Moral Compass

[Harbal]

Your well-wishes are much appreciated, but entirely unnecessary, as it happens. I wasn't "unsorted" on it, in the first place.

In that case, may I wish you success in getting someone to agree with you.

That will be entirely dependent on their willingness to think.

Y'know, it's kind of funny...skeptics charge into controversies with Theists, waving words like "rationality," or "truth" or "science" about, because they are naively confident that these things are already on their side. Then, when rationality or science or truth end up being against them, then suddenly rationality, science and truth are no longer the basis of anything for those same skeptics.

It certainly makes one wonder about these so-called "open-minded" and "free thinking" types, who run out of their own kitchen when the heat comes on.

Well I've said it before, and I'll say it again; theists and normal folk shouldn't be together on the same forum, because they see things from entirely different perspectives.

[Immanuel Can]

In that case, may I wish you success in getting someone to agree with you.

That will be entirely dependent on their willingness to think.

Y'know, it's kind of funny...skeptics charge into controversies with Theists, waving words like "rationality," or "truth" or "science" about, because they are naively confident that these things are already on their side. Then, when rationality or science or truth end up being against them, then suddenly rationality, science and truth are no longer the basis of anything for those same skeptics.

It certainly makes one wonder about these so-called "open-minded" and "free thinking" types, who run out of their own kitchen when the heat comes on.

Well I've said it before, and I'll say it again; theists and normal folk shouldn't be together on the same forum, because they see things from entirely different perspectives.

I don't think that's so. I think the point of talking philosophy is to find out the different ways people look at things, and to try to learn something through that.

But I think that in this case, we have an argument that any Theist can make that does not rely on any Theistic suppositions at all. Entropy is a non-sectarian matter: it's strictly scientific, empirical, factual and real...not the product of an particular viewpoint. So it's one of the times when both sides should be able to speak on level terms.

Why can't we? Only because while entropy is a non-sectarian issue, it ends up favouring Theism. If it didn't, you can be quite sure that non-Theists or Atheists would be happy to talk about it ad nauseam. The only block here is that the impartial facts do not favour Atheism. And since Atheism is itself a faith commitment, it becomes a kind of heresy against the Atheist orthodoxy even to speak of it. Were Atheists anywhere near as open-minded, rational, scientific and fair as they want you to think they are, it wouldn't be a problem at all to admit what entropy shows.

[Harbal]

That will be entirely dependent on their willingness to think.

Y'know, it's kind of funny...skeptics charge into controversies with Theists, waving words like "rationality," or "truth" or "science" about, because they are naively confident that these things are already on their side. Then, when rationality or science or truth end up being against them, then suddenly rationality, science and truth are no longer the basis of anything for those same skeptics.

It certainly makes one wonder about these so-called "open-minded" and "free thinking" types, who run out of their own kitchen when the heat comes on.

Well I've said it before, and I'll say it again; theists and normal folk shouldn't be together on the same forum, because they see things from entirely different perspectives.

I don't think that's so. I think the point of talking philosophy is to find out the different ways people look at things, and to try to learn something through that.

But I think that in this case, we have an argument that any Theist can make that does not rely on any Theistic suppositions at all. Entropy is a non-sectarian matter: it's strictly scientific, empirical, factual and real...not the product of an particular viewpoint. So it's one of the times when both sides should be able to speak on level terms.

Why can't we? Only because while entropy is a non-sectarian issue, it ends up favouring Theism. If it didn't, you can be quite sure that non-Theists or Atheists would be happy to talk about it ad nauseam. The only block here is that the impartial facts do not favour Atheism. And since Atheism is itself a faith commitment, it becomes a kind of heresy against the Atheist orthodoxy even to speak of it. Were Atheists anywhere near as open-minded, rational, scientific and fair as they want you to think they are, it wouldn't be a problem at all to admit what entropy shows.

You've just confirmed my point; everything you do and say here is in pursuit of your theistic agenda, whatever that actually is. You say that what we are discussing is a purely scientific matter, but you still can't resist trying to make the point that the science just happens to support God's involvement. You know I don't believe in God, so what is the point of telling me that, and what is the point of my trying to make an argument to you that doesn't involve God? Just think about our past interactions, neither of us gets anywhere with the other, and we both know we never will, because we are each in a place where the other absolutely cannot go. What good is my perspective to you, or yours to me?

[Janoah]

Then my answer is that as far as I can tell, I'm not agreeing with you, or with anybody else who makes such a statement: but maybe I am, depending on what is intended by the poser of the question.

