Reply With Quote
but we observe all the time things that are not predictable, an infinity of causes end up being event with no cause.
I don't know, maybe when we die god is up there, I'd like to think there's life after this one.how so ?
Honestly even though people debate over this and make interesting debates, death has all the answers tbh.
but we observe all the time things that are not predictable, an infinity of causes end up being event with no cause.
No... death has not all the answers. If there is an after life or whatever yeah maybe you will find out, if there is no after life you will never know... right ?
One of the main driver of human faith is obviously existential anxiety, the fear of the death.
I'm not debating whether god exists or not, I don't believe in god but I respect those who believe if they are not bible fanatics, what I'm saying is if god does not exist human race has all the reasons in the world to imagine / create one.
Lol no.
Causal closure is an aspect of philosophy, not science.
Creationism doesn't solve the "no cause" issue as the creator also needs a cause. We haven't observed a causeless cause. Why then the need to prove the alternative? Occam's razor would remove the need for a prime mover, especially one that requires magical exceptions in order to exist.
Science is a branch of philosophy. It comprises the ways people try to use empircal observations to gain knowledge. Proximate mechanisms are key to scientific understanding, necessary to form any hypothesis. You don't get to remove the CCP from scientific investigation. It's the only way to test things.
If the CCP is to remain intact while also preventing an infinite regression, then one has to assume the universe (or multiverse) and all of its rules are a closed system, and whatever mechanisms set it into motion come from outside the system. That, or some strange loop like in that episode of Futurama. But even that's a closed system that needs some beginning, or at least, it's logical to assume it does.
That's the whole point. Parsimony assumes that there arent drastic deviations from rules we've come to understand. So it's not parsimonious to assume nothing caused this, since we have no evidence to suggest a special rule change. But it also gives no cause to make any assumptions on what started it all. So people who think it's logical to assume nothing kickstarted the universe aren't being logical, but those who assume to know anything about what did are even less logical.
LOL Futurama
love that show.
Huh? No we don't. Just because we don't know an answer, or that an answer is too difficult for us to parse through doesn't mean it has no answer.
Will address your remarks tonight after work
Semantics. The scientific method doesn't need philosophy.
So who created the kickstarterSo people who think it's logical to assume nothing kickstarted the universe aren't being logical, but those who assume to know anything about what did are even less logical.
The scientific method IS a philosophy. It is one of the epistemological approaches. Can people who don't understand epistemology use the scientific method? Yes. But it's like being able to drive without knowing how a car works mechanically.
The kickstarter is outside of the universe, and thus isn't bound to the same rules, meaning it can be eternal and infinite. It doesn't have to be a god or even sentient, as there are numerous atheistic theories such as brane theory which supposes external kickstarters with no beginning or end. But that is no more substantiated than the flying spaghetti monster.
why are you making this assumption
You could apply this to any notion of a creator
Because time and space are created with the universe. So we know we don't have infinity and eternity here.
That's why I said it.
ok. any sort of creationist argument ends up facing the flying spaghetti monster dilemma
I know. I brought that up to essentially say that by the time you get to positing the brane theory, you're right there with theist as far as support goes. Believing in giant membranes rippling around in the 11th dimension isn't any more reasonable than believing in an invisible man.
When you have infinite causes to an event event cannot be predicted. That's not related entirely related to lack of knowledge, you can improve in the understanding and predictability of human behavior, weather, cigarette smoke etc...but infinite factors will always prevent you from getting an infinite chain of causes and reactions prediction.
I think you're exaggerating the number of causes. True, if they were truly infinite, it would be impossible. But nothing is truly infinite; it's just too big for us to count. But seeing as both time and space are finite in our universe, any event must have a finite number of causes and resultants, meaning it is theoretically possible to define a cause and effect for it.
If you envisage it's possible to define all causes of all events, you will reach the point where everything is predictable so future would become predictable and certain. The fact you can predict future will make you take actions to avoid the bad outcomes... These actions will create another predictable future etc etc...
I agree with Hawking's stance on philosophy vs science, and proximate mechanisms are just temporary place holders for the inevitable distal mechanism that everyone seems to ignore. To put it plainly, an uncaused cause is required to believe in creation. Eventually that's where you end up, and it's a paradox and a double standard.
You cannot test "creation" as it infers, by necessity "creator".
That "outside the system" is just another system. It's like saying a fish aquarium is a system and my living room is outside of it, and that because the fish exist in an aquarium, someone must have put them there. But you cannot stop there and call it done. Who put them there and who put that person there to do that?If the CCP is to remain intact while also preventing an infinite regression, then one has to assume the universe (or multiverse) and all of its rules are a closed system, and whatever mechanisms set it into motion come from outside the system. That, or some strange loop like in that episode of Futurama. But even that's a closed system that needs some beginning, or at least, it's logical to assume it does.
Basically you're just moving the problem to another dimension to dismiss it with the wave on the ontological hand.
This part I agree with, with the caveat that there's no empirical evidence for creation in the cosmological argument arena. There's no precedence to use to even know what to consider as evidence if it did exist. We can posit a large number of things and call them possibilities but not know whether or not they are actually possible. For some reason many people seem to consider ignorance a sign of a possibility, as if not knowing increases odds or reality.That's the whole point. Parsimony assumes that there arent drastic deviations from rules we've come to understand. So it's not parsimonious to assume nothing caused this, since we have no evidence to suggest a special rule change. But it also gives no cause to make any assumptions on what started it all. So people who think it's logical to assume nothing kickstarted the universe aren't being logical, but those who assume to know anything about what did are even less logical.
Not for you, but just as an example:
My keys are in my pants pocket. If I didn't know that, and I started looking for my keys, what's the possibility that my keys are anywhere other than in my pants pocket? Zero... but people don't seem to move that way. They instead remain ignorant and consider that "keeping my options open".
Yes, these are the paradoxes I referred to. It's not that everything cannot be known, it's that we don't have the capacity to access it at once and make decisions based on it. Some thing a creator does, but then that just makes another paradox. At some point along that path many folks pitch an epistemological tent and there they reside.
So what created that other dimension?
In theory it could have always existed, as it's outside time and space. If there's no time, there's no beginning.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions