Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

Talking about pre-existing the Big Bang is wrong.

Actually, as I showed you, it's what scientists are doing all the time.

There is no point before the Big Bang.

According to science, yes, there was. Here's an example, from the U of Buffalo:

"Prior to the Big Bang — yes, before the Big Bang — the universe underwent a breathtaking cosmic expansion, doubling in size at least 80 times in a fraction of a second. This rapid inflation, fueled by a mysterious form of energy that permeated empty space itself, left the universe desolate and cold.

Only after that did the hot, dense conditions of the Big Bang emerge: As the doubling of the universe ceased, the energy of the vacuum underwent a metamorphosis, transforming into particles of matter and radiation. That metamorphosis flooded space with the superhot plasma of the Big Bang, which forged the primordial elements that went on to make the stars and galaxies we see today."


Now, this isn't a very good explanation of the events, I'll admit: did you notice that they START their discussion with "the universe" already in existence? So it means they're not even TRYING to locate any First Cause, but skipping that whole task. Still, it's very clear that these scientists are saying that "mysterious forms of energy" came not only before the BB, but also before any "hot, dense conditions" of matter, from which the BB itself is supposed to have emerged.

In any case, this sort of explanation is not at all unusual for proponents of BB theory. And your view is one that they actually reject, I'm sorry to have to tell you. But you can find that out for yourself, too. You'll find no end of cosmologists saying that the view that the BB was the first event in the universe is incorrect.

They are wrong as I stated several times.

Well, you disagree with the scientists, I guess. And that doesn't mean they're right, of course, because scientists can be driven by bad theories or bad ideology, just as anybody can: but it does mean that what you are suggesting is not believed by the vast majority of scientists.

[Immanuel Can]

Abraham is a character in a religious epic story and in this sense a character in a novel.

The recognition that Abraham is a historical figure is not unusual at all, and is believed by Jews, Muslims and Christians. He was certainly very unlikely to have been fabricated, and certainly not as a "novel": literary form "novel" wasn't even invented until the late 18th and early 19th Centuries, in England.

[bahman]

Talking about pre-existing the Big Bang is wrong.

Actually, as I showed you, it's what scientists are doing all the time.

According to science, yes, there was. Here's an example, from the U of Buffalo:

"Prior to the Big Bang — yes, before the Big Bang — the universe underwent a breathtaking cosmic expansion, doubling in size at least 80 times in a fraction of a second. This rapid inflation, fueled by a mysterious form of energy that permeated empty space itself, left the universe desolate and cold.

Only after that did the hot, dense conditions of the Big Bang emerge: As the doubling of the universe ceased, the energy of the vacuum underwent a metamorphosis, transforming into particles of matter and radiation. That metamorphosis flooded space with the superhot plasma of the Big Bang, which forged the primordial elements that went on to make the stars and galaxies we see today."


Now, this isn't a very good explanation of the events, I'll admit: did you notice that they START their discussion with "the universe" already in existence? So it means they're not even TRYING to locate any First Cause, but skipping that whole task. Still, it's very clear that these scientists are saying that "mysterious forms of energy" came not only before the BB, but also before any "hot, dense conditions" of matter, from which the BB itself is supposed to have emerged.

In any case, this sort of explanation is not at all unusual for proponents of BB theory. And your view is one that they actually reject, I'm sorry to have to tell you. But you can find that out for yourself, too. You'll find no end of cosmologists saying that the view that the BB was the first event in the universe is incorrect.

They are wrong as I stated several times.

Well, you disagree with the scientists, I guess. And that doesn't mean they're right, of course, because scientists can be driven by bad theories or bad ideology, just as anybody can: but it does mean that what you are suggesting is not believed by the vast majority of scientists.

And I argued that talking about the pre-Big-Bang is wrong since we still don't have a quantum theory that explains the singularity. By the way, why you didn't reply to my other comments?

[Harbal]

But why are there things, and why are there "laws"? By all expectations, there ought to neither -- just random atoms, drifting in a vacuum. What made these things organize at all? That's what the real explanation has to explain.

We don't know why there are things and why there are laws, and I have no idea on what you base your expectation that there should be neither. When we don't know something, we are not entitled to fill that empty space with whatever we like.

No, of course not. But if we claim we have some explanation of the First Cause, we can't just go and beg off the question, either, by saying, "I don't know."

I don't claim to have an explanation for the "first cause", I don't even know there was a first cause; I freely admit to not knowing. You are the one who says he has an explanation for the first cause, but then goes on to make a claim that is no explanation at all. When you say God was the first cause, you are explaining absolutely nothing.

That might be true: but it's an admission of having NO explanation AT ALL, not of having one better or more plausible than believing in God.

"God" is not an explanation, God is what you resort to as some sort of exemption from having to provide an explanation.

So it doesn't warrant anything close to Atheism. Maybe a benign agnostic stance...no more.

This "Atheism" stunt you keep trying to pull is getting really tiresome now. If you had a decent argument, you wouldn't need to resort to such underhand tricks.

You have a similar phenomenon with the COVID "crisis," the one that turned out to be such a fake and overreaction. People who wanted to promote COVID fear claimed we had to "listen to the science," and in their retelling of the story, "science" wanted us to mask, not to see each other, and to surrender our privacy to the authorities in myriad ways. And fools that we all were, we did it...because "Science"!

And I think it was the right thing to do, but this is nothing to do with the matter in hand. Can we proceed, or would you like to take the opportunity to voice your opinion on transsexuality, or any other prejudice you might have that has nothing to do with the topic of discussion?

So when somebody says, "science says X," we need to be sure that it's really science speaking, and not merely what-ideologues-would-like-to-use-science-to-say.

I believe I am as capable of telling the difference as you are.

I don't know your grounds for making that claim,

Very simple. The alternate universe hypothesis isn't science at all. Not by any normal definition of science, that is.

Science requires evidence, empirical stuff, testing, access to data: but the AU hypothesis has zero of that. It's 100% speculative. It's a "what if" story.

It's a scientific hypothesis, and it is a long established practice among scientists to come up with such things from time to time. Sometimes they lead to nothing, and sometimes they precede important scientific discoveries. This particular hypothesis may turn out to be wrong, who knows, but in the meantime it seems to be looked on as credible by a significant portion of the scientific community. I suggest you let the matter drop, as your efforts are convincing no one.

But I don't really find it aggitating at all, actually.

No, of course not, you obviously treat it with almost the same complacency as the theory of evolution.

I just point out that it's silly to take it seriously,

Yes, I think the same about God and the Bible.

My one and only issue with it is that some people who don't realize that, and who buy into the "science" buzz the hypothesizers put around it, trust it to be their escape from having to think about God;

Not thinking about God is nowhere near as difficult as you seem to think; it certainly requires no strategy.

and that's unfortunate for them, in pretty significant ways, of course.

Your response to people not believing in God strongly suggests it is more unfortunate for you than for them.

[Immanuel Can]

And I argued that talking about the pre-Big-Bang is wrong since we still don't have a quantum theory that explains the singularity. By the way, why you didn't reply to my other comments?

Because they didn't make a whole lot of sense to me, honestly. Quantum theory, without a whole lot of further explanation, won't tell us anything about the origins of the universe; and the Singularity (according to the scientists) isn't the Big Bang.

So there was not much to say about all that.

[bahman]

And I argued that talking about the pre-Big-Bang is wrong since we still don't have a quantum theory that explains the singularity. By the way, why you didn't reply to my other comments?

Because they didn't make a whole lot of sense to me, honestly.

I found it very disturbing that you ignored my other comments, honestly. To me, they make the whole sense.

Quantum theory, without a whole lot of further explanation, won't tell us anything about the origins of the universe;

It would if we had the theory. It is necessary since the theory deals with a very small scale without it we are ignorant of the singularity.

and the Singularity (according to the scientists) isn't the Big Bang.

To me it is.

So there was not much to say about all that.

Ok, perhaps I push you too far that you prefer ignorance over accepting a feasible scenario.

[Immanuel Can]

And I argued that talking about the pre-Big-Bang is wrong since we still don't have a quantum theory that explains the singularity. By the way, why you didn't reply to my other comments?

Because they didn't make a whole lot of sense to me, honestly.

I found it very disturbing that you ignored my other comments, honestly. To me, they make the whole sense.

Be less disturbed. A person cannot know how to comment on things that appear to be wildly off point.

Quantum theory, without a whole lot of further explanation, won't tell us anything about the origins of the universe;

It would if we had the theory.

Ah, the prophetic promise, that what we don't know now will surely be known by some magical means in the future.

Maybe not. Our ignorance of things does not make an argument that the answer you propose can work at all; and it certainly doesn't work today.

and the Singularity (according to the scientists) isn't the Big Bang.

To me it is.

Well, okay. You disagree with the scientists. What do you want me to say about that?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Abraham is a character in a religious epic story and in this sense a character in a novel.

The recognition that Abraham is a historical figure is not unusual at all, and is believed by Jews, Muslims and Christians. He was certainly very unlikely to have been fabricated, and certainly not as a "novel": literary form "novel" wasn't even invented until the late 18th and early 19th Centuries, in England.

First, you should stop responding to what I write. I write in relation to you but not to debate with you.

