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

[Brian2]

Yeah. There is a 3rd option:
Person 1: I know reality is X and not Y.
Person 2: I know reality is Y and not X.
Me: I don't know and I really don't need that, because I don't care about that anymore.

So here are more than 2 faiths.

I think faith comes in when we say we don't know but believe X or Y anyway.
With your "I don't know" that sounds like agnosticism.
It also sounds like you have given up on ever believing X or Y.

 

[Brian2]

Of course it's fine. We cannot know everything and there is no need to fill everything we don't know with god.

I was agreeing that it was fine to say we don't know and that it is not fine to say "we don't know so God did it".

Of course you can say no it's not fine because i believe god did it. You have no proof, but you sure do believe and so guess qnd pretend your guess is fact.

I am more honest and an happy to say we don't know.

I don't pretend my guess is fact, I believe it, a difference.
Saying you don't know is not more honest because that is what I am saying too, but I am also saying I believe certain things.
Saying that God did not do it is a position of religious faith as my position is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think faith comes in when we say we don't know but believe X or Y anyway.
With your "I don't know" that sounds like agnosticism.
It also sounds like you have given up on ever believing X or Y.

Yeah, for all versions of positive metaphysics and not just the religious ones.
So I am an atheist, yet I differ from some of the other atheists for other aspects than the disbelief in God.

 

[leroy]

Fro


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.

coins.)

The point if the analogy is that if you ever find a watch you woudl conclude that a designer created that watch even if you dont have prior evidence for the existance of the designer.

For example if you find a watch in Mars, you will conclude that an intelligent designer did it, even if you have no prior evidence for any intelligent life living On Mars

 

[ChristineM]

I was agreeing that it was fine to say we don't know and that it is not fine to say "we don't know so God did it".

Oh, i must have misunderstood your statement ...

No that is not fine. It

There are many who do say "we don't know so God did it"

I don't pretend my guess is fact, I believe it, a difference.
Saying you don't know is not more honest because that is what I am saying too, but I am also saying I believe certain things.
Saying that God did not do it is a position of religious faith as my position is.

Saying I don't know is as honest as it gets because thats exactly what it is.

Except when there is no god.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The point if the analogy is that if you ever find a watch you woudl conclude that a designer created that watch even if you dont have prior evidence for the existance of the designer.

For example if you find a watch in Mars, you will conclude that an intelligent designer did it, even if you have no prior evidence for any intelligent life living On Mars

Well, I would still conclude different, no matter how much your beliefs work for you. Because I have different beliefs.

 

[Polymath257]

Cause and effect can happen at the same time.

Example?

All causes that we know about happen within the universe, how does that show that the universe has no cause?

is there any reason to think causality even makes sense outside of the universe and natural laws?

 

[Polymath257]

Religious people say god exists without cause.
Nonreligious people say the universe exists without cause.

Hey on the bright side they both agree on "exists without a cause" they just don't agree on what.

As I see it, we know the universe exists. We don't know that a God exists. So it is more efficient to have the universe be uncaused.

 

[Polymath257]

I think he might be referring to the B model of time which has all of space time just existing always. You have always been there reading this and time can even go backways, ignoring and cause effect and so you would be reading this before I wrote it, even if it would still be after I wrote it because time would be going backways.
It seems most physicists believe in this B model of time these days.

It is almost universal, yes. General relativity models both space and time as a unified geometry.

But you state it wrong. To say 'always' implies a time aspect that is not present. To say time goes backwards is not even wrong. And no, causes still precede effects in time.

Think of it like this. Imagine the latitude and longitude lines of the Earth, but imagine that latitude measures time and longitude measures space. Space and time together determine the geometry of the spherical Earth.

In this model, time has a 'beginning' at the South pole and an 'End' at the North pole. As we move from the South pole to the North pole, space expands out of a 'singularity' (the South pole) until the equator, when it begins to contract, until a final 'singularity' at the North pole.

We exist as decorations on this sphere. Our lives start at one time (latitude), we move around a bit, and end at another time (latitude). So, the whole of your life is in spacetime and that spacetime 'just exists' as a unified geometry.

All causality happens from the south to the north. Our consciousnesses only remember things to the South (in the past). But the more northerly part of your timeline is there 'in the future' (to the North).

Also, 'north' and 'south' only make sense on the Earth (so 'before' and 'after' only make sense within the universe). There is no 'south' of the South pole and no 'north' of the North pole. Analogously, there is no 'before' the Big Bang singularity.

 

[Polymath257]

So you agree that cause and effect is needed with physical things. That's good.

No, I do not think that it is needed for all physical things. In fact, the evidence is that most quantum level processes are uncaused.

