Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

Duh! How did the spuds find out how many shakes of caesium there are in a second?

According to you - they counted the number of oscillations per second.

And it turned out to be 9192631770.

Yup. What's your version?

Assuming they started at 0; and assuming they were busy trying to "empirically derive" the second - how did they know when to stop counting oscillations and report the score?

[Harbal]

Actually, we CAN exclude that explanation, for a couple of reasons. One is that there didn't HAVE to be ordered areas in the universe at all. It's a massive surprise, statistically, that there are any anywhere. Disorder can mean and infinite number of types of disorder.

And this takes us to the second problem: namely, that positing a very big universe with many things happening in it only means that there is an infinite number of other possibilities. So the chances are infinite against there being any order anywhere.

You see, you're supposing that order HAD to happen. And that takes for granted that there is a limited number of alternatives. But such is obviously not the case in an infinite situation.

So we're back to the basic problem: why is there any order at all, when, in fact, we should expect no order -- far less the extreme level of order and complexity to produce a universe, and one containing life, and one containing intelligent life, and one containing life capable of observing it and asking the question we're asking. The odds against your theory being right would be...what's the word? "Astronomical."

If you consider the known universe to be ordered, and the possibilities of a disordered universe are infinite, could you describe what just one of those infinite possible disordered universes might be like? How do you envision a typical disordered universe?

It seems to me that if a load of stuff (enough to fill a universe) is exploded out with colossal force, something is bound to emerge out of it. Well whatever emerged, wouldn't that look like some sort of order? And wouldn't we say that the chances of things ending up that way were astronomically small?

[Harbal]

And you are a scientist?

Yes, I am a scientist and a philosopher.

Good for you, bahman.

It is too early to conclude that God made it.

I'm afraid that conclusion was arrived at a lot earlier than you imagine.

[bahman]

And you are a scientist?

Yes, I am a scientist and a philosopher.

Good for you, bahman.

Thank you.

It is too early to conclude that God made it.

I'm afraid that conclusion was arrived at a lot earlier than you imagine.

Well, let's see what is his response to my last post. Let's see if I can convince him that agnosticism is the right point of view.

[Immanuel Can]

How do you envision a typical disordered universe?

We'd have to call it a "disordered state of things," rather than a "universe." A "universe" implies something with order already in it, which is obviously not what is meant when we speak of disorder. In such a situation, there would not only be no planets, stars, solar systems, and so on, but not even any matter...for matter is a collocation of atoms in an orderly arrangement. And of course, that would mean no possibility of life or sentience anywhere either...in fact, no cohesion of anything.

Scientists describe a state like this at the projected end of the universe: they call it "heat death," which means "a state in which all energy is so equally distributed that no possibility of further energy interaction exists or ever will exist." Think of it as being like a thin "soup' of energy, with no part of it less diffused than any other. That's what such a state would be like.

It seems to me that if a load of stuff (enough to fill a universe) is exploded out with colossal force, something is bound to emerge out of it.

When have you seen an explosion produce order?

If you stick a bomb in your car, will it turn from a Fiat into a Mercedes or a Ferrari? If you strap a bomb on, and blow yourself up, will your body be more or less orderly and functional when you're done? How many jumbo jets and ocean liner were instantly created when the atomic bombs were tested in the South Pacific?

[bahman]

How do you envision a typical disordered universe?

We'd have to call it a "disordered state of things," rather than a "universe." A "universe" implies something with order already in it, which is obviously not what is meant when we speak of disorder. In such a situation, there would not only be no planets, stars, solar systems, and so on, but not even any matter...for matter is a collocation of atoms in an orderly arrangement. And of course, that would mean no possibility of life or sentience anywhere either...in fact, no cohesion of anything.

Scientists describe a state like this at the projected end of the universe: they call it "heat death," which means "a state in which all energy is so equally distributed that no possibility of further energy interaction exists or ever will exist." Think of it as being like a thin "soup' of energy, with no part of it less diffused than any other. That's what such a state would be like.

It seems to me that if a load of stuff (enough to fill a universe) is exploded out with colossal force, something is bound to emerge out of it.

When have you seen an explosion produce order?

If you stick a bomb in your car, will it turn from a Fiat into a Mercedes or a Ferrari? If you strap a bomb on, and blow yourself up, will your body be more or less orderly and functional when you're done? How many jumbo jets and ocean liner were instantly created when the atomic bombs were tested in the South Pacific?

The Big Bang was not an explosion. It was a very dense form of energy that gradually got cold.

