Teleology And Human Ethics...

[JimL]

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]

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]

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:

[shunyadragon]

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]

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]

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]

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/cont...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.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Secondly, you are dishonestly substituting the word "universe" with "multiverse

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/...Creation-Event

https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2...d-a-beginning/

So stop lying about me Tass!

[seer]

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!