An Infinite Past?

[Tassman]

I said nothing about "absolute beginning" - what I said is that his theory has a beginning with no known cause. I also said:

You several times compared how close Vilenkin’s view was to the traditional Christian view of Creatio ex Nihilo, i.e. an absolute beginning. Just as you stressed that Vilenkin’s “no known cause” equates, even if only by implication, to an “absolute beginning”. Do you deny this?

Of course an atheist in science will assume that some other physical force caused, lets say, the multiverse to begin...

…Just as a theist will argue for divine creation, even though there’s no substantive evidence to support this claim.

but without credible evidence all you are left with is a beginning.

To claim that Vilenkin argues for "beginning with no known cause" is a misrepresentation of his position. He consistently states there is a probable natural, scientific explanation and proposes several. Invariably in the past, there have always been natural, scientific explanations to scientific mysteries - without exception.

Of course Vilenkin "wants" there to be a previous cause, just as atheists "want" there to be a prior physical cause for this universe. So when it comes to the multiverse or this universe you may believe anything you like, but the facts are you have no evidence for these prior causes.

You’re implying an unreasonable bias when the standard position in physics and cosmology is that beginnings are always from preexisting conditions. Otherwise you’re left with a god-of-the-gaps argument - and they've never done well.

The BGV Theorem does NOT say or imply that "the universe had a beginning". It says that the inflationary model had a beginning, i.e. it cannot go infinitely into the past. There's a difference. In short, it says that inflation alone is not sufficient for a complete description of the universe and some new physics is necessary to determine the conditions at the boundary.

Again, if you are correct then you have reduce morality to complete absurdity. Let me quote myself:

If there is no objective moral law then ethics are clearly reduced to absurdity where both A and not A are equally correct. In some cultures female genital mutilation is considered good and necessary, in other cultures it is outlawed. The same behavior is both accepted and not accepted. A and not A are both culturally correct.


The point Tass, that even if we don't always understand or correctly articulate the laws of logic they are still universal. The same with ethics, even if we don't always understand or correctly articulate moral law that does not mean that it is not universal. If not you reduce all moral thought to absurdity.

You claim that 'objective morality' is consistent and eternal, but you can’t tell us what it is. So why would anyone assume that it exists - especially given that our moral codes have demonstrably developed and changed over time according to the changing social mores of the day?

E.g. the subjugation of women as chattels of men was once the morally acceptable social norm – it even had biblical support. But it is not acceptable any longer - at least in the more developed countries. So which is the morally correct position according to your absolute criteria: Women as equal to men or women as chattels of men? They can't both be correct.

BTW Tass, this is your last chance to apologize. If not I will put you on ignore.

Apologize for what, seer? You claim I accused you of “misquoting” Vikenkin. This is a lie; I did NOT do this. What I did do, along with shunya and others, was accuse you of “misrepresenting” Vilkenkin’s argument. There’s a difference. See above. Whether you "misrepresented" him deliberately to make a point or genuinely misunderstood his argument is not for me to say.

[seer]

Apologize for what, seer? You claim I accused you of “misquoting” Vikenkin. This is a lie; I did NOT do this. What I did do, along with shunya and others, was accuse you of “misrepresenting” Vilkenkin’s argument. There’s a difference. See above. Whether you "misrepresented" him deliberately to make a point or genuinely misunderstood his argument is not for me to say.

Nonsense Tass, the only time I actually suggested Vikenkin's view was getting close to Creatio ex Nihilo was about his comment concerning the universe coming from "literally nothing." Which I linked. You had your chance Tass.

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense Tass, the only time I actually suggested Vikenkin's view was getting close to Creatio ex Nihilo was about his comment concerning the universe coming from "literally nothing." Which I linked. You had your chance Tass.

This has been a long debate that goes back to the previous Tweb. What is actually asserted by Craig and you is that Vilenkin's conclusions support the theological argument for Creation ex Nihilo, i. e. Kalams argument. The Theological arguments definitely propose that Creation resulted in absolute beginnings from absolute nothing Created by God.

