Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
are you saying space doesn't exist?
No, quite the opposite.
Space does exist. It isn't a pure philosophical "nothingness".
eudaimonia,
Mark
I hate to be presumptuous, but one might think that someone that has a cross as their faith symbol has already provided an answer for that question. Would you like to elucidate further?
I will say that the problem is not in the answer, but in the question.
my faith says something different but that is not our discussion....my science says that an uncaused agent did it, and therefore something with intelligence did it, rather than a booming force. (I see you are changing the bars here). Is this because the debate was going bad for you?
What made it have to be intelligent?
declaring "there has to be", why is there an uncaused agent and how many levels deep do uncaused agents go?
well if it's not intelligent, then name just one.....agent that's not.
it's the law of cause and affect. Ever studied it?
do a google search for agent causation.
it reveals that the only things uncaused are agents.
I can no more name one, than you can. If you say "God", I'll just pick one of the many unintelligent agents that you can't disprove.
Don't you get tired of not making a case?
What event triggers the cause of decay in radium?
Hmm. I didn't find anything about "uncaused agents".
I'm sure you aware of the fallacy that, just because we don't know of another, it has to be x.
it looks like it decays because of the presence of isotopes
Decay chain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
gradyll said:well if it's not intelligent, then name just one.....agent that's not.
I was unaware of a logical fallacy of this sort, can you name it for me?
So, fact of existing is the same as causation? Well now we have to change the definition of causation, since the current cause-effect deals with action-reaction, not exists-makes things happen.
"A presumed special category of causation whereby agents initiate sequences of events when they act, without the initiation being itself causally determined"
A philosophical definition that is a presumed special category created to to explain things that are causally undetermined, as of yet.
Pretty sure that happened with demons and (rotting) meat...
It's pretty much an argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Recently I have become fascinated by Atheism and Atheistic philosophy.
I want to ask you guys (the Atheist community here) what should Christians know about Atheism?
Are you a weak Atheist or strong Atheist in your terms of views?
What are your opinions on strong Atheism or weak Atheism?
What are your opinions on Religion?
What are your opinions on some of the more famous figures in Atheism today? E.g. Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Micheal Shermer, Stephen Hawkings, Peter Atkins, Sam Harris.
Have you ever experienced any discrimination for being an Atheist?
Cognitive dissonance? I understand.my faith says something different but that is not our discussion....
Please present your data for scrutiny.my science says that an uncaused agent did it,
How did you arrive at that conclusion? Perhaps it may have been intelligent.. but maybe only as intelligent as a toaster oven.and therefore something with intelligence did it,
Please link to where I made such a statement.rather than a booming force. (I see you are changing the bars here).
I am only failing in my efforts to get you to make a valid point. The burden of evidence is still on you.Is this because the debate was going bad for you?
Cognitive dissonance? I understand.
Please present your data for scrutiny.
n.How did you arrive at that conclusion? Perhaps it may have been intelligent.. but maybe only as intelligent as a toaster ove
Please link to where I made such a statement.
here it is
I hate to be presumptuous, but one might think that someone that has a cross as their faith symbol has already provided an answer for that question. Would you like to elucidate further?
You have also just made the statement that there are things that are uncaused. What happened to your cause-and-effect arguement?
Where did I state that the big bang was uncaused? Are you confusing me with someone else?Agents that we see are all intelligent, therefore agents are intelligent. the big bang was either caused or uncaused. If it was uncaused like you have stated...Then the agent behind the big bang was intelligent.
I did not say *a* toaster oven; it was only used as a comparative reference.a toaster oven is obviously not intelligent, it is not an agent and it is unsuitable for this conversation.
Hence my request for elucidation.presumption is the father of losing badly at a debate.
Why would I be able to use your religion against you?This is simply an argument to mention religion and use it against me.
That is what you have failed to establish. And if agents can be uncaused, why not other things?agents are uncaused, thats what I have been talking about.
Where did I state that the big bang was uncaused? Are you confusing me with someone else?"
Show me where you have established how much intelligence is required for an entity that might be responsible for the instantiation of the cosmos.
As a debate, this is rather one-sided; you have made the claims, and the burden of evidence is on you. It is only yours to lose.
Why would I be able to use your religion against you?
Do you believe that the character of 'God' in the Christian bible is this 'uncaused agent', or not?
That is what you have failed to establish. And if agents can be uncaused, why not other things?
I remember how it was pointed out that it did not support your claims.if the Big Bang was started it would have to have a starter, remember?
when it becomes an agent
okay then present your evidence!
like you are now, but this is only because you are lacking an argument and are frustrated.
remember oxford dictionary of philosophy?
need I remind you....
so if space is an entity, that negates the fact of entity causation all together, and we are back to typical laws of causation.
how so? When you toss a ball in the air it falls because of the presence of what? gravity. So all cause and effect is based on the presence of the thing or things causing the effect. I am sorry but you are mistaken once again.
hold on, hold on I can't keep up here. First you stated that you didn't find anything on google about the definition of causation, which I did in a matter of seconds from a reliable source....now you are questioning the definition as to what? That it's presumed? Okay so now your argument is not that there is a definition of causality, but now we must attack the source of the definition? I just wan't to document you moving the bar here. Noted. Now moving on. The only reason why it's presumed is because there has been no evidence to the contrary. Point settled.
OK. Your point? Remember, a) I never said causality isn't real, only that it isn't universal, and b) we're talking about whether the universe must have had a cause, whether something with a start must have had a starter. What happens most of the time to us humans is by no means proof of what must happen everywhere to everything.According to law and jurisprudence, legal cause must be demonstrated to hold a defendant liable for a crime or a tort (i.e. a civil wrong such as negligence or trespass). It must be proven that causality, or a "sufficient causal link" relates the defendant's actions to the criminal event or damage in question. Causation is also an essential legal element that must be proven to qualify for remedy measures under international trade law.[32]
from
Causality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I agree. I never said causality doesn't exist, only that it doesn't apply to everything - and those things it doesn't always apply to are quantum phenomena, the behaviour of tiny particles. I took great pains to make this point clear.also our justice system with sufficient cause for criminals. Is that just a mental thing too? Did the crime really cause the punishment? Of course!
Err... no. This discussion is about the fundamental nature of the universe, the universality of the 'law' of cause and effect. Your assertion, don't forget, was that everything obeys cause and effect, that everything with a start had a starter, everything with a beginning had a cause. My point is that, in fact, the 'law' of cause and effect is not universal. It is an observation that holds true in the macroscopic world (a distinction you seem to have missed in your tangent on the justice system).Secondly you say "do science." I assume you mean typical science not quantum mechanics. And this is my point exactly. Typical common sense uses our senses and does science with them. Quantum mechanics are not practical for every day use and therefore not suitable for this discussion.
so, like purple elephants there is purple and there is an elephant. Did genetics CAUSE the elephant to become purple or did it do it all by itself and become a uncaused agent?
Those are not hypercubes, any more than this is a cube:pictures of 4d hypercube.....that I can imagine quite nicely...
https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Your link cited a source, which tells us that: "It's impossible to predict when a specific atom is going to decay, but you can predict the number of atoms that will decay in a certain time period."okay well do radio active decay not being spontaneus....
from google like I said...
"There are several ways in which radioactive atoms can decay. Here's one example: suppose an atom has too many neutrons to be stable.That's the case with tritium, 3H1.
Does it just kick out one of the neutrons?
No, it can't do that; the neutrons are stuck too firmly where they are.
The neutron turns into a proton! 3H1 becomes 3He2.
Right. An unstable isotope of hydrogen has converted itself into a stable isotope of helium. You'll notice that 3H1 and 3He2 have the same mass number, which is good, because mass has to be conserved.
from
What causes radioactive decay?
Sorry, but again, that's not the cause of quantum tunnelling. Quantum tunnelling is when a particle spontaneously pops out of a potential well which, conventionally, it shouldn't be able to get out of without sufficient energy. The reason it can do this is, indeed, because it was a wavefunction, which means its position in space isn't concrete, as common sense dictates, but rather 'blurred' out and around the potential well. Thus, there is a finite probability that it will exist outside the well. Again, this is a probability: that's the most we can say about it. Whether it actually is or not, is random. The wavefunction lets a spontaneous event occur, but it doesn't actually cause the tunnelling event itself.again with magic google I found out the cause of quantum tunnels....
"Quantum tunneling is due to the fact that particles have a wave function."
Again, sorry, but typing "cause of quantum tunnelling" into Google won't give you the cause of quantum tunnelling. As I explained above, the phenomena you describe, while fascinating in their own right, don't cause an instance of radioactive decay or tunnelling; they're simply the conditions that let it happen.And I reject your view. So there is cause and affect right there and you don't know it.
If your definition of 'common sense' is the scientific method, then fine. But the Scientific Method necessarily concludes the truth of quantum mechanics, general relativity, evolution, etc.Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]
from
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
common scientific method, please.
OK. Your point? Remember, a) I never said causality isn't real, only that it isn't universal, and b) we're talking about whether the universe must have had a cause, whether something with a start must have had a starter. What happens most of the time to us humans is by no means proof of what must happen everywhere to everything.
I agree. I never said causality doesn't exist, only that it doesn't apply to everything - and those things it doesn't always apply to are quantum phenomena, the behaviour of tiny particles. I took great pains to make this point clear.
Err... no. This discussion is about the fundamental nature of the universe, the universality of the 'law' of cause and effect. Your assertion, don't forget, was that everything obeys cause and effect, that everything with a start had a starter, everything with a beginning had a cause. My point is that, in fact, the 'law' of cause and effect is not universal. It is an observation that holds true in the macroscopic world (a distinction you seem to have missed in your tangent on the justice system).
QM is practical for everyday use - all modern electronics wouldn't work without it. You may not need to know how it works, but the only reason we can talk across continents in real-time is because it works.
Those are not hypercubes, any more than this is a cube:
It's a 2D picture that our brain interprets as a 3D cube. Those pictures you see are not a genuine 4D hypercube - by definition, the hypercube exists in four dimensions, and your computer monitor is a 2D plane. Instead, what you see is the projection of a rotating hypercube onto a 2D plane. The result is a weird shape that looks like its arms are moving about, its shape distorting and changing - but this isn't the case. In a real hypercube, the object is static and unchanging.
So to reiterate my point: you can't imagine a 4D hypercube. We can make images that are projections of a hypercube, but don't confuse the projection with the real thing. Likewise, just because quantum mechanics is hard to understand, doesn't mean it isn't true. That's what evidence is for.
Your link cited a source, which tells us that: "It's impossible to predict when a specific atom is going to decay, but you can predict the number of atoms that will decay in a certain time period."
Moreover, your source is painting an overly simplistic image. The nucleons (protons and neutrons) of tritum are held together by the Strong Nuclear Force. In tritum, there are too many neutrons in the nucleus, making it more likely that a neutron will decay.
But when will it decay? We don't know. Why? Because it's spontaneous. You can raise the probability, certainly, but the actual event is a truly spontaneous event. There is no cause inasmuch as there is no event that determines exactly when it will occur. Quantum mechanics tells us the conditions that raise or lower a given particle's odds of decaying, but that's it.
What you're describing isn't the cause of radioactive decay, sorry.
Sorry, but again, that's not the cause of quantum tunnelling. Quantum tunnelling is when a particle spontaneously pops out of a potential well which, conventionally, it shouldn't be able to get out of without sufficient energy. The reason it can do this is, indeed, because it was a wavefunction, which means its position in space isn't concrete, as common sense dictates, but rather 'blurred' out and around the potential well. Thus, there is a finite probability that it will exist outside the well. Again, this is a probability: that's the most we can say about it. Whether it actually is or not, is random. The wavefunction lets a spontaneous event occur, but it doesn't actually cause the tunnelling event itself.
Again, sorry, but typing "cause of quantum tunnelling" into Google won't give you the cause of quantum tunnelling. As I explained above, the phenomena you describe, while fascinating in their own right, don't cause an instance of radioactive decay or tunnelling; they're simply the conditions that let it happen.
Think about the lottery. The social framework of ticket-buying and televised entertainment are what allow a random event to occur, but the act of buying tickets doesn't cause the random event to occur. When those balls drop and the random number is generated, that is purely a result of the mechanics of the balls being rotated and dropped. The event couldn't happen without the national pass-time of the lottery, but that doesn't mean the event is somehow involved the random event itself (and yes, I know the random generation of lottery numbers isn't truly random, as there are well-understood forces at work when the balls are tumbling and dropping, but my point stands: any true cause of the number generation that disproves it as random are unrelated to the background events which merely let it happen).
If your definition of 'common sense' is the scientific method, then fine. But the Scientific Method necessarily concludes the truth of quantum mechanics, general relativity, evolution, etc.
That's like me asking you "what caused the milk to be spilled?" and you say "milk".
The presence of isotopes don't dictate when radium starts to decay. I was asking for the cause of the decay, not "What exists that allows existing things to exist, but themselves don't directly cause any given effect?"
Plus, gravity is a bad example, because gravity is demonstrable. "Uncaused agents" are not.
Wow, you sure do a lot of self-congratulations...
First, I did not find a definition, but have no problem with the fact that you did.
Second, I never said I didn't accept your definition.
Third, you made my point. It's presumed because there has been no evidence to the contrary is not evidence of its existence.
Fourth, a few posts back you state, "presumption is the father of losing badly at a debate." I find this funny.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?