Calling out KellyJay

Originally posted by KellyJay
Do you have ONE just one uncaused event?
Kelly

I have said this several times: it is, I believe, impossible to prove that an event is uncaused. I therefore cannot present a definitively uncaused event. However, the exact result of any interaction when looked at at quantum scales is known to be statistically random. There is no known reason why a specific outcome eventuates. As far as we know it cannot be predicted by the prior state of the universe. If anything, quantum mechanics relies on this unpredictability.
It should therefore be the default position that such events are uncaused, and it is up to those who claim otherwise to give a rationalization for thinking otherwise.

Originally posted by LemonJello
No.

All the evidence that we have, taken together, if anything points to rejection of the idea that there are no random or uncaused physical events. To the extent that DW's premise implies that there are no random or uncaused physical events (again, I am a little fuzzy on how exactly to interpret his argument here), we ought to reject DW's premise. ...[text shortened]... ed to accept any of his premises, excepting 1.1 which is the most trivial and non-contentious.

All the evidence that we have taken together rejects the idea of no random or
uncaused physical events? You came up with that how? You have a few things
we can say are uncaused? Random I have a hard time with, since as I pointed out
before random could just mean we don't grasp all the variables and how they
interact with one another. I guess the samething could be said for so called
uncaused events too, our lack of understanding is the real issue, but I think it is
pure laziness to assume anything is uncaused by default.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
..... but I think it is
pure laziness to assume anything is uncaused by default.
Kelly

Who's assuming anything? [Other than you]

The point of science and scientific enquiry is that it is an unending search for answers to
an unending sequence of (ever more detailed) questions.

The answers to which give a more and more accurate and detailed picture of the reality we
live in and and that understanding allows us great levels of prediction and control over that
reality.

You don't assume that all events must have a cause, and you don't assume that there are events
that have no cause.
You look at the evidence and see where it leads.

At the moment there are a number of different events and types of event that we observe that
appear to happen spontaneously with no prior or external cause.

That might be an illusion and the universe really is deterministic (which completely rules out any ideas
of free will btw) but at the moment to the best of our ability to tell these events are spontaneous and
uncaused.

Without perfect knowledge (which is pretty much impossible) you can't say for absolute 100% certainty
but that doesn't matter.


The point of the argument here is that for the 'first cause' argument for 'god' to work you do HAVE to
assume that there MUST be a cause for every event (except the first cause which is uncaused and which
is god... Which is stupid just on the face of it but never mind) and you can't legitimately make that assumption
when we have not only no good grounds for thinking that everything has a cause but that there are known
events that to the best of our ability to tell really do have no cause.

Without the premise that you can't have an uncaused event then the argument of first cause is dead in the water.

This premise is not justified, and runs contrary to the currently available evidence.

So the first cause (or the you can't get something from nothing) argument for god fails because the not only are the
arguments logical fallacies, they are based on false and/or unsubstantiated premises.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Who's assuming anything? [Other than you]

The point of science and scientific enquiry is that it is an unending search for answers to
an unending sequence of (ever more detailed) questions.

The answers to which give a more and more accurate and detailed picture of the reality we
live in and and that understanding allows us great levels of predi rguments logical fallacies, they are based on false and/or unsubstantiated premises.

Atheists and most of those believing in evolution assume there is some natural
law that violates the laws of thermodynamics and allows for energy to be
created without the need for a supernatural power.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Random I have a hard time with, since as I pointed out before random could just mean we don't grasp all the variables and how they interact with one another.

And I don't think anyone disagrees with you on that.

I guess the samething could be said for so called uncaused events too, our lack of understanding is the real issue, but I think it is pure laziness to assume anything is uncaused by default.
That is where I disagree. Occam's razor suggests that if it is not known whether or not a cause exists, then one should assume no cause until evidence suggests otherwise. It is not laziness, but rather the default position. Of course this is not the same as claiming that no such cause exists. One should not base an argument on a claim that no cause exists if it is not know whether or not one does.
However, the premise under discussion make the opposite assumption - it assumes a cause exists, without evidence to suggest it, and then makes the error of basing an argument on this unfounded assumption.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Atheists and most of those believing in evolution assume there is some natural
law that violates the laws of thermodynamics and allows for energy to be
created without the need for a supernatural power.

Please tell the class exactly where you think evolutionary theory says that energy gets created
from nothing so I can then point out your error before hitting you over the head repeatedly with
a biology text book until you get the message.

Atheists don't 'assume' anything and accepting evolution as true is not a requirement of atheism
and in fact the majority of people who accept evolution as true are not only theists but Christians.
Atheism is (as you well know) the default position with regards to belief in gods and doesn't
assume anything. It is the position of not assuming anything and not believing until there is
justification to do so.

Evolution does not in any way violate ANY laws of thermodynamics (which as we have established
you don't understand).

And nothing in evolution requires energy to be created from nothing.

So as per usual you are talking complete bunk.
And as every error you just made has been explained to you many, many times you are also lying...
Again.

Originally posted by KellyJay
All the evidence that we have taken together rejects the idea of no random or
uncaused physical events? You came up with that how? You have a few things
we can say are uncaused? Random I have a hard time with, since as I pointed out
before random could just mean we don't grasp all the variables and how they
interact with one another. I guess the samethi ...[text shortened]... real issue, but I think it is
pure laziness to assume anything is uncaused by default.
Kelly

All the evidence that we have taken together rejects the idea of no random or
uncaused physical events? You came up with that how?

Again, I came up with that based on my studies of different areas, such as quantum. Based on my studies, it is an open question whether or not all physical events are determined. I also said that if anything I think the evidence suggests the answer is no. At any rate, at the very least in our current context we can say the following. If DW intends to make a claim that implies that all physical events are causally determined (again, not sure if this is in fact what he intends or not, since his argument reads to me as vague or unclear), then that claim is in no way obvious and DW would need to support it. His argument fails to provide such support.

You have a few things
we can say are uncaused?

There are several phenomena for which the jury is out on whether they are caused or uncaused. A couple examples would relate to radioactive decay and photon emission.

Random I have a hard time with, since as I pointed out
before random could just mean we don't grasp all the variables and how they
interact with one another. I guess the samething could be said for so called
uncaused events too, our lack of understanding is the real issue,

I already addressed this somewhat. There are at least two ways we could intend the term 'random'. In one sense, we could be talking about some event which is in fact causally determined; but because of our cognitive limitations we may not be in any position to understand all of the causal factors and their interplay and thus may be in the dark concerning the actual outcome; hence, this sense only underscores an epistemological limitation and does not mean to imply any inherent metaphysically random dimension to the event itself. Regarding this sense, I fully understand your objection, for example, to the die example. However, in another sense of 'random' we could mean to imply that the event itself is metaphysically random at least in the sense that the event has no causally sufficient antecedents. In this sense, it is talking about metaphysical randomness in a more robust sense, not just about some epistemological limitation. For these case, it is not just a case of "our lack of understanding". When I mentioned, for example, radioactive decay and photon emission, I meant that it is an open question whether or not at least some instances of them are random in this latter, more robust sense.

but I think it is
pure laziness to assume anything is uncaused by default.
Kelly

I did not say I assume such things are uncaused by default.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I don't think anyone disagrees with you on that.

[b]I guess the samething could be said for so called uncaused events too, our lack of understanding is the real issue, but I think it is pure laziness to assume anything is uncaused by default.
That is where I disagree. Occam's razor suggests that if it is not known whether or not a cause exists ...[text shortened]... ce to suggest it, and then makes the error of basing an argument on this unfounded assumption.[/b]

You do not have a reason to reject a cause for anything, since all that we do
grasp basically is playing out due to some cause. To say that the default is to
ignore that seems to fly in the face of Occam's Razor in my opinion, when we
attempt to understand anything we don't search for the random or just rest on
our butts suggesting this or that is uncause we set out to grasp the cause or
reasons behind it.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]All the evidence that we have taken together rejects the idea of no random or
uncaused physical events? You came up with that how?

Again, I came up with that based on my studies of different areas, such as quantum. Based on my studies, it is an open question whether or not all physical events are determined. I also said that [i]if anything[/i ...[text shortened]... by default.
Kelly[/b]

I did not say I assume such things are uncaused by default.[/b]

[B]I did not say I assume such things are uncaused by default.[/b]

No, you did not my bad mixed points you didn't make someone else did in my
reply to you. I'll get to rest later.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You do not have a reason to reject a cause for anything, since all that we do
grasp basically is playing out due to some cause.

You are making a serious circular argument error. You are stating that everything has a cause, then using that to conclude that everything probably has a cause. It is an undeniable fact that we do not know of a cause for the vast majority of events. It is simply not true that "all that we do
grasp basically is playing out due to some cause."

To say that the default is to ignore that seems to fly in the face of Occam's Razor in my opinion, when we attempt to understand anything we don't search for the random or just rest on our butts suggesting this or that is uncause we set out to grasp the cause or reasons behind it.
Kelly
I disagree. When we attempt to understand something, we try to determine whether there is a cause or whether it is random. If it is statistically random, the cause, if any, becomes irrelevant. We don't need to know why the die landed on a '5'. We probably can never know even if we can determine that it was caused due to prior events. A very large part of science is dedicated to dealing with situation where we simply cannot keep track of every individual event / cause etc and instead we study the behaviour of the overall results. Physics has problems simply calculating the exact dynamics of a three body system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem), when it comes to fluid dynamics there is no hope of keeping track of every particle.
I think quantum mechanics goes further almost to the point of saying that the universe is not predictable and that there is true randomness in every event. Schrödinger's cat is neither alive nor dead, there is no specific prior state (cause) that results in the outcome once the box is opened. Maybe someone who knows quantum mechanics better than I can state whether or not a fully deterministic universe is ruled out.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are making a serious circular argument error. You are stating that everything has a cause, then using that to conclude that everything probably has a cause. It is an undeniable fact that we do not know of a cause for the vast majority of events. It is simply not true that "all that we do
grasp basically is playing out due to some cause."

[b]To say ...[text shortened]... nics better than I can state whether or not a fully deterministic universe is ruled out.
[/b]

In the standard model many quantum events are truly random, in that even if it were possible to know every
starting condition perfectly you still can only make probabilistic predictions about the future state of the system.

Now it might be that there is some deeper physics at play and everything really is deterministic however there
is no sign of that that is currently detectable.

Also with regards to virtual particles, these pop into and out of existence in the vacuum of empty space.
According to our best current models they do so totally at random.


Modern quantum theory states that the universe is not deterministic, but has a random [probabilistic] element to it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
In the standard model many quantum events are truly random, in that even if it were possible to know every
starting condition perfectly you still can only make probabilistic predictions about the future state of the system.

Now it might be that there is some deeper physics at play and everything really is deterministic however there
is no sign of ...[text shortened]... y states that the universe is not deterministic, but has a random [probabilistic] element to it.

And, from microcosmos to macrocosmos: the spherical component, the galactic magnetic field, the charged particles trapped in the galactic magnetic field and the halo of dark matter felt by its gravitational influence on the visible matter, plus whatever we consider constituents of a galaxy, are not a galaxy. Hence, dependent upon constituents that are insubstantial, a galaxy is neither inherently existent nor non-existent.
Likewise, no observer universe appears apart from its specific galaxies and from whatever else we consider that are its parts. Each galaxy and each other part of the observer universe is not identical to one another, nor is it absolutely different from one another.

Since galaxies and all the other constituents of the observer universe arise in dependent co-origination, to maintain that a galaxy and all the other constituents of the observer universe are either inherently existent or non-existent does not hold. Projected by the power of Cause-Effect, galaxies –a form– and all the other parts –a form too– arise solely out of the realm of the potential existence –out of a pool of probabilities, that is. We are aware of the existence of this pool but we cannot determine the occuring cause-effect plexus, because all mind can do is to grasp form.

Since all characteristics of existence are nothing but conventional designations, Cause-Effect per se cannot be established as a force existing independently from the observer universe. Therefore, the observer universe is highly non-deterministic😵

Just as a small aside to this interesting discussion: the question of whether the cosmos is strictly deterministic or not goes back at least to the debates between the Stoics (Yes) and the Epicureans (No) in the Hellenistic period. Within the context of their limited understanding at the time, Epicurus introduced into Democritus’ atomism the notion of an “atomic swerve” (which we can now take metaphorically) to account for apparently random happenings and novelty. The determinism of the Stoics was strictly naturalistic, and (for most of them anyway) it seems that theos was synonymous with phusis.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Who's assuming anything? [Other than you]

The point of science and scientific enquiry is that it is an unending search for answers to
an unending sequence of (ever more detailed) questions.

The answers to which give a more and more accurate and detailed picture of the reality we
live in and and that understanding allows us great levels of predi ...[text shortened]... rguments logical fallacies, they are based on false and/or unsubstantiated premises.

If you pick a default position on any topic you have started off with assumptions.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you pick a default position on any topic you have started off with assumptions.
Kelly

I disagree. A default position may be 'assumed' but it is not an assumption. By this I mean that it is not taken to be so, merely taken to be the most likely until evidence suggests otherwise. That is what Occams Razor is all about. It does not say that anything chopped off with the Razor does not exist, merely that one does not bother with it until evidence for it arises.
One does not however base an argument on a default position. (and we haven't).
On the other hand, you and the OP, seem to be basing your arguments on a claim that is not only an assumption, but one for which there is no evidence. It is not even the default position.