| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Randy Story" |
| Date: |
20 Oct 2003 02:32:31 AM |
| Object: |
Negative evidence |
Atheist continue to point to the fact that it is up to the one that
makes a positive claim to provide evidence for that claim. They use the
statements "God exists" as an example of this.
But is this always the case. Cosider the statement "the universe need a
cause for its existence" and the negative " the universe does not require a
cause for its existence"
Who has the necessity for evidence concerning their truth claim. It
seems that in this case that the negative has this obligation for the
following reason.
We known that we are caused to exist, we know that planets are caused to
exist, we know tha solar systems and galaxies are caused to exist. In fact
it appears that everything *in* the universe has a cause, why would we
assume that the universe as a whole does not.
In all our experience we only see *evidence* that cause & effect apply to
everything.
So who has the obligation, the positive side that sees cause & effect
clearly as a law in this universe or the negative side that sees this same
law concerning the parts but will not apply this to the whole because of the
result this would lead to.
.
|
|
| User: "Bob White" |
|
| Title: Re: Negative evidence |
20 Oct 2003 12:25:57 PM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vp73uu3q18ig06@corp.supernews.com...
<snip Randy's rerun of the lame theist first cause argument which died when
first made due to a fatal lack of logical consistency>
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: Negative evidence |
20 Oct 2003 04:11:58 AM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vp73uu3q18ig06@corp.supernews.com...
Atheist continue to point to the fact that it is up to the one that
makes a positive claim to provide evidence for that claim. They use the
statements "God exists" as an example of this.
But is this always the case. Cosider the statement "the universe need
a
cause for its existence" and the negative " the universe does not require
a
cause for its existence"
Who has the necessity for evidence concerning their truth claim. It
seems that in this case that the negative has this obligation for the
following reason.
We known that we are caused to exist, we know that planets are caused to
exist, we know tha solar systems and galaxies are caused to exist. In fact
it appears that everything *in* the universe has a cause, why would we
assume that the universe as a whole does not.
In all our experience we only see *evidence* that cause & effect apply to
everything.
So who has the obligation, the positive side that sees cause & effect
clearly as a law in this universe or the negative side that sees this same
law concerning the parts but will not apply this to the whole because of
the
result this would lead to.
Everything in the mind has a cause. Outside the mind, there are no causes.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Negative evidence |
20 Oct 2003 10:21:25 AM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vp73uu3q18ig06@corp.supernews.com...
Atheist continue to point to the fact that it is up to the one that
makes a positive claim to provide evidence for that claim. They use the
statements "God exists" as an example of this.
But is this always the case. Cosider the statement "the universe need
a
cause for its existence" and the negative " the universe does not require
a
cause for its existence"
Even if that was all well and good, which it isn't, it would not shift the
burden of proof attached to the claim that god exists one bit.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: Negative evidence |
20 Oct 2003 04:42:41 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:aCidnecwy8CNZg6iXTWJkQ@io.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vp73uu3q18ig06@corp.supernews.com...
Atheist continue to point to the fact that it is up to the one that
makes a positive claim to provide evidence for that claim. They use the
statements "God exists" as an example of this.
But is this always the case. Cosider the statement "the universe
need
a
cause for its existence" and the negative " the universe does not
require
a
cause for its existence"
Even if that was all well and good, which it isn't, it would not shift the
burden of proof attached to the claim that god exists one bit.
I did not say it did, but it does possibly shift the burden of this
argument.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Negative evidence |
20 Oct 2003 11:15:39 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:42:41 -0700, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> posted in alt.atheism:
I did not say it did, but it does possibly shift the burden of this
argument.
Nope. The one claiming that a cause exists bears the burden of proof.
--
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid
consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and
ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who
works on the basis of reward and punishment. "
- Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Negative evidence |
21 Oct 2003 06:48:52 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 10:21:25 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vp73uu3q18ig06@corp.supernews.com...
Atheist continue to point to the fact that it is up to the one that
makes a positive claim to provide evidence for that claim. They use the
statements "God exists" as an example of this.
But is this always the case. Cosider the statement "the universe need
a
cause for its existence" and the negative " the universe does not require
a
cause for its existence"
Even if that was all well and good, which it isn't, it would not shift the
burden of proof attached to the claim that god exists one bit.
Randy is a binary thinker who imagines that "having no reason to think
it had a cause" is the same as "think it didn't have a cause".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: Negative evidence |
21 Oct 2003 03:51:28 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:cso8pvsob8rqk809ivtq2m21cmmi3rqnhm@4ax.com...
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 10:21:25 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vp73uu3q18ig06@corp.supernews.com...
Atheist continue to point to the fact that it is up to the one that
makes a positive claim to provide evidence for that claim. They use the
statements "God exists" as an example of this.
But is this always the case. Cosider the statement "the universe
need
a
cause for its existence" and the negative " the universe does not
require
a
cause for its existence"
Even if that was all well and good, which it isn't, it would not shift
the
burden of proof attached to the claim that god exists one bit.
Randy is a binary thinker who imagines that "having no reason to think
it had a cause" is the same as "think it didn't have a cause".
For mosts atheist that truth is identical.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Negative evidence |
21 Oct 2003 01:29:08 PM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message news:<vp73uu3q18ig06@corp.supernews.com>...
Atheist continue to point to the fact that it is up to the one that
makes a positive claim to provide evidence for that claim. They use the
statements "God exists" as an example of this.
But is this always the case. Cosider the statement "the universe need a
cause for its existence" and the negative " the universe does not require a
cause for its existence"
Who has the necessity for evidence concerning their truth claim. It
seems that in this case that the negative has this obligation for the
following reason.
We known that we are caused to exist, we know that planets are caused to
exist, we know tha solar systems and galaxies are caused to exist. In fact
it appears that everything *in* the universe has a cause, why would we
assume that the universe as a whole does not.
In all our experience we only see *evidence* that cause & effect apply to
everything.
So who has the obligation, the positive side that sees cause & effect
clearly as a law in this universe or the negative side that sees this same
law concerning the parts but will not apply this to the whole because of the
result this would lead to.
Every cell in your body is non-sentient. Therefore, your body as a
whole is non-sentient.
Every human who has ever lived has/had a history that measures in a
few decades at most. Therefore, human history is only a few decades
old.
The trees in this forest are small. Therefore, this forest is small.
A drop of water is harmless. Therefore, this flood is harmless.
It is a logical fallacy to apply the characteristics of the parts to
the whole (or vice-versa). We do not know enough about universes yet
to say whether or not they need a cause. One is obligated, of course,
to ask why the universe needs a cause but your god does not.
One also needs to wrestle with the concept of a cause for all of space
and time. The answer is simply that we do not yet know. Your emotional
preferences do not establish the nature of reality. While you are
conceivably correct, there is no reason to think you are, and every
reason to be apalled at the possibility (however slight), and an
apparent need to point out to you that there are numerous conceivable
alternatives, not simply two.
--- kermit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: Negative evidence |
21 Oct 2003 04:02:56 PM |
|
|
"Kermit" <freehand_THX1138@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1575bfdc.0310211029.622214a4@posting.google.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:<vp73uu3q18ig06@corp.supernews.com>...
Atheist continue to point to the fact that it is up to the one that
makes a positive claim to provide evidence for that claim. They use the
statements "God exists" as an example of this.
But is this always the case. Cosider the statement "the universe
need a
cause for its existence" and the negative " the universe does not
require a
cause for its existence"
Who has the necessity for evidence concerning their truth claim. It
seems that in this case that the negative has this obligation for the
following reason.
We known that we are caused to exist, we know that planets are caused to
exist, we know tha solar systems and galaxies are caused to exist. In
fact
it appears that everything *in* the universe has a cause, why would we
assume that the universe as a whole does not.
In all our experience we only see *evidence* that cause & effect apply
to
everything.
So who has the obligation, the positive side that sees cause &
effect
clearly as a law in this universe or the negative side that sees this
same
law concerning the parts but will not apply this to the whole because of
the
result this would lead to.
Every cell in your body is non-sentient. Therefore, your body as a
whole is non-sentient.
Every human who has ever lived has/had a history that measures in a
few decades at most. Therefore, human history is only a few decades
old.
The trees in this forest are small. Therefore, this forest is small.
A drop of water is harmless. Therefore, this flood is harmless.
It is a logical fallacy to apply the characteristics of the parts to
the whole (or vice-versa). We do not know enough about universes yet
to say whether or not they need a cause. One is obligated, of course,
to ask why the universe needs a cause but your god does not.
It is only the fallacy of composition if the whole is different in a
different sense.
The parts are all traingles but the whole is a retangle, this is true.
All the parts of the log cabin are made of wood, the whole cabin is wood.
You see if all the *nature* of the parts are the same then the whole nature
is the same.
All the tiles on the floor are green, then the whole floor is green.
All the parts of the universe are caused to be, then the whole universe is
caused to be.
God does not because he is the only infinite uncaused thing that exists.
unlimited, necessary, uncaused, simple, pure actuality, eternal.
One also needs to wrestle with the concept of a cause for all of space
and time. The answer is simply that we do not yet know. Your emotional
preferences do not establish the nature of reality. While you are
conceivably correct, there is no reason to think you are, and every
reason to be apalled at the possibility (however slight), and an
apparent need to point out to you that there are numerous conceivable
alternatives, not simply two.
--- kermit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rv Cloim" |
|
| Title: Re: Negative evidence |
21 Oct 2003 06:02:49 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:02:56 -0700, Randy Story wrote:
"Kermit" <freehand_THX1138@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1575bfdc.0310211029.622214a4@posting.google.com...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:<vp73uu3q18ig06@corp.supernews.com>...
Atheist continue to point to the fact that it is up to the one that
makes a positive claim to provide evidence for that claim. They use
the statements "God exists" as an example of this.
But is this always the case. Cosider the statement "the universe
need a
cause for its existence" and the negative " the universe does not
require a
cause for its existence"
Who has the necessity for evidence concerning their truth claim.
It
seems that in this case that the negative has this obligation for the
following reason.
We known that we are caused to exist, we know that planets are caused
to exist, we know tha solar systems and galaxies are caused to exist.
In
fact
it appears that everything *in* the universe has a cause, why would we
assume that the universe as a whole does not. In all our experience we
only see *evidence* that cause & effect apply
to
everything.
So who has the obligation, the positive side that sees cause &
effect
clearly as a law in this universe or the negative side that sees this
same
law concerning the parts but will not apply this to the whole because
of
the
result this would lead to.
Every cell in your body is non-sentient. Therefore, your body as a whole
is non-sentient.
Every human who has ever lived has/had a history that measures in a few
decades at most. Therefore, human history is only a few decades old.
The trees in this forest are small. Therefore, this forest is small.
A drop of water is harmless. Therefore, this flood is harmless.
It is a logical fallacy to apply the characteristics of the parts to the
whole (or vice-versa). We do not know enough about universes yet to say
whether or not they need a cause. One is obligated, of course, to ask
why the universe needs a cause but your god does not.
It is only the fallacy of composition if the whole is different in a
different sense.
The parts are all traingles but the whole is a retangle, this is true. All
the parts of the log cabin are made of wood, the whole cabin is wood. You
see if all the *nature* of the parts are the same then the whole nature is
the same.
All the tiles on the floor are green, then the whole floor is green.
What about the grout?
All the parts of the universe are caused to be, then the whole universe is
caused to be.
If you can establish that all the parts are caused to be.
Demonstrate the causal relationship towards the formation of matter.
Demonstrate the formation of energy.
God does not because he is the only infinite uncaused thing that exists.
unlimited, necessary, uncaused, simple, pure actuality, eternal.
So why not energy or matter being eternal?
One also needs to wrestle with the concept of a cause for all of space
and time. The answer is simply that we do not yet know. Your emotional
preferences do not establish the nature of reality. While you are
conceivably correct, there is no reason to think you are, and every
reason to be apalled at the possibility (however slight), and an
apparent need to point out to you that there are numerous conceivable
alternatives, not simply two.
--- kermit
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Salt" |
|
| Title: Re: Negative evidence |
20 Oct 2003 02:45:38 AM |
|
|
"cause to exist" means what exactly ? - afraid i dont not understand what
you are trying to say with this praise
although i suspect i know what the answer will be
--
Steve
The are no stupid questions.... but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vp73uu3q18ig06@corp.supernews.com...
Atheist continue to point to the fact that it is up to the one that
makes a positive claim to provide evidence for that claim. They use the
statements "God exists" as an example of this.
But is this always the case. Cosider the statement "the universe need
a
cause for its existence" and the negative " the universe does not require
a
cause for its existence"
Who has the necessity for evidence concerning their truth claim. It
seems that in this case that the negative has this obligation for the
following reason.
We known that we are caused to exist, we know that planets are caused to
exist, we know tha solar systems and galaxies are caused to exist. In fact
it appears that everything *in* the universe has a cause, why would we
assume that the universe as a whole does not.
In all our experience we only see *evidence* that cause & effect apply to
everything.
So who has the obligation, the positive side that sees cause & effect
clearly as a law in this universe or the negative side that sees this same
law concerning the parts but will not apply this to the whole because of
the
result this would lead to.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: Negative evidence |
20 Oct 2003 02:43:11 AM |
|
|
10/20/2003, around 09:32:31 AM, Randy Story wrote:
Atheist continue to point to the fact that it is up to the one
that makes a positive claim to provide evidence for that claim. They
use the statements "God exists" as an example of this.
But is this always the case. Cosider the statement "the universe
need a cause for its existence" and the negative " the universe does
not require a cause for its existence"
Who has the necessity for evidence concerning their truth claim.
It seems that in this case that the negative has this obligation for
the following reason.
We known that we are caused to exist, we know that planets are caused
to exist, we know tha solar systems and galaxies are caused to exist.
In fact it appears that everything in the universe has a cause, why
would we assume that the universe as a whole does not.
Why would we assume that it does? We don't know for sure either way. At
least I don't.
In all our experience we only see evidence that cause & effect apply
to everything.
What about virtual particles, what causes them to randomly appear and
disappear? Or nuclear decay?
So who has the obligation, the positive side that sees cause &
effect clearly as a law in this universe or the negative side that
sees this same law concerning the parts but will not apply this to
the whole because of the result this would lead to.
Are you completely sure that the laws of the universe apply to the laws
outside of it, if there is an outside of it?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Salt" |
|
| Title: Re: Negative evidence |
20 Oct 2003 02:58:26 AM |
|
|
Ill assume u are talking about cause and effect...
U know the big bang theory even if you dont like or agree with it...but it
does a pretty good job of explaining the universe as we see it atm..
U get to the point that our current physics breaks down so at this time we
cannot understand a "cause"
but that does not mean we will not be able to find it...or that right at
this moment we must accept a god did it because we cannot currently find a
solution.
If you look back in history...cant you see a pattern ?.. everything that was
a mystery was attributed to a god...as science unravelled these mysteries
people relied less on god as an answer and more on human intelligence.
You should try it :-)
--
Steve
The are no stupid questions.... but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:vp73uu3q18ig06@corp.supernews.com...
Atheist continue to point to the fact that it is up to the one that
makes a positive claim to provide evidence for that claim. They use the
statements "God exists" as an example of this.
But is this always the case. Cosider the statement "the universe need
a
cause for its existence" and the negative " the universe does not require
a
cause for its existence"
Who has the necessity for evidence concerning their truth claim. It
seems that in this case that the negative has this obligation for the
following reason.
We known that we are caused to exist, we know that planets are caused to
exist, we know tha solar systems and galaxies are caused to exist. In fact
it appears that everything *in* the universe has a cause, why would we
assume that the universe as a whole does not.
In all our experience we only see *evidence* that cause & effect apply to
everything.
So who has the obligation, the positive side that sees cause & effect
clearly as a law in this universe or the negative side that sees this same
law concerning the parts but will not apply this to the whole because of
the
result this would lead to.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Negative evidence |
21 Oct 2003 01:21:53 AM |
|
|
In article <vp73uu3q18ig06@corp.supernews.com>,
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote:
Atheist continue to point to the fact that it is up to the one that
makes a positive claim to provide evidence for that claim. They use the
statements "God exists" as an example of this.
But is this always the case. Cosider the statement "the universe need a
cause for its existence" and the negative " the universe does not require a
cause for its existence"
Who has the necessity for evidence concerning their truth claim. It
seems that in this case that the negative has this obligation for the
following reason.
We known that we are caused to exist, we know that planets are caused to
exist, we know tha solar systems and galaxies are caused to exist. In fact
it appears that everything *in* the universe has a cause, why would we
assume that the universe as a whole does not.
In all our experience we only see *evidence* that cause & effect apply to
everything.
So who has the obligation, the positive side that sees cause & effect
clearly as a law in this universe or the negative side that sees this same
law concerning the parts but will not apply this to the whole because of the
result this would lead to.
Let's go back to square one. If some god exists, it may or may not
have 'caused' the universe. If no gods exist, then the universe,
caused or uncaused, came about by natural mechanisms. I see no
evidence for gods or the supernatural, therefore I think that it
illogical for me to ascribe a cause to something that I have no reason
to believe exists.
Like it or not, the ball is still in your court. Show us the evidence
that your god exists.
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
Pierre Laplace, when asked by Napoleon on why he made
no mention of a god in his book on astronomy: "Sire,
I have no need of that hypothesis."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Negative evidence |
20 Oct 2003 06:51:54 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 00:32:31 -0700, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> in news message
<vp73uu3q18ig06@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
Atheist continue to point to the fact that it is up to the one that
makes a positive claim to provide evidence for that claim. They use the
statements "God exists" as an example of this.
But is this always the case. Cosider the statement "the universe need a
cause for its existence" and the negative " the universe does not require a
cause for its existence"
Who has the necessity for evidence concerning their truth claim. It
seems that in this case that the negative has this obligation for the
following reason.
We known that we are caused to exist, we know that planets are caused to
exist, we know tha solar systems and galaxies are caused to exist.
Actually, we know that we exist. We know that planets exist. We know
that solar systems exist. We know these facts because of observation.
In fact
it appears that everything *in* the universe has a cause, why would we
assume that the universe as a whole does not.
We don't know that everything has a cause, at least not in the way you
are using the phrase. We have learned the humans are produced by
sexual reproduction, but they aren't "caused" by anything other than
natural processes. We have learned that planets and solar systems are
produced by gravity and the accretion of matter, but they aren't
"caused" by anything other than natural processes. Why assume that
the universe as a whole was produced by anything other than natural
processes? (Other than, of course, you equate the production of
watches with the causation of the universe.)
