Teleology And Human Ethics...

[JimL]

Charles, this would require a long discussion on why I think that Christ was what He claimed to be, the Son of God, therefore that His teachings about God, ethics, nature of man, etc are authoritative. Or why I think a rational, intelligent, moral Creator, is a better explanation for our moral sense, sense of inherent human value, consciousness, and universal order than the a-moral, non-rational, non-conscious forces of nature. And that discussion Charles, I'm just not having with you.



Are you claiming the humans can have a moral teleology apart from a God? How is that even possible? Perhaps it is a difficult philosophical question because it can't be answered from the atheistic worldview - I think you already know that, but you like to use subterfuge to cloud the issue.



Charles, we are discussing a specific issue in this thread. Anyone can see that the concept of human purpose is logical if we were created for a purpose by a rational Being. And it wouldn't matter which God we were speaking of. The concept remains logical. If atheism is true I see no possibility for such a teleology, moral or otherwise. If you think otherwise present your case instead of hiding behind your "history of philosophy."

Seer, the problem you seem unable to accept is that there is no ultimate purpose to your existence even though, obviously, you must also understand, that by the same logic, there could be no ultimate purpose for gods existence. And I have given you an explanation of good and evil and that is; that which is good is good because it is ultimately in the best interests of human society, ergo in the best interests of human idividual members of society. Your constant response to that is, well, who then determines what is good. Nobody does, moral behaviors either are or are not in the collective, ergo in the individuals, best interests or they are not. In that sense morals are objective. You don't have to believe that of course, but if you want to argue the point you can't just say; no, it can't be that way, because i don't like it, i want there to be an ultimate purpose for our existence. You have to present a legitimate argument of your own as to why it can't be that way.

[shunyadragon]

And there is zero evidence that matter and energy is past eternal. Now what?



http://www.newgeology.us/Alexander%20Vilenkin.pdf

Vilenkin also believed in a multiverse, and citing one cosmologist out of context does not make your case.




Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-qu...verse.html#jCp

[seer]

Vilenkin also believed in a multiverse, and citing one cosmologist out of context does not make your case.

That is the point Vilenkin is making Shuny, the multiverse can not be past eternal:

Vilenkin himself has advocated cosmogenic theories that entail an eternal universe, but based on cosmological theorems he developed with Alan Guth and Arvin Borde, as well as an examination of the various candidates for an eternal universe, Vilenkin has come to see that all the evidence points in a singular direction: the universe had an absolute beginning in the finite past. Vilenkin discussed three models for an eternal universe in his presentation, describing why each cannot deliver on what it promiseswill not work because it violates the Hubble constant. , and that ―there must be some kind of boundary.

http://www.newgeology.us/Alexander%20Vilenkin.pdf

[Anomaly]

I will seriously contest the bold above. In my search I have not found what your claim 'theists find sufficient strands of connection (truth) between empirically testable existence and the principles of faith to warrant religious belief. Claims of interpretation do not help. If you can reference any such objective based argument that may be falsified by scientific methods concerning a 'theist belief' please do.

The shaky argument from ignorance that you are presenting concerning the different theoretical arguments involving Quantum Mechanics is you are arguing that the unknowns in this science that create variation in theories cause the science to be shaky.

there are many unknowns, and differences in some aspects of the theories and hypothesis of Quantum Mechanics by different scientists, but this is normal in the history of the sciences, and the fuel for further research and discovery and nothing here indicates the science is 'shaky.'

[Anomaly]

Seer, you still have not shown why or how god provides purpose. The purpose could be love, hate or whatever. You claim that is logical but the logical consequence is once again that you have got no foundation you can understand or justify.

What's the purpose for subatomic particles remaining together in configurations we call atoms? And for their organization into molecules?

