The phenomenon and the explanation

Mark Quayle · Jul 10, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
It would be nice if you did not accuse others of doing what you appear to do. Statistics is not guessing. Guessing would be saying "this event will happen . . . " and then name a specific time frame. That would be guessing. To say that half of a specific element will decay in a specified time frame can be an accurate statistical description of what will happen.

Estimating future events. Do we have, then, no idea whether the event as it actually comes to pass, was caused to do so?

Subduction Zone · Jul 10, 2021

Mark Quayle said:
Estimating future events. Do we have, then, no idea whether the event as it actually comes to pass, was caused to do so?

Let me put it this way, there could be a cause. We don't know. There does not appear to be one. For there to be a "Law of Cause and Effect" a cause must be needed and demonstrable. That is not the case for radioactive decay.

Mark Quayle · Jul 10, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
Let me put it this way, there could be a cause. We don't know. There does not appear to be one. For there to be a "Law of Cause and Effect" a cause must be needed and demonstrable. That is not the case for radioactive decay.

Pardon me for coughing.....

Subduction Zone · Jul 10, 2021

Mark Quayle said:
Pardon me for coughing.....

You tried to claim that there always had to be a cause. But that does not appear to be the case. If you talk with a physicist that understands physics better than I do I am betting that there are cases where there is no cause. But for there to be a law of cause and effect it would have to be shown the case in every observed event and that does not appear to be the case.

Ophiolite · Jul 11, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
What I want to know is who blabbed? Who told creationists about The Law of Causality in the first place?

I don't think anyone blabbed. The knowledge just sort of came available without any actual cause. Odd that, isn't it?

pitabread · Jul 11, 2021

Mark Quayle said:
That cause doesn't always come before effect, is the reason you don't find First Cause arguments particularly compelling?

It's a question of whether causality would even apply in a circumstance like the origin of our universe.

The other issue is that the First Cause argument always involves special pleading. Which makes it an unnecessary addition when the same could just as easily apply to the universe itself (by way of whatever nature the origin point was).

AV1611VET · Jul 11, 2021

Ophiolite said:
I don't think anyone blabbed.

Some miracle Worker blabbed.

Gottservant · Jul 12, 2021

Phred said:
[...]
The theory is the explanation for why and how it took place. Not that it took place.

No, for that you need faith.

The whole point, that people who believe in faith try to make.

The problem is, when you say "I know your faith came from a monkey" you are obfuscating your place as a scientist, to make a claim that is improbable by design.

You might not believe the design, but by the same token you are not retracting your claim.

Indeed you have no motive to retract the claim, but it is foolish to think that no one will try to contradict you?

Phred · Jul 12, 2021

DamianWarS said:
Atheists use a similar argument against theists suggesting because the belief in God is so varied this actually works to discredit the belief rather than affirming it. but this is a forest through the trees way of approaching it and I'll suggest it is the same issue that you bring up as well. if the ToE is wrong it doesn't stop or change how things came about so attacking the theory at some point... misses the point. These things still happened regardless of how well we understand them. The same applies to God and just because there are varied "versions" of God doesn't actually change anything about God himself (even if they are all wrong) because God pre-exists belief in him and not the other way around.

IF God was telling you all through magical, mystical means about himself then you would all have the same "version" of God. The fact that you don't simply proves that you're not all in touch with a deity via some invisible neural network. As has been claimed.

You missed the point.

Phred · Jul 12, 2021

Gottservant said:
No, for that you need faith.

The whole point, that people who believe in faith try to make.

The problem is, when you say "I know your faith came from a monkey" you are obfuscating your place as a scientist, to make a claim that is improbable by design.

You might not believe the design, but by the same token you are not retracting your claim.

Indeed you have no motive to retract the claim, but it is foolish to think that no one will try to contradict you?

Speaking of missing the point...

Job 33:6 · Jul 12, 2021

Ophiolite said:
As to the First Cause- Cosmological Argument I generally consider matters of Origin to be way above my pay grade.

I don't think there is anything wrong with people formulating beliefs about things unknown. As opposed to not establishing a belief and simply concluding that it's better to not have an opinion one way or another on a matter like this.

If people never formulated opinions and beliefs on things unknown, I'm not sure that anyone would even get anywhere in science. People at the least certainly would be less motivated to seek out justification for beliefs if they never had such beliefs to begin with.

DamianWarS · Jul 12, 2021

Phred said:
IF God was telling you all through magical, mystical means about himself then you would all have the same "version" of God. The fact that you don't simply proves that you're not all in touch with a deity via some invisible neural network. As has been claimed.

That's what I just said happens... then you turn around and say it. And it's contrary to your own logic in the op. I'm not sure if your grasp your own point. How something is understood, be it God, evolution or 1+1 doesn't actually have an effect on the "something" as it's existence is not dependant on how people's understand it and if it does then it's a myth.

Santa Claus can be traced back to an origin point and prior to that point there was no Santa Claus so Santa Claus as we know him today is dependant upon the origin point and evolved story and thus is a myth or more specific a legend since he was a real person in the 4th century.

We could arguably say God is dependant upon a origin point of every people group that has ever existed and will exist. They are varied and conflicting interpretations of God spread across time since history was recorded and have evolved and continue to evolve.

But are we saying pre-history there was no concepts of God? Like saying pre-Saint Nicholas of Myra there was no Santa Claus? No we can't say that because we can responsibly infer that concepts of God predate history itself so the converging origin account is untraceable even if some myths are and so cannot be used to broadly point to a myth/legend of God himself. Certainly the varied accounts tell us evolved myth/legend were happening but still there is no traceable origins and it would seem concepts of God abstractly are developed independantly of outside influence.

Why do all people ever, and who will ever be, regardless of their conclusions, ask the question is there a God since there was ability to think that question? It would seem God predates the question itself.

Bungle_Bear · Jul 12, 2021

DamianWarS said:
That's what I just said happens... then you turn around and say it. And it's contrary to your own logic in the op. I'm not sure if your grasp your own point. How something is understood, be it God, evolution or 1+1 doesn't actually have an effect on the "something" as it's existence is not dependant on how people's understand it and if it does then it's a myth.

Santa Claus can be traced back to an origin point and prior to that point there was no Santa Claus so Santa Claus as we know him today is dependant upon the origin point and evolved story and thus is a myth or more specific a legend since he was a real person in the 4th century.

We could arguably say God is dependant upon a origin point of every people group that has ever existed and will exist. They are varied and conflicting interpretations of God spread across time since history was recorded and have evolved and continue to evolve.

But are we saying pre-history there was no concepts of God? Like saying pre-Saint Nicholas of Myra there was no Santa Claus? No we can't say that because we can responsibly infer that concepts of God predate history itself so the converging origin account is untraceable even if some myths are and so cannot be used to broadly point to a myth/legend of God himself. Certainly the varied accounts tell us evolved myth/legend were happening but still there is no traceable origins and it would seem concepts of God abstractly are developed independantly of outside influence.

Why do all people ever, and who will ever be, regardless of their conclusions, ask the question is there a God since there was ability to think that question? It would seem God predates the question itself.

Lots of assertions, misunderstanding of history (St Nicholas and Santa Claus actually have different origins, but they've been merged together) and no apparent knowledge of ancient religions or their probable precursors.

Forgive me if I don't accept your claims at face value.

Job 33:6 · Jul 12, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
No, probabilities is not guessing. You may guess. Probabilities are statistical outcomes. And no, quite often something can happen or something will not happen. A simple example is that of radioactive decay. It can happen at any time. When and if it happens is a matter of statistics.

Laws of logic are man made laws. They are tools that we invented to help us to understand the universe that we live in better. I don't think that you are applying those correctly either.

What would you say to the idea of even radioactive decay having a cause? Such as being being caused by the formation of parent isotopes during perhaps a supernova.

Wouldn't even this decay happening at times based on probability, would they not still have a cause? (The cause being creation via the fusion within an exploding star).

Just seeking to understand this idea that some non-believers might think that there are some things that happen that maybe have no cause? That's the gist I'm getting from the comments.

VirOptimus · Jul 12, 2021

Mark Quayle said:
I hope I feel properly put in my place.

You are posting about things you dont understand. Dunning Kruger in action.

durangodawood · Jul 12, 2021

Eloy Craft said:
Crystals are for the sensitive types.

Oh thats me!

durangodawood · Jul 12, 2021

Isaiah 41:10 said:
What would you say to the idea of even radioactive decay having a cause? Such as being being caused by the formation of parent isotopes during perhaps a supernova....

I think thats reasonable.

Isaiah 41:10 said:
....Just seeking to understand this idea that some non-believers might think that there are some things that happen that maybe have no cause? That's the gist I'm getting from the comments.

