Originally posted by RJHinds
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 ...[text shortened]... nd believe that assumption until someone presents proof to the contrary that
you can accept.

This is a good point. But it means it is up to us to agree on what "default position" means. It could mean picking one of the alternative choices specified in a situation. In the marble box example, there are three default positions offered; none of them is "I don't know." But the position "I don't know" could have been offered, or it can be assumed to be available. In real life, it is generally available. But it generally is not a position that requires proof. SO it depends on how the situation is defined.

Originally posted by RJHinds
So a default position that they were all empty
is no better than the default position that they all contain marbles in this case.

I never said that the default position was that they were empty.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You speak of evolution of the brain as if it were proven fact.

It is.

Originally posted by KellyJay
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

I am not quite sure what your answer is.
Are you saying that if something is improbable, then it is reasonable to assume that it is not the case?
Surely it is highly improbable that a random box contains marbles? Not as improbable as flying toasters, but improbable nonetheless.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not quite sure what your answer is.
Are you saying that if something is improbable, then it is reasonable to assume that it is not the case?
Surely it is highly improbable that a random box contains marbles? Not as improbable as flying toasters, but improbable nonetheless.

I'm saying given what you have told me my answer would be I don't believe. I have
a bias I have never seen a toaster walk let alone fly in all my years of experience,
I have also never met anyone who has seen toasters behave in such a way. So
given all of that I'd start off with an I don't believe answer.

Bias isn't a bad thing, as long as it is acknowledged, and with that you have to be
able to look outside the box, otherwise you run the risk of looking at everything
with blinders on.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Bias isn't a bad thing, as long as it is acknowledged, and with that you have to be
able to look outside the box, otherwise you run the risk of looking at everything
with blinders on.
Kelly

I therefore do not see where you have a problem. I acknowledge that I have a bias against there being a cause for apparently random events for which there is no known cause. I believe that is the default position to take given the total lack of evidence for a cause.
I believe that the bias that Occam's razor creates is reasonable.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I therefore do not see where you have a problem. I acknowledge that I have a bias against there being a cause for apparently random events for which there is no known cause. I believe that is the default position to take given the total lack of evidence for a cause.
I believe that the bias that Occam's razor creates is reasonable.

Occam's razor requires you know enough about a subject to make a choice, and in
many cases we do; however, when it comes to topics like where did everything
come from none of us knows. You cannot use Occam's razor to know how many
marbles in a box, nothing about that question with the knowledge you had could
give you enough to make a selection. So stating that you'd run with zero isn't due
to Occam's razor its due to you..
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
I therefore do not see where you have a problem. I acknowledge that I have a bias against there being a cause for apparently random events for which there is no known cause. I believe that is the default position to take given the total lack of evidence for a cause.
I believe that the bias that Occam's razor creates is reasonable.

There is evidence of the cause, but you choose to ignore it.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Occam's razor requires you know enough about a subject to make a choice, and in
many cases we do; however, when it comes to topics like where did everything
come from none of us knows.

I haven't used it on that topic. I have used it on the question of whether or not apparently random events have a cause. I think you are disputing my use here, not because you disagree with it, but because you think disputing it supports the argument in the OP which supports your religious beliefs. What concerns me is that although you are disputing it, I don't think a fully deterministic universe agrees with your beliefs either. Do you really believe that everything you wrote in this post was predetermined by the state of the universe yesterday? Do you believe that everything you do was determined by the exact location of all the atoms that God placed in the universe at creation?

You cannot use Occam's razor to know how many marbles in a box, nothing about that question with the knowledge you had could
give you enough to make a selection.
That depends on what knowledge I have. I know for a fact that marbles are relatively rare in the universe. I also know that most boxes do not contain marbles. I find it reasonable therefore that if I come across a random box, to assume that there are no marbles in it. It is not the same when you present me a box and ask me how many marble it contains. In that case, you are hinting that you might have placed marbles in it, so the information about the box has changed.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I haven't used it on that topic. I have used it on the question of whether or not apparently random events have a cause. I think you are disputing my use here, not because you disagree with it, but because you think disputing it supports the argument in the OP which supports your religious beliefs. What concerns me is that although you are disputing it, I ...[text shortened]... nting that you might have placed marbles in it, so the information about the box has changed.

You are talking about probability here. That is the main argument theologians
use against the probability of the heavens and the earth and living creatures
coming into existence by chance. However, evolutions don't buy into it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are talking about probability here. That is the main argument theologians
use against the probability of the heavens and the earth and living creatures
coming into existence by chance. However, evolutions don't buy into it.

I am not sure who evolutions are, but I don't buy into it because the theologians in question don't know what they are talking about (either in terms of probability, or the science involved). What is hilarious, is that the word 'chance' is in your vocabulary even though you don't believe in it. I wonder if Kelly believes in it - despite arguing against it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not sure who evolutions are, but I don't buy into it because the theologians in question don't know what they are talking about (either in terms of probability, or the science involved). What is hilarious, is that the word 'chance' is in your vocabulary even though you don't believe in it. I wonder if Kelly believes in it - despite arguing against it.

I believe in chance alright. If you flip a U. S. coin, there is a 50% chance or probability
that it will land head side up. The chance of us being alive and talking to each other
by accident is zero. I am not saying there is no chance involved in it at all. I
am saying in the totality, there is no chance this is happening by accident.

Originally posted by KellyJay
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

If you accept 1,2 what options have we left? Something not part of this universe
started it all, so?

Not sure what you mean. In order to accept 1.2, we would need some reasons that on balance recommend doing so. I was asking before if you see any such reasons. I see none, and DW fails to give any.

If you accept 1.2, then you are of course committing yourself to the propositional content contained in 1.2. No, that would not include committing yourself to the idea that "something not part of this universe started it all".

If that had to be accepted what is it about this place do we see
that may give us insight into the first cause?

Again, not sure what you mean. It does not have to be accepted, especially if there are no good reasons for accepting it.

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.

Okay, but what does this have to do with whether or not we should accept 1.2?

Originally posted by JS357
This is a good point. But it means it is up to us to agree on what "default position" means. It could mean picking one of the alternative choices specified in a situation. In the marble box example, there are three default positions offered; none of them is "I don't know." But the position "I don't know" could have been offered, or it can be assumed to be avai ...[text shortened]... ly is not a position that requires proof. SO it depends on how the situation is defined.

The default position must be the position you start from.

When you talk about the default options [for a computer program say] they are the ones that
you start with and you have to actively change to the non-default options.


The default position is thus the start position of not assuming anything and not knowing the answer.

You then move from that position of 'not knowing or assuming anything' to one of the possible positive
claims that you have to chose from IF and ONLY IF you have the evidence and rational for choosing one
of the positive claims on offer.


For example weak agnostic atheism is the default position on the existence of gods because it assumes
nothing and claims no knowledge.

You start out not knowing if a god or gods exist and then move from that position to either theist (of a
particular stripe) or more assertive strong or gnostic atheism depending on the evidence.

In the case of the OP which has a first cause argument there is an assertion that everything has a cause.
The default position here is to not know if anything or everything has a cause or not.

You move from that to one of many possible positive claims about whether things do or do not have causes
based on the evidence.


The default position is not necessarily the position that one should rationally hold.
because we do have lots of evidence about the world that allows us to make many positive claims about it.

The default position for example if to not know how the diversity of life came about.
However we have the evidence we need to know that the diversity of life is explained by evolution by natural selection
(and some other natural processes).
Thus it is no longer reasonable to stay in the default position of not knowing as one of the positive claims has been
substantiated.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I believe in chance alright.

Then you disagree with 1.2 in the OP, and Kelly.

The chance of us being alive and talking to each other by accident is zero. I am not saying there is no chance involved in it at all.
I agree with the first statement. I disagree with the second. It is a curious fact of probability, that for any large enough set of possibilities, the chance of any particular outcome is essentially zero. Nevertheless, there is always an outcome. So your first sentence does not imply the second.