cause-and-effect: "cause" require evidence too

[gnostic]

Well, it is simple. All causes as cause and effect are physical, but all are not objective.
You as for this sentence is caused by you subjectively: Everything is objective.
Me: No.

So religion is physical, but not objective. But so is your idea that everything is objective in the end.
BTW the "no" has on objective, physical referent, yet you use negatives yourself.

When did I ever say that?

I have never said “everything is objective”.

If a person claim nature (natural phenomena) having cause and effect, then the only way to scientifically and objectively test such claim, are with evidence that the cause is responsible for its effect.

But if a person is going to mix nature with supernatural causes, then this person need to show evidence that the supernatural phenomena exist in the first place.

Evidence is of course the only way to reach objective conclusion on natural or physical causes.

No one who ever proposed supernatural causes (eg supernatural phenomena), have shown that evidence for anything supernatural.

But I don’t think everything is objective.

Subjective is anything that don’t require testing, such as personal view/opinion, personal belief (eg beliefs in religions, beliefs in scriptures, beliefs in prophets, in gods, in spirits or in fairies), personal preference or taste (eg liking or not liking of artwork, writing in literature, in music, in the looks of other people (attraction), etc.

Without subjective, there would be no imagination, and without imagination, there would be no masterpieces in art, literature or in music.

Being subjective is wonderful for creativity, as well for the unique individuality of each person. Here, being objective takes the backseat.

The places for objective, is in logic, like mathematics, or in scientific testings (eg evidence finding or experiments).

But not everything are sciences and mathematics.

 

[gnostic]

And believers in evidence where there is no evidence.

You do realize that YEC & ID creationists do exactly that: they believe that have evidence for a deity or the ID’s Designer, but no such evidence exist for either.

Creationists are the ones who make claims they have evidence for what they believe, but when asked to present these evidence, they would either ignore the request, or they would make more claims that are even ridiculous than the original claim, or they would try to shift the burden of proof upon others.

Such evasions only demonstrate that creationists are not honest in any discussion, debate or argument.

 

[gnostic]

The point if the analogy is that if you ever find a watch you woudl conclude that a designer created that watch even if you dont have prior evidence for the existance of the designer.

Even if I did find a watch, I would never conclude that the designer of this watch to be “non-human” entity, like a deity, eg God or the ID’s nonexistent supernatural Designer.

That’s the difference between you and me, I would never conclude watches were made by any supernatural beings, like the Creator or the Designer.

My conclusion would be “designer” or “maker” of the watch to be human, or by manmade machine that mass-produce wristwatches in factory.

Intelligent Design, otoh, would propose a god-like Designer, invisible and all-powerful being existing before the universe and before life exist on earth.

But you don’t see the flaws in the watchmaker analogy. For one, life isn’t a wristwatch.

Wristwatches cannot reproduce baby wristwatch. Whereas life (eg two humans) can reproduce offspring (eg baby).

Comparing watches to life, is foolishly idiotic, because they cannot be compared.

 

[Polymath257]

The same type of argument could be used to establish that there was a first cause. And that this first cause was simultaneous to the effect (big bang)……….

Um, no it would not. The singularity isn't a 'thing' so it can't be a cause.

I am proposing that there is something that exists independently of the universe (independent of space-time) you are assuming that universes are causeless.

In terms of parsimony, it seems that to me that this is a draw

My argument against a causeless universe (or a universe that was caused by nothing) is that it remains inexplicable why is it that only universes are causeless? Why not bicycles apples or cars? Why is it that “nothing” discriminates apples and not universes?

Well, it i NOT only universes that are causeless. Most quantum events are as well.

And I would point out that in the models where universes are causeless, there is only one universe Multiverse models have causes for the universes (but not for the multiverse).

But the difference between universes and bicycles is that bicycles are embedding in already-existing universes.

And you are giving 'nothing' both existence and properties that are not correct.

Strictly speaking 'nothing' in the sense you are using it simply does not exist. it never has existed and never will exist. That is because 'nothing' has no properties INCLUDING existence.

