An infinite series of finite causes.

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, my moral framework is based on the law of God. Whether I always get it right or even understand it correctly doesn't change the fact that I am not a moral relativist.

Your moral framework is based on your subjective decision to "value god." It is also based on your subjective decision to align your moral code to what you believe is what this god wants. And it is based on your subjective interpretation of what this god's code actually is (which turns out to have been documented by other subjective humans). You can call yourself a moral absolutist/objectivist until the cows come home...but like the carpenter who calls himself a plumber...what you actually do defines what you are. You are a moral relativist/subjectivist on the basis of your actions.

I just want you to agree that I'm well within my epistemic rights to bash gays.

Epistemic means "related to knowledge or the degree of its validation." I have no idea how that applies here. Perhaps you can explain it?

However, I do not disagree that your subjective valuations and your subjective interpretation of the "moral code" contained in the bible leads you to this perspective that a bigoted position against the LGBTQ is "moral." So long as this is what you value and how you reason from it, no one will be able to convince you otherwise.

[seer]

Your moral framework is based on your subjective decision to "value god." It is also based on your subjective decision to align your moral code to what you believe is what this god wants. And it is based on your subjective interpretation of what this god's code actually is (which turns out to have been documented by other subjective humans). You can call yourself a moral absolutist/objectivist until the cows come home...but like the carpenter who calls himself a plumber...what you actually do defines what you are. You are a moral relativist/subjectivist on the basis of your actions.

I'm not sure what your point is. I subjectively believe that the laws of logic and math are universal and objective. Does that mean that they aren't universal and objective because I subjectively grasp them? Or subjectively value them?

Epistemic means "related to knowledge or the degree of its validation." I have no idea how that applies here. Perhaps you can explain it?

To quote:

"To say that I am within my 'epistemic rights' to hold to a claim, I am saying that I violate no epistemic responsibilities or obligations in believing in my claim. An epistemic obligation is an intellectual responsibility with respect to the formation of, or holding to, my beliefs."

However, I do not disagree that your subjective valuations and your subjective interpretation of the "moral code" contained in the bible leads you to this perspective that a bigoted position against the LGBTQ is "moral." So long as this is what you value and how you reason from it, no one will be able to convince you otherwise.

But what is there to convince me of? That what you value is somehow more rational or true than what I value?

[element771]

Exactly right. Whereas theological arguments based on scriptural revelation are absolute.

Right. I apologize for misunderstanding what you meant or not expressing myself clearly.

It’s also a problem for those supporting those using the argument.

Question: How is this any different than you attributing skepticism for the multiverse theory to those who are holding on to religious ideas?

Because my skepticism comes from understanding where the theory comes from and the science behind it.

Empirical validation is the gold standard of course and may well be able to be implemented in due course by methods currently unavailable to science.

The multiverse is different. It is not a matter of we can't measure something with existing technology, it is that it cannot be empirically verified BY DEFINITION. That is a huge difference.

But in terms of scientific induction multiverse theory remains the best available option in several scientific disciplines as previously listed.

You said this before but the science doesn't support this. If you want to go one by one with the physics, I would be happy to go through them. However, I have already covered the two major ones.

Plus, you are using the term multiverse like it is one theory. Each one of those disciplines possibly describe multiverses with very little in common with the exception of the "multi" part.

There is no comparison with ID or astrology.

Without empirical verification, it is the same thing.

BB Theory is fine as far as it goes but it does not answer what occurred before ‘inflation’ began, because the laws of nature break down during the Planck Epoch’. What happened during this period cannot be empirically validated either, just as the multiverse cannot be validated.

Sure but the BB theory doesn't hang its hat on something that is not empirically verifiable. The multiverse starts out with something that isn't verifiable by definition. Given two theories...one that has predictive power and is empirically verifiable (with the exception of the Plank Epoch) vs. one that doesn't have predictive power and is not empirically verifiable....I will stick with the first one.

[element771]

False statement: Scientific point: Currently science says the universe has a beginning.

I do not engage with people who fabricate data.

If you want to address that, then we can continue. Until then, you can keep typing that in bold italics and underlined but you are just wasting your time.

[JimL]

Jim, moralizing is the process of separating "right" (ought to) action from "wrong" (ought not to) action from morally neutral action (can do or not do with no moral implication). Each of us sorts actions into those buckets using the same process: we reason from what we value to what we should/should-not do. Actions that protect/enhance what we value we see as "moral" or "right." Actions that endanger or diminish what we value we see as "immoral" or "wrong."

You're just moving the goal post now carpe. What we value are also moral choices. So my question remains unanswered; do you believe your morals/values are right? And if so what do you mean by right?

Murder is a bad choice. The term means "an illicit or immoral killing." By definition, murder is wrong.

The definition comes from man, what makes man right, by definition?

If we use "killing" instead, then it is possible for someone to look at a situation and say, "killing in this context is immoral" and another person to conclude "killing in this context is moral." Assuming each of us is actually speaking out of our individual moral frameworks, I will conclude they are wrong and I am right; they will conclude they are right and I am wrong.

Thats why I'm talking about murder, not killing. What makes murder wrong by definition?

This is what Seer is largely objecting to. He wants there to be an absolute/objective metric to settle this question. Without one, he sees the entire situation as "irrational" and "without resolution." That is unsettling. Yet that is exactly what happens. It may well be that there is no way to resolve this dispute, unless we can a) convince the other to value as we do or b) find a chink in their reasoning that leads them to a flawed morality (based on their OWN valuing).

Well, I disagree with seer that morals are objective in the sense that they are subject to a deity, but I would argue that they are objective in the sense that they are subject to reason. I don't think that you can go on criticizing seer's moral philosophy while at the same time arguing that he isn't wrong.

[Tassman]

Nonsense Tass, we are not a declining power, we are still the most powerful nation on earth, and still one of the most religious. And I was speaking of human rights, the Founders did not ground rights in the majority or the government. But in a transcendent deity.

The USA being founded upon a “transcendent deity” is the Evangelical narrative; most people recognise that the founding fathers were governed by Enlightenment values. But if you want to give religion credit for bringing about one of the most violent and inequitable societies in the developed world, namely the USA, then feel free.

[Tassman]

Right. I apologize for misunderstanding what you meant or not expressing myself clearly.

Because my skepticism comes from understanding where the theory comes from and the science behind it.

Nevertheless many reputable cosmologists do not share your skepticism in this area.

The multiverse is different. It is not a matter of we can't measure something with existing technology, it is that it cannot be empirically verified BY DEFINITION. That is a huge difference.

“A multiverse usually includes parts unobservable to us, but if the theory for it includes suitable measures for observations, what is observable can be explained in terms of the theory even if it contains such unobservable elements. Thus good multiverse theories can be tested against observations”.

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0610101

You said this before but the science doesn't support this. If you want to go one by one with the physics, I would be happy to go through them. However, I have already covered the two major ones.

I don’t have the expertise, but again many cosmologists do not agree with you.

Plus, you are using the term multiverse like it is one theory. Each one of those disciplines possibly describe multiverses with very little in common with the exception of the "multi" part.

I’m aware of that.

Without empirical verification, it is the same thing.

No, it it’s not the same thing. The basic premise of ID and astrology is grounded in the paranormal and supernatural. This is not the case with scientific hypotheses which are grounded in the natural laws of the physical world such as multiverse theory.

Sure but the BB theory doesn't hang its hat on something that is not empirically verifiable.

BB Theory “hangs its hat” on the Planck Epoch from which it inflated, which is unknowable and not empirically verifiable.

The multiverse starts out with something that isn't verifiable by definition. Given two theories...one that has predictive power and is empirically verifiable (with the exception of the Plank Epoch) vs. one that doesn't have predictive power and is not empirically verifiable....I will stick with the first one.

And yet many reputable cosmologists do not agree. E.g.: “With the invention of inflationary cosmology it was realized that inflation may divide our universe into many exponentially large domains corresponding to different metastable vacuum states, forming a huge inflationary multiverse”.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0705.0164v2.pdf

In short multiverse theory cannot be readily dismissed as you seem inclined so to do.

[seer]

The USA being founded upon a “transcendent deity” is the Evangelical narrative; most people recognise that the founding fathers were governed by Enlightenment values. But if you want to give religion credit for bringing about one of the most violent and inequitable societies in the developed world, namely the USA, then feel free.

Tass, you are still missing the point. Our Founders did not ground rights in the government or the majority. They grounded them in God. Period. And I guess we were pretty violent when we prevented Japan from attacking your country.

