An Infinite Past?

[seer]

You are so very desperate to maintain your ‘Creatio ex Nihilo’ dogma, come what may. However, there is good reason to expect that what happened at the “beginning” at the boundary conditions - and what existed prior - will be understood remembering that in physics "beginnings" are from preexisting conditions.

Tass I am not desperate in the least, since you have no credible evidence. All we have are beginnings with no known causes. No credible evidence for any prior physical condition. You can believe all you want that science will find such evidence or that they can figure out what physical condition came came before, but until that day you are living by faith. Faith that there was a prior physical condition, faith that that condition is eternal into the past, and faith that science can understand it. Heck Tass, we can't even understand the universe we are living in.

[seer]

Of course there is seer, you see it in the courthouses and in the character of people every day. Ultimate and certain justice is what you are looking for and even in this universe that doesn't exist. Logic is a different case.

No Jim, logic is not a different case. If there are no objective moral standards then morality is reduced to absurdity - completely subjective and relative. Just as rationality would be reduced to absurdity is the laws of logic were not universal.

Okay, then what exactly is tunneling through what? Is nothing tunneling through nothing?

Makes no sense seer. You may be misinterpreting him.

Then read the link for goodness sake, I am not misinterpreting him.

We don't see it seer, life began long ago in conditions that were suitable for it to begin in and it has evolved over millenia to the rational conscious life that exists today. Did I see it? No. Are you denying evolution?

Yes. I am denying that "evolution" could do what is claimed. Or rather, I have no good reason to assume that it did what is claimed.

[shunyadragon]

Yes. I am denying that "evolution" could do what is claimed. Or rather, I have no good reason to assume that it did what is claimed.

This is an anthropomorphic interpretive view of whether "evolution" does things, which is not the real issue. The philosophical naturalist perspective is, yes, natural evolution does everything concerning the nature and history of life. On the other hand the theist evolutionist perspective is the scientific account is accurate, and reflects the Creation of life.

The real question regardless of religious perspectives is: Do you accept the methodological naturalism science of "evolution."

[seer]

The real question regardless of religious perspectives is: Do you accept the methodological naturalism science of "evolution."

If you mean do I buy the idea that unaided nature created life on earth and all the complex interrelated biological systems we see today - NO!

[shunyadragon]

If you mean do I buy the idea that unaided nature created life on earth and all the complex interrelated biological systems we see today - NO!

That was not the question seer.

Again, The real question regardless of religious perspectives is: Do you accept the methodological naturalism science of "evolution"?

[seer]

That was not the question seer.

Again, The real question regardless of religious perspectives is: Do you accept the methodological naturalism science of "evolution"?

I have no idea what you mean then.

[shunyadragon]

I have no idea what you mean then.

Do you understand 'Methodological Naturalism?'

Seer, it is not hard to understand. The methodological naturalism science of "evolution" is neutral to any religious belief it is simply science. Again, it is the metaphysical philosophical naturalism that assumes a natural cause for everything. Methodological Naturalism makes no assumption concerning religious belief, it is simply neutral to religious preferences and science as it is regardless.

Again, The real question regardless of religious perspectives is: Do you accept the methodological naturalism science of "evolution"?

Do you not consider Theistic Evolution a valid view?

Is it possible you consider "evolution" only an atheist science?

This a little off topic, but relates to how you view science in general including physics and cosmology.

[seer]

Do you understand 'Methodological Naturalism?'

Seer, it is not hard to understand. The methodological naturalism science of "evolution" is neutral to any religious belief it is simply science. Again, it is the metaphysical philosophical naturalism that assumes a natural cause for everything. Methodological Naturalism makes no assumption concerning religious belief, it is simply neutral to religious preferences and science as it is regardless.

I can not accept that since nothing, no scientific model of investigtion, is assumption free. As soon as human beings are involved you have bias. Methodological Naturalism is just a term, with no meaning in reality since no man, or men, can practice science free of predilections.

Do you not consider Theistic Evolution a valid view?

Depends, there are many different views.

[shunyadragon]

I can not accept that since nothing, no scientific model of investigtion, is assumption free. As soon as human beings are involved you have bias. Methodological Naturalism is just a term, with no meaning in reality since no man, or men, can practice science free of predilections.

Yes, it is easy to accept the fallible human bias in everything. This does not really answer the question concerning the nature of Methodological Naturalism and science. Scientific investigation and research does ta.ke tis into account by the redundant nature of research, peer review and skepticism. This how fraud, poor research, and personal bias. Science is progressive over time

Depends, there are many different views.

Simply, "evolution" is an accurate scientific description of how God Created life. This I believe takes into account all variations. If you know of another, please enlighten me.

[JimL]

No Jim, logic is not a different case. If there are no objective moral standards then morality is reduced to absurdity - completely subjective and relative. Just as rationality would be reduced to absurdity is the laws of logic were not universal.

Thats an assertion seer, not an argument. Why would moral laws be reduced to absurdity unless they are objective and universal? Do they not work unless they are objective and absolute? The laws of logic are fact based, we don't, we can't, decide that A=A. But we do have that option when it comes to moral law.

