braces_for_impact

Seems to me to be a boggled attempt at putting science on the same intellectual level as creationism by proving that a caused event is assumed. It has, of course, failed miserably.

I give points though, for pointing out 'logical fallacies' while totally ignoring an incredible amount of non-sequiturs in his own posts.

And what's with repeatedly asking the same question after it's been answered/demonstrated?

:banghead:

xian

who said "intertial force?" i said no such thing. if i did, it was a typo, as I meant to say "initial" force.

I said that we see galaxies expanding, therefore we conclude an initial force, which assumes the motion of the galaxies have a cause. WHy assume that the motions of the galaxies expanding requires an initial force?

IN fact, it is the assumption of causation due to the expansion of the galaxies that implied the entire big bang theory to begin with.

why not? Just to propose evolution assumes causation. Yet on the other hand, I hear atheists talk about how they do not assume it...yet on the other hand they do assume it....yet the do not assume it.....

so which is it?

when you see an effect.....do you search for a cause?

I know. I have been talking about motion and force quite a bit too.
this is all based upon predictability . causation does not require predictability . Why this link between predictability and causation? Who "required" that causation requires predictability? Is there some homosapien that made such a rule?

Where (A & !B) -->C, (A & B)-->(D & E) where E was never previously known. If you observe E, that is not to rule out A & B- even if you have observe A & B! --> C in the past. Chaos theory illustrates this.

Furthermore,

Though the equation holds true, you cannot use it for ALL A,B,C,D.

A=red ball, A1=a different red ball.
((A & !B) -> C), and ((A & B) -> D) = true for A, but not necessarily for A1. To say that the same euqation must hold true for A1 where all other variables are the same, is to assume causation. and i thought atheists didn't do that.

yes, that could be the case. WHy assume B when atheists are already granting !B as sufficient grounds for D?

this does not necessitate for all occurences. sometimes a photon can change its spin due to a direct cause....sometimes (according to atheists)....it can demonstrate the same effect w/o a cause.

i agree.

what about Mass & Uncaused Events?

SO a better list would be:
Mass & No Force -> Constant velocity
Mass & Force -> Change in velocity, acceleration.
Mass & Uncaused Events --> unknown velocity effect (could be constant...could be a change....)

or we can infer an uncaused event. you are infering force based upon the casual principle. is there something wrong with that? no. But I hope that you would admit you are assuming causation when you make such an inference.

without the causual principle assumed, you have no basis to think any of this is being observed in the andromeda galaxy, or that they even apply to what we see there.

probably as long as it would take for a universe to pop out of nothingness. perhaps longer.

Mageth

probably as long as it would take for a universe to pop out of nothingness. perhaps longer.

"As long as" has no meaning in the context of the universe's "beginning", as there was no "time" for things to be sitting around waiting for something to happen.

xian

i didn't say OUR universe....I said A universe.

Feather

If a hen and a half could lay an egg and a half in a day and a half, how long would it take a blind monkey to kick all the seeds out of a dill pickle?


:banghead: :banghead:

xian

probably as long as it would take for a universe to pop out of nothingness.

Mageth

i didn't say OUR universe....I said A universe.

As far as we know, what I said applies to any universe (though we're kinda limited in our sample set).

probably as long as it would take for a universe to pop out of nothingness.

Again, "as long as" has no meaning in this context.

Wyz_sub10

Being an atheist has nothing to do with it. Many scientists are Chrisitians, Jews, Hindus. Being a theist may prevent one from acknowledging certain discoveries that conflict with one's established beliefs. But the nature of science is discovery. I think you will find that the overwhelming majority of theist scientist accept the big bang and evolution.

Now to the point...

I do not understand what you mean by "assumed". This is a loaded term.

The idea of evolution came from observation. Darwin didn't begin with the idea, setting out to prove it. He made observations that led to evolution as a possible explanation.

As time progressed, so did discoveries in genetics, embryology, geology, paleontology, etc. In each of these fields (and others) new evidence arose to reinforce evolution.

You may say, "yes, but they assumed evolution and fit the facts to the theory." (Maybe you don't say this, but I have heard this before.)

This is easily demonstrated to be incorrect. One can think of a host of discoveries that could give evolution big problems. But each new discovery supports and reinforces the concept. Has there every been a discovery that created problems? Well, there have been some that called timelines into question, but not the process itself.

So back to the word "assumption"...that evolution occurred, was not assumed. But certain "assumptions" can be made now based on the wealth of evidence that has accumulated.

xian

of course it does. time already exists. does the void have some kind of "rule" that says
"I only pop universii into existence when there is no time."

I suppose it depends on your depends on your definition of universe.

A universe is what? I would say simply a contained volume of space where something exists that is changing.

If the void can pop into existence mass in the equivalent of 1 x 10 ^90 atoms (or thereabouts), then it can do it again....in fact, it can do it right here in our solar system. Maybe on my way home tonight, when I look up in the sky and see a bright light like Carl Sagan described in "Demon Haunted World"....perhaps that is the void fluctuating like a cosmic fart, beefing into existence some inflationary matter with a double shot of vanilla flavored space time foam ala' Guth style! .


p.s. can someone please petition the great Invisible Pink Fluctuation to flux me a new girlfriend out of the void?

thanks.

Lobstrosity

As a preface, most of this is in response to Xian's posts in his other thread over in EoG:

Xian, I think perhaps your problem is that you don't actually understand what "causation" is. You throw the term around willy-nilly without ever operationally defining it and then use it to set up all sorts of straw men so that you can grandstand about as you knock them down. Classical causation is fiction. It's an approximation of the truth. It just happens to be an excellent approximation in the macroscopic world, which is why people talking about the andromeda galaxy don't need to pay any heed to the true microscopic foundation of the galaxy. I can see why you'd be so intuitively attached to it--it's a bit scary to broaden your mind to the multitude of strange implications of quantum physics and I can completely understand why some might be reluctant to abandon their intuitive classical ideas.

I'm sorry, but you've yet to make any reasonable argument why science can't exist without classical causation. This is especially troubling for you when one notes that all of quantum mechanics is founded on the idea that classical causation is pure fiction in the microscopic world, where you have to deal with non-commuting operators and Planck's constant doesn't seem so tiny after all. But guess what? Quantum works despite it's lack of classical causation. It's a full-fledged, self-consistent, highly successful theory based on the assumption that there are no hidden variables--that literally nothing has, for example, simultaneously an exact momentum and position. On top of this, empirical evidence strongly supports this worldview. So I ask you, where's the problem? Why are you so desperate to retain classical causation at the microscopic level? I know you keep saying that I want the causality principle to be false, but you and I both know that's bullshit. As I've said before, I don't want anything--I honestly don't care what the truth is so long as it's the truth. That's why I'm a scientist and not a theologian. I simply believe what virtually every other scientist in this world believes because of the current evidence we have. The final deathblow to your case for total causation is that quantum predicts the exact macroscopic classical "causation" we observe around us (e.g. if you push a ball, you proclaim that you caused the ball to roll). In the microscopic world, you can "cause" a quantum state to collapse, but the state to which it collapses is truly random within a given probability distribution and hence is uncaused in the classical sense. In short, your biggest mistake is assuming that a lack of classical causation implies that there can be no order in the universe and that physics is impossible. This is a complete misunderstanding on your part.

Perhaps this would all make a bit more sense if you sat down and learned what quantum physics is really saying?