[Harbal]

How do you envision a typical disordered universe?

We'd have to call it a "disordered state of things," rather than a "universe."

So that is looking at our universe and saying this is the level of "order" that qualifies as a universe?

" A "universe" implies something with order already in it, which is obviously not what is meant when we speak of disorder.

I didn't know that. So when physicists speculate about multiple universes, or a multiverse, where things may work differently to how they are in our known universe, they are thinking of multiple states of order that may be different to the order we see in our universe?

In such a situation, there would not only be no planets, stars, solar systems, and so on, but not even any matter...for matter is a collocation of atoms in an orderly arrangement. And of course, that would mean no possibility of life or sentience anywhere either...in fact, no cohesion of anything.

But that seems to be assuming a complete absence of physical laws. Is that a fair assumption? I mean, how do we know that is even possible?

Scientists describe a state like this at the projected end of the universe: they call it "heat death," which means "a state in which all energy is so equally distributed that no possibility of further energy interaction exists or ever will exist." Think of it as being like a thin "soup' of energy, with no part of it less diffused than any other. That's what such a state would be like.

And that is just one of the infinite possibilities of what a "disordered state of things" could be like, is it? I don't suppose I could press you for one or two more, could I?

It seems to me that if a load of stuff (enough to fill a universe) is exploded out with colossal force, something is bound to emerge out of it.

When have you seen an explosion produce order?

If you stick a bomb in your car, will it turn from a Fiat into a Mercedes or a Ferrari?

I suppose you would end up with a spread of debris consisting of clumps of stuff here, there and everywhere, and then other more spaced out stuff, and then areas with no stuff; a bit like what we see when we look out into space, but, of course, you will interpret the results as disorderly if your definition of order is something car shaped. Your analogy suggests that any "state of things" would have to closely resemble the universe we know to qualify as a universe at all.

[iambiguous]

Human beings have never been able to do anything about evil, other than make more of it. Hence, the need for divine intervention.

Again, the sheer irony embedded in that!!!

[well, if I do say so myself]

Every year tens of thousands of unborn human babies are stillborn or the victims of miscarriages. God's own abortions.

He is said to be omniscient...fully aware of this massacre. And He is said to be omnipotent...able to end it.

Nope, no divine intervention for them. Unless, perhaps, their unborn souls get special perks in Heaven?

So, how do the faithful rationalize that? Simple. It's not evil when God does it. God is the Divine embodiment of good. That we can't figure out His ways "down here" is just part of the deal.

And why would the folks in the medical profession attempt to treat or to cure afflictions that God Himself brought into existence? In fact, there are any number of Christian denomination [or "sects" as them call them] who do refuse all medical intervention. Prayer is the ticket, they insist.

[Immanuel Can]

The Big Bang was not an explosion. [/wuote]
Really? Funny...everybody I know, including all the scientists I've heard talk about it, say that's exactly what it was.

It was a very dense form of energy that gradually got cold.

"Dense energy"? What? "Gradually got cold?" How? That set of words doesn't even add up.

And was this under random factors, or was something "causing" it to happen that way? Because if it wasn't random, then it was caused by some prior forces, and the BB isn't the First Cause at all.

[bahman]

The Big Bang was not an explosion.

Really? Funny...everybody I know, including all the scientists I've heard talk about it, say that's exactly what it was.

It is not funny at all.

It was a very dense form of energy that gradually got cold.

"Dense energy"? What? "Gradually got cold?" How? That set of words doesn't even add up.

It got colder as it expanded.

And was this under random factors, or was something "causing" it to happen that way? Because if it wasn't random, then it was caused by some prior forces, and the BB isn't the First Cause at all.

The expansion happened naturally.

[Immanuel Can]

How do you envision a typical disordered universe?

We'd have to call it a "disordered state of things," rather than a "universe."

So that is looking at our universe and saying this is the level of "order" that qualifies as a universe?

No. You were asking what the state of disorder prior to any such concept as a "universe" would be. Because once we already have a universe, we've already got considerable order...and that's without even accounting for things like planets capable of bearing life and conscious beings.

So if we have to give an account for the very possibility of order in the universe, we can't start with, "Well, once a universe already exists..."

" A "universe" implies something with order already in it, which is obviously not what is meant when we speak of disorder.

I didn't know that. So when physicists speculate about multiple universes, or a multiverse, where things may work differently to how they are in our known universe, they are thinking of multiple states of order that may be different to the order we see in our universe?

Exactly so.