In all our experience we only see *evidence* that cause & effect apply to
everything.
The problem here, Randy, is that you are equivocating about the word
cause. In the above sentence, you are using the word "cause" to mean
" to result in a consequence", eg. « Applying pressure to the gas
pedal of an automobile causes the gas to flow to the engine. » In
this connotation, the word "cause" has nothing to do with bringing
anything into being by supernatural means. However, when you use
"cause" in relation to the universe, you use it as a synonym for
"created ex nihilo". Even though the word that is used is the same
word, the usage is completely different and your analogy is not
analogous.
So who has the obligation, the positive side that sees cause & effect
clearly as a law in this universe or the negative side that sees this same
law concerning the parts but will not apply this to the whole because of the
result this would lead to.
You are confused.
Liz #658 BAAWA
I could not believe that anyone who had read this book
would be so foolish as to proclaim that the Bible in every
literal word was the divinely inspired, inerrant word of
God? Have these people simply not read the text? Are they
hopelessly uninformed? Is there a different Bible? Are
they blinded by a combination of ego needs and naivete?
-- Bishop John Shelby Spong!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: Negative evidence |
20 Oct 2003 04:15:38 PM |
|
|
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:k7h7pvcakjuvpq3tdi11eclg0aa8iaqtd9@4ax.com...
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 00:32:31 -0700, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> in news message
<vp73uu3q18ig06@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
Atheist continue to point to the fact that it is up to the one that
makes a positive claim to provide evidence for that claim. They use the
statements "God exists" as an example of this.
But is this always the case. Cosider the statement "the universe need
a
cause for its existence" and the negative " the universe does not require
a
cause for its existence"
Who has the necessity for evidence concerning their truth claim. It
seems that in this case that the negative has this obligation for the
following reason.
We known that we are caused to exist, we know that planets are caused to
exist, we know tha solar systems and galaxies are caused to exist.
Actually, we know that we exist. We know that planets exist. We know
that solar systems exist. We know these facts because of observation.
We also claim to know how individual items came to be and we have seen items
that cease to be.
In fact
it appears that everything *in* the universe has a cause, why would we
assume that the universe as a whole does not.
We don't know that everything has a cause, at least not in the way you
are using the phrase. We have learned the humans are produced by
sexual reproduction, but they aren't "caused" by anything other than
natural processes. We have learned that planets and solar systems are
produced by gravity and the accretion of matter, but they aren't
"caused" by anything other than natural processes. Why assume that
the universe as a whole was produced by anything other than natural
processes? (Other than, of course, you equate the production of
watches with the causation of the universe.)
So the universe was cause by natural processes and natural processes ar
cause by the universe as a whole. Good reasoning if you like circles.
In all our experience we only see *evidence* that cause & effect apply to
everything.
The problem here, Randy, is that you are equivocating about the word
cause. In the above sentence, you are using the word "cause" to mean
" to result in a consequence", eg. « Applying pressure to the gas
pedal of an automobile causes the gas to flow to the engine. » In
this connotation, the word "cause" has nothing to do with bringing
anything into being by supernatural means. However, when you use
"cause" in relation to the universe, you use it as a synonym for
"created ex nihilo". Even though the word that is used is the same
word, the usage is completely different and your analogy is not
analogous.
Cause means " that which produces an effect" whether that cause moves the
car or brings things to be. I simply am asking the question, who should
provide evidence since we observes causes all around us and do not observe
spontanous effects anymore then spontanous life appearing.
The cause of the car moving certainly is the person at the pedal. You simply
dont understand an efficient cause vs an instrumental cause. The efficient
cause pushes the pedal which releases the gas and so on. the primary or
efficient cause utilized secondary causes to bring about the effect of the
car moving down the road. In simple terms "the cause produced an effect".
Is that an echo I hear.
There is no equivication in my usage of the word cause. If natural or
supernatural.
So who has the obligation, the positive side that sees cause & effect
clearly as a law in this universe or the negative side that sees this
same
law concerning the parts but will not apply this to the whole because of
the
result this would lead to.
You are confused.
No, it seems you guys always try to sidetrack by redefining.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Negative evidence |
20 Oct 2003 05:50:01 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:15:38 -0700, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> in news message
<vp8k6bp9el9he5@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:k7h7pvcakjuvpq3tdi11eclg0aa8iaqtd9@4ax.com...
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 00:32:31 -0700, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> in news message
<vp73uu3q18ig06@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
Atheist continue to point to the fact that it is up to the one that
makes a positive claim to provide evidence for that claim. They use the
statements "God exists" as an example of this.
But is this always the case. Cosider the statement "the universe need
a
cause for its existence" and the negative " the universe does not require
a
cause for its existence"
Who has the necessity for evidence concerning their truth claim. It
seems that in this case that the negative has this obligation for the
following reason.
We known that we are caused to exist, we know that planets are caused to
exist, we know tha solar systems and galaxies are caused to exist.
Actually, we know that we exist. We know that planets exist. We know
that solar systems exist. We know these facts because of observation.
We also claim to know how individual items came to be and we have seen items
that cease to be.
Yes, exactly, because they were not "caused" in a supernatural sense
and we can investigate the natural processes.
In fact
it appears that everything *in* the universe has a cause, why would we
assume that the universe as a whole does not.
We don't know that everything has a cause, at least not in the way you
are using the phrase. We have learned the humans are produced by
sexual reproduction, but they aren't "caused" by anything other than
natural processes. We have learned that planets and solar systems are
produced by gravity and the accretion of matter, but they aren't
"caused" by anything other than natural processes. Why assume that
the universe as a whole was produced by anything other than natural
processes? (Other than, of course, you equate the production of
watches with the causation of the universe.)
So the universe was cause by natural processes and natural processes ar
cause by the universe as a whole. Good reasoning if you like circles.
Except that was not what I said.
In all our experience we only see *evidence* that cause & effect apply to
everything.
The problem here, Randy, is that you are equivocating about the word
cause. In the above sentence, you are using the word "cause" to mean
" to result in a consequence", eg. « Applying pressure to the gas
pedal of an automobile causes the gas to flow to the engine. » In
this connotation, the word "cause" has nothing to do with bringing
anything into being by supernatural means. However, when you use
"cause" in relation to the universe, you use it as a synonym for
"created ex nihilo". Even though the word that is used is the same
word, the usage is completely different and your analogy is not
analogous.
Cause means " that which produces an effect" whether that cause moves the
car or brings things to be. I simply am asking the question, who should
provide evidence since we observes causes all around us and do not observe
spontanous effects anymore then spontanous life appearing.
Of course, there are no spontaneous effects in the universe because
and effect needs a cause. You merely presume that everything is an
effect. However, there *are spontaneous processes in the universe
which do not have causes. The decay of radioactive atoms is
spontaneous. The creation of virtual particles is spontaneous.
The cause of the car moving certainly is the person at the pedal. You simply
dont understand an efficient cause vs an instrumental cause. The efficient
cause pushes the pedal which releases the gas and so on. the primary or
efficient cause utilized secondary causes to bring about the effect of the
car moving down the road. In simple terms "the cause produced an effect".
Is that an echo I hear.
And? How does this solve your problem with your equivocation with the
word "cause"? You have not demonstrated that the universe is an
effect that requires a cause, and your assertion that this must be so
it not enough. You assume too much with no evidence.
There is no equivication in my usage of the word cause. If natural or
supernatural.
Of course, there is because you can not show a cause for anything that
is supernatural, mainly because there are no supernatural effects that
can be observed. Conversely, I can demonstrate causes for natural
effects. You merely assume that the universe is an effect and that
there is a supernatural cause, and you equate that cause with God®.
You assume your conclusion without even showing that there is a cause,
and you assume that the cause if God®.
You equivocate the word "cause" with "came into being" when, in fact,
you have no evidence that the universe actually has a cause. This
equivocation does not help your case. Only evidence will do that.
So who has the obligation, the positive side that sees cause & effect
clearly as a law in this universe or the negative side that sees this
same
law concerning the parts but will not apply this to the whole because of
the
result this would lead to.
You are confused.
No, it seems you guys always try to sidetrack by redefining.
No. If you mean that God® created the universe, then you should use
that word. Your use of the word "cause" is imprecise and
disingenuous.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Many...freely confess that they believe what it makes them
feel good to believe. Evidence doesn't play much of a role.
They are alleviating their fear of randomness by identifying
regularities that are not there. - Murray Gell-Mann
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Negative evidence |
20 Oct 2003 11:15:36 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:15:38 -0700, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> posted in alt.atheism:
We also claim to know how individual items came to be and we have seen items
that cease to be.
We also claim that virtual particles come to be without any "how".
So the universe was cause by natural processes and natural processes ar
cause by the universe as a whole.
No. Natural processes are causeless. Whether the universe "came to
be", "always was" or something else entirely is something we make no
claims about. We know the *results* of the big bang. We don;t know
what it was or what, if anything, caused it.
Cause means " that which produces an effect"
Then, since the universe isn't an effect, it wasn't caused.
I simply am asking the question, who should provide evidence
The person making the existentially positive assertion. In this case,
the person making the "a cause exists" assertion. All you have to do
is provide objective evidence of this claimed objective cause.
since we observes causes all around us and do not observe
spontanous effects anymore then spontanous life appearing.
Sure we do. Nothing causes a radioactive atom to decay. Nothing
causes a virtual particle to appear.
You are confused.
No, it seems you guys always try to sidetrack by redefining.
Redefining what? You claim that an objective cause exists, so show
objective evidence of this cause.
--
"If we really know Truth, we do not fear hearing falsehoods or half-truths; if we are not sure of the truth - we shudder and try to shout down every utterance." - A. J. Mims
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: Negative evidence |
21 Oct 2003 04:07:00 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:4qb9pvcn12fqsqv77312fdfejfmur5nmhr@Pern.rk...
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:15:38 -0700, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> posted in alt.atheism:
We also claim to know how individual items came to be and we have seen
items
that cease to be.
We also claim that virtual particles come to be without any "how".
Yes I guess you do, how can you know this for sure.
So the universe was cause by natural processes and natural processes ar
cause by the universe as a whole.
No. Natural processes are causeless. Whether the universe "came to
be", "always was" or something else entirely is something we make no
claims about. We know the *results* of the big bang. We don;t know
what it was or what, if anything, caused it.
Natural processes are causeless, but you are not sure how everything came to
be, then how do you know their causeless.
Cause means " that which produces an effect"
Then, since the universe isn't an effect, it wasn't caused.
You would have to be omniscient to know that>
I simply am asking the question, who should provide evidence
The person making the existentially positive assertion. In this case,
the person making the "a cause exists" assertion. All you have to do
is provide objective evidence of this claimed objective cause.
since we observes causes all around us and do not observe
spontanous effects anymore then spontanous life appearing.
Sure we do. Nothing causes a radioactive atom to decay. Nothing
causes a virtual particle to appear.
You know this for sure, man you must be omniscient.
Radioactive decay is simply one of the processes of the second law of
thermodynamics*all energistic systems are running down* Or if you like a
more accurate definition * the amount of available energy in the universe is
decreasing" We are dying a slow heat debt death, but if energy is running
down then the only conclusion is that the universe had a beginning.
As far as virtual particles are concerned, we cant see beyond the vail you
might say. Bells theorom postulates that whatever underlies our reality we
know must be non local, and not confined to spacetime. This is exactly what
theists believe about God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Negative evidence |
21 Oct 2003 01:52:37 PM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message news:<vp9ts91malvl9c@corp.supernews.com>...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:4qb9pvcn12fqsqv77312fdfejfmur5nmhr@Pern.rk...
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:15:38 -0700, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> posted in alt.atheism:
We also claim to know how individual items came to be and we have seen
items
that cease to be.
We also claim that virtual particles come to be without any "how".
Yes I guess you do, how can you know this for sure.
We don't, really. Perhaps someday we will decide there is a "cause"
for each of these events. Those causes will likely be described as
random and unpredictable. But this is a conceivable future, not what
we expect. Do you have an alternative? Are you going to claim that
each decay of an atom or subatomic particle is a miracle, the result
of a conscious decision by God? any particular reason why he choose
some and not others, but always carefully maintaining a statistical
constant?
What happens when we figure out a cuase for these events - will you
decide that they are no l onger miraculous, but that God miraculously
precipitates their *cause? This is the god of the gaps - the deity of
ignorance, who retreats snarling and snapping into the shadows as our
knowledge grows.
