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

[F1fan]

And you've been told that the proof of Nirvana/God/ Brahman is in the union. God is one, the sense of duality you experience is due to you not having realized God in non-duality. God is a concept to represent the one existence in which you find yourself, if you think the reality represented by the concept God is an external to you, then you will never understand. I can though promise you that it is possible for human being to realize what and who they really are through correct religious practice, one that leads to union, ie., non-duality.

Nirvana isn’t an entity, its a mental/physical state. I don’t see any reason to decide any gods exist. The lack of evidence for these extraordinary claims is the primary reason.

And still you offer no evidence that any god exists outside of human imagination.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nirvana isn’t an entity, its a mental/physical state. I don’t see any reason to decide any gods exist. The lack of evidence for these extraordinary claims is the primary reason.

And still you offer no evidence that any god exists outside of human imagination.

Have you realized Nirvana? The path of all religions is to realize the oneness of all that exists, by giving up the dualistc mind. It is not about attaining dualistic knowledge. So religious enlightenment in all its forms. Tao, Brahman, Nirvana, God are one and the same, a mind free from thought, pure awareness.

 

[Brian2]

Define "nothing"

If energy and matter can't be created or destroyed, then they both always existed...there was never nothing....they both existed pre-expansion.
Now some will argue there is no "pre" because our science breaks down and we can't understand it... yet everything that exists in our universe always existed, just in different form.

Where did it come from?
What did it come from?
What did it exist in?

I think that in a closed system then there is a conservation of energy.
The universe is a closed system but in the beginning we can see that the then tiny closed system of the universe exists in another system and this is God.
God is a completely different ball game to the universe and maybe the energy in the tiny nothing that expanded to be the universe came from God's power or maybe God created it.

 

[Brian2]

No different than..
-god always existed without cause
-the big bang had to have a cause

We know cause effect exist with physical things, they are dead after all and need a cause to stir them up.
Something living can be that cause and if that something living is actually life itself then there is no need for a cause of life itself. It just is.
Even the chaos of a dead quantum environment (assuming that it is chaos) which does stuff without reason, cause, needs something to organise it.
But don't listen to me, I'm just a retired postman.

 

[We Never Know]

We know cause effect exist with physical things, they are dead after all and need a cause to stir them up.
Something living can be that cause and if that something living is actually life itself then there is no need for a cause of life itself. It just is.
Even the chaos of a dead quantum environment (assuming that it is chaos) which does stuff without reason, cause, needs something to organise it.
But don't listen to me, I'm just a retired postman.

I'm openminded and like listening to everyone. Everyone has something they can add that gives rise to thought and then who knows. So don't cut yourself short.

 

[ChristineM]

OK that's fine, but we are talking about speculation of what might have existed before the BB (if that is even a sensible statement)

It is fine to say we don't know.

It is not fine to say ee don't know so god did it.

 

[PruePhillip]

The Intelligent Designer don't exist physically..

Two problems with the statement
1 - you can't prove an Intelligent Designer doesn't physically exist
2 - You can' prove an Intlligent Designer doesn't exist outside of the physical universe.


Yes, I fear our five cent piece could some day have King Charles on it.

 

[PruePhillip]

At no time was there nothing. The universe of spacetime 'just exists'.

Like magic - it just happens.

 

[Redemptionsong]

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.)

IMO, the best evidence for God is the Bible, because the Bible does not just provide a revelation of God's relationship with lsrael and the faithful through time, it points the way to personal experience of God through Christ.

The Bible begins with the words, 'ln the beginning God created the heaven and the earth' and science has done us the service of uncovering evidence of the beginning (evidence such as Background Microwave Radiation).

IMO, it's a fool [Psalms 14 and 53] who cannot see that the visible world comes from the invisible Spirit of God! To say, as l think Bertrand Russell said, that the universe 'just exists' is not an explanation for the ever changing nature of the universe.

People, as creatures, also realise that life is not just a physical manifestation. The word 'love' would not exist in the vocabulary of man if he were not a spiritual being capable of compassion, kindness, and joy.

 

[PureX]

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".

That's because it's completely self-evident. In fact, the fact that you can demand "evidence" is proof of the phenomenon of cause and effect. As that is exactly what you are demanding as "evidence".