Reasoning inductively, it does seem like everything in the universe has a cause of some sort.

But I'm not at all sure the universe itself has a cause. It may be part of some eternal matrix. I'm in no position to hold a definite opinion about this.

Phred · Jul 12, 2021

DamianWarS said:
That's what I just said happens... then you turn around and say it. And it's contrary to your own logic in the op. I'm not sure if your grasp your own point. How something is understood, be it God, evolution or 1+1 doesn't actually have an effect on the "something" as it's existence is not dependant on how people's understand it and if it does then it's a myth.

Santa Claus can be traced back to an origin point and prior to that point there was no Santa Claus so Santa Claus as we know him today is dependant upon the origin point and evolved story and thus is a myth or more specific a legend since he was a real person in the 4th century.

We could arguably say God is dependant upon a origin point of every people group that has ever existed and will exist. They are varied and conflicting interpretations of God spread across time since history was recorded and have evolved and continue to evolve.

But are we saying pre-history there was no concepts of God? Like saying pre-Saint Nicholas of Myra there was no Santa Claus? No we can't say that because we can responsibly infer that concepts of God predate history itself so the converging origin account is untraceable even if some myths are and so cannot be used to broadly point to a myth/legend of God himself. Certainly the varied accounts tell us evolved myth/legend were happening but still there is no traceable origins and it would seem concepts of God abstractly are developed independantly of outside influence.

Why do all people ever, and who will ever be, regardless of their conclusions, ask the question is there a God since there was ability to think that question? It would seem God predates the question itself.

I'm not speaking about how something is understood and never was. So I'm really not at all certain what you're trying to say.

Subduction Zone · Jul 12, 2021

Isaiah 41:10 said:
What would you say to the idea of even radioactive decay having a cause? Such as being being caused by the formation of parent isotopes during perhaps a supernova.

Wouldn't even this decay happening at times based on probability, would they not still have a cause? (The cause being creation via the fusion within an exploding star).

Just seeking to understand this idea that some non-believers might think that there are some things that happen that maybe have no cause? That's the gist I'm getting from the comments.

Yes, but the when is without apparent cause. What you stated was rather obvious so I did not list it.

And as I said, there may be a cause for radioactive decay to occur at specific times. I sincerely doubt if there is and an expert in physics could probably explain why. I can't.

Almost every event at the quantum level is "without cause" because there are usually multiple possible outcomes and the outcome appears to be due to statistics. So why a specific photon ends up in a certain spot after going through a diffraction grating is not due to a specific cause. It is just odds. You could not predict ahead of time where a photon will land.

All of quantum physics appears to refute the so called "law of causality". There is a very good reason that such a law cannot be found in physics books.

Job 33:6 · Jul 12, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
Yes, but the when is without apparent cause. What you stated was rather obvious so I did not list it.

And as I said, there may be a cause for radioactive decay to occur at specific times. I sincerely doubt if there is and an expert in physics could probably explain why. I can't.

Almost every event at the quantum level is "without cause" because there are usually multiple possible outcomes and the outcome appears to be due to statistics. So why a specific photon ends up in a certain spot after going through a diffraction grating is not due to a specific cause. It is just odds. You could not predict ahead of time where a photon will land.

All of quantum physics appears to refute the so called "law of causality". There is a very good reason that such a law cannot be found in physics books.

I wouldn't say that there isn't a cause for radioactive decay, despite it's timing being difficult (or even potentially impossible) to predict. In a broad sense, we could still say that X decay will happen within Y timeframe because of the instability of the isotope (with things like energy within the isotope causing it's instability and thus it's decay). Meaning that we could still assign a more broad cause to the gradual decay of the parent material. As if, if I were to roll dice, there may be no cause if the dice land on one number or another. I would still ultimately be the cause and probability would produce the outcome of what number the dice landed on.

But even further, if we think about the specific timing of decay, I think the idea that there is no cause is more of an assumption. As if we know that on a quantum level that there is nothing defining whether a particle is emitted during one second or another. How do we know that there is no cause? It seems that maybe we just assume that there is no cause because we're unable to define what that cause might be.

Or maybe I could say that because something is unpredictable, this doesn't necessarily make it without cause.

The phenomenon and the explanation

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Regular Member

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Regular Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

God loves your words, may men love them also

Junior Mint

Junior Mint

Well-Known Member

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Whoot!

Well-Known Member

A nihilist who cares.

re Member

re Member

Junior Mint

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads