[Schabesbert]

Originally Posted by Geko45

What is the cause for a specific elementary particle to suddenly escape it's atomic bonds in radioactive decay?

I don't know.
Are you going to tell me that you KNOW that it is entirely uncaused? Hmmm .... sounds remarkably similar to something that atheists are always claiming that fundamentalists do.

Actually, I've noticed the similarity between fundy arguments and atheist arguments.

[Geko45]

Edit: I'm mixing my threads...

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Schabesbert

I don't know.
Are you going to tell me that you KNOW that it is entirely uncaused? Hmmm .... sounds remarkably similar to something that atheists are always claiming that fundamentalists do.

Actually, I've noticed the similarity between fundy arguments and atheist arguments.

You too?

[G23Gen4TX]

[RC-RAMIE]

Originally Posted by Schabesbert

I don't know.
Are you going to tell me that you KNOW that it is entirely uncaused? Hmmm .... sounds remarkably similar to something that atheists are always claiming that fundamentalists do.

Actually, I've noticed the similarity between fundy arguments and atheist arguments.

Why do theist on this board keep claiming atheist "know". Atheism does not offer a alternative creation story. You seem to be confusing atheism and science. Even science does not claim to "know" they offer the best explanation based on observable evidence.

The main thing that started my direction towards atheism was the fact I didn't know and was sure religions didn't know either.

A couple of theist on here keep insisting atheist believes certain things even though they have been told they are wrong numerous times by actual atheist here.

[Schabesbert]

Originally Posted by RC-RAMIE

Why do theist on this board keep claiming atheist "know".

Because he's presenting this as proof of non-causality.
You don't present a guess to show such a thing.

I'm saying that it might be evidence for non-causality, but that he can't possibly know it.

Why do atheists always resort to perfunctory arguments rather than addressing the facts at hand?

To wit:

Atheism does not offer a alternative creation story. You seem to be confusing atheism and science. Even science does not claim to "know" they offer the best explanation based on observable evidence.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Schabesbert

I'm saying that it might be evidence for non-causality, but that he can't possibly know it.

It would be logically impossible to know for absolute certainty that something happened without cause as there would always be the chance that you missed it somehow. The best that could ever be achieved would be to say that "we've looked very, very hard and can not find one". This is pretty much the case with all human knowledge. There is never certainty, just varying levels of likelihood.

Why do theists always want to discount everything we've learned to date just because there is a vanishingly small possibility that some future discovery will change our understanding?

[Woofie]

The bartender says "Hey! We don't allow faster than light travel in here!"

A tachyon walks into a bar

[Woofie]

Anyone want to hear a joke to lighten the mood?

[Schabesbert]

Originally Posted by Woofie

The bartender says "Hey! We don't allow faster than light travel in here!"

A tachyon walks into a bar

That's one I'm gonna remember.

[Schabesbert]

Originally Posted by Geko45

It would be logically impossible to know for absolute certainty that something happened without cause as there would always be the chance that you missed it somehow.

THANK you for withdrawing your implied assertion that causality has been disproven.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Geko45

It would be logically impossible to know for absolute certainty that something happened without cause as there would always be the chance that you missed it somehow. The best that could ever be achieved would be to say that "we've looked very, very hard and can not find one". This is pretty much the case with all human knowledge. There is never certainty, just varying levels of likelihood.

Why do theists always want to discount everything we've learned to date just because there is a vanishingly small possibility that some future discovery will change our understanding?

Then let an agnostic offer an observation. Since it would be nearly impossible to prove non causality, why would someone offer a phenomina that we cannot discover the cause or lack of a cause for as evidence that ther has never been a deity. That defies logic. I do understand it wasn't your argument.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Schabesbert

THANK you for withdrawing your implied assertion that causality has been disproven.

Not withdrawn, it was always inductive. As is the case with alomst everything we know.

[void *]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Since it would be nearly impossible to prove non causality, why would someone offer a phenomina that we cannot discover the cause or lack of a cause for as evidence that ther has never been a deity.

It's not evidence there has never been a deity. It's evidence that we don't know whether or not everything has to have a cause, and if there are common classes of events that do not have to have a cause, that contradicts the first-cause argument. Basically, it's saying "we have observed things that look like they may violate what we call causality. It may turn out they don't, but until and unless we can show that it's a pretty good idea not to rely on arguments that demand causality".

Why haven't you objected to claims that everything must have a cause except for deities, when that cannot possibly be known and there are observable indications it might not be true, yet accuse atheists of claiming they know there are no deities in the face of those atheists directly telling you that this is not what they claim?

[Schabesbert]

Originally Posted by void *

It's not evidence there has never been a deity. It's evidence that we don't know whether or not everything has to have a cause, and if there are common classes of events that do not have to have a cause, that contradicts the first-cause argument. Basically, it's saying "we have observed things that look like they may violate what we call causality. It may turn out they don't, but until and unless we can show that it's a pretty good idea not to rely on arguments that demand causality".

ALL our lived experience demands that everything has a cause. You seem quite content to go against all evidence for your hypothesis. Interesting.

Why haven't you objected to claims that everything must have a cause except for deities,

I haven't made that claim.

We have a disjunctive hypothesis, ONE OF WHICH MUST BE TRUE:
A - "there are no unconditioned realities in all reality
or
A' - There is at least one unconditioned reality in all reality

If A is false, then A' must be true, and vice versa.

when that cannot possibly be known and there are observable indications it might not be true, yet accuse atheists of claiming they know there are no deities in the face of those atheists directly telling you that this is not what they claim?

You're accusing us of being accurate and truthful?

[void *]

Originally Posted by Schabesbert

ALL our lived experience demands that everything has a cause.

Sure, if "lived experience" means non-quantum events. That doesn't mean that *all* events have to have a cause.

Originally Posted by Schabesbert

I haven't made that claim.

I wasn't talking to you there.

You're accusing us of being accurate and truthful

No, I'm accusing people who use the first cause argument of ignoring evidence that there may in fact be events that don't have causes.

You also quoted the bit where I said "and there are observable indications it might not be true", claimed this means you're being accurate and truthful, yet also stated "ALL our lived experience demands that everything has a cause.". That looks just a little bit contradictory to me.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by void *

It's not evidence there has never been a deity. It's evidence that we don't know whether or not everything has to have a cause, and if there are common classes of events that do not have to have a cause, that contradicts the first-cause argument. Basically, it's saying "we have observed things that look like they may violate what we call causality. It may turn out they don't, but until and unless we can show that it's a pretty good idea not to rely on arguments that demand causality".

Why haven't you objected to claims that everything must have a cause except for deities, when that cannot possibly be known and there are observable indications it might not be true, yet accuse atheists of claiming they know there are no deities in the face of those atheists directly telling you that this is not what they claim?

I see how you are stretching to connect the dots.

I'm pretty sure that most things happen as a result of what has happened before. There might be a few, or even a lot of things that happen without a cause. On the subatomic level, if something happened without a cause, I'm still gonna want something for lunch tomorrow, or not, depending on how busy I am.

Even if you could prove that subatomic particles are being generated all around us without an identifiable cause, is that a deficiency in your ability to perceive the cause, or proof that there was no cause?????

If there was no cause, does that rule out the possibility of a deity having existed?

I'm seeing a desire to support a conclusion and faith in this argument. With ardor too.

[void *]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

On the subatomic level, if something happened without a cause, I'm still gonna want something for lunch tomorrow, or not, depending on how busy I am.

Wanting your lunch tomorrow, or not, is not an argument that relies on having a first cause.

If there was no cause, does that rule out the possibility of a deity having existed?

No, of course not. That doesn't mean that those that rely on a first cause argument aren't ignoring the potential for there being events that do not require causes. It also doesn't mean that you're not giving them a pass while pretending that pointing out that there may in fact be events with no causes (because it looks like things might be that way due to things we've actually tested) is somehow demanding that it absolutely has to be true.

I'm seeing a desire to support a conclusion and faith in this argument. With ardor too.

You're seeing what you want to see.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by void *

Wanting your lunch tomorrow, or not, is not an argument that relies on having a first cause.

Actually, having lunch or not for me tomorrow will have a cause. I want to have lunch, but don't always get to have it based on the needs of others.

If you can prove that something, anything happened without an identifiable cause, why would you let that change your mind about what happened billyuns of years ago?

It's still a matter of faith for some.

[G23Gen4TX]

[G23Gen4TX]

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by G23Gen4TX

Back on track

http://www.adra.org/site/PageServer

[void *]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Actually, having lunch or not for me tomorrow will have a cause. I want to have lunch, but don't always get to have it based on the needs of others.

Straw man. I didn't state that it wouldn't have a cause, I stated it doesn't depend on having a first cause.

If you can prove that something, anything happened without an identifiable cause, why would you let that change your mind about what happened billyuns of years ago?.

Another straw man. I didn't state that there being classes of events that happen without causes would show anything other than the first cause argument is not a basis to believe that a deity exists. In fact, when asked if I thought it would prove deities do not exist, I said of course not.

If you can't discuss something without using straw men and avoiding the point, why should anyone consider discussion with you at all constructive? Something for you to consider.

[void *]

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by void *

Straw man. I didn't state that it wouldn't have a cause, I stated it doesn't depend on having a first cause.

Whether I have lunch tomorrow or not, will have many causes, a few of them would even be before my birth. Whether the planet formed with different characteristics would also be a cause. Whether we can find the first cause or not has yet to be determined.

Another straw man. I didn't state that there being classes of events that happen without causes would show anything other than the first cause argument is not a basis to believe that a deity exists. In fact, when asked if I thought it would prove deities do not exist, I said of course not.

If you can't discuss something without using straw men and avoiding the point, why should anyone consider discussion with you at all constructive? Something for you to consider.

Maybe if you weren't so prone on fixating on tangential arguments, it would be easier to keep your position straight.