In sciences, particularly Physical Sciences and Natural Sciences, testing the new hypothesis (you mean the proposed cause?) or existing (scientific) theory (the currently accepted cause) 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.

If every aspect of physical existence were not "caused" by some other aspect of physical existence, science would have nothing to study, and no way to study it. So science itself is the proof that physical existence is an intricate web of 'cause and effect'. With no exceptions, I might add.

And if everything that exists, physically, is subject to this phenomenon of cause and effect, why would we then presume that physical existence, as a whole, is somehow NOT subject to that "rule"? Seems to me that those who try to claim that physical existence as a whole is NOT subject to the phenomenon of cause and effect are the ones that should be providing the evidence to support such an otherwise logically unwarranted claim.

So where is ye evidence, ye evidence seeker? Let's have it.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

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.

Dear gnostic,

I have no take on “intelligent design” stuff but would like to add that speculation is an important part in our scientific processes too.

Theoretical philosophy (theoretical physics, in context of hard science, for example) is, after all, the basis for much scientific advancement.

It asks questions like: how must things be in order for us to see what we do? From observed patterns, it speculated about what may be happening beyond what is visible. And then, it puts its hypothesis to the test.
Even within hard science, it never asserts certainty; only degrees of probability.*

*) Except for when new technologies lead to us being able to empirically see what we could previously not; then it can assert certainty and the theory in question becomes fact.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.)

Well, it is simple. All causes as cause and effect are physical, but all are not objective.
You as for this sentence is caused by you subjectively: Everything is objective.
Me: No.

So religion is physical, but not objective. But so is your idea that everything is objective in the end.
BTW the "no" has on objective, physical referent, yet you use negatives yourself.

 

[danieldemol]

Cause and effect or what ever term you wish to call this argument is a metaphysical argument. You cannot test a metaphysical being in a jar. So your whole engagement is baseless and unscientific. You cannot just say "he did it so I can do it too".

I understood his point to be that claiming a cause is unscientific precisely because you can't test it.

It would appear to me that it is not @gnostic that is trying to mix and match science and the unscientific, but rather the creationists who attempt to do that.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

I understood his point to be that claiming a cause is unscientific precisely because you can't test it.

It would appear to me that it is not @gnostic that is trying to mix and match science and the unscientific, but rather the creationists who attempt to do that.

In my opinion.

You did not understand it at all. A little more thinking might help you. Might.

 

[danieldemol]

You did not understand it at all. A little more thinking might help you. Might.

Or we could skip all these divergent thoughts and simply ask @gnostic for clarification of what his point was.

That would be more logical than throwing ad-hominem around in the hope something sticks.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

Or we could skip all these divergent thoughts and simply ask @gnostic for clarification of what his point was.

That would be more logical than throwing ad-hominem around in the hope something sticks.

In my opinion.

You even misunderstood that or "did not understand what was said",

Maybe a little more thought is better.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sure, but inference and reasoning can only take you so far.

Reasoning alone on the “cause”, isn’t enough for science. Logic alone don’t satisfy science.

Of course it isn't, but I'm not sure if that is responsive.

I personally believe that both the cosmological argument and the teleological argument are reasonable inferences. The fact that they are insufficient for science or that they prove nothing is entirely irrelevant to me. The only issue for me is this: are they sufficient for a reasonable faith in preternatural agency? I may never be able to answer this with any degree of certainty.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course it isn't, but I'm not sure if that is responsive.

I personally believe that both the cosmological argument and the teleological argument are reasonable inferences. The fact that they are insufficient for science or that they prove nothing is entirely irrelevant to me. The only issue for me is this: are they sufficient for a reasonable faith in preternatural agency? I may never be able to answer this with any degree of certainty.

The way I do it, is that in effect you can believe in God, believe there is none, don't care and even more variants. But in the end I can't show with evidence that any of them are wrong as a human behavior.
So I do believe in some sort of objective reality, but evidence is irrelevant for that, because it is fact that we all believe differently. So I use evidence as a limited answer. The same with proof, truth, logic, rational and the rest of that.

 

[Polymath257]

Why could not a god "just exist"?

Certainly a possibility. It is also a possibility that a race of 5 dimensional beings learned the technology of making universes and ours is one of their mass produced models.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Certainly a possibility. It is also a possibility that a race of 5 dimensional beings learned the technology of making universes and ours is one of their mass produced models.

Stop stealing my stick.