Teleology And Human Ethics...

[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.

Let's go through it in details:

"Charles you are being hypocritical again, if my claims are unfounded what are yours?" Personal attack and nothing to support it, rather easy.

"If God does not offer a just universe, with certain universal moral truths - what could?" It does not follow that god can do this even if nothing else can. You seem to forget this point all the time. You cannot answer why what you call just actually is just. It would be just if it was the opposite as long as it was from god according to your definition of what constitutes good. And you seem to forget that if no good exists prior to god's choice one can hardly claim his choise was good. It is not as if the two need to contradict each other. Even god needs those truths in order to be good. Or else good is just a whatever-word....

"In the end, there is no moral direction in your worldview, no certain or universal moral truths, no inherent purpose for humankind." Completely wrong. Who are you trying to fool. You may disagree with my reasoning but that does not change the fact that in my view there is moral direction, certain universal moral truths and purpose for humankind. Sorry to disappoint you seer. But you are not getting away with those wrong statements about my worldview.

"This is clear since you can not even venture a definition for goodness that is not circular." Still looking for you to prove my wordview about which you have made so many wrong statements circular. You may want to read some of my posts in here again: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...tion-of-ethics

So, I perhaps now you can answer the questions instead of trying to change subject with false claims and unsupported statements over and over again? Or, perhaps that is all you have got?

[seer]

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"......

No Charles, you completely missed my point. Shuny is arguing that there is a pre-existing physical state where this quantum world existed, and that is not what Vilenkin is saying. He is actually saying that the universe can come into being from literally nothing. The only requirement are the laws of physics - in the "Platonic sense." Vilenkin is not saying that a multiverse was giving rise to our universe - which is what Shuny was suggesting, Vilenkin said nothing about a Multiverse in that talk. Just the opposite - at .54-56 sec. he makes it clear that he is speaking of a universe coming from "no universe." And at 5:11 on he makes clear that the only prior requirement are the laws of physics. So again Charles, tell me where I was wrong?

Remember Shuny said this: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]

"This is clear since you can not even venture a definition for goodness that is not circular." Still looking for you to prove my wordview about which you have made so many wrong statements circular. You may want to read some of my posts in here again: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...tion-of-ethics

Charles, I'm not answering any more of your question until you offer a non-circular definition of goodness, linking to a whole thread does not answer the question - that is simply subterfuge and you know it - exactly which post has this definition? And Charles I have been asking this same question in one form or another since our first debate where you said or promised:

Secondly I have already pointed out that the part about objective standards will be touched upon in another thread because that makes sense in the aproach that I have. You are not going to decide in this thread.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post450052

Where is that explanation Charles, that was promised back in June!

[Charles]

Charles, I'm not answering any more of your question until you offer a non-circular definition of goodness, linking to a whole thread does not answer the question - that is simply subterfuge and you know it - exactly which post has this definition?

Yet another post in which you refuse to answer. Seer, seriously.... You are also well aware I provided the link because you made so many wrong statements about my view that no single post will be enough. I described my view far more detailed, including foundation, than you ever did. Enjoy the reading. Where do you think I am circular or need the definition? And do not forget to answer the questions I gave. Try to stay on topic and do not make false claims.

[Charles]

No Charles, you completely missed my point. Shuny is arguing that there is a pre-existing physical state where this quantum world existed, and that is not what Vilenkin is saying. He is actually saying that the universe can come into being from literally nothing. The only requirement are the laws of physics - in the "Platonic sense." Vilenkin is not saying that a multiverse was giving rise to our universe - which is what Shuny was suggesting, Vilenkin said nothing about a Multiverse in that talk. Just the opposite - at .54-56 sec. he makes it clear that he is speaking of a universe coming from "no universe." And at 5:11 on he makes clear that the only prior requirement are the laws of physics. So again Charles, tell me where I was wrong?

Remember Shuny said this: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.

Very easy: you suggested Shuny was clueless thinking quantum mechanics could exist without time, energy or space. Vilenkin says creation is possible without matter time or energy due to quantum mechanics. Which is about what you held Shuny clueless for holding.

[seer]

Yet another post in which you refuse to answer. Seer, seriously.... You are also well aware I provided the link because you made so many wrong statements about my view that no single post will be enough. I described my view far more detailed, including foundation, than you ever did. Enjoy the reading. Where do you think I am circular or need the definition? And do not forget to answer the questions I gave. Try to stay on topic and do not make false claims.

So Charles since June I have asking you for "proof" of your objective morality, and nothing. And I'm not asking for your subjective, relative, moral "foundation." The reason why you won't encapsulate view here is because it doesn't exist. And you know it. So until you offer your objective non-circular definition of "good" I'm done.

[seer]

Very easy: you suggested Shuny was clueless thinking quantum mechanics could exist without time, energy or space. Vilenkin says creation is possible without matter time or energy due to quantum mechanics. Which is about what you held Shuny clueless for holding.

Duh! Did you even listen to the video? Vilenkin is talking about the laws quantum mechanics and physics not the quantum world itself. That they (the laws) exist prior to the creation of the physical world. And they exist in the Platonic sense (i.e. non physical.) And where did Vilenkin say that the universe can arise spontaneously within a multiverse ? Where does he say that - exactly, at what time? Remember Charles you said I was mistaken about the multiverse thing, to quote: Let me give you the key words: multiverse theory.... So Charles where was I wrong about the multiverse thing? Exactly.

[JimL]

So Charles since June I have asking you for "proof" of your objective morality, and nothing. And I'm not asking for your subjective, relative, moral "foundation." The reason why you won't encapsulate view here is because it doesn't exist. And you know it. So until you offer your objective non-circular definition of "good" I'm done.

Morals themselves aren't objective, but the consequences of acting upon them are. For instance, there is no objective moral against murder, but the consequences of murder are not good for society nor would it ultimately be good for the members thereof. Morality isn't about you as an isolated individual, you are a member of a larger body. So why is it immoral? Because morals are relative to the best interests of human society, no one wants to be murdered. You're just obsessed with the desire for morals to be absolute and objective but you have no evidence to support that contention.

[JimL]

Duh! Did you even listen to the video? Vilenkin is talking about the laws quantum mechanics and physics not the quantum world itself. That they (the laws) exist prior to the creation of the physical world. And they exist in the Platonic sense (i.e. non physical.) And where did Vilenkin say that the universe can arise spontaneously within a multiverse ? Where does he say that - exactly, at what time? Remember Charles you said I was mistaken about the multiverse thing, to quote: Let me give you the key words: multiverse theory.... So Charles where was I wrong about the multiverse thing? Exactly.

So what, when you have nothing else to go on, use your common sense. Laws aren't existing things, and even if you want to contend that laws are existing things, in the platonic sense, they don't do anything so it is silly to suggest that universes emerge from out of nothing but laws. Vilenkin contradicts himself when explaining the process of universe creation from nothing and then claims some-thing tunnels into existence. I have a feeling that what Vilenkin means in that conversation by nothing is the same thing that Krauss means by nothing, and that is not really nothing, its the quantum field.

[seer]

So what, when you have nothing else to go on, use your common sense. Laws aren't existing things, and even if you want to contend that laws are existing things, in the platonic sense, they don't do anything so it is silly to suggest that universes emerge from out of nothing but laws. Vilenkin contradicts himself when explaining the process of universe creation from nothing and then claims some-thing tunnels into existence. I have a feeling that what Vilenkin means in that conversation by nothing is the same thing that Krauss means by nothing, and that is not really nothing, its the quantum field.

But do we really even know what a field is: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...w-anyway/page4

And Virtual particles (which aren't real particles as Krauss said) popping in and out of existence. I mean how does something (that is not real) pop into existence then pop out - kind of like angels popping into the real world then out again. And this is common sense Jim?

[seer]

Morals themselves aren't objective, but the consequences of acting upon them are. For instance, there is no objective moral against murder, but the consequences of murder are not good for society nor would it ultimately be good for the members thereof. Morality isn't about you as an isolated individual, you are a member of a larger body. So why is it immoral? Because morals are relative to the best interests of human society, no one wants to be murdered. You're just obsessed with the desire for morals to be absolute and objective but you have no evidence to support that contention.

Yes, but supposedly Charles believes in objective ethics, but he can't tell us how they are possible - it is a big secret!

[JimL]

But do we really even know what a field is: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...w-anyway/page4

And Virtual particles (which aren't real particles as Krauss said) popping in and out of existence. I mean how does something (that is not real) pop into existence then pop out - kind of like angels popping into the real world then out again. And this is common sense Jim?

Virtual particles are no less real then so called real particles, they are both vibrations in the field, its just that virtual particles, unlike the so called real particles, are low energy and so they don't last.

[seer]

Virtual particles are no less real then so called real particles, they are both vibrations in the field, its just that virtual particles, unlike the so called real particles, are low energy and so they don't last.

Really Jim, the quantum world follows common sense?

[JimL]

Really Jim, the quantum world follows common sense?

The quantum world is the quantum world, we use common sense in trying to understand it. The point is that the quantum vacuum that Krauss is describing isn't nothing. I'm not sure, but it sounds as though, Vilenkin isn't refering to that same nothing, but rather to a platonic realm of absolute nothingness outside of the observable spacetime where only physical laws exist. But again, I have no idea what he could mean by his tunnelling hypothesis if there is nothing there to do the tunnelling and nothing there to tunnell through. It would seem that just like Krauss' nothing, Vilenkins nothing is not exactly nothing either

[Tassman]

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.

You mean like you trusting in God?

Yet you have no objective standard why which to judge any moral idea absurd or not - so where does that leave you?

Neither do you. Your "objective standard" is based upon the god hypothesis, which is an unverified assumption.