Teleology And Human Ethics...

[shunyadragon]

It seems except for the notion that creation is eternal (If I understand you correctly you're just taking ex nihilo out of the equation?) this view is very similar to theistic evolution. The glaring weakness of the naturalistic explanation imo is that everything came together by chance. Lots of people have come to accept this as a legitimate premise because of the mountains of literature put out by people with letters after their names who give assurances this is how it happened. If you push something back far enough in time and call it chance only the mathematicians are able to give anything like an accurate guess whether such a thing is possible.

The methodological naturalist position is not that everything came together by chance. Everything comes together by Natural Law. Chance is a layman's word and nothing to do with science.

[shunyadragon]

Actually you did here:

And given advances in quantum physics, naturalism, at least its mechanistic aspect, is starting to look shaky anyway.

[seer]

As cited other scientists disagree concerning the universe and the multiverse. The stuff you citing is kind of old.

No Shuny, Vilenkin has not changed his views, a while back I linked a recent You Tube video of him saying the same thing.

Vilenkin is proposing a hypothesis, and he acknowledges alternate hypothesis that are possible. There may be an infinite number of multiverses. It is unethical just to selectively cite on scientist to twist things to agree with your world view.

Go to Tass' link, Vilenkin makes it clear why those other theories don't work, and why he is now suggesting creation out of "literally nothing." In any case there is zero evidence that matter and energy are past eternal, and there is good reason, according to Vilenkin, for believing that they are not. But Shuny you have a religious reason for wanting matter and energy to be past eternal since that is what your faith teaches. You have a religious agenda.

[JimL]

Except with God there could be a purpose for humankind.

Yes, my point being, that your dislike of the idea that humanity has no ultimate purpose, in other words that the world wasn't created with intent and a purpose in mind is invalidated as an argument since your god himself, not being created, would fall into that same category, having no ultimate purpose. So, we can nix that argument altogether.

Jim, we have been over this time and time again. It is merely your opinion that good is defined as what is in the best interests of human society, in general. One could just as well define good as that which is best for the powerful ruling elite at the expense of the general good.

Well, of course it is my opinion, but it is opinion based on empirical observation, we promote behaviors that are advantageous to, and outlaw behaviors that would otherwise be destructive to, the stability of social life. It should be obvious to you that that is why we enact laws, and would do so whether a god existed or not. Your only argument is that you don't like the idea that morals may not be absolute and objective realities that we will be judge upon in another life. Not liking a thing, is not an argument against it, nor is it an argument for an alternative view!

[JimL]

So a belief that the god of matter created ex nihilo rather than that the God of the Bible did so is superior how?

In order to tunnel, something has to exist to do the tunnelling, and something has to be doing the tunnelling, its not ex-nihilo.

[JimL]

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.

Explain the difference that you see. How is gods purpose for you different than natures? Now I know you will answer, the former has rational intent, the latter is accident, but what do you think the former's intent would be, and why? And btw, if we are the result of an omniscient beings intent, how is it he screwed it up royally twice.

[seer]

Explain the difference that you see. How is gods purpose for you different than natures? Now I know you will answer, the former has rational intent, the latter is accident, but what do you think the former's intent would be, and why? And btw, if we are the result of an omniscient beings intent, how is it he screwed it up royally twice.

Jim, you know what a Christian would say - God created men to be in relationship with Himself and their fellow man. We are to love God and our neighbor as ourselves, to follow the golden rule. But God does not force us to love Him or our fellow man, love requires choice, and that is why this world is screwed up.

[seer]

In order to tunnel, something has to exist to do the tunnelling, and something has to be doing the tunnelling, its not ex-nihilo.

Jim it was Vilenkin who said it was spontaneous creation from "literally nothing." That is getting closer to ex-nihilo, and he also made it clear that there is no model, not even his multiverse/inflation theory, that get us to an eternal past for matter and energy.

[JimL]

Jim, you know what a Christian would say - God created men to be in relationship with Himself and their fellow man.

Why, did God get lonely in his timeless existence? Where does it say that seer, or is that just your own made up opinion.

We are to love God and our neighbor as ourselves, to follow the golden rule. But God does not force us to love Him or our fellow man, love requires choice, and that is why this world is screwed up.

I see, but the next world will be Eden, because its inhabitants will all be perfect, right? The wheat will be separated from the chaff, right?

[JimL]

Jim it was Vilenkin who said it was spontaneous creation from "literally nothing." That is getting closer to ex-nihilo, and he also made it clear that there is no model, not even his multiverse/inflation theory, that get us to an eternal past for matter and energy.

So what, he literally mispoke. Nothing comes from nothing, and neither does it make sense to say that a process took place, though nothing was involved in the process.
As far as the multi-verse goes, thats a hypothesis, one that I happen to find credible, but its not a theory and need have nothing to do with inflation. All the multi-verse hypothesis says is that the Cosmos, the greater universe, or the multiverse if you will, is in a superposition of being in every possible state, and each of those states are as real as the others, hence as the universe evolves, each of those distinct realities within the superposition are representative of separate and individual universes within the greater Cosmos, hence, the multi-verse.

[seer]

So what, he literally mispoke. Nothing comes from nothing, and neither does it make sense to say that a process took place, though nothing was involved in the process.

Or maybe he did not misspeak, and that he knows more than you?

As far as the multi-verse goes, thats a hypothesis, one that I happen to find credible, but its not a theory and need have nothing to do with inflation. All the multi-verse hypothesis says is that the Cosmos, the greater universe, or the multiverse if you will, is in a superposition of being in every possible state, and each of those states are as real as the others, hence as the universe evolves, each of those distinct realities within the superposition are representative of separate and individual universes within the greater Cosmos, hence, the multi-verse.

But Jim, there is no evidence that there is a multiverse and if there was it could not be past eternal according to Vilenkin, it too would need a beginning.

[JimL]

Or maybe he did not misspeak, and that he knows more than you?

Vilenkin obviously knows a hell of a lot more about it than me, but still, common sense tells me that a process, such as tunnelling, can't take place unless there is something there doing the tunnelling as well as something that is being tunnelled through. Otherwise, tell me how it makes sense to say that nothing tunnells through nothing?

But Jim, there is no evidence that there is a multiverse and if there was it could not be past eternal according to Vilenkin, it too would need a beginning.

Well actually there is evidence. The hypothesis of many worlds didn't come first, quantum mechanics and the Schroedinger equation did, and in my opinion the best interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Schroedinger equation is the Evertian interpretation which predicts the multi-verse. The multiverse hypothesis is not like the god hypothesis, its not a guess based on ignorance, its an hypothesis based on prior knowledge.

Oh, and as far as the universe not being eternal, thats not something that anyone can say at this point, Vilenkin is only saying that he is not aware of a model in which the universe is eternal.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerl...h-creationism/

[Anomaly]

This is a strawman. I said "naturalism" in its materialistic sense, not science. Naturalism is not identical to science, it's an interpretation of science, an ideology or belief system. Science, as you should know if you work in the field as reported, is the collection, categorization and dissemination of facts.

[shunyadragon]

This is a strawman. I said "naturalism" in its materialistic sense, not science. Naturalism is not identical to science, it's an interpretation of science, an ideology or belief system. Science, as you should know if you work in the field as reported, is the collection, categorization and dissemination of facts.

Methodological Naturalism as I use it is science. Methodological Naturalism is the collection, categorization and dissemination of [objective verifiable evidence as facts, and the falsification of theories and hypothesis based on these facts.

Are you using Naturalism here in terms of Philosophical Naturalism? I differentiate the two, Materialism is Philosophical Naturalism, and Methodological Naturalism is not.

[JimL]

Methodological Naturalism as I use it is science. Methodological Naturalism is the collection, categorization and dissemination of [objective verifiable evidence as facts, and the falsification of theories and hypothesis based on these facts.

Are you using Naturalism here in terms of Philosophical Naturalism? I differentiate the two, Materialism is Philosophical Naturalism, and Methodological Naturalism is not.

Methodological empiricism.