In such a situation, there would not only be no planets, stars, solar systems, and so on, but not even any matter...for matter is a collocation of atoms in an orderly arrangement. And of course, that would mean no possibility of life or sentience anywhere either...in fact, no cohesion of anything.

But that seems to be assuming a complete absence of physical laws.

Exactly so. If we want to explain how we live in a universe that has physical laws, we can't take the physical laws as a simple given, either. We need to say how they came to be established as 'laws.'

Scientists describe a state like this at the projected end of the universe: they call it "heat death," which means "a state in which all energy is so equally distributed that no possibility of further energy interaction exists or ever will exist." Think of it as being like a thin "soup' of energy, with no part of it less diffused than any other. That's what such a state would be like.

And that is just one of the infinite possibilities of what a "disordered state of things" could be like, is it?

It's the state that things should be in, by all probability. The great surprise is that they are not like that.

I don't suppose I could press you for one or two more, could I?

Of course.

It seems to me that if a load of stuff (enough to fill a universe) is exploded out with colossal force, something is bound to emerge out of it.

When have you seen an explosion produce order?

If you stick a bomb in your car, will it turn from a Fiat into a Mercedes or a Ferrari?

I suppose you would end up with a spread of debris consisting of clumps of stuff here, there and everywhere, and then other more spaced out stuff, and then areas with no stuff; a bit like what we see when we look out into space, but, of course, you will interpret the results as disorderly if your definition of order is something car shaped. Your analogy suggests that any "state of things" would have to closely resemble the universe we know to qualify as a universe at all.

Well, the real problem with my analogy is that it posits the existence of a car, which is already an ordered entity. Perhaps a better analogy would be to say, "When was the last time you took a bunch of random energy, threw it all up in random space, and got order out of that?" That's a little far from our ordinary experience, whereas seeing things blow up is closer to home.

And what the Big Bang explanation says is that not only did "stuff" blow up, but it was such "stuff" as was so small as to be elemental...and yet it astonishingly "came down" in just the pattern of our incredibly-ordered universe.

[bahman]

I say that.

And you are a scientist?

Yes, I am a scientist and a philosopher.

There is no point prior to the Big Bang.

Like I say: most scientists seem to think that's not plausible. They seem to think they can even name some of the elements and substances that were in play and resulted in the BB. Are you suggesting they don't know about hydrogen, or quark-gluon plasma, or the other things they believe contributed to the BB? Are they making it up when they say they think those things produced the BB?

The hydrogen, quark-gluon plasma, and other things appeared after the Big Bang when the things were cooled down enough.

There are two arguments here: (1) The Big Bang was such that it led to order instead of disorder. Of course, there was no sort of life if the Big Bang led to disorder rather than order. There is however a life, so the Big Bang led to order.

Whoops. That's a logical fallacy. What you're doing is called, "begging the question," there.

I should said two scenarios instead of two arguments.

We can't argue that because there is order, therefore the BB caused it. The other postulate that is still very much alive is that there is order because God created order. So even if we don't know which is true, yet, we can't get a closed conclusion that the BB created order out of the mere observation that there IS order.

But we do know there is order. And we know, from every experience we ourselves have, that explosions do not create order but disorder. So we need some explanation of how the BB, contrary to every other case of random explosions, could create order.

Well, I am claiming that the Big Bang can lead to order or disorder. The universe is ordered therefore the second scenario is out of the table. Moreover, if we believe that God caused the Big Bang, then it follows that such a state which leads to an ordered universe is possible. Therefore, there could be a Big Bang without God's intervention that could lead to an ordered universe as well.

That is one possibility we cannot exclude. (2) The universe is vast so there are disordered areas whereas there are ordered areas. We are living in an ordered area, the place where life can take place.

Actually, we CAN exclude that explanation, for a couple of reasons. One is that there didn't HAVE to be ordered areas in the universe at all. It's a massive surprise, statistically, that there are any anywhere. Disorder can mean and infinite number of types of disorder.

We could have an infinite number of types of orders as well.

And this takes us to the second problem: namely, that positing a very big universe with many things happening in it only means that there is an infinite number of other possibilities. So the chances are infinite against there being any order anywhere.

That does not follow considering my last comment.

You see, you're supposing that order HAD to happen. And that takes for granted that there is a limited number of alternatives. But such is obviously not the case in an infinite situation.

So, the order is possible. Considering my last comments. Moreover, the universe is infinite, therefore it is possible to have a small area that is ordered even if I buy your assumption that types of disorder are infinite and the types of order are finite.

So we're back to the basic problem: why is there any order at all, when, in fact, we should expect no order -- far less the extreme level of order and complexity to produce a universe, and one containing life, and one containing intelligent life, and one containing life capable of observing it and asking the question we're asking. The odds against your theory being right would be...what's the word? "Astronomical."

It is too early to conclude that God made it.

Please don't forget to reply to this.

[Immanuel Can]

The Big Bang was not an explosion.

Really? Funny...everybody I know, including all the scientists I've heard talk about it, say that's exactly what it was.

It is not funny at all.

It's "funny" in the sense of "odd."

It was a very dense form of energy that gradually got cold.

"Dense energy"? What? "Gradually got cold?" How? That set of words doesn't even add up.

It got colder as it expanded.

Ah...something "caused it" to get colder? Then it wasn't the First Cause...whatever caused it to cool was the First Cause...or whatever caused that to cause the BB's "dense energy" to cool...

And was this under random factors, or was something "causing" it to happen that way? Because if it wasn't random, then it was caused by some prior forces, and the BB isn't the First Cause at all.

The expansion happened naturally.

In the natural world, the things that happen are caused. So something "caused" it?

This isn't adding up at all.

[Immanuel Can]

And you are a scientist?

Yes, I am a scientist and a philosopher.

If you say so...

The hydrogen, quark-gluon plasma, and other things appeared after the Big Bang when the things were cooled down enough.

What exploded, then?

Whoops. That's a logical fallacy. What you're doing is called, "begging the question," there.

We can't argue that because there is order, therefore the BB caused it. The other postulate that is still very much alive is that there is order because God created order. So even if we don't know which is true, yet, we can't get a closed conclusion that the BB created order out of the mere observation that there IS order.

But we do know there is order. And we know, from every experience we ourselves have, that explosions do not create order but disorder. So we need some explanation of how the BB, contrary to every other case of random explosions, could create order.

Well, I am claiming that the Big Bang can lead to order or disorder.

I understand that an explosion can lead to disorder. I'm unfamiliar with any, ever, that produced order. Can you give me an example of some explosion other than the alleged BB that had such a result?

The universe is ordered therefore the second scenario is out of the table.

Question-begging. You can't argue that because things are ordered, God couldn't have created them, and the BB could have. You need to show that the BB did, in fact, produce order.

Actually, we CAN exclude that explanation, for a couple of reasons. One is that there didn't HAVE to be ordered areas in the universe at all. It's a massive surprise, statistically, that there are any anywhere. Disorder can mean and infinite number of types of disorder.

We could have an infinite number of types of orders as well.

Actually, no: as any number of scientists in multiple fields (including biology, cosmology, physics, genetics, chemistry) have repeatedy pointed out, the possible range of life-permiting and even universe-permiting variables is incredibly small. So small, in fact, that no gambler would ever invest on such astronomically remote odds.

You see, you're supposing that order HAD to happen. And that takes for granted that there is a limited number of alternatives. But such is obviously not the case in an infinite situation.

So, the order is possible.

No. It means it's infinitely unlikely that there would be ANY order in ANY universe...although there really is only one universe that we know anything about, which is this one. We don't even know what it means to say that another universe could even exist. Where would one put it?

So we're back to the basic problem: why is there any order at all, when, in fact, we should expect no order -- far less the extreme level of order and complexity to produce a universe, and one containing life, and one containing intelligent life, and one containing life capable of observing it and asking the question we're asking. The odds against your theory being right would be...what's the word? "Astronomical."

It is too early to conclude that God made it.

To early?

You're right: it is. We haven't even launched into such a proof yet. But it's not too early to conclude that randomness did not make it: the astronomical odds against it make that proposition utterly implausible.

[bahman]

Really? Funny...everybody I know, including all the scientists I've heard talk about it, say that's exactly what it was.

It is not funny at all.

It's "funny" in the sense of "odd."

"Dense energy"? What? "Gradually got cold?" How? That set of words doesn't even add up.

It got colder as it expanded.

Ah...something "caused it" to get colder? Then it wasn't the First Cause...whatever caused it to cool was the First Cause...or whatever caused that to cause the BB's "dense energy" to cool...

And was this under random factors, or was something "causing" it to happen that way? Because if it wasn't random, then it was caused by some prior forces, and the BB isn't the First Cause at all.

The expansion happened naturally.

In the natural world, the things that happen are caused. So something "caused" it?

This isn't adding up at all.

High temperature means high pressure as well so the hot stuff would expand if it is possible to reduce pressure. As simple as that.