If you want to keep your god, I suggest you find a way to reconcile
him with science, and not insist that he is simply the explnation for
our ignorance. As our knowledge grows, our ignorance (and the god of
the gaps) shrinks.
I think maybe you want to talk to some scientists who are believers,
not atheists on this newsgroup. We are not going to give you much
encouragement in this endeavor.
So the universe was cause by natural processes and natural processes ar
cause by the universe as a whole.
No. Natural processes are causeless. Whether the universe "came to
be", "always was" or something else entirely is something we make no
claims about. We know the *results* of the big bang. We don;t know
what it was or what, if anything, caused it.
Natural processes are causeless, but you are not sure how everything came to
be, then how do you know their causeless.
We don't know evything. And neither do you. We *do know that every
cause and effect we understand is the result of natural processes.
Cause means " that which produces an effect"
Then, since the universe isn't an effect, it wasn't caused.
You would have to be omniscient to know that>
No, just knowledgable :) All knowledge is provisional. If you insist,
like my grandpa the Baptist minister did, that you "know" these
things, you are not more likely to be right. You are simply expressing
in the typically indirect Christian way, that you are uncomfortable
with the possiblity that you are wrong. If you want to present a
stronger case, you should offer a better argument than incredulity and
false dichotomies. Evidence would be good.
I simply am asking the question, who should provide evidence
The person making the existentially positive assertion. In this case,
the person making the "a cause exists" assertion. All you have to do
is provide objective evidence of this claimed objective cause.
since we observes causes all around us and do not observe
spontanous effects anymore then spontanous life appearing.
Sure we do. Nothing causes a radioactive atom to decay. Nothing
causes a virtual particle to appear.
You know this for sure, man you must be omniscient.
Radioactive decay is simply one of the processes of the second law of
thermodynamics*all energistic systems are running down* Or if you like a
more accurate definition * the amount of available energy in the universe is
decreasing" We are dying a slow heat debt death, but if energy is running
down then the only conclusion is that the universe had a beginning.
Or that it's cyclic. Or that universes are continually birthed somehow
by a metaverse. Or that it's an eternal universe. Or yes, it's going
to die someday and there won't be anymore. Or, it's a Matrix-like
illusion, and the real universe behaves differently. Or, the entire
universe consists of one eternal subatomic particle, going back and
forth in time, interacting with itself (maybe it's a random
interaction, and the finite univers slowly changes over ...um...
meta-time. Or we are a dream of Brahma, the King of Gods, and when we
all realize who we are (part of his dream) we/he will awake and
eventually dream again.
Just off the top of my head.
--- kermit
As far as virtual particles are concerned, we cant see beyond the vail you
might say. Bells theorom postulates that whatever underlies our reality we
know must be non local, and not confined to spacetime. This is exactly what
theists believe about God.
Yeah, but most of them believe it because they can't do the math
necessary to understand modern cosmology, and it's familiar, and it's
emotionally comforting. These are not good tests for truth.
--- kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Negative evidence |
21 Oct 2003 05:22:55 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 02:07:00 -0700, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> in news message
<vp9ts91malvl9c@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:4qb9pvcn12fqsqv77312fdfejfmur5nmhr@Pern.rk...
[-----]
since we observes causes all around us and do not observe
spontanous effects anymore then spontanous life appearing.
Sure we do. Nothing causes a radioactive atom to decay. Nothing
causes a virtual particle to appear.
You know this for sure, man you must be omniscient.
Radioactive decay is simply one of the processes of the second law of
thermodynamics*all energistic systems are running down* Or if you like a
more accurate definition * the amount of available energy in the universe is
decreasing" We are dying a slow heat debt death, but if energy is running
down then the only conclusion is that the universe had a beginning.
You seem to be saying that there is no cause for radioactive decay,
and that it just happens. Are you conceding that radioactive decay is
a natural process? If you are not saying this, what "causes" a
particular atom to decay at a particular time?
As far as virtual particles are concerned, we cant see beyond the vail you
might say. Bells theorom postulates that whatever underlies our reality we
know must be non local, and not confined to spacetime. This is exactly what
theists believe about God.
IOW, you can not demonstrate that there is a cause or that these
things are actually effects of a cause.
And while your explaining what you don't know about the universe, you
can explain to us the "causes" of gravity -- not a description, but a
cause.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Many...freely confess that they believe what it makes them
feel good to believe. Evidence doesn't play much of a role.
They are alleviating their fear of randomness by identifying
regularities that are not there. - Murray Gell-Mann
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: Negative evidence |
21 Oct 2003 03:42:59 PM |
|
|
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:081apv85qp8mgni4f76akqe3lkrp98fhk5@4ax.com...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 02:07:00 -0700, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> in news message
<vp9ts91malvl9c@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:4qb9pvcn12fqsqv77312fdfejfmur5nmhr@Pern.rk...
[-----]
since we observes causes all around us and do not observe
spontanous effects anymore then spontanous life appearing.
Sure we do. Nothing causes a radioactive atom to decay. Nothing
causes a virtual particle to appear.
You know this for sure, man you must be omniscient.
Radioactive decay is simply one of the processes of the second law of
thermodynamics*all energistic systems are running down* Or if you like a
more accurate definition * the amount of available energy in the universe
is
decreasing" We are dying a slow heat debt death, but if energy is running
down then the only conclusion is that the universe had a beginning.
You seem to be saying that there is no cause for radioactive decay,
and that it just happens. Are you conceding that radioactive decay is
a natural process? If you are not saying this, what "causes" a
particular atom to decay at a particular time?
As far as virtual particles are concerned, we cant see beyond the vail
you
might say. Bells theorom postulates that whatever underlies our reality
we
know must be non local, and not confined to spacetime. This is exactly
what
theists believe about God.
IOW, you can not demonstrate that there is a cause or that these
things are actually effects of a cause.
And while your explaining what you don't know about the universe, you
can explain to us the "causes" of gravity -- not a description, but a
cause.
God, " in him all things hold together" " in him we live and move and have
our being"
He declares clearly in scripture that it is him that holds the fabric of the
universe together.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Negative evidence |
21 Oct 2003 10:39:00 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:42:59 -0700, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> posted in alt.atheism:
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:081apv85qp8mgni4f76akqe3lkrp98fhk5@4ax.com...
