, atheism is not very logical. IMHO.

shunyadragon
10-05-2017, 03:17 PM
To your definition:



The reason for why something is done or created. What was the reason or purpose for nature creating life?

Your missing the 'or,' which is not an 'and.'

Anomaly
10-05-2017, 06:41 PM
The belief in a Divine reason and purpose for you and I is a question of belief and not based on 'objective verifiable evidence. If it were a good argument based on evidence it would have merit. Nonetheless the natural explanation based on the objective verifiable evidence is more than adequate to describe the purpose and reason of natural processes behind the nature of our physical existence and evolution by definition you provided.

In reading here and other threads you participate in I’m puzzled by your claimed adherence to a religion, shunyadragon—your arguments are virtually always identical to those of the atheist. You use the same circular reasoning intrinsic to all such arguments:
1. Truth is only found in objective, empirically testable theories.
2. A system of belief must be true; a false system of belief is counterintuitive and counterproductive.
3. Theism is not an empirically testable system of belief.
4. Therefore, theism has no justification as a true system of belief.
5. Naturalism is based on strong empirical evidences and has a firm warrant for truth.
6. Therefore naturalism has justification as a true system of belief.

So your “good argument based on evidence would not have merit”, being circular in nature, seems not to have much merit itself.

Both naturalism and theism are at root systems of belief. If we can agree that individuals begin with a “clean slate”, the intellect, as it advances in knowledge, is (or appears to develop into) an interpreting machine. Some are taught (in our modern setting) religious principles, most are taught the principles of science. From this simple scenario both theists and atheists should stop accusing one another of presupposing either God or science in their arguments. Of course these beliefs have a presuppositional basis. Our slates are filled with the ideas and beliefs common to the familial, cultural and societal reality we’re born into.

So, let’s at least admit that we come into the fray with certain presuppositions and its natural to do so.

Evolutionists typically hold—against the teleological approach that non-intelligent things don’t move (as evidenced in human activities) except by a prior mover toward a specific end—evidence suggests that mutations are selected or rejected for their adaptability or lack of it. But the theistic evolutionist can argue that the evolutionary model doesn’t disprove God—this evidence can as easily be interpreted as a blueprint of functionality through design as it can random chance. It still holds that movement is caused, interpretations just fall on one side or the other.

And given advances in quantum physics, naturalism, at least its mechanistic aspect, is starting to look shaky anyway.

shunyadragon
10-05-2017, 08:27 PM
In reading here and other threads you participate in I’m puzzled by your claimed adherence to a religion, shunyadragon—your arguments are virtually always identical to those of the atheist.

Only from the perspective of defending Methodological Naturalism, and NOT Philosophical Naturalism. The problem is that when it comes to science, the Traditional Christian arguments are most often inconsistent, bad science, and even more often genuinely terrible. Actually, the atheists, and the agnostics at least get their science right.



You use the same circular reasoning intrinsic to all such arguments:
1. Truth is only found in objective, empirically testable theories.
2. A system of belief must be true; a false system of belief is counterintuitive and counterproductive.
3. Theism is not an empirically testable system of belief.
4. Therefore, theism has no justification as a true system of belief.
5. Naturalism is based on strong empirical evidences and has a firm warrant for truth.
6. Therefore naturalism has justification as a true system of belief.

Most definitely NOT my argument. Please cite me and represent me accurately.

1. [Knowledge of our physical existence; ie science] is only found in objective, empirically testable theories [and hypothesis].
2. A system of belief must be coherent and compatible beyond the claimed foundation of ancient scripture. Traditional Theists such as Jews, Christians and Muslims, are grounded in the belief that there scripture was in some way Divinely revealed or confirmed as is. In reality the ancient texts such as Genesis and Exodus are based on ancient mythology and without known authors.
3. Theism is not an empirically testable system of belief. True!
4. <delete> Fallible humans are not capable of comprehending absolute truths.
5. [Methodological] Naturalism is based on strong empirical evidences and has a firm warrant for [the knowledge of our physical existence.]
6. Therefore naturalism has justification as a true system of belief.



So your “good argument based on evidence would not have merit”, being circular in nature, seems not to have much merit itself.

Be specific this is meaningless. Science based on objective verifiable evidence is not circular.


vBoth naturalism and theism are at root systems of belief.

Philosophical Naturalism and theism are systems of belief. Methodological Naturalism is not.



If we can agree that individuals begin with a “clean slate”, the intellect, as it advances in knowledge, is (or appears to develop into) an interpreting machine. Some are taught (in our modern setting) religious principles, most are taught the principles of science. From this simple scenario both theists and atheists should stop accusing one another of presupposing either God or science in their arguments. Of course these beliefs have a presuppositional basis. Our slates are filled with the ideas and beliefs common to the familial, cultural and societal reality we’re born into.

A much too an idealistic expectation to be real.



So, let’s at least admit that we come into the fray with certain presuppositions and its natural to do so.

Vague, not answerable.



Evolutionists typically hold—against the teleological approach that non-intelligent things don’t move (as evidenced in human activities) except by a prior mover toward a specific end—evidence suggests that mutations are selected or rejected for their adaptability or lack of it. But the theistic evolutionist can argue that the evolutionary model doesn’t disprove God—this evidence can as easily be interpreted as a blueprint of functionality through design as it can random chance. It still holds that movement is caused, interpretations just fall on one side or the other.

I am TE, scientist, and yes I believe God Created everything. No the evolutionary model does not disprove God. It just demonstrates that the ancient Theist views, are based on ancient mythology are poorly grounded in reality.



And given advances in quantum physics, naturalism, at least its mechanistic aspect, is starting to look shaky anyway.

No, misconceptions and misunderstanding of science. The mechanistic aspects of Newtonian physics are no longer valid one the very small scale. There are of course many unknowns, but modern physics and cosmology remains well grounded in predictable behavior on the very small scale, even predicting the existence of particles and behavior before they are discovered.

Vague challenges of 'shaky' as far as our Physics is concerned are based on 'shaky' arguments from ignorance.

What is terribly 'shaky' is the belief in the reliability of ancient scripture like Genesis, which are grounded more in mythology. This is becoming more apparent as time passes.

seer
10-06-2017, 04:35 AM
Your missing the 'or,' which is not an 'and.'

What? Did the laws of nature have a reason or purpose for creating life or not?

shunyadragon
10-06-2017, 05:42 AM
What? Did the laws of nature have a reason or purpose for creating life or not?

The reason is life is a natural result of the laws of nature that caused the nature of our physical existence as it is, the purpose is all cause and effect events in our physical universe happen only within the limits of the laws of nature and natural processes.

Creation is theological/philosophical belief. From the scientific perspective laws of nature and natural processes do not Create anything. Cause and effect outcomes and 'things' are a result of natural law and natural processes.

seer
10-06-2017, 06:21 AM
The reason is life is a natural result of the laws of nature that caused the nature of our physical existence as it is, the purpose is all cause and effect events in our physical universe happen only within the limits of the laws of nature and natural processes.

Your first part is correct, like I already said, the second part is not. There is no purpose, by definition, in cause and effect.


From the scientific perspective laws of nature and natural processes do not Create anything. Cause and effect outcomes and 'things' are a result of natural law and natural processes.

Create:to make or bring into existence something new, bring (something) into existence


So natural forces did create something new into existence, life.

Anomaly
10-06-2017, 08:38 AM
Science based on objective verifiable evidence is not circular.
Science is nothing but cold hard information or facts. Circularity is a feature of the rational process or propositional interpretation. When the naturalist steps beyond her interpretation of factual existence [for which she has warranted belief] to declare that factual information grants her sufficient knowledge to refute the truth of a belief system that depends on the use of additional evidence which she refuses to accept into her epistemological realm, she’s being circular. And those who fall for the ruse just borrow the same circularity to justify their disdain for theism.


…naturalism has justification as a true system of belief.
I concede naturalism has warrant for belief as a theory. The issue is that the naturalist turns to the same analytic process to interpret states of affairs as the theist. The theist commonly includes evidences that are analytically plausible which the natualist rejects [allegedly] because they fall outside the “legitimate” realm of the synthetic or of factual existence.


3. Theism is not an empirically testable system of belief. True!
After professing your indignation that I misrepresent you, you show your stripes again shunyadragon. #3 was, as I’m sure you know, only a premise in the example of the naturalist’s circularity, not a stated belief on my part. Many theists find sufficient strands of connection (truth) between empirically testable existence and the principles of faith to warrant religious belief. Again, interpretation is key.


A much too an idealistic expectation to be real.
Idealistic in what sense? Where I come from the notion that everyone has presuppositions built into their beliefs is just common sense. Are you disagreeing just for the sake of disagreement?


Vague challenges of 'shaky' as far as our Physics is concerned are based on 'shaky' arguments from ignorance.
Actually, quantum reality is being interpreted in a number of different ways, by groups and organizations, most of whom probably have vested interests in seeing it turn out in their favor. I was only referring to this multitude of interpretive responses to a part of science still in adolescence, if not its infancy. What shaky arguments from ignorance are you talking about, those that interpret the science in favor of theism?

JimL
10-06-2017, 08:52 AM
Your first part is correct, like I already said, the second part is not. There is no purpose, by definition, in cause and effect.



Create:to make or bring into existence something new, bring (something) into existence


So natural forces did create something new into existence, life.

The natural forces, if you want to put it that way, creates new things from out of itself, not new things from out of nothing. The cause is in the effect, and the effect is in the cause. But, if everything is one in the same thing, in its many different forms, then cause and effect is just a way of talking, it isn't really a fundemental description of reality. The universe just is, it simply changes according to its own nature.

seer
10-06-2017, 08:55 AM
The natural forces, if you want to put it that way, creates new things from out of itself, not new things from out of nothing. The cause is in the effect, and the effect is in the cause. But, if everything is one in the same thing, in its many different forms, then cause and effect is just a way of talking, it isn't really a fundemental description of reality. The universe just is, it simply changes according to its own nature.

Then it does create. Life from non-life, consciousness from non-consciousness.

JimL
10-06-2017, 10:08 AM
Then it does create. Life from non-life, consciousness from non-consciousness.

Well you can call it what you want, but creation is usually thought of as the product of a mind. A better term, I would suggest, is that it evolves.

seer
10-06-2017, 11:15 AM
Well you can call it what you want, but creation is usually thought of as the product of a mind. A better term, I would suggest, is that it evolves.

But if you think about it something new really was created, things not inherent to matter and energy - biological life and consciousness.

JimL
10-06-2017, 11:39 AM
But if you think about it something new really was created, things not inherent to matter and energy - biological life and consciousness.

They may not be inherent per se, but they are in inherent as possibilities. Living conscious things are the results of the forms that matter takes.

seer
10-06-2017, 11:53 AM
They may not be inherent per se, but they are in inherent as possibilities. Living conscious things are the results of the forms that matter takes.

Well I don't see why they would be inherent possibilities, there is nothing in matter and energy that would even suggest such possibilities.

Anomaly
10-06-2017, 01:52 PM
Well I don't see why they would be inherent possibilities, there is nothing in matter and energy that would even suggest such possibilities.
Life in carbon based organisms might be an evolutionary possibility, but its "deterministic" nature still this doesn't preclude design. Seems to me determinism (as a "supervised" domain) doesn't fall apart until intellectual abstraction and the moral sense arise.

seer
10-06-2017, 03:14 PM
Life in carbon based organisms might be an evolutionary possibility, but its "deterministic" nature still this doesn't preclude design. Seems to me determinism (as a "supervised" domain) doesn't fall apart until intellectual abstraction and the moral sense arise.

Ok, I think I get that.

JimL
10-06-2017, 04:14 PM
Well I don't see why they would be inherent possibilities, there is nothing in matter and energy that would even suggest such possibilities.

What would you expect to see in the fundamental substance of nature that would suggest the possibilities within it of life and consciousness?

Tassman
10-06-2017, 08:58 PM
If the human person was created for a purpose then how a man conforms to that purpose tells us if he is good or bad. And example would be a car. If a car runs according to design we could call it a good car, if it always broke down we could call it a bad car, according to design. Moral behaviors that conform to our teleology would be called good (or moral) and those that don't would be called bad (or immoral). But if naturalism is correct there would be no objective purpose for the human person. No design to conform to, no standard to judge specific behaviors. How ever nature just happened to create us just "is."

Why would you assume that "the human person was created for a purpose"?

Charles
10-07-2017, 02:51 AM
If the human person was created for a purpose then how a man conforms to that purpose tells us if he is good or bad. And example would be a car. If a car runs according to design we could call it a good car, if it always broke down we could call it a bad car, according to design. Moral behaviors that conform to our teleology would be called good (or moral) and those that don't would be called bad (or immoral). But if naturalism is correct there would be no objective purpose for the human person. No design to conform to, no standard to judge specific behaviors. How ever nature just happened to create us just "is."

But if you cannot evaluate or demonstrate why the purpose is good, then it is not an explanation or philosophically satisfactory. It may be your personal subjective idea of what constitutes moral good but you cannot even start to justify it using reason nor get anywhere near a proof. The fact that you compare humans to cars says a lot about your idea. Follow don't think seems to be the essense of it. If you think, it starts to fall apart.

seer
10-07-2017, 03:39 AM
But if you cannot evaluate or demonstrate why the purpose is good, then it is not an explanation or philosophically satisfactory. It may be your personal subjective idea of what constitutes moral good but you cannot even start to justify it using reason nor get anywhere near a proof. The fact that you compare humans to cars says a lot about your idea. Follow don't think seems to be the essense of it. If you think, it starts to fall apart.

But Charles you can't demonstrate why anything is good apart from circular reasoning, even our survival as a species. So I'm not sure why your objection has any real meaning. Again Charles, moral questions must stop somewhere, something or someone has to be the final decider of what defines good. So either human beings have a moral teleology or they don't, and I maintain, logically, they don't if atheism is true.

Charles
10-07-2017, 03:53 AM
But Charles you can't demonstrate why anything is good apart from circular reasoning, even our survival as a species. So I'm not sure why your objection has any real meaning. Again Charles, moral questions must stop somewhere, something or someone has to be the final decider of what defines good. So either human beings have a moral teleology or they don't, and I maintain, logically, they don't if atheism is true.


Let's look at some of your claims: "Again Charles, moral questions must stop somewhere, something or someone has to be the final decider of what defines good." Does this take away your obligation to at least justify that it must stop where you think it stops? Why is your idea about where it stops right and the extremist muslim's idea about where it stops wrong? What reason can you give? Where are the good arguments, the proof or just indications that you are right?

And you go on: "So either human beings have a moral teleology or they don't, and I maintain, logically, they don't if atheism is true." That is based on your circular idea that only God can constitute this. You know that the history of philosophy is full of ideas and theories about what could constitute this and you blame all those ideas for being subjective. However, what you represent here is as subjective as it gets. You are escaping the diffucult philosophical questions by just making claims about reality that you cannot support or demonstrate to be true. And when this is pointed out, you call the questions stupid or try to avoid the subject.

Try to be honest in this discussion, seer. You are very unsatisfied once your own ideas or your own belief is evaluated in the same critical way that you evaluate everyone else. But the truth is, once you apply just a little skepticism, just a little but of "how" and "why" to the statements you make, it turns out that you have got nothing.

shunyadragon
10-07-2017, 07:45 AM
Your first part is correct, like I already said, the second part is not. There is no purpose, by definition, in cause and effect.



Create:to make or bring into existence something new, bring (something) into existence


So natural forces did create something new into existence, life.

No they do not, from the perspective of Methodological Naturalism is that Natural Law and our physical existence is eternal, and not created, because there is no evidence for a definitive beginning of everything.

The view of the Baha'i Faith is that it is eternal and Created. In the analogy the shadow (Creation) always exists as long as the object (eternal Creator) exists.

Anomaly
10-07-2017, 08:16 AM
The view of the Baha'i Faith is that it is eternal and Created. In the analogy the shadow (Creation) always exists as long as the object (eternal Creator) exists.
It seems except for the notion that creation is eternal (If I understand you correctly you're just taking ex nihilo out of the equation?) this view is very similar to theistic evolution. The glaring weakness of the naturalistic explanation imo is that everything came together by chance. Lots of people have come to accept this as a legitimate premise because of the mountains of literature put out by people with letters after their names who give assurances this is how it happened. If you push something back far enough in time and call it chance only the mathematicians are able to give anything like an accurate guess whether such a thing is possible.

shunyadragon
10-07-2017, 08:44 AM
Science is nothing but cold hard information or facts. Circularity is a feature of the rational process or propositional interpretation. When the naturalist steps beyond her interpretation of factual existence [for which she has warranted belief] to declare that factual information grants her sufficient knowledge to refute the truth of a belief system that depends on the use of additional evidence which she refuses to accept into her epistemological realm, she’s being circular. And those who fall for the ruse just borrow the same circularity to justify their disdain for theism.

This goes beyond what I described and the reality of Methodological Naturalism and science. If you consider 'objective verifiable evidence' as 'hard cold facts' this is a clear emotional statement and not relevant to what is evidence in science. . Science does not go beyond the falsification of the evidence by scientific methods, but yes individual make philosophical/theological assumptions of belief beyond science, but this is NOT science. This a problem with believers on all sides including atheists and theists, but again not science.



I concede naturalism has warrant for belief as a theory. The issue is that the
The theist commonly includes evidences that are analytically plausible which the naturalist rejects [allegedly] because they fall outside the “legitimate” realm of the synthetic or of factual existence.

I do not believe this is a citation from my post; "…naturalism has justification as a true system of belief." philosophical naturalism is a belief system, but I would not label any belief system as 'true.'
If a scientist 'turns to the same analytic process to interpret states of affairs as the theist' this is not science as stated above.



After professing your indignation that I misrepresent you, you show your stripes again shunyadragon. #3 was, as I’m sure you know, only a premise in the example of the naturalist’s circularity, not a stated belief on my part. Many theists find sufficient strands of connection (truth) between empirically testable existence and the principles of faith to warrant religious belief. Again, interpretation is key.

The problem is very real that you made generalizations concerning my belief without accurate citation of my posts. The problem persists in the above.

I will seriously contest the bold above. In my search I have not found what your claim 'theists find sufficient strands of connection (truth) between empirically testable existence and the principles of faith to warrant religious belief. Claims of interpretation do not help. If you can reference any such objective based argument that may be falsified by scientific methods concerning a 'theist belief' please do. I will be waiting for your response.

I believe in God, and find no 'objective verifiable evidence' that would falsify a hypothesis for a theist belief.



Idealistic in what sense? Where I come from the notion that everyone has presuppositions built into their beliefs is just common sense. Are you disagreeing just for the sake of disagreement?

Common sense is a common claim from many different diverse and conflicting claims, and not sufficient for a coherent argument.



Actually, quantum reality is being interpreted in a number of different ways, by groups and organizations, most of whom probably have vested interests in seeing it turn out in their favor. I was only referring to this multitude of interpretive responses to a part of science still in adolescence, if not its infancy. What shaky arguments from ignorance are you talking about, those that interpret the science in favor of theism?

The shaky argument from ignorance that you are presenting concerning the different theoretical arguments involving Quantum Mechanics is you are arguing that the unknowns in this science that create variation in theories cause the science to be shaky.

Concerning the actual theories concerning the nature of Quantum Mechanics I do not believe there are the conflicting views based self-interest, and this an unwarranted conspiracy theory. There is no evidence for this. Over the recent history of science there is broad agreement on the predictive hypothesis concerning the prediction of particles that were later confirmed, and prediction of behavior of the Quantum world that have been confirmed. Also the predicted existence and nature of Black Holes as predicted and confirmed is accepted by most scientists.

Of course there are many unknowns, and differences in some aspects of the theories and hypothesis of Quantum Mechanics by different scientists, but this is normal in the history of the sciences, and the fuel for further research and discovery and nothing here indicates the science is 'shaky.'

The same problems reflect the history of the science of evolution in that over the last 150+ years there are many unknowns, and differences between scientists, some controversial. Most of these have been resolved over time, and at present 99%+ of all scientists support the science of evolution. There are still unknowns,and science is devoted to working out the genetic and geologic evidence, and more evidence is found all the time, and the research for evolutionary genetics is developing an impressive foundation for evolution.

seer
10-07-2017, 10:04 AM
Let's look at some of your claims: "Again Charles, moral questions must stop somewhere, something or someone has to be the final decider of what defines good." Does this take away your obligation to at least justify that it must stop where you think it stops? Why is your idea about where it stops right and the extremist muslim's idea about where it stops wrong? What reason can you give? Where are the good arguments, the proof or just indications that you are right?

Charles, this would require a long discussion on why I think that Christ was what He claimed to be, the Son of God, therefore that His teachings about God, ethics, nature of man, etc are authoritative. Or why I think a rational, intelligent, moral Creator, is a better explanation for our moral sense, sense of inherent human value, consciousness, and universal order than the a-moral, non-rational, non-conscious forces of nature. And that discussion Charles, I'm just not having with you.


And you go on: "So either human beings have a moral teleology or they don't, and I maintain, logically, they don't if atheism is true." That is based on your circular idea that only God can constitute this. You know that the history of philosophy is full of ideas and theories about what could constitute this and you blame all those ideas for being subjective. However, what you represent here is as subjective as it gets. You are escaping the diffucult philosophical questions by just making claims about reality that you cannot support or demonstrate to be true. And when this is pointed out, you call the questions stupid or try to avoid the subject.


Are you claiming the humans can have a moral teleology apart from a God? How is that even possible? Perhaps it is a difficult philosophical question because it can't be answered from the atheistic worldview - I think you already know that, but you like to use subterfuge to cloud the issue.


Try to be honest in this discussion, seer. You are very unsatisfied once your own ideas or your own belief is evaluated in the same critical way that you evaluate everyone else. But the truth is, once you apply just a little skepticism, just a little but of "how" and "why" to the statements you make, it turns out that you have got nothing.

Charles, we are discussing a specific issue in this thread. Anyone can see that the concept of human purpose is logical if we were created for a purpose by a rational Being. And it wouldn't matter which God we were speaking of. The concept remains logical. If atheism is true I see no possibility for such a teleology, moral or otherwise. If you think otherwise present your case instead of hiding behind your "history of philosophy."

seer
10-07-2017, 10:16 AM
No they do not, from the perspective of Methodological Naturalism is that Natural Law and our physical existence is eternal, and not created, because there is no evidence for a definitive beginning of everything.

And there is zero evidence that matter and energy is past eternal. Now what?

Alexander Vilenkin: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”



http://www.newgeology.us/Alexander%20Vilenkin.pdf

Charles
10-07-2017, 10:32 AM
Charles, this would require a long discussion on why I think that Christ was what He claimed to be, the Son of God, therefore that His teachings about God, ethics, nature of man, etc are authoritative. Or why I think a rational, intelligent, moral Creator, is a better explanation for our moral sense, sense of inherent human value, consciousness, and universal order than the a-moral, non-rational, non-conscious forces of nature. And that discussion Charles, I'm just not having with you.



Are you claiming the humans can have a moral teleology apart from a God? How is that even possible? Perhaps it is a difficult philosophical question because it can't be answered from the atheistic worldview - I think you already know that, but you like to use subterfuge to cloud the issue.



Charles, we are discussing a specific issue in this thread. Anyone can see that the concept of human purpose is logical if we were created for a purpose by a rational Being. And it wouldn't matter which God we were speaking of. The concept remains logical. If atheism is true I see no possibility for such a teleology, moral or otherwise. If you think otherwise present your case instead of hiding behind your "history of philosophy."

Seer, you still have not shown why or how god provides purpose. The purpose could be love, hate or whatever. You claim that is logical but the logical consequence is once again that you have got no foundation you can understand or justify.

JimL
10-07-2017, 01:48 PM
Charles, this would require a long discussion on why I think that Christ was what He claimed to be, the Son of God, therefore that His teachings about God, ethics, nature of man, etc are authoritative. Or why I think a rational, intelligent, moral Creator, is a better explanation for our moral sense, sense of inherent human value, consciousness, and universal order than the a-moral, non-rational, non-conscious forces of nature. And that discussion Charles, I'm just not having with you.



Are you claiming the humans can have a moral teleology apart from a God? How is that even possible? Perhaps it is a difficult philosophical question because it can't be answered from the atheistic worldview - I think you already know that, but you like to use subterfuge to cloud the issue.



Charles, we are discussing a specific issue in this thread. Anyone can see that the concept of human purpose is logical if we were created for a purpose by a rational Being. And it wouldn't matter which God we were speaking of. The concept remains logical. If atheism is true I see no possibility for such a teleology, moral or otherwise. If you think otherwise present your case instead of hiding behind your "history of philosophy."

Seer, the problem you seem unable to accept is that there is no ultimate purpose to your existence even though, obviously, you must also understand, that by the same logic, there could be no ultimate purpose for gods existence. And I have given you an explanation of good and evil and that is; that which is good is good because it is ultimately in the best interests of human society, ergo in the best interests of human idividual members of society. Your constant response to that is, well, who then determines what is good. Nobody does, moral behaviors either are or are not in the collective, ergo in the individuals, best interests or they are not. In that sense morals are objective. You don't have to believe that of course, but if you want to argue the point you can't just say; no, it can't be that way, because i don't like it, i want there to be an ultimate purpose for our existence. You have to present a legitimate argument of your own as to why it can't be that way.

shunyadragon
10-07-2017, 02:33 PM
And there is zero evidence that matter and energy is past eternal. Now what?

Alexander Vilenkin: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”



http://www.newgeology.us/Alexander%20Vilenkin.pdf

Vilenkin also believed in a multiverse, and citing one cosmologist out of context does not make your case.



(Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe officially begin.

Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.

"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.

Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp

seer
10-07-2017, 05:14 PM
Vilenkin also believed in a multiverse, and citing one cosmologist out of context does not make your case.

That is the point Vilenkin is making Shuny, the multiverse can not be past eternal:


Vilenkin himself has advocated cosmogenic theories that entail an eternal universe, but based on cosmological theorems he developed with Alan Guth and Arvin Borde, as well as an examination of the various candidates for an eternal universe, Vilenkin has come to see that all the evidence points in a singular direction: the universe had an absolute beginning in the finite past. Vilenkin discussed three models for an eternal universe in his presentation, describing why each cannot deliver on what it promises.

The first is Alan Guth’s eternal inflation model which proposes eternally inflating bubble universes within a multiverse that stretches both forward and backward in time. In 2003 Vilenkin and Guth discovered that bthe math for this model will not work because it violates the Hubble constant. Speaking of the inflationary multiverse, Vilenkin said ―it can’t possibly be eternal in the past, and that ―there must be some kind of boundary.

http://www.newgeology.us/Alexander%20Vilenkin.pdf

Anomaly
10-07-2017, 05:24 PM
I will seriously contest the bold above. In my search I have not found what your claim 'theists find sufficient strands of connection (truth) between empirically testable existence and the principles of faith to warrant religious belief. Claims of interpretation do not help. If you can reference any such objective based argument that may be falsified by scientific methods concerning a 'theist belief' please do.
Continuing discussion along these lines with you is a waste of time shunyadragon…you are inserting into the issue precisely the circularity I pointed out earlier of [your and] the naturalist methodology. This is why I usually find it a waste of time to participate in these kinds of discussion. Your challenge to “reference any such objective based argument that may be falsified by scientific methods” reveals your stubborn willingness to accept only claims that fall within the circular arena of material existence. Again, the naturalist only accepts claims (interpretations) within a descriptive paradigm and insists the theist do the same. The theist admits knowledge from both descriptive and prescriptive sources and seeks a synthesis of the two. If you wish to only accept that descriptive information is valid and to define morality—which has no place in the descriptive and can have no proper arguments [no ought from is] to support its existence— by claiming mechanistic processes taking place over unimaginable lengths of time, that’s fine. Knock yourself out. And this sort of explanation is "better" than the theist's because.....??


The shaky argument from ignorance that you are presenting concerning the different theoretical arguments involving Quantum Mechanics is you are arguing that the unknowns in this science that create variation in theories cause the science to be shaky.

there are many unknowns, and differences in some aspects of the theories and hypothesis of Quantum Mechanics by different scientists, but this is normal in the history of the sciences, and the fuel for further research and discovery and nothing here indicates the science is 'shaky.'
Seriously dude, sounds like you were off your meds when you wrote this. Go back and reread my post. I said nothing about science being shaky. It appears you’re so worked up you’re imagining things that clearly aren’t there. Finis.

Anomaly
10-07-2017, 05:39 PM
Seer, you still have not shown why or how god provides purpose. The purpose could be love, hate or whatever. You claim that is logical but the logical consequence is once again that you have got no foundation you can understand or justify.
What's the purpose for subatomic particles remaining together in configurations we call atoms? And for their organization into molecules?

Tassman
10-07-2017, 11:59 PM
And there is zero evidence that matter and energy is past eternal. Now what?

Alexander Vilenkin: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

http://www.newgeology.us/Alexander%20Vilenkin.pdf

Back to your same old quote mine tricks...ever reliable seer.

As pointed out many times previously, Vilenkin’s “past space-time boundary” does not necessarily need to be interpreted as “the universe definitely began to exist". Nothing Vilenkin says suggests a beginning from “absolute nothingness” In fact, the opposite is true. He writes:

“What can lie beyond the boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed; one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event”. As Vilenkin describes here:

https://mm-gold.azureedge.net/science/physics/a_vilinkin/universe_from_nothing.pdf

seer
10-08-2017, 03:05 AM
Back to your same old quote mine tricks...ever reliable seer.

As pointed out many times previously, Vilenkin’s “past space-time boundary” does not necessarily need to be interpreted as “the universe definitely began to exist". Nothing Vilenkin says suggests a beginning from “absolute nothingness” In fact, the opposite is true. He writes:

“What can lie beyond the boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed; one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event”. As Vilenkin describes here:

https://mm-gold.azureedge.net/science/physics/a_vilinkin/universe_from_nothing.pdf

First Tass, if you read my link Vilenkin makes it clear that the multiverse can not be past eternal, it could not have existed forever into the past, and from your link he says:

In this paper I would like to suggest a new cosmological scenario in which the universe is spontaneously created from literally nothing.


Spontaneously created from literally nothing Tass? What does that sound like to you?

Tassman
10-08-2017, 03:22 AM
First Tass, if you read my link Vilenkin makes it clear that the multiverse can not be past eternal, it could not have existed forever into the past, and from your link he says:

In this paper I would like to suggest a new cosmological scenario in which the universe is spontaneously created from literally nothing.


Spontaneously created from literally nothing Tass? What does that sound like to you?

Oh my goodness, it must mean that god-did-it. Just kidding. :rofl:

Read the subheading of his proposed model: "A cosmological model is proposed in which the universe is created by quantum tunnelling from literally nothing into a de Sitter space. After the tunnelling, the model evolves along the lines of the inflationary scenario. This model does not have a big-bang singularity and does not require any initial or boundary conditions".

And try to remember that science is a work in progress.

seer
10-08-2017, 05:08 AM
Oh my goodness, it must mean that god-did-it. Just kidding. :rofl:

Read the subheading of his proposed model: "A cosmological model is proposed in which the universe is created by quantum tunnelling from literally nothing into a de Sitter space. After the tunnelling, the model evolves along the lines of the inflationary scenario. This model does not have a big-bang singularity and does not require any initial or boundary conditions".

And try to remember that science is a work in progress.

Yes but that tell us two things Tass, Vilenkin is moving closer to creation ex nihilo (literally nothing), and two, as he mentions in your link, there are no viable models for matter and energy being past eternal.

seer
10-08-2017, 05:09 AM
Seriously dude, sounds like you were off your meds when you wrote this. Go back and reread my post. I said nothing about science being shaky. It appears you’re so worked up you’re imagining things that clearly aren’t there. Finis.

Welcome to the world according to Shuny...

seer
10-08-2017, 05:14 AM
Seer, the problem you seem unable to accept is that there is no ultimate purpose to your existence even though, obviously, you must also understand, that by the same logic, there could be no ultimate purpose for gods existence.

Except with God there could be a purpose for humankind.


And I have given you an explanation of good and evil and that is; that which is good is good because it is ultimately in the best interests of human society, ergo in the best interests of human idividual members of society. Your constant response to that is, well, who then determines what is good. Nobody does, moral behaviors either are or are not in the collective, ergo in the individuals, best interests or they are not. In that sense morals are objective. You don't have to believe that of course, but if you want to argue the point you can't just say; no, it can't be that way, because i don't like it, i want there to be an ultimate purpose for our existence. You have to present a legitimate argument of your own as to why it can't be that way.

Jim, we have been over this time and time again. It is merely your opinion that good is defined as what is in the best interests of human society, in general. One could just as well define good as that which is best for the powerful ruling elite at the expense of the general good.

Anomaly
10-08-2017, 05:25 AM
"A cosmological model is proposed in which the universe is created by quantum tunnelling from literally nothing into a de Sitter space. After the tunnelling, the model evolves along the lines of the inflationary scenario. This model does not have a big-bang singularity and does not require any initial or boundary conditions".
So a belief that the god of matter created ex nihilo rather than that the God of the Bible did so is superior how?

seer
10-08-2017, 05:29 AM
Seer, you still have not shown why or how god provides purpose. The purpose could be love, hate or whatever. You claim that is logical but the logical consequence is once again that you have got no foundation you can understand or justify.

Now you are just hand waving Charles, it is perfectly clear how a rational being can create something for a purpose, whether a god or a man. Something the non-rational forces of nature can not do.

Anomaly
10-08-2017, 05:54 AM
Seer, you still have not shown why or how god provides purpose. The purpose could be love, hate or whatever. You claim that is logical but the logical consequence is once again that you have got no foundation you can understand or justify.
I provided bits and pieces of an outline of a metaphysic in this and other threads in the Philosophy section closely tied to a bundle theory of existence which arrives at the hypothesis that reality is based on a single value--truth. The concept of truth [value] demands at least one mind Value is meaningless in a universe that lacks perceivers. A criterion of value must first be established and precedes any affirmation or denial of it.

Truth provides purpose. The how and why you request is built into the term.

Christianity asserts God as a preexistent Perceiver. The adherents of naturalism assert a god of matter. Given the above, the idea of God is rational, the god of matter is self-contradictory. Why is this wrong?

shunyadragon
10-08-2017, 07:50 AM
That is the point Vilenkin is making Shuny, the multiverse can not be past eternal:

As cited other scientists disagree concerning the universe and the multiverse. The stuff you citing is kind of old.

Vilenkin is proposing a hypothesis, and he acknowledges alternate hypothesis that are possible. There may be an infinite number of multiverses. It is unethical just to selectively cite on scientist to twist things to agree with your world view.

shunyadragon
10-08-2017, 07:56 AM
It seems except for the notion that creation is eternal (If I understand you correctly you're just taking ex nihilo out of the equation?) this view is very similar to theistic evolution. The glaring weakness of the naturalistic explanation imo is that everything came together by chance. Lots of people have come to accept this as a legitimate premise because of the mountains of literature put out by people with letters after their names who give assurances this is how it happened. If you push something back far enough in time and call it chance only the mathematicians are able to give anything like an accurate guess whether such a thing is possible.

The methodological naturalist position is not that everything came together by chance. Everything comes together by Natural Law. Chance is a layman's word and nothing to do with science.

shunyadragon
10-08-2017, 08:03 AM
Seriously dude, sounds like you were off your meds when you wrote this. Go back and reread my post. I said nothing about science being shaky. It appears you’re so worked up you’re imagining things that clearly aren’t there. Finis.

Actually you did here:


And given advances in quantum physics, naturalism, at least its mechanistic aspect, is starting to look shaky anyway.

seer
10-08-2017, 08:17 AM
As cited other scientists disagree concerning the universe and the multiverse. The stuff you citing is kind of old.

No Shuny, Vilenkin has not changed his views, a while back I linked a recent You Tube video of him saying the same thing.


Vilenkin is proposing a hypothesis, and he acknowledges alternate hypothesis that are possible. There may be an infinite number of multiverses. It is unethical just to selectively cite on scientist to twist things to agree with your world view.

Go to Tass' link, Vilenkin makes it clear why those other theories don't work, and why he is now suggesting creation out of "literally nothing." In any case there is zero evidence that matter and energy are past eternal, and there is good reason, according to Vilenkin, for believing that they are not. But Shuny you have a religious reason for wanting matter and energy to be past eternal since that is what your faith teaches. You have a religious agenda.

JimL
10-08-2017, 09:46 AM
Except with God there could be a purpose for humankind.
Yes, my point being, that your dislike of the idea that humanity has no ultimate purpose, in other words that the world wasn't created with intent and a purpose in mind is invalidated as an argument since your god himself, not being created, would fall into that same category, having no ultimate purpose. So, we can nix that argument altogether.



Jim, we have been over this time and time again. It is merely your opinion that good is defined as what is in the best interests of human society, in general. One could just as well define good as that which is best for the powerful ruling elite at the expense of the general good.
Well, of course it is my opinion, but it is opinion based on empirical observation, we promote behaviors that are advantageous to, and outlaw behaviors that would otherwise be destructive to, the stability of social life. It should be obvious to you that that is why we enact laws, and would do so whether a god existed or not. Your only argument is that you don't like the idea that morals may not be absolute and objective realities that we will be judge upon in another life. Not liking a thing, is not an argument against it, nor is it an argument for an alternative view!

JimL
10-08-2017, 09:55 AM
So a belief that the god of matter created ex nihilo rather than that the God of the Bible did so is superior how?

In order to tunnel, something has to exist to do the tunnelling, and something has to be doing the tunnelling, its not ex-nihilo.

JimL
10-08-2017, 10:13 AM
Now you are just hand waving Charles, it is perfectly clear how a rational being can create something for a purpose, whether a god or a man. Something the non-rational forces of nature can not do.
Explain the difference that you see. How is gods purpose for you different than natures? Now I know you will answer, the former has rational intent, the latter is accident, but what do you think the former's intent would be, and why? And btw, if we are the result of an omniscient beings intent, how is it he screwed it up royally twice.

seer
10-08-2017, 10:37 AM
Explain the difference that you see. How is gods purpose for you different than natures? Now I know you will answer, the former has rational intent, the latter is accident, but what do you think the former's intent would be, and why? And btw, if we are the result of an omniscient beings intent, how is it he screwed it up royally twice.

Jim, you know what a Christian would say - God created men to be in relationship with Himself and their fellow man. We are to love God and our neighbor as ourselves, to follow the golden rule. But God does not force us to love Him or our fellow man, love requires choice, and that is why this world is screwed up.

seer
10-08-2017, 10:49 AM
In order to tunnel, something has to exist to do the tunnelling, and something has to be doing the tunnelling, its not ex-nihilo.

Jim it was Vilenkin who said it was spontaneous creation from "literally nothing." That is getting closer to ex-nihilo, and he also made it clear that there is no model, not even his multiverse/inflation theory, that get us to an eternal past for matter and energy.

JimL
10-08-2017, 11:08 AM
Jim, you know what a Christian would say - God created men to be in relationship with Himself and their fellow man.
Why, did God get lonely in his timeless existence? Where does it say that seer, or is that just your own made up opinion.




We are to love God and our neighbor as ourselves, to follow the golden rule. But God does not force us to love Him or our fellow man, love requires choice, and that is why this world is screwed up.
I see, but the next world will be Eden, because its inhabitants will all be perfect, right? The wheat will be separated from the chaff, right?

JimL
10-08-2017, 11:32 AM
Jim it was Vilenkin who said it was spontaneous creation from "literally nothing." That is getting closer to ex-nihilo, and he also made it clear that there is no model, not even his multiverse/inflation theory, that get us to an eternal past for matter and energy.
So what, he literally mispoke. Nothing comes from nothing, and neither does it make sense to say that a process took place, though nothing was involved in the process.
As far as the multi-verse goes, thats a hypothesis, one that I happen to find credible, but its not a theory and need have nothing to do with inflation. All the multi-verse hypothesis says is that the Cosmos, the greater universe, or the multiverse if you will, is in a superposition of being in every possible state, and each of those states are as real as the others, hence as the universe evolves, each of those distinct realities within the superposition are representative of separate and individual universes within the greater Cosmos, hence, the multi-verse.

seer
10-08-2017, 12:54 PM
So what, he literally mispoke. Nothing comes from nothing, and neither does it make sense to say that a process took place, though nothing was involved in the process.

Or maybe he did not misspeak, and that he knows more than you?


As far as the multi-verse goes, thats a hypothesis, one that I happen to find credible, but its not a theory and need have nothing to do with inflation. All the multi-verse hypothesis says is that the Cosmos, the greater universe, or the multiverse if you will, is in a superposition of being in every possible state, and each of those states are as real as the others, hence as the universe evolves, each of those distinct realities within the superposition are representative of separate and individual universes within the greater Cosmos, hence, the multi-verse.

But Jim, there is no evidence that there is a multiverse and if there was it could not be past eternal according to Vilenkin, it too would need a beginning.

JimL
10-08-2017, 02:13 PM
Or maybe he did not misspeak, and that he knows more than you?
Vilenkin obviously knows a hell of a lot more about it than me, but still, common sense tells me that a process, such as tunnelling, can't take place unless there is something there doing the tunnelling as well as something that is being tunnelled through. Otherwise, tell me how it makes sense to say that nothing tunnells through nothing?



But Jim, there is no evidence that there is a multiverse and if there was it could not be past eternal according to Vilenkin, it too would need a beginning.
Well actually there is evidence. The hypothesis of many worlds didn't come first, quantum mechanics and the Schroedinger equation did, and in my opinion the best interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Schroedinger equation is the Evertian interpretation which predicts the multi-verse. The multiverse hypothesis is not like the god hypothesis, its not a guess based on ignorance, its an hypothesis based on prior knowledge.

Oh, and as far as the universe not being eternal, thats not something that anyone can say at this point, Vilenkin is only saying that he is not aware of a model in which the universe is eternal.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/science-the-universe-has-always-existed-really-bad-news-for-young-earth-creationism/

Anomaly
10-08-2017, 02:47 PM
Originally Posted by Anomaly View Post
Seriously dude, sounds like you were off your meds when you wrote this. Go back and reread my post. I said nothing about science being shaky. It appears you’re so worked up you’re imagining things that clearly aren’t there. Finis.

Actually you did here:


Originally Posted by Anomaly
And given advances in quantum physics, naturalism, at least its mechanistic aspect, is starting to look shaky anyway.
This is a strawman. I said "naturalism" in its materialistic sense, not science. Naturalism is not identical to science, it's an interpretation of science, an ideology or belief system. Science, as you should know if you work in the field as reported, is the collection, categorization and dissemination of facts.

shunyadragon
10-08-2017, 08:23 PM
This is a strawman. I said "naturalism" in its materialistic sense, not science. Naturalism is not identical to science, it's an interpretation of science, an ideology or belief system. Science, as you should know if you work in the field as reported, is the collection, categorization and dissemination of facts.

Methodological Naturalism as I use it is science. Methodological Naturalism is the collection, categorization and dissemination of [objective verifiable evidence as facts, and the falsification of theories and hypothesis based on these facts.

Are you using Naturalism here in terms of Philosophical Naturalism? I differentiate the two, Materialism is Philosophical Naturalism, and Methodological Naturalism is not.

JimL
10-08-2017, 08:42 PM
Methodological Naturalism as I use it is science. Methodological Naturalism is the collection, categorization and dissemination of [objective verifiable evidence as facts, and the falsification of theories and hypothesis based on these facts.

Are you using Naturalism here in terms of Philosophical Naturalism? I differentiate the two, Materialism is Philosophical Naturalism, and Methodological Naturalism is not.

Methodological empiricism.

shunyadragon
10-08-2017, 08:50 PM
Methodological empiricism.

Same as Methodological Naturalism.


Methodological naturalism is not a "doctrine" but an essential aspect of the methodology of science, the study of the natural universe. If one believes that natural laws and theories based on them will not suffice to solve the problems attacked by scientists - that supernatural and thus nonscientific principles must be invoked from time to time - then one cannot have the confidence in scientific methodology that is prerequisite to doing science. The spectacular successes over four centuries of science based on methodological naturalism cannot be gainsaid. On the other hand, a scientist who, when stumped, invokes a supernatural cause for a phenomenon he or she is investigating is guaranteed that no scientific understanding of the problem will ensue.


As indicated by the above characterization of the mid-twentieth-century American movement, naturalism can be separated into an ontological and a methodological component. The ontological component is concerned with the contents of reality, asserting that reality has no place for “supernatural” or other “spooky” kinds of entity. By contrast, the methodological component is concerned with ways of investigating reality, and claims some kind of general authority for the scientific method. Correspondingly, this entry will have two main sections, the first devoted to ontological naturalism, the second to methodological naturalism.

Tassman
10-08-2017, 09:37 PM
Now you are just hand waving Charles, it is perfectly clear how a rational being can create something for a purpose, whether a god or a man. Something the non-rational forces of nature can not do.

it is NOT "perfectly clear how a rational being can create something for a purpose"...or anything else...when there's no substantiated evidence that such an entity exists. You are critiquing modern cosmology, which you know nothing about and which IS providing answers, and promoting one of the thousands of creation myths as preferable. :lol:

http://www.crystalinks.com/creationcountries.html

Tassman
10-08-2017, 10:15 PM
Yes but that tell us two things Tass, Vilenkin is moving closer to creation ex nihilo (literally nothing), and two, as he mentions in your link, there are no viable models for matter and energy being past eternal.

In your fevered mind this means that Vilenkin is moving ever closer to the “revealed truth” that god-did-it ex nihilo. :lol:

Your argument is an Argument from Ignorance.

In fact, Vilenkin is proposing several alternate hypotheses that are possible, including the one I linked whereby the universe is created by quantum tunnelling from nothing into a de Sitter space. By “nothing” is meant the “physics of nothing,'' i.e. the quantum-mechanical properties of the vacuum.

seer
10-09-2017, 05:05 AM
it is NOT "perfectly clear how a rational being can create something for a purpose"...or anything else...when there's no substantiated evidence that such an entity exists. You are critiquing modern cosmology, which you know nothing about and which IS providing answers, and promoting one of the thousands of creation myths as preferable. :lol:

http://www.crystalinks.com/creationcountries.html

Are you being stupid on purpose Tass? The point was rational beings, whether a god or a man can create things for a purpose. As far as modern cosmology I simply linked the words of Vilenkin, as a matter of fact your own Vilenkin link agreed with what my link stated. There is no evidence that matter and energy are past eternal, or can be. Tass, I don't want to upset your faith but you can watch Vilenkin here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IJLZO7o4Ak

Here is a recent talk of creation out of nothing, no time, energy, matter, space:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSESZR3wC8s&t=3s

shunyadragon
10-09-2017, 06:42 AM
Are you being stupid on purpose Tass? The point was rational beings, whether a god or a man can create things for a purpose. As far as modern cosmology I simply linked the words of Vilenkin, as a matter of fact your own Vilenkin link agreed with what my link stated. There is no evidence that matter and energy are past eternal, or can be. Tass, I don't want to upset your faith but you can watch Vilenkin here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IJLZO7o4Ak

Here is a recent talk of creation out of nothing, no time, energy, matter, space:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSESZR3wC8s&t=3s

You are misrepresenting Vilenkin's description of the cosmological nothing to justify your religious agenda, and being selective ignoring the other cosmologists. No matter, space, time and energy is a description of the Quantum world of the multiverse where other universes form, and not the philosophical absolute nothing. In the Quantum world there exists the potential of the energy, matter, space and time that form singularities and universes. Vilenkin supports the forming of the singularity and the universe from this 'nothing.'

seer
10-09-2017, 07:21 AM
You are misrepresenting Vilenkin's description of the cosmological nothing to justify your religious agenda, and being selective ignoring the other cosmologists. No matter, space, time and energy is a description of the Quantum world of the multiverse where other universes form, and not the philosophical absolute nothing. In the Quantum world there exists the potential of the energy, matter, space and time that form singularities and universes. Vilenkin supports the forming of the singularity and the universe from this 'nothing.'

