Teleology And Human Ethics...

[Charles]

Well Charles, since you won't answer the question about objective ethics I have been asking since June, I'm done. You are now on ignore... If you care to actually answer the question just PM me and I will take you out of purgatory.

What seer is claiming is wrong from beginning to end. I answered numerous questions and corrected him time and time again in this thread: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...tion-of-ethics

At times he repeats the same questions and makes false claims about what I have said and I don't always want to bother repeating myself since this seems to just serve the purpose of him not having to answer. The thread was started by me in june by the way. So he did get his answers. He can disagree which is fair enough. But he has made many false claims instead which is not fair.

[JimL]

How is this proven?

Well its somewhat like the notion of god, if you want to claim that physical laws have some sort of actual existence, whatever that means, in some platonic realm outside of the universe, then you'll have to show some evidence of that. All we know is that there are patterns in nature and we define those patterns using human language which we call laws.

[Charles]

Actually Shuny, even if I believe that God created matter or energy ex nihilo it doesn't necessarily mean that this universe was created ex nihilo. It could just as well be that a larger multiverse was created ex nihilo, and we are just part of that. Like I said the bible is silent on the issue.

So we are actually not too well informed by the Bible on this issue? Why would this issue be unimportant for the message of the bible?

[Anomaly]

if you want to claim that physical laws have some sort of actual existence, whatever that means, in some platonic realm outside of the universe, then you'll have to show some evidence of that. All we know is that there are patterns in nature and we define those patterns using human language which we call laws.

Okay, I'm willing to give my arguments, but first I'd be interested in your answering my question: how would you justify the idea that the laws of science are not real or actual forces?

[JimL]

Okay, I'm willing to give my arguments, but first I'd be interested in your answering my question: how would you justify the idea that the laws of science are not real or actual forces?

Because there is no evidence that physical laws are anything but human terms defining the patterns in nature.

[Anomaly]

Because there is no evidence that physical laws are anything but human terms defining the patterns in nature.

But describing something is relaying information. Language is a representation of something. People use the phrase "Laws of science" as freely as they do "that telephone pole" and in both cases information is conveyed, shared and accepted. I accept a reduction of reality from the empirical to the informational (among others). Only information has a capacity to in-form perception. Impossible things establish this rule: in the term "round triangle" the mind slams shut because round triangle presents no information to the mind. Round does, and triangle does, but round triangle doesn't. Only things that convey information are real.

The term "physical laws" presents objectively shared information that carries meaning. When the expression is used, it's immediately known that it references empirical reality, so physical laws have existence of some sort. All you are really saying is, "I refuse to accept that anything exists outside of a physical universe.", yet you (like everyone) use analytic/conceptual information in language and in practical living all day long.

A spontaneously formed universe is not an explanation of anything coherent from formation of a subatomic reality to macro existence, much less a moral presence. I'll post more later.

[shunyadragon]

Actually Shuny, even if I believe that God created matter or energy ex nihilo it doesn't necessarily mean that this universe was created ex nihilo. It could just as well be that a larger multiverse was created ex nihilo, and we are just part of that. Like I said the bible is silent on the issue.

It remains possible IF, and that is a big IF, there could be an infinite number of multiverses in Vilenkin's hypothesis, and it is only one hypothesis of one cosmologists among many.

It remains your it is your justification of a religious agenda of Creation 'exnhilo' that you selectively cite one cosmologist, and misrepresent Krauss' concept of the cosmological nothing.

Again . . .

So you have a lot more to lose with your religious agenda.

No, because science likely cannot ever determine whether our physical existence is eternal or not.

[JimL]

But describing something is relaying information. Language is a representation of something.

Language is the representation, and in this case language is a representation of the patterns in nature. Nature does what it does all by itself, there is no evidence that its behavior is governed by external laws.

People use the phrase "Laws of science" as freely as they do "that telephone pole" and in both cases information is conveyed, shared and accepted. I accept a reduction of reality from the empirical to the informational (among others). Only information has a capacity to in-form perception. Impossible things establish this rule: in the term "round triangle" the mind slams shut because round triangle presents no information to the mind. Round does, and triangle does, but round triangle doesn't. Only things that convey information are real.

Nature does convey information, and we describe that information in terms of laws.

The term "physical laws" presents objectively shared information that carries meaning. When the expression is used, it's immediately known that it references empirical reality, so physical laws have existence of some sort.

Physical laws don't present information, nature does, and we describe the information that nature presents in language form, which we call laws.

All you are really saying is, "I refuse to accept that anything exists outside of a physical universe.", yet you (like everyone) use analytic/conceptual information in language and in practical living all day long.

