Teleology And Human Ethics...

[JimL]

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]

No answers? Only false claims?

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

[seer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

He is showing you were wrong. Quite simple.

[seer]

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]

He is showing you were wrong. Quite simple.

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

[Charles]

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]

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]

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]

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"......