The Law of Cause and Effect.

[DavidFirth]

That is rule of science and science does not fail. It is the strong point of science, and it is not biased by metaphysical thesis outside our physical existence.

Still waiting . . .

What is the alternative to science for understanding the nature of our physical existence?



I can agree and disagree with you here because I believe in God, and I am a Baha'i. I do doubt that as fallible humans we could actually know God's perspective.

What is the alternative to science for understanding the nature of our physical existence?

Why are you asking me? Am I some kind of pope or something?

I do doubt that as fallible humans we could actually know God's perspective.

Well, Jesus Christ is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. So if you study Christ you can understand what you can about God. Otherwise, you will forever doubt that as fallible humans we could actually know God's perspective.

 

[shunyadragon]

What is the alternative to science for understanding the nature of our physical existence?

Why are you asking me? Am I some kind of pope or something?

It is directly related the subject of the thread, and all is required is high school level of science, to understand the relationship between science and the nature of our physical existence.

Your dodging the bullet on answering this point, and you need not be the pope nor a scientist to know the answer.

I do doubt that as fallible humans we could actually know God's perspective.

Well, Jesus Christ is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. So if you study Christ you can understand what you can about God. Otherwise, you will forever doubt that as fallible humans we could actually know God's perspective.

Your actually saying if I believe as you do we could actually know God's perspective. Your negating the fact that a multitude of other fallible humans who make different claims than you, and I should know God their way.

 

[DavidFirth]

It is directly related the subject of the thread, and all is required is high school level of science, to understand the relationship between science and the nature of our physical existence.

Your dodging the bullet on answering this point, and you need not be the pope nor a scientist to know the answer.



Your actually saying if I believe as you do we could actually know God's perspective. Your negating the fact that a multitude of other fallible humans who make different claims than you, and I should know God their way.

You're ignoring God's word through His Son. I have no further interest in discussing this with you.

Have a nice day.

 

[McBell]

You're ignoring God's word through His Son.

Seems to me he is not.
In fact, seems to me his point is that there are many many a different declaration by humans on what is and is not "Gods Perspective" based on "Gods Word through His Son".

Interesting that you tuck tail and run as soon as it is mentioned...

 

[omega2xx]

NOBODY claims there was a time when nothing existed and a later time where the universe existed. ]So the concept of 'made from nothing' is a completely wrong characterization.

OK, how do they explain the existence of matter, energy and life?

Now, there are descriptions where matter condenses out of a high energy vacuum. But in those, space and time already exist. So does the energy.

There is not because you don't have a perfect vacuum. If you think a spark that last a nano second can be the source of the universe, you need a path out of lala land.

This isn't a discussion about TOE. It is a discussion about causality. So, while discussing a 'cause' for the Big Bang might be relevant, questions about evolution are not.

Okay. You still need to give a cause for the origin of matter, energy and life.

 

[omega2xx]

OK, so how does this apply to a planet orbiting the sun?

God was the cause How do you explain it?

How does this apply to a star forming out of a nebula?

I think that is still a theory. However, there is matter floating around in the universe. It it formed a star there was a source that caused it. If God did not do it, then it happened by some way that we don't know .

 

[omega2xx]

Objectively true, but humans are a product of a chain of cause and effects within nature,

They are not. All living being are the result of the powe of God to creat life.

The Theist will assert the ultimate cause is God, the Philosophical Naturalist, like Ralph Waldo Emerson (a Pantheist) believe our existence is a product of nature. Both represent philosophical/theological assumptions.

Man being the product of nature is not a theological concept. It is the OPINION of ssome who dislike the idea of God.

False, I gave scientific references, and you have not.

I am not looking for references, I an looking for scientific evidence.

The reference to the 'Laws of cause and effect' and Ralph Waldo Emerson is a product of Foolgling.*

*Foolgling - Mindless Googling to come up with anything remotely hinting at what you want, but in reality is 'non sequitur,'

That statement can be proved, so it is an example of foolgling.

First, Ralph Waldo Emerson was a 19th century philosopher, Unitarian, and believed in Pantheism. He believed the universe was self-caused. and had no cause outside the universe itself.

Believing is never the problem. Proving what you believe is the problem.

Second, Emerson was not a scientist presenting a view of a scientific Law of cause and effect.

I am sure if I poked Around the internet enough I could find a scientist who say basically the same thing. Any way you can't falsify it.

"Standing on the bare ground,my head bathed by the blithe air and uplifted into infinite space,all mean egotism vanishes. I become a transparent eyeball; I am nothing; I see all; the currents of the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part or parcel of God."

America's Founding Spiritual Seeker

Fourth, Emerson would not remotely support your view of Creation, first cause nor Theism

I couldn't care less if he supports what I believe. My beliifs come from God's word not from any man.

 

[shunyadragon]

Seems to me he is not.
In fact, seems to me his point is that there are many many a different declaration by humans on what is and is not "Gods Perspective" based on "Gods Word through His Son".

Interesting that you tuck tail and run as soon as it is mentioned...

It was more his unwillingness to address the issue of an alternative to science for understanding our physical existence.

 

[omega2xx]

And what do you mean by the word 'cause' here? How is a mind a cause of a physical event? Is it the only cause, or should we allow for physical causation also?

Without the mind of a man, the unit would not exist.

Don't forget that the only reason that mind is able to design and construct anything is because of the physical laws and the knowledge of those laws. You can design all you want, but if the physics and chemistry don't work, nothing will happen.

In the example under discussion, the invention works.

 

[Thief]

The movement and decay of the basic particles of matter in the Quantum World have no known cause other than the nature of the Quantum World itself.




It is unknown whether or not the event called the Big Bang is self starting. Most physicists and cosmologists believe it is a product of preexisting matter and/or energy in one form or another.

In the view of science the concept of 'self starting' is a 'non-sequitur.' It is unknown one way or the other, but it is possible that our physical existence is self existing and physically eternal.

if substance can move of it's own 'volition'

beware the gravel in your driveway......you might get stoned if you offend it

cause and effect
nothing moves until Something moves it

First there was Spirit
then there was nothing
then the universe

 

[shunyadragon]

if substance can move of it's own 'volition'

beware the gravel in your driveway......you might get stoned if you offend it

cause and effect
nothing moves until Something moves it

First there was Spirit
then there was nothing
then the universe

What I gave was an objectively verified and observed phenomenon where no cause has been observed, It is not a matter of 'volition,' because the objectively observed natural world is not known to function as a result of volition. This is a theistic, philosophical assertion without evidence.

Natural Laws are the only objectively observed cause of any causes or effects in the natural world.

There is no evidence that . . . there 'was ever nothing.'

The fundamental question here is whether you Theistic claims translate into objective verifiable evidence of the natural world. The answer is NO!

Beware of the gravel in your own driveway in your paranoid view of cause and effect, If you feel uncomfortably safe I will take my 1966 GTO with racing tires and attack your house, car, and you with gravel. If they get in the way any relatives that happen to be around attack them too. I can be an evil gravel sprayer when provoked.

 

[Willamena]

So the relationship of a child to its parents is uncaused?

.

Rather, the relation of a child to being human is uncaused.

 

[Ricktheheretic]

One of the more common arguments I have seen is an argument from 'cause and effect'.

Now, it is interesting that there is a claim that this is the foundation of science even though in taking up to PhD level physics courses, this 'law' is never invoked or even mentioned. It certainly is never explicitly stated.

So, what is the 'law of cause and effect'?

What does it mean to be a 'cause'?

What does it mean to be an 'effect'?

Yes, I have looked at dictionary definitions, but they are all lacking in describing exactly what the connection is supposed to be between 'causes' and 'effects'.

If I kill someone, do I necessarily have to stand trial for murder? But still, stabbing someone in the heart kills someone even if no one else knows about it. "If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?" I remember something from the Copenhagen school of physics that says nothing is "real" until it is observed or is interacted with by reality. But does anything exist within a vacuum? Still, how can anything be verified without direct experience? That seems to follow the A.J Ayer Logical Positivist school of thought. According to Humean Philosophy: "All swans are white" is what people say because no one has ever seen the black swan. We only know what we experience. Personal experience is what life is. Can we verify cause and effect?

 

[ckay61]

One of the more common arguments I have seen is an argument from 'cause and effect'.

Now, it is interesting that there is a claim that this is the foundation of science even though in taking up to PhD level physics courses, this 'law' is never invoked or even mentioned. It certainly is never explicitly stated.

So, what is the 'law of cause and effect'?

What does it mean to be a 'cause'?

What does it mean to be an 'effect'?

Yes, I have looked at dictionary definitions, but they are all lacking in describing exactly what the connection is supposed to be between 'causes' and 'effects'.

If there were no foundations, you would not be able to mass produce all those loaves of bread sitting on the grocery store shelves. But, if you deviate from the recipe, you could end up with a giant batch of bagles. The ingredients themselves can't change what they are, the cook changes what they will become by mixture and measure.

Before a seed of I formed to make decisions, it was random. Mother Nature (the hen) would keep what was healthy which enables growth and expansion. Unhealthy chemistry produces disease and pain hindering growth and expansion.

 

[Thief]

What I gave was an objectively verified and observed phenomenon where no cause has been observed, It is not a matter of 'volition,' because the objectively observed natural world is not known to function as a result of volition. This is a theistic, philosophical assertion without evidence.

Natural Laws are the only objectively observed cause of any causes or effects in the natural world.

There is no evidence that . . . there 'was ever nothing.'

The fundamental question here is whether you Theistic claims translate into objective verifiable evidence of the natural world. The answer is NO!

Beware of the gravel in your own driveway in your paranoid view of cause and effect, If you feel uncomfortably safe I will take my 1966 GTO with racing tires and attack your house, car, and you with gravel. If they get in the way any relatives that happen to be around attack them too. I can be an evil gravel sprayer when provoked.

i don't think you get it

life has certain qualities about it

I believe life first
Spirit first

substance is the evidence of a Greater Life

 

[shunyadragon]

i don't think you get it

life has certain qualities about it

I believe life first
Spirit first

substance is the evidence of a Greater Life

I do not question what you believe. I do believe you're going to have difficulty going past 'belief' and justify your view of cause and effect based on objective verifiable evidence.

Substance? is not evidence of a Greater Life, unless you can objectively verify this 'substance?'

 

[Thief]

I do not question what you believe. I do believe you're going to have difficulty going past 'belief' and justify your view of cause and effect based on objective verifiable evidence.

Substance? is not evidence of a Greater Life, unless you can objectively verify this 'substance?'

I see substance as a creation

the universe is the effect
God is the Cause

 

[shunyadragon]

I see substance as a creation

the universe is the effect
God is the Cause

Again . . .

I do not question what you believe. I do believe you're going to have difficulty going past 'belief' and justify your view of cause and effect based on objective verifiable evidence.

Substance? is not evidence of a Greater Life, unless you can objectively verify this 'substance?'

OK! It is obvious that you cannot get beyond simple assertions of belief,

 

[Thief]

Again . . .

I do not question what you believe. I do believe you're going to have difficulty going past 'belief' and justify your view of cause and effect based on objective verifiable evidence.

Substance? is not evidence of a Greater Life, unless you can objectively verify this 'substance?'

OK! It is obvious that you cannot get beyond simple assertions of belief,

ok...and you don't really get.....cause and effect

one before the other

always

 

[shunyadragon]

ok...and you don't really get.....cause and effect

one before the other

always

ok...and you don't really get.....cause and effect

one before the other

always

I understand cause and effect very well, and the common apologist argument for 'First Cause.' There is always the question, 'What or who caused God?'

It is possible that Natural Laws, and the nature of our physical existence are eternal and not Created by a prior cause.

Again . . .

I do not question what you believe. I do believe you're going to have difficulty going past 'belief' and justify your view of cause and effect based on objective verifiable evidence.

Substance? is not evidence of a Greater Life, unless you can objectively verify this 'substance?'

OK! It is obvious that you cannot get beyond simple assertions of belief,