Then read the link for goodness sake, I am not misinterpreting him.

Sorry, I have very little time to spend on tweb as it is and can't go scurrying through threads looking for links to read. I'm just saying that common sense will tell you that in order to tunnel through, then something has to be doing the tunneling and something has to be that which is tunneled through. "It can't be that "nothing is tunneling through nothing". In quantum mechanics tunneling means that if you wait long enough a particle can tunnel through a steel barrier and appear on the other side. For the creation of universes i believe it has to do with the energy levels in the quantum vacuum tunneling through the barrier of higher energy fields. Can't explain it in detail, but i don't believe they are talking about "nothing tunneling through nothing." I'll try to read the link if i get the chance.

Yes. I am denying that "evolution" could do what is claimed. Or rather, I have no good reason to assume that it did what is claimed.

Well, what are you claiming then, that genesis is a literal rendering or that life came to be according to evolution but that it was designed to occur that way?

[Tassman]

No Jim, logic is not a different case. If there are no objective moral standards then morality is reduced to absurdity - completely subjective and relative. Just as rationality would be reduced to absurdity is the laws of logic were not universal.

There are NO absolute objective moral standards and you have never been able to say what you think they might be despite many requests to do so in the past.
Morals are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation in every instance and are a consequence of natural selection. They are naturally built into us, because those morals were beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals and our community values and legal codes are based on them.

Then read the link for goodness sake, I am not misinterpreting him.

Yes. I am denying that "evolution" could do what is claimed. Or rather, I have no good reason to assume that it did what is claimed.

No wonder the US continues to slip behind comparable nations in high-level math, science and literacy skills with the likes of you being let loose on innocent young minds.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/23/op...hind.html?_r=0

[seer]

Yes, it is easy to accept the fallible human bias in everything. This does not really answer the question concerning the nature of Methodological Naturalism and science. Scientific investigation and research does ta.ke tis into account by the redundant nature of research, peer review and skepticism. This how fraud, poor research, and personal bias. Science is progressive over time.

And? Shuny, how many times have you said that we can not know anything in an absolute sense? Is Methodological Naturalism the correct method of investigation? How do you know that? Not in an absolute sense - correct? And no matter how many tests or research we do bias is always there. Whether individual or collective.

Simply, "evolution" is an accurate scientific description of how God Created life. This I believe takes into account all variations. If you know of another, please enlighten me.

If you are saying that God guided the process, created the process, then it is possible.

[seer]

Thats an assertion seer, not an argument. Why would moral laws be reduced to absurdity unless they are objective and universal? Do they not work unless they are objective and absolute? The laws of logic are fact based, we don't, we can't, decide that A=A. But we do have that option when it comes to moral law.

Of course it is an argument Jim. If there is no objective moral law then ethics are clearly reduced to absurdity where both A and not A are equally correct. In some cultures female genital mutilation is considered good and necessary, in other cultures it is outlawed. The same behavior is both accepted and not accepted. A and not A are both culturally correct. That is absurd James.

Sorry, I have very little time to spend on tweb as it is and can't go scurrying through threads looking for links to read. I'm just saying that common sense will tell you that in order to tunnel through, then something has to be doing the tunneling and something has to be that which is tunneled through. "It can't be that "nothing is tunneling through nothing". In quantum mechanics tunneling means that if you wait long enough a particle can tunnel through a steel barrier and appear on the other side. For the creation of universes i believe it has to do with the energy levels in the quantum vacuum tunneling through the barrier of higher energy fields. Can't explain it in detail, but i don't believe they are talking about "nothing tunneling through nothing." I'll try to read the link if i get the chance.

Ok, read it when you can, I am not misinterpreting him.

Well, what are you claiming then, that genesis is a literal rendering or that life came to be according to evolution but that it was designed to occur that way?

I'm not sure what you mean by "literal reading." And yes I believe we were created by God, if that is your question.

[seer]

You have been misunderstanding him throughout this entire thread. You persist in misunderstanding the word “beginning” as if it is the theological notion of an “absolute beginning” when this has never been argued. Science does not think in these terms. In physics beginnings arise from preexisting, very possibly eternal, conditions. There is no good reason at this stage to assume an absolute beginning.

I am tired of your false accusations Tass, unless you prove where I misquoted anyone, or apologize, I will put you on ignore. Then you will not have the pleasure of my company going forward - you have until tomorrow.

[shunyadragon]

And? Shuny, how many times have you said that we can not know anything in an absolute sense? Is Methodological Naturalism the correct method of investigation? How do you know that? Not in an absolute sense - correct? And no matter how many tests or research we do bias is always there. Whether individual or collective.

It is a given that human scientific knowledge changes over time, therefore at no point in time could we know anything in the absolute sense. This has been true of most human knowledge changing over time. Many 'facts' do not change, but 'facts' remain only a small part of human knowledge.

If you are saying that God guided the process, created the process, then it is possible.

That is actually the definition of Theistic Evolution. It is a natural process guided by God.