| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Randy Story" |
| Date: |
01 Feb 2005 11:14:39 PM |
| Object: |
Efficient causality |
Efficient causality has up to the last half century always been
considered a first principle. Just like the laws of logic these have always
been held to be self evident or undeniable. Or course this does not mean it
is evident to all or that some person could not deny them, its just that in
denying the laws of logic one must use them in their very denial and thereby
it is self evident that they are undeniable.
What happened to the law of efficient causality. This law states that
every effect, or event or something that begins, or coming into existence
*must* have a cause for its coming to be. This would seem self evident as
all would agree that from absolute nothingness comes nothing. Today an
exception has arisen for a single area of sceince that some say deny this
principle. This of course is quantum physics. At the sub atomic level
proponents say that particles or virtual particles pop into existence out of
nothing, they are non deterministic meaning that no one can tell where or
when these particles will appear. As some proponents suggest since the
quantum level needs no cause for things to come to be, why should we believe
that the law of causality is still valid.
David Hume was a stanch defender of the idea that it was extremely
difficult to determine antecedent causes yet at the same time he said in
responding to an argument and I quote " I never said such an absurd idea as
that anything could arise without a cause". I would agree it was absurd then
and it is still today. Why is it that some are suggesting it might be
possible.
Of course if matter at the quantum level requires no cause then it is quite
clear that the universe itself might just have come from nothing. This would
of course rule out the need of a first cause which as always been understood
as the bedrock of theistic arguments for the existence of God.
I think this whole debate is misplaced, it is simply a misunderstanding.
Simply because as humans we can not determine, meaning we can not give a
sufficient reason for why the quantum level acts this way, this in no way
rules out the need for an efficient cause. Causality has to do with a prior
ontological cause that every event needs in order to come to be. Because we
can not
have certainty as to how or why sub atomic events happen does not reduce
their need for a cause. If you ask sceintists what underlies tha quantum
flux many
different answers result, quantum vacuam, sea of potentiality, they dont
know, etc.
This is all well & good but the one thing that the majority of sceintists
will not say
is absolute nothingness, why? Because it is irrational, to admit of an event
and say
it comes from nothing is nonsense and they know it. The fact is this is
where human knowledge is simply inadequate to explain this underlying cause.
The first cause argument which stands on the law of efficient causality is
still valid
as it has been for centuries.
.
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Efficient causality |
02 Feb 2005 12:38:18 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 15:14:39 -0800 in alt.atheism, Randy Story ("Randy
Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
[snip]
What happened to the law of efficient causality. This law states that
every effect, or event or something that begins, or coming into existence
*must* have a cause for its coming to be. This would seem self evident as
all would agree that from absolute nothingness comes nothing. Today an
exception has arisen for a single area of sceince that some say deny this
principle. This of course is quantum physics. At the sub atomic level
proponents say that particles or virtual particles pop into existence out of
nothing, they are non deterministic meaning that no one can tell where or
when these particles will appear. As some proponents suggest since the
quantum level needs no cause for things to come to be, why should we believe
that the law of causality is still valid.
Well, depends, doesn't it?
In this universe, except when you start fiddling around at a very low
level, effects require causes. But at the macro level, fair enough.
But that said, don't you think that to say the universe necessarily
had a cause is to implicitly pre-suppose the pre--existence of
causality? And if causality, why God?
In so far as I understand it, there are very good reasons to suppose
that causality is a property of the universe: the physicists tell us
the three dimensions and time are properties of the universe and it's
tricky to imagine, to construct a coherent model of causality in the
absence of those things. Though perhaps you may do better than me at
it!
And if causality was not "pre-existent" to the universe (whatever the
hell *that* means) then presumably all bets are off, and anything can
happen. And did, as 13 billion years later this post illustrates!
[snip]
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: www.Video2CD.com. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
Market Your DVD to The World For Almost Nothing: www.instantdvd.tv
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Efficient causality |
02 Feb 2005 06:40:31 AM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> said:
....
The first cause argument which stands on the law of efficient causality is
still valid
as it has been for centuries.
What do you say to this: "There are no such laws, there are only
observed degrees of apparent regularity."
Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Efficient causality |
02 Feb 2005 12:04:56 AM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:11003egrup6j20c@corp.supernews.com:
Efficient causality has up to the last half century always been
considered a first principle. Just like the laws of logic these have
always been held to be self evident or undeniable. Or course this does
not mean it is evident to all or that some person could not deny them,
its just that in denying the laws of logic one must use them in their
very denial and thereby it is self evident that they are undeniable.
What happened to the law of efficient causality. This law states
that
every effect, or event or something that begins, or coming into
existence *must* have a cause for its coming to be. This would seem
self evident as all would agree that from absolute nothingness comes
nothing. Today an exception has arisen for a single area of sceince
that some say deny this principle. This of course is quantum physics.
At the sub atomic level proponents say that particles or virtual
particles pop into existence out of nothing, they are non
deterministic meaning that no one can tell where or when these
particles will appear. As some proponents suggest since the quantum
level needs no cause for things to come to be, why should we believe
that the law of causality is still valid.
David Hume was a stanch defender of the idea that it was extremely
difficult to determine antecedent causes yet at the same time he said
in responding to an argument and I quote " I never said such an absurd
idea as that anything could arise without a cause". I would agree it
was absurd then and it is still today. Why is it that some are
suggesting it might be possible.
Of course if matter at the quantum level requires no cause then it is
quite clear that the universe itself might just have come from
nothing. This would of course rule out the need of a first cause which
as always been understood as the bedrock of theistic arguments for the
existence of God.
I think this whole debate is misplaced, it is simply a
misunderstanding.
Simply because as humans we can not determine, meaning we can not give
a sufficient reason for why the quantum level acts this way, this in
no way rules out the need for an efficient cause. Causality has to do
with a prior ontological cause that every event needs in order to come
to be. Because we can not
have certainty as to how or why sub atomic events happen does not
reduce their need for a cause. If you ask sceintists what underlies
tha quantum flux many
different answers result, quantum vacuam, sea of potentiality, they
dont know, etc.
This is all well & good but the one thing that the majority of
sceintists will not say
is absolute nothingness, why? Because it is irrational, to admit of an
event and say
it comes from nothing is nonsense and they know it. The fact is this
is where human knowledge is simply inadequate to explain this
underlying cause.
The first cause argument which stands on the law of efficient
causality is still valid
as it has been for centuries.
Well, I guess if your arguement is really valid, then you can tell us
what caused your god?
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: Efficient causality |
02 Feb 2005 12:40:03 AM |
|
|
"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95F0C20BD7BD2wodencharternet@69.28.186.121...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:11003egrup6j20c@corp.supernews.com:
Efficient causality has up to the last half century always been
considered a first principle. Just like the laws of logic these have
always been held to be self evident or undeniable. Or course this does
not mean it is evident to all or that some person could not deny them,
its just that in denying the laws of logic one must use them in their
very denial and thereby it is self evident that they are undeniable.
What happened to the law of efficient causality. This law states
that
every effect, or event or something that begins, or coming into
existence *must* have a cause for its coming to be. This would seem
self evident as all would agree that from absolute nothingness comes
nothing. Today an exception has arisen for a single area of sceince
that some say deny this principle. This of course is quantum physics.
At the sub atomic level proponents say that particles or virtual
particles pop into existence out of nothing, they are non
deterministic meaning that no one can tell where or when these
particles will appear. As some proponents suggest since the quantum
level needs no cause for things to come to be, why should we believe
that the law of causality is still valid.
David Hume was a stanch defender of the idea that it was extremely
difficult to determine antecedent causes yet at the same time he said
in responding to an argument and I quote " I never said such an absurd
idea as that anything could arise without a cause". I would agree it
was absurd then and it is still today. Why is it that some are
suggesting it might be possible.
