The Law of Cause and Effect.

[viole]

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

Have a nice day.

You mean the stories written by (fallible) humans in a book?

Ciao

- viole

 

[LuisDantas]

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'.

Far as I can tell, that so-called argument has no relationship to science whatsoever.

Instead, it seems to be formed by assorted combinations of a few common ingredients.


- Aesthetical and emotional attachment to the unfounded idea that some aspects of reality "must" have been "purposefully caused".
- Lack of interest and/or ability in learning relevant science.
- Plain old intellectual dishonesty.
- Irresponsible adherence to doctrinary dogma.

 

[Skwim]

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

That's not a relationship, but a categorization.

And keep in mind that in the relationships we're talking about there exists an element of time where in an effect is preceded by whatever brought it into existence..

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God has always existed. God created 'time' itself. There was no "before God" and there will be no "after God."

If the observer is God who created time He easily transcends it and defines it however He wishes. He can also change it at will. The Almighty has absolute power over everything He created, including time.

Yes, that is what you believe, but there is no reason to believe either of those comments. They are religious beliefs without evidentiary support.

 

[Thief]

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,

the hall of mirror trick doesn't work on God

Someone had to be First

 

[McBell]

the hall of mirror trick doesn't work on God

Someone had to be First

What caused God?

You have been completely ignoring this question.

 

[Thief]

What caused God?

You have been completely ignoring this question.

I answered the question

I am now ignoring you

 

[shunyadragon]

the hall of mirror trick doesn't work on God

Someone had to be First

"The hall of mirrors'' trick does not work for Natural Law either.

 

[Polymath257]

God was the cause How do you explain it?

Well, first of all, your proposed cause doesn't actually explain anything. Why is it that the planet orbits in an ellipse? Why is there an orbit at all?

I explain it by noting that F=ma and F=GMm/r^2 together show that paths will be conic sections. And ellipses are one type of conic section.

I could go further and consider geodesics in the Schwartzchild solution of a gravitational potential and show that these also approximate ellipses, but have an exptra precession (which agrees with observation).

Do you see the difference? Your proposal could 'explain' the exact opposite of what actually happens, so it is no explanation at all.

Mine is very specific about the types of orbits and, loooking closer, things like the speed of the planet in the orbit at each time.

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 .

No, it is a process we see happening in various nebula today. The cause is gas pushing into the nebula, causing a compression wave which sets off fragmentation and gravitational collapse. The gas pushing in can be from various sources, but supernova are one of the most common.

 

[Polymath257]

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

First of all, life happens well after the beginning of matter and energy (if they have a beginning, that is).

There are two basic possibilities: time is infinite into the past or time is finite into the past. In either case, matter and energy exist whenever time does. And since causality happens within time, none of the three (matter, energy, time) can be caused.

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.

Nobody says that either. You misunderstand what is being said.

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

Why? Why is that a requirement?

And, getting back to the original question, what does it mean to be a 'cause' in this context?

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Are all causes 'recipes'? Or is the cause the process of baking? Is a cook always required?

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.

What 'chemistry' is involved in the expansion of the universe? Or are you limiting yourself to life processes on Earth?

 

[omega2xx]

Well, first of all, your proposed cause doesn't actually explain anything. Why is it that the planet orbits in an ellipse? Why is there an orbit at all?

I explain it by noting that F=ma and F=GMm/r^2 together show that paths will be conic sections. And ellipses are one type of conic section.

You don't need a formula to explain what can been seen. Explaining the path is far from explaining how the plant originated in the first place, and you can't explain that.

I could go further and consider geodesics in the Schwartzchild solution of a gravitational potential and show that these also approximate ellipses, but have an exptra precession (which agrees with observation).

Do you see the difference? Your proposal could 'explain' the exact opposite of what actually happens, so it is no explanation at all.

Mine is very specific about the types of orbits and, loooking closer, things like the speed of the planet in the orbit at each time.

Start at the beginning. How did matter and energy come into existence?

No, it is a process we see happening in various nebula today. The cause is gas pushing into the nebula, causing a compression wave which sets off fragmentation and gravitational collapse. The gas pushing in can be from various sources, but supernova are one of the most common.

Nothing you have said can be proved.

 

[Polymath257]

You don't need a formula to explain what can been seen. Explaining the path is far from explaining how the plant originated in the first place, and you can't explain that.