What prevents “nothing” to create apples ?

Well, in a vacuum (spacetime with no matter), particle/antiparticle pairs are what is produced. You don't get apple/antiapple pairs being produced.

And once again, 'nothing' in the sense you are using it does not and cannot exist.

This would imply that “nothing” has a property that discriminates apples, but “nothing” by definition can not have any properties (otherwise it be something)

Including the property of existence.

The only mystery here is why there is something as opposed to nothing.

And for that, there CANNOT be an explanation.

Invoking deities doesn't help because the deity is SOMETHING and not NOTHING.

Claiming deities are 'necessarily existent' begs the question and raises the issue of why the universe itself can't be 'necessarily existing'.

 

[Polymath257]

What you're saying here is 'seeing is believing'. Yet, as we know, God is not seen.

Which is good reason to not believe in a God.

In Hebrews 11, it says, 'By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by which he condemned the world, and became heir, of the righteousness which is by faith'.

So, Noah listened to an unseen God, acted by faith on the words he heard, and saved his family.

if he heard words, he had evidence of God. Not all seeing is with the eyes. Evidence can be collected by any of the senses. Plus, we can extend the senses in many ways to 'see' things that our human senses cannot detect directly (radio waves, for example).

Had his actions been driven by 'justified belief' he would have waited for the flood before acting. Now, that would have been helpful, wouldn't it!

The flood is a myth. Such an event would have produced MASSIVE amounts of geological evidence and such evidence is completely absent.

So, let me update you. In Matthew 24:37, Jesus says, 'But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be'.

This is a prophecy, and warning, given by Jesus which has not yet been fulfilled.

Your justified beliefs are not going to be much help when you find that the Lord comes 'as a thief in the night' and you are not faithfully prepared.

Threats, no matter how veiled, only show how weak the position of faith is: 'you better believe or something bad is going to happen to you!'.

This tells me that faith is necessary if we are to please God.

And it tells me the whole thing is mythology.

 

[Polymath257]

Making choices by faith is not the same as hearing the voice of God.

Making choices by faith is rather like saying to God, 'These are the choices l intend to make. I want you to go along with them'.

There are many examples of false prophets. These are men who claim to hear the voice of God but in reality listen only to their own desires. How am l to know that you didn't act like a false prophet?

I believe that this is what happened with Trump and his 'stolen election'. False prophets convinced him that he would be victorious.

And I believe there are no 'true prophets'. The closest you can get are scientists that can use their models to predict certain aspects of the future. For example, we can predict down to the minute when and where an eclipse will be centuries ahead of time.

 

[Polymath257]

Time didn’t exist in your own personal model that you personally support.

I was responding to another model where time existed before the big bang , my objections apply to this particular model, not to yours

And can you give a link or reference for the scientific paper in which this model appears? I want to see the mathematics.

 

[firedragon]

I actually agree with your points here.

I don’t think that we should mix natural and supernatural together, especially when dealing with sciences within Natural Sciences.

But that don’t stop some theists, like creationists, from the Young Earth Creationism circle or the Intelligent Design circle. They are the one who frequently blurred the lines between religions and sciences, between supernatural and natural, etc.

And I am actually arguing their version of cause and effect, which mixed effect (nature) and cause (the supernatural cause, eg the creative god or the Designer).

I no longer believe in supernatural.

The supernatural make great stories, but they are works of fictions, including religious stories. I no longer see supernatural as real, as there have been no evidence for anything “supernatural”.

It's not about "thinking" gnostic, it's basic philosophy of science when practicing or approaching science. It's the most basic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When did I ever say that?

I have never said “everything is objective”.

If a person claim nature (natural phenomena) having cause and effect, then the only way to scientifically and objectively test such claim, are with evidence that the cause is responsible for its effect.

...

