Originally posted by googlefudge No you've not got that right at all.
The default position is not to assume that an event does or does not have a cause and
not to assume what that cause (if there is one) is.
You start from the neutral default position of not knowing and then try to find out what if
any cause there is.
Saying there isn't a cause is not a neutral position, it is stating there isn't a
cause, again not knowing the cause is not the same as saying there isn't one.
Kelly
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby [b]What's the cause of this forum becoming predictable and dreary?
Any insights?
gb[/b]
My take:-
i) The forum participants appear to be interested in defending / attacking this or that formal religion rather than Spirituality, with Biblical content dominating the discussions. The forum is about discussions on Spirituality. Philosophy, Theology and Spiritual experiences / practices, for example, should have been the the topics of the threads.
ii) There are several atheists camping on the site, whose aim, apparently is to make vitriolic attacks on theists and make fun of Christianity, rather than listen to the views of the theists.
Originally posted by KellyJay Saying there isn't a cause is not a neutral position, it is stating there isn't a
cause, again not knowing the cause is not the same as saying there isn't one.
Kelly
Yes saying that there isn't a cause is not a neutral position because you are making the
positive claim that there is no cause.
However if you actually read what I said you will find that I said the neutral default starting
position is to NOT KNOW or ASSUME that there IS or IS NOT a cause for a particular event.
You start from there and then follow the evidence to see where it leads.
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo My take:-
i) The forum participants appear to be interested in defending / attacking this or that formal religion rather than Spirituality, with Biblical content dominating the discussions. The forum is about discussions on Spirituality. Philosophy, Theology and Spiritual experiences / practices, for example, should have been the the topics of the threa ...[text shortened]... attacks on theists and make fun of Christianity, rather than listen to the views of the theists.
You missed the theists who like to make vitriolic attacks on and mock those of faiths other than their own.
Originally posted by googlefudge You missed the theists who like to make vitriolic attacks on and mock those of faiths other than their own.
It is a human trait; the attacks just show the types of hearts people have on
display here. When it becomes people not points that are addressed it is a sign of
heart that is flawed in my opinion, in life those types of things lead down the path
of actually doing negative things to others. If you cannot be civil here odds are
when push comes to shove you'll not be elsewhere either given the proper
situations.
Kelly
Originally posted by googlefudge Yes saying that there isn't a cause is not a neutral position because you are making the
positive claim that there is no cause.
However if you actually read what I said you will find that I said the neutral default starting
position is to NOT KNOW or ASSUME that there IS or IS NOT a cause for a particular event.
You start from there and then follow the evidence to see where it leads.
I tend to agree, but the non-theistic branch of existentialism takes our existence as a brute fact as to cause, meaning, and purpose; the theistic branch disagrees. Which of these does the evidence favor? What counts as said evidence?
Does the fact that we are naturally inclined to look for cause and effect, and the fact that looking for cause and effect is a tendency molded by its evolutionary success, count as evidence, or does it merely count as a reason to do it where it clearly works, and leave the question open elsewhere?
What's the cause...
13 Apr '12 12:55
Back to Top