iNow Posted June 28, 2021 Share Posted June 28, 2021 Just now, Holmes said: I have no idea why you make such a remark So, you’re incredulous? Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted June 28, 2021 Share Posted June 28, 2021 6 minutes ago, Holmes said: Well disguise implies a conscious intent and there is none. Yes, it is variation of the argument from contingency I suppose but it is emphasizing how we can reasonably, rationally infer the supernatural from what we know about the universe. I'm not aware that the claim there are "uncaused events" is falsifiable, I see no reason to accept this belief as true. Well it is what quantum mechanics seems to tell us about the nature of the world. So it is the state-of-the-art model, at least. So, anyway, I'm glad to have got this clear: you are essentially putting forward the good old First Cause cosmological argument for God. The objections to that will be the usual ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmes Posted June 28, 2021 Share Posted June 28, 2021 Just now, exchemist said: Well it is what quantum mechanics seems to tell us about the nature of the world. So it is the state-of-the-art model, at least. So, anyway, I'm glad to have got this clear: you are essentially putting forward the good old First Cause cosmological argument for God. The objections to that will be the usual ones. It is the objections to the alternative argument that we should be mindful of if we are truly trying to apply scientific rigor. How can you show if some event was caused or not, I'm still waiting for an answer to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted June 28, 2021 Share Posted June 28, 2021 2 minutes ago, Holmes said: I have no idea why you make such a remark, you replied to my remark that I see no evidence that are uncaused events, if there's no evidence then I won't have reason to believe the claim will I. How can you tell if an event is uncaused? It is what the theory predicts and observation is in line with that prediction. So we have evidence that it is uncaused. We don't have proof of course, because we are doing science and science does not deal in proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmes Posted June 28, 2021 Share Posted June 28, 2021 (edited) 4 minutes ago, exchemist said: It is what the theory predicts and observation is in line with that prediction. How can one predict that an uncaused event will occur? if it is predictable then it must have a cause and that cause will be embodied in the process you used to make the prediction. Quote So we have evidence that it is uncaused. We don't have proof of course, because we are doing science and science does not deal in proof. I must disagree to claim there are events possible which are uncaused and then at the same time claim these can be predicted is - I'm sorry to tell you - paradoxical. Perhaps you're presenting an argument for telepathy, are you? Edited June 28, 2021 by Holmes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted June 28, 2021 Share Posted June 28, 2021 What the heck is an 'uncaused event' please ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted June 28, 2021 Share Posted June 28, 2021 Just now, Holmes said: How can one predict that an uncaused event will occur? if it is predictable then it must have a cause and that cause will be embodied in the process you used to make the prediction. I must disagree to claim there are events possible which are uncaused and then at the same time claim these can be predicted is - I'm sorry to tell you - paradoxical. In QM, the probability of events is predicted, but the actual occurrence of the individual events themselves cannot be. That's not too hard to grasp, surely? In QM there are fundamental limits to how much can be known about systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmes Posted June 28, 2021 Share Posted June 28, 2021 (edited) 4 minutes ago, exchemist said: In QM, the probability of events is predicted, but the actual occurrence of the individual events themselves cannot be. That's not too hard to grasp, surely? In QM there are fundamental limits to how much can be known about systems. So you're conflating unpredictability with an absence of causality. Tell me - because we cannot predict tomorrow's weather in my yard does that prove there is no cause for that weather? Edited June 28, 2021 by Holmes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted June 28, 2021 Share Posted June 28, 2021 Just now, Holmes said: So you're conflating unpredictability with an absence of causality. No. I think 'to uncause' does not refer to an absence, but to some undoing process as in undoing a shoelace. Ie it necessitates at least two processes, the original causative one and the uncausing one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmes Posted June 28, 2021 Share Posted June 28, 2021 (edited) 1 minute ago, studiot said: No. I think 'to uncause' does not refer to an absence, but to some undoing process as in undoing a shoelace. Ie it necessitates at least two processes, the original causative one and the uncausing one. Consider: I agree with this person's reasoning. Edited June 28, 2021 by Holmes example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted June 28, 2021 Share Posted June 28, 2021 1 minute ago, Holmes said: Consider: I have but I see no connection whatsoever. In particular the word uncause is not defined, nor even mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted June 28, 2021 Share Posted June 28, 2021 Just now, Holmes said: Consider: He's talking about something else here, namely faster than light/backwards in time influences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmes Posted June 28, 2021 Share Posted June 28, 2021 Just now, studiot said: I have but I see no connection whatsoever. In particular the word uncause is not defined, nor even mentioned. You'll need to take this up with exchemist because he wrote: Quote So we have evidence that it is uncaused. 