We can, but that is irrelevant to the question. I asked how your proposed cause can be applied to the orbit of a planet.

Start at the beginning. How did matter and energy come into existence?

Why do you assume there was a beginning? Why do you assume that if there was a beginning, matter and energy were not already in existence? As I said, as long as there has been time, there has been matter and energy.

Nothing you have said can be proved.

But it is on far more solid foundation in observation thatn your proposal.

 

[omega2xx]

First of all, life happens well after the beginning of matter and energy (if they have a beginning, that is).

The question is not when it happened, but HOW it happened. You also have no evidence life hap;end well after the beginning of matter and energy.

There are two basic possibilities: time is infinite into the past or time is finite into the past. In either case, matter and energy exist whenever time does. And since causality happens within time, none of the three (matter, energy, time) can be caused.

Nobody says that either. You misunderstand what is being said.

Some do and I understand it very well.

]Why? Why is that a requirement?

Without a back quote I am not sure what the comment was.

And, getting back to the original question, what does it mean to be a 'cause' in this context?

The cause in all cases is what makes the effect to happen.

 

[DavidFirth]

Yes, that is what you believe, but there is no reason to believe either of those comments. They are religious beliefs without evidentiary support.

On the contrary they are so obviously true that the entire universe supports them.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.


So if you choose not to believe then you are doing it out of personal preference and bias.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

First, science cannot explain the origin of matter and energy, and is simply descriptive that it exists, properties and behavior. There is no objective verifiable evidence for the cause and origin of energy and matter, It is possible that matter and energy exist eternally without origin nor cause.

Theists assert that it is the Creation of everything including energy and matter. This offers no explanation. The above and below argument is simply an argument from ignorance concluding that 'science cannot explain the origin, cause or existence of matter and energy therefore . . .

Science has reasonable consistent and predictable explanations for the existence of life.

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 is simply simplistic foolishness and does not reflect the various theories and hypothesis concerning the scientific cause and origin of our universe,

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

No one can based on the objective verifiable evidence. All Theists can do is assert a Divine origin, and cannot provide an explanation based on the evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

We can, but that is irrelevant to the question. I asked how your proposed cause can be applied to the orbit of a planet.

God is the only explanation unless you have a better one that an be proved and you don't. The formulas you offered are meaningless.

Why do you assume there was a beginning? Why do you assume that if there was a beginning, matter and energy were not already in existence? As I said, as long as there has been time, there has been matter and energy.

Are you suggesting that matter, energy and life are eternal? IMO that is the only possibility other that "God did it." And of course you can't prove those things are eternal. IMO, it is more logical to believe a system that works perfectly needs not only a Creator,but also an intelligent Designer.

But it is on far more solid foundation in observation thatn your proposal.

Your opinion is noted and filed with all of your other opinions.

 

[shunyadragon]

God was the cause How do you explain it?



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 .

Actually science can adequately explain the origin of our sun and solar system by observing other solar systems in our galaxy in various stages of formation based on basic physics,

 

[Polymath257]

The question is not when it happened, but HOW it happened. You also have no evidence life hap;end well after the beginning of matter and energy.

On the contrary, we know that matter and energy have existed for about 13.7 billion years. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, so is at most 1/3 of the age of matter and energy.

The cause in all cases is what makes the effect to happen.

Circular. What does it mean to 'make the effect happen'? How is an effect 'made to happen'?

 

[Polymath257]

God is the only explanation unless you have a better one that an be proved and you don't. The formulas you offered are meaningless.

Gravity seems like a very complete explanation. If you want to know why the planet formed originally, we can discuss that also. And yes, we know planets form from the disks of gas and dust that form when parts of nebula collapse to form stars.

Are you suggesting that matter, energy and life are eternal? IMO that is the only possibility other that "God did it." And of course you can't prove those things are eternal. IMO, it is more logical to believe a system that works perfectly needs not only a Creator,but also an intelligent Designer.

This depends a bit on what you mean by the word 'eternal'. If you mean that matter and energy existed whenever there was time, then yes. If you require that time be infinite into the past, then no.

Of course, you fail to address how a designer, let alone an intelligent designer would come to exist. Oh, wait, you will claim that such a designer doesn't *need* a cause, right? Well, then, why does the universe? And isn't it both simpler and clearer to just say the universe is uncaused and has natural laws?

Your opinion is noted and filed with all of your other opinions.

As is yours.