Yeah, you are doing it. Only scientific and objective tests produce correct results for everything in nature. Then answer is no! Can you figure out, what I did that is not supernatural, yet not objective and not scientific?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You do realize that YEC & ID creationists do exactly that: they believe that have evidence for a deity or the ID’s Designer, but no such evidence exist for either.

Creationists are the ones who make claims they have evidence for what they believe, but when asked to present these evidence, they would either ignore the request, or they would make more claims that are even ridiculous than the original claim, or they would try to shift the burden of proof upon others.

Such evasions only demonstrate that creationists are not honest in any discussion, debate or argument.

Yeah, and you believe that the world is natural.
So please present evidence that the world is natural.

 

[Redemptionsong]

What I'm saying is that knowledge about the world comes through the senses.



If I were to change my mind and begin believing by faith (that really isn't possible anymore, but let's assume that it were), there is no reason for me to pick the same thing to have faith in that you picked. How about picking Scientology by faith? What makes any faith-based choice sounder than any other?

And if a different deity appears instead of the one you're expecting - one not too pleased with you being willing to believe by faith - then you are not "faithfully prepared" for anything. You're guessing.



No. As I just wrote, making choices by faith is making decisions based in guesses. Do you think that your thoughts are the voice of God? You're guessing. More likely, they are the products of your brain. That you don't consider that possibility shows the limitations of belief by faith. You've ruled out the likeliest answer on a guess.



If so, then Trump believed them by faith and should have held out for compelling evidence before believing them. And whether Trump believed the Big Lie or not, many of his followers DID believe him by faith, and now they will pay the price for their error. They guessed wrong. They, too, should have held out for confirmatory evidence. Acting according to beliefs held by faith is risky.

What actions do you do because of your religious beliefs? Mine included devoting thousands of hours of prayer, Bible study, and church attendance, as well as thousands of dollars in tithing. If this god doesn't exist, that's a squandering of scarce resources, time and money. Once I left religion, I read other things, things that were much more valuable. It was shortly after my exodus from Christianity that I changed from reading the Bible to buying up books on history, philosophy, quantum science, evolution, earth science, Big Bang science, and the works of authors such as Alan Watts, Terence McKenna, and Andrew Weil. This is when I read Cantor and Godel. It's when I began listening to the Grateful Dead in earnest. It's also when I began devoting thousands of hours to practicing electric guitar, and later, playing in bands with my wife. None of these were happening in my church days, but these are the things that defined the path my life took outside of religion, and "what a long, strange trip it's been."

Furthermore, I imagine my savings would be less than half what it is (I left the church and tithing over 40 years ago). I still feel financially secure despite inflation and threats to Social Security, but if I had given half or more of it to the church, it would have been wasted promoting religion, and we'd be more vulnerable now. And I doubt that I could have retired at 55, 13 years ago.

Making decisions based in beliefs held by faith can be costly.

When l hear you talk about your previous faith as a Christian, l wonder whether you really had an encounter with Christ. Were you 'born again' of the Holy Spirit, as is necessary?

The difference between following the Lord and following religion is the difference between the righteousness of God and the righteousness of man.

How can anyone truly claim to know Jesus and then reject him? Even Judas came to realise his mistake. Jesus said, 'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends'. Knowing Jesus means that you know his sacrifice personally.

All this stuff about what you've been able to do since rejecting Jesus is a nonsense. Peter had stern words for such people. He said, 'For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they had know it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
But it is happening unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire'. [2 Peter 3:20-22]

 

[Redemptionsong]

Which is good reason to not believe in a God.




if he heard words, he had evidence of God. Not all seeing is with the eyes. Evidence can be collected by any of the senses. Plus, we can extend the senses in many ways to 'see' things that our human senses cannot detect directly (radio waves, for example).



The flood is a myth. Such an event would have produced MASSIVE amounts of geological evidence and such evidence is completely absent.



Threats, no matter how veiled, only show how weak the position of faith is: 'you better believe or something bad is going to happen to you!'.



And it tells me the whole thing is mythology.

There's a distinct difference between a threat and a warning, especially when made by God.