1 minute ago, exchemist said: He's talking about something else here, namely faster than light/backwards in time influences. I'm still waiting for an answer, here's a more succinct question for you: How can we distinguish between an unpredictable event that is caused and an unpredictable event that isn't caused? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted June 28, 2021 Share Posted June 28, 2021 (edited) @exchemist is radioactive decay (or similar vacuum field fluctuations) what you had in mind? Either way, Holmes has suggested it’s impossible for something to lack cause (then with an abundant lack of self-awareness hypocritically asserts next that supernatural explanations don’t require causes), but to prove him wrong we don’t need examples of uncaused events, only a demonstration that they are possible. The possibility alone refutes his specious reasoning. Edited June 28, 2021 by iNow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted June 28, 2021 Share Posted June 28, 2021 3 minutes ago, Holmes said: You'll need to take this up with exchemist because he wrote: I'm still waiting for an answer, here's a more succinct question for you: How can we distinguish between an unpredictable event that is caused and an unpredictable event that isn't caused? You're "still waiting", for all of five whole minutes? I'm touched that you hang on my every word, but I'm afraid I do have to attend to some other things besides your posts. I won't keep you in suspense longer than I have to. Stay calm. 4 minutes ago, iNow said: @exchemist is radioactive decay (or similar vacuum field fluctuations) what you had in mind? Yes. 18 minutes ago, Holmes said: You'll need to take this up with exchemist because he wrote: I'm still waiting for an answer, here's a more succinct question for you: How can we distinguish between an unpredictable event that is caused and an unpredictable event that isn't caused? Which question do want me to answer, then? I'm not doing both, because I have no intention of getting Gish Galloped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted June 28, 2021 Share Posted June 28, 2021 21 minutes ago, Holmes said: How can we distinguish between an unpredictable event that is caused and an unpredictable event that isn't caused? You would first have to define the term event. When you do this please bear in mind that this is the (scientific aspects of) religion section. 18 minutes ago, exchemist said: 22 minutes ago, iNow said: @exchemist is radioactive decay (or similar vacuum field fluctuations) what you had in mind? Yes. I thought so. Radioactivity is random, but occurs on account of a cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmes Posted June 28, 2021 Share Posted June 28, 2021 (edited) 8 minutes ago, studiot said: When you do this please bear in mind that this is the (scientific aspects of) religion section. Yes I know. 25 minutes ago, exchemist said: You're "still waiting", for all of five whole minutes? I'm touched that you hang on my every word, but I'm afraid I do have to attend to some other things besides your posts. I won't keep you in suspense longer than I have to. Stay calm. Yes. Which question do want me to answer, then? Hmm, yes there are several now. Quote I'm not doing both, because I have no intention of getting Gish Galloped. Lets do this one: How can one predict that an uncaused event will occur? If it is predictable then it must have a cause and that cause will be embodied in the process you used to make the prediction. Edited June 28, 2021 by Holmes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted June 28, 2021 Share Posted June 28, 2021 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Holmes said: Yes I know. People often confuse randomness, causation, enablement, concidence and a few other things. However none of these have the strength of mathematical 'necessary and sufficient'. Edited June 28, 2021 by studiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted June 28, 2021 Share Posted June 28, 2021 7 minutes ago, Holmes said: Yes I know. Hmm, yes there are several now. Lets do this one: How can one predict that an uncaused event will occur? If it is predictable then it must have a cause and that cause will be embodied in the process you used to make the prediction. Yes this is true to an extent. But, to take the radioactive decay example, we can predict that a radioactive nucleus will decay, due to a cause - its instability - that we are aware of. We even know what prompts the decay of an individual nucleus (vacuum fluctuations). But we can never predict when an individual nucleus will decay, because these vacuum fluctuations are random. There is no cause for an individual fluctuation. They just happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted June 28, 2021 Share Posted June 28, 2021 18 minutes ago, studiot said: Radioactivity is random, but occurs on account of a cause. Not necessarily. Unless you can very clearly explain that cause, then the underlying cause of radioactive decay is best described as presently