Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Yes. It says they've become incomprehensible. Nobody can figure out how to argue against the incomprehensible.

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?

Please...enlighten me.

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

What an absurd question! I have no idea where you think you're going with that. And I can't even imagine what "the intrinsical nature of matter" is supposed to mean.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Can't you just leave me alone!?!

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

Yes, but that’s the outer you. I work on an inner you of which you are unconscious.

[bahman]

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.

Yes. It says they've become incomprehensible. Nobody can figure out how to argue against the incomprehensible.

They were comprehensible. In fact, you first accepted that there are two scenarios!

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

Do you understand the difference between classical and quantum regimes?

Please...enlighten me.

The classical regime deals with the phenomena on a large scale, like a falling apple, whereas the quantum regime deals with the phenomena on a small scale, such as atoms and the like. The singularity is small scale so talk about spacetime in that regime you need a quantum theory of gravity.

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

What an absurd question! I have no idea where you think you're going with that.

The argument from the motion of Aquinas.

And I can't even imagine what "the intrinsical nature of matter" is supposed to mean.

It means that matter behaves intrinsically based on the laws of nature.

[Immanuel Can]

...you first accepted that there are two scenarios!

Not your particular one, though. I don't understand it...science doesn't understand it...if you claim to understand it, then I guess you're just special.

Do you understand the difference between classical and quantum regimes?

Please...enlighten me.

The classical regime deals with the phenomena on a large scale, like a falling apple, whereas the quantum regime deals with the phenomena on a small scale, such as atoms and the like. The singularity is small scale so talk about spacetime in that regime you need a quantum theory of gravity.

That doesn't explain a single thing. You still can't get the observable complexity of a universe from random elements and an explosion, whether you call it macro or micro-scaled.

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

What an absurd question! I have no idea where you think you're going with that.

The argument from the motion of Aquinas.

I'm not a Thomist. I have no particular affinity with Aquinas. But I still don't know what "intrinsical nature of matter" is supposed to make planets spin around suns. Do you mean gravity?

[Immanuel Can]

I work on an inner you of which you are unconscious.

Umm...yeah...whatever.

Do you ever get tired of posing? It sure is tiresome for the rest of us.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Take it as you wish.

It is your destiny that I *feed you to the lions*. (A multi-layered metaphor).

I am your anti-student and you are my anti-teacher. Normally, the teacher, the dispeller of darkness (guru) is revered. You might think I do not revere you. But it’s anti-reverence. It’s weird: my encounter with you has been like a providential encounter. As if arranged by an acausal connecting principle or “spirit”.

I wait for glowing things to appear in the sky …

You’ve shown me *the heart of fanaticism* and the road that must be transcended.

But it cannot have been you — you cannot teach. You didn’t intend it, but in relation to you it came about.

Through you or facing you squarely — I know, it’s weird — a decade of my own work has (in a sense) been completed. Now, it is clear.

Soon I will begin my World Mission.

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

[bahman]

...you first accepted that there are two scenarios!

Not your particular one, though. I don't understand it...science doesn't understand it...if you claim to understand it, then I guess you're just special.

You don't need to be special to understand it. The singularity just was there at the beginning. It is uncaused. As simple as that.

Please...enlighten me.

The classical regime deals with the phenomena on a large scale, like a falling apple, whereas the quantum regime deals with the phenomena on a small scale, such as atoms and the like. The singularity is small scale so talk about spacetime in that regime you need a quantum theory of gravity.

That doesn't explain a single thing. You still can't get the observable complexity of a universe from random elements and an explosion, whether you call it macro or micro-scaled.

What you are talking about? Again, there was no explosion.

What an absurd question! I have no idea where you think you're going with that.

The argument from the motion of Aquinas.

I'm not a Thomist. I have no particular affinity with Aquinas. But I still don't know what "intrinsical nature of matter" is supposed to make planets spin around suns. Do you mean gravity?

Yes, gravity is the intrinsical property of matter.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

It actually explains the basic existence of everything...that's what we're working on. But all I've said so far is that we can know for certain that there IS a First Cause. I haven't yet tried to show what it is. Instead, I've pointed out only that we have two alternatives, if we want to figure it out: one is something unintelligent and impersonal, such as a 'force' of some kind, and the other is an Intelligence of some kind. And there, I've paused so far.

But Bahman is stuck on an unworkable theory, namely that the Big Bang is the First Cause and itself uncaused. Scientists think there are things that come before and produced the Big Bang, but Bahman just says science is wrong about that. So Bahman has a belief in a universe that is arbitrarily started by an impersonal 'force.' How coherent and plausible his/her belief in that is, you'll have to decide for yourself.

But I suggest that Bahman's explanation is not only unscientific, but is, even by the lowest estimation, nowhere near plausible as an explanation for the level of complexity and sophistication that is evident in our universe, in the form of everything from planetary motion, to biological complexity, to the minute forces within individual atoms.

Bahman seems happy to rest there. But as for you, you'll have to decide whether his/her explanation satisfies you.

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.

It's a very clear case of how people with an agenda often try to use the word "science" to make the opposition shut up, rather than actually being responsive to science themselves. It's a common trick, you'll find. Every rogue likes to call his position "scientific." So it's suitable that when somebody trots out the word "science," we do a little questioning of the truth of their claim.

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.

You probably are. But one has to be alert to the trick.

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...

Sorry, it's not. Not by any normal definition of "science." It's a mere speculation. It won't be anything close to "science" until a test is invented to locate and take measurements from these "universes."

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

And yet...here we are.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Umm...yeah...whatever.

The idea about different levels or avenues of communication is not an unworthy idea to think about. The idea of Logos implies that though it, Logos, exists and is real (Logos is *with God*) a chimpanzee, a dog and frankly many humans, and some part of ourself, cannot hear the message that is there.

So, it is a sound premise that our so-called conscious self could be, and likely is, in a blocked intellectual state. That it could be filled with obstructions. But that inner man, the *child* that the Gospel refers to, is innocent, open, perhaps more transparent.

You seem to me a walking-talking study in blockage. You are extremely forceful in your declared dogmas and these possess your mind. One cannot reason with you. Though innumerable have surely tried.

I introduce symbol-complexes that are received by your inner man, though your outer man waves away an obnoxious housefly and that is how it should be. The stronger the denial, the deeper actual truths can take effect. (See Chaps. 12-23 and Section C in Chapter 55 of the 10 Week Email Course for further exposition.)

Life is very mysterious Immanuel.

[Immanuel Can]

Again, there was no explosion.

No Big Bang? Well, why did you say there was?

I still don't know what "intrinsical nature of matter" is supposed to make planets spin around suns. Do you mean gravity?

Yes, gravity is the intrinsical property of matter.[/quote]
Once again, you've skipped the very first stage of explanation: you've taken for granted that matter already existed, and then appealed to the properties of that matter to explain how any matter exists at all. But you can't use material laws to explain the very existence of matter, because when no matter exists, no material laws can apply either. There's nothing for them to apply to, yet. And that doesn't even get into the prior question of the instantiation of the "laws" themselves.

[bahman]

Again, there was no explosion.

No Big Bang? Well, why did you say there was?

Yes, there was a Big Bang but the Big Bang was not like an explosion instead it was like a rapid expansion.

I still don't know what "intrinsical nature of matter" is supposed to make planets spin around suns. Do you mean gravity?

Yes, gravity is the intrinsical property of matter.

Once again, you've skipped the very first stage of explanation: you've taken for granted that matter already existed, and then appealed to the properties of that matter to explain how any matter exists at all. But you can't use material laws to explain the very existence of matter, because when no matter exists, no material laws can apply either. There's nothing for them to apply to, yet. And that doesn't even get into the prior question of the instantiation of the "laws" themselves.

I don't understand what you are complaining about. I asked whether you believe that God is in charge of moving objects, such as Earth around the Sun, or that is due to the intrinsic nature of matter. I believe that the singularity could exist without a cause and it has some properties, such as pressure, size, and temperature. It naturally expanded as a result of high pressure so the temperature dropped. Elementary particles then had the chance to come into existence...

[Immanuel Can]

Again, there was no explosion.

No Big Bang? Well, why did you say there was?

Yes, there was a Big Bang but the Big Bang was not like an explosion instead it was like a rapid expansion.

An "explosion" IS a "rapid expansion." You're going to need to explain what difference you're trying to indicate here.

Yes, gravity is the intrinsical property of matter.

Once again, you've skipped the very first stage of explanation: you've taken for granted that matter already existed, and then appealed to the properties of that matter to explain how any matter exists at all. But you can't use material laws to explain the very existence of matter, because when no matter exists, no material laws can apply either. There's nothing for them to apply to, yet. And that doesn't even get into the prior question of the instantiation of the "laws" themselves.

I don't understand what you are complaining about.

I'm not complaining. I'm trying to figure out how what you say you believe can make sense. And if our goal is to explain the existence of matter, we can't just assume the existence of matter.

We're talking about what happened between the time there was no matter and the time there was (though "time" is not the right concept, obviously). So there was no "matter," and no "laws" and no "intrinsic properties," because nothing existed yet. Given that, what First Cause would be capable of producing a whole universe of matter, with all its complexities?

That's the question.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I don't understand what you are complaining about. I asked whether you believe that God is in charge of moving objects, such as Earth around the Sun, or that is due to the intrinsic nature of matter. I believe that the singularity could exist without a cause and it has some properties, such as pressure, size, and temperature. It naturally expanded as a result of high pressure so the temperature dropped. Elementary particles then had the chance to come into existence...

You will find that it is mostly impossible to convince a theologically-invested mind to think in non-theological terms. For the theist all things arise with God and from God. Natural laws (gravity, etc.) are God’s handiwork. Behind all phenomena — is the uncaused cause.

Etc. etc. etc.

Just as the Causeless Cause is central to ICs religious philosophy, similarly God’s conversation with Abraham is a fundamental pillar. You can’t remove a pillar and expect the structure to stand. So each pillar must be upheld at all costs!

Carry on of course . . .

[bahman]

No Big Bang? Well, why did you say there was?

Yes, there was a Big Bang but the Big Bang was not like an explosion instead it was like a rapid expansion.

An "explosion" IS a "rapid expansion." You're going to need to explain what difference you're trying to indicate here.

Explosion is defined as a violent shattering or blowing apart of something. It results in randomness. Whereas rapid expansion generally does not lead to randomness.

Once again, you've skipped the very first stage of explanation: you've taken for granted that matter already existed, and then appealed to the properties of that matter to explain how any matter exists at all. But you can't use material laws to explain the very existence of matter, because when no matter exists, no material laws can apply either. There's nothing for them to apply to, yet. And that doesn't even get into the prior question of the instantiation of the "laws" themselves.

I don't understand what you are complaining about.

I'm not complaining. I'm trying to figure out how what you say you believe can make sense. And if our goal is to explain the existence of matter, we can't just assume the existence of matter.

We're talking about what happened between the time there was no matter and the time there was (though "time" is not the right concept, obviously).

I am talking about the point, the Big Bang, that only singularity existed. Singularity is nothing but a very hot dense form of energy that has the potential to turn into matter when it cools down. Matter obviously has properties. And it is due to these properties that we can observe regularity in its motion so-called the laws of nature.

So there was no "matter," and no "laws" and no "intrinsic properties," because nothing existed yet. Given that, what First Cause would be capable of producing a whole universe of matter, with all its complexities?

That's the question.

That is not a correct picture of the Big Bang. Matter didn't come first instead it was mere dense hot energy.