Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIf you don't believe andrew, read some stephen:
…" There is a kind of religion in science ... every effect must have its cause;…
Well he is blatantly wrong about that for starters -hasn’t this moron ever heard of “quantum mechanics” ? In quantum mechanics there are quantum events that have no cause and quantum mechanics is a part of science. He clearly misrepresents science by implying it i ...[text shortened]... auses” -what about the science of mathematics -is that about finding causes or assuming causes?[/b]
"Not only does God definitely play dice, but He sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen. "
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill…To this Phd. the very existence of Quantum tunnelling has been PROVED to be geared by some unbelievably fortunate "accident" to be able to assist in the job of transporting haemoglobin. …[/b](my emphasis)
[b]==================================
Well he is blatantly wrong about that for starters -hasn’t this moron...
=====================================
Feel better now ? Better stock up on some other handy ad homs there.
=========================
ever heard of “quantum mechanics” ? In quantum mechanics there are quantum events that have echanics puts us closer to the evidence of intelligent creatorship NOT further away.
You lie. And you clearly haven’t studied any quantum physics like I have.
For a start, Quantum tunnelling does NOT “assist in the job of transporting haemoglobin” -that is compete claptrap -the only thing that is needed to transporting haemoglobin is a beating hart to pump around the blood that contains the red blood cells that contain the haemoglobin -this is just basic biology.
If you read what he actually said, he doesn’t make any claim that quantum tunnelling able to assist in the job of transporting haemoglobin and, certainly, to suggest he “PROVED” this is simply a lie.
Secondly, when talking about “tunnelling” in the context of biology, the term has nothing to do with “quantum tunnelling” -the two things are completely different phenomenon that shouldn’t be confused. To prove this, I got these quotes from:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/hu8435v2621t832l/
“The tern “tunnelling” used for this process needs to be clarified: tunnelling is used to mean the movement of a substrate along a narrow channel-like pathway within a biological carrier protein, and…”
-it then goes on to fully define the term and then it says:
“Note that this definition does NOT imply a quantum-mechanical mechanism” (my emphasis)
Originally posted by knightmeisterNeither I nor anyone else claims that it has been “proven” that certain quantum events have NO “cause” just as neither I nor anyone else claims that it has been “proven” that ALL quantum events DO have a “cause”.
In quantum mechanics there are quantum events that have no cause
--------------hammy----------------
How does one prove that an event has no cause? One might say that no cause has been found as yet or that one cannot understand why something happens but I'm not aware that quantum events have been proven to be uncaused , I only know that their ...[text shortened]... ossible causes and have eliminated all of them? What about the unknown causes that might exist?
It is just that it is considered to be a more than reasonable assumption to think that these quantum events do not have “causes” because, the claim that there exists a “cause” is an existential claim and, just like with all existential claims, if there is no reason nor evidence to support it (as in this case), we should regard the probability of it being true to be a small one. This is why quantum physics generally think, rightly or wrongly, that it is unlikely that these quantum events are without cause.
Even if the quantum physicists are wrong about quantum events not having a cause, the mere fact that they currently do not generally believe that quantum events have causes means that the science of quantum physics is NOT about finding “causes” and so the assertion that ALL science is about finding “causes” is clearly wrong.
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou are mistaken on this point. See the following article:
Secondly, when talking about “tunnelling” in the context of biology, the term has nothing to do with “quantum tunnelling”
http://www.biophysj.org/cgi/reprint/35/2/471.pdf
The article examines the role of quantum mechanical tunneling in the binding of carbon monoxide to hemoglobin. It is certainly plausible that quantum mechanical tunneling could also help regulate the binding of oxygen to hemoglobin, as the originally cited researcher suggests.
EDIT: Of course none of this supports Neo-Creationism.
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrI apologise -I stand corrected.
You are mistaken on this point. See the following article:
http://www.biophysj.org/cgi/reprint/35/2/471.pdf
The article examines the role of quantum mechanical tunneling in the binding of carbon monoxide to hemoglobin. It is certainly plausible that quantum mechanical tunneling could also help regulate the binding of oxygen to hemoglobin, as the originally cited researcher suggests.
EDIT: Of course none of this supports Neo-Creationism.
So the word “tunnelling” would appear to have TWO deferent possible meanings in this context.
5 edits
Originally posted by jaywill…Quantum tunnelling must function no more or less EFFICENTLY than what we observe for haemoglobin to transport the right amount of oxygen to the cells of all vertebrate and most invertebrate species."