What you actually are saying goes like this (I too can color-code!):

It could be that Abraham is a fictional figure, or that he is an embellished historical figure, but as you know I am a Bible literalist and take everything reported in it as absolute fact. You say it is not a *history* but I believe it is a history.

I also want you to know (I guess I understand that you do know) that as far as my belief-system goes, I do not have a choice but to believe Abraham, and all Bible characters, are real as reported. Can't you see that?!? Why must you torment me?

If I agreed with you that Abraham is fictional, then the conversation God (my Demiurge as you sadistically put it) had with Abraham would need to be see as an invention, as a fiction. How could I grant that this conversation was a fiction when everything depends on it? If I granted you that, then where would the process stop? I would then (logically) have to proceed to admit that a great deal -- possibly all -- in the Bible narratives is concocted by that *priest-class* you keep referring to.

Can't you just leave me alone!?!

[bahman]

Because they didn't make a whole lot of sense to me, honestly.

I found it very disturbing that you ignored my other comments, honestly. To me, they make the whole sense.

Be less disturbed. A person cannot know how to comment on things that appear to be wildly off point.

They were not off point. I was right on the spot. In fact, you first accept the existence of two scenarios. I don't know what happened to you when you realized that you cannot exclude the scenario you don't like. Do you have any explanation?

Quantum theory, without a whole lot of further explanation, won't tell us anything about the origins of the universe;

It would if we had the theory.

Ah, the prophetic promise, that what we don't know now will surely be known by some magical means in the future.

It is not prophetic. It is common sense. If you want to discuss a regime that which everything that exists is so small then you need a proper theory that is valid in that regime. The current theory of gravity is just not appropriate to discuss the singularity.

Maybe not. Our ignorance of things does not make an argument that the answer you propose can work at all; and it certainly doesn't work today.

We don't need the quantum theory of gravity to understand what I propose is a feasible scenario.

and the Singularity (according to the scientists) isn't the Big Bang.

To me it is.

Well, okay. You disagree with the scientists. What do you want me to say about that?

That they are wrong. We don't have any data pre-Big-Bang nor a theory that tells us how things were at Big Bang so we cannot say anything before the Big Bang.

[promethean75]

Exactly, AJ!

Becuz expecting any reasonable person to believe some dude thousands of years ago had a conversation with god, would be preposterous, and god cannot be preposterous, it logically follows that god would not expect anyone to believe it.

Now we are not excluding the possibility of an existing 'god' yet - whatever that 'god' might be - but we are excluding the possibility of that one existing. We know that if a 'god' exists, it wouldn't be one that expected u to believe those events [pick your favorite] in the Bible took place.

[Immanuel Can]

Can't you just leave me alone!?!

Heh. I'm about as concerned about you as one would be concerned about a housefly, actually.

[Immanuel Can]

I found it very disturbing that you ignored my other comments, honestly. To me, they make the whole sense.

Be less disturbed. A person cannot know how to comment on things that appear to be wildly off point.

They were not off point.

I can't see that you were not. It seems to me you're out of step with what people are actually saying about that, and about the role the BB plays in the various theories.

It would if we had the theory.

Ah, the prophetic promise, that what we don't know now will surely be known by some magical means in the future.

It is not prophetic.

Well, not genuinely so, of course; but it sure is an attempt at predicting that answers we don't have will magically appear.

Maybe not. Our ignorance of things does not make an argument that the answer you propose can work at all; and it certainly doesn't work today.

We don't need the quantum theory of gravity to understand what I propose is a feasible scenario.

I don't find it "feasible," nor, apparently does the scientific community at large. But okay.

We don't have any data pre-Big-Bang

It's worse than that: we don't even have direct empirical proof of even the BB itself, nor of whatever conditions pertained for (putatively) billions of years following that. But what today's scientists try to do is to deduce the elements that contributed to the BB from their residues in the present, and from their manifest possible effects on our current state. It's not the best method, but it's all that's possible to them, and it's not really so bad...after all, there really ought to be residual effects for us to observe to day if something like the BB happened.

But we seem stuck here. You have a non-scientific theory that makes the BB the First Cause. Okay. What do you want me to do with that?

[bahman]

Be less disturbed. A person cannot know how to comment on things that appear to be wildly off point.

They were not off point.

I can't see that you were not. It seems to me you're out of step with what people are actually saying about that, and about the role the BB plays in the various theories.

You failed to end an honest discussion.

Ah, the prophetic promise, that what we don't know now will surely be known by some magical means in the future.

It is not prophetic.

Well, not genuinely so, of course; but it sure is an attempt at predicting that answers we don't have will magically appear.

Did you understand my whole argument about the fact that we need the quantum theory of gravity if we want to deal with singularity?

Maybe not. Our ignorance of things does not make an argument that the answer you propose can work at all; and it certainly doesn't work today.

