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

That is not true.

Ok let me explain it like this.

An event is observed. (lets call it event A)

The cause of and/or reason for event A are not initially known. As this is the first event of
this type to be observed and we don't yet have an explanation for it.

There are many competing potential explanations for A.

However the 'default position' for anyone asked what caused A until one of those explanations
is proven is of 'not yet knowing' what the reason for A is.
Every other position requires assuming one of the explanations is correct.

This 'default' or start position, is the only one that makes no assumptions.

You start at a default position of not knowing which explanations (if any of the ones yet
postulated) are correct and of waiting until the evidence comes in to back up one of the
explanations.


Every posited explanation for event A is a positive claim that the reason for event A is X (whatever
X is in the various explanations).
Positive claims need to be backed up with evidence (and/or proof) before they should be accepted.

Unless and until one of those positive claims is justified your default start position is I don't know, or
not yet proven.

Originally posted by twhitehead
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 evide ...[text shortened]... y an assumption, but one for which there is no evidence. It is not even the default position.

If I show you a box and tell you that there are three choices in how many
marbles are in it, there could be none, one, or more than one. If you have
a default posistion on any selection you are making a choice as to what
number is in the box.
Kelly

Originally posted by googlefudge
That is not true.

Ok let me explain it like this.

An event is observed. (lets call it event A)

The cause of and/or reason for event A are not initially known. As this is the first event of
this type to be observed and we don't yet have an explanation for it.

There are many competing potential explanations for A.

However the 'default posi ...[text shortened]... ve claims is justified your default start position is I don't know, or
not yet proven.

I think there may be a misunderstanding here. You say the default position is "I don't
know". KellyJay sees that as a given, for it is obvious you should not know in the
beginning. When he is referring to picking a default position he is referring to any
other postion that requires proof. For example you assume there is no God as a starting
position and believe that assumption until someone presents proof to the contrary that
you can accept.

Originally posted by googlefudge
That is not true.

Ok let me explain it like this.

An event is observed. (lets call it event A)

The cause of and/or reason for event A are not initially known. As this is the first event of
this type to be observed and we don't yet have an explanation for it.

There are many competing potential explanations for A.

However the 'default posi ...[text shortened]... ve claims is justified your default start position is I don't know, or
not yet proven.

I'd point out that saying I don't know yet is not claiming there isn't a cause it is
only saying you don't know yet. That is not the samething as suggesting there isn't
a cause by default.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If I show you a box and tell you that there are three choices in how many
marbles are in it, there could be none, one, or more than one. If you have
a default posistion on any selection you are making a choice as to what
number is in the box.
Kelly

And your point is?

If you show me a box and give me no other information, the default position is that it does not contain marbles. Any reasonable person would make this assumption until there is evidence to the contrary. But that is not equivalent to basing an argument on the absence of marbles in the box. You on the other hand are so fond of marbles, that you have convinced yourself that all boxes contain marbles - and you justify this by claiming that every box you have seen contains marbles.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And your point is?

If you show me a box and give me no other information, the default position is that it does not contain marbles. Any reasonable person would make this assumption until there is evidence to the contrary. But that is not equivalent to basing an argument on the absence of marbles in the box. You on the other hand are so fond of marbles, ...[text shortened]... ontain marbles - and you justify this by claiming that every box you have seen contains marbles.

Any selection of a choice has put you in a position of making assumptions, you
saying there are none/zero is no different than you saying there were 1 or more
than one, they were all possible choices. None of the choices at the time of the
choice with all the information I gave you can be supported. You suggesting that
only one is reasonable truly is a bias.

With repect to finding a reason or a cause, even if you say you cannot take a
position on any paticulare reason or cause does not mean you'd not start looking
for one, which in my opinion says you believe there could be or should be, and
that you are looking for it. That is not the action of someone who starts off saying
there isn't a cause this is just random.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'd point out that saying I don't know yet is not claiming there isn't a cause it is
only saying you don't know yet. That is not the samething as suggesting there isn't
a cause by default.
Kelly

Hi KJ,

Getting back to premise 1.2, do you think we have sufficient reasons to accept this premise? If so, what are those reasons exactly?

Let's suppose we agree that a good default position would be to say we just do not yet know if all physical entities owe their existence to other entities, in the sense intended by DW. That of course is nowhere near good enough to justify accepting his premise. So, what reasons can you give from there to tip the scale towards acceptance of his premise?

Honestly, I do not see any such reasons. And DW does not seem to offer any.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Any selection of a choice has put you in a position of making assumptions, you
saying there are none/zero is no different than you saying there were 1 or more
than one, they were all possible choices. None of the choices at the time of the
choice with all the information I gave you can be supported. You suggesting that
only one is reasonable truly is a bias.

I think you are misunderstanding the situation. When there are many possibilities, and one particular possibility is far more likely than all others, then it is reasonable to assume that possibility to be the case. It is reasonable to call it the default position. Yes, it is an assumption. It is a reasonable assumption. It would, in some cases be wrong to base an argument on such an assumption - but not always. And in this case, nobody has based an argument on this assumption, so I don't really understand why it bothers you so much.
Now, let me ask you this:
You are walking down the street and you see a box on the sidewalk. Do you think it is likely there are marbles in the box? Do you think it is likely there is a cat in the box? Do you think it is likely there is an elephant in the box? Would a reasonable person assume none of the above are in the box until they are given a reason to think otherwise?

With repect to finding a reason or a cause, even if you say you cannot take a position on any paticulare reason or cause does not mean you'd not start looking for one, which in my opinion says you believe there could be or should be, and that you are looking for it. That is not the action of someone who starts off saying there isn't a cause this is just random.
We live in a world that looks like Newtonian mechanics to us. We expect causes for most things. Evolution has made our brains remarkably good at looking for patterns and quite often we see patterns even when there aren't any. But the fact that we look for patterns is not evidence that such patterns exist. We often have a hard time accepting that certain things are random. How many people try various routines before throwing a pair of dice? I think everyone has as some point in their lives - despite the fact that most of us realise the first time we see a die that its outcome is, to all intents and purposes, random.
So, I fully accept the fact that we look for causes everywhere we can, but I dispute the claim that doing so is always reasonable, and I dispute the claim that this behaviour is evidence that such causes exist.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think you are misunderstanding the situation. When there are many possibilities, and one particular possibility is far more likely than all others, then it is reasonable to assume that possibility to be the case. It is reasonable to call it the default position. Yes, it is an assumption. It is a reasonable assumption. It would, in some cases be wrong to ...[text shortened]... reasonable, and I dispute the claim that this behaviour is evidence that such causes exist.

Good question, marbles, cat, or something else?
The answer is...
I don't know.
That is not the same as I believe there is less than one cat in the box, which does
suggest some knowledge about the box contents, making your beliefs about the
box something to be wrong about.

So to suggest there is no cause or reason for an event is a claim that has some
knowledge about it, which is no different than saying there is some unknown cause
or reason for the event.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Good question, marbles, cat, or something else?
The answer is...
I don't know.
That is not the same as I believe there is less than one cat in the box, which does
suggest some knowledge about the box contents, making your beliefs about the
box something to be wrong about.

OK, lets change the question to this one:
Is there a flying toaster on the other side of Jupiter? Do you simply say 'I don't know' or do you say 'probably not until evidence suggests otherwise'?

So to suggest there is no cause or reason for an event is a claim that has some
knowledge about it, which is no different than saying there is some unknown cause
or reason for the event.
It is not 'no different'. One option is more likely than the other.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And your point is?

If you show me a box and give me no other information, the default position is that it does not contain marbles. Any reasonable person would make this assumption until there is evidence to the contrary. But that is not equivalent to basing an argument on the absence of marbles in the box. You on the other hand are so fond of marbles, ...[text shortened]... ontain marbles - and you justify this by claiming that every box you have seen contains marbles.

You claim to be a programmer. One with flawed logic. It is hard to understand
how a computer programmer does not immediately see the flaw in your statement.
Maybe, you are some other kind of programmer. If you only see boxes, how
can you know they are empty without looking in them? You would only be
guessing to say they are empty. So a default position that they were all empty
is no better than the default position that they all contain marbles in this case.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think you are misunderstanding the situation. When there are many possibilities, and one particular possibility is far more likely than all others, then it is reasonable to assume that possibility to be the case. It is reasonable to call it the default position. Yes, it is an assumption. It is a reasonable assumption. It would, in some cases be wrong to ...[text shortened]... reasonable, and I dispute the claim that this behaviour is evidence that such causes exist.

You speak of evolution of the brain as if it were proven fact. However, that is
an assumption. We have no evidence that proves that if ancient man were
given the same education with the information we have accumulated over
6,000 years that he would be any less capable than man is today. It is not
evolution, but increase in knowledge over time.

Originally posted by twhitehead
OK, lets change the question to this one:
Is there a flying toaster on the other side of Jupiter? Do you simply say 'I don't know' or do you say 'probably not until evidence suggests otherwise'?

[b]So to suggest there is no cause or reason for an event is a claim that has some
knowledge about it, which is no different than saying there is some unkno ...[text shortened]... n for the event.
It is not 'no different'. One option is more likely than the other.[/b]

I see it is more likely that a powerful and extremely intelligent being created the
heavens and the earth, etc. as more likely than it happened by accident with a big
bang. However, you and your flawed reasoning, see a big bank is more likely
to have started the life process and then we eventually evolved, with brains to
reason about it.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Hi KJ,

Getting back to premise 1.2, do you think we have sufficient reasons to accept this premise? If so, what are those reasons exactly?

Let's suppose we agree that a good default position would be to say we just do not yet know if all physical entities owe their existence to other entities, in the sense intended by DW. That of course is nowhere ...[text shortened]... of his premise?

Honestly, I do not see any such reasons. And DW does not seem to offer any.

If you accept 1,2 what options have we left? Something not part of this universe
started it all, so? If that had to be accepted what is it about this place do we see
that may give us insight into the first cause? I'd say there is plenty of reason to
look at the universe if you knew it wasn't an accident to judge purpose within it,
the balance within it in it to support life seems to me to be something of great
importance.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
OK, lets change the question to this one:
Is there a flying toaster on the other side of Jupiter? Do you simply say 'I don't know' or do you say 'probably not until evidence suggests otherwise'?

[b]So to suggest there is no cause or reason for an event is a claim that has some
knowledge about it, which is no different than saying there is some unkno ...[text shortened]... n for the event.
It is not 'no different'. One option is more likely than the other.[/b]

I'd say I've never seen a flying toaster and all of those I nave seen don't even walk
let a lone fly so I'd start off with saying I don't believe, I have a bias.
Kelly