[b]==================================
Well he is blatantly wrong about that for starters -hasn’t this moron...
=====================================
Feel better now ? Better stock up on some other handy ad homs there.
=========================
ever heard of “quantum mechanics” ? In quantum mechanics there are quantum events that have echanics puts us closer to the evidence of intelligent creatorship NOT further away.
. …[/b](my emphasis)
It is not clear what he means when he says:
“Quantum tunnelling must function no more or less EFFICENTLY than …”
-
Quantum-tunnelling is described mathematically and NOT with a variable in the equation for “EFFICENTLY” -it may shows the probability of a particle quantum-tunnelling through a barrier but that probability is indirectly determined by certain fixed physical constants.
Either a particle quantum-tunnels through a barrier or it doesn’t but, if it does, unless you are merely talking about the probabilities, in no sense does it do so either “more” or “less” “efficiently”.
If what he means by the “efficiency” in this context is the probabilities, then I think it unlikely that he has “proven” that if those probabilities where slightly different that haemoglobin would not transport enough oxygen (I am sure I would have heard about it in the science journals if he did do this)
-I challenge you to give me a scientifically reliable website that proves me wrong…
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonBut that is besides the point. Whether he was right about haemoglobin's dependency on a specific law of physics is irrelevant.
If what he means by the “efficiency” in this context is the probabilities, then I am sure that he hasn’t “proven” that if those probabilities where slightly different that haemoglobin would not transport enough oxygen (I am sure I would have heard about it in the science journals if he did do this)
-I challenge you to give me a scientifically reliable website that proves me wrong…
jaywill is attempting to use the age old argument that if a result is improbable then it cannot occur by accident. On the face of it, it is an obviously fundamentally flawed argument, however people still seem to get taken in by it especially when it is hidden in a layer or two of decoration. One key factor is the dressing up of the result as a supposedly special or desired result.
Another key factor to note is that our brains are wired to look for causes. It is a part of the human mind. You will find this thread full of people who are absolutely convinced that an event must necessarily have a cause and that if a cause is not evident then it must be invented. So if I throw a dice, some rational people will say 'the result is random' but other people simply cannot accept that. They must find a reason why the result was what it was, and if they have to invoke 'good luck', karma, or God, they will do so, especially if the result of the die has a significant impact on their lives.
But once it is accepted that random (or uncaused) results do exist, the argument that an apparently random result was improbable implies a cause is flawed.
7 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton=========================================
…To this Phd. the very existence of Quantum tunnelling has been PROVED to be geared by some unbelievably fortunate "accident" to be able to assist in the job of transporting haemoglobin. …(my emphasis)
You lie. And you clearly haven’t studied any quantum physics like I have.
For a start, Quantum tunnelling does NOT “assist in the job of tra ...[text shortened]... ote that this definition does NOT imply a quantum-mechanical mechanism” (my emphasis)[/b]
You lie. And you clearly haven’t studied any quantum physics like I have.
========================================
I haven't studied quantum physics. But I can quote a Phd. who has. And there is more to come. It has been quite enlightening.
So you lie to call me a liar junior.
=====================================
For a start, Quantum tunnelling does NOT “assist in the job of transporting haemoglobin” -that is compete claptrap -the only thing that is needed to transporting haemoglobin is a beating hart to pump around the blood that contains the red blood cells that contain the haemoglobin -this is just basic biology.
=======================================
I can at this time only assume that you have not studied the matter deep enough. I at this time assume that Ross is having a technical conversation about it on a more fundamental level, a lower level.
When did you get your Phd. ?
========================================
If you read what he actually said, he doesn’t make any claim that quantum tunnelling able to assist in the job of transporting haemoglobin and, certainly, to suggest he “PROVED” this is simply a lie.
Secondly, when talking about “tunnelling” in the context of biology, the term has nothing to do with “quantum tunnelling” -the two things are completely different phenomenon that shouldn’t be confused. To prove this, I got these quotes from:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/hu8435v2621t832l/
“The tern “tunnelling” used for this process needs to be clarified: tunnelling is used to mean the movement of a substrate along a narrow channel-like pathway within a biological carrier protein, and…”
-it then goes on to fully define the term and then it says:
“Note that this definition does NOT imply a quantum-mechanical mechanism” (my emphasis)
========================================
I'll look into it. And possibly contact Dr. Ross, ask him to explain his comment, and that one Andrew Hamilton has declared him a liar and me too, for refering in my limited knowledge to a paragraph in his book.