Your statement about 'getting close' is one of many in the past that supports Tassman's view of your 'intent' in this dialogue as the selective use of evidence justifies an absolute beginning from absolutely nothing.

I do accuse you of selectively citing theorems and models by different physicists and cosmologists to justify evidence of a religious agenda. These theorems, right or wrong, come as a complete package, and cannot be parsed and interpreted differently from the intent of the scientists. You then assert there is not any evidence for these models. You then assert that the scientists 'want' the results to be beginnings from 'something.' In science this amounts to an accusation of bias in science that is unethical, and reflects your hostile view toward science in general. The history of the development of theorems that consider multiverses possible do not reflect this negative assertion.

Your history of a combative acrid distrust toward science and the vague conflating 'philosophical naturalism' with 'methodological naturalism' overshadows your whole arguments involving evolution and cosmology. This is compounded above by your associating atheism with science.

In a previous post you asserted that Vilenkin's use of beginning reflected the same use of beginning generally accepted. There is a problem here. There are two generally accepted uses of beginnings. One in general use in English is that beginnings involve beginning from something, The other is the philosophical/theological beginning ex Nihilo. If Vilenkin's use of beginning is the generally accepted use of begin, then it is beginning from something. Which is it seer?

[seer]

This has been a long debate that goes back to the previous Tweb. What is actually asserted by Craig and you is that Vilenkin's conclusions support the theological argument for Creation ex Nihilo, i. e. Kalams argument. The Theological arguments definitely propose that Creation resulted in absolute beginnings from absolute nothing Created by God.

Your statement about 'getting close' is one of many in the past that supports Tassman's view of your 'intent' in this dialogue as the selective use of evidence justifies an absolute beginning from absolutely nothing.

I do accuse you of selectively citing theorems and models by different physicists and cosmologists to justify evidence of a religious agenda. These theorems, right or wrong, come as a complete package, and cannot be parsed and interpreted differently from the intent of the scientists. You then assert there is not any evidence for these models. You then assert that the scientists 'want' the results to be beginnings from 'something.' In science this amounts to an accusation of bias in science that is unethical, and reflects your hostile view toward science in general. The history of the development of theorems that consider multiverses possible do not reflect this negative assertion.

Your history of a combative acrid distrust toward science and the vague conflating 'philosophical naturalism' with 'methodological naturalism' overshadows your whole arguments involving evolution and cosmology. This is compounded above by your associating atheism with science.

In a previous post you asserted that Vilenkin's use of beginning reflected the same use of beginning generally accepted. There is a problem here. There are two generally accepted uses of beginnings. One in general use in English is that beginnings involve beginning from something, The other is the philosophical/theological beginning ex Nihilo. If Vilenkin's use of beginning is the generally accepted use of begin, then it is beginning from something. Which is it seer?

Get over yourself Shuny! My only point in all of this was that there isn't any evidence for an eternal physical past. Zero. Period. Draw your own conclusions, I draw mine. And of course there is bias in science because men are bias and men do science. And unlike you Shuny, science is not my God.

[seer]

Show me a definition from an academic source that indicates that the Laws of Logic are objective and universal.

So the law of non-contradiction is relative and subjective Shuny? Is that what you believe?

The color red is not an issue here, morality and ethics is. You cannot use the same measure for all things.

I believe God exists, and yes from God's perspective God is universal and objective, but human morality is too variable and changes over time too be specifically objective.

Are you missing the point on purpose? It makes no difference to the argument whether morality variable or not, just as the color red would still exist objectively even if we all were born color blind.

I do not know whether 'objective morality' exists or not, but until it is objectively defined, I cannot give any credibility to the claim that 'objective morality' exists.

So the law of God does not exist?

[shunyadragon]

So the law of non-contradiction is relative and subjective Shuny? Is that what you believe?

Did not answer the question. The Law of non-contradiction is neither subjective nor objective. It may used in arguments in both. The Law of non-contradiction is often misused to justify a subjective belief.