[Tassman]

And there is zero evidence that matter and energy is past eternal. Now what?



http://www.newgeology.us/Alexander%20Vilenkin.pdf

https://mm-gold.azureedge.net/scienc...om_nothing.pdf

[seer]

https://mm-gold.azureedge.net/scienc...om_nothing.pdf

First Tass, if you read my link Vilenkin makes it clear that the multiverse can not be past eternal, it could not have existed forever into the past, and from your link he says:

In this paper I would like to suggest a new cosmological scenario in which the universe is spontaneously created from literally nothing.


Spontaneously created from literally nothing Tass? What does that sound like to you?

[Tassman]

First Tass, if you read my link Vilenkin makes it clear that the multiverse can not be past eternal, it could not have existed forever into the past, and from your link he says:

In this paper I would like to suggest a new cosmological scenario in which the universe is spontaneously created from literally nothing.


Spontaneously created from literally nothing Tass? What does that sound like to you?

Oh my goodness, it must mean that god-did-it. Just kidding.

Read the subheading of his proposed model: "A cosmological model is proposed in which the universe is created by quantum tunnelling from literally nothing into a de Sitter space. After the tunnelling, the model evolves along the lines of the inflationary scenario. This model does not have a big-bang singularity and does not require any initial or boundary conditions".

And try to remember that science is a work in progress.

[seer]

Oh my goodness, it must mean that god-did-it. Just kidding.

Read the subheading of his proposed model: "A cosmological model is proposed in which the universe is created by quantum tunnelling from literally nothing into a de Sitter space. After the tunnelling, the model evolves along the lines of the inflationary scenario. This model does not have a big-bang singularity and does not require any initial or boundary conditions".

And try to remember that science is a work in progress.

Yes but that tell us two things Tass, Vilenkin is moving closer to creation ex nihilo (literally nothing), and two, as he mentions in your link, there are no viable models for matter and energy being past eternal.

[seer]

Welcome to the world according to Shuny...

[seer]

Seer, the problem you seem unable to accept is that there is no ultimate purpose to your existence even though, obviously, you must also understand, that by the same logic, there could be no ultimate purpose for gods existence.

Except with God there could be a purpose for humankind.

And I have given you an explanation of good and evil and that is; that which is good is good because it is ultimately in the best interests of human society, ergo in the best interests of human idividual members of society. Your constant response to that is, well, who then determines what is good. Nobody does, moral behaviors either are or are not in the collective, ergo in the individuals, best interests or they are not. In that sense morals are objective. You don't have to believe that of course, but if you want to argue the point you can't just say; no, it can't be that way, because i don't like it, i want there to be an ultimate purpose for our existence. You have to present a legitimate argument of your own as to why it can't be that way.

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.

[Anomaly]

"A cosmological model is proposed in which the universe is created by quantum tunnelling from literally nothing into a de Sitter space. After the tunnelling, the model evolves along the lines of the inflationary scenario. This model does not have a big-bang singularity and does not require any initial or boundary conditions".

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

[seer]

Seer, you still have not shown why or how god provides purpose. The purpose could be love, hate or whatever. You claim that is logical but the logical consequence is once again that you have got no foundation you can understand or justify.

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.

[Anomaly]

Seer, you still have not shown why or how god provides purpose. The purpose could be love, hate or whatever. You claim that is logical but the logical consequence is once again that you have got no foundation you can understand or justify.

I provided bits and pieces of an outline of a metaphysic in this and other threads in the Philosophy section closely tied to a bundle theory of existence which arrives at the hypothesis that reality is based on a single value--truth. The concept of truth [value] demands at least one mind Value is meaningless in a universe that lacks perceivers. A criterion of value must first be established and precedes any affirmation or denial of it.

Truth provides purpose. The how and why you request is built into the term.

Christianity asserts God as a preexistent Perceiver. The adherents of naturalism assert a god of matter. Given the above, the idea of God is rational, the god of matter is self-contradictory. Why is this wrong?

[shunyadragon]

That is the point Vilenkin is making Shuny, the multiverse can not be past eternal:

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

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.