I'll also indicate that you refer to Robert Jastrow repeatedly as a "moron".
Now aside from that, Quantum Mechanics as espoused by Astrophysicist Paul Davies has seemed to cause him to move closer to an intelligent agent rather than further away, according to Dr. Ross.
Ross points out that Davies's (a Quantum Tunneling Theorist), has apparently evolved his attitude with successive new publications of his writings.
"Davies deserves credit for ongoing reconsiderations and revisions of his position. In a book published in 1984 (Superforce), he argued that the laws of physics "seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design." In a more recent book (The Cosmic Blueprint, 1988) he posed this question:
"If new organizational levels just pop into existence for no reason, why do we see such an orderly progression in the universe from featureless origin to rich diversity?"
He concluded that we have "powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all." Davies seems to be moving forward to some form of theism."
At least to the Quantum Tunneling theorist Davies discoveries of Quantum Mechanics seem to be moving closer towards an intelligent designer rather than further away as you wish to go.
No doubt he's a liar and a moron too, eh?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead========================================
But that is besides the point. Whether he was right about haemoglobin's dependency on a specific law of physics is irrelevant.
jaywill is attempting to use the age old argument that if a result is improbable then it cannot occur by accident. On the face of it, it is an obviously fundamentally flawed argument, however people still seem to get taken in by t, the argument that an apparently random result was improbable implies a cause is flawed.
They must find a reason why the result was what it was, and if they have to invoke 'good luck', karma, or God, they will do so, especially if the result of the die has a significant impact on their lives.
But once it is accepted that random (or uncaused) results do exist, the argument that an apparently random result was improbable implies a cause is flawed.
============================================
The toss of one coin is not the problem. You misrepresent the problem.
This is more representative of the situation:
A person spins a large number of roulette wheels, say 10 to the 1,567 power, roulette wheels. That would be the number one followed by 1,567 zeros. She spins them 1,000 times each.
Ten to the 1,567th power roulette wheels, one thousand times each. By random chance one of these roulette wheels let us say will produce 1,000 consecutive zeroes. So many wheels + plus so many spins, there is a probabilty that one of them on one of the spins will produce 1000 consecutive zeros.
But if a person had only one roulette wheel to spin once, should that single roulette wheel produce 1,000 consecutive zeros, we nust rationally conclude that the wheel had be been MANUFACTURED to produce nothing but zeros. Regardless of how many OTHER roulette wheels might conceivably exist, this one available to her rationally appears to be manufacture to produce nothing but zeros.
We have only ONE universe that we know of. We have only ONE creation and expansion of that universe that we know of. Our sample size of universes is ONE. ie. one wheel, one spin, and look at the outcome - life.
Many people like yourself theorize that there may be infinite numbers of universes and that we JUST HAPPENED to be in the one in which the exceedingly slim possibility of LIFE has taken place. You assume the benefit of an infinite sample size without any evidence that the sample size exceeds one.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillIn other words, you are appealing to the claim that the result is special, as I mentioned in my post.
Ten to the 1,567th power roulette wheels, one thousand times each. By random chance one of these roulette wheels let us say will produce 1,000 consecutive zeroes. So many wheels + plus so many spins, there is a probabilty that one of them on one of the spins will produce 1000 consecutive zeros.
But if you are to appeal to that claim, then you must show it. Why do you claim that the current working of hemoglobin and all the necessary laws of physics for it to work in that exact way are equivalent to zeros? How do you know that the 'tunneling' phenomena is not equivalent to say 324? Why do you assign it a zero?
We have only ONE universe that we know of. We have only ONE creation and expansion of that universe that we know of. Our sample size of universes is ONE. ie. one wheel, one spin, and look at the outcome - life.
You are getting confused in your own analogy. A moment ago it was 1000 wheel spins, now it is one.
Let us take your argument to its logical conclusion.
If the universe had been different in any detail of any kind, then you would come to the same conclusion. So any universe whatever the probabilities of it happening fits your argument equally well.
Therefore by your argument all possible universes necessarily point to design ie it is impossible for a universe to exist that does not do so. In fact such a conclusion is trivial.
So why the whole adding up of probabilities, and stories about tunneling and hemoglobin, and appealing to peoples Phd.s etc? What was all that about?
Many people like yourself theorize that there may be infinite numbers of universes and that we JUST HAPPENED to be in the one in which the exceedingly slim possibility of LIFE has taken place. You assume the benefit of an infinite sample size without any evidence that the sample size exceeds one.