Your response reflects nicely the words of the apostle, John.
'They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error'.
[1 John 4:5,6]

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In the Tanakh, the face or countenance of the LORD is rarely encountered. A few prophets, such as Moses, were given observable evidence of the Lord's presence, but these sightings were rare.

In the NT, the Lord appears on earth, in the flesh, dwelling amongst men. This is the countenance of God, or face by which he might be known.

When Jesus walked the earth and ministered in lsrael, his words were listened to, and his actions observed. People were able to build a faith on what they saw and heard. Those that developed faith, or trust, would approach Jesus for healing and for answers to their questions.

These are all just stories which, ironically, have to be believed on religious faith.
None of this changes the point I was making. Even if I would bend over backwards and believe all this at face value (I have no other choice, because there is no evidence for these stories), then still the point I made would not change.

Even IF those people back then developed actual trust, that doesn't change the situation today where "religious faith" = belief without evidence while faith in the "trust" sense = belief based on evidence resulting in reasonable expectations.

You have argued that the trust shown by the disciples and the multitudes that followed Jesus was not normal faith.

No, I was talking about the present day.
There's no way to tell if those originals thousands of years ago had "religious faith" or "reasonable expectations". But considering the type of claims we are talking about ("miracles" and other supernatural things), I think it's reasonable to say that it probably was religious faith.

But the evidence of the NT says otherwise.

The NT is a collection of claims that requires evidence. It is not evidence of itself.

It was human trust, placed in a man who demonstrated the goodness and power of God.

Those that had a heart for the truth listened and heard, and their faith grew deeper. Not all who listened proved faithful, as the Parable of the Sower makes clear. The parable tells us that there are always some who are too hard hearted to accept any of the truth; there are some who give up faith as soon as trials begin; there are some who are too bound up with the cares of life to follow it through; and then there are some that listen and grow to produce fruit. So, this is the nature of trust, and it does have an object that is real, namely the person of Jesus Christ.

The issue that perplexes many is how Jesus can be 'God with us'. The answer to this lies in the Spirit that led Jesus, which became one with his human soul. In other words, the Holy Spirit that rested on Jesus from the day of his baptism was the fulness of the Father's Spirit. Although hidden from human view, the Spirit of God was discernable through Jesus' words and actions. Of course, not all men could see beyond the outward appearance to discern the Holy Spirit within!

After Pentecost we have something additional to consider. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (and thereafter) provides believers with an additional assurance of faith. This is because faith is a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, as recorded in 1 Corinthians 12:9.

This is really just preaching, and requires (religious) faith in the religion to be believed.

 

[leroy]

Even if I did find a watch, I would never conclude that the designer of this watch to be “non-human” entity, like a deity, eg God or the ID’s nonexistent supernatural Designer.

That’s the difference between you and me, I would never conclude watches were made by any supernatural beings, like the Creator or the Designer.

My conclusion would be “designer” or “maker” of the watch to be human, or by manmade machine that mass-produce wristwatches in factory.

Intelligent Design, otoh, would propose a god-like Designer, invisible and all-powerful being existing before the universe and before life exist on earth.

But you don’t see the flaws in the watchmaker analogy. For one, life isn’t a wristwatch.

Wristwatches cannot reproduce baby wristwatch. Whereas life (eg two humans) can reproduce offspring (eg baby).

Comparing watches to life, is foolishly idiotic, because they cannot be compared.

What the watch analogy intends to show is that one can conclude that something was design even if you dont have prior evidence for the existence of designer.

So do you grant this point?

Your objections go beyond the purpose of the analogy.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What the watch analogy intends to show is that one can conclude that something was design even if you dont have prior evidence for the existence of designer.

But we do have prior evidence that watches are designed. The only reason we know watches are designed is because we know how watches are designed and that there is no process in nature that produces watches.

Consider the following two scenario: You walk through a forest and find a watch. Considering the watches appearance and design, you conclude that the watch must be the result of intentional design. You then walk a little further into the forest and find a tree from which watches appear to be growing like fruit. Do you still consider it natural to determine the watch is designed?

Further, let's divorce the watch from the analogy, because the only reason you can conclude a watch is designed is because of prior knowledge. Let's say I hand you two objects that you have never seen before that are roughly similar, and I tell you that one is designed and one occurs naturally. What features do you look for to determine one from the other? What methodology would you employ to determine which of these two objects - without being able to observe their design or occurrence in nature - is the one intentionally designed?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Further, let's divorce the watch from the analogy, because the only reason you can conclude a watch is designed is because of prior knowledge. Let's say I hand you two objects that you have never seen before that are roughly similar, and I tell you that one is designed and one occurs naturally. What features do you look for to determine one from the other? What methodology would you employ to determine which of these two objects - without being able to observe their design or occurrence in nature - is the one intentionally designed?

How the regularity and variation is different in the end. For some cases I might not be able to do it, but if others take me through the steppes I might get it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The same type of argument could be used to establish that there was a first cause. And that this first cause was simultaneous to the effect (big bang)……….

If you paid any kind of attention to his last couple of posts, you would know that that is not the case at all. You could NOT make such an argument, because causality is a phenomenon that applies IN the universe, since it is DEPENDEND on it existing for all its aspects.

I am proposing that there is something that exists independently of the universe

And what reason do you have to propose that, other then you already believing it to be the case religiously?

you are assuming that universes are causeless.

@Polymath257 has been explaining to you, at length and with great patience, how that isn't an assumption at all, but a reasonable CONCLUSION from the actual evidence available at this time.

In terms of parsimony, it seems that to me that this is a draw

It is not.
@Polymath257 's conclusion is drawn from evidence and in line with it.
Your claim however, is not.

My argument against a causeless universe (or a universe that was caused by nothing) is that it remains inexplicable why is it that only universes are causeless?

IOW, you are making an argument from ignorance and / or incredulity.

Having said that: it IS explicable. And the explanation is simply that causality requires certain conditions in order to take place. And these conditions are provided by the universe.
Removing the universe, would remove those conditions provided by it.

Causality disappears along with it.

Why not bicycles apples or cars? Why is it that “nothing” discriminates apples and not universes?
What prevents “nothing” to create apples ?

First, you are arguing a strawman. Nowhere did @Polymath257 say it came from "nothing", whatever you mean by that. In fact he did not make any claim concerning the origination of our universe in this conversation.

Instead, he only said that the evidence allows us to excluded a cause (as in causality) as the origin.

This would imply that “nothing” has a property that discriminates apples, but “nothing” by definition can not have any properties (otherwise it be something)

It only implies that you don't understand, or refuse to understand, what @Polymath257 is actually saying.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Time didn’t exist in your own personal model that you personally support.

No. According to the scientific physics model of the universe. According to relativity.
You must be confusing science with the "personal models" of theists who have "personal beliefs" about scientific subjects.

I was responding to another model where time existed before the big bang , my objections apply to this particular model, not to yours

What model would that be? I didn't see anyone here, in this chain of posts, suggest such a thing.

Sounds like you are once again arguing a strawman.
I responded to a post in which you were replying to something @F1fan said. Nowhere did he mention anything about any models that say that time existed "before" our universe did. It seems to me that you just invented or imagined that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

how do you know that?

A very looooooooong track record of every time something was verifiably learned about the universe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What the watch analogy intends to show is that one can conclude that something was design even if you dont have prior evidence for the existence of designer.

And what apologists who like to make this argument forget to explain properly every time is HOW people would recognize a watch as being designed.

Which is understandable off course, because that explanation would actually show how the analogy doesn't work.

Your objections go beyond the purpose of the analogy.

The purpose of the analogy is semantic trickery and counting on people not to think it through, so that they hopefully don't see the fallacious flaws.

And when those flaws are pointed out, all we get is a "that's beyond the purpose of the analogy!!!!"

It's juvenile bs.