Of course if matter at the quantum level requires no cause then it is
quite clear that the universe itself might just have come from
nothing. This would of course rule out the need of a first cause which
as always been understood as the bedrock of theistic arguments for the
existence of God.
I think this whole debate is misplaced, it is simply a
misunderstanding.
Simply because as humans we can not determine, meaning we can not give
a sufficient reason for why the quantum level acts this way, this in
no way rules out the need for an efficient cause. Causality has to do
with a prior ontological cause that every event needs in order to come
to be. Because we can not
have certainty as to how or why sub atomic events happen does not
reduce their need for a cause. If you ask sceintists what underlies
tha quantum flux many
different answers result, quantum vacuam, sea of potentiality, they
dont know, etc.
This is all well & good but the one thing that the majority of
sceintists will not say
is absolute nothingness, why? Because it is irrational, to admit of an
event and say
it comes from nothing is nonsense and they know it. The fact is this
is where human knowledge is simply inadequate to explain this
underlying cause.
The first cause argument which stands on the law of efficient
causality is still valid
as it has been for centuries.
Well, I guess if your arguement is really valid, then you can tell us
what caused your god
A first cause would not not have a cause because it is first. It is not an
effect or event, it whatever it is would always have been. If there was ever
absolute nothingness nothing would now exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Efficient causality |
02 Feb 2005 01:36:15 AM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:11008elcakk51d4@corp.supernews.com:
"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95F0C20BD7BD2wodencharternet@69.28.186.121...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:11003egrup6j20c@corp.supernews.com:
(snip earlier BS)
The first cause argument which stands on the law of efficient
causality is still valid
as it has been for centuries.
Well, I guess if your arguement is really valid, then you can tell us
what caused your god
A first cause would not not have a cause because it is first. It is
not an effect or event, it whatever it is would always have been.
Why couldn't the universe have formed without a "first cause"? Why do
you need a "intelligent" first cause?
If
there was ever absolute nothingness nothing would now exist
How do you know that?
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: Efficient causality |
02 Feb 2005 04:08:09 AM |
|
|
"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95F0D1966436Bwodencharternet@69.28.186.121...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:11008elcakk51d4@corp.supernews.com:
"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95F0C20BD7BD2wodencharternet@69.28.186.121...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:11003egrup6j20c@corp.supernews.com:
(snip earlier BS)
The first cause argument which stands on the law of efficient
causality is still valid
as it has been for centuries.
Well, I guess if your arguement is really valid, then you can tell us
what caused your god
A first cause would not not have a cause because it is first. It is
not an effect or event, it whatever it is would always have been.
Why couldn't the universe have formed without a "first cause"? Why do
you need a "intelligent" first cause?
I did not say this argument said anything about intelligence, thats another
issue.
The reason the universe needs a first cause is very simple, it began, it
came into existence, it had a beggining. Remember "nothing comes from
nothing, nothing ever could".
If
there was ever absolute nothingness nothing would now exist
How do you know that?
Just think about what your saying, that absolute nothingness produced
something. Talk about faith without absolute no evidence to stand on. All
the parts of the universe are caused but the universe as a whole is not,
WOW.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Efficient causality |
02 Feb 2005 04:34:34 AM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:1100kkqefpkaq92@corp.supernews.com:
"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95F0D1966436Bwodencharternet@69.28.186.121...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:11008elcakk51d4@corp.supernews.com:
"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95F0C20BD7BD2wodencharternet@69.28.186.121...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:11003egrup6j20c@corp.supernews.com:
(snip earlier BS)
The first cause argument which stands on the law of efficient
causality is still valid
as it has been for centuries.
Well, I guess if your arguement is really valid, then you can tell
us what caused your god
A first cause would not not have a cause because it is first. It is
not an effect or event, it whatever it is would always have been.
Why couldn't the universe have formed without a "first cause"? Why
do you need a "intelligent" first cause?
I did not say this argument said anything about intelligence, thats
another issue.
The reason the universe needs a first cause is very simple, it began,
it came into existence, it had a beggining. Remember "nothing comes
from nothing, nothing ever could".
How do we know this, for sure?
If
there was ever absolute nothingness nothing would now exist
How do you know that?
Just think about what your saying, that absolute nothingness produced
something. Talk about faith without absolute no evidence to stand on.
All the parts of the universe are caused but the universe as a whole
is not, WOW.
Well, quantum mechanics is not particularly intuitive. But I doubt if
you've done much post-grad study on the subject.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Efficient causality |
02 Feb 2005 04:18:34 AM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, Randy Story poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
....
The reason the universe needs a first cause is very simple, it began, it
came into existence, it had a beggining.
Unsupported assertion.
Remember "nothing comes from
nothing, nothing ever could".
Prove it, Randy.
Dazzle us with your brilliance.
....
Regards,
Josef
Fundamentalism means never having to say "I'm wrong."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Efficient causality |
02 Feb 2005 01:54:24 PM |
|
|
In our last episode <1100kkqefpkaq92@corp.supernews.com>, Randy Story
lumbered into the room and mumbled:
The reason the universe needs a first cause is very simple, it began
Prove it.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Efficient causality |
02 Feb 2005 04:50:09 AM |
|
|
On 01 Feb 2005, Randy Story dropped trou, farted, whirled, then shouted:
"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95F0D1966436Bwodencharternet@69.28.186.121...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:11008elcakk51d4@corp.supernews.com:
"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95F0C20BD7BD2wodencharternet@69.28.186.121...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:11003egrup6j20c@corp.supernews.com:
(snip earlier BS)
The first cause argument which stands on the law of efficient
causality is still valid
as it has been for centuries.
Well, I guess if your arguement is really valid, then you can tell
us what caused your god
A first cause would not not have a cause because it is first. It is
not an effect or event, it whatever it is would always have been.
Why couldn't the universe have formed without a "first cause"? Why
do you need a "intelligent" first cause?
I did not say this argument said anything about intelligence, thats
another issue.
The reason the universe needs a first cause is very simple, it began,
it came into existence, it had a beggining. Remember "nothing comes
from nothing, nothing ever could".
But you are saying your god created it from nothing. You contradict
yourself with this silly argument.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
--------
Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you
wouldn't want to ***** in the first place?
--George Carlin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Efficient causality |
04 Feb 2005 12:26:11 AM |
|
|
Randy Story wrote:
"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95F0D1966436Bwodencharternet@69.28.186.121...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:11008elcakk51d4@corp.supernews.com:
"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95F0C20BD7BD2wodencharternet@69.28.186.121...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:11003egrup6j20c@corp.supernews.com:
(snip earlier BS)
The first cause argument which stands on the law of efficient
causality is still valid
as it has been for centuries.
Well, I guess if your arguement is really valid, then you can tell us
what caused your god
A first cause would not not have a cause because it is first. It is
not an effect or event, it whatever it is would always have been.
Why couldn't the universe have formed without a "first cause"? Why do
you need a "intelligent" first cause?
I did not say this argument said anything about intelligence, thats another
issue.
The reason the universe needs a first cause is very simple, it began, it
came into existence, it had a beggining. Remember "nothing comes from
nothing, nothing ever could".
Where is your proof for that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Efficient causality |
04 Feb 2005 03:01:28 AM |
|
|
Ash wrote:
Randy Story wrote:
...Remember "nothing comes from
nothing, nothing ever could".
Where is your proof for that?
I believe that's part of the lyrics for "Something Good," from the
Oscar and Hammerstein musical "The Sound of Music." I was unaware that
it had been canonized, however. ;)
m
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Efficient causality |
03 Feb 2005 11:26:21 PM |
|
|
Randy Story wrote:
"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95F0D1966436Bwodencharternet@69.28.186.121...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:11008elcakk51d4@corp.supernews.com:
"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95F0C20BD7BD2wodencharternet@69.28.186.121...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:11003egrup6j20c@corp.supernews.com:
(snip earlier BS)
The first cause argument which stands on the law of efficient
causality is still valid
as it has been for centuries.
Well, I guess if your arguement is really valid, then you can tell us
what caused your god
A first cause would not not have a cause because it is first. It is
not an effect or event, it whatever it is would always have been.
Why couldn't the universe have formed without a "first cause"? Why do
you need a "intelligent" first cause?
I did not say this argument said anything about intelligence, thats another
issue.
The reason the universe needs a first cause is very simple, it began, it
came into existence, it had a beggining. Remember "nothing comes from
nothing, nothing ever could".
A beginning in time? Unlikely, as time is in the universe.
If
there was ever absolute nothingness nothing would now exist
How do you know that?
Just think about what your saying, that absolute nothingness produced
something. Talk about faith without absolute no evidence to stand on. All
the parts of the universe are caused but the universe as a whole is not,
WOW.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
Colin Day
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Efficient causality |
02 Feb 2005 07:03:16 PM |
|
|
Randy Story wrote:
The reason the universe needs a first cause is very simple, it began,
it
came into existence, it had a beggining. Remember "nothing comes from
nothing, nothing ever could".
Two questions:
1) How do you establish that there was originally any "nothing" for
the universe to come out of?
2) Does the law of causality require that there must be a cause for
the law of causality itself? If the law of causality itself is the
result of the cause, then is not the cause already under the law?
Which means the law must have existed before the cause, and therefore
the cause did not, in fact, cause the law, because the law must have
already existed at the time of the alleged cause. Obviously, if the
law of causality must exist before it can be brought into existence,
then we have an absurd situation. The law of causality itself must
therefore be an uncaused cause, and not necessarily the only uncaused
cause, either.
m
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Efficient causality |
02 Feb 2005 01:40:17 AM |
|
|
Woden wrote:
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:11008elcakk51d4@corp.supernews.com:
"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95F0C20BD7BD2wodencharternet@69.28.186.121...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:11003egrup6j20c@corp.supernews.com:
(snip earlier BS)
The first cause argument which stands on the law of efficient
causality is still valid
as it has been for centuries.
Well, I guess if your arguement is really valid, then you can tell us
what caused your god
A first cause would not not have a cause because it is first. It is
not an effect or event, it whatever it is would always have been.
Why couldn't the universe have formed without a "first cause"? Why do
you need a "intelligent" first cause?
Invalid question, as the universe could not have been "formed".
Formed from what?
If
there was ever absolute nothingness nothing would now exist
How do you know that?
Colin Day
aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Efficient causality |
02 Feb 2005 03:40:08 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 01:40:17 GMT, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> said in
alt.atheism:
Invalid question, as the universe could not have been "formed".
Formed from what?
The "nothingness" that couldn't have existed before anything existed.
--
"Creationists are the best evidence we have that there is no intelligent design."
-Josef Balluch
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Efficient causality |
02 Feb 2005 03:39:15 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 16:40:03 -0800, "Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com>
said in alt.atheism:
A first cause would not not have a cause because it is first. It is not an
effect or event
The universe isn't an effect or event, so I guess it didn't need a
cause. According to your argument, anyway.
If there was ever absolute nothingness nothing would now exist.
Because ...
You forgot to finish that sentence.
--
"Creationists are the best evidence we have that there is no intelligent design."
-Josef Balluch
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Efficient causality |
02 Feb 2005 10:15:09 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 16:40:03 -0800, "Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com>
wrote:
"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95F0C20BD7BD2wodencharternet@69.28.186.121...
Well, I guess if your arguement is really valid, then you can tell us
what caused your god
A first cause would not not have a cause because it is first. It is not an
effect or event, it whatever it is would always have been. If there was ever
absolute nothingness nothing would now exist.
Well, I think it must be self-evident that a god would be the most
advanced entity in the entire universe. How is it possible for such a
being to come into existence OUT OF NOTHING, which we all
agree is IMPOSSIBLE and self-evidently impossible? Indeed this
god cannot be a part of something that it is supposed to have created
unless it came into existence as part of the universe and at the same
time but then it cannot have created the universe can it?
If such a complex being can come into existence out of nothing then it
is also clearly evident that LESS COMPLEX things, such as the simple
hydrogen atom, could also come into existence out of nothing.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Efficient causality |
02 Feb 2005 01:38:27 AM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, Randy Story poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
Efficient causality has up to the last half century always been
considered a first principle.
By who, Randy?
From: http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/ti/haller.htm
"Aristotle's law of efficient causality is not an a priori principle but
is demonstrated based on the divisibility of motion."
Just like the laws of logic these have always
been held to be self evident or undeniable.
Baloney. As I have pointed out to you previously, the idea of causation
has been questioned since the time of the ancient Greeks.
....
What happened to the law of efficient causality.
It was mangled beyond recognition by theists and had to be put out of
it's misery.
This law states that
every effect, or event or something that begins, or coming into existence
*must* have a cause for its coming to be.
It cannot be a law, since causation has yet to be placed on solid
philosophical ground.
This would seem self evident as
all would agree that from absolute nothingness comes nothing.
Got an argument to show that a state of "absolute nothingness" is
possible?
....
David Hume was a stanch defender of the idea that it was extremely
difficult to determine antecedent causes yet at the same time he said in
responding to an argument and I quote " I never said such an absurd idea as
that anything could arise without a cause". I would agree it was absurd then
and it is still today. Why is it that some are suggesting it might be
possible.
Because it is possible.
Of course if matter at the quantum level requires no cause then it is quite
clear that the universe itself might just have come from nothing.
Or the universe is eternal.
This would
of course rule out the need of a first cause which as always been understood
as the bedrock of theistic arguments for the existence of God.
An eternal universe also does away with the need of your "first cause".
I think this whole debate is misplaced, it is simply a misunderstanding.
You're young. You have time to learn.
Simply because as humans we can not determine, meaning we can not give a
sufficient reason for why the quantum level acts this way, this in no way
rules out the need for an efficient cause.
....
The fact is this is
where human knowledge is simply inadequate to explain this underlying cause.
Silly twaddle.
The quantum foam is eternal. Space and time have no meaning in the
quantum foam.
http://blueox.uoregon.edu/~karen/astro123/lectures/lec16.html
Being eternal, the foam requires no cause.
The first cause argument which stands on the law of efficient causality is
still valid
as it has been for centuries.
Snorf !!
Regards,
Josef
A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too
lazy to study physics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Blake" |
|
| Title: Re: Efficient causality |
02 Feb 2005 09:58:30 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 20:38:27 -0500, Josef Balluch
<josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote:
A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too
lazy to study physics.
Great sig - is it of your own making or a quote from someone else?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Efficient causality |
03 Feb 2005 12:03:58 AM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, John Blake poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 20:38:27 -0500, Josef Balluch
<josef.balluch@sympatico.can> wrote:
A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too
lazy to study physics.
Great sig - is it of your own making or a quote from someone else?
I also thought it was quite good. I found it on the 'net, but there was
no attribution.
Regards,
Josef
I quote others only the better to express myself.
-- Michel de Montaigne
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Efficient causality |
02 Feb 2005 02:01:51 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <11003egrup6j20c@corp.supernews.com>, Randy Story
lumbered into the room and mumbled:
Efficient causality has up to the last half century always been
considered a first principle.
So what?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Efficient causality |
02 Feb 2005 12:04:39 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 15:14:39 -0800, "Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com>
said in alt.atheism:
What happened to the law of efficient causality. This law states that
every effect, or event or something that begins, or coming into existence
*must* have a cause for its coming to be.
And it's nonsense.
This would seem self evident as
.... as the Earth being flat. And as wrong.
all would agree that from absolute nothingness comes nothing. Today an
exception has arisen for a single area of sceince that some say deny this
principle. This of course is quantum physics.
And, since there's no actual evidence that this "law of efficient
causality" (it's not a law, it's an assertion - what's the method of
falsification? Oh, yes - finding something that comes about with no
cause.) must obtain, and we DO have evidence that, in at least one
case it doesn't, it's just more Christian nonsense. Nonsense which
has been refuted, since its method of falsification has just been used
to falsify it.
The first cause argument
.... is still just a case of special pleading.
--
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding
the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."
- Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: Efficient causality |
02 Feb 2005 12:36:30 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:216001d5vcl017clvebe2st7r77m1ag1g2@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 15:14:39 -0800, "Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com>
said in alt.atheism:
What happened to the law of efficient causality. This law states that
every effect, or event or something that begins, or coming into existence
*must* have a cause for its coming to be.
And it's nonsense.
This would seem self evident as
... as the Earth being flat. And as wrong.
It is not self evident that the earth is flat. Do you really understand what
a self evident truth is?
all would agree that from absolute nothingness comes nothing. Today an
exception has arisen for a single area of sceince that some say deny this
principle. This of course is quantum physics.
And, since there's no actual evidence that this "law of efficient
causality" (it's not a law, it's an assertion - what's the method of
falsification? Oh, yes - finding something that comes about with no
cause.) must obtain, and we DO have evidence that, in at least one
case it doesn't, it's just more Christian nonsense. Nonsense which
has been refuted, since its method of falsification has just been used
to falsify it.
Al, the laws of logic cant be falsified either, they are self evident first
principles jus as the law of efficient causality is.
The first cause argument
... is still just a case of special pleading.
--
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate
understanding
the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."
- Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein
Archive 59-085
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Efficient causality |
02 Feb 2005 03:05:31 AM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:110087v5fin9u19@corp.supernews.com...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:216001d5vcl017clvebe2st7r77m1ag1g2@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 15:14:39 -0800, "Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com>
said in alt.atheism:
What happened to the law of efficient causality. This law states that
every effect, or event or something that begins, or coming into
existence
*must* have a cause for its coming to be.
And it's nonsense.
This would seem self evident as
... as the Earth being flat. And as wrong.
It is not self evident that the earth is flat. Do you really understand
what
a self evident truth is?
The definition is not "What idiots think they see."
all would agree that from absolute nothingness comes nothing. Today an
exception has arisen for a single area of sceince that some say deny
this
principle. This of course is quantum physics.
And, since there's no actual evidence that this "law of efficient
causality" (it's not a law, it's an assertion - what's the method of
falsification? Oh, yes - finding something that comes about with no
cause.) must obtain, and we DO have evidence that, in at least one
case it doesn't, it's just more Christian nonsense. Nonsense which
has been refuted, since its method of falsification has just been used
to falsify it.
Al, the laws of logic cant be falsified either, they are self evident
first
principles jus as the law of efficient causality is.
But it's falsified, as demonstrated. Thus it is no longer self evident.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: Efficient causality |
02 Feb 2005 03:49:49 AM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:_7adnZS3l7lo3p3fRVn-1A@io.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:110087v5fin9u19@corp.supernews.com...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:216001d5vcl017clvebe2st7r77m1ag1g2@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 15:14:39 -0800, "Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com>
said in alt.atheism:
What happened to the law of efficient causality. This law states that
every effect, or event or something that begins, or coming into
existence
*must* have a cause for its coming to be.
And it's nonsense.
This would seem self evident as
... as the Earth being flat. And as wrong.
It is not self evident that the earth is flat. Do you really understand
what
a self evident truth is?
The definition is not "What idiots think they see."
It has nothing to do with seeing, it is self evident as the laws of logic.
Even you writing
that the law of causality is not valid is a caused statement from your mind,
you cant escape it.
You can believe that it doesnt apply for your own purpose but that is just
being irrational.
all would agree that from absolute nothingness comes nothing. Today an
exception has arisen for a single area of sceince that some say deny
this
principle. This of course is quantum physics.
And, since there's no actual evidence that this "law of efficient
causality" (it's not a law, it's an assertion - what's the method of
falsification? Oh, yes - finding something that comes about with no
cause.) must obtain, and we DO have evidence that, in at least one
case it doesn't, it's just more Christian nonsense. Nonsense which
has been refuted, since its method of falsification has just been used
to falsify it.
Al, the laws of logic cant be falsified either, they are self evident
first
principles jus as the law of efficient causality is.
But it's falsified, as demonstrated. Thus it is no longer self evident.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Efficient causality |
02 Feb 2005 06:03:49 AM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:1100jif4lkfafa2@corp.supernews.com...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:_7adnZS3l7lo3p3fRVn-1A@io.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:110087v5fin9u19@corp.supernews.com...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:216001d5vcl017clvebe2st7r77m1ag1g2@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 15:14:39 -0800, "Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com>
said in alt.atheism:
What happened to the law of efficient causality. This law states that
every effect, or event or something that begins, or coming into
existence
*must* have a cause for its coming to be.
And it's nonsense.
This would seem self evident as
... as the Earth being flat. And as wrong.
It is not self evident that the earth is flat. Do you really understand
what
a self evident truth is?
The definition is not "What idiots think they see."
It has nothing to do with seeing, it is self evident as the laws of logic.
Even you writing
that the law of causality is not valid is a caused statement from your
mind,
you cant escape it.
You can believe that it doesnt apply for your own purpose but that is just
being irrational.
I apologise Randy, I misread your post to say that it IS self evident that
the earth is flat.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Efficient causality |
02 Feb 2005 04:07:18 AM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, Randy Story poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
....
It has nothing to do with seeing, it is self evident as the laws of logic.
Even you writing
that the law of causality is not valid is a caused statement from your mind,
you cant escape it.
Silly twaddle.
You cannot demonstrate that the statement was caused. And you cannot
argue from the premise that some events are caused to the conclusion
that ALL events are caused.
....
Regards,
Josef
The only reason some people get lost in thought is because it's
unfamiliar territory.
-- Paul Fix
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Efficient causality |
03 Feb 2005 12:09:41 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 19:49:49 -0800, "Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com>
said in alt.atheism:
It has nothing to do with seeing, it is self evident as the laws of logic.
Even you writing
that the law of causality is not valid is a caused statement from your mind,
you cant escape it.
There's a difference between causality and "efficient causality". But
your dishonesty in trying to replace one with the other without
getting caught is noted.
You can believe that it doesnt apply for your own purpose but that is just
being irrational.
Claiming that causality doesn't usually apply in this universe is.
Claiming that "efficient causality" always applies is sanity. And
it's self evident that it doesn't always apply. It's also self
evident that, if a god exists in this universe, causality applies to
it.
--
"Creationists are the best evidence we have that there is no intelligent design."
-Josef Balluch
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Efficient causality |
03 Feb 2005 11:29:03 PM |
|
|
Randy Story wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:_7adnZS3l7lo3p3fRVn-1A@io.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:110087v5fin9u19@corp.supernews.com...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:216001d5vcl017clvebe2st7r77m1ag1g2@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 15:14:39 -0800, "Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com>
said in alt.atheism:
What happened to the law of efficient causality. This law states that
every effect, or event or something that begins, or coming into
existence
*must* have a cause for its coming to be.
And it's nonsense.
This would seem self evident as
... as the Earth being flat. And as wrong.
It is not self evident that the earth is flat. Do you really understand
what
a self evident truth is?
The definition is not "What idiots think they see."
It has nothing to do with seeing, it is self evident as the laws of logic.
Even you writing
that the law of causality is not valid is a caused statement from your mind,
you cant escape it.
You can believe that it doesnt apply for your own purpose but that is just
being irrational.
Are you saying that it is not self-evident that causality only applies
to objects in time, as opposed to the universe?
Colin Day
aa #1500
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
