Is God mute?

[jem]

"In line with the laws physics, the inevitable consequence of uncaused natural forces can be a universe."

that is pure speculation. its less scientific than saying a Tuner did it.


(remember if you try to quote Hawking, his statement is within a multiverse top down cosmology context. )


wow... the lengths you will go to avoid dealing with science.

 

[jem]

lets leave the world of stu's wild speculations and return to what scientists have said..



http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator\

What About God?
....

If the multiverse is the final stage of the Copernican revolution, with our universe but a speck in an infinite megacosmos, where does humanity fit in? If the life-friendly fine-tuning of our universe is just a chance occurrence, something that inevitably arises in an endless array of universes, is there any need for a fine-tuner—for a god?

“I don’t think that the multiverse idea destroys the possibility of an intelligent, benevolent creator,” Weinberg says. “What it does is remove one of the arguments for it, just as Darwin’s theory of evolution made it unnecessary to appeal to a benevolent designer to understand how life developed with such remarkable abilities to survive and breed.”

On the other hand, if there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? “If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”

As for Linde, he is especially interested in the mystery of consciousness and has speculated that consciousness may be a fundamental component of the universe, much like space and time. He wonders whether the physical universe, its laws, and conscious observers might form an integrated whole. A complete description of reality, he says, could require all three of those components, which he posits emerged simultaneously. “Without someone observing the universe,” he says, “the universe is actually dead.”

Yet for all of his boldness, Linde hesitates when I ask whether he truly believes that the multiverse idea will one day be as well established as Newton’s law of gravity and the Big Bang. “I do not want to predict the future,” he answers. “I once predicted my own future. I had a very firm prediction. I knew that I was going to die in the hospital at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow near where I worked. I would go there for all my physical examinations. Once, when I had an ulcer, I was lying there in bed, thinking I knew this was the place where I was going to die. Why? Because I knew I would always be living in Russia. Moscow was the only place in Russia where I could do physics. This was the only hospital for the Academy of Sciences, and so on. It was quite completely predictable.

 

[stu]

Conforming with the laws of physics and natural forces is....

pure speculation

 

[Piptaker]

Correct, you are posting waffle

You are supposed to be defining the word morality not the words true or right.

Here I'll do it for you from your source..
Morality
1 Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/morality

That means morality is the outcome after a distinction has been made between what is right and true, and what is wrong and false.

More trolling... I allready did.

I think it helps to define them properly first.Morality is the distinction between right and wrong behavior

Correct, you are posting waffle

You are supposed to be defining the word morality not the words true or right.

I would point out, you've not really defined morality until you've defined truth which you based it in.

erm, you brought truth into all this, not me..

 

[Piptaker]

I'll ask you again whose truth? What was true and fact may no longer be true. It used to be considered right behavior, true and moral, for people to keep slaves.

It's considered to be right behavior, true and moral, for the state to kill offenders. In many countries it is not. So again, whose truth?

Thankyou for posting this and illustrating my point exactly..This is the problem with moral relativity. Moral relativity is the main cause of Humanities loss of freedom.
People having the ability to choose subjectively what is right and wrong at any given moment according to their personnel preferences or agendas.

What was true and fact may no longer be true

LOL a fact cannot be changed to a false definitively .

To say a behavior is right or moral at any given moment because it was considered so is ludicrous! Tell that one to the slaves and see what they say about it being right and moral at the time lol

Was it immoral to say the Earth was flat because it turned out not to be flat

You said morality is based in truth and right. So how would not being true or right about the shape of the Earth make anything about that in any way immoral!?

What are you going on about I never mentioned anything about the earth being immoral and what does morality have do with the shape of the earth, wtf?

 

[Piptaker]

do you get points from the troll society for being such a wanker. very little lower than someone who rewrites other quotes and takes them out of context, instead of responding substantively.

Pretty much and I would add liar and obfuscator too, the nut job is going on ignore.

 

[stu]

Correct, more trolling and you managed a full 360 yet again

I defined morality as right behavior which is actions that don't harm and are based in truth.

jeez, Whose right? Whose truth?

Unless you can define absolute right and absolute truth in all circumstances, then you'll need to rationalize them both. THAT is what's called relativism for fks sake.

LOL a fact cannot be changed to a false definitively .

Facts change.
The fact that diamonds are the hardest substance on earth will change definitively to false when something harder is made.
Do you not think about what you type at all?

What are you going on about I never mentioned anything about the earth being immoral and what does morality have do with the shape of the earth, wtf?

It's not my fault you can't follow your own stupid argument.

One minute you attach morality to right behavior based in truth. Then you talk about the Earth not being flat as truth.

As it is you who has connected morality to truth, those who thought it was flat, and who still do, against what is true, ....are they being moral or not?
It is that ridiculous trying to talk of morality being linked to what's right and true as if it made morality absolute.

And having to explain your own defunct arguments back to you simply illustrates the degree to which you obviously haven't or are incapable of thinking your bullshit through.

Thankyou for posting this and illustrating my point exactly..This is the problem with moral relativity. Moral relativity is the main cause of Humanities loss of freedom.

hmmm seems to me if nothing else, history shows not being able to refine by rationalizing what is considered morally acceptable, because someone decrees an absolute, will contribute more than anything to loss of freedom.

People having the ability to choose subjectively what is right and wrong at any given moment according to their personnel preferences or agendas.

People, societies, cultures, have to rationalize, sometimes subjectively, what is right and wrong given what is known or has been learned at the time.
There is no choice because there is no -fits all- absolute right and absolute truth. They cannot be defined that way for all situations.


yeah please do yourself a favor and put me on ignore. It's tiresome pointing out so many flaws in your idiotic comments, especially when you're doing such a good job of making so many.

 

[Piptaker]

Just 2 cents:

1. Truth is also relative, depending on circumstance/environment/situation/timing, and it's temporal, dynamic and subjective. Truth is based on belief/faith. That's why I didn't list truth was important in my last post. Only when one believes in A, then B is true for the situation! However, not for ever. Finding any forever universal truth as many religious believers believe can be waste of time and energy, most often!

2. Truth is absolutely subjective, and merely based on selfish measures by human being standards! Fact is better than truth, but they are very different! Laws are made based on facts, not truths. So many bad laws outdated, to be updated in response to modern living! That's why the highest court needs to make decisions constantly. If static and objective, no high court is required.

3. A thing is true and good to human A can be bad to human B. A thing which is almost universally true and good to most humans can be bad and damaging to certain animal or plant or water or air or environment or the universe we live. Should good or truth be measured by spiritual terms, or monetary terms, or both, or else?

...

Your truth definitions are so messed up it's not funny and to tell you the truth I would say tragic, definitvely....

 

[OddTrader]

The truth is: I was not trying to define what is truth!

Instead, I was merely trying to challenge your statement/definition of truth!

Just 2 cents!

 

[nitro]

Denver Broncos quarterback Mark Sanchez, San Francisco Giants pitcher Jake Peavy and former MLB pitcher Roy Oswalt were cheated out of millions of dollars in what is being described as a “Ponzi-like scheme.”

“Sanchez, and major league baseball pitchers Jake Peavy and Roy Oswalt were defrauded out of about $30 million, according to a recently unsealed U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit in Dallas federal court,” per Matt Robinson of Bloomberg News. “The athletes all used the same broker, Ash Narayan, formerly of RGT Capital Management. The adviser gained their trust through religion and their interest in charitable works, the SEC said.”

The lawsuit alleges that Narayan got through to the athletes by “appealing to their Christian faith.”

Per the SEC, Narayan “fraudulently funneled their savings into a money-losing business and his own pocket” and forged documents to make it all happen.

Representatives of Sanchez, Peavy and Oswalt didn’t respond to requests for comments. Narayan’s attorney Howard Privette however, did.

“Mr. Narayan has always sought to act in his clients’ best interests,” Robinson quoted Privette saying. “Accordingly, he will continue to work with the SEC to ensure that this matter is resolved in the most favorable manner for those clients.”

This is sadly a relatively common story with professional athletes. Given how much money they make, athletes are a common target for schemes like the ones Narayan is alleged to have committed. This is certainly a matter that we’ll hear more about in the coming weeks and months.

Per the SEC, Narayan “fraudulently funneled their savings into a money-losing business and his own pocket” and forged documents to make it all happen...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl...t-of-millions-in-ponzi-like-scheme/ar-AAhppRx