After all, I did not ask you to agree with me or anyone else.

In that case, "agreeing" isn't involved. There aren't two entities to "agree": there's only one. So you've asked for nonsense. I have no idea how to respond to such an absurd request.

Okay, the teacher has agreed to accept your answer, and the teacher's next question is:
Is there a sense to the concept of “obeyance” in which you agree that matter obeys God?

[Immanuel Can]

Well I've said it before, and I'll say it again; theists and normal folk shouldn't be together on the same forum, because they see things from entirely different perspectives.

I don't think that's so. I think the point of talking philosophy is to find out the different ways people look at things, and to try to learn something through that.

But I think that in this case, we have an argument that any Theist can make that does not rely on any Theistic suppositions at all. Entropy is a non-sectarian matter: it's strictly scientific, empirical, factual and real...not the product of an particular viewpoint. So it's one of the times when both sides should be able to speak on level terms.

Why can't we? Only because while entropy is a non-sectarian issue, it ends up favouring Theism. If it didn't, you can be quite sure that non-Theists or Atheists would be happy to talk about it ad nauseam. The only block here is that the impartial facts do not favour Atheism. And since Atheism is itself a faith commitment, it becomes a kind of heresy against the Atheist orthodoxy even to speak of it. Were Atheists anywhere near as open-minded, rational, scientific and fair as they want you to think they are, it wouldn't be a problem at all to admit what entropy shows.

You've just confirmed my point; everything you do and say here is in pursuit of your theistic agenda,..

Maybe: but that doesn't make it wrong. What my personal agenda is doesn't make entropy stop working, or make it rational to deny that the universe had a beginning.

You say that what we are discussing is a purely scientific matter, but you still can't resist trying to make the point that the science just happens to support God's involvement.

Why resist the obvious? As the old cliche goes, are we not supposed to "follow the evidence wherever it leads"?

Just think about our past interactions, neither of us gets anywhere with the other, and we both know we never will, because we are each in a place where the other absolutely cannot go.

Oh, I disagree. I understand where you stand...but I can agree that maybe you don't have the contrary experience. I can believe that.

The problem is not in the evidence: it's in the personal willingness to accept that the evidence, in this case, is against Atheism.

[Harbal]

I don't think that's so. I think the point of talking philosophy is to find out the different ways people look at things, and to try to learn something through that.

But I think that in this case, we have an argument that any Theist can make that does not rely on any Theistic suppositions at all. Entropy is a non-sectarian matter: it's strictly scientific, empirical, factual and real...not the product of an particular viewpoint. So it's one of the times when both sides should be able to speak on level terms.

Why can't we? Only because while entropy is a non-sectarian issue, it ends up favouring Theism. If it didn't, you can be quite sure that non-Theists or Atheists would be happy to talk about it ad nauseam. The only block here is that the impartial facts do not favour Atheism. And since Atheism is itself a faith commitment, it becomes a kind of heresy against the Atheist orthodoxy even to speak of it. Were Atheists anywhere near as open-minded, rational, scientific and fair as they want you to think they are, it wouldn't be a problem at all to admit what entropy shows.

You've just confirmed my point; everything you do and say here is in pursuit of your theistic agenda,..

Maybe: but that doesn't make it wrong. What my personal agenda is doesn't make entropy stop working, or make it rational to deny that the universe had a beginning.

Who is denying the universe had a beginning? All I am saying is that I don't know that the universe had a beginning. If it did have a beginning then logic says something must have come before it, and whatever it was, something must have come before that. But now we are into your infinite regress problem, so logic isn't going to solve this for us, is it? There is obviously something we don't know about; a gap in our knowledge, and I know you can't see a gap without trying to stuff God into it, but that is no use to me.

You say that what we are discussing is a purely scientific matter, but you still can't resist trying to make the point that the science just happens to support God's involvement.

Why resist the obvious? As the old cliche goes, are we not supposed to "follow the evidence wherever it leads"?

I am not interested in talking about God, that is not why I come onto the forum, and I suspect I am not the only one who feels that way, and that is why I say that having theists and atheists together in a discussion forum of this type is a mistake. We are just wasting each other's time.

Just think about our past interactions, neither of us gets anywhere with the other, and we both know we never will, because we are each in a place where the other absolutely cannot go.

Oh, I disagree.

We always disagree. It's inevitable.

The problem is not in the evidence: it's in the personal willingness to accept that the evidence, in this case, is against Atheism.

And I don't believe in God, so what on earth is there for us to discuss further?

