- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Here is further comments on the history revisionism to make Isaac Newton look like a purely secular thinking scientist.
This comment is about the scientist who famously dismissed the need for thinking about a Creator God to Napoleon. Laplace told Nepoloan that God was not a hypothesis that he needed. And he popularized the rumor that Newton turned to theology after a mental collapse.
2 [/b]
Science and Dissent
reorientation in the decades subsequent to his [Newton's] death.
7
Laplace’s conversation with Napoleon epitomizes the secularization of Newton’s physics; whereas Newton believed that Providence was necessary to uphold creation, Laplace wrote God out of the equation. Laplace is important to the story of this transformation in a second way, for it was him, along with another French scientist, Jean-Baptiste Biot, who popularized the story that Newton suffered an intellectual derangement after a supposed 1693 fire that destroyed a mass of his manuscripts. After this breakdown, so the story goes, a mentally enfeebled Newton turned to theology. Thus the French positivists preserved the sanctity of Newton’s physics from the taint of theology. Newton was never the same after this account made the rounds.8 [/b]
https://isaacnewtonstheology.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/newtons-heterodox-theology-and-his-natural-philosophy.pdf
To be fair, it appears that scholars believe Newton's theology was Arian (non-trinitarian ). My point here is not that all his theology should be accepted but that Newton held that an Intelligent Creator God was the source of the laws he discovered.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
tw: Tell us how many of Newtons Laws (yes you said Newton did look for inteligent causes) involve intelligent causation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... Newton moves rapidly and with ease from topics we would call theological to subject matter that would now be considered scientific in nature. In other examples of a more profound nature, evidence is seen of deep structural integration
in his thought. Ultimately, this paper will demonstrate that for Newton there was no cognitive wall between the study of God and His Creation. In the end, it is only with a sense of awkwardness and
artificiality that we can continue to speak about interaction between
two elements of a grand project that was for Newton a unified whole.
.
Newton was firmly committed to natural theology – not as a self-sufficient and completely autonomous source of knowledge
about God, but as a corollary to biblical revelation, which itself teaches design (e.g. Psalm 19; Romans 1:20). Newton’s intentions to use his Principia to further the cause of the design argument have already been noted above; further confirmation of this motivation comes from Newton’s one-time disciple William Whiston.
32
There could be no mistaking Newton’s commitment to the design argument when,in the second edition of the Principia published
in 1713, he added the natural theological apologetics of the General Scholium. Not only does he assert that the finely-tuned solar system could only have come from ‘the design and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being’, and that the stellar systems were ‘constructed according to a similar design and subject to the dominion of One’, but he goes on to discuss the nature of God’s dominion of his creatures and creation, thus confirming that the study of nature was meant to teach us about God’s character and attributes.
https://isaacnewtonstheology.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/newtons-heterodox-theology-and-his-natural-philosophy.pdf
21 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonshipYes. One does not own science nor should one claim to.
Are you hesitant to claim those examples as your own ?
Yes, I think sonhouse talked about as of yet undetected causes for virtual particles. Is that your example you wish to use and which you are responsible ?
No, I have no wish to give any examples at all. You are aware that there are examples, that is sufficient. Demanding that I provide some or take responsibility for some (whatever that means) doesn't prove or even indicate anything. The fact remains that it is not a known scientific fact that everything that begins to exist has a cause and there are cases where we do not know of a cause and have good reason to think there is no cause.
Archeologist assume that the existence of the Rosetta Stone is due to intelligent causes.
You clearly wish to play word games instead of understanding what I said. Also, it is not true. Archeologists believe the Rosetta Stone was man made. Yes, man is intelligent, but that does not equate to classifying things into 'intelligently caused' and 'not intelligently caused'.
A good scientist who is really in search of the truth could admit that it looks like intelligent causes rather than un-intelligent ones is responsible for the thousands of factory like operations occurring every second in a living human cell.
Not true. That is your opinion based on your theism and not a logical deduction based on the facts.