Again. show me a definition from an academic source that indicates that the Laws of Logic are objective and universal Still waiting . . .

Are you missing the point on purpose? It makes no difference to the argument whether morality variable or not, just as the color red would still exist objectively even if we all were born color blind.

Again, what is the specific definition for 'objective morality?''

So the law of God does not exist?

Never said anything that would indicate this, please cite me directly.

I do not know whether 'objective morality' exists or not, but until it is objectively defined, I cannot give any credibility to the claim that 'objective morality' exists.

Morality does not equate to the Law of God. The Laws of God supersede any moral and ethic.

Example of Law of God:

Source: http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/KA/ka-5.html

From the Katab-i-aqdas

72 It is forbidden you to trade in slaves, be they men or women. It is not for him who is himself a servant to buy another of God’s servants, and this hath been prohibited in His Holy Tablet. Thus, by His mercy, hath the commandment been recorded by the Pen of justice. Let no man exalt himself above another; all are but bond slaves before the Lord, and all exemplify the truth that there is none other God but Him. He, verily, is the All-Wise, Whose wisdom encompasseth all things.

© Copyright Original Source

[JimL]

No Jim, I clearly showed why all moral reasoning becomes absurd if you are correct. It was not in the least circular, again:

Define what you mean by absurd.

If there is no objective moral law then ethics are clearly reduced to absurdity where both A and not A are equally correct. In some cultures female genital mutilation is considered good and necessary, in other cultures it is outlawed. The same behavior is both accepted and not accepted. A and not A are both culturally correct.

Again you are assuming an absolute objective standard against the which all things are compared and ultimately judged. What if there were no objective standard or judge, would you personally abandon any subjective sense of right and wrong?

Female genital mutilation is both good and not good. A and not A are equally correct. That is the very basis of absurdity.

But it has nothing to do with what is objectively determined, and ultimately judged, to be good or not good. As I have mentioned previously, and you no doubt would agree, morals, a human determined set of values, would exist whether or not there were an objective standard with which to compare them with. But then you argue that, the notion of subjectively determined morals, to be absurd. But, since we do not have access to this assumed objective standard of yours, then whether it existed or not, our moral codes would still be subjectively based. The problem is that you, like Mr. Black, presuppose an ultimate ground upon which a distinct universe was designed and therefore must conform to, and ultimately be judged by, the specifications of the designer. So, what if there is no designer? Would we still subjectively adopt morals? And would it be absurd to do this without there being an objective standard to go by?

To be honest, I don't know. I tend to an old earth view with man as a special creation relatively recently, 6-12 thousand years ago. What I don't believe is that unaided Natural Selection and Random Mutations created what we see today.

Well, actually that is what we see today, that is the observation of science, that we like everything else in the universe evolved.

Let me give you and example. The human eye is quite complex, with a number of controlling genes that all interact together. So over time not only do you need RMs to create these various interlocking parts that make up the eye, you then need RMs to create the connection to the brain (the optic nerve which is controlled by a different set of genes). Then not only that, now you need corresponding changes in the central nervous system (the brain controlled by another different set of genes) that can process the ever increasing information for an ever more complex eye. Now multiply that with the sense of smell, taste, and hearing and all the corresponding, interlocking changes that would be needed. I have no reason to assume that all this happened or could happen "naturally."

Yes, the eye is very complex, and took billions of years to evolve. Do you believe that animals, dinosaurs for instance, were also a special creation, and that their vision systems didn't evolve either?

[shunyadragon]

Get over yourself Shuny! My only point in all of this was that there isn't any evidence for an eternal physical past. Zero. Period. Draw your own conclusions, I draw mine. And of course there is bias in science because men are bias and men do science. And unlike you Shuny, science is not my God.

Still waiting . . .

Which is it seer???

[Tassman]

This has been a long debate that goes back to the previous Tweb. What is actually asserted by Craig and you is that Vilenkin's conclusions support the theological argument for Creation ex Nihilo, i. e. Kalams argument. The Theological arguments definitely propose that Creation resulted in absolute beginnings from absolute nothing Created by God.