[Immanuel Can]

You've just confirmed my point; everything you do and say here is in pursuit of your theistic agenda,..

Maybe: but that doesn't make it wrong. What my personal agenda is doesn't make entropy stop working, or make it rational to deny that the universe had a beginning.

Who is denying the universe had a beginning? All I am saying is that I don't know that the universe had a beginning.

I'm just pointing out that you should know. If you don't, then it's your own fault, I guess.

If it did have a beginning then logic says something must have come before it, and whatever it was, something must have come before that. But now we are into your infinite regress problem,

Actually, we're not. So long as we're prepared to accept that something must have come first, the regress is no longer infinite. But if we insist it had to be infinite, then we're illogical, and yes, the problem follows.

You say that what we are discussing is a purely scientific matter, but you still can't resist trying to make the point that the science just happens to support God's involvement.

Why resist the obvious? As the old cliche goes, are we not supposed to "follow the evidence wherever it leads"?

I am not interested in talking about God,

That's a different question. All it means is that there are some conclusions that, no matter how logical or scientific, you simply refuse to accept.

You can. Nobody can stop you. One always has the right to be illogical.

The problem is not in the evidence: it's in the personal willingness to accept that the evidence, in this case, is against Atheism.

And I don't believe in God, so what on earth is there for us to discuss further?

If you say that's a matter you consider beyond discussion, then the answer would be "nothing," of course. But the problem now has ceased to be one of evidence, logic, rationality, science, etc., and has become one of intransigence, instead.

That's a problem that nobody can solve, except the intransigent person himself.

[Harbal]

The problem is not in the evidence: it's in the personal willingness to accept that the evidence, in this case, is against Atheism.

And I don't believe in God, so what on earth is there for us to discuss further?

If you say that's a matter you consider beyond discussion, then the answer would be "nothing," of course.

Yes, that's what I thought, too.

[Age]

The 'Universe', when defined as all-there-is, totality, or everything, at any given moment is made up of, exits as, or is either, one of four things.

1. One infinitely compressed solitary singular piece of matter, which is infinite in size.

2. One infinitely compressed solitary singular piece of matter, within a distance of infinite size of nothing around it.

3. Pieces of matter with distances between and around them.

4. Absolutely nothing, of infinite size

Now, in order for absolutely anything, with the ability to comprehend and to be considering these four things here, only one of the four could exist.

There exists some thing not just comprehending and considering here but also conscious of all of what is going on here, now.

Therefore, the one and only one of the four is what exists.

And, because that one is not able to be caused from either of the other three, nor from absolutely anything else, this means, irrefutably, that the Universe is not just spatially infinite but temporally eternal as well.

This cannot be refuted. Unless, of course, one can show and prove how the Universe, Itself, is fundamentally made up in some other way

Now, until then and one can grasp and understand the above, then 'we' move onto 'looking at', 'seeing', understanding how the 'moral compass' works and where it comes from or exits, exactly, also.

[Harbal]

Maybe: but that doesn't make it wrong. What my personal agenda is doesn't make entropy stop working, or make it rational to deny that the universe had a beginning.

Who is denying the universe had a beginning? All I am saying is that I don't know that the universe had a beginning.

I'm just pointing out that you should know. If you don't, then it's your own fault, I guess.

Except it seems I'm not at fault.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qjv0y7Fo_7g

[Immanuel Can]

Who is denying the universe had a beginning? All I am saying is that I don't know that the universe had a beginning.

I'm just pointing out that you should know. If you don't, then it's your own fault, I guess.

Except it seems I'm not at fault.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qjv0y7Fo_7g

"Something caused inflation, which caused the Big Bang." That's essentially what it says. So it just moves the problem back one step, and doesn't actually justify an infinite model. If it's implicating a causal chain, then the infinite regress problem applies; if it's not implicating a causal chain, then nothing happened at all, really. Then they roll into the "multiple universes" hypothesis, which is just another way of going back one step, but not having solved the problem. As usual, the chief problem is that they're proposing totally imaginary theoretical models, which until they have some empirical data, not actually science, but rather, pre-scientific theorizing.

However, your personal situation is uninvolved with all this. Your history is linear. You began, you have lived, and you will die. No matter how long the universe goes on, there will never be another "you." So it's pretty hard to see what comfort you can legitimately offer yourself from belief in "quantum fluctuation" or "multiple (sic) universes."

"It is appointed unto a man once to die, and after this, the Judgment," says the Word. That remains how it goes.

[Harbal]

I'm just pointing out that you should know. If you don't, then it's your own fault, I guess.

Except it seems I'm not at fault.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qjv0y7Fo_7g

"Something caused inflation, which caused the Big Bang." That's essentially what it says. So it just moves the problem back one step, and doesn't actually justify an infinite model. If it's implicating a causal chain, then the infinite regress problem applies; if it's not implicating a causal chain, then nothing happened at all, really. Then they roll into the "multiple universes" hypothesis, which is just another way of going back one step, but not having solved the problem. As usual, the chief problem is that they're proposing totally imaginary theoretical models, which until they have some empirical data, not actually science, but rather, pre-scientific theorizing.

No one is proposing a theoretical model more imaginary than yours. All the contributors to that video are credible people -which is checkable- and none discount the possibility of a universe with neither beginning nor end. The views expressed in the video vindicate my view that it cannot be said with certainty that the universe had a beginning, or will eventually come to an end. Therefore, to say that I do not know how the universe began, or if it even had a beginning, and I don't know if it will eventually end, is perfectly reasonable. You are just doing what you always do; presenting a dishonest argument based on information you know to be incorrect.

Anthony Aguirre: Cosmologist. “We can say that the universe is 13.7 billion years plus a number between zero and infinity old.”

Andreas Albrecht: Cosmologist. “If there really is a cosmological constant describing, driving this acceleration, then you actually get a nice equilibrium picture in the future of the universe. The answer is at the end you reach equilibrium.”

Rodney Holder: Anglican priest with a doctorate in astrophysics. “The beginning of the universe is not a problem for theologians, whether it has one or not, temporarily. It’s been more of a problem for atheists, like Fred Hoyle and the steady state people, who hated the idea of the Big Bang."

Dirk Evers: Institute for Systematic Theology, Practical Theology and Religious Studies. “We do not have a real clear distinctive notion of an absolute beginning. Even if you refer to Big Bang cosmology, some would say, okay, before that there was some kind of quantum effect in the void or something, so you always have to presuppose something out of which this beginning arises.”

Leonard Mlodinow: Physicist. “We have to take quantum effects into account, and we know that time ceases to have its current character, so we don’t have a feeling for what time means.” It [the universe] didn’t have a beginning in the usual sense, because you can’t trace time back that far, and the question -did our universe have a beginning? - doesn’t mean anything.”

However, your personal situation is uninvolved with all this. Your history is linear. You began, you have lived, and you will die. No matter how long the universe goes on, there will never be another "you." So it's pretty hard to see what comfort you can legitimately offer yourself from belief in "quantum fluctuation" or "multiple (sic) universes."

What has "comfort" got to do with anything? I want to know the truth, and if it can't be known, I'm not just going to settle for something just because I like the idea of it.

"It is appointed unto a man once to die, and after this, the Judgment," says the Word. That remains how it goes.

Yes, I know we all die.

[Impenitent]

"Something caused inflation, which caused the Big Bang."

no, that was Bidenomics- the civil war may be prevented, but I doubt it

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

The views expressed in the video vindicate my view that it cannot be said with certainty that the universe had a beginning, or will eventually come to an end.

No, the views in the video are not empirical. They're hypotheses awaiting empirical confirmation.

Therefore, to say that I do not know how the universe began, or if it even had a beginning, and I don't know if it will eventually end, is perfectly reasonable.

Then your argument is only, "As long as somebody can invent a theory other than that the universe began, I'm free to ignore empirical data." But you're free to do that anyway, so it's not much of an achievement, of course.

However, your personal situation is uninvolved with all this. Your history is linear. You began, you have lived, and you will die. No matter how long the universe goes on, there will never be another "you." So it's pretty hard to see what comfort you can legitimately offer yourself from belief in "quantum fluctuation" or "multiple (sic) universes."

What has "comfort" got to do with anything? I want to know the truth, and if it can't be known, I'm not just going to settle for something just because I like the idea of it.

"It is appointed unto a man once to die, and after this, the Judgment," says the Word. That remains how it goes.

Yes, I know we all die.

Then weigh a certainty against a mere theoretical hypothesis, and consider the right investment of your belief.

[Immanuel Can]

"Something caused inflation, which caused the Big Bang."

no, that was Bidenomics- the civil war may be prevented, but I doubt it

-Imp

Probably right. But we can wonder what caused the inflation of Biden's popularity, to the point that he allegedly became the most beloved candidate in presidential history, with more votes than any other candidate, including Clinton and Obama?

I would say that was an inflationary miracle of the first order.