No, I don't refuse to accept that anything exists outside the physical universe, but I do require credible evidence.

A spontaneously formed universe is not an explanation of anything coherent from formation of a subatomic reality to macro existence, much less a moral presence. I'll post more later.

Not sure what you're getting at here Anomaly.

[Tassman]

That is not the point Tass, you falsely accused me. Vilenkin was speaking of the multiverse not just this universe, and the boundary that Vilenkin referenced meant that the multiverse "can not be eternal into the past" - his words not mine! And you are wrong about the nothing that Vilenkin was speaking of.

[seer]

Tass, that was not the point, when speaking of an eternal past not being possible you accused me of misquoting Vilenkin - that He was speaking of this universe not the multiverse - you were wrong and falsely accused me. How about an apology? And I did not quote mine Vilenkin, he was clear in my Youtube link and in your own link to his paper - he is speaking of "literally nothing" the only pre existing conditions necessary are the laws pf physics - in the "Platonic sense" - his words not mine. And you reject these because of your atheistic agenda - you need eternal matter and energy or your faith falls apart!

As for

And how does Vilenkin get past the problem - creation from "literally nothing" as your own link states!

[seer]

It remains possible IF, and that is a big IF, there could be an infinite number of multiverses in Vilenkin's hypothesis, and it is only one hypothesis of one cosmologists among many.

It remains your it is your justification of a religious agenda of Creation 'exnhilo' that you selectively cite one cosmologist, and misrepresent Krauss' concept of the cosmological nothing.

Stop lying Shuny, I did not misquote Krauss, I never said that he was speaking of literally nothing as Vilenkin did.

No, because science likely cannot ever determine whether our physical existence is eternal or not.

How do you know that? Vilenkin and Guth already demonstrated that a multiverse can not be past eternal since it would violate the Hubble Constant. And your religion demands an eternal past for matter and energy - my religion is silent on the matter.

[shunyadragon]

How do you know that? Vilenkin and Guth already demonstrated that a multiverse can not be past eternal since it would violate the Hubble Constant. And your religion demands an eternal past for matter and energy - my religion is silent on the matter.

No neither your religion nor you are silent on this matter. Creation from "exnhilo" or absolte nothing is the dominate belief in traditional Christianity based on scripture, and the origin of either our universe or the multiverse you argue for, and try vainly to get support from a biased selected citations from Vilenkin. You have a long long history for this. I have consistently supported that it is a question that most likely cannot be answered by science.

Vilenkin and Guth do not know that, I do not know that, you do not know that, and of course none of the physicists and cosmologists know that. They present hypothesis concerning the nature of origins of universes and multiverses. The only thing most agree on is our universe formed from a singularity as one of many, which either formed in and from preexisting 'Quantum nothing' in a multiverse, or a minority of cosmologist consider our universe to be in way or another cyclic in a multiverse. Some cyclic universe hypothesis have been found wanting and discarded, but others remain viable as hypothesis for the origins of our universe.

Vilenkin supported the multiverse, and described how a universe could form in the multiverse in the you tube video you cited beginning about 2:04.

[seer]

Vilenkin supported the multiverse, and described how a universe could form in the multiverse in the you tube video you cited beginning about 2:04.

Shuny, I'm not saying Vilenkin did not have a multiverse theory, he did in his inflation theory, but as he also said that can not be eternal into the past. His words not mine. What he is speaking of in the youtube link you referenced has nothing to do with the multiverse, he never mentioned a multiverse. His point about zero energy is that a closed universe with zero energy can spontaneously come into being apart from time, space or matter (a "universe from no universe" his words not mine). And as he makes clear at 5:10 on he is speaking of a universe coming from nothing (real nothing) - the only pre existing requirement are the laws of physics. He nowhere speaks of a multiverse and this theory has nothing to do with a multiverse - it is a different theory altogether: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSESZR3wC8s

[shunyadragon]

A spontaneously formed universe is not an explanation of anything coherent from formation of a subatomic reality to macro existence, much less a moral presence. I'll post more later.

It at present is hypothesis dominant among physicists and cosmologists supported by the present objective verifiable , without a religious agenda, is the spontaneous formation of a singularity in a multiverse "Quantum environment."

Explanations with a religious explanation are not falsifiable by scientific methods.

[shunyadragon]

Stop lying Shuny, I did not misquote Krauss, I never said that he was speaking of literally nothing as Vilenkin did.

I did not say you misquoted Krauss. I said you misrepresented Krauss by equating his description of 'Quantum nothing' as almost? absolute nothing.

Krauss' proposal for 'Quantum nothing' is pretty much what is widely accepted by most scientists, and bears no resemblance to the philosophical 'absolute nothing' in theology.