Your statement about 'getting close' is one of many in the past that supports Tassman's view of your 'intent' in this dialogue as the selective use of evidence justifies an absolute beginning from absolutely nothing.

I do accuse you of selectively citing theorems and models by different physicists and cosmologists to justify evidence of a religious agenda. These theorems, right or wrong, come as a complete package, and cannot be parsed and interpreted differently from the intent of the scientists. You then assert there is not any evidence for these models. You then assert that the scientists 'want' the results to be beginnings from 'something.' In science this amounts to an accusation of bias in science that is unethical, and reflects your hostile view toward science in general. The history of the development of theorems that consider multiverses possible do not reflect this negative assertion.

Your history of a combative acrid distrust toward science and the vague conflating 'philosophical naturalism' with 'methodological naturalism' overshadows your whole arguments involving evolution and cosmology. This is compounded above by your associating atheism with science.

In a previous post you asserted that Vilenkin's use of beginning reflected the same use of beginning generally accepted. There is a problem here. There are two generally accepted uses of beginnings. One in general use in English is that beginnings involve beginning from something, The other is the philosophical/theological beginning ex Nihilo. If Vilenkin's use of beginning is the generally accepted use of begin, then it is beginning from something. Which is it seer?

Excellent post! And, as one has come to expect, your questions, as have mine, remain unanswered.

[Tassman]

Nonsense Tass, the only time I actually suggested Vikenkin's view was getting close to Creatio ex Nihilo was about his comment concerning the universe coming from "literally nothing." Which I linked. You had your chance Tass.

Again you’ve missed the point. You misrepresented Vilenkin because you seemed to assume the BGV Theorem implies "the universe had a beginning". But this is NOT Vilenkin’s argument. The BGV Theorem says that the inflationary model had a beginning, i.e. it cannot go infinitely into the past. There's a difference between the two. In short, the theorem says that inflation alone is not sufficient for a complete description of the universe.

Also, you have yet to address the issue’s I raised about objective morality and I echo shunya’s oft repeated request: "Define the objective morality that all humans must follow"? I have repeatedly made the same request in several threads and have yet to get a response.

[Tassman]

To seer:

But it has nothing to do with what is objectively determined, and ultimately judged, to be good or not good. As I have mentioned previously, and you no doubt would agree, morals, a human determined set of values, would exist whether or not there were an objective standard with which to compare them with. But then you argue that, the notion of subjectively determined morals, to be absurd. But, since we do not have access to this assumed objective standard of yours, then whether it existed or not, our moral codes would still be subjectively based. The problem is that you, like Mr. Black, presuppose an ultimate ground upon which a distinct universe was designed and therefore must conform to, and ultimately be judged by, the specifications of the designer. So, what if there is no designer? Would we still subjectively adopt morals? And would it be absurd to do this without there being an objective standard to go by?

Exactly! Believing that an absolute moral code exists without detailing what it consists of is empty rhetoric. Furthermore the existence of codes of behavior among primitive humans and other humanoids such as Neanderthals, long predates the notion of a divinely mandated moral code.

Well, actually that is what we see today, that is the observation of science, that we like everything else in the universe evolved

Well of course. There is no supportive evidence for seer’s bald assertion that: “I tend to an old earth view with man as a special creation relatively recently, 6-12 thousand years ago”. Based upon what: the bible? There is not a shred of substantive evidence to support this Bronze Age notion. Conversely, evolutionary theory is well supported by numerous examples of changes in various species leading to the diversity of life as seen today and proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Yes, the eye is very complex, and took billions of years to evolve. Do you believe that animals, dinosaurs for instance, were also a special creation, and that their vision systems didn't evolve either?

Sir David Attenborough gives an excellent summary of how the eye evolved:

http://www.wimp.com/eyeevolution/

[seer]

Did not answer the question. The Law of non-contradiction is neither subjective nor objective. It may used in arguments in both. The Law of non-contradiction is often misused to justify a subjective belief.

