Why appeals to cause and effect are no evidence of a creator god

[Jayhawker Soule]

Cause and effect are a human bias.

Excellent.

Someone walks up and punches you in the face.
You lose some teeth and sue for dental work.
You're case is thrown out of course since ...

obviously ...​

the claim that the punch caused the damage is, as best, speculative inference driven by human bias.​

On the other hand, see Causality:Science

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

So your argument is that effects do not prove a cause? A house, a spoon, a piece of cloth, effects all, do not show a cause? If that is "science", it is also foolishness, IMO.

Effects show a cause; but not necessarily what cause. For example, Gravity: We know that larger mass attracts smaller mass. So we know that there is a "cause" of the "effect" of larger mass attracting smaller mass. But we don't know what that cause truly is ... we can only see its effects. This leads to speculation from Einstein's view of space-time curvature by mass, to religious rhetoric that "by him all things are held together", to the conjecture of gravitons. For this reason, "appeals to cause and effect are not evidence of a creator God". Not knowing what the cause of the effect is can not lead to a specific conclusion of the cause of the effect because, simply, we don't know the cause. To say, "we don't know the cause, so it must be X" takes us from an abject statement of ignorance to an abject statement of certainty; which is "argument from ignorance".

 

[LuisDantas]

So your argument is that effects do not prove a cause?

Part of it.

Interestingly, it is also part of the argument of believers in a creator God, since they propose a god with no cause.

A house, a spoon, a piece of cloth, effects all, do not show a cause? If that is "science", it is also foolishness, IMO.

As you want.

 

[LuisDantas]

Excellent.

Someone walks up and punches you in the face.
You lose some teeth and sue for dental work.
You're case is thrown out of course since ...

obviously ...

the claim that the punch caused the damage is, as best, speculative inference driven by human bias.​

On the other hand, see Causality:Science

Fair point. Cause and effect _do_ have some basis on reality.

I should have said that people are often way too primed to perceive such relations even without any real evidence, and that they often adopt overly simplistic models for those relationships even when they are warranted.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Fair point. Cause and effect _do_ have some basis on reality.

I should have said that people are often way too primed to perceive such relations even without any real evidence, and that they often adopt overly simplistic models for those relationships even when they are warranted.

Well said.

 

[metis]

That's a very good way of putting it. That's exactly what I realized years ago, but I could never put it down in such a simple way.

It's because I have a simple mind.

 

[metis]

I've been thinking about this lately.

Chaos is essentially energy. Chaos comes to order when there are rules or laws, anything that restricts chaos in one way or another. That leads it to order. For instance, gravity is a law of nature that orders chaotic energy to become stars, planets, etc.

Here's where I have a chance to be presumptuous. I have this hypothesis that the reason that we cannot find a single formula that explains the Theory of Everything is because of the difficult interrelationship of the quantum mechanics of sub-atomic particles as they form mega-matter. The latter is rather orderly, but certainly not the former. However, since it's the subatomic particles that form mega-matter, it all "works out in the wash". OK, let me try and explain my insanity here.

If you've ever delved into photography, you'll realize that there's always some "grain", the size of which varies depending on the type of film you were using, in each picture. Picture each grain as a sub-atomic particle, which makes no sense to us visually when viewed alone, but which makes a lot more sense when one stands back to look at the entire picture. However, some of my photographs still made no sense, but that's just me.

So, what I'm trying to say is that the random nature of q.m. may be balanced out when we look at the "bigger picture" of mega-matter.

 

[Ouroboros]

Excellent.

Someone walks up and punches you in the face.
You lose some teeth and sue for dental work.
You're case is thrown out of course since ...

obviously ...

the claim that the punch caused the damage is, as best, speculative inference driven by human bias.​

On the other hand, see Causality:Science

The someone was crazy because he had an head injury from a traffic accident years ago that was caused by a truck driving through a stoplight that had stopped working and the breaks didn't work properly because the hydralic was leaking. Also, the guy that punched your face, his wife had just left him as well because of how erratic he had become over the years from the injury. On top of that, ...

If I remember something right from one of the law classes I took years ago, there are many causes, some direct, some indirect, and it's more about a percentage or grade of cause than a 100%, one and only cause, for anything.

 

[Ouroboros]

It's because I have a simple mind.

Of course I didn't mean simple in that sense. I should have said succinct.

 

[Ouroboros]

Here's where I have a chance to be presumptuous. I have this hypothesis that the reason that we cannot find a single formula that explains the Theory of Everything is because of the difficult interrelationship of the quantum mechanics of sub-atomic particles as they form mega-matter. The latter is rather orderly, but certainly not the former. However, since it's the subatomic particles that form mega-matter, it all "works out in the wash". OK, let me try and explain my insanity here.

If you've ever delved into photography, you'll realize that there's always some "grain", the size of which varies depending on the type of film you were using, in each picture. Picture each grain as a sub-atomic particle, which makes no sense to us visually when viewed alone, but which makes a lot more sense when one stands back to look at the entire picture. However, some of my photographs still made no sense, but that's just me.

So, what I'm trying to say is that the random nature of q.m. may be balanced out when we look at the "bigger picture" of mega-matter.

Agree.