Yes living things are physical and their bodies are chemicals. Does that show us what the life in them is?

Yes, that is done in biochemistry and biology. Life is a complex collection of chemical interactions driven by some outside power source.

Even if you did have someone shaking the magnets I agree that matter can self organise, in a cause and effect type of way of course. This however is after chaos has been organised and is ruled by the laws of physics.

Are you saying there was a time when the laws of physics did not apply? Can you prove this? or is it merely an unsubstantiated belief?

So are you saying that chemicals are alive even when in a rock?

No. Life is a complex collection of chemical reactions that has the ability to maintain internal state and reproduce. Rocks don't do that.

But there is no difference between an oxygen atom in a rock and one in your body. There is no difference between a water molecule in a crystal and one in your body.

Chemicals are not inert (which seems to be what you are claiming about them being dead). They strongly interact with other chemicals. That interaction is, in certain systems, the basis for life.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Example?



is there any reason to think causality even makes sense outside of the universe and natural laws?

Reason can't decide that. Just say it is unknown, because we only know in the universe. Stop playing in effect rationalism for what is metaphysics.

 

[Polymath257]

Are you saying that the sort of God Christians believe in these days is different to the God they believed in 2000 years ago?

Well, that is certainly true.

or is it just that as science discovered new things, a better interpretation of the Bible was needed at times?

I would say that people who want to hold onto their beliefs need to reinterpret their scriptures when new information is found.

It isn't a 'better' interpretation. It is only a different interpretation.

It is speculation to say that God is not needed even if physical mechanisms for how things happen do not need a God as part of the mechanism explanation.

Hmmm..if we can explain what happens without needing a God in the explanation, then God is not needed to explain, right? That alone doesn't say anything about whether a God exists, but it does make such unnecessary for an explanation.

Actually it is more than speculation, it is religious type faith.

Nope. It is simply realizing that the 'God hypothesis' doesn't actually carry any explanatory power.

 

[Polymath257]

Reason can't decide that. Just say it is unknown, because we only know in the universe. Stop playing in effect rationalism for what is metaphysics.

And that is part of the reason why it makes no sense to even talk about causality outside of the universe.

Metaphysics is just another way to state biases about what we think should be the case. it is useless without evidence for what really happens.

 

[leroy]

As I see it, we know the universe exists. We don't know that a God exists. So it is more efficient to have the universe be uncaused.

If you what to argue that the universe is uncaused (eternal) you would have to invoke things that we don’t know they exist anyway……….. for example you would have to invoke the existence of “something” before the big bang , and there is no evidence for anything before the big bang

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And that is part of the reason why it makes no sense to even talk about causality outside of the universe.

Metaphysics is just another way to state biases about what we think should be the case. it is useless without evidence for what really happens.

Then it is useless to say that there is or isn't causality or if the universe is everything. We don't know!!!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As I see it, we know the universe exists. We don't know that a God exists. So it is more efficient to have the universe be uncaused.

First off, you don't see as see. You subjectively understand and secondly efficient is a subjective standard in you.

 

[Polymath257]

If you what to argue that the universe is uncaused (eternal) you would have to invoke things that we don’t know they exist anyway……….. for example you would have to invoke the existence of “something” before the big bang , and there is no evidence for anything before the big bang

Why would I have to invoke such?

 

[leroy]

Why would I have to invoke such?

Please correct me IF i am making a straw man but .

1 you believe that probably there was something before the big bang

2 there is no evidence for anything existing before the big bang

3 therefore you believe in something without evidence.


Isn’t this what you are saying?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

With regard to cause requiring evidence, if what you are saying is correct that puts everyone in the same boat of philosophical speculation since nobody knows what existed to cause the Big Bang (assuming the BB happened).

Nobody claims to know what "caused" the big bang (quotes, because it might not be a sensible term to use in that context).

The only people who claim to know, are theists making faith-based religious assertions.
I've never seen a physicist claim that (s)he, or science in general, knows what "caused" the BB.

It can be speculated that what physically exists now also existed in another form to cause the BB but that is speculation.

Having said what I said above... there is "speculation" and there is "speculation".

For example......
Suppose I walk into a room and there is a corpse their with a knife placed firmly in the chest.
I could then speculate that the person was killed by another human who no longer is present, but went away.
I could also speculate that aliens beamed into the room star trek style, stabbed the person with a know and then beamed out again.


I have no doubt that you can see the difference.
Would you say both these speculations are on par with one another?
Which is more likely and why?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

With due respect though, if you are not a spiritual aspirant, you have not the experience to understand the workings of spirit

Please demonstrate to me that anyone has the "experience" to "understand" the "workings of the spirit".

Or that that is even a thing to begin with.