Are we talking about existent sample size or actual sample size? Surely you are getting seriously confused here? It is not necessary for 6 dice to actually exist in all six states for me to calculate the probability of each state. Or am I just not understanding you?
If your finger had slipped and you had misspelled one of the words in your post, would it have made the current universe one in which life did not exist? Do you claim that such an event could not have happened? Unless you can support such a claim, then I think I can safely say that we have a sample size of greater than one.
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywill…I'll look into it. And possibly contact Dr. Ross, ask him to explain his comment, and that one Andrew Hamilton has declared HIM a LIAR and me too, for refering in my limited knowledge to a paragraph in his book.
[b]=========================================
You lie. And you clearly haven’t studied any quantum physics like I have.
========================================
I haven't studied quantum physics. But I can quote a Phd. who has. And there is more to come. It has been quite enlightening.
So you lie to call me a liar junior.
==== an further away as you wish to go.
No doubt he's a liar and a moron too, eh?
. …[/b](my emphasis)
But that would mean that you will lie again! -this time to him.
-I did not call HIM a lie -I called YOU a lie. -I called him a moron (NOT an lie) for implying that science is ONLY about finding causes (I am assuming here you haven’t misquoted him nor taken what he said out of context).
-if you insist on passing on an insult to him, at the very least do it in an honest fashion and not put words in my mouth.
6 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI agree with everything you say here 🙂
But that is besides the point. Whether he was right about haemoglobin's dependency on a specific law of physics is irrelevant.
jaywill is attempting to use the age old argument that if a result is improbable then it cannot occur by accident. On the face of it, it is an obviously fundamentally flawed argument, however people still seem to get taken in by t, the argument that an apparently random result was improbable implies a cause is flawed.
jaywill
Exactly as twhitehead said in that post:
“Whether he was right about haemoglobin's dependency on a specific law of physics is irrelevant.”
Now, you are obviously unconvinced by this -so, ok, lets suppose for the sake of argument that it has been scientifically PROVED that haemoglobin has total dependency on a specific law of physics namely quantum-tunnelling -now lets further suppose for the sake of argument that it has also been scientifically PROVED that if some of the physical constants in nature (such as the speed of light etc) where even a tiny bit different, then this would effect quantum-tunnelling in such a peculiar way as to make haemoglobin unable to do its job at all.
Now IF that hypothetical scenario was true then just consider what would be the case if the physical constants in some “other” particular universe (I am not implying that other universes actually exist) ARE different from what they are in our universe: then IF we where in THAT universe, we would not be having this conversation because haemoglobin would be useless thus evolution wouldn’t have given us haemoglobin and we wouldn’t have ever heard of “haemoglobin”.
But, for starters, there could still be life in such a universe for much of life does not depend on haemoglobin (such as plants, insects, spiders, bacteria, jellyfish, lichens etc).
Secondly, if haemoglobin would not work in that universe, that would simply mean that evolution would probably have given sapient beings such as ourselves a DIFFERENT oxygen carrying substance that DOES work in THAT universe which only works with THOSE precise physical constants (and no other possible ones) in THAT universe. Lets suppose this oxygen carrying substance in THAT universe was called “oxyglobin”, then any people in THAT universe could say: “isn’t it an amassing coincidence that all the physical constants are just EXACTLY right for oxyglobin to work!!!” and maybe in yet another universe with yet another set of slightly different physical constant, any people in THAT universe could be similarly saying: “isn’t it an amassing coincidence that all the physical constants are just EXACTLY right for haemoxy to work!!!” -and so on -and there could be some people in each of these universes claiming that this proves that there exists a “god” that must have made those physical constants just exactly right so that they can exist there -do you see the logical problem with that?
6 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead====================================
In other words, you are appealing to the claim that the result is special, as I mentioned in my post.
But if you are to appeal to that claim, then you must show it. Why do you claim that the current working of hemoglobin and all the necessary laws of physics for it to work in that exact way are equivalent to zeros? How do you know that the 'tunneling' ph ...[text shortened]... rt such a claim, then I think I can safely say that we have a sample size of greater than one.
But if you are to appeal to that claim, then you must show it. Why do you claim that the current working of hemoglobin and all the necessary laws of physics for it to work in that exact way are equivalent to zeros? How do you know that the 'tunneling' phenomena is not equivalent to say 324? Why do you assign it a zero?
=========================================
The coming out of zeros corresponds to the probability of life from the Big Bang.
Maybe you could explain why Davies notices in his research on Quantum Mechanics that the laws of physics "seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenius design."
[Paul Davies, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature (New York: Simon and Shuster, 1985), page 243]
=====================================
We have only ONE universe that we know of. We have only ONE creation and expansion of that universe that we know of. Our sample size of universes is ONE. ie. one wheel, one spin, and look at the outcome - life.
You are getting confused in your own analogy. A moment ago it was 1000 wheel spins, now it is one.
==========================================
The multiple wheels and multiple spins corresponds to the appeal to the possibility of infinite number of universes as proposed by Astrophysicist Richard Gott. And with that random fluctuations of a primeval radiation field. The popularized anti-thiest suggestion is that random fluctuations int the primeval radiation field could generate a universe with all the conditions necessary for our existence.
The suggestion is an abuse of probabilty theory. It assumes the benefit of an infinite sample size without any evidence that the sample size exceeds one.
Incidently, Robert Jastrow apparently was not alone in concluding that supernatural forces were at work to cause the Big Bang. Astronomer Goeffrey Burbidge copmlained, according to Hugh Ross, Phd., that his [Burbidge's] peers were rushing off to join the First Church of Christ of the Big Bang.
==================================
Let us take your argument to its logical conclusion.
====================================
The most logical conclusion is for us to realize that we are here. That we cannot deny. That is our most convencing evidence to work with.
We are here in the one universe and the one creation event that we know of. Even if there were multiple universes getting to them would be a problem according to the proponent of possible multiple universes - Richard Gott. He says that they would be disjoint -
[Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics:An Extension into Metaphysics and the Meaning of Reality (New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday, 1987), pages 16-29;
Stanley L. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (Ediington, U.K.: Scottish Academy Press, 1980), pages 96-98; James Jeans, "A Universe of Pure Thought," Quantum Questions, ed. Ken Wilber (Boston, MA: New Science Library, Shambhala, 1985), pages 140-144;
Paul Teller, "Relativity, Relational Holism, and the Bell Inequalities," Philosphical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflection on Bell's Theorom, ed. James T. Cushing and Eman McMillin (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), pages 216-223.
The universes can never overlap. Travel between one universe and another would be prophibited, even in principle.
The possibility of examining a theorized larger sample size is out of the question. We have to think hard about the one universe in which we find ourselves.
Atheist's hope that infinite possible other universes will soften the impact of the astounding presence of life in this universe.
=================================
If the universe had been different in any detail of any kind, then you would come to the same conclusion. So any universe whatever the probabilities of it happening fits your argument equally well.
======================================
I doubt that I would be here to make a conclusion.
Now this stuff is a bit heavy. I admit that. However, Gott's proposal based on his Quantum Mechanics musings is that in that brief period of 10 to the minus 43 second, the information is loss forever and ANYTHING might have taken place. And in this tiny period when the inflationary model of the Big Bang occured when the inflation of the universe was at a maximal rate for a maximal time.
"Richard J. Gott III, "Creation of Open Universes from de Sitter Space," Nature 295 (1982, page 304-307]
Gott theorized that in this ten to the minus 43 second history of the universe after the Big Bang opportunity existed for a random fluctuation of a primeval radiation field out of an infinite number of fluctuations could produce a just right universe for life out of an infinite number of universes.
===============================
Therefore by your argument all possible universes necessarily point to design ie it is impossible for a universe to exist that does not do so. In fact such a conclusion is trivial.
=================================
I do not recognize the conlusion you are attributing to my post.
I do not recognize me taking any position that "all possible universes necessarily point to design ie it is impossible for a univers to exist that does not do so."
My point was that the laying hold of Gott's theory of possible infinite universes of which we just happen to be in the one that produced us living people, abuses probabilty theory, according to Dr. Ross.
The known sample size of the number of universe is ONE. We know of no others. And according to Gott, we could even get over to ONE of them to see if life was over there also.
==================================
So why the whole adding up of probabilities, and stories about tunneling and hemoglobin, and appealing to peoples Phd.s etc? What was all that about?
=====================================
My post was more aimed at your probability example as representative of the way Theist's think. It was not specically speaking about the hemoglobin matter.
It was speaking to the known event of a extremely unlikely emergence of we wonderfully put together living people in a (for the most part), life hostile universe.
=============================
Many people like yourself theorize that there may be infinite numbers of universes and that we JUST HAPPENED to be in the one in which the exceedingly slim possibility of LIFE has taken place. You assume the benefit of an infinite sample size without any evidence that the sample size exceeds one.
Are we talking about existent sample size or actual sample size?
====================================
Actual. According to Gott, theorized multiple ones could not be examined, if what he says about non overlaping and disjoint universes was true.
=====================================
Surely you are getting seriously confused here?
====================================
Maybe so.
But not too confused to recognize that your resistence to the evidence of Big Bang is like the Flat Earth Society.
"We're not beat yet. We still have reasons for thinking that the Earth is FLAT" they say.
You're grasping and other anti-Theists are hoping Quantum Mechanics will replace the need for a pre-Energy, pre-SPace, pre-Time, Pre- Length, Height, Width, pre-Matter Cause for the Big Bang.
========================================
It is not necessary for 6 dice to actually exist in all six states for me to calculate the probability of each state. Or am I just not understanding you?
====================================
I'll think on it some more.
======================================
If your finger had slipped and you had misspelled one of the words in your post, would it have made the current universe one in which life did not exist? Do you claim that such an event could not have happened? Unless you can support such a claim, then I think I can safely say that we have a sample size of greater than one.
=====================================
If you can safely say that there is more than one universe please tell us where it is and how we can observe what goes on over there.
We only experience this one. Anti-Theist followers of Richard Gott was theorizing INFINITE number of universes. One of them, [they] said, was lucky enough to produce conditions favorable for us living organisms to exist.
Perhaps I mistakenly assumed you are one of these followers of Gott's Quantum Mechanical efforts to propose infinite numbers of universes.
Originally posted by jaywillI wrote:
[b]====================================
But if you are to appeal to that claim, then you must show it. Why do you claim that the current working of hemoglobin and all the necessary laws of physics for it to work in that exact way are equivalent to zeros? How do you know that the 'tunneling' phenomena is not equivalent to say 324? Why do you assign it a zero ...[text shortened]... t's Quantum Mechanical efforts to propose infinite numbers of universes.
===========================
Gott theorized that in this ten to the minus 43 second history of the universe after the Big Bang opportunity existed for a random fluctuation of a primeval radiation field out of an infinite number of fluctuations could produce a just right universe for life out of an infinite number of universes.
==========================
I should correct that to say he laid the ground work upon which some anti-theists theorized one of Gott's infinite universes COULD just have been lucky enough to produce our life inhabited universe.
I'm not sure what atheistic arguements, if any, were written by Gott.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonNeither I nor anyone else claims that it has been “proven” that certain quantum events have NO “cause” just as neither I nor anyone else claims that it has been “proven” that ALL quantum events DO have a “cause”. -------hammy--------------------
Neither I nor anyone else claims that it has been “proven” that certain quantum events have NO “cause” just as neither I nor anyone else claims that it has been “proven” that ALL quantum events DO have a “cause”.
It is just that it is considered to be a more than reasonable assumption to think that these quantum events do not have “causes” because ...[text shortened]... nding “causes” and so the assertion that ALL science is about finding “causes” is clearly wrong.
However you did say this .......
"In quantum mechanics there are quantum events that have no cause " (AH)
....and this very much sounded like you were stating it as fact and stating it quite confidently. What you meant to say is that you believe that they have no cause.
Now , of course , it has not been proven that quantum events have a cause either but since virtually all of our rational knowledge of the Universe is based on searching for and finding reasons why stuff happens then it's not unreasonable to adopt the default position .....................
" until we know for sure that quantum events have no cause it's reasonable to assume that there is some reason why these events are happening the way they do"
I would say this is very reasonable and logical because there is a very long track record of science finding all sorts of causes for all sorts of effects and events. From typhoid through to weather systems and balck holes - that's what science does - it tells us and shows us that there are reasons (causes) why things are the way they are.
So it seems a bit of a leap of faith to state so certainly that---------------------"In quantum mechanics there are quantum events that have no cause"--------- when the history of science is full of events that were once not understood but now are. I reckon that if a Theist said such a thing we would have the old "God dun it" thing thrown at us , but it seems that Atheists are just able to throw out statements that are unproven that happen to support their position.
You are however an honest debater and also prepared to be corrected on things. To be honest I am genuinely interested in the question of how it could ever be proven that an event was uncaused , it seems an idea littered with paradoxes. How would one ever find a cause that didn't exist or eliminate all possible causes?
Science is most definitely about understanding and explaining our universe and it does that by observation and finding reasons why stuff happens. At the moment it seems to me that a lot of frontier quantum physics is at the observation stage so it seems a little early to jump to conclusions. Afterall , an uncaused event is an incredible thing and incredible claims require incredible proof. (now where have I heard that before?)