Teleology And Human Ethics...

[shunyadragon]

Methodological empiricism.

Same as Methodological Naturalism.

Source: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/MethodologicalNaturalism.htm

Methodological naturalism is not a "doctrine" but an essential aspect of the methodology of science, the study of the natural universe. If one believes that natural laws and theories based on them will not suffice to solve the problems attacked by scientists - that supernatural and thus nonscientific principles must be invoked from time to time - then one cannot have the confidence in scientific methodology that is prerequisite to doing science. The spectacular successes over four centuries of science based on methodological naturalism cannot be gainsaid. On the other hand, a scientist who, when stumped, invokes a supernatural cause for a phenomenon he or she is investigating is guaranteed that no scientific understanding of the problem will ensue.

© Copyright Original Source

[Tassman]

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.

it is NOT "perfectly clear how a rational being can create something for a purpose"...or anything else...when there's no substantiated evidence that such an entity exists. You are critiquing modern cosmology, which you know nothing about and which IS providing answers, and promoting one of the thousands of creation myths as preferable.

http://www.crystalinks.com/creationcountries.html

[Tassman]

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]

it is NOT "perfectly clear how a rational being can create something for a purpose"...or anything else...when there's no substantiated evidence that such an entity exists. You are critiquing modern cosmology, which you know nothing about and which IS providing answers, and promoting one of the thousands of creation myths as preferable.

http://www.crystalinks.com/creationcountries.html

Are you being stupid on purpose Tass? The point was rational beings, whether a god or a man can create things for a purpose. As far as modern cosmology I simply linked the words of Vilenkin, as a matter of fact your own Vilenkin link agreed with what my link stated. There is no evidence that matter and energy are past eternal, or can be. Tass, I don't want to upset your faith but you can watch Vilenkin here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IJLZO7o4Ak

Here is a recent talk of creation out of nothing, no time, energy, matter, space:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSESZR3wC8s&t=3s

[shunyadragon]

Are you being stupid on purpose Tass? The point was rational beings, whether a god or a man can create things for a purpose. As far as modern cosmology I simply linked the words of Vilenkin, as a matter of fact your own Vilenkin link agreed with what my link stated. There is no evidence that matter and energy are past eternal, or can be. Tass, I don't want to upset your faith but you can watch Vilenkin here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IJLZO7o4Ak

Here is a recent talk of creation out of nothing, no time, energy, matter, space:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSESZR3wC8s&t=3s

You are misrepresenting Vilenkin's description of the cosmological nothing to justify your religious agenda, and being selective ignoring the other cosmologists. No matter, space, time and energy is a description of the Quantum world of the multiverse where other universes form, and not the philosophical absolute nothing. In the Quantum world there exists the potential of the energy, matter, space and time that form singularities and universes. Vilenkin supports the forming of the singularity and the universe from this 'nothing.'

[seer]

You are misrepresenting Vilenkin's description of the cosmological nothing to justify your religious agenda, and being selective ignoring the other cosmologists. No matter, space, time and energy is a description of the Quantum world of the multiverse where other universes form, and not the philosophical absolute nothing. In the Quantum world there exists the potential of the energy, matter, space and time that form singularities and universes. Vilenkin supports the forming of the singularity and the universe from this 'nothing.'

Shuny, your faith teaches that matter and energy are co-eternal with God, that is why you support multiverse theories, even without evidence, you have a religious agenda. 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]

Shuny, your faith teaches that matter and energy are co-eternal with God, that is why you support multiverse theories, even without evidence, you have a religious agenda.

Not true, My religious belief is a separate issue. I believe it is an unknown and inconclusive scientifically, though science has not evidence of an absolute beginning of the universe nor the multiverse.

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

Listen to Vilenkin completely he does not say that. He does describe how a universe can arise spontaneously from the Quantum world from nothing, which is the total energy equals zero, and not that no energy exists. It exists as potential energy.

[seer]

Not true, My religious belief is a separate issue. I believe it is an unknown and inconclusive.

Obviously Shuny you have a religious agenda, you latch on to any theory that even suggests that matter and energy are past eternal no matter how weak or non existent the evidence.

Listen to Vilenkin completely he does not say that. He does describe how a universe can arise spontaneously from the Quantum world from nothing, which is the total energy equals zero.

From a place where there is no TIME or SPACE. Where does this Quantum world exist without space? As a matter of fact he says that the only thing that does pre-exist this creation event are the laws of physics in the "Platonic sense."

[shunyadragon]

From a place where there is no TIME or SPACE. Where does this Quantum world exist without space?

According to Vilenkin and other scientists the universe arises from the potential of space, time and energy in the Quantum medium described by some as 'nothing' in the multiverse. Vilenkin describes in your reference how it is possible for a universe can arise in this way.

The point is that Vilenkin in the reference you provided describes how a universe can arise from the Quantum nothingness of the multiverse world. Your reference disputes your assertion.

As far as the science is concerned I do not argue religious agendas.

Again . . . science does not have any evidence of an absolute beginning of our universe nor the multiverse.

[seer]

According to Vilenkin and other scientists the universe arises from the potential of space, time and energy in the Quantum medium described by some as 'nothing' in the multiverse. Vilenkin describes in your reference how it is possible for a universe can arise in this way.

The point is that Vilenkin in the reference you provided describes how a universe can arise from the Quantum nothingness of the multiverse world. Your reference disputes your assertion.

As far as the science is concerned I do not argue religious agendas.

Again . . . science does not have any evidence of an absolute beginning of our universe nor the multiverse.

Shuny, I understand that you want to defend your religion, but go back to the link and watch it to the end. The only thing that does pre-exist this creation event are the laws of physics in the "Platonic sense." Not space, not time, not energy, not the vacuum quantum world. The interviewer asks this very question at the end (5:11). Vilenkin makes it clear that the vacuum comes out of this process, the only thing that is "prior" are the laws of physics, again the the Platonic sense. Sorry Shuny, I don't want to shake your faith.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, I understand that you want to defend your religion, but go back to the link and watch it to the end. The only thing that does pre-exist this creation event are the laws of physics in the "Platonic sense." Not space, not time, not energy, not the vacuum quantum world. The interviewer asks this very question at the end (5:11). Vilenkin makes it clear that the vacuum comes out of this process, the only thing that is "prior" are the laws of physics, again the the Platonic sense. Sorry Shuny, I don't want to shake your faith.

I watched it to the end and in text he describes how a universe can form the Quantum nothing of the multiverse.

Your argument concerning the end of the reference is a classic 'argument from ignorance' because Vilenkin admits that it is unknown and ultimately a mystery. Nonetheless Vilenkin describes specifically in the text how a universe can form from this Quantum nothing were the sum of energy equals zero. He does not say that no form of energy exists in this Quantum nothing.

[JimL]

Shuny, your faith teaches that matter and energy are co-eternal with God, that is why you support multiverse theories, even without evidence, you have a religious agenda. 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

For one thing, its seems I was wrong, and you were correct in what Vilenkin is suggesting, i.e. that the universe emerged from nothing, nothing i.e., other than the laws of physics. But that is his opinion, though it makes no sense to me at all, and I doubt that it makes sense to most people in the field. It seems to me that the reason there is something rather that nothing is just a brute fact.

Vilenkin is merely assuming that because our universe is zero point energy, aka nothing, then it must have emerged from nothing, which I think is pretty big assumption to be making. That our universe is zero point energy, doesn't mean that the quantum vacuum from out of which it may have emerged is also zero point energy.

Anyway, here is another point of view on the same subject by Sean Carrol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-QkjUxcGt8

[seer]

I watched it to the end and in text he describes how a universe can form the Quantum nothing of the multiverse.

That is a complete falsehood Shuny - where does he say that this universe came from the multiverse - EXACT TIME PLEASE.

Your argument concerning the end of the reference is a classic 'argument from ignorance' because Vilenkin admits that it is unknown and ultimately a mystery. Nonetheless Vilenkin describes specifically in the text how a universe can form from this Quantum nothing were the sum of energy equals zero. He does not say that no form of energy exists in this Quantum nothing.

Shuny, the zero energy is only about the fact that this is possible, there is no prior quantum world or vacuum because both would require "space." The only thing required and the only prior condition are the laws of physics, again the the Platonic sense. But I understand your zeal in defending your faith.

[seer]

For one thing, its seems I was wrong, and you were correct in what Vilenkin is suggesting, i.e. that the universe emerged from nothing, nothing i.e., other than the laws of physics. But that is his opinion, though it makes no sense to me at all, and I doubt that it makes sense to most people in the field. It seems to me that the reason there is something rather that nothing is just a brute fact.

Vilenkin is merely assuming that because our universe is zero point energy, aka nothing, then it must have emerged from nothing, which I think is pretty big assumption to be making. That our universe is zero point energy, doesn't mean that the quantum vacuum from out of which it may have emerged is also zero point energy.

Anyway, here is another point of view on the same subject by Sean Carrol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-QkjUxcGt8

Yes, I have listened to Carrol in the past, and perhaps you can school Shuny on what Vilenkin actually said. It may be difficult, he has a religious agenda to defend.

[JimL]

That is a complete falsehood Shuny - where does he say that this universe came from the multiverse - EXACT TIME PLEASE.



Shuny, the zero energy is only about the fact that this is possible, there is no prior quantum world or vacuum because both would require "space." The only thing required and the only prior condition are the laws of physics, again the the Platonic sense. But I understand your zeal in defending your faith.

Again, Vilenkin is mistakingly assuming that because our universe is zero point energy, that it must have emerged from nothing. If you think about that for half a second you would realise that even zero point energy doesn't amount to nothingness, in our case it amounts to a 14 billion light year across universe.