Though it may make his world view uncomfortable to admit it, for truth's sake I think she should.
Think it all you like, it won't make you right. If you want me to believe you you will have to provide some reasoning for your conclusion rather than just stating it over and over in the hope that it will be true.
See above. Archeologists are scientist who often have to make a distinction between natural and intelligent causes.
Not true. They look at the evidence and try to determine the cause.
The SETI scientists have to decide to determine natural causes as distinguished from intelligent ones.
Now you may have a point. Nevertheless, it doesn't apply to the discussion we were having. Scientists in general when studying causation do not distinguish between 'intelligent causes' and 'non-intelligent causes'. You were claiming that they do and that they always insist on only looking for non-intelligent causes. If anything the examples you are giving work against you.
That is a pretty clever way of distancing yourself from renown atheist Richard Dawkins. Noted.
I am not Richard Dawkings and never claimed to be. But I have to point out that he never said what you were claiming either.
However, I think you are pretty much in the same attitude.
You think wrong.
That is biological systems only appear to have been intelligently designed but rather are products of non-intelligent Evolution.
That is true, but it is not what you said. Stop saying one thing and then when challenged pretending that you said something completely different.
Some branches of science certainly do make distinctions between natural causes and intelligent ones.
Yes, because the task there is to specifically look for intelligence. See above.
The first section of his book "The God Delusion" in which he gives his definition of Biology - where he says that Biology is the study of things which have the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.
That's what makes me think he wants to establish the rules for doing Biology.
You think wrong. Stop reading between the lines and then stating your imagination as fact.
It is not between the lines I am commenting on. It is the lines themselves.
Then quote the lines. I guarantee that you cannot quote any lines that match what you stated.
You spoke above about wasting time? I don't think I will waste my time proving to you the scorched earth attitude of Richard Dawkins with examples of things he's said for which he has a huge popular following.
Ok. I don't particularly want to get into that discussion either. Suffice it to say that I don't think he says what you think he says but I have no particular desire to spend hours defending him. Stick to what I say and stop trying to address people that aren't here.
Newton's writings on the Universal Law of Gravitation were based on the underlying philosophical belief that Laws are given by a Legislator. And it seems his writing about his treatise was intended by him to prove that.
And did they succeed?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes. One does not own science nor should one claim to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't recall anything I wrote about anyone "owning" science.
me: .... Is that your example you wish to use and which you are responsible ?
tw: No, I have no wish to give any examples at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you accuse posters of "blatant falsehood" yet will not accept responsibility for an example your obvious truth. In this sonhouse at least took some responsibility.
You are aware that there are examples, that is sufficient.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am aware of some arguable cases in which you apparently don't want to assume responsibility. You must realize that their cases are not that strong.
But the phrase "blatant falsehood" was yours' Maybe you should revize that accusation to reflect some potential arguable examples might be sited. As it stands there is no blatant error in the philosophical premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Demanding that I provide some or take responsibility for some (whatever that means)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Me no speak English?"
Take responsibility for your accusation that the a version of the law of causality so stated is a blatant falsehood by some examples.
doesn't prove or even indicate anything. The fact remains that it is not a known scientific fact that everything that begins to exist has a cause and there are cases where we do not know of a cause and have good reason to think there is no cause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statement that everything that begins to exist has a cause is a philosophical statement upon which Science can be done. I don't think you appreciate or like the fact that Science is based upon a philosophy of Science.
This goes back to the matter of Scientism I think. There are ways to know truth besides doing Science. Philosophy is also a human exercise to arrive at some truth. It appears that one who holds that only Science can deliver truth is a believer in Scientism.
It appears that you lack examples that you have confidence in prove something began to exist that had no cause.
me:
Archeologist assume that the existence of the Rosetta Stone is due to intelligent causes.
tw: You clearly wish to play word games instead of understanding what I said. Also, it is not true. Archeologists believe the Rosetta Stone was man made.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't care that they believe it was man made. That is obvious. The point is that intelligent causation is demonstrated. I think where you are going is - ie. "intelligent causation is fair only if MAN is the intelligence."
This exposes the bias of your worldview of Atheism.
But it also renders the science research of SETI illegitimate as well.
Yes, man is intelligent, but that does not equate to classifying things into 'intelligently caused' and 'not intelligently caused'.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll think on that for awhile if I can figure out what you really mean.
Have you asked yourself if the intelligence itself in man is due to an intelligent cause or an unintelligent cause?
Which would you say is the case?
1.) Man's intelligence is due to an unintelligent cause.
2.) Man's intelligence is due to an intelligent cause.
Or do you prefer to remain noncommittal about it?
Don't dismiss the question as not relevant.
me: A good scientist who is really in search of the truth could admit that it looks like intelligent causes rather than un-intelligent ones is responsible for the thousands of factory like operations occurring every second in a living human cell.
tw: Not true. That is your opinion based on your theism and not a logical deduction based on the facts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say that the only good scientists are theists.
I just said that one who admitted evidence of design in the complex factory like operations in the cell would be admirable for the honesty.
This opinion is based upon the uniformity of experience in creating and viewing intelligently designed factories. Do you realize what a cell enlarged to the size of about 12 miles across would appear to be? It would appear to be a extremely well built, well functioning, very well organized factory.
Your ideology to jury rig theism out of the minds of examiners of evidence is what is annoyed here.
me: Though it may make his world view uncomfortable to admit it, for truth's sake I think she should.
tw: Think it all you like, it won't make you right. If you want me to believe you you will have to provide some reasoning for your conclusion rather than just stating it over and over in the hope that it will be true.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stated before to other posters - Evidence is not persuasion.
Sure, I'd like you to believe me on this as you may want me to believe you. I don't promise that you will be persuaded.
And don't hold your breath waiting for me to assume the operations of a human cell are the results of lucky accidents or some kind of pseudo (kind of guided, but not really) Evolution process purely unintelligent. I just don't have that much faith in unintelligent processes.
me: See above.
tw: Not true. They look at the evidence and try to determine the cause.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must be into some kind of knee jerk disagreement mode."They look at evidence and try to determine the cause" is saying pretty much the same thing I said.
Stones that look like arrow heads, fragments that look as if they could be pottery, and rocks with markings upon them, have to be examined to determine if these causes are the outcome of intelligence or natural forces.
Why you think this mode of discernment HAS to halt in the examination of biological systems must be due to an Atheistic reservation about following evidence to where it might lead.
The SETI scientists have to decide to determine natural causes as distinguished from intelligent ones.
tw: Now you may have a point. Nevertheless, it doesn't apply to the discussion we were having. Scientists in general when studying causation do not distinguish between 'intelligent causes' and 'non-intelligent causes'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I provided strong cases where they do.
And if all do not the ones who do are still a part of the scientific community.
Some with a ideological dog in the fight to maintain their Atheism, may choose not to think about the matter.
Two people looking at the same evidence may have different attitudes about what it means. That some observers are too eager with their Theism would be noted by me. That some are too eager with their Atheism should be noted by you.
"Due to the enormous amounts of information and machine like complexity and interconnectedness of biological systems, atheists such as Francis Crick, Fred Hoyle, Stephen Hawking, and even Richard Dawkins have suggested that aliens could be responsible for seeding our planet with life." - Frank Turek
They had to admit that intelligence of some kind is evidenced in biological systems.
I did not say that admitting the workings of the human cell had to lead to belief in God. I said they should lead to considering intelligence as a source.
I am not Richard Dawkings and never claimed to be. But I have to point out that he never said what you were claiming either.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was in the book "The Blind Watchmaker" that Richard Dawkins wrote
"Biology is the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose. Physics books may be complicated, but ...The objects and phenomena that a physics book describes are simpler than a single cell in the body of its author. And the author consists of trillions of those cells, many of them different from each other, organized with intricate architecture and precision-engineering into a working machine capable of writing a book. " p1-3.
From