And while your explaining what you don't know about the universe, you
can explain to us the "causes" of gravity -- not a description, but a
cause.
God, " in him all things hold together" " in him we live and move and have
our being"
He declares clearly in scripture that it is him that holds the fabric of the
universe together.
Learn the difference between "explain" and "assert".
--
"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye
shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it,
but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great
enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code."
- Mark Twain, a Biography
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Negative evidence |
22 Oct 2003 11:00:41 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:42:59 -0700, "Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com>,
Message ID: <vpb6l7j3uo7a47@corp.supernews.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:081apv85qp8mgni4f76akqe3lkrp98fhk5@4ax.com...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 02:07:00 -0700, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> in news message
<vp9ts91malvl9c@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:4qb9pvcn12fqsqv77312fdfejfmur5nmhr@Pern.rk...
[-----]
since we observes causes all around us and do not observe
spontanous effects anymore then spontanous life appearing.
Sure we do. Nothing causes a radioactive atom to decay. Nothing
causes a virtual particle to appear.
You know this for sure, man you must be omniscient.
Radioactive decay is simply one of the processes of the second law of
thermodynamics*all energistic systems are running down* Or if you like a
more accurate definition * the amount of available energy in the universe
is
decreasing" We are dying a slow heat debt death, but if energy is running
down then the only conclusion is that the universe had a beginning.
You seem to be saying that there is no cause for radioactive decay,
and that it just happens. Are you conceding that radioactive decay is
a natural process? If you are not saying this, what "causes" a
particular atom to decay at a particular time?
As far as virtual particles are concerned, we cant see beyond the vail
you
might say. Bells theorom postulates that whatever underlies our reality
we
know must be non local, and not confined to spacetime. This is exactly
what
theists believe about God.
IOW, you can not demonstrate that there is a cause or that these
things are actually effects of a cause.
And while your explaining what you don't know about the universe, you
can explain to us the "causes" of gravity -- not a description, but a
cause.
Santa Claus. " in Santa Claus all things hold together" " in Santa Claus we live and move and have
our being" Santa Claus declares clearly in scripture that it is him that holds the fabric of the
toy factory together.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rv Cloim" |
|
| Title: Re: Negative evidence |
21 Oct 2003 05:42:30 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:42:59 -0700, Randy Story wrote:
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:081apv85qp8mgni4f76akqe3lkrp98fhk5@4ax.com...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 02:07:00 -0700, "Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com>
in news message <vp9ts91malvl9c@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:4qb9pvcn12fqsqv77312fdfejfmur5nmhr@Pern.rk...
[-----]
since we observes causes all around us and do not observe
spontanous effects anymore then spontanous life appearing.
Sure we do. Nothing causes a radioactive atom to decay. Nothing
causes a virtual particle to appear.
You know this for sure, man you must be omniscient. Radioactive decay
is simply one of the processes of the second law of thermodynamics*all
energistic systems are running down* Or if you like a more accurate
definition * the amount of available energy in the universe
is
decreasing" We are dying a slow heat debt death, but if energy is
running down then the only conclusion is that the universe had a
beginning.
You seem to be saying that there is no cause for radioactive decay, and
that it just happens. Are you conceding that radioactive decay is a
natural process? If you are not saying this, what "causes" a particular
atom to decay at a particular time?
As far as virtual particles are concerned, we cant see beyond the vail
you
might say. Bells theorom postulates that whatever underlies our reality
we
know must be non local, and not confined to spacetime. This is exactly
what
theists believe about God.
IOW, you can not demonstrate that there is a cause or that these things
are actually effects of a cause.
And while your explaining what you don't know about the universe, you
can explain to us the "causes" of gravity -- not a description, but a
cause.
God, " in him all things hold together" " in him we live and move and have
our being"
He declares clearly in scripture that it is him that holds the fabric of
the universe together.
In which case radioactive decay demonstrates that he is losing his grip.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Negative evidence |
22 Oct 2003 11:01:28 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 22:42:30 GMT, "Rv Cloim" <cloim@propylaea.tor.org>,
Message ID: <pan.2003.10.21.22.44.52.78105@propylaea.tor.org> wrote in
alt.atheism;
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:42:59 -0700, Randy Story wrote:
"Liz" <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote in message
news:081apv85qp8mgni4f76akqe3lkrp98fhk5@4ax.com...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 02:07:00 -0700, "Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com>
in news message <vp9ts91malvl9c@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:4qb9pvcn12fqsqv77312fdfejfmur5nmhr@Pern.rk...
[-----]
since we observes causes all around us and do not observe
spontanous effects anymore then spontanous life appearing.
Sure we do. Nothing causes a radioactive atom to decay. Nothing
causes a virtual particle to appear.
You know this for sure, man you must be omniscient. Radioactive decay
is simply one of the processes of the second law of thermodynamics*all
energistic systems are running down* Or if you like a more accurate
definition * the amount of available energy in the universe
is
decreasing" We are dying a slow heat debt death, but if energy is
running down then the only conclusion is that the universe had a
beginning.
You seem to be saying that there is no cause for radioactive decay, and
that it just happens. Are you conceding that radioactive decay is a
natural process? If you are not saying this, what "causes" a particular
atom to decay at a particular time?
As far as virtual particles are concerned, we cant see beyond the vail
you
might say. Bells theorom postulates that whatever underlies our reality
we
know must be non local, and not confined to spacetime. This is exactly
what
theists believe about God.
IOW, you can not demonstrate that there is a cause or that these things
are actually effects of a cause.
And while your explaining what you don't know about the universe, you
can explain to us the "causes" of gravity -- not a description, but a
cause.
God, " in him all things hold together" " in him we live and move and have
our being"
He declares clearly in scripture that it is him that holds the fabric of
the universe together.
In which case radioactive decay demonstrates that he is losing his grip.
What grip? The fuckwit not only lacks opposible thumbs but has only a
brain stem.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Negative evidence |
21 Oct 2003 10:37:08 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 02:07:00 -0700, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> posted in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:4qb9pvcn12fqsqv77312fdfejfmur5nmhr@Pern.rk...
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 14:15:38 -0700, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> posted in alt.atheism:
We also claim to know how individual items came to be and we have seen items
that cease to be.
We also claim that virtual particles come to be without any "how".
Yes I guess you do, how can you know this for sure.
Because they appear and there is no cause.
So the universe was cause by natural processes and natural processes ar
cause by the universe as a whole.
No. Natural processes are causeless. Whether the universe "came to
be", "always was" or something else entirely is something we make no
claims about. We know the *results* of the big bang. We don;t know
what it was or what, if anything, caused it.
Natural processes are causeless, but you are not sure how everything came to
be, then how do you know their causeless.
If we know there isn't a cause we know the event is causeless.
Cause means " that which produces an effect"
Then, since the universe isn't an effect, it wasn't caused.
You would have to be omniscient to know that
No, you would just have to understand English to know that something
that's not an effect wasn't caused. Causes only cause effects.
I simply am asking the question, who should provide evidence
The person making the existentially positive assertion. In this case,
the person making the "a cause exists" assertion. All you have to do
is provide objective evidence of this claimed objective cause.
since we observes causes all around us and do not observe
spontanous effects anymore then spontanous life appearing.
Sure we do. Nothing causes a radioactive atom to decay. Nothing
causes a virtual particle to appear.
You know this for sure, man you must be omniscient.
No, but "knowing" that an invisible insubstantial god exists takes
even more than omniscience - it takes being a god, so you must be one.
Radioactive decay is simply one of the processes of the second law of
thermodynamics*all energistic systems are running down*
Which has nothing to do with radioactive decay.
Or if you like a
more accurate definition * the amount of available energy in the universe is
decreasing"
No, it's remaining exactly the same - zero. (Stop getting your
"science education" from Christian web sites.)
We are dying a slow heat debt death, but if energy is running
down then the only conclusion is that the universe had a beginning.
And, since energy isn't "running down" (entropy is increasing - that's
not the same thing as "energy running down"), that's lack of evidence,
not evidence.
As far as virtual particles are concerned, we cant see beyond the vail you
might say. Bells theorom postulates that whatever underlies our reality we
know must be non local, and not confined to spacetime. This is exactly what
theists believe about God.
So? If you want to call non-local spacetime "God", fine, but don't
make believe that spacetime is some intelligent entity.
--
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them."
-Isaac Asimov
&
There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence.
- (Will Rogers)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny Bravo" |
|
| Title: Re: Negative evidence |
25 Oct 2003 05:02:40 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 02:07:00 -0700, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote:
Sure we do. Nothing causes a radioactive atom to decay. Nothing
causes a virtual particle to appear.
You know this for sure, man you must be omniscient.
Identify this fallacy: To know one thing you must first know
everything.
Radioactive decay is simply one of the processes of the second law of
thermodynamics*all energistic systems are running down*
Radioactive decay is not a system running down.
Or if you like a
more accurate definition * the amount of available energy in the universe is
decreasing" We are dying a slow heat debt death, but if energy is running
down then the only conclusion is that the universe had a beginning.
This is 100% false, you have no idea what the heat death of the
universe is. Please stop misusing science you do not understand.
--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Negative evidence |
20 Oct 2003 11:15:26 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 00:32:31 -0700, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Atheist continue to point to the fact that it is up to the one that
makes a positive claim to provide evidence for that claim. They use the
statements "God exists" as an example of this.
But is this always the case. Cosider the statement "the universe need a
cause for its existence" and the negative " the universe does not require a
cause for its existence"
Who has the necessity for evidence concerning their truth claim. It
seems that in this case that the negative has this obligation
Positive existential assertions bear the burden of proof. A statement
that is negative and not existential is doubly removed from that
burden.
We known that we are caused to exist, we know that planets are caused to
exist, we know tha solar systems and galaxies are caused to exist. In fact
it appears that everything *in* the universe has a cause, why would we
assume that the universe as a whole does not.
Why would we assume that it does? "Does" is the positive assertion,
so it's closer to bearing a burden of proof. (And not everything has
a cause.)
In all our experience we only see *evidence* that cause & effect apply to
everything.
No, we see evidence of things coming into existence with no cause.
That it's not in your bible doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
Remember, the science in your bible is 2,000 years behind the fact.
So who has the obligation, the positive side that sees cause & effect
clearly as a law in this universe
Of course, since it's KNOWN that it's not. You have the burden of
proving that reality isn't real. (The same burden religion always
seems to get behind.)
--
"We should do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. If I were an unborn
fetus I would want others to use force to protect me, therefore using force against
abortionists is *justifiable homocide*."
- "Pro-Life" doctor killer and corpse Paul Hill
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Aylward" |
|
| Title: Re: Negative evidence |
21 Oct 2003 05:23:27 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 00:32:31 -0700, "Randy Story"
<rstorynw@olypen.com> posted in alt.atheism:
Atheist continue to point to the fact that it is up to the one
that makes a positive claim to provide evidence for that claim. They
use the statements "God exists" as an example of this.
Only Atheists with poor logic skills and or little understanding of the
scientific method, do this. The statement "there is no god" requires
proof, as does "there is a god". The statement "I don't believe there is
a god" doesn't, noting that by assumption, we are discussing an objects
actual existence.
But is this always the case. Cosider the statement "the universe
need a cause for its existence" and the negative " the universe does
not require a cause for its existence"
Who has the necessity for evidence concerning their truth claim.
It seems that in this case that the negative has this obligation
Positive existential assertions bear the burden of proof.
No. *All* claims require proof. The burden is on *both* existence, and
non-existence claims. There is no distinction between positive and
negative claims, and why this idea keeps cropping up is a mystery. Its
simply not relevant.
To wit:
1 There is a ball in the box.
2 There is no ball in the box.
3 It is unknown whether there is a ball in the box.
Case 3 is the accepted default, standard scientific method approach.
As I have noted elsewere, it took 1000's of mathematicians, over 300
years to prove Fermats Last Theorem, which is a proof of non-existence
of numbers. It would be ludicrous to suggest that such mathematicians
should have simply assumed the claim was true.
If there were no arguments at all for, say, a god, that is if, the
concept never occurred in the first place, then obviously, the question
of disproof would never have arisen. The statement "there is a god"
would not exit itself, so clearly, there would also be no requirement to
prove "there is no god", as this statement would also not exist.
However, once a claim has arisen, the proof of its negation is also
required if no doubt is to remain.
Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
.
|
|
|
|
|
