Teleology And Human Ethics...

[shunyadragon]

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.

Source: http://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/108

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?

© Copyright Original Source

[Charles]

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]

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/sh...l=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]

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/sh...l=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.

Source: http://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/108

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?

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

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]

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.

Source: http://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/108

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?

© Copyright Original Source

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

[Charles]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.