[shunyadragon]

I do not engage with people who fabricate data.

If you want to address that, then we can continue. Until then, you can keep typing that in bold italics and underlined but you are just wasting your time.

Duck, Bob and Weave Three Stooges, because, like seer, you are unable to respond you resort to Ad Hominems.

classic fabrication of a false statement with a religious agenda.

False statement: Scientific point: Currently science says the universe has a beginning.

[element771]

Nevertheless many reputable cosmologists do not share your skepticism in this area.

No doubt.

“A multiverse usually includes parts unobservable to us, but if the theory for it includes suitable measures for observations, what is observable can be explained in terms of the theory even if it contains such unobservable elements. Thus good multiverse theories can be tested against observations”.

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0610101

So just having empirically verifiable details isn't enough. These empirically verifiable details would necessarily be unique to the multiverse theory. Otherwise, you still don't have any unique evidence for the multiverse over the universe.

No, it it’s not the same thing. The basic premise of ID and astrology is grounded in the paranormal and supernatural. This is not the case with scientific hypotheses which are grounded in the natural laws of the physical world such as multiverse theory.

I understand the different starting points BUT if both cannot be empirically verified...there is no functional difference. I am not the only one to see this BTW...this is a major factor in people who push back.

BB Theory “hangs its hat” on the Planck Epoch from which it inflated, which is unknowable and not empirically verifiable.

This isn't what I mean. This is one piece of the puzzle for the BB...there are tons that can be verified empirically that supports the BB. Multiverse starts out with an idea (more than one universe) that cannot.

And yet many reputable cosmologists do not agree. E.g.: “With the invention of inflationary cosmology it was realized that inflation may divide our universe into many exponentially large domains corresponding to different metastable vacuum states, forming a huge inflationary multiverse”.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0705.0164v2.pdf

In short multiverse theory cannot be readily dismissed as you seem inclined so to do.

1. Inflation still hasn't been shown to be true. It just solves a bunch of problems but is also riddled with problems.

2. Only certain types of inflation lead to multiverses.

I am not dismissing the multiverse theory, I am just not embracing it. It still has a very long way to go before I seriously consider it.

[element771]

Duck, Bob and Weave Three Stooges, because, like seer, you are unable to respond you resort to Ad Hominems.

classic fabrication of a false statement with a religious agenda.

False statement: Scientific point: Currently science says the universe has a beginning.

What in the hell are you talking about?

Currently science says the universe has a beginning.

It is not my fault that you are scientifically illiterate to understand what the current paradigm in cosmology is.

I also take it that you have never published a peer reviewed paper. I also take it that you actually don't do science for a living. Its a shame that you have to lie to support your pseudo-scientific nonsense.

[seer]

What in the hell are you talking about?

Currently science says the universe has a beginning.

It is not my fault that you are scientifically illiterate to understand what the current paradigm in cosmology is.

I also take it that you have never published a peer reviewed paper. I also take it that you actually don't do science for a living. Its a shame that you have to lie to support your pseudo-scientific nonsense.

The best thing to do with Shuny, is to put him on ignore. So you won't see his posts and be tempted to respond.

[element771]

The best thing to do with Shuny, is to put him on ignore. So you won't see his posts and be tempted to respond.

That is probably a good strategy.

I have to admit that I didn't think he would stoop to straight-up fabrication of data / information to support a point that he was attempting to make. Thanks for linking that post. Has he ever explained himself?

[JimL]

What in the hell are you talking about?

Currently science says the universe has a beginning.

It is not my fault that you are scientifically illiterate to understand what the current paradigm in cosmology is.

I also take it that you have never published a peer reviewed paper. I also take it that you actually don't do science for a living. Its a shame that you have to lie to support your pseudo-scientific nonsense.

Currently science tells us that you began to exist as well, but that, in and of itself, tells us nothing about what, if anything, came before you. Yes, in your case we can know that something came before you, but the fact that we can't, in the case of our spacetime, observe beyond the planck length, we can't really say that our spacetime is "the universe" or that "the universe" had a beginning.

[element771]

Currently science tells us that you began to exist as well, but that, in and of itself, tells us nothing about what, if anything, came before you.

Nonsense. Science tells me that my parents came before me, their parents before them, and so on.