1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead
No, in what way would you think I am pretending? I have never said nor implied that you didn't ask for such examples. I have very clearly stated multiple times that:
1. I have not provided any such examples.
2. I have no intention of providing any such examples.
3. Providing any such examples is irrelevant to my claim.
4. Your focus on such examples i ...[text shortened]... that you can no longer claim ignorance since the topic has been covered many times in the past.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe claim that 'everything that begins to exist has a cause' is not a known scientific law and is unsupported by evidence.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said it was a philosophical statement. I don't know if someone else said it was "a scientific law."
Do you believe that something could be the cause of its own coming into existence ?
And if you respond by saying the question is irrelevant or has the wrong focus, you are likely to receive a corresponding evaluation of your character as you have insinuated dishonesty and ignorance concerning mine.
Once again: Do you believe that something could be the cause of its own coming into existence ?
4 edits
Another opinion to what twhitehead says is a blatantly false "scientific law" - (Although I said it was a philosophical statement).
The Law of Cause and Effect
Dominant Principle of Classical Physics
Chance Events?
Nothing happens by chance! Classical Science, which dominated studies of the physical universe before the Twentieth Century, generally held an opinion that there are no events that happen by chance. For many centuries, it seemed obvious that
all things were caused by something physical or mental. This idea was expressed by Hippocrates of Cos (c. 460-377 B.C.): “Every natural event has a natural cause.” [1,p.12]. History of the Concept of Cause and Effect.
The concept of order maintained by the law of cause and effect
is a scientific principle with a history traceable through Hebrew,
Babylonian, Greek, and modern civilizations.
Hebrew Concept of Causality .
...
FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
Reprint/Internet Article
© 2004, Common Sense Science
http://CommonSenseScience.org
August, 2004
Page 1
David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
Abstract.
For thousands of years, the law of cause and effect guided scientific inquiry. In fact, the history of the concept of causality can be traced through Hebrew, Babylonian, Greek and European cultures. Certain Greek philosophers, however, introduced the atomistic concept of chance - events to oppose the common-sense application of causality. The resulting conflict between cause versus chance has not only shaped the history of science but has imposed lasting effects on Western culture as a whole. This conflict intensified during the Twentieth Century as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle ( HUP ) became the leading tool of the proponents of chance. More recent findings have now demonstrated that the HUP fails in six actual cases. Common Sense Science counters chance - based philosophy by returning to causality and other principles of Classical Science such as the conservation of energy and the use of physical finite-sized models for fundamental particles (e.g., the electron). This paper shows how physical models based on the laws of electricity and magnetism fully implement the law of cause and effect in the manner of the four causes required by Aristotle. Chance - based physics is exposed as false science based on erroneous assumptions about supposed chance - events instead of causal relationships
Copied from http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/law_of_cause_and_effect_fos_v7n3_causality.pdf
[My bolding]
I expect twhitehead to parse words drawing distinction perhaps between "effect" and "begins to exist".
Anyway the article says cause and effect is a principle of physics. Twhitehead said it was blatantly false and dishonest to say the principle of causality was law of science.
A principle in physics we could probably say was a law of science.
Originally posted by sonshipAnd what do you mean by that?
I said it was a philosophical statement.
I don't know if someone else said it was "a scientific law."
It first entered this thread with Grampy stating as if it was fact:
Everything which begins to exist must have a cause.
My response was:
Easy to state, less easy to demonstrate. It is also not known to be the case in current science and in fact science strongly suggests it isn't true.
To which you responded by asking for examples.
I later stated:
I do however object to blatant falsehoods such as the claim that it is known that everything has a cause.
Your response was:
First let me say that this is a philosophical statement.
If you call this a blantant falsehood you should be able to prove it be false.
Now it is not clear whether or not you have called my statement a philosophical statement, or the claim that I have called a blatant falsehood. Either way, you appear not to have read my statement very carefully.
My statement still stands as undeniable fact:
The claim that it is known that everything has a cause is a blatant falsehood.
Do you believe that something could be the cause of its own coming into existence ?
No.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadMy statement still stands as undeniable fact:
The claim that it is known that everything has a cause is a blatant falsehood.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The claim is proved to be a blatant false hood by the following examples :
Your examples ?
If you have none then your a blatantly incompetent to back up your slippery bluster, or blatantly self deceived, or both or perhaps ... who knows?
"You know the examples" ie. is a cope out.
"Go find your own examples that you know of" ie. is a cope out.
3 edits
My statement still stands as undeniable fact:
The claim that it is known that everything has a cause is a blatant falsehood.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watch him !! Watch him !!. He's slick!
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause." is the original claim, or mighty close.
It was not "everything has a cause" .
I think he might be engineering his post for a cheap point.
1 edit
me: Everything which begins to exist must have a cause.
tw: My response was:
Easy to state, less easy to demonstrate. It is also not known to be the case in current science and in fact science strongly suggests it isn't true.
To which you responded by asking for examples.
I later stated:
I do however object to blatant falsehoods such as the claim that it is known that everything has a cause.
What was stated by me was not what you wrote above.
You spoke of reading comprehension ?
Can you see the difference between these two sentences?
Everything which begins to exist must have a cause.
AND
I do however object to blatant falsehoods such as the claim that it is known that everything has a cause.
My bolding. What you object to is not what I stated you appear to be referring to.
Is this why you think people are always trying to put one over on you? Is it because you yourself know how easy it is to be clever with your words ?
In the thread on Orthopraxy you wrote:
I can't always know when I am right, but when people get irrational trying to defend their beliefs it suggests to me that they are probably wrong.
Maybe you're probably wrong then. I do not yet see a rational defense of things beginning to exist without a cause.
This seems to be the concept you are slipping away from with a few verbal tricks.
Originally posted by sonshipAs I have stated many many times, examples are not required nor relevant. The fact that you have repeatedly demanded examples suggests that either you have not read my statement very carefully (please go read it over and over till it sinks in) or you are just too stubborn to admit that it is true.
The claim is proved to be a blatant false hood by the following examples :
Your examples ?
If you have none then your a blatantly incompetent to back up your slippery bluster, or blatantly self deceived, or both or perhaps ... who knows?
Sorry, but my statement does not claim that examples exist. Your response is therefore invalid. Again: go back and reread the statement over and over till you get it.
Originally posted by sonshipYou think wrong. Although I am well aware that the 'begins to exist' clause is there specifically because you think it accommodates God, I have no particular interest in that part of the claim. If I leave it out it is just an oversight on my part.
I think he might be engineering his post for a cheap point.
Originally posted by sonshipI have no need to provide a rational defence until you provide a rational attack. Instead you keep demanding examples of things that are known to begin to exist without a cause - a demand that is irrelevant to the claim I made.
Maybe you're probably wrong then. I do not yet see a rational defense of things beginning to exist without a cause.
This seems to be the concept you are slipping away from with a few verbal tricks.
Should I also demand that you produce two leprachauns and when you do not do so, claim I have won and you are wrong?
No, all the verbal tricks are coming from you.
My statement is clear and undeniably true. You just can't handle it.