Shuny, your faith teaches that matter and energy are co-eternal with God, that is why you support multiverse theories, even without evidence, you have a religious agenda. And you are completely clueless - how can a Quantum world exist without time or energy or space? Where can it exist? Because Vilenkin is not speaking of a multiverse giving rise to our universe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSESZR3wC8s&t=3s

shunyadragon
10-09-2017, 07:51 AM
Shuny, your faith teaches that matter and energy are co-eternal with God, that is why you support multiverse theories, even without evidence, you have a religious agenda.

Not true, My religious belief is a separate issue. I believe it is an unknown and inconclusive scientifically, though science has not evidence of an absolute beginning of the universe nor the multiverse.



And you are completely clueless - how can a Quantum world exist without time or energy or space? Where can it exist? Because Vilenkin is not speaking of a multiverse giving rise to our universe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSESZR3wC8s&t=3s

Listen to Vilenkin completely he does not say that. He does describe how a universe can arise spontaneously from the Quantum world from nothing, which is the total energy equals zero, and not that no energy exists. It exists as potential energy.

seer
10-09-2017, 07:56 AM
Not true, My religious belief is a separate issue. I believe it is an unknown and inconclusive.

Obviously Shuny you have a religious agenda, you latch on to any theory that even suggests that matter and energy are past eternal no matter how weak or non existent the evidence.



Listen to Vilenkin completely he does not say that. He does describe how a universe can arise spontaneously from the Quantum world from nothing, which is the total energy equals zero.


From a place where there is no TIME or SPACE. Where does this Quantum world exist without space? As a matter of fact he says that the only thing that does pre-exist this creation event are the laws of physics in the "Platonic sense."

shunyadragon
10-09-2017, 08:10 AM
From a place where there is no TIME or SPACE. Where does this Quantum world exist without space?

According to Vilenkin and other scientists the universe arises from the potential of space, time and energy in the Quantum medium described by some as 'nothing' in the multiverse. Vilenkin describes in your reference how it is possible for a universe can arise in this way.

The point is that Vilenkin in the reference you provided describes how a universe can arise from the Quantum nothingness of the multiverse world. Your reference disputes your assertion.

As far as the science is concerned I do not argue religious agendas.

Again . . . science does not have any evidence of an absolute beginning of our universe nor the multiverse.

seer
10-09-2017, 08:32 AM
According to Vilenkin and other scientists the universe arises from the potential of space, time and energy in the Quantum medium described by some as 'nothing' in the multiverse. Vilenkin describes in your reference how it is possible for a universe can arise in this way.

The point is that Vilenkin in the reference you provided describes how a universe can arise from the Quantum nothingness of the multiverse world. Your reference disputes your assertion.

As far as the science is concerned I do not argue religious agendas.

Again . . . science does not have any evidence of an absolute beginning of our universe nor the multiverse.

Shuny, I understand that you want to defend your religion, but go back to the link and watch it to the end. The only thing that does pre-exist this creation event are the laws of physics in the "Platonic sense." Not space, not time, not energy, not the vacuum quantum world. The interviewer asks this very question at the end (5:11). Vilenkin makes it clear that the vacuum comes out of this process, the only thing that is "prior" are the laws of physics, again the the Platonic sense. Sorry Shuny, I don't want to shake your faith.

shunyadragon
10-09-2017, 08:41 AM
Shuny, I understand that you want to defend your religion, but go back to the link and watch it to the end. The only thing that does pre-exist this creation event are the laws of physics in the "Platonic sense." Not space, not time, not energy, not the vacuum quantum world. The interviewer asks this very question at the end (5:11). Vilenkin makes it clear that the vacuum comes out of this process, the only thing that is "prior" are the laws of physics, again the the Platonic sense. Sorry Shuny, I don't want to shake your faith.

I watched it to the end and in text he describes how a universe can form the Quantum nothing of the multiverse.

Your argument concerning the end of the reference is a classic 'argument from ignorance' because Vilenkin admits that it is unknown and ultimately a mystery. Nonetheless Vilenkin describes specifically in the text how a universe can form from this Quantum nothing were the sum of energy equals zero. He does not say that no form of energy exists in this Quantum nothing.

JimL
10-09-2017, 09:13 AM
Shuny, your faith teaches that matter and energy are co-eternal with God, that is why you support multiverse theories, even without evidence, you have a religious agenda. And you are completely clueless - how can a Quantum world exist without time or energy or space? Where can it exist? Because Vilenkin is not speaking of a multiverse giving rise to our universe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSESZR3wC8s&t=3s

For one thing, its seems I was wrong, and you were correct in what Vilenkin is suggesting, i.e. that the universe emerged from nothing, nothing i.e., other than the laws of physics. But that is his opinion, though it makes no sense to me at all, and I doubt that it makes sense to most people in the field. It seems to me that the reason there is something rather that nothing is just a brute fact.

Vilenkin is merely assuming that because our universe is zero point energy, aka nothing, then it must have emerged from nothing, which I think is pretty big assumption to be making. That our universe is zero point energy, doesn't mean that the quantum vacuum from out of which it may have emerged is also zero point energy.

Anyway, here is another point of view on the same subject by Sean Carrol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-QkjUxcGt8

seer
10-09-2017, 09:38 AM
I watched it to the end and in text he describes how a universe can form the Quantum nothing of the multiverse.

That is a complete falsehood Shuny - where does he say that this universe came from the multiverse - EXACT TIME PLEASE.


Your argument concerning the end of the reference is a classic 'argument from ignorance' because Vilenkin admits that it is unknown and ultimately a mystery. Nonetheless Vilenkin describes specifically in the text how a universe can form from this Quantum nothing were the sum of energy equals zero. He does not say that no form of energy exists in this Quantum nothing.

Shuny, the zero energy is only about the fact that this is possible, there is no prior quantum world or vacuum because both would require "space." The only thing required and the only prior condition are the laws of physics, again the the Platonic sense. But I understand your zeal in defending your faith.

seer
10-09-2017, 09:41 AM
For one thing, its seems I was wrong, and you were correct in what Vilenkin is suggesting, i.e. that the universe emerged from nothing, nothing i.e., other than the laws of physics. But that is his opinion, though it makes no sense to me at all, and I doubt that it makes sense to most people in the field. It seems to me that the reason there is something rather that nothing is just a brute fact.

Vilenkin is merely assuming that because our universe is zero point energy, aka nothing, then it must have emerged from nothing, which I think is pretty big assumption to be making. That our universe is zero point energy, doesn't mean that the quantum vacuum from out of which it may have emerged is also zero point energy.

Anyway, here is another point of view on the same subject by Sean Carrol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-QkjUxcGt8

Yes, I have listened to Carrol in the past, and perhaps you can school Shuny on what Vilenkin actually said. It may be difficult, he has a religious agenda to defend.

JimL
10-09-2017, 09:55 AM
That is a complete falsehood Shuny - where does he say that this universe came from the multiverse - EXACT TIME PLEASE.



Shuny, the zero energy is only about the fact that this is possible, there is no prior quantum world or vacuum because both would require "space." The only thing required and the only prior condition are the laws of physics, again the the Platonic sense. But I understand your zeal in defending your faith.

Again, Vilenkin is mistakingly assuming that because our universe is zero point energy, that it must have emerged from nothing. If you think about that for half a second you would realise that even zero point energy doesn't amount to nothingness, in our case it amounts to a 14 billion light year across universe.

seer
10-09-2017, 10:21 AM
Again, Vilenkin is mistakingly assuming that because our universe is zero point energy, that it must have emerged from nothing. If you think about that for half a second you would realise that even zero point energy doesn't amount to nothingness, in our case it amounts to a 14 billion light year across universe.

No Jim, that was not his point. That because the universe is at zero point energy his theory is possible, not that is necessarily had to happen. One of the reasons why he is even proposing this is because there are real difficulties with the idea that matter and energy are past eternal, perhaps insurmountable difficulties. He speaks to that in Tass' link a couple of pages back.

shunyadragon
10-09-2017, 10:35 AM
That is a complete falsehood Shuny - where does he say that this universe came from the multiverse - EXACT TIME PLEASE.

It nucleates as Vilenkin describes.

2:04

seer
10-09-2017, 10:45 AM
It nucleates as Vilenkin describes.

2:04

Yes he says the universe spontaneously nucleates (comes into being) nothing at all about this universe coming from a previous multiverse - Jim got what he was saying - why not you? Blinded by your religious agenda?

shunyadragon
10-09-2017, 02:06 PM
Yes he says the universe spontaneously nucleates (comes into being) nothing at all about this universe coming from a previous multiverse - Jim got what he was saying - why not you? Blinded by your religious agenda?

No scientists, cosmologists, physicists, nor I ever said anything of the sort like 'coming from a previous multiverse. All possible universals come into being by natural processes within a multiverse. My referenced section describes as I stated before.

"Listen to Vilenkin completely he does not say that. He does describe how a universe can arise spontaneously from the Quantum world from nothing, which is the total energy equals zero, and not that no energy exists. It exists as potential energy.


What you asserted concerning what Vilenkin said is false as demonstrated in the section I cited beginning 2:04. Yes, Vilenkin proposes that multiverse contain and 'give rise' to many universes which spontaneously from from cosmological matrix of the multiverse. That is actually the definition of a multiverse.


And you are completely clueless - how can a Quantum world exist without time or energy or space? Where can it exist? Because Vilenkin is not speaking of a multiverse giving rise to our universe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSESZR3wC8s&t=3s

seer
10-09-2017, 02:23 PM
No scientists, cosmologists, physicists, nor I ever said anything of the sort like 'coming from a previous multiverse. All possible universals come into being by natural processes within a multiverse. My referenced section describes as I stated before. What you asserted concerning what Vilenkin said is false.

But Vilenkin said nothing about a multiverse, and there is zero evidence for this fictional multiverse. And what Vilenkin said is clear, even JimL got it, that the only prior condition necessary for the creation of the universe were the laws of physics, in the Platonic sense (i.e. non physical). But Shuny you can't accept that possibility because you have a religious agenda - that is obvious.

seer
10-09-2017, 02:32 PM
You are also avoiding at least one other possible scenario Vilenkin proposes as a possible origin of universes.

Vilenkin’s final strike is an attack on a third, lesser-known proposal that the cosmos existed eternally in a static state called the cosmic egg. This finally “cracked” to create the big bang, leading to the expanding universe we see today. Late last year Vilenkin and graduate student Audrey Mithani showed that the egg could not have existed forever after all, as quantum instabilities would force it to collapse after a finite amount of time (arxiv.org/abs/1110.4096). If it cracked instead, leading to the big bang, then this must have happened before it collapsed – and therefore also after a finite amount of time.

“This is also not a good candidate for a beginningless universe,” Vilenkin concludes. [/cite]

Are you kidding Shuny, Vilenkin is making the point that the "egg" is not past eternal. And in the very link you just quoted Vilenkin makes the point that the multiverse can not be eternal into the past.

shunyadragon
10-09-2017, 02:57 PM
Yes, I have listened to Carrol in the past, and perhaps you can school Shuny on what Vilenkin actually said. It may be difficult, he has a religious agenda to defend.

As per the reference you cited beginning at ~2:04 you do not know what Vilenkin actually said. Your assertion was false.

Are you saying Vilenkin does not support the existence of the multiverse which contains and gives rise to many universes?

JimL
10-09-2017, 03:02 PM
No Jim, that was not his point. That because the universe is at zero point energy his theory is possible, not that is necessarily had to happen.
Anything is possible seer, it's just that it's highly unlikely.

One of the reasons why he is even proposing this is because there are real difficulties with the idea that matter and energy are past eternal, perhaps insurmountable difficulties. He speaks to that in Tass' link a couple of pages back.

What makes you think the above is so? Let me ask you this, do you think that some-thing can become absolutely nothing?

seer
10-09-2017, 03:13 PM
As per the reference you cited beginning at ~2:04 you do not know what Vilenkin actually said. Your assertion was false.

Are you saying Vilenkin does not support the existence of the multiverse which contains and gives rise to many universes?

No Shuny, I'm saying what I have been saying for pages now - that Vilenkin teaches that a multiverse can not be past eternal. Your own link proved that and now I see that you dishonestly removed the link in that post. From your link that you tried to hide:


Eternal inflation is essentially an expansion of Guth's idea, and says that the universe grows at this breakneck pace forever, by constantly giving birth to smaller "bubble" universes within an ever-expanding multiverse, each of which goes through its own initial period of inflation. Crucially, some versions of eternal inflation applied to time as well as space, with the bubbles forming both backwards and forwards in time (see diagram).But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe. They found that the equations didn't work ( Physical Review Letters, DOI: 103/physrevlett.90.151301). "You can't construct a space-time with this property," says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. "It can't possibly be eternal in the past," says Vilenkin."There must be some kind of boundary."

seer
10-09-2017, 03:15 PM
Anything is possible seer, it's just that it's highly unlikely.


What makes you think the above is so? Let me ask you this, do you think that some-thing can become absolutely nothing?

Well Jim, like I posted to Shuny, a past eternal multiverse may be just as unlikely or improbable.

JimL
10-09-2017, 03:22 PM
No Shuny, I'm saying what I have been saying for pages now - that Vilenkin teaches that a multiverse can not be past eternal. Your own link proved that and now I see that you dishonestly removed the link in that post. From your that you tried to hide:
Hes not speaking to the existence of the multi-verse here per se, he's only saying that from his perspective Guth's inflationary multi-verse can't be past eternal. The multi-verse hypothesis itself didn't arise out of Guths inflation, it arose out of quantum mechanics.

JimL
10-09-2017, 03:27 PM
Well Jim, like I posted to Shuny, a past eternal multiverse may be just as unlikely or improbable.

No not really, just the opposite. It is more likely than not that the universe is past eternal rather than that it just puffed into existence from out of nothing. We have no reason to believe that anything comes from nothing.

seer
10-09-2017, 03:55 PM
Hes not speaking to the existence of the multi-verse here per se, he's only saying that from his perspective Guth's inflationary multi-verse can't be past eternal. The multi-verse hypothesis itself didn't arise out of Guths inflation, it arose out of quantum mechanics.

That is not what he is saying Jim, there is no model that gets us to an eternal past, quantum mechanics or otherwise. There is no model that avoids a beginning: https://iweb.langara.bc.ca/rjohns/files/2017/09/Physics_creation.pdf

seer
10-09-2017, 03:56 PM
No not really, just the opposite. It is more likely than not that the universe is past eternal rather than that it just puffed into existence from out of nothing. We have no reason to believe that anything comes from nothing.

And we have no evidence for eternal matter and energy.

JimL
10-09-2017, 04:46 PM
That is not what he is saying Jim, there is no model that gets us to an eternal past, quantum mechanics or otherwise. There is no model that avoids a beginning: https://iweb.langara.bc.ca/rjohns/files/2017/09/Physics_creation.pdf
That there is no existing model that gets us there does not mean that the universe is not eternal. We don't know the answer yet in any case, but it is more likely than not that the universe emerged from out of a substratum existence rather than from out of nothing. You are still basing the notion of a created universe on ignorance. But like I said, we still don't have absolute answers so you are still free to believe what you want, but unlike the notion of an eternally existing universe, creationism is pure belief and nothing else.

Also, just curious and you neglected to answer my question in the previous post so here you go: Do you believe that an existing thing can become absolutely nothing?

JimL
10-09-2017, 04:54 PM
And we have no evidence for eternal matter and energy.

Perhaps not, I don't know, but we do have reason to believe it eternal, either as a reality or as an emergent possibility within a more fundemental substance.

seer
10-09-2017, 05:23 PM
Also, just curious and you neglected to answer my question in the previous post so here you go: Do you believe that an existing thing can become absolutely nothing?

Well I don't know, Vilenkin is saying just that, that the only prior condition necessary are the laws of physics.

Tassman
10-09-2017, 06:31 PM
No Shuny, I'm saying what I have been saying for pages now - that Vilenkin teaches that a multiverse can not be past eternal. Your own link proved that and now I see that you dishonestly removed the link in that post. From your link that you tried to hide:

First of all, Vilenkin is not "teaching" anything. He is putting forward a hypothesis.

Secondly, you are dishonestly substituting the word "universe" with "multiverse", which is not what Vilenkin said. Whatever may be true of our particular universe not being “past eternal” may not be true of the infinite multiverse of which our universe is but one.

He implies this with his “tunneling from “nothing” solution to the boundary problem. So it’s clear that, despite your attempt to make Vilenkin the last word on cosmology, he by no means considers the matter closed.

shunyadragon
10-09-2017, 07:13 PM
No Shuny, I'm saying what I have been saying for pages now - that Vilenkin teaches that a multiverse can not be past eternal. Your own link proved that and now I see that you dishonestly removed the link in that post. From your link that you tried to hide:

I do not contest Vilenkin's view, but I do question your selective references and conclusion that Vilenkin represents the view of Cosmology to suit your agenda, and no Vilenkin does not represent the consensus of Cosmologists.

Your assertions concerning Vilenkin's view on the origin of universes from Vilenkin's perspective is confusing and false. It would remain possible that there would be an infinite number of multiverses in Vilenkin's hypothesis concerning the multiverse.

JimL
10-09-2017, 08:36 PM
Well I don't know, Vilenkin is saying just that, that the only prior condition necessary are the laws of physics.

Well again, that the laws of physics could act upon non-existence and by so doing create a universe is ridiculous. Laws do not act, they do not cause anything, they're merely descriptive of the process, and a process requires an existing something to act according to those laws.

Charles
10-09-2017, 11:00 PM
Now you are just hand waving Charles, it is perfectly clear how a rational being can create something for a purpose, whether a god or a man. Something the non-rational forces of nature can not do.

It is pretty clear and yet you completely fail to show how. How cpmeome, seer? Let me help you: If purpose does not exist prior to god's choise of what reason he wants to create man for, the so called purpose is without foundation and could have been completely different and still meet your definition of purpose.

And you still cannot even start to prove that god exists. So you could be completely wrong in thinking a given purpose is the purpose. Perhaps a god you do not know would disagree?

Tassman
10-10-2017, 12:03 AM
Now you are just hand waving Charles, it is perfectly clear how a rational being can create something for a purpose,

Rational can entities clearly create something for a purpose, e.g. chimpanzees create tools for use in obtaining food.

http://www.eva.mpg.de/fileadmin/content_files/staff/boesch/pdf/fol_prim_tool_use_making.pdf

But neither they nor us exist for that purpose; this ability is a by-product to the need for survival.


whether a god or a man.

No, just man...there’s no substantiated evidence for the former.


Something the non-rational forces of nature can not do.

The “non-rational forces of nature” have demonstrably resulted in rational creatures such as us evolving via natural selection. There’s a lot of evidence to support this. E.g. “The Evolution of Rationality”.

http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/v17n1/p18.html

Your implied argument that only God can do this is your usual Argument from Ignorance, i.e. you don't understand, "therefore god".

seer
10-10-2017, 04:54 AM
I do not contest Vilenkin's view, but I do question your selective references and conclusion that Vilenkin represents the view of Cosmology to suit your agenda, and no Vilenkin does not represent the consensus of Cosmologists.

As far as I know Shuny, there is no consensus, at least none with verifiable evidence. And I think what Guth and Vilenkin's work did show that any multiverse theory would violate the Hubble Constant.


Your assertions concerning Vilenkin's view on the origin of universes from Vilenkin's perspective is confusing and false. It would remain possible that there would be an infinite number of multiverses in Vilenkin's hypothesis concerning the multiverse.

That is a lie Shuny, nothing I said the was confusing or false, one can read or watch Vilenkin in the links I posted. You are the one who was dishonest by removing your link when you realized that it supported what I was saying. All to support your Religious agenda of matter and energy being co-eternal with your god!

shunyadragon
10-10-2017, 04:55 AM
And we have no evidence for eternal matter and energy.

There is not any evidence that the Quantum world where universes and multiverse originate is not eternal. It remains an unknown and likely cannot ever be determined by science.

shunyadragon
10-10-2017, 05:04 AM
As far as I know Shuny, there is no consensus, at least none with verifiable evidence. And I think what Guth and Vilenkin's work did show that any multiverse theory would violate the Hubble Constant.



That is a lie Shuny, nothing I said the was confusing or false, one can read or watch Vilenkin in the links I posted. You are the one who was dishonest by removing your link when you realized that it supported what I was saying. All to support your Religious agenda of matter and energy being co-eternal with your god!

Seer this statement of yours is confusing and false:



Quote Originally Posted by seer
And you are completely clueless - how can a Quantum world exist without time or energy or space? Where can it exist? Because Vilenkin is not speaking of a multiverse giving rise to our universe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSESZR3wC8s&t=3s

In ~2:04 Vilenkin described the natural processes where universes can arise spontaneously within a multiverse from the cosmological 'nothing' where total energy equals zero.

seer
10-10-2017, 05:10 AM
It is pretty clear and yet you completely fail to show how. How cpmeome, seer? Let me help you: If purpose does not exist prior to god's choise of what reason he wants to create man for, the so called purpose is without foundation and could have been completely different and still meet your definition of purpose.

Since God's moral character is unchangeable Charles His purpose could only be one thing and not another. This is exactly the same as your moral objections - that there needs to be some external standard or rule that God needs to conform to. Well you failed miserably in demonstrating that, and there is no reason why God can't have unchanging purposes in Himself for creating us, the universe, etc... Do you need an external standard to purpose to do something?


And you still cannot even start to prove that god exists. So you could be completely wrong in thinking a given purpose is the purpose. Perhaps a god you do not know would disagree?

And you can not prove that objective ethics exist, yet you still believe, you can't prove that what goes on in your head corresponds to reality, yet you still believe, you can not prove that other minds exist, yet you believe, you can prove that the world was created 5 minutes ago with us having false memories, yet you still believe. We have been through this Charles, stop being hypocritical.

seer
10-10-2017, 05:42 AM
In ~2:04 Vilenkin described the natural processes where universes can arise spontaneously within a multiverse from the cosmological 'nothing' where total energy equals zero.

That is completely false Shuny he is not talking about a multiverse! When he says nothing he means only the laws of physics - in the Platonic sense (non-material), which he makes clear at 5:10 on... And he says right in the beginning he is talking about a universe coming from "no universe."

shunyadragon
10-10-2017, 05:47 AM
That is completely false Shuny he is not talking about a multiverse! When he says nothing he means only the laws of physics - in the Platonic sense (non-material), which he makes clear at 5:10 on... And he says right in the beginning he is talking about a universe coming from "no universe."

Seer this statement of yours is confusing and false:




And you are completely clueless - how can a Quantum world exist without time or energy or space? Where can it exist? Because Vilenkin is not speaking of a multiverse giving rise to our universe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSESZR3wC8s&t=3s

In ~2:04 Vilenkin described the natural processes where universes can arise spontaneously within a multiverse from the cosmological 'nothing' where total energy equals zero.

seer
10-10-2017, 05:55 AM
First of all, Vilenkin is not "teaching" anything. He is putting forward a hypothesis.

Secondly, you are dishonestly substituting the word "universe" with "multiverse", which is not what Vilenkin said. Whatever may be true of our particular universe not being “past eternal” may not be true of the infinite multiverse of which our universe is but one.

False, his and Guth's work pretty much demonstrate that a multiverse would violate the Hubble constant


Eternal inflation is essentially an expansion of Guth's idea, and says that the universe grows at this breakneck pace forever, by constantly giving birth to smaller "bubble" universes within an ever-expanding multiverse, each of which goes through its own initial period of inflation. Crucially, some versions of eternal inflation applied to time as well as space, with the bubbles forming both backwards and forwards in time (see diagram).But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe. They found that the equations didn't work ( Physical Review Letters, DOI: 103/physrevlett.90.151301). "You can't construct a space-time with this property," says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. "It can't possibly be eternal in the past," says Vilenkin."There must be some kind of boundary."

https://www.scribd.com/doc/77980709/Why-Physicists-Can-t-Avoid-a-Creation-Event

https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/alexander-vilenkin-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/



So stop lying about me Tass!

seer
10-10-2017, 06:02 AM
In ~2:04 Vilenkin described the natural processes where universes can arise spontaneously within a multiverse from the cosmological 'nothing' where total energy equals zero.

Shuny where does he say multiverse? I just listened to again - he doesn't. He says a universe coming from "no universe." At .54-56sec he makes clear that he is speaking of a universe coming from NO UNIVERSE. The universe coming from NO SPACE, NO TIME, NO MATTER. Now stop lying or please leave this thread. I'm tired of your religious agenda!

shunyadragon
10-10-2017, 06:45 AM
Shuny where does he say multiverse? I just listened to again - he doesn't. He says a universe coming from "no universe." At .54-56sec he makes clear that he is speaking of a universe coming from NO UNIVERSE. The universe coming from NO SPACE, NO TIME, NO MATTER. Now stop lying or please leave this thread. I'm tired of your religious agenda!

Are you denying that Velinkin supports that all possible universes exist and form in a multiverse?

Seer this statement of yours is confusing and false:




And you are completely clueless - how can a Quantum world exist without time or energy or space? Where can it exist? Because Vilenkin is not speaking of a multiverse giving rise to our universe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSESZR3wC8s&t=3s

In ~2:04 Vilenkin described the natural processes where universes can arise spontaneously within a multiverse from the cosmological 'nothing' where total energy equals zero.



Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University, Massachusetts, and Jaume Garriga of the University of Barcelona, Spain. They believe that our universe is one of many—infinitely many. According to "multiverse" theory, our Big Bang was just one in an eternal rumbling of bangs, each of which brings a new universe into being. Vilenkin and Garriga want to work out how ordinary—or how unusual—the properties of our universe are when compared with its neighbors. What fraction could harbor life, for instance?

Charles
10-10-2017, 06:55 AM
Since God's moral character is unchangeable Charles His purpose could only be one thing and not another. This is exactly the same as your moral objections - that there needs to be some external standard or rule that God needs to conform to. Well you failed miserably in demonstrating that, and there is no reason why God can't have unchanging purposes in Himself for creating us, the universe, etc... Do you need an external standard to purpose to do something?



And you can not prove that objective ethics exist, yet you still believe, you can't prove that what goes on in your head corresponds to reality, yet you still believe, you can not prove that other minds exist, yet you believe, you can prove that the world was created 5 minutes ago with us having false memories, yet you still believe. We have been through this Charles, stop being hypocritical.

We have been through your skepticism and as I demonstrated you cannot even assert your own statements if we are to take you seriously. Reality could be completely different from what you claim, there is no need for anyone to take you seriously as you claim even your own statements could be an illusion. So perhaps you should stop being hypocritical?

God can be as unchangeable as you may think but whatever his nature you would have to find it morally good even if it was absurd. Using big words on the god whose existence you cannot prove does not help, seer.

So please answer without returning to ideas I have shown to be self refuting.

seer
10-10-2017, 07:13 AM
Are you denying that Velinkin supports that all possible universes exist and form in a multiverse?

No, I'm saying that Velinkin and Guth demonstrated that the universe can not be past eternal see post just above #164: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?15614-Teleology-And-Human-Ethics&p=480732&viewfull=1#post480732



In ~2:04 Vilenkin described the natural processes where universes can arise spontaneously within a multiverse from the cosmological 'nothing' where total energy equals zero.



What does your link have to do with the youtube video? Vilenkin is not speaking of a universe coming from a multiverse, again At .54-56sec he makes clear that he is speaking of a universe coming from NO UNIVERSE. Now stop letting your religious agenda get in the way of facts!

shunyadragon
10-10-2017, 07:18 AM
No, I'm saying that Velinkin and Guth demonstrated that the universe can not be past eternal see post just above #164: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?15614-Teleology-And-Human-Ethics&p=480732&viewfull=1#post480732




What does your link have to do with the youtube video? Vilenkin is not speaking of a universe coming from a multiverse, again At .54-56sec he makes clear that he is speaking of a universe coming from NO UNIVERSE. Now stop letting your religious agenda get in the way of facts!

No, you said:



And you are completely clueless - how can a Quantum world exist without time or energy or space? Where can it exist? Because Vilenkin is not speaking of a multiverse giving rise to our universe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSESZR3wC8s&t=3s

In ~2:04 Vilenkin described the natural processes where universes can arise spontaneously within a multiverse from the cosmological 'nothing' where total energy equals zero.




Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University, Massachusetts, and Jaume Garriga of the University of Barcelona, Spain. They believe that our universe is one of many—infinitely many. According to "multiverse" theory, our Big Bang was just one in an eternal rumbling of bangs, each of which brings a new universe into being. Vilenkin and Garriga want to work out how ordinary—or how unusual—the properties of our universe are when compared with its neighbors. What fraction could harbor life, for instance?

seer
10-10-2017, 07:29 AM
We have been through your skepticism and as I demonstrated you cannot even assert your own statements if we are to take you seriously. Reality could be completely different from what you claim, there is no need for anyone to take you seriously as you claim even your own statements could be an illusion. So perhaps you should stop being hypocritical?

No Charles, you never proved anything in a deductive sense. So you, like all men, live by faith, trusting that things are so without logical justification. You are the hypocrite here, and have been from the start.


God can be as unchangeable as you may think but whatever his nature you would have to find it morally good even if it was absurd. Using big words on the god whose existence you cannot prove does not help, seer.


Yet you have no objective standard why which to judge any moral idea absurd or not - so where does that leave you?

seer
10-10-2017, 07:42 AM
No, you said:



In ~2:04 Vilenkin described the natural processes where universes can arise spontaneously within a multiverse from the cosmological 'nothing' where total energy equals zero.




Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University, Massachusetts, and Jaume Garriga of the University of Barcelona, Spain. They believe that our universe is one of many—infinitely many. According to "multiverse" theory, our Big Bang was just one in an eternal rumbling of bangs, each of which brings a new universe into being. Vilenkin and Garriga want to work out how ordinary—or how unusual—the properties of our universe are when compared with its neighbors. What fraction could harbor life, for instance?

Shuny what the hell are you getting at? Do you even know?

Charles
10-10-2017, 08:14 AM
No Charles, you never proved anything in a deductive sense. So you, like all men, live by faith, trusting that things are so without logical justification. You are the hypocrite here, and have been from the start.



Yet you have no objective standard why which to judge any moral idea absurd or not - so where does that leave you?

Seer, your statements are self refuting, even when claiming I am a hypocrite you are making a statement that you cannot make according to your own premises. But you only want it to apply to others, of course.

Are you denying you would find anything god defines as good to be good? Why so focused on escaping the topic? Why the need to return to old topics where you have been proven to have no foundation?

JimL
10-10-2017, 08:15 AM
That is completely false Shuny he is not talking about a multiverse! When he says nothing he means only the laws of physics - in the Platonic sense (non-material), which he makes clear at 5:10 on... And he says right in the beginning he is talking about a universe coming from "no universe."
Whats your big thing with Vilenken seer, he's one physicist expressing one viewpoint regarding current models of our universe. He's also not making sense, and no theoretical physicist that I'm aware of believes his conclusion to be the case. Laws that govern a universe can't also create that universe because laws are not existing things in themselves, they, the laws, don't do anything. Thats why Vilenkins hypothesis makes no sense. What does he suppose is tunnelling through what, are the laws tunnelling through the laws?

seer
10-10-2017, 08:26 AM
Whats your big thing with Vilenken seer, he's one physicist expressing one viewpoint regarding current models of our universe. He's also not making sense, and no theoretical physicist that I'm aware of believes his conclusion to be the case. Laws that govern a universe can't also create that universe because laws are not existing things in themselves, they, the laws, don't do anything. Thats why Vilenkins hypothesis makes no sense. What does he suppose is tunnelling through what, are the laws tunnelling through the laws?

Well Jim, I don't think I derailed this thread. And how many theoretical physicists do you know? I think physicists like Lawrence Krauss are close to something from nothing (empty space): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46sKeycH3bE

seer
10-10-2017, 08:30 AM
Seer, your statements are self refuting, even when claiming I am a hypocrite you are making a statement that you cannot make according to your own premises. But you only want it to apply to others, of course.

Are you denying you would find anything god defines as good to be good? Why so focused on escaping the topic? Why the need to return to old topics where you have been proven to have no foundation?

Charles, like I said in the past. If I, or you, found some command of God immoral or objectionable, on what basis could we object? You could never answer that question. I keep asking you - where do moral questions stop, who or what decides what it right or wrong? The individual, the society? What?

Charles
10-10-2017, 08:39 AM
Charles, like I said in the past. If I, or you, found some command of God immoral or objectionable, on what basis could we object? You could never answer that question. I keep asking you - where do moral questions stop, who or what decides what it right or wrong? The individual, the society? What?

I am asking you these questions that you cannot seem to answer. I have given my answer long ago. The reason you keep asking is simply because you keep asking though I have answered. You would rather return to this than provide an answer.

I am asking you to show that your thinking is consistent and can be supported by reason. Yet, you can deliver nothing but false statements and keep trying to change focus. Afraid of your own thoughts?

JimL
10-10-2017, 08:42 AM
Well Jim, I don't think I derailed this thread. And how many theoretical physicists do you know? I think physicists like Lawrence Krauss are close to something from nothing (empty space): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46sKeycH3bE

You must not have watched the Video seer, Krauss' nothing is not the nothing that you invision, that is, it isn't the platonic physical laws. Krauss' nothing is empty space which is roiling with activity.

seer
10-10-2017, 08:46 AM
I am asking you these questions that you cannot seem to answer. I have given my answer long ago. The reason you keep asking is simply because you keep asking though I have answered. You would rather return to this than provide an answer.

Charles you did not answer anything beside offering your opinion. You tried with Kant, but that fell apart and to suggest otherwise just points to your dishonesty. I have asked you a dozen times now to offer a non-circual definition of good and you have dodged the question time and time again.


I am asking you to show that your thinking is consistent and can be supported by reason. Yet, you can deliver nothing but false statements and keep trying to change focus. Afraid of your own thoughts?

What is reason Charles? You could never make a deductive argument supporting your position(s), and now you demand reason? More hypocrisy!

Charles
10-10-2017, 08:55 AM
Charles you did not answer anything beside offering your opinion. You tried with Kant, but that fell apart and to suggest otherwise just points to your dishonesty. I have asked you a dozen times now to offer a non-circual definition of good and you have dodged the question time and time again.



What is reason Charles? You could never make a deductive argument supporting your position(s), and now you demand reason? More hypocrisy!

No answers? Only false claims?

seer
10-10-2017, 08:57 AM
You must not have watched the Video seer, Krauss' nothing is not the nothing that you invision, that is, it isn't the platonic physical laws. Krauss' nothing is empty space which is roiling with activity.

Krauss' nothing is empty space, without any matter or particles. That is why I said close to nothing, virtual particles, which are not real particles as he says.

JimL
10-10-2017, 09:08 AM
Krauss' nothing is empty space, without any matter or particles. That is why I said close to nothing, virtual particles, which are not real particles as he says.

Space itself is material, unless he is talking of a void, but again that void according to Krauss is not even nothing, it has weight, and is roiling with activity. So no matter how you slice it, his nothing is not the same as Vilenkin's nothing.

seer
10-10-2017, 09:11 AM
No answers? Only false claims?

Charles, prove me wrong, here and now - give us a non-circular definition of "good."

seer
10-10-2017, 09:15 AM
Space itself is material, unless he is talking of a void, but again that void according to Krauss is not even nothing, it has weight, and is roiling with activity. So no matter how you slice it, his nothing is not the same as Vilenkin's nothing.

That is true Jim, but the activity Krauss is speaking of are virtual particles which, as he says, are not real particles. Go figure...

Charles
10-10-2017, 09:35 AM
Charles, prove me wrong, here and now - give us a non-circular definition of "good."

That us not what we are discussing, seer. But a good try at escaping once again :-)

seer
10-10-2017, 09:55 AM
That us not what we are discussing, seer. But a good try at escaping once again :-)

No Charles, you do not get to dictate in my thread. I have told you time and time again that God is the source for universal ethics sourced in His unchangeable moral character. You don't like that - fine, offer something better more certain and unchanging, less circular - I will be waiting...

Charles
10-10-2017, 10:05 AM
No Charles, you do not get to dictate in my thread. I have told you time and time again that God is the source for universal ethics sourced in His unchangeable moral character. You don't like that - fine, offer something better more certain and unchanging, less circular - I will be waiting...

Let us keep to the topic, seer. You cannot really support your view and answer critical questions. You constantly try to change focus and thus it seems you have got nothing to offer but stuff that may sound like something but really is nothing. It is not that I do not like your view. It is because nothing speaks in favour of it, and you use cheap tricks to try to avoid the issues

seer
10-10-2017, 10:23 AM
Let us keep to the topic, seer. You cannot really support your view and answer critical questions. You constantly try to change focus and thus it seems you have got nothing to offer but stuff that may sound like something but really is nothing. It is not that I do not like your view. It is because nothing speaks in favour of it, and you use cheap tricks to try to avoid the issues

Again Charles, you have nothing better, more certain or unchanging or universal. And what speaks in favor of my view is that there are universal moral truths, unchanging and certain - that we live in a just universe where there resides an ultimate legal authority. What speaks in favor of your view Charles? Anything?

Charles
10-10-2017, 10:36 AM
Again Charles, you have nothing better, more certain or unchanging or universal. And what speaks in favor of my view is that there are universal moral truths, unchanging and certain - that we live in a just universe where there resides an ultimate legal authority. What speaks in favor of your view Charles? Anything?

Oh, still trying to avoid it.

You cannot demonstrate how or why those moral truths would exist. And if they did exist, claiming they were good would be an empty claim. And dooing so you could be completely wrong, because a god you do not know could be the true god and a source of moral truths containing opposite directions.

Or god may not exist at all and you are just running with some unfounded claims that you beleive to be true though nothing speaks in favour of them. They point to god and that is the end of discussion for you. Even if he does not exist.

Charles
10-10-2017, 10:56 AM
Shuny what the hell are you getting at? Do you even know?

He is showing you were wrong. Quite simple.

seer
10-10-2017, 11:00 AM
Oh, still trying to avoid it.

You cannot demonstrate how or why those moral truths would exist. And if they did exist, claiming they were good would be an empty claim. And dooing so you could be completely wrong, because a god you do not know could be the true god and a source of moral truths containing opposite directions.

Or god may not exist at all and you are just running with some unfounded claims that you beleive to be true though nothing speaks in favour of them. They point to god and that is the end of discussion for you. Even if he does not exist.

Charles you are being hypocritical again, if my claims are unfounded what are yours? If God does not offer a just universe, with certain universal moral truths - what could? In the end, there is no moral direction in your worldview, no certain or universal moral truths, no inherent purpose for humankind. This is clear since you can not even venture a definition for goodness that is not circular.

seer
10-10-2017, 11:01 AM
He is showing you were wrong. Quite simple.

Really Charles - how was I wrong - be specific...

Charles
10-10-2017, 11:06 AM
Charles you are being hypocritical again, if my claims are unfounded what are yours? If God does not offer a just universe, with certain universal moral truths - what could? In the end, there is no moral direction in your worldview, no certain or universal moral truths, no inherent purpose for humankind. This is clear since you can not even venture a definition for goodness that is not circular.

Yet again no answers, seer. Only false claims. You must see it at some point...

Charles
10-10-2017, 11:17 AM
Really Charles - how was I wrong - be specific...

Let me give you the key words: multiverse theory....

Then try to read it again. Not too difficult.

seer
10-10-2017, 11:22 AM
Let me give you the key words: multiverse theory....

Then try to read it again. Not too difficult.

Charles, you are not making sense - what did I say that was wrong? Or are you just jumping on the bandwagon?

Charles
10-10-2017, 12:02 PM
Charles, you are not making sense - what did I say that was wrong? Or are you just jumping on the bandwagon?

You said: "And you are completely clueless - how can a Quantum world exist without time or energy or space? Where can it exist? Because Vilenkin is not speaking of a multiverse giving rise to our universe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSESZR3wC8s&t=3s"

shunyadragon pointed you to ~2:04:

In it Vilenkin says (forgive if there are some minor errors, listen yourself if you want to get it from the horse's own mouth:

"No conservation law forbids creation of such a universe out of nothing, out of a state where there is no matter, no space and no time. And in quantum mechanics anything that is not forbidden by conservation laws happens with some propability. So that is basically why a closed universe can spontaneously nucleate."

So shunyadragon was not completely clueless. He actually got it right. It seems you missed it even when pointed directly to it. "Jumping on the bandwagon"...... :ahem:

Charles
10-10-2017, 12:14 PM
Charles you are being hypocritical again, if my claims are unfounded what are yours? If God does not offer a just universe, with certain universal moral truths - what could? In the end, there is no moral direction in your worldview, no certain or universal moral truths, no inherent purpose for humankind. This is clear since you can not even venture a definition for goodness that is not circular.

Let's go through it in details:

"Charles you are being hypocritical again, if my claims are unfounded what are yours?" Personal attack and nothing to support it, rather easy.

"If God does not offer a just universe, with certain universal moral truths - what could?" It does not follow that god can do this even if nothing else can. You seem to forget this point all the time. You cannot answer why what you call just actually is just. It would be just if it was the opposite as long as it was from god according to your definition of what constitutes good. And you seem to forget that if no good exists prior to god's choice one can hardly claim his choise was good. It is not as if the two need to contradict each other. Even god needs those truths in order to be good. Or else good is just a whatever-word....

"In the end, there is no moral direction in your worldview, no certain or universal moral truths, no inherent purpose for humankind." Completely wrong. Who are you trying to fool. You may disagree with my reasoning but that does not change the fact that in my view there is moral direction, certain universal moral truths and purpose for humankind. Sorry to disappoint you seer. But you are not getting away with those wrong statements about my worldview.

"This is clear since you can not even venture a definition for goodness that is not circular." Still looking for you to prove my wordview about which you have made so many wrong statements circular. You may want to read some of my posts in here again: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?14814-A-shared-challenge-regarding-the-foundation-of-ethics

So, I perhaps now you can answer the questions instead of trying to change subject with false claims and unsupported statements over and over again? Or, perhaps that is all you have got?

seer
10-10-2017, 12:52 PM
You said: "And you are completely clueless - how can a Quantum world exist without time or energy or space? Where can it exist? Because Vilenkin is not speaking of a multiverse giving rise to our universe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSESZR3wC8s&t=3s"

shunyadragon pointed you to ~2:04:

In it Vilenkin says (forgive if there are some minor errors, listen yourself if you want to get it from the horse's own mouth:

"No conservation law forbids creation of such a universe out of nothing, out of a state where there is no matter, no space and no time. And in quantum mechanics anything that is not forbidden by conservation laws happens with some propability. So that is basically why a closed universe can spontaneously nucleate."

So shunyadragon was not completely clueless. He actually got it right. It seems you missed it even when pointed directly to it. "Jumping on the bandwagon"...... :ahem:

No Charles, you completely missed my point. Shuny is arguing that there is a pre-existing physical state where this quantum world existed, and that is not what Vilenkin is saying. He is actually saying that the universe can come into being from literally nothing. The only requirement are the laws of physics - in the "Platonic sense." Vilenkin is not saying that a multiverse was giving rise to our universe - which is what Shuny was suggesting, Vilenkin said nothing about a Multiverse in that talk. Just the opposite - at .54-56 sec. he makes it clear that he is speaking of a universe coming from "no universe." And at 5:11 on he makes clear that the only prior requirement are the laws of physics. So again Charles, tell me where I was wrong?

Remember Shuny said this:In ~2:04 Vilenkin described the natural processes where universes can arise spontaneously within a multiverse from the cosmological 'nothing' where total energy equals zero.

seer
10-10-2017, 01:01 PM
"This is clear since you can not even venture a definition for goodness that is not circular." Still looking for you to prove my wordview about which you have made so many wrong statements circular. You may want to read some of my posts in here again: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?14814-A-shared-challenge-regarding-the-foundation-of-ethics

Charles, I'm not answering any more of your question until you offer a non-circular definition of goodness, linking to a whole thread does not answer the question - that is simply subterfuge and you know it - exactly which post has this definition? And Charles I have been asking this same question in one form or another since our first debate where you said or promised:


Secondly I have already pointed out that the part about objective standards will be touched upon in another thread because that makes sense in the aproach that I have. You are not going to decide in this thread.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?14814-A-shared-challenge-regarding-the-foundation-of-ethics&p=450052&viewfull=1#post450052

Where is that explanation Charles, that was promised back in June!

Charles
10-10-2017, 01:27 PM
Charles, I'm not answering any more of your question until you offer a non-circular definition of goodness, linking to a whole thread does not answer the question - that is simply subterfuge and you know it - exactly which post has this definition?

Yet another post in which you refuse to answer. Seer, seriously.... You are also well aware I provided the link because you made so many wrong statements about my view that no single post will be enough. I described my view far more detailed, including foundation, than you ever did. Enjoy the reading. Where do you think I am circular or need the definition? And do not forget to answer the questions I gave. Try to stay on topic and do not make false claims.

Charles
10-10-2017, 01:35 PM
No Charles, you completely missed my point. Shuny is arguing that there is a pre-existing physical state where this quantum world existed, and that is not what Vilenkin is saying. He is actually saying that the universe can come into being from literally nothing. The only requirement are the laws of physics - in the "Platonic sense." Vilenkin is not saying that a multiverse was giving rise to our universe - which is what Shuny was suggesting, Vilenkin said nothing about a Multiverse in that talk. Just the opposite - at .54-56 sec. he makes it clear that he is speaking of a universe coming from "no universe." And at 5:11 on he makes clear that the only prior requirement are the laws of physics. So again Charles, tell me where I was wrong?

Remember Shuny said this:In ~2:04 Vilenkin described the natural processes where universes can arise spontaneously within a multiverse from the cosmological 'nothing' where total energy equals zero.


Very easy: you suggested Shuny was clueless thinking quantum mechanics could exist without time, energy or space. Vilenkin says creation is possible without matter time or energy due to quantum mechanics. Which is about what you held Shuny clueless for holding.

seer
10-10-2017, 02:35 PM
Yet another post in which you refuse to answer. Seer, seriously.... You are also well aware I provided the link because you made so many wrong statements about my view that no single post will be enough. I described my view far more detailed, including foundation, than you ever did. Enjoy the reading. Where do you think I am circular or need the definition? And do not forget to answer the questions I gave. Try to stay on topic and do not make false claims.

So Charles since June I have asking you for "proof" of your objective morality, and nothing. And I'm not asking for your subjective, relative, moral "foundation." The reason why you won't encapsulate view here is because it doesn't exist. And you know it. So until you offer your objective non-circular definition of "good" I'm done.

seer
10-10-2017, 02:48 PM
Very easy: you suggested Shuny was clueless thinking quantum mechanics could exist without time, energy or space. Vilenkin says creation is possible without matter time or energy due to quantum mechanics. Which is about what you held Shuny clueless for holding.

Duh! Did you even listen to the video? Vilenkin is talking about the laws quantum mechanics and physics not the quantum world itself. That they (the laws) exist prior to the creation of the physical world. And they exist in the Platonic sense (i.e. non physical.) And where did Vilenkin say that the universe can arise spontaneously within a multiverse ? Where does he say that - exactly, at what time? Remember Charles you said I was mistaken about the multiverse thing, to quote: Let me give you the key words: multiverse theory.... So Charles where was I wrong about the multiverse thing? Exactly.

JimL
10-10-2017, 04:46 PM
So Charles since June I have asking you for "proof" of your objective morality, and nothing. And I'm not asking for your subjective, relative, moral "foundation." The reason why you won't encapsulate view here is because it doesn't exist. And you know it. So until you offer your objective non-circular definition of "good" I'm done.

Morals themselves aren't objective, but the consequences of acting upon them are. For instance, there is no objective moral against murder, but the consequences of murder are not good for society nor would it ultimately be good for the members thereof. Morality isn't about you as an isolated individual, you are a member of a larger body. So why is it immoral? Because morals are relative to the best interests of human society, no one wants to be murdered. You're just obsessed with the desire for morals to be absolute and objective but you have no evidence to support that contention.

JimL
10-10-2017, 05:07 PM
Duh! Did you even listen to the video? Vilenkin is talking about the laws quantum mechanics and physics not the quantum world itself. That they (the laws) exist prior to the creation of the physical world. And they exist in the Platonic sense (i.e. non physical.) And where did Vilenkin say that the universe can arise spontaneously within a multiverse ? Where does he say that - exactly, at what time? Remember Charles you said I was mistaken about the multiverse thing, to quote: Let me give you the key words: multiverse theory.... So Charles where was I wrong about the multiverse thing? Exactly.
So what, when you have nothing else to go on, use your common sense. Laws aren't existing things, and even if you want to contend that laws are existing things, in the platonic sense, they don't do anything so it is silly to suggest that universes emerge from out of nothing but laws. Vilenkin contradicts himself when explaining the process of universe creation from nothing and then claims some-thing tunnels into existence. I have a feeling that what Vilenkin means in that conversation by nothing is the same thing that Krauss means by nothing, and that is not really nothing, its the quantum field.

seer
10-10-2017, 05:28 PM
So what, when you have nothing else to go on, use your common sense. Laws aren't existing things, and even if you want to contend that laws are existing things, in the platonic sense, they don't do anything so it is silly to suggest that universes emerge from out of nothing but laws. Vilenkin contradicts himself when explaining the process of universe creation from nothing and then claims some-thing tunnels into existence. I have a feeling that what Vilenkin means in that conversation by nothing is the same thing that Krauss means by nothing, and that is not really nothing, its the quantum field.

But do we really even know what a field is: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?15824-What-do-those-Nobel-people-know-anyway/page4

And Virtual particles (which aren't real particles as Krauss said) popping in and out of existence. I mean how does something (that is not real) pop into existence then pop out - kind of like angels popping into the real world then out again. And this is common sense Jim?

seer
10-10-2017, 05:30 PM
Morals themselves aren't objective, but the consequences of acting upon them are. For instance, there is no objective moral against murder, but the consequences of murder are not good for society nor would it ultimately be good for the members thereof. Morality isn't about you as an isolated individual, you are a member of a larger body. So why is it immoral? Because morals are relative to the best interests of human society, no one wants to be murdered. You're just obsessed with the desire for morals to be absolute and objective but you have no evidence to support that contention.


Yes, but supposedly Charles believes in objective ethics, but he can't tell us how they are possible - it is a big secret!

JimL
10-10-2017, 05:45 PM
But do we really even know what a field is: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?15824-What-do-those-Nobel-people-know-anyway/page4

And Virtual particles (which aren't real particles as Krauss said) popping in and out of existence. I mean how does something (that is not real) pop into existence then pop out - kind of like angels popping into the real world then out again. And this is common sense Jim?

Virtual particles are no less real then so called real particles, they are both vibrations in the field, its just that virtual particles, unlike the so called real particles, are low energy and so they don't last.

seer
10-10-2017, 05:54 PM
Virtual particles are no less real then so called real particles, they are both vibrations in the field, its just that virtual particles, unlike the so called real particles, are low energy and so they don't last.


Really Jim, the quantum world follows common sense?

JimL
10-10-2017, 07:25 PM
Really Jim, the quantum world follows common sense?
The quantum world is the quantum world, we use common sense in trying to understand it. The point is that the quantum vacuum that Krauss is describing isn't nothing. I'm not sure, but it sounds as though, Vilenkin isn't refering to that same nothing, but rather to a platonic realm of absolute nothingness outside of the observable spacetime where only physical laws exist. But again, I have no idea what he could mean by his tunnelling hypothesis if there is nothing there to do the tunnelling and nothing there to tunnell through. It would seem that just like Krauss' nothing, Vilenkins nothing is not exactly nothing either

Tassman
10-10-2017, 09:40 PM
No Charles, you never proved anything in a deductive sense. So you, like all men, live by faith, trusting that things are so without logical justification. You are the hypocrite here, and have been from the start.

You mean like you trusting in God?


Yet you have no objective standard why which to judge any moral idea absurd or not - so where does that leave you?

Neither do you. Your "objective standard" is based upon the god hypothesis, which is an unverified assumption.

Tassman
10-10-2017, 10:44 PM
False, his and Guth's work pretty much demonstrate that a multiverse would violate the Hubble constant

We’ve been through this “boundary” business before and several viable possibilities have been discussed.

E.g. Stephen Hawking’s no-boundary proposal which states that time may be finite without any real boundary (just like a sphere is finite in surface area while it has no “beginning”).

OR, the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event.

OR, (as previously linked) Vilenkin proposes “A cosmological model in which the universe is created by quantum tunnelling from literally nothing into a de Sitter space. After the tunnelling, the model evolves along the lines of the inflationary scenario. This model does not have a big-bang singularity and does not require any initial or boundary conditions”

By “nothing” Vilenkin was probably referring to ‘Zero-Point Energy’. In Quantum Mechanics a state of nothing is called Zero-Point energy. It's the lowest you can go. It can be applied to all sorts of fields in Field Theory, but in particular it gives the vacuum energy in cosmology. The vacuum energy is likely the cosmological constant, which means in a void one can get fluctuations in the curvature of space-time.

seer
10-11-2017, 03:10 AM
We’ve been through this “boundary” business before and several viable possibilities have been discussed.

E.g. Stephen Hawking’s no-boundary proposal which states that time may be finite without any real boundary (just like a sphere is finite in surface area while it has no “beginning”).

OR, the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event.

OR, (as previously linked) Vilenkin proposes “A cosmological model in which the universe is created by quantum tunnelling from literally nothing into a de Sitter space. After the tunnelling, the model evolves along the lines of the inflationary scenario. This model does not have a big-bang singularity and does not require any initial or boundary conditions”

By “nothing” Vilenkin was probably referring to ‘Zero-Point Energy’. In Quantum Mechanics a state of nothing is called Zero-Point energy. It's the lowest you can go. It can be applied to all sorts of fields in Field Theory, but in particular it gives the vacuum energy in cosmology. The vacuum energy is likely the cosmological constant, which means in a void one can get fluctuations in the curvature of space-time.

That is not the point Tass, you falsely accused me. Vilenkin was speaking of the multiverse not just this universe, and the boundary that Vilenkin referenced meant that the multiverse "can not be eternal into the past" - his words not mine! And you are wrong about the nothing that Vilenkin was speaking of.

shunyadragon
10-11-2017, 04:13 AM
That is not the point Tass, you falsely accused me. Vilenkin was speaking of the multiverse not just this universe, and the boundary that Vilenkin referenced meant that the multiverse "can not be eternal into the past" - his words not mine! And you are wrong about the nothing that Vilenkin was speaking of.

The problem remains you only chose to selectively cite Velinkin to justify your agenda, and misrepresent Krauss concerning the nature of the cosmological nothing.

seer
10-11-2017, 04:48 AM
The problem remains you only chose to selectively cite Velinkin to justify your agenda, and misrepresent Krauss concerning the nature of the cosmological nothing.

Shuny, you are the one with the religious agenda here since your religion teaches that matter and energy are co-eternal with God. So you need an eternal past for matter and energy. As a Christian it makes little difference to me. God could have created millions of universes for all I know, scripture is silent on that issue. So your very faith hinges on an eternal past for matter and energy.

seer
10-11-2017, 04:51 AM
The quantum world is the quantum world, we use common sense in trying to understand it. The point is that the quantum vacuum that Krauss is describing isn't nothing. I'm not sure, but it sounds as though, Vilenkin isn't refering to that same nothing, but rather to a platonic realm of absolute nothingness outside of the observable spacetime where only physical laws exist. But again, I have no idea what he could mean by his tunnelling hypothesis if there is nothing there to do the tunnelling and nothing there to tunnell through. It would seem that just like Krauss' nothing, Vilenkins nothing is not exactly nothing either

You are right about Krauss but Vilenkin's nothing really is nothing except the laws of physics, he makes that perfectly clear towards the end of the video that I linked.

shunyadragon
10-11-2017, 08:22 AM
Shuny, you are the one with the religious agenda here since your religion teaches that matter and energy are co-eternal with God. So you need an eternal past for matter and energy. As a Christian it makes little difference to me. God could have created millions of universes for all I know, scripture is silent on that issue. So your very faith hinges on an eternal past for matter and energy.

My faith does not depend on a scientific conclusion which most likely can never be known. I have made no attempt to interpret science to fit my religious view. Your agenda is Creation exnhilo, and our physical existence must be Created from nothing with a definite beginning.

Again . . .

You obviously care . . .

The problem remains you only chose to selectively cite Velinkin to justify your agenda, and misrepresent Krauss concerning the nature of the cosmological nothing.

Again, as far as science is concerning the question of beginnings and'r no beginnings cannot ever be answered, because any evidence or theory can only go so far, and beyond this it becomes a subjective assumption and conclusion.

JimL
10-11-2017, 08:55 AM
You are right about Krauss but Vilenkin's nothing really is nothing except the laws of physics, he makes that perfectly clear towards the end of the video that I linked.

Perhaps, but he would be wrong then, and I doubt you can find even one phycisist that would agree with that hypothesis. You can't have a tunnelling process, which is what Vilenkin espouses, unless there is something. And again, the laws of physics are not some-thing, they are simply laws, and laws don't do anything.

seer
10-11-2017, 09:02 AM
My faith does not depend on a scientific conclusion which most likely can never be known. I have made no attempt to interpret science to fit my religious view. Your agenda is Creation ex nihilo, and our physical existence must be Created from nothing with a definite beginning.

Actually Shuny, even if I believe that God created matter or energy ex nihilo it doesn't necessarily mean that this universe was created ex nihilo. It could just as well be that a larger multiverse was created ex nihilo, and we are just part of that. Like I said the bible is silent on the issue.


Hebrews 11:3: This is why the ancients were commended. By faith we understand that the universe was formed by God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Again . . .

So you have a lot more to lose with your religious agenda.

seer
10-11-2017, 09:09 AM
Perhaps, but he would be wrong then, and I doubt you can find even one phycisist that would agree with that hypothesis. You can't have a tunnelling process, which is what Vilenkin espouses, unless there is something. And again, the laws of physics are not some-thing, they are simply laws, and laws don't do anything.

He wrote a paper on how this would be possible, Tass actually linked it a while back - it is pretty difficult to understand though...

Anomaly
10-11-2017, 09:47 AM
Laws that govern a universe can't also create that universe because laws are not existing things in themselves, they, the laws, don't do anything.
In my thinking, the design argument may well center on this distinction. I believe the laws are quite real and do just what we perceive their doing. How is this wrong?

JimL
10-11-2017, 09:56 AM
In my thinking, the design argument may well center on this distinction. I believe the laws are quite real and do just what we perceive their doing. How is this wrong?

Laws are descriptive of the way matter moves, they are not things in themselves.

Charles
10-11-2017, 10:38 AM
So Charles since June I have asking you for "proof" of your objective morality, and nothing. And I'm not asking for your subjective, relative, moral "foundation." The reason why you won't encapsulate view here is because it doesn't exist. And you know it. So until you offer your objective non-circular definition of "good" I'm done.

Yet another one with no answer.

As regards your wrong statements about my view, you are of course free to disagree but you are not even capable of giving a fair presentation of my view. So your objections get you nowhere.

Anomaly
10-11-2017, 11:00 AM
Laws are descriptive of the way matter moves, they are not things in themselves.
How is this proven?

seer
10-11-2017, 11:14 AM
Yet another one with no answer.

As regards your wrong statements about my view, you are of course free to disagree but you are not even capable of giving a fair presentation of my view. So your objections get you nowhere.

Well Charles, since you won't answer the question about objective ethics I have been asking since June, I'm done. You are now on ignore... If you care to actually answer the question just PM me and I will take you out of purgatory.

Charles
10-11-2017, 12:13 PM
Duh! Did you even listen to the video? Vilenkin is talking about the laws quantum mechanics and physics not the quantum world itself. That they (the laws) exist prior to the creation of the physical world. And they exist in the Platonic sense (i.e. non physical.) And where did Vilenkin say that the universe can arise spontaneously within a multiverse ? Where does he say that - exactly, at what time? Remember Charles you said I was mistaken about the multiverse thing, to quote: Let me give you the key words: multiverse theory.... So Charles where was I wrong about the multiverse thing? Exactly.

Since I gave you the quote from the video I of course listened to it. I know exactly what he pointed to. What you point to in those first sentences is mainly in the quote itself so no need to present it as new facts or facts undermining my points.

And it is rather funny that you want me to point to the multiverse part of the video when the word was actually used in Shuny's post in which he quoted:


Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University, Massachusetts, and Jaume Garriga of the University of Barcelona, Spain. They believe that our universe is one of many—infinitely many. According to "multiverse" theory, our Big Bang was just one in an eternal rumbling of bangs, each of which brings a new universe into being. Vilenkin and Garriga want to work out how ordinary—or how unusual—the properties of our universe are when compared with its neighbors. What fraction could harbor life, for instance?

What Shuny said was: "In ~2:04 Vilenkin described the natural processes where universes can arise spontaneously within a multiverse from the cosmological 'nothing' where total energy equals zero." You wanted to make it sound as if Shuny claimed the multiverse itself gave rise to new universes. You said: "Because Vilenkin is not speaking of a multiverse giving rise to our universe:" You are mixing up "within" with "giving rise to". To put it short the Multiverse comprise everything that exists and can exist. It does not give rise to new universes but new universes happen to be a part of everthing that exists and before that they are a part of everything that can exist. Could you image a universe existing outside the sum of everything that exists? I would not think so...

So you just did not know the proper use of the word multiverse which was what I pointed to.

Charles
10-11-2017, 12:19 PM
Well Charles, since you won't answer the question about objective ethics I have been asking since June, I'm done. You are now on ignore... If you care to actually answer the question just PM me and I will take you out of purgatory.

What seer is claiming is wrong from beginning to end. I answered numerous questions and corrected him time and time again in this thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?14814-A-shared-challenge-regarding-the-foundation-of-ethics

At times he repeats the same questions and makes false claims about what I have said and I don't always want to bother repeating myself since this seems to just serve the purpose of him not having to answer. The thread was started by me in june by the way. So he did get his answers. He can disagree which is fair enough. But he has made many false claims instead which is not fair.

JimL
10-11-2017, 12:27 PM
How is this proven?

Well its somewhat like the notion of god, if you want to claim that physical laws have some sort of actual existence, whatever that means, in some platonic realm outside of the universe, then you'll have to show some evidence of that. All we know is that there are patterns in nature and we define those patterns using human language which we call laws.

Charles
10-11-2017, 12:30 PM
Actually Shuny, even if I believe that God created matter or energy ex nihilo it doesn't necessarily mean that this universe was created ex nihilo. It could just as well be that a larger multiverse was created ex nihilo, and we are just part of that. Like I said the bible is silent on the issue.

So we are actually not too well informed by the Bible on this issue? Why would this issue be unimportant for the message of the bible?

Anomaly
10-11-2017, 12:44 PM
if you want to claim that physical laws have some sort of actual existence, whatever that means, in some platonic realm outside of the universe, then you'll have to show some evidence of that. All we know is that there are patterns in nature and we define those patterns using human language which we call laws.
Okay, I'm willing to give my arguments, but first I'd be interested in your answering my question: how would you justify the idea that the laws of science are not real or actual forces?

JimL
10-11-2017, 04:55 PM
Okay, I'm willing to give my arguments, but first I'd be interested in your answering my question: how would you justify the idea that the laws of science are not real or actual forces?
Because there is no evidence that physical laws are anything but human terms defining the patterns in nature.

Anomaly
10-11-2017, 05:47 PM
Because there is no evidence that physical laws are anything but human terms defining the patterns in nature.
But describing something is relaying information. Language is a representation of something. People use the phrase "Laws of science" as freely as they do "that telephone pole" and in both cases information is conveyed, shared and accepted. I accept a reduction of reality from the empirical to the informational (among others). Only information has a capacity to in-form perception. Impossible things establish this rule: in the term "round triangle" the mind slams shut because round triangle presents no information to the mind. Round does, and triangle does, but round triangle doesn't. Only things that convey information are real.

The term "physical laws" presents objectively shared information that carries meaning. When the expression is used, it's immediately known that it references empirical reality, so physical laws have existence of some sort. All you are really saying is, "I refuse to accept that anything exists outside of a physical universe.", yet you (like everyone) use analytic/conceptual information in language and in practical living all day long.

A spontaneously formed universe is not an explanation of anything coherent from formation of a subatomic reality to macro existence, much less a moral presence. I'll post more later.

shunyadragon
10-11-2017, 07:06 PM
Actually Shuny, even if I believe that God created matter or energy ex nihilo it doesn't necessarily mean that this universe was created ex nihilo. It could just as well be that a larger multiverse was created ex nihilo, and we are just part of that. Like I said the bible is silent on the issue.

It remains possible IF, and that is a big IF, there could be an infinite number of multiverses in Vilenkin's hypothesis, and it is only one hypothesis of one cosmologists among many.

It remains your it is your justification of a religious agenda of Creation 'exnhilo' that you selectively cite one cosmologist, and misrepresent Krauss' concept of the cosmological nothing.



Again . . .

So you have a lot more to lose with your religious agenda.

No, because science likely cannot ever determine whether our physical existence is eternal or not.

JimL
10-11-2017, 07:22 PM
But describing something is relaying information. Language is a representation of something.
Language is the representation, and in this case language is a representation of the patterns in nature. Nature does what it does all by itself, there is no evidence that its behavior is governed by external laws.


People use the phrase "Laws of science" as freely as they do "that telephone pole" and in both cases information is conveyed, shared and accepted. I accept a reduction of reality from the empirical to the informational (among others). Only information has a capacity to in-form perception. Impossible things establish this rule: in the term "round triangle" the mind slams shut because round triangle presents no information to the mind. Round does, and triangle does, but round triangle doesn't. Only things that convey information are real.
Nature does convey information, and we describe that information in terms of laws.

The term "physical laws" presents objectively shared information that carries meaning. When the expression is used, it's immediately known that it references empirical reality, so physical laws have existence of some sort.
Physical laws don't present information, nature does, and we describe the information that nature presents in language form, which we call laws.


All you are really saying is, "I refuse to accept that anything exists outside of a physical universe.", yet you (like everyone) use analytic/conceptual information in language and in practical living all day long.
No, I don't refuse to accept that anything exists outside the physical universe, but I do require credible evidence.

A spontaneously formed universe is not an explanation of anything coherent from formation of a subatomic reality to macro existence, much less a moral presence. I'll post more later.
Not sure what you're getting at here Anomaly.

Tassman
10-11-2017, 09:54 PM
That is not the point Tass, you falsely accused me. Vilenkin was speaking of the multiverse not just this universe, and the boundary that Vilenkin referenced meant that the multiverse "can not be eternal into the past" - his words not mine! And you are wrong about the nothing that Vilenkin was speaking of.

You seem totally unaware of what “nothing” means in Quantum Mechanics; merely regurgitate selective Vilenkin quote mines which you (erroneously) think reinforce your religious agenda.

As for “the boundary that Vilenkin referenced”, the mere fact that he presents hypotheses (along with others like Hawking) to overcome the inherent problems indicate that “the boundary” is not the last word on his “past eternal” argument.

Your entire approach to science is one of total dismissal or wish fulfillment.

seer
10-12-2017, 04:50 AM
You seem totally unaware of what “nothing” means in Quantum Mechanics; merely regurgitate selective Vilenkin quote mines which you (erroneously) think reinforce your religious agenda.

Tass, that was not the point, when speaking of an eternal past not being possible you accused me of misquoting Vilenkin - that He was speaking of this universe not the multiverse - you were wrong and falsely accused me. How about an apology? And I did not quote mine Vilenkin, he was clear in my Youtube link and in your own link to his paper - he is speaking of "literally nothing" the only pre existing conditions necessary are the laws pf physics - in the "Platonic sense" - his words not mine. And you reject these because of your atheistic agenda - you need eternal matter and energy or your faith falls apart!


As for “the boundary that Vilenkin referenced”, the mere fact that he presents hypotheses (along with others like Hawking) to overcome the inherent problems indicate that “the boundary” is not the last word on his “past eternal” argument.

And how does Vilenkin get past the problem - creation from "literally nothing" as your own link states!

seer
10-12-2017, 04:56 AM
It remains possible IF, and that is a big IF, there could be an infinite number of multiverses in Vilenkin's hypothesis, and it is only one hypothesis of one cosmologists among many.

It remains your it is your justification of a religious agenda of Creation 'exnhilo' that you selectively cite one cosmologist, and misrepresent Krauss' concept of the cosmological nothing.

Stop lying Shuny, I did not misquote Krauss, I never said that he was speaking of literally nothing as Vilenkin did.


No, because science likely cannot ever determine whether our physical existence is eternal or not.

How do you know that? Vilenkin and Guth already demonstrated that a multiverse can not be past eternal since it would violate the Hubble Constant. And your religion demands an eternal past for matter and energy - my religion is silent on the matter.

shunyadragon
10-12-2017, 05:16 AM
How do you know that? Vilenkin and Guth already demonstrated that a multiverse can not be past eternal since it would violate the Hubble Constant. And your religion demands an eternal past for matter and energy - my religion is silent on the matter.

No neither your religion nor you are silent on this matter. Creation from "exnhilo" or absolte nothing is the dominate belief in traditional Christianity based on scripture, and the origin of either our universe or the multiverse you argue for, and try vainly to get support from a biased selected citations from Vilenkin. You have a long long history for this. I have consistently supported that it is a question that most likely cannot be answered by science.

Vilenkin and Guth do not know that, I do not know that, you do not know that, and of course none of the physicists and cosmologists know that. They present hypothesis concerning the nature of origins of universes and multiverses. The only thing most agree on is our universe formed from a singularity as one of many, which either formed in and from preexisting 'Quantum nothing' in a multiverse, or a minority of cosmologist consider our universe to be in way or another cyclic in a multiverse. Some cyclic universe hypothesis have been found wanting and discarded, but others remain viable as hypothesis for the origins of our universe.

Vilenkin supported the multiverse, and described how a universe could form in the multiverse in the you tube video you cited beginning about 2:04.

seer
10-12-2017, 05:47 AM
Vilenkin supported the multiverse, and described how a universe could form in the multiverse in the you tube video you cited beginning about 2:04.

Shuny, I'm not saying Vilenkin did not have a multiverse theory, he did in his inflation theory, but as he also said that can not be eternal into the past. His words not mine. What he is speaking of in the youtube link you referenced has nothing to do with the multiverse, he never mentioned a multiverse. His point about zero energy is that a closed universe with zero energy can spontaneously come into being apart from time, space or matter (a "universe from no universe" his words not mine). And as he makes clear at 5:10 on he is speaking of a universe coming from nothing (real nothing) - the only pre existing requirement are the laws of physics. He nowhere speaks of a multiverse and this theory has nothing to do with a multiverse - it is a different theory altogether: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSESZR3wC8s

shunyadragon
10-12-2017, 05:50 AM
A spontaneously formed universe is not an explanation of anything coherent from formation of a subatomic reality to macro existence, much less a moral presence. I'll post more later.

It at present is hypothesis dominant among physicists and cosmologists supported by the present objective verifiable , without a religious agenda, is the spontaneous formation of a singularity in a multiverse "Quantum environment."

Explanations with a religious explanation are not falsifiable by scientific methods.

shunyadragon
10-12-2017, 06:05 AM
Stop lying Shuny, I did not misquote Krauss, I never said that he was speaking of literally nothing as Vilenkin did.

I did not say you misquoted Krauss. I said you misrepresented Krauss by equating his description of 'Quantum nothing' as almost? absolute nothing.

Krauss' proposal for 'Quantum nothing' is pretty much what is widely accepted by most scientists, and bears no resemblance to the philosophical 'absolute nothing' in theology.

seer
10-12-2017, 06:10 AM
It at present is hypothesis dominant among physicists and cosmologists supported by the present objective verifiable , without a religious agenda, is the spontaneous formation of a singularity in a multiverse "Quantum environment."

Except there is no actual objective verifiable evidence for a multiverse. And where do you get that this is the dominant view? Did you do a poll?


Proponents of one or more of the multiverse hypotheses include: Stephen Hawking,[22] Brian Greene,[23][24] Max Tegmark,[25] Alan Guth,[26] Andrei Linde,[27] Michio Kaku,[28] David Deutsch,[29] Leonard Susskind,[30] Alexander Vilenkin,[31] Yasunori Nomura,[32] Raj Pathria,[33] Laura Mersini-Houghton,[34][35] Neil deGrasse Tyson,[36] and Sean Carroll.[37]

Scientists who are generally skeptical of the multiverse hypothesis include: Steven Weinberg,[38] David Gross,[39] Paul Steinhardt,[40] Neil Turok,[41] Viatcheslav Mukhanov,[42] Michael S. Turner,[43] Roger Penrose,[44] George Ellis,[45][46] Joe Silk,[47] Carlo Rovelli,[48] Adam Frank,[49] Marcelo Gleiser,[49] Jim Baggott,[50] and Paul Davies.[51]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Arguments_against_multiverse_theories

shunyadragon
10-12-2017, 06:27 AM
Except there is no actual objective verifiable evidence for a multiverse. And where do you get that this is the dominant view? Did you do a poll?

Different question, moving the goal posts. My point is you selectively quote Vilenkin to support your agenda, who without question proposes the existence of a multiverse based on the present scientific evidence.

This has been covered before at least several times, nonetheless I will provide references concerning the scientists that support the existence of a multiverse.

There is absolutely no evidence that would conclude that ultimately our physical existence is eternal or not, and I do not know of any scientists that propose the existence of an absolute beginning of our physical existence..

seer
10-12-2017, 07:00 AM
Different question, moving the goal posts. My point is you selectively quote Vilenkin to support your agenda, who without question proposes the existence of a multiverse based on the present scientific evidence.

Shuny, you are fibbing again, I quoted Vilenkin directly and gave links to the quotes in context.


This has been covered before at least several times, nonetheless I will provide references concerning the scientists that support the existence of a multiverse.

There is absolutely no evidence that would conclude that ultimately our physical existence is eternal or not, and I do not know of any scientists that propose the existence of an absolute beginning of our physical existence..

Shuny, again there is no actual objective verifiable evidence for a multiverse, but you latch on to anything to avoid a absolute beginning because that serves your religious agenda... Even making up the idea that the multiverse theory is the dominant view with no actual evidence to support that claim.

JimL
10-12-2017, 07:21 AM
Shuny, you are fibbing again, I quoted Vilenkin directly and gave links to the quotes in context.



Shuny, again there is no actual objective verifiable evidence for a multiverse, but you latch on to anything to avoid a absolute beginning because that serves your religious agenda... Even making up the idea that the multiverse theory is the dominant view with no actual evidence to support that claim.
Quantum mechanics, the Schroedinger equation and the Everitian interpretation thereof, is objective verifiable evidence of a multi-verse. Evidence is not proof, its evidence.

seer
10-12-2017, 07:43 AM
Quantum mechanics, the Schroedinger equation and the Everitian interpretation thereof, is objective verifiable evidence of a multi-verse. Evidence is not proof, its evidence.

Jim, the many-worlds interpretation is not evidence, I'm speaking of physical testable evidence.

JimL
10-12-2017, 08:03 AM
Jim, the many-worlds interpretation is not evidence, I'm speaking of physical testable evidence.

Quatum mechanics is physical testable evidence. That the universe is in a superposition of every possible state and yet we only experience one of those possible states, is evidence that all of those other states are just as real in other domains. Like I said, it isn't proof, but its evidence.

seer
10-12-2017, 08:25 AM
Quatum mechanics is physical testable evidence. That the universe is in a superposition of every possible state and yet we only experience one of those possible states, is evidence that all of those other states are just as real in other domains. Like I said, it isn't proof, but its evidence.

No Jim, that is not physical evidence it is a way to interpret what we see. It may or may not have anything to do with the reality a multiverse. The fact is, it is doubtful that we understand the quantum world well enough to come to such conclusion and as you know there are other interpretations.

JimL
10-12-2017, 08:36 AM
No Jim, that is not physical evidence it is a way to interpret what we see. It may or may not have anything to do with the reality a multiverse. The fact is, it is doubtful that we understand the quantum world well enough to come to such conclusion and as you know there are other interpretations.
Its physical evidence seer, and yes the multi-verse is an interpretation of that evidence, but thats what evidence is, its not proof. I do believe that the multi-verse hypothesis is the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics among physicists, but its far from proof.

shunyadragon
10-12-2017, 09:04 AM
Except there is no actual objective verifiable evidence for a multiverse. And where do you get that this is the dominant view? Did you do a poll?

I believe it is, but yes I acknowledge that all scientist do not agree, as they do not agree with Vilenkins hypothesis that you selectively cite. The problem is your selectively citing Vilenkin who believes there is evidence for a multiverse, and than hypocritically switch your line to selectively refer to scientists who do not support a multiverse. Actually none of these physicists and cosmologists support the delusion that there is a scientific argument for an absolute beginning for our universe or the Quantum world our universe originates from, that would be remotely comparable to an absolute beginning like 'exnhilo.'

All I have specifically asserted is that it is extremely unlikely if not impossible that science can determine whether

seer
10-12-2017, 09:22 AM
Its physical evidence seer, and yes the multi-verse is an interpretation of that evidence, but thats what evidence is, its not proof. I do believe that the multi-verse hypothesis is the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics among physicists, but its far from proof.

Jim, it is an interpretation of the quantum world, that happens to be popular right now, not that many years ago the Copenhagen theory was popular. The fact is we don't really know how to interpret the quantum world.