cause-and-effect: "cause" require evidence too

[F1fan]

Narural laws are universal we know for example that iron doest naturally transforms itself gears

Why didn’t God do it? It took humans and actual intelligence to do it.

Hell even the alloys had to be understood and created by humans. The highly strong steel alloys don’t exist in nature. So God didn’t make them.

 

[Bird123]

From my experiences here at RF, as well as at other forums, I have noticed that some people think they can postulate "cause-and-effect" of some phenomena, without the needs to present empirical physical EVIDENCE of the "cause".

This topic is about the Intelligent Design's faulty uses (and abuses) of "cause-and-effect" scenario.

In sciences, particularly Physical Sciences and Natural Sciences, testing the new hypothesis or existing (scientific) theory require observations of the evidence or of the experiments, regardless if it is the "cause" or the "effect", you would still need evidence for both.

So if you are going to formulate a hypothesis that include "cause-and-effect", then you would need evidence for the "cause" as much as you do with the "effect"...otherwise those advocating for "cause" is nothing more than speculative and highly subjective opinions.

I see YEC creationists do that, and I see Intelligent Design creationists do that too.

They think they can say creation (effect) is created by the Creator (cause), or design (effect) is intelligently designed by the Designer (cause), but are never able show that the cause physically exist, which would require physical evidence to support their claims for some "cause".

Both groups (YEC & ID) frequently used non-scientific sources, and they seemed to love using analogy in their reasoning for the Creator or for the Designer.

But analogy isn't evidence for anything. Using analogy is just comparing one thing to another thing, where they are totally unrelated. Examples, the Watchmaker analogy, the car analogy, computer analogy, the mouse trap analogy, etc.

But in real life, these analogies are faulty, because watches, cars, computer hardware or computer programming, and mouse trap are made by real people, not by some nonexistent invisible spirits, gods or this absurd Designer.

If you want to know who made the design of car's bodywork or the car's engine, then you can actually meet the person, the engineer or the designer, who would have a real job and real place (eg headquarters of car companies), and he or she would have real home, contact number, qualification, family (eg parents), etc.

The Intelligent Designer don't exist physically, so how can something that don't exist be responsible for the design of life on Earth or for the design of the universe?

The "Designer did it", is no better than using the "God did it" adage. It relied on subjective reasoning, which are susceptible to biases.

So if ID creationists cannot produce physical evidence for the "cause" like that of the Designer being the CAUSE, then Intelligent Design is nothing more than pure speculation of some entity that don't exist.

That's my 2-cent on the cause-and-effect. (Or 5-cent, since Australia no longer minted the 1-cent and 2-cent coins.)

I think you are placing the cart before the horse. God's creation of the universe Is High Intelligence. When you understand all sides, you will Discover it was God all along.

Sure you can box a small piece of the system, outline the cause and effect within that piece, however any assumptions beyond that piece are just like religion. they are your Beliefs.

Religious Beliefs and Theories come to be about the same thing. The only difference is that religion stops at Beliefs or Theories instead of searching for the truth. This is why I say science will Discover God before religion will.

God gave everyone a different view to guaranty mankind a larger view than any one person could have. Instead of rejecting or condemning another view, perhaps a more intelligent approach might be to see if there is something you are missing by limiting your view. Limiting one's view will never acquire as much knowledge as one who includes all possibilities.

Just to give you a clue, God does exist. More exists beyond this physical universe. Everything about God and the universe does add up perfectly. This is the base which no one should fall under.

I have found no religion that actually understands God at all. To base God only on the beliefs of religion would be to limit your view of all the possibilities.

Do you really seek Truth? Perhaps it's time to widen the view to all possibilities and concentrate more of what actually is, rather than being right and others are wrong. A Hungry student only seeks what is? It doesn't matter what everyone else does. It's what you choose to do that counts.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Polymath257]

Ok but my point still stands

It doesn't matter if the big bang
1 was caused by God
2 by something else (like previos universe)
3 or by nothing


You will have to invoke something without evidence in ether case

Sure. And once again, *anything* going back past the period of inflation is pure .speculation.

I am not committed to any answer. But I am committed to the process to obtain an answer: the scientific method.

 

[Polymath257]

Narural laws are universal we know for example that iron doest naturally transforms itself gears

So you agree that knowing what the natural processes can do is the basis for determining design or not?

 

[Polymath257]

Again your hypothesis is known to be impossible and absurd.

You dont know if God is impossible

Therefore God wins

We don't know if God is possible or impossible. But the evidence does not show the existence of any deities. Until there is such evidence, the default is non-existence.

 

[Redemptionsong]

My claim about the Bible is not that it is a book of lies and deceptions, but one of errors typical of humanity. The persistence of the Bible as a holy book or a cultural influence is not evidence of a god. It is evidence that a religion can persist through millennia, which doesn't need a god to exist to be the case. Men could easily have written such a book. What part of it do you think you couldn't have written? Biblical prophecy helps to confirm the human origin of the prophecies. The predictions would need to be a lot more specific and unexpected to begin to think that they could not have come from the minds of men. How often do we read the apologist say that the Bible foretold this or that perfectly predictable phenomenon such as that the adherents of a religion would be disliked for their beliefs, or that there would be earthquakes and wars and world unrest? No disrespect intended, but if you read that in a Chinese fortune cookie or a horoscope, would you think that a human being couldn't have written it, or that the fortune must have come from God? Probably not, even if an earthquake came that night.



It is impossible to show a man what he is has a stake in not seeing. Faith creates a confirmation bias to defend what has been believed by faith, filtering out evidence that contradicts what is believed by faith. There is no burden of proof when this is the case, because such a burden only exist with a person willing and able to evaluate evidence and arguments for soundness of conclusion, and be convinced by a compelling argument. How do I know that's probably you? You still seem unaware of all of the internal contradictions and errors of science and history already identified.

If you care to, find a web site that enumerates these problem and rebut a few of the claims there on this thread, and I'll be glad to discuss them with you. My experience from the past is that the apologist isn't really interested in learning and won't look at much less respond to links provided, so I don't do any work until I see evidence of a sincere desire to learn. And when they do look and answer, we see motivated reasoning - linguistic gymnastics to explain why up is actually down and good bad, why save by works and saved by faith alone actually mean the same thing, the meek really means humble, and why turn the other cheek doesn't mean to do that, either. Unbelievers don't do that. They have no reason to, but believers are motivated to make the words of divine origin, and therefore, to remove errors with specious argumentation.

On a related note, elsewhere and recently, somebody challenged somebody else's contention that Trump had committed crimes. He wanted to see the evidence and hear the argument. Why bother, right? Unless he's just a kid, if he hasn't seen evidence of likely criminality there yet, it's because he believes Trump innocent by faith, and cannot see the evidence and understand its implications. That's what a faith-based confirmation bias does to the faith-based thinker. One cannot show this person what he is committed to not see. I learned that on RF.

But, there's the chance that I am dealing with a sincere young person that can be taught, so I keep the door open with an invitation like the one I offered you. The sincere seeker will welcome the help and make the necessary effort. The motivated reasoner will not. It saves a lot of time wasted in the past.



I did write out a "religion," but didn't use any existing holy texts. It wasn't hard, and I had fun doing it. It contains no gods or supernaturalism, and no prophecy. Perhaps you recall the bayou song called Aiko Aiko (or Iko Iko):

Spoiler: AIKO a belief system

Definitions:
AIKO – a belief system
FEENO – the creation
JOCKOMO – the source of the creation FEENO
SPYBOY – the faculty that reveals the mystery and awesomeness of the creation FEENO
AYE-NA-NAY – the intuition of the mysterious and divine
FEE-NA-NAY – the gratitude experienced for being included in the creation
FIYO – the experience of awe

This is a personal belief system called AIKO*, which is meant to represent the gratitude that (this) one feels to be included in existence. The creation, FEENO, is a stunning and awesome thing, remarkable not only for its beauty, complexity and potential for beneficence, but remarkable just that it can and does exist and is apparent to us.

