xian

4 : of or relating to empiricism
- em�pir�i�cal�ly /-i-k(&-)lE/ adverb

i dont see any examples from you. please post a link or requote them, thanks.

lol! Of course it can have observable effects. We observe an effect that violates the locality principle...that could be an effect of an alternate reality. At least this explanation is consistent with the principle of causality. Sorry, but it is relevant. Summary dismissal attempt denied.

yup and we might be seeing it everytime one of those expiriments is conducted, thus events are caused....and effects are observed.

But you favor the ole' "NO CAUSE" solution, which is faith based.

its ok, I understand, I have faith too.


the one that says "finite changing things that exist require a cause". Thats the one, mate!

like i said, i see nothing from you. sorry, i didn't look beyond this thread, can you please link them or quote them? Thanks.

do you assume gravity in the andromeda galaxy or not?
do you assume a supermassive blackhole in the center of our galaxy?
do you assume that when you see a dinosaur bone, that a creature once lived that had that bone?
do you assume that when you observe a solar eclipse, that there is a casual agent for it?
do you assume that all galaxies are moving apart due to an initial force?
do you assume that all matter in the universe was once contained in a single point?
do you assume that a human being was caused by evolution?
do you assume that the origins of life were caused by something? Or maybe we just "popped" into existence?

DO you assume that gravity exists in the andromeda galaxy? Yes, I am repeating this question, because i really want you to answer that one.

atheists and book writers do not.

people who work in a laboratory do, or work in CAD programs like PRO/E or SOLIDWORKS to design jet engines, computer chips, machinery...they all assume that principle. People who actually build things, and contribute to society....construction workers, car designers, architects, chemists, biologists...they all assume that principle.

and they are right!!
the only people that do not assume causality are atheist book writers who most likely never actually built anything.

so what? human prediction is not necessary for causation. or let me guess- some atheist has declared with certainty that, "if I cannot predict it, therefore it cannot be caused!"
oh please.

can you see the faith element...and the dogma that is emerging here?

ahh, so these are your three then?

radioactive decay = causeless? how so.

vaccum fluctuation = virtual particles popping into existence via the zero-point energy sea = hardly causeless, let alone "from nothing". Conservation of energy is maintained. Causation not violated.

quantum tunneling=causeless? How so.

that theory does not prove exceptions to causality. it proves that science has not found a cause yet. Quantum physics is in its infancy. You speak like you are its master. I mean that not as an insult, but I say that in all honesty. You are saying things with too much certainty regarding a field of science that is full of ignorance and mystery.

but if you want to jump to the conclusion of NO CAUSE, fine.

the theists will pick up the slack and find the causes.


"no cause" is not the only possible answer. it is just the answer you put your faith in.

"NO CAUSE" is a possible answer to everything!!

why does my post appear on IIDB.ORG when I click "submit?"
well there are several possible explanations...NO CAUSE is one of them. I just wouldn't dare postulate that as such.


a prediction but not a certainty. X might be correlated to Y this time, but next time Y might be correlated to Z. The only consistency is that Y will have a correleation to something, even if we cannot identify it or predict it.

All of the expiriments we use to "show" instances of causeless events might in themselves be the causes. at the very least, the cause could be unknown. there is a lot to this universe we do not yet know. rushing to "NO CAUSE" is bad science.

Harrumphrey

Your application "ad hominem" indicates a misunderstanding of the term. (Clue: This is not an ad hominem attack.)

Harrumphrey

HA! I stand chagrined. A casualty of fast typing.

HRG

None of which has anything to do with your claim "there are no uncaused events. Specifically, no one disputes that approximate causality holds where quantum effects can be neglected.

Life, of course, is not a thing, but a property of configuration of matter. Thus your last question borders on the meaningless.
This is a question of invariance under space translations, not of causality. Pion decay is as uncaused here as in the Andromeda galaxy.
<snip>
Sure (except chemists - not all of them do). And you know why ? Because they are not dealing with quantum phenomena.
<snip>
The only faith element and dogma I see is your insistence that all events must be caused.

Because identical systems (and two pions are identical) may decay in different decay channels.
1. Conservation of energy has nothing to do with lack of causation.

2. The vacuum is "nothing" since you cannot remove anything from it.

3. Causation means more than a statistical correlation. As long as you cannot predict the state in which the virtual pair will emerge, the event is not caused.
Can you predict whether a particle will tunnel, even if you knew its state before approaching the barrier ? You cannot, hence uncaused.
Causality is itself the exception. It governs only the non-quantum world (and only approximately, to boot).
Ridiculous. You might as well argue that the absence of telephone wires in Egyptian pyramids proves that the Egyptians had already cordless phones.
That you call quantum physics and QED a field "full of ignorance and mystery" betrays only your own ignorance.

Of course, since theists use general causation as basis for one of their argument, it is their burden to show that general causation actually holds.

regards,
HRG.

HRG

This single paragraph disqualifies you from any meaningful discussion about quantum physics. You might as well claim that PT Barnum developed classical electrodynamics.

HRG.

Dr Rick

After having his "God is not an IPU" argument smashed, xian now wants to make a fool out of himself with physics...:banghead:

Rick

Hawkingfan

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this problem has still not been resolved.
The above argument is still subjective. Regardless of how a & b define moral, GPB's "greater" definition of moral is still subjective. And it is not the we don't know the "greatest" possible permutation, but that we know that there is NO SUCH THING as the "greatest" possible permutation.
As was said before, different societies have different ideas of what consitutes moral and immoral (even though they all consider moral > immoral). But different societies ALSO have different ideas about what is "greatest" AND what constitutes their GPB and HIS ideas of "greatest".
For instance, the Aztecs believed that daily human sacrifice was moral and that moral > immoral. But their GPB (Quetzalcoatl) was their "greatest" moral god (he sacrificed himself for the sins of the world). But his "greatest" moral regarding sacrifice was that he only required one human sacrifice a year. But according to our standards today, we know that that is not the "greatest" possible moral. So the Aztec GPB's "greatest" possible moral was subjective.

Shadowy Man

... rock > scissors > paper > rock > scissors > paper > rock > scissors > paper > rock > scissors > paper ...

xian

brilliant.

actually, I would put it this way: I lack belief in uncaused events. you are claiming they exist. You have positive faith in the uncaused events. Burden of proof on you.

do you assume gravity exists in the andromeda galaxy?

xian

of course, any xian who posts in these forums is making a fool out of themselves, I take it. after all, you think you are rationally superior to theists, no? You look down on them as if you are better on several evolutionary levels? I expect that kind of supremacist attitude when I discuss in here. fortunately, it is not the case with everyone.