Originally posted by KellyJaySo you essentially assume that it doesn't exist until there is evidence to the contrary? Is this correct?
I'm prefectly content saying that I do not believe in the sqaphetti monster, I do not
even bring it up in any conversation due to that lack of belief,
None of that has anything to do with saying everything has a cause, you don't have to bring God into it this universe and see that everything has a cause here, nothing is as it is without a reason!
That is exactly the claim that I challenge. There is no reason to believe that it true, therefore it is common sense to assume that it is no until there is evidence to the contrary.
You claim you can 'see' it without bringing God into the equation, but I bet you cannot back that claim up. What reasons do you have for thinking that everything has a cause?
Now simply because you don't want to go down the path of acknowledging that and where it could lead is still not a reason to reject the notion that is the case.
I am more than happy to discuss the issue. If you feel that I should acknowledge it, then give me reasons for acknowledging it rather than accusing me of avoiding acknowledging it for personal reasons.
Explain to me why anyone should think that everything must have a cause. Is there even a hint in that direction? I say no, science as it currently stands says that the vast majority of events in the universe are as good as random ie they have no known cause - and if they have a cause it is indistinguishable in its effects from no cause.
Originally posted by KellyJay“...one of my issues with people claiming given enough time
You assume odds! It is no different than the example about DNA in I believe it was
one of Dawkin's books, he was saying that getting the combination for life from
non-life was like turning a combination lock given enough time the lock would
open. That assumes that there is a key combo for how he was attempting to open
the lock, which is one of my issues ...[text shortened]... g" odds that it could have
happen they are suggesting, they don't know, they assume.
Kelly
evolution could produce the life we see now from non-living material. ...”
nobody claims that evolution produces life from non-life; you are confusing evolution with abiogenesis again.
Evolution theory is not a theory of the origin of life.
“....Suggesting it
must be true because we see life now is "assuming" odds that it could have
happen they are suggesting, they don't know, they assume. ...”
?
Originally posted by KellyJayObviously Occam’s razor applies here:
"It is common sense to assume there is no cause until there is reason to believe there is one."
Why, because it fits your belief structure?
Kelly
why assume a 'cause' exists for something where and when such an assumption fails to explain anything and there is no evidence (no matter how indirect) for such a cause?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThe trouble with YOUR views when it comes to Occam's razor is that you believe
Obviously Occam’s razor applies here:
why assume a 'cause' exists for something where and when such an assumption fails to explain anything and there is no evidence (no matter how indirect) for such a cause?
you KNOW what is the solution that makes the most sense, which when it comes
to events like how did everything get here and why does it behave the way we
see it now, you don't know what is and isn't the simpler solution or theory.
You can claim your views or theories are the best, but that is again assuming quite
a bit about what you think has occured and why it started, but it boils down to you
simply saying your point of view fits your opinion so it must be right.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI think you do not fully understand Occam's razor when applied to this problem.
The trouble with YOUR views when it comes to Occam's razor is that you believe
you KNOW what is the solution that makes the most sense, which when it comes
to events like how did everything get here and why does it behave the way we
see it now, you don't know what is and isn't the simpler solution or theory.
If we refer to wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
we find that Occams razor is not about simplicity, but about minimal assumptions.
Taking the universe to be caused requires the assumption that a cause is needed. Taking it to be uncaused requires no assumptions at all.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYea, right....as if you know what it takes to create a universe with or without
I think you do not fully understand Occam's razor when applied to this problem.
If we refer to wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
we find that Occams razor is not about simplicity, but about minimal assumptions.
Taking the universe to be caused requires the assumption that a cause is needed. Taking it to be uncaused requires no assumptions at all.
minimal assumptions.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI do not know what it takes to create a universe nor have I claimed to. I still maintain that the requirement of creation is an assumption and Occam's razor says we should not make that assumption as it is extra to requirements.
Yea, right....as if you know what it takes to create a universe with or without
minimal assumptions.
Kelly
Once again, you are arguing against yourself. You keep pointing at my ignorance and saying 'you assume', or 'as if you know', or 'you would need to know' etc when in reality my argument is based on said ignorance and it is you that claims to have knowledge (despite claiming the impossibility of gaining such knowledge).
Your argument has always been 'your guess is as good as mine' when in reality I am not guessing - only you are.
You base your whole life on a guess, whereas I say "until there is reason to think something, I will not even guess at it".
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay“...you don't know what is and isn't the SIMPLER solution or theory. ...” (my emphasis)
The trouble with YOUR views when it comes to Occam's razor is that you believe
you KNOW what is the solution that makes the most sense, which when it comes
to events like how did everything get here and why does it behave the way we
see it now, you don't know what is and isn't the simpler solution or theory.
You can claim your views or theories are th ...[text shortened]... s down to you
simply saying your point of view fits your opinion so it must be right.
Kelly
as twhitehead basically said, Occam's razor, when stated correctly, does NOT actually say the “simplest” theory the the most probable! (a common misunderstanding).
It says the least assumptive theory (which is often NOT the simplest!!! ) is the one we should be most certain of.
As Einstein said "make it simple, not simpler"
http://www.google.co.uk/[WORD TOO LONG]
“...You can claim your views or theories are the best ...”
who doesn’t? Would you claim that your theories are NOT the best? if so, then you must admit you are wrong!
Of course I claim my theories to be the best! 😀
Originally posted by twhiteheadExtra to requirements? Exactly again how do you know what is or is not extra?
I do not know what it takes to create a universe nor have I claimed to. I still maintain that the requirement of creation is an assumption and Occam's razor says we should not make that assumption as it is extra to requirements.
Once again, you are arguing against yourself. You keep pointing at my ignorance and saying 'you assume', or 'as if you know', ...[text shortened]... hereas I say "until there is reason to think something, I will not even guess at it".
You have it in your head you know what it takes so you draw the line and say
this is needed and that isn't, and again, how do you KNOW?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead==================================
I think you do not fully understand Occam's razor when applied to this problem.
If we refer to wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
we find that Occams razor is not about simplicity, but about minimal assumptions.
Taking the universe to be caused requires the assumption that a cause is needed. Taking it to be uncaused requires no assumptions at all.
Taking the universe to be caused requires the assumption that a cause is needed. Taking it to be uncaused requires no assumptions at all.
===============================
Should man have had the same attitude with lightening, tides, disease, mental illness, poor nutrition, criminal behavior, crop growth, purification of milk, preservation of food?
Should man have come down on the simplier side of Occasm's Razor and postulated that no cause needed to be assumed in these areas of science as well?
Originally posted by jaywillNo. All of them follow patterns and therefore a law / cause is implied.
Should man have had the same attitude with lightening, tides, disease, mental illness, poor nutrition, criminal behavior, crop growth, purification of milk, preservation of food?
Should man have come down on the simplier side of Occasm's Razor and postulated that no cause needed to be assumed in these areas of science as well?
Originally posted by KellyJayI do not know what is or is not extra to requirements. It is you that claims to know.
Extra to requirements? Exactly again how do you know what is or is not extra?
You have it in your head you know what it takes so you draw the line and say
this is needed and that isn't, and again, how do you KNOW?
Kelly
I am claiming that until we have reason to believe something is required, we should not assume that it is. It is you that is making the assumptions not I.
Originally posted by twhiteheadLOL, okay your right until you are proven wrong, I guess that is understandable,
I do not know what is or is not extra to requirements. It is you that claims to know.
I am claiming that until we have reason to believe something is required, we should not assume that it is. It is you that is making the assumptions not I.
but has nothing to do with science.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, you are still not getting it. If there is no reason to think something is the case, then you should not think it to be the case: that is science. You yourself admit that you follow that methodology. You do not believe in the spaghetti monster.
LOL, okay your right until you are proven wrong, I guess that is understandable,
but has nothing to do with science.
Kelly
What we disagree on is whether or not there is a reason to believe the universe was caused. You claimed your main reason was that everything in the universe appears to be caused. I claim that is not the case. I have started a thread discussing that issue.
If I am correct and there is no reason to suspect a cause, then Occam's Razor dictates that we no introduce one.
You keep trying to turn it around and claim that I am claiming to be a 'know it all' and to know that there is no cause. This is not my claim.
It is you that is making the more specific claim - that there is a cause or there is good reason to think there might be a cause.
Thus you need to explain your reasons for thinking that, or admit that it is purely arbitrary guesswork on your part - akin to suggesting that there are toasters flying around Mars.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou have no reason to believe what is and is not required for the creation or the
No, you are still not getting it. If there is no reason to think something is the case, then you should not think it to be the case: that is science. You yourself admit that you follow that methodology. You do not believe in the spaghetti monster.
What we disagree on is whether or not there is a reason to believe the universe was caused. You claimed yo ...[text shortened]... trary guesswork on your part - akin to suggesting that there are toasters flying around Mars.
beginning of the universe, period. You again are bringing God into the equation
while I'm only talking about the reasons for your 'science', you just cannot let it
alone can you? The beginning of the universe, you don't know how or why, yet
you have eliminated some causes and accepted others without really knowing how
it really started and why. Your best and most honest statement could only really
be you don't know how it happened, not, I know it didn't happen like that, whatever
that is!
Kelly