Again. show me a definition from an academic source that indicates that the Laws of Logic are objective and universal Still waiting . . .

Who cares what academic sources say, and I don't care how men use or misuse said laws. I am asking you Shuny, is the law non-contradiction objective and universal or not. It is a either or question.

I do not know whether 'objective morality' exists or not, but until it is objectively defined, I cannot give any credibility to the claim that 'objective morality' exists.

Morality does not equate to the Law of God. The Laws of God supersede any moral and ethic.

Example of Law of God:

Source: http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/KA/ka-5.html

From the Katab-i-aqdas

72 It is forbidden you to trade in slaves, be they men or women. It is not for him who is himself a servant to buy another of God’s servants, and this hath been prohibited in His Holy Tablet. Thus, by His mercy, hath the commandment been recorded by the Pen of justice. Let no man exalt himself above another; all are but bond slaves before the Lord, and all exemplify the truth that there is none other God but Him. He, verily, is the All-Wise, Whose wisdom encompasseth all things.

© Copyright Original Source

This makes no sense. This law of God, if it is a law of God that you quote, certainly is moral in nature and certainly is objective (i.e. objective to humankind). And it would exist whether we understood it or not or followed it or not. Thanks for making my point.

[seer]

Still waiting . . .

Which is it seer???

Waiting for what?

[shunyadragon]

Who cares what academic sources say, and I don't care how men use or misuse said laws.

Well this is a problem, considering the fact that you 'do not care.' You need to justify your claim that ALL the Laws of Logic are universal and objective. You as an authority on this issue is highly questionable. It is very reasonable to request an academic source to back up your argument.

The problem remains that you need references besides 'because I say so,' and of course, a definition of 'objective morality' that is acceptable in normal human communication in the English language.

I am asking you Shuny, is the law non-contradiction objective and universal or not. It is a either or question.

The application of the Law of Non-contradiction to Nature of the objective physical evidence as applied to Metaphysical Naturalism, and Math, is objective and universal, but when applied to metaphysical subjective arguments it is dependent on the assumptions of the argument.

This makes no sense. This law of God, if it is a law of God that you quote, certainly is moral in nature and certainly is objective (i.e. objective to humankind). And it would exist whether we understood it or not or followed it or not. Thanks for making my point.

Your hedging seer, something as 'moral in nature' does not remotely apply to a claim of 'objective morality.' Check your definitions for morality in any source, and you will find that morality refers to the standards of behavior of groups, societies and individuals. There is no mention of 'objective morality' in any of these definitions.

Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

The Definition of Morality

The term “morality” can be used either
1.descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
a. some other group, such as a religion, or
b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or

2.normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

Again you are assuming an absolute objective standard against the which all things are compared and ultimately judged. What if there were no objective standard or judge, would you personally abandon any subjective sense of right and wrong?

No Jim I am taking your worldview on face value. It is that view that reduces ethics to absurdity

But it has nothing to do with what is objectively determined, and ultimately judged, to be good or not good. As I have mentioned previously, and you no doubt would agree, morals, a human determined set of values, would exist whether or not there were an objective standard with which to compare them with. But then you argue that, the notion of subjectively determined morals, to be absurd. But, since we do not have access to this assumed objective standard of yours, then whether it existed or not, our moral codes would still be subjectively based. The problem is that you, like Mr. Black, presuppose an ultimate ground upon which a distinct universe was designed and therefore must conform to, and ultimately be judged by, the specifications of the designer. So, what if there is no designer? Would we still subjectively adopt morals? And would it be absurd to do this without there being an objective standard to go by?

Again Jim, in the broad view of human ethics female genital mutilation can be considered good and necessary, or wrong and forbidden. Two completely opposite results. How is this not absurd? It is both A and not A. And this is not about epistemology, how we know what is right or not, but about ontology, what is the nature of moral law. Is it objective, or relative - if it is the latter then it is absurd - where both A and not A are equally correct.