We don't need the quantum theory of gravity to understand what I propose is a feasible scenario.

I don't find it "feasible," nor, apparently does the scientific community at large. But okay.

The scientific community is trying its best to explain things instead of saying that God did it!

We don't have any data pre-Big-Bang

It's worse than that: we don't even have direct empirical proof of even the BB itself, nor of whatever conditions pertained for (putatively) billions of years following that. But what today's scientists try to do is to deduce the elements that contributed to the BB from their residues in the present, and from their manifest possible effects on our current state. It's not the best method, but it's all that's possible to them, and it's not really so bad...after all, there really ought to be residual effects for us to observe to day if something like the BB happened.

You are apparently very ignorant of what scientist did, what they are doing and what is their plan for the future.

But we seem stuck here. You have a non-scientific theory that makes the BB the First Cause. Okay. What do you want me to do with that?

That is you who are stuck. Instead of being open to accepting that reality might not be what you believe you simply ignore my comments leaving yourself in a state of ignorance. So be it.

[Immanuel Can]

They were not off point.

I can't see that you were not. It seems to me you're out of step with what people are actually saying about that, and about the role the BB plays in the various theories.

You failed to end an honest discussion.

There was nothing more to say. I can't imagine how one "ends" that kind of discussion.

It is not prophetic.

Well, not genuinely so, of course; but it sure is an attempt at predicting that answers we don't have will magically appear.

Did you understand my whole argument about the fact that we need the quantum theory of gravity if we want to deal with singularity?

I don't think YOU understand it. How could anybody else?

We don't need the quantum theory of gravity to understand what I propose is a feasible scenario.

I don't find it "feasible," nor, apparently does the scientific community at large. But okay.

The scientific community is trying its best to explain things instead of saying that God did it!

Well, doing "science" means you don't exclude a hypothesis before you start investigating...unless there's solid evidence it doesn't make sense. If it's a viable postulate, you should investigate it.

We don't have any data pre-Big-Bang

It's worse than that: we don't even have direct empirical proof of even the BB itself, nor of whatever conditions pertained for (putatively) billions of years following that. But what today's scientists try to do is to deduce the elements that contributed to the BB from their residues in the present, and from their manifest possible effects on our current state. It's not the best method, but it's all that's possible to them, and it's not really so bad...after all, there really ought to be residual effects for us to observe to day if something like the BB happened.

You are apparently very ignorant of what scientist did,

Not at all. What I'm saying is obviously true.

There were no scientists present at the BB, no instruments to register the event, and no way to do normal science on it. So they work deductively based on present phenomena, observations, residues and so forth. There's no other way for them to work.

Your theory about the BB being the First Cause is held exclusively by you, it seems. Nobody else seems to think it's feasible. But if I'm wrong about that, show me who else thinks you're right.

[bahman]

I can't see that you were not. It seems to me you're out of step with what people are actually saying about that, and about the role the BB plays in the various theories.

You failed to end an honest discussion.

There was nothing more to say. I can't imagine how one "ends" that kind of discussion.

There was. You just preferred to ignore my comments instead of arguing against them. That tells a lot.

Well, not genuinely so, of course; but it sure is an attempt at predicting that answers we don't have will magically appear.

Did you understand my whole argument about the fact that we need the quantum theory of gravity if we want to deal with singularity?

I don't think YOU understand it. How could anybody else?

Do you understand the difference between classical and quantum regimes?

I don't find it "feasible," nor, apparently does the scientific community at large. But okay.

The scientific community is trying its best to explain things instead of saying that God did it!

Well, doing "science" means you don't exclude a hypothesis before you start investigating...unless there's solid evidence it doesn't make sense. If it's a viable postulate, you should investigate it.

Do you think that God moves Earth around the Sun or this is due to the intrinsical nature of matter?

It's worse than that: we don't even have direct empirical proof of even the BB itself, nor of whatever conditions pertained for (putatively) billions of years following that. But what today's scientists try to do is to deduce the elements that contributed to the BB from their residues in the present, and from their manifest possible effects on our current state. It's not the best method, but it's all that's possible to them, and it's not really so bad...after all, there really ought to be residual effects for us to observe to day if something like the BB happened.

You are apparently very ignorant of what scientist did,

Not at all. What I'm saying is obviously true.

There were no scientists present at the BB, no instruments to register the event, and no way to do normal science on it. So they work deductively based on present phenomena, observations, residues and so forth. There's no other way for them to work.

Your theory about the BB being the First Cause is held exclusively by you, it seems. Nobody else seems to think it's feasible. But if I'm wrong about that, show me who else thinks you're right.

Hawking believed that you could have something out of nothing. I am the one who proposes that the singularity might not be caused.