unknown. It is that unknown status which immediately renders moot our friends core premise that “everything has a cause.” We’ve highlighted at least one example where that assertion cannot be validated. We can only correctly say that the cause of radioactive decay (and other phenomena like virtual particles) is indeterminate… unless, of course, we’re willing to treat assumptions as facts, but I suspect neither of us are onboard with that… and that indeterminate status strikes directly against the validity of the premise which is central to his entire house of cards. And that’s before we get to the composition fallacy and special pleading and related other logical fallacies he applies to the supernatural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted June 28, 2021 Share Posted June 28, 2021 2 hours ago, Holmes said: That's right and I think quite obvious when you carefully think about it. How can there be a naturalistic process for the origin of the universe when there can be no such processes until something exists? until laws, matter, fields exist? There can't. Can't there? Of course there can! The problem simply is that at this time in our evolutionary process, we as yet have no observational/experimental evidence but can logically speculate without any need to resort to some unscientific magical supernatural nonsense.....you may like this..... So perhaps our problem is simply what "nothing" really is. Perhaps the quantum foam can be redefined as nothing...at least its pretty damn close to nothing, and far more likeley then any unscientific supernatural nonsense, that if one wants to be truly objective, simply complicates things even more: Carl answers that admirably in the following...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joigus Posted June 29, 2021 Share Posted June 29, 2021 Dear @Holmes, Previously you said that the universe must have an initial cause. How do you know the causal connections --whenever they occur-- do not respond to a pattern like a looping structure, with no beginning, and no end? About causeless things, an example: Hurricanes happen. But there is no way you can trace back the cause of the hurricane, or any significant cluster of causes. There just isn't a enunciable --let alone predictable-- series of events that caused it. I hope that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmes Posted June 29, 2021 Share Posted June 29, 2021 15 hours ago, beecee said: Can't there? Of course there can! The problem simply is that at this time in our evolutionary process, we as yet have no observational/experimental evidence but can logically speculate without any need to resort to some unscientific magical supernatural nonsense.....you may like this..... So perhaps our problem is simply what "nothing" really is. Perhaps the quantum foam can be redefined as nothing...at least its pretty damn close to nothing, and far more likeley then any unscientific supernatural nonsense, that if one wants to be truly objective, simply complicates things even more: Carl answers that admirably in the following...... You now cite Krauss of all people? "A universe from nothing"? this is pop-science and Krauss has been rightly dragged over the coals for his shenanigans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted June 29, 2021 Share Posted June 29, 2021 7 minutes ago, Holmes said: You now cite Krauss of all people? "A universe from nothing"? this is pop-science and Krauss has been rightly dragged over the coals for his shenanigans. Yes I rather agree with you about that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmes Posted June 29, 2021 Share Posted June 29, 2021 (edited) 12 hours ago, joigus said: Dear @Holmes, Previously you said that the universe must have an initial cause. How do you know the causal connections --whenever they occur-- do not respond to a pattern like a looping structure, with no beginning, and no end? About causeless things, an example: Hurricanes happen. But there is no way you can trace back the cause of the hurricane, or any significant cluster of causes. There just isn't a enunciable --let alone predictable-- series of events that caused it. I hope that helps. My position is that material quantities must exist in order for material processes to operate. A scientific explanation for anything at all therefore must presuppose the presence of material quantities. In the absence of material quantities no processes could occur, if they did then obviously the system does in fact have material properties. Take any scientific theory, lets say a neat mathematical theory, look at it, it has axioms and refers to material quantities, it presupposes their existence. The point is we cannot say this or that is the result of naturalistic, material activities unless there is an already existing physical realm, in the absence of material and laws nothing can ever happen (and if something did happen then there was not in fact an absence of matter/law in the first place). One cannot invoke science and scientific explanations to explain how such things are possible. PS: Must you append sarcastic remarks at the end of your posts? 8 minutes ago, exchemist said: Yes I rather agree with you about that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing There are many vocal critics of Krauss and his pseudo scientific claims that hide inside his otherwise well informed tomes. See: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html Edited June 29, 2021 by Holmes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts