New Here

[Sternwallow]

erich von stalhein wrote

If there were natural means, then the universe (= all things natural) already existed. You only have a circular contradictory hypothesis so far.

Things are created naturally without the prior existence of any things therefore the universe could have come into existence by natural means at the instant that natural means began to exist.

Do we? Can you give a example? From nothing!

Yes we do. Virtual particles come from nothing and yet provide roughly 90% of your mass. [see Krauss "A Universe from Nothing"]

While we are in the intellectual neighborhood, nuclear decay has no intentional cause so the cause of the universe would not have to be intentional either.

The cosmologists say otherwise. Do you want some quotes?

No quotes necessary. The universe went through several early stages of complete randomness during which any and all original pattern that a creator god may have put there, would be erased. Only a god acting after those information destroying stages could possibly impose a plan or design and no such god would be implied by the existence of a creator.

We can see back to the early chaos and watch the universe unfold under natural law and no imposed design nor imposing designer other than the organizing influence of gravity is evident.

I once designed a house. When the design was just right, I put the plans into a blender with a little water and ran it until it was a uniform gray syrup. I then handed the tub of glop to a builder and told him to build a house according to these plans. He built a house using his natural rules of design and construction and I live in a fine house completely different from what I originally designed. [/allegory]

Can you share that evidence please? MY reading suggests the opposite.

Those are mathematical constants, not physical ones (i.e. pi would have the same value even if there was no physical universe). Can you show me a reputable cosmologist who supports the idea that the physical constants are "locked" - for I can quote you several who say the opposite.

One piece of evidence is that, as we see farther back toward the BB, the various known forces collapse into each other and very near the BB, all of them were a single force. Ten years ago there were four known forces, today there are three. Active work is going on to incorporate the strong nuclear force with the electro-weak force. Finally gravity, the first force to condense after the BB will be incorporated. At that point, all of the critical parameters that have to do with matter and energy will be integrated in the grand equation. At that point, just like adjusting Pi or 1 or 0 or i or e, which are components of a single equation, changing any parameter would entail changing one or more others. That is how the critical parameters are locked together.

Based on that linkage, it might even be true that every one of the other universes in the multi-verse has to have the same critical constant values, just as they all have the same value for Pi (only if they are flat, of course).

"Two plus two equals five, given sufficiently large values of two."

[Sternwallow]

erich von stalhein wrote

It's a non-event. Could God make A and ~A both true? Or make 1 + 1 = pi (when those symbols are defined as we know them)? Is God thereby "subordinate"?

So God isn't "subordinate" by recognising ethics or logic. In fact he would be lesser if he didn't!!!

You imply that ethics and morals exist in some sense external to God and that it would be illogical for Him to try to change them.

You further imply that ethics and morals would exist even if there were no God. That is what makes God subordinate, He didn't set up the rules, He must follow them.

What absolute moral tenet do you know which is as logically constrained as not being both A and ~A simultaneously? Or, do you not know of a moral tenet that could not have had a slightly different definition?

[erich von stalhein]

G'day SW, there's a lot there, I'll just pick a few points.

Things are created naturally without the prior existence of any things therefore the universe could have come into existence by natural means at the instant that natural means began to exist.

This is still circular reasoning. You are still saying something causes itself at the moment it begins, but what caused it to begin?

Virtual particles come from nothing and yet provide roughly 90% of your mass.

Virtual particles don't arise out of nothing. At the very least, there must be a quantum vacuum and that is a lot more than nothing. This is a factual matter and we must follow what the particle physicists tell us.

That is how the critical parameters are locked together.

Based on that linkage, it might even be true that every one of the other universes in the multi-verse has to have the same critical constant values, just as they all have the same value for Pi (only if they are flat, of course).

It could be that what you say is true, but I have read several eminent cosmologists (e.g. Martin Rees, Leonard Susskind, Paul Davies) and they say this is most unlikely. They all say we need to look for other explanations. So you are entitled to hold that view, but you will be ignoring the views of the experts (at least the ones I have read).

I'm sorry to be rude, but it seems to me that you are basing your views on poor science, and that makes it problematic to discuss the conclusions you draw, so I won't go further with that.

You imply that ethics and morals exist in some sense external to God and that it would be illogical for Him to try to change them.

No, I am saying that it is impossible to change them. Once we define our integer number system, 1 + 1 = 2 by definition, and it couldn't be otherwise.

What absolute moral tenet do you know which is as logically constrained as not being both A and ~A simultaneously? Or, do you not know of a moral tenet that could not have had a slightly different definition?

I think these are good questions. My answers are that:

(1) I don't think any moral tenet is logically constrained. A vs ~A is a matter of logic so it is logically constrained. Ethical tenets are ethically constrained.

(2) There are only two ethical tenets that I am aware of, as given by Jesus: Love God wholeheartedly and love others. All the rest is (as the chess commentators say) technique. These are true (IMO) and while they can be worded differently, the substance cannot change.

[Sternwallow]

This is still circular reasoning. You are still saying something causes itself at the moment it begins, but what caused it to begin?

No, it does not cause itself. That would be circular. Both the universe and the laws governing it, under this theory, arrived at the same instant and they did so the same way that particles materialize from nothing naturally.

This is not a way to avoid saying that they were created; it would explicitly eliminate creation in their case altogether.

[Sternwallow]

It could be that what you say is true, but I have read several eminent cosmologists (e.g. Martin Rees, Leonard Susskind, Paul Davies) and they say this is most unlikely. They all say we need to look for other explanations. So you are entitled to hold that view, but you will be ignoring the views of the experts (at least the ones I have read).

I have read some of both Rees and Davies. My understanding of their position is that, assuming tweakable critical parameters, certain conclusions can be made about the outcomes to be expected if any one of them is changed. Specifically, as you probably accept, some are so finely balanced that any small change would eliminate the possibility of life. Other scientists, who also use the assumption of tweakability, have shown that rather large changes in subsets of those individually delicate parameters do yield universes able to support life at least as complex as ours. If all those scientists had been using the assumption that the parameters were not tweakable, there would be nothing to discuss, nothing to ponder.

by analogy with the separation of forces from a single primordial one, I think that 150 truly independent parameters is much less likely than a single interrelated group in which it would be very difficult to change any of the values due to their impact on all the others.

[Sternwallow]

(1) I don't think any moral tenet is logically constrained. A vs ~A is a matter of logic so it is logically constrained. Ethical tenets are ethically constrained.

(2) There are only two ethical tenets that I am aware of, as given by Jesus: Love God wholeheartedly and love others. All the rest is (as the chess commentators say) technique. These are true (IMO) and while they can be worded differently, the substance cannot change.

Then what is the ethical logic that constrains the tenets of love?

Is it an ethical requirement that all others must be loved? Does all others include non-human creatures? Is it required that we love that which we are commanded to fear and, if so, is it humanly possible? Can we deliberately cause unnecessary suffering to someone yet claim to love them? Can we reasonably expect that someone who causes us unnecessary suffering loves us even so?

By what rules of ethics can anyone answer the above questions and the thousands like them that arise daily?

[erich von stalhein]

Sternwallow wrote

[/i]No, it does not cause itself. That would be circular. Both the universe and the laws governing it, under this theory, arrived at the same instant and they did so the same way that particles materialize from nothing naturally.

The fact that the physical universe and the laws governing it "arrived" at the same time doesn't seem to me to be surprising because neither appear to be able to exist without the other. But I still cannot see how that fact provides any evidence that something can appear out of nothing with no cause. And I have suggested elsewhere that your quoting of cosmologist Lawrence Krauss does not establish this.

But I suggest we postpone this discussion, both here and there. It is getting quite scattered. I plan to start a few new discussions in the next few days where we can hopefully focus on one thig at a time. I hope you join in.

[erich von stalhein]

Sternwallow wrote

Then what is the ethical logic that constrains the tenets of love?

Similar to logic, IMO. If I come up with some statement like "It is OK to kill people I don't like", that statement would be tested by the basic tents of "Love God & love fellow humans".

Is it an ethical requirement that all others must be loved?

Jesus answered that question of "who is my neighbour?" with the parable of the good Samaritan. You can draw your own conclusions, but I think "yes".

Does all others include non-human creatures?

That is arguable, but certainly, on earth, not to the same extent as humans (IMO).

Is it required that we love that which we are commanded to fear and, if so, is it humanly possible?

Humanly we can improve, with God's help we can do even better, but none of us is perfect.

Can we deliberately cause unnecessary suffering to someone yet claim to love them?

We can, but we would be being inconsistent.

Can we reasonably expect that someone who causes us unnecessary suffering loves us even so?

I wouldn't assume anything like that, but I might conclude it if there was enough evidence. But I doubt it.

By what rules of ethics can anyone answer the above questions and the thousands like them that arise daily?

This is the most important of your questions here (IMO). The New Testament teaches that there are no rules of ethics beyond the two I mentioned. (The NT language is that the letter kills but the spirit gives life.) We cannot "know" the correct answers to all those questions. But if we ask for the Spirit's guidance we can learn to make good decisions and effectively "know" the will of God in each situation. This will help us mature as ethical people.

This is almost the key to understanding christianity IMO, and few atheists even get hold of it (not their fault) and many christians miss it as well.

Thanks for your questions.

[Smellyoldgit]

erich von stalhein wrote

But if we ask for the Spirit's guidance we can learn to make good decisions and effectively "know" the will of God in each situation.

What the fuck are you dribbling on about?
I'd wager the spirit you've been seeking guidance from was in a bottle with Johnny Walker emblazoned on the front.

[Kate]

Thunderbird is the Word!

[erich von stalhein]

Kate wrote

Thunderbird is the Word!

G'day Kate. I'm not generally strong on subtlety, so I don't understand what you are getting at, but i thought I'd at least acknowledge your post and say I agree with your statement: "I do not intend to tiptoe through life only to arrive safely at death." Best wishes.

[clambake]

Kate wrote

Thunderbird is the Word!

No picture, doesn't count!

[Kate]

[West491]

[Sternwallow]

Jesus answered that question of "who is my neighbour?" with the parable of the good Samaritan. You can draw your own conclusions, but I think "yes".

I suppose you realize that the man from Samaria was not obeying Christian morals since he certainly was not a Christian.