Also, when we then start talking about time and space, being "something" that also comes into existence (like matter and such), we're stretching a long way beyond our ability to even intuitively think of it. It becomes formulas on paper, but it's not something we can imagine in our mind what it is, simply because we have no frames of reference for it anymore.

 

[Bunyip]

Actually it's considered an "axiom" in science, namely that if something happens, we look for what may have caused it.

Sorry, but no it isn't. Cause and effect is known not to apply at the quantum scale. That has been known for close to a century.

It is never assumed that somehow it caused itself or popped out of nothing, unless there were to be all other possible factors discounted, which is darn near impossible to do. However, even "axioms" can be challenged in science.

Is it assumed that God can cause himself? Where did he pop from?

 

[Bunyip]

So your argument is that effects do not prove a cause? A house, a spoon, a piece of cloth, effects all, do not show a cause? If that is "science", it is also foolishness, IMO.

Really? So what caused God?

 

[Laika]

Does it? I'm not seeing it, myself. There is no particular reason why such impartial observers must exist.

It would be convenient if they could be found, but our convenience is not necessarily going to be satisfied. Maybe we will never have the standard to compare ourselves to.

Not sure that is much of a problem, either.

In order to assert there is perfect knowledge, it must necessarily have a source, that is an omniscient one. Whilst human beings may struggle to know things that does not make them unknowable by definition; this latter leads to the idea that we can only knowledge by inference to a higher power. I think this is the distinction between saying we "don't" know the cause of something and we "can't" know the cause of something. The latter necessarily endows natural pheneomena with 'free will' which is not subject to cusal relationships, and therefore attributes consciousness to natural pheneomena.

Or, as the Soviets would put, the indeterminism of quantum mechanics means god did it.

Really? So what caused God?

God is a response to the question, "What caused the universe?" because we believe that purely naturalistic explanations are inadequate to explian the origins of the universe. So, if we accept that naturalistic explanations are inadequate, and accept supernatural ones ("god created the heavans and the earth") we end up in an infinite regression of gods causes gods. It is a simpler explanation to assume that nature is what is permanant and not god, even if we cannot at present establish if that is true.

 

[metis]

Sorry, but no it isn't. Cause and effect is known not to apply at the quantum scale. That has been known for close to a century.

Your statement of "no it isn't" isn't correct. Quantum mechanics doesn't change our approach of cause-and-effect relationships, only that it shows that sub-atomic particles behave in ways that are not the same as that which mega-matter does. Also, the "scientific method", which is used by scientists all over the world, deals in its entirety with cause-and-effect.

Is it assumed that God can cause himself? Where did he pop from?

I don't know, and I would suggest neither does anyone else. Nor do I have any particular belief in this area, nor am I certain that there is a God or Gods. People may believe in whatever, but beliefs are not necessarily facts. Here I tend to take the position found within Buddhist circles dealing with the issue as to whether there's a creator-god, and that is whatever happened happened.

 

[LuisDantas]

In order to assert there is perfect knowledge, it must necessarily have a source, that is an omniscient one.

I don't think I made such an assertion, nor do I think that the existence of imperfect knowledge demands the existence of perfect knowledge.

Whilst human beings may struggle to know things that does not make them unknowable by definition;

That alone indeed does not.

this latter leads to the idea that we can only knowledge by inference to a higher power. I think this is the distinction between saying we "don't" know the cause of something and we "can't" know the cause of something.

I'm not following. Plenty of things are unknownable without any hint of a higher power existing.

The latter necessarily endows natural pheneomena with 'free will' which is not subject to cusal relationships, and therefore attributes consciousness to natural pheneomena.

This, too, I am just not seeing.

Or, as the Soviets would put, the indeterminism of quantum mechanics means god did it.

I see it as rather the complete opposite. A lack of evidence of inherent planning is indeed a lack of evidence of inherent planning.

It does not quite prove that there is no god, but it certainly is no evidence that he does exist in any meaningful sense, either.

God is a response to the question, "What caused the universe?" because we believe that purely naturalistic explanations are inadequate to explian the origins of the universe. So, if we accept that naturalistic explanations are inadequate, and accept supernatural ones ("god created the heavans and the earth") we end up in an infinite regression of gods causes gods. It is a simpler explanation to assume that nature is what is permanant and not god, even if we cannot at present establish if that is true.

Why assume that anything is permanent at all?

 

[rusra02]

Really? So what caused God?

How does that negate the proof that effects show causation, i.e., a house ( the effect) demonstrates a cause (the builder)?

 

[metis]

The simple fact is that cause and effect is not a scientific law, never was.

The "simple fact" is that you are wrong: Axiom of Causality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[paarsurrey]

Cause and effect are not even quite a matter science deals

Neither science deals it nor the truthful religion, necessarily.

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, the truthful religion would not much care about a hypothetical creator god, IMO.

 

[paarsurrey]

The text I linked above tells a bit about how the otherwise remarkable David Hume really made a mistake when he spoke of cause and effect. That may or may not be part of the reason why some theists insist that there is something scientific on the notion that there might be a supernatural creator.

David Hume did effect the modern philosophical thought and developed radical philosophical empiricism and skepticism and introduced cause and effect in the West, nevertheless cause and effect do not form into core teachings of the truthful religion.

We believe in G-d for our natural love of G-d.

Regards