That anything at all exists is itself the most fundamental and awe-inspiring mystery (AYE-NA-NAY), one which is a continual source of awe (FIYO), and for which we are deeply grateful (FEE-NA-NAY). That existence should be as rich and robust as we find it is infinitely more remarkable. That we were included in it as conscious beings to experience it even more so, and that that conscious experience includes a faint intuition of divinity that is accompanied by an experience of mystery, of awe and of graitude.

To experience FEENO is the greatest gift. My gratitude that all of this is so is called AIKO, and it is expressed as an affinity for the creation FEENO, and by implication, its source JOCKOMO, whether that be person-like, purposeless and accidental forces, or any other ontogenic entity or entities.

Nothing can be said or known about the creative source of FEENO, an entity termed JOCKOMO. All that can be ascertained about the reality of JOCKOMO is that which is faintly intuited by the mystery faculty called SPYBOY (the faculty of the brain that intuitively produces the experience of mystery or divinity to us), and whatever little bit that the reasoning faculty can add to that.

JOCKOMO may be existent, may have been formerly existent, or something else altogether. It may be substantial (material) or transcendent. It may be plural or singular, finite or immortal, conscious or insentient; we cannot know. Whatever the case, we love it and identify with it through its creation, FEENO by which we intuit JOCKOMO faintly and indirectly.

We do not know if JOCKOMO knows us or can know us. It is not necessary. We are astounded and grateful nevertheless. We are indebted to JOCKOMO for being included in the creation FEENO and being blessed with the faculty of conscious mind, including SPYBOY that generates our intuition of the mysterious and divine, called AYE-NAH-NAY. The awe we feel is called FIYO, and the gratitude that results naturally from these is FEE-NAH-NAY.

I have a different explanation for the persistence of the Bible as a cultural phenomenon and Christianity as a religion. What you call the Spirit is human nature to me. Humans create religions and humans accept them from their parents and teach them to their children. It's human nature.

And it doesn't matter to me what others believe, just what they can demonstrate to be correct. I'm a humanist, and my epistemology is empirical. I need their compelling evidence and argument before believing them, not their head count.

Why do the biblical prophets, living years apart, all point to the same Messiah?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

My claim about the Bible is not that it is a book of lies and deceptions, but one of errors typical of humanity. The persistence of the Bible as a holy book or a cultural influence is not evidence of a god. It is evidence that a religion can persist through millennia, which doesn't need a god to exist to be the case. Men could easily have written such a book. What part of it do you think you couldn't have written? Biblical prophecy helps to confirm the human origin of the prophecies. The predictions would need to be a lot more specific and unexpected to begin to think that they could not have come from the minds of men. How often do we read the apologist say that the Bible foretold this or that perfectly predictable phenomenon such as that the adherents of a religion would be disliked for their beliefs, or that there would be earthquakes and wars and world unrest? No disrespect intended, but if you read that in a Chinese fortune cookie or a horoscope, would you think that a human being couldn't have written it, or that the fortune must have come from God? Probably not, even if an earthquake came that night.

Why do the biblical prophets, living years apart, all point to the same Messiah?

Did you consider that an adequate reply? I wrote:

[1] What part of the Bible do you think you couldn't have written?

[2] How often do we read the apologist say that the Bible foretold this or that perfectly predictable phenomenon such as that the adherents of a religion would be disliked for their beliefs, or that there would be earthquakes and wars and world unrest? No disrespect intended, but if you read that in a Chinese fortune cookie or a horoscope, would you think that a human being couldn't have written it, or that the fortune must have come from God?

Why do you think I wrote those words to you? For you to blow them off? I hope that you weren't expecting an answer to your question after disregarding both of mine.

Since you wouldn't answer either of those questions, I'll answer for you. [1] There is no part of the Bible that you couldn't have written, and [2] no, one can't distinguish biblical prophecies from horoscopes or Chinese cookie fortunes.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Your argument seems to be that there is a years-long process one should go through that makes some kind of change in one's mode of thinking from the dualistic standard mode in which conscious experience is that of a subject experiencing an object into something else that merges those two.

You say a new sense of self arises. You say that in this state with a stilled mind, one can unite with a universal spirit and discover his true self. Let's stipulate that there is some process that one can go through that make such changes in conscious experience. Why should one do that?

I've had which also alter the structure of conscious experience. They were interesting, fun, and I felt insightful at the time. Alcohol also changes how one processes and thus experiences information, and it can be pleasant as well, but nothing more. I've had altered mental states produced by prolonged fasting (ketoacidosis), and that was also very pleasant and fun, but so what? I still don't see what the benefit of your pursuit would be, or why I should want to alter my consciousness except that the experience is pleasant as described above, and that doesn't seem like a good way to spend my contemplative time. Maybe you can explain how this other mode of thinking has benefited your life.

Incidentally, I do not self-identify as my body. I don't even self-identify with the parade of conscious phenomena comprising the theater of consciousness, nor with my memories, which are about my life but are not me. These are the objects of the mind, not the self. It is with that observer that I self-identify. It's the constant part of experience - the self, stripped of all mind and matter, known through the mind, which presents a stage of self and other to the conscious observer set in time and space. Why would I want to obliterate that? What use is the mind after that?



This is too vague - who I really am. Why should I think that that way of seeing myself would show me who I really am, especially a method intended to erase the self from self-awareness? What does that mean - who I really am? I still don't see a benefit there.

The spiritual path to immortality? Sorry, but none of that resonates as more than poetry. Yes, I expect to die. At that time, dual thought will cease forever in this mind, and the self will no longer exist to be self-aware. However the matter and energy of my brain and mind were arranged will be lost forever, but not those elements, since they are neither created nor destroyed. The new arrangement will finally no longer experience itself as a subject apprehending an object. That seems to be the state you're looking for now.

Let me explain: I think most of what I read of this nature, whether it be from people calling themselves searchers or spiritual pilgrims is people trying to add magic to their lives with phrases that facilitate that. It gives them satisfaction to believe that there is arcane knowledge and a higher plane of existence accessible to a chosen few, and that they are or might be among them. So, I routinely ask them what they have discovered, and it's always poetry - words with no definite meaning that inspire rather than inform. There's never any there there. What need that others but not I seem to have is being fulfilled? Is life too mundane for some, not magical enough? If I have this all wrong, then perhaps you can show me the value of this kind of thinking to somebody who doesn't see it. More vague, flowery text won't do that. It needs to be concrete and specific. Are you now free from grief or anxiety? Has your reading comprehension increased? What would be lost to you if you reverted to your old dualistic state and lived life as a subject experiencing an object again?



You can't read through an entire post or even just the part addressed to you, yet you think I'M the one with an attention deficit? Just to close this out, this is what you would have read had you made the effort:

"Existence outside of space and time is an incoherent concept, as is the supernatural. Whatever exists is part of nature, and it is all in spacetime. It is incoherent to postulate an undetectable realm of reality outside of time and space that is able to affect the rest of reality. Causality cannot be one-way. To be real is to exist in space and time and to be able to interact with other real objects and processes. Anything that can do that is detectable. To be nonexistent is to have none of those qualities."

Your response wasn't required. The statement is correct.

"I have had psychedelic experiences....", right there, no need to go any further, this is the problem, you do not understand what has been explained, this is the dualistic mind, when the mind is in a state of non-duality, there is no I present to have an experience!

Again "Why should I think that that way of seeing myself....", dualistic mind!
You do not understand what is being explained.

 

[gnostic]

I think you are placing the cart before the horse. God's creation of the universe Is High Intelligence. When you understand all sides, you will Discover it was God all along.

When creationists, whether it be YEC or Intelligent Design, used the designer & some designed product analogy, like watches, cars, computers, etc, the analogies tends to ignore the “human factor” as the designers and makers of these products in the real world. They are not some invisible and incorporeal spirits.

So outside of these unrealistic analogies, you could find out who these very human designers, such as their names, where they lived, who their parents are, who their spouses are if they are marry, what other things they do other than work as designers. They would have birth records, medical records, government records, driver licenses, etc, all evidence that they exist as people, humans.

You meet the people who make these things.

Using these analogies on God, Creator or Designer, make these analogies, as I said, “unrealistic”, ignoring the facts that no evidence support these invisible entities.

God definitely didn’t make these watches, cars, computers, etc, so there are no realistic basis using these analogies.

Analogies are great in the world of literature, like poetry, fictions, scriptural texts, songwriting, etc, because you are comparing one thing with some things completely different.

Analogies are bloody useless to sciences, because there are no real connections between what they are comparing in the analogies. Essentially, their reasonings behind the uses of analogy, would fall under the logical fallacy - False Equivalence.

Here is the definition of false equivalence:

False Equivalence

Description: An argument or claim in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. The confusion is often due to one shared characteristic between two or more items of comparison in the argument that is way off in the order of magnitude, oversimplified, or just that important additional factors have been ignored.

Source: Logical Fallacies, that’s a link.

All analogies use False Equivalence.

But this is a debate forum on the subject of science, like Evolution or the Big Bang, versus religions with religious concepts, like creationism and Intelligent Design.

The problems are creationists who like and want creationism or ID to be taught together with sciences, like biology, or astrophysics & cosmology. They also wanted creationism and ID to have the same science’s validity as evolution and the Big Bang.

However, if they want to YEC & ID to be like science, they have to explain the reason for having God or the Designer, as well as physically test their concepts. So you would need evidence for cause as much as having evidence for the effect.

But, no, YEC & ID creationists are dishonest cheaters, because they wanted to bypass the testing parts that are required in Natural Sciences, that are essential in Scientific Method requirements, that is finding evidence for the “cause” as well as evidence for “effect”.

They know there are no evidence to support their claims of God, Creator or Designer, that’s why instead of using evidence or experiments, they used instead some stupid fallacious analogies to support their absurd claims.

And here the kicker, that creationists don’t understand: using an analogy is just MAKING UP ANOTHER BLOODY “CLAIM” that they can’t substantiate.

ANALOGY ISN’T EVIDENCE! ANALOGY IS JUST MAKING MORE CLAIM!

 

[gnostic]

We don't know if God is possible or impossible. But the evidence does not show the existence of any deities. Until there is such evidence, the default is non-existence.

Oh, I think people “believe” god is “possible”, because that’s what they have been doing for millennia, believing in the existence of god or gods...

...what they can’t do is show god is “probable”, because probabilities required evidence.

Some people actually believe that the impossible be possible, because they allow themselves to trick their own minds...that’s why they believe in miracles and imaginary spirits or gods.

With no evidence, God’s existence is improbable.

I do agree with your summation and conclusion - “Until there is such evidence, the default is non-existence.” - I am just really picky on distinguishing the differences between the possibility and probability.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh, I think people “believe” god is “possible”, because that’s what they have been doing for millennia, believing in the existence of god or gods...

...what they can’t do is show god is “probable”, because probabilities required evidence.

Some people actually believe that the impossible be possible, because they allow themselves to trick their own minds...that’s why they believe in miracles and imaginary spirits or gods.

With no evidence, God’s existence is improbable.

I do agree with your summation and conclusion - “Until there is such evidence, the default is non-existence.” - I am just really picky on distinguishing the differences between the possibility and probability.

I agree that people *believe* the existence of a God is possible. But I am not at all sure that is the case.

Ultimately, it requires that a supernatural be possible. But is it? What does it even mean to be 'supernatural'?

I think an answer to that question requires a discussion of what it means to be 'natural'. I don't think that is a trivial question.

Then the question is whether the existence of a supernatural is possible. And that requires an analysis of what it means to 'exist'.

I would submit that when this analysis is undertaken, the term 'exists' implies the term 'natural', which would mean a 'supernatural' is impossible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are here, alive, enjoying the sunshine, breathing the air. This either:
a - came from utterly N.O.T.H.I.N.G. and for N.O...R.E.A.S.O.N. or
b - it was created by someone outside of the physical realm.

Juvenile combos of strawmen and false dichotomies aren't going to help your case.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Some atheists do claim that science can explain everything however, and I have heard a physicist atheist say that.

I don't care what "some atheist physicists" say - especially not in such vague assertions without citation.
Secondly, show me a physicist that claims that science KNOWS what "caused" the big bang.

So scientifically you think that the best speculation is that the stuff of the universe did not need creating

The best speculation is the speculation that requires the least amount of unevidenced assumptions.
Occam's razor, if you wish.

because it was there to form the universe through some unknown mechanism?

Concerning science, it seems to me that the best speculation at this point is a multi-verse, as multiverses pop-up spontaneously through the math when attempting to model certain specific aspects of the universe like inflation theory.

But it is speculation since all this stuff is in hypothesis state for the time being.
It's just so that the scientific investigation, which follows the evidence, is seemingly going in that direction. Not because the scientists "want to" go that direction. But because the available evidence points in that direction.

The only correct actual answer at this point is "we don't know - scientists are working hard to try and find out".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hmmm, maybe, maybe not.

Why is it do you think, that the universe is also referred to as the space-time continuum?

The universe existed at Planck time. Planck time is the very very first "moment" of the universe after T = 0.
The very first "point in time" if you wish.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes because I already believe in a creator God.

Right. And I'm asking, other then you already believing it, what reason is there to suggest such a thing?

Just justifying that belief when someone was saying that the material of the universe was always there because of 'conservation of energy/matter".

I don't see how that justifies that belief.
To justify a belief, you would have to provide evidence for that belief.

Pointing to a random thing that doesn't necessarily contradict the belief, does not magically turn it into evidence for that belief.

I'm guessing that this will once again end up with you "justifying" your a priori belief with telling me that "you can't disprove it!!!I", in yet another shift of the burden of proof.

I don't know what more to tell you to make you see the obvious logic error in your thinking.

You can instantly recognize the exact same error when we are talking about undetectable graviton pixies being involved in the workings of gravity. But you can't see it at all when making the exact same error when talking about the god you believe in.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When atheists say such things I would say they also only believe them and that is what I try to show,,,,,,,,,,, that many atheists have religious faith.

You don't need "faith" (religious or otherwise) to NOT believe unevidenced claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There's two problem with saying the universe has simply been here forever
1 - it isnt true
2 - it still doesn't explain how it came to be.

If "forever" means "for all of time", then it most definitely is correct to say that universe has existed forever.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again your hypothesis is known to be impossible and absurd.

You dont know if God is impossible

Therefore God wins

If that's the standard, then God is also on par with the big bang being the result of undetectable extra-dimensional unicorns farting.

That, along with an INFINITY of other unfalsifiable claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well sorry, but the universe appeared from no other universe - so that's an effect, no?

A bit of an incoherent sentence imo.

Anyhow, point remains:
If there is no cause of X, then X is not an effect.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are you prepared to do serious religious practice to experience it yourself? God is one, you must be one with God to experience God. You can not find God outside of yourself.

Is this your way of saying that one must believe it first before one can receive the justification to believe it?

If yes, sounds like self-delusion.