Who Made God?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]deanec wrote:
All valid points in my book, yet still does not answer the question. Majority rules and common ground does not equal morality.[/quote]

I’d say it equals the basis for what is deemed morally acceptable at that time. It can and will change over time, hopefully towards better “morals” and, from that, a generally better quality of life for all involved.

Of course. Total agreement on everything is impossible. Even agreement on larger issues is difficult. You can simply look at the differences in laws among the Western countries, where similar laws can differ widely in the details of their implementation.

Everyone has slightly different values; or rather, have similar values but don’t give them the same “weight” as another might. Even an individual will change as he grows older and has varying life experiences.

Looking for “absolute” morals seems like an impossible ideal to me. At best, we look for the least inconvenient compromise that affords the most freedoms and rights to the most people while keeping those who abuse those freedoms and rights to a minimum.

There are many ways of arriving at that place, and no one way is inherently better than another.

I would argue that our most of our current laws simply reflect majority opinion.

Well, we’re not machines either; we still have emotions, feeling, passions and hates that color our values. A lot of people will hold contradictory positions at the same time without breaking a sweat.

For example, most anti-abortion proponents are also pro-death penalty. Many pro-choice advocates happen to be against the death penalty. That simply shows that different people will value a life differently depending on the situation and their personal values.

Yes, these are interesting questions.

142

[quote]gwann33 wrote:
I might be just a slightly eccentric tennis pro in real life, but everyone that has a physics degree here raise your hands. Hey, my hand is up![/quote]

If you really want to compare degrees, I have a PhD in Physics – from Stanford. I even play quite a bit with our Linear Accelerator. I’ve personally crushed a few atoms.

[quote]gwann33 wrote:

  1. There was NOTHING before the initial moment of the big bang. No energy, no spacetime, definately no matter. Nothing. Time did not exist. This is not an easy concept to wrap your mind around. Let it sink in.[/quote]

That is definitely not the most prevalent theory. However I am very curious where you read that. Please do provide some references that support that theory, since I personally do not know of any.

[quote]gwann33 wrote:
2. Matter and time are most definately interrelated. All mass has an equivalent relativistic energy. Energy distorts spacetime. This distortion is dependent on the density of energy. This distortion is the cause of the gravitational force (according to relativistic theory at least). The degree of the distortion determines the rate at which time passes. [/quote]

You are grasping at straws here. Plus you should know that “relativistic theory” is severely outdated in the gravity department – although special relativity has been proven to be very accurate, general relativity has been found to have more holes than Swiss cheese.

[quote]gwann33 wrote:
Time passes slower the closer you are to any mass. This is a proven and measurable effect. Clocks run measurably slower on the surface of the earth than they do in orbit for instance.[/quote]

That is an effect of curvature of spacetime, and is very different from saying that “time exists BECAUSE of matter”. Again, the direct relationship is between gravity and spacetime – you cannot establish a transient causality of existence relationship like you are between matter and time.

[quote]gwann33 wrote:
You can certainly have spacetime that exists without matter in it. There is some fundamental debate as to whether spacetime can exist totally free of any energy at all.[/quote]

You do realize that the above is in complete contradiction with your initial claim that time exists because of matter, right?

143

[quote]pookie wrote:
deanec wrote:
It is your contention that it is impossible to know, I do not necessarily agree.

Well, one can believe differently, but there is no way of knowing as in providing irrefutable fact that can be independently verified.

Once there, having different people believing in different “moral absolutes” is no different than not having any moral absolutes to begin with.
[/quote]

This is absolutely true, and yet does not invalidate that absolute truth could exist, and that one of these viewpoints is correct.

[quote]
It simply complicates the problem further, as everyone is totally convinced of the rightness of their beliefs.

If you believe in absolute morals handed down from some Divine source, then there’s no way to discuss or compromise or change any of those morals, even if eventually some of them seem “wrong.” There’s no way any believer can claim authority over the Divine source. Hopefully, your Divine source material is contradictory enough that you manage to support new ideas by favoring some parts of it over other, less open-minded parts.

Either way, ones worldview is based upon something, and it can only be “reasonable” to operate within that worldview.

See the end of my previous post for the “something to agree upon” part.[/quote]

And we begin again…“seem wrong” based on what? You are correct in saying a believer holds no authority over a divine source, but a “contradictory” divine source is dichotomous. An incomplete understanding of the divine plan does not invalidate it. I submit that we all have faith, the difference is in where that faith is directed. That does not mean we shouldn’t or can’t get along.

144

[quote]Professor X wrote:
hspder wrote:

…saying “beyond the event horizon” – not…

An Event Horizon is NOT…

…I will continue to use the concept of a pathway when descrigbing an event horizon…
[/quote]

Just so you guys know, recent physics papers have questioned the very existence of the event horizon.

Thoughts about the black hole information paradox have led some physicists (Hawking among them) to suggest that there exists only an “apparent horizon” which allows information to leave the black hole, resolving the paradox but also requiring some revisions to the commonly accepted black hole model.

It’s around that time that Hawking conceded his 1997 bet to Preskill.

145

[quote]deanec wrote:
This is absolutely true, and yet does not invalidate that absolute truth could exist, and that one of these viewpoints is correct.[/quote]

Even if that Absolute Truth exists; if there is no way of knowing it objectively, then there’s no way of showing others that Truth other than converting their beliefs to yours. And we all know how well that usually works.

That’s why I contend that we must operate from the basis that there either is no absolute truth, or, if there is, there is (and won’t be for the foreseeable future) a way of knowing what it is.

Based on what the majority considers morally “right” at the moment.

Unless it’s not Divine to begin with. Let’s avoid that slippery slope for now. :slight_smile:

No, of course it doesn’t mean that. I find that it does tend to complicate matters though; as changes that contradict tenets of a faith are violently opposed.

For example, take the abolition of slavery; there’s no doubt that it took a lot longer to be accepted because the Bible is quite tolerant, even supportive of it, in many passages. A similar situation can be observed with Islam and the way it treats women. The Bible is also quite sexist in almost it’s entirety.

Yet, very few people nowadays think that half the population (women) should be denied rights accorded to the other half (men).

146

[quote]michael2507 wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:

But it’s the parts that overlap that stop the anarvhy. I think.

I’d rather say that ultimately, it’s law that stops anarchy.[/quote]

Nope. I don’t not murder people because of the thought of going to prison, I don’t murder people because my moral code demands that I don’t.

147

[quote]hspder wrote:
If you really want to compare degrees, I have a PhD in Physics – from Stanford. I even play quite a bit with our Linear Accelerator. I?ve personally crushed a few atoms?[/quote]

What are your views on the current state of String Theory? I used to think it was pretty cool, but for the past few years, with the talks about the landscape and the rising popularity of the anthropic principle as a way of selecting the correct vacua, I’m kinda thinking ST might turn out to be a great source of new maths, but with little applicability to further understanding the physical world.

Unfortunately, there seems to be little else in the way of alternatives to ST.

I’d guess that it comes from 1980s-era theory that had space and time both beginning at the Big Bang. You could not ask what was before the Big Bang, because there can’t be a before if Time does not exist. “It’s like asking what’s north of the North Pole…” I believe is the way it was often illustrated.

148

The image above illustrates the concept of Event Horizon pretty well, so I thought I’d put it up.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
It fits even better if we were to start discussing the extreme possibility of worm holes.[/quote]

Wormholes are ring singularities – which are even further from your argument, since – if they do exist – they have no event horizon at all.

Ring singularities are connected to the theories that support the existence of naked singularities, i.e., point singularities without an event horizon at all…

By the way, the point I’m REALLY trying to get across is, quite simply, that absolute statements like “time does not exist inside Black Holes” or “matter causes time” are to be taken very lightly and with a large grain of salt – and never, ever used to prove or really show anything. Basically, we really know very little for sure with regards to how the Universe works, how it started (IF it started, i.e., if there’s really a “beginning of time”), etc… Even though some decades ago everyone was pretty much convinced the Universe was a point singularity before the Big-Bang, today a lot of the same scientists changed their minds and believe it was not a point singularity…

149

[quote]deanec wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
deanec wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
deanec wrote:
I absolutely do not reject that there are other “interpretations” of what is called ethics or morality, and because of the plurality of society in general, this is not surprising. My contention (which I believe you agree with) is that these “interpretations” are nothing more than arbitrary choices based on feelings, experience, etc., of which each individual is necessarily different. If there is no absolute, there can be no justifiable condemnation of any action, because the standard by which it is judged is not absolute.

The standard is not absolute, but each person’s ‘morality’ is valid to that individual and so judgements they make will be valid as well, although not necessarily to others who’s moral radar puts them in opposition to such a judgement or condemnation…

My brain’s hurting…lol

Now I feel as if we are going around in circles.

Sounds like a good recipe for anarchy to me…

Ha ha… Bottom line is…

My morals are valid to me.

Your morals are valid to you.

Osama Bin Laden’s morals are valid to him.

Much of what you believe to be moral will overlap my beliefs but not all. That is the subjectivity of morality.

But it’s the parts that overlap that stop the anarvhy. I think.

Anyway I’m off to do some looting lol…

No, the bottom line is my morals and your morals don’t amount to a pile of manure without an objective baseline to compare them to…

Don’t get shot by some high falutin’ moralist while you are out looting :)[/quote]

But the only thing vaguely like that is the rule of law in whatever country you are in, which tends to reflect the moral ‘overlaps’ of the majority.

And even then, that objective baseline is different in every country - in the US in every state.

150

[quote]pookie wrote:
deanec wrote:
This is absolutely true, and yet does not invalidate that absolute truth could exist, and that one of these viewpoints is correct.

Even if that Absolute Truth exists; if there is no way of knowing it objectively, then there’s no way of showing others that Truth other than converting their beliefs to yours. And we all know how well that usually works.

That’s why I contend that we must operate from the basis that there either is no absolute truth, or, if there is, there is (and won’t be for the foreseeable future) a way of knowing what it is.

And we begin again…“seem wrong” based on what?

Based on what the majority considers morally “right” at the moment.

You are correct in saying a believer holds no authority over a divine source, but a “contradictory” divine source is dichotomous. An incomplete understanding of the divine plan does not invalidate it.

Unless it’s not Divine to begin with. Let’s avoid that slippery slope for now. :slight_smile:

I submit that we all have faith, the difference is in where that faith is directed. That does not mean we shouldn’t or can’t get along.

No, of course it doesn’t mean that. I find that it does tend to complicate matters though; as changes that contradict tenets of a faith are violently opposed.

For example, take the abolition of slavery; there’s no doubt that it took a lot longer to be accepted because the Bible is quite tolerant, even supportive of it, in many passages. A similar situation can be observed with Islam and the way it treats women. The Bible is also quite sexist in almost it’s entirety.

Yet, very few people nowadays think that half the population (women) should be denied rights accorded to the other half (men).
[/quote]

Good discussion. These boards are a lot better when there can be disagreements without a bunch of name calling and nonsense.

Gotta get some work done…later.

151

[quote]deanec wrote:
pookie wrote:
deanec wrote:
It is your contention that it is impossible to know, I do not necessarily agree.

Well, one can believe differently, but there is no way of knowing as in providing irrefutable fact that can be independently verified.

Once there, having different people believing in different “moral absolutes” is no different than not having any moral absolutes to begin with.

This is absolutely true, and yet does not invalidate that absolute truth could exist, and that one of these viewpoints is correct.

It simply complicates the problem further, as everyone is totally convinced of the rightness of their beliefs.

If you believe in absolute morals handed down from some Divine source, then there’s no way to discuss or compromise or change any of those morals, even if eventually some of them seem “wrong.” There’s no way any believer can claim authority over the Divine source. Hopefully, your Divine source material is contradictory enough that you manage to support new ideas by favoring some parts of it over other, less open-minded parts.

Either way, ones worldview is based upon something, and it can only be “reasonable” to operate within that worldview.

See the end of my previous post for the “something to agree upon” part.

And we begin again…“seem wrong” based on what? You are correct in saying a believer holds no authority over a divine source, but a “contradictory” divine source is dichotomous. An incomplete understanding of the divine plan does not invalidate it. I submit that we all have faith, the difference is in where that faith is directed. That does not mean we shouldn’t or can’t get along.

[/quote]

Agree with all you said here. I’ve made a point many times that I do in fact have faith, but directed towards things other than the divine.

Would just add that seeing as we will never in our lifetimes one way or the other with regard to the existence of singular universal truth, we all just do what we can and live by what we feel is right. We cannot prove or disprove it totally and so we make do.

Therefore, and I promise I will only say it one more time… Ta da… Drumroll please… MORALITY IS SUBJECTIVE.

I like these chats. I like it when passions, egos and emotions are put on
the back burner so people can actually gain an insight into how someone else thinks, rather than just dictate to them and try to e-bully them. I thank you for that. It’s getting all too rare.

152

The question is: What’s the basis for your moral code?

153

[quote]hspder wrote:
The image above illustrates the concept of Event Horizon pretty well, so I thought I’d put it up.

Professor X wrote:
It fits even better if we were to start discussing the extreme possibility of worm holes.

Wormholes are ring singularities – which are even further from your argument, since – if they do exist – they have no event horizon at all.

Ring singularities are connected to the theories that support the existence of naked singularities, i.e., point singularities without an event horizon at all…

By the way, the point I’m REALLY trying to get across is, quite simply, that absolute statements like “time does not exist inside Black Holes” or “matter causes time” are to be taken very lightly and with a large grain of salt – and never, ever used to prove or really show anything. Basically, we really know very little for sure with regards to how the Universe works, how it started (IF it started, i.e., if there’s really a “beginning of time”), etc… Even though some decades ago everyone was pretty much convinced the Universe was a point singularity before the Big-Bang, today a lot of the same scientists changed their minds and believe it was not a point singularity…
[/quote]

Where did you read that worm holes have no event horizon? I am asking honestly.

154

[quote]pookie wrote:
The question is: What’s the basis for your moral code?[/quote]

Life experience. Growing up and being hurt. Growing up and hurting others. Learning from that. Wanting to treat people the same as I would have them treat me… See, I told you there was some overlap… :wink:

155

[quote]Professor X wrote:
hspder wrote:
The image above illustrates the concept of Event Horizon pretty well, so I thought I’d put it up.

Professor X wrote:
It fits even better if we were to start discussing the extreme possibility of worm holes.

Wormholes are ring singularities – which are even further from your argument, since – if they do exist – they have no event horizon at all.

Ring singularities are connected to the theories that support the existence of naked singularities, i.e., point singularities without an event horizon at all…

By the way, the point I’m REALLY trying to get across is, quite simply, that absolute statements like “time does not exist inside Black Holes” or “matter causes time” are to be taken very lightly and with a large grain of salt – and never, ever used to prove or really show anything. Basically, we really know very little for sure with regards to how the Universe works, how it started (IF it started, i.e., if there’s really a “beginning of time”), etc… Even though some decades ago everyone was pretty much convinced the Universe was a point singularity before the Big-Bang, today a lot of the same scientists changed their minds and believe it was not a point singularity…

Where did you read that worm holes have no event horizon? I am asking honestly.[/quote]

All this stuff seems fascinating, if a tiny bit over my head. Is there a ‘quantum physics for dummies’ book out there someone can recommend?

156

[quote]deanec wrote:
pookie wrote:
deanec wrote:
This is absolutely true, and yet does not invalidate that absolute truth could exist, and that one of these viewpoints is correct.

Even if that Absolute Truth exists; if there is no way of knowing it objectively, then there’s no way of showing others that Truth other than converting their beliefs to yours. And we all know how well that usually works.

That’s why I contend that we must operate from the basis that there either is no absolute truth, or, if there is, there is (and won’t be for the foreseeable future) a way of knowing what it is.

And we begin again…“seem wrong” based on what?

Based on what the majority considers morally “right” at the moment.

You are correct in saying a believer holds no authority over a divine source, but a “contradictory” divine source is dichotomous. An incomplete understanding of the divine plan does not invalidate it.

Unless it’s not Divine to begin with. Let’s avoid that slippery slope for now. :slight_smile:

I submit that we all have faith, the difference is in where that faith is directed. That does not mean we shouldn’t or can’t get along.

No, of course it doesn’t mean that. I find that it does tend to complicate matters though; as changes that contradict tenets of a faith are violently opposed.

For example, take the abolition of slavery; there’s no doubt that it took a lot longer to be accepted because the Bible is quite tolerant, even supportive of it, in many passages. A similar situation can be observed with Islam and the way it treats women. The Bible is also quite sexist in almost it’s entirety.

Yet, very few people nowadays think that half the population (women) should be denied rights accorded to the other half (men).

Good discussion. These boards are a lot better when there can be disagreements without a bunch of name calling and nonsense.

Gotta get some work done…later.[/quote]
out of curiosity. Would you desire to have our nations laws derived from religious standards? is that what you are suggesting? if not, why do you feel this would be intangible, or un-achievable?

157

[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
michael2507 wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:

But it’s the parts that overlap that stop the anarvhy. I think.

I’d rather say that ultimately, it’s law that stops anarchy.

Nope. I don’t not murder people because of the thought of going to prison, I don’t murder people because my moral code demands that I don’t.
[/quote]

There are others who are only deterred by the thought of punishment, though. Others still aren’t deterred by anything. Without the rule of law and an authority which enforces it, you would lack a framework within which you are able to exert your moral code safely or without experiencing severe disadvantages. I doubt that moral, even the standards which overlap, would be sufficient to prevent anarchy on its own.

158

[quote]michael2507 wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:
michael2507 wrote:
1-packlondoner wrote:

But it’s the parts that overlap that stop the anarvhy. I think.

I’d rather say that ultimately, it’s law that stops anarchy.

Nope. I don’t not murder people because of the thought of going to prison, I don’t murder people because my moral code demands that I don’t.

There are others who are only deterred by the thought of punishment, though. Others still aren’t deterred by anything. Without the rule of law and an authority which enforces it, you would lack a framework within which you are able to exert your moral code safely or without experiencing severe disadvantages. I doubt that moral, even the standards which overlap, would be sufficient to prevent anarchy on its own.[/quote]

Never disputed the need for law as surely it keeps in check those whose morals are way outside the general overlapping framework and hurts other people, in addition to those that do not live up to their own sense of morality.

159

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Where did you read that worm holes have no event horizon? I am asking honestly.[/quote]

OK, to avoid another discussion on semantics, let me first clarify that I was talking specifically about Singularity Event Horizons.

This is important because Event Horizon is actually a very generic term, in the sense that it is not specific to singularities, and can be used on a series of contexts and hence mean different things. In fact, its meaning is changing and/or being questioned like Pookie said.

In the context of Wormholes, things can get very complicated, because since wormholes are purely theoretical (black holes have been observed; wormholes have not, and might even be impossible), definitions are up in the air.

IF, in the context of Traversable Wormholes, you define a type of Even Horizon, what you may be defining is the point where you traverse the wormhole. Hence, by definition they are not a “point of no return” like Singularity Event Horizons are. So they are a different thing based on a slightly different concept.

On the other hand, if you look at Schwarzschild wormholes – which are a black hole on one end and a white hole on the other end, it’s again different, because since they are in fact formed by black holes (theoretically), you have an event horizon that you indeed cannot escape from – so you are stuck INSIDE the wormhole. You cannot really traverse it.

That’s a pretty useless wormhole.

But if you talk about ring singularities – the most widely accepted form of wormholes (they are the ones that require the least exotic matter), but also pretty boring since they don’t really take you very far – they do not have an event horizon.

In fact, as Pookie said, the whole concept of point of no return is actually being questioned.

Some reading material:

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=000998FD-65C6-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7

160

[quote]hspder wrote:
[/quote]

It seems we’re on the same page. You simply knew about more different types of theoretical worm holes. I had always read of those considered to have event horizons and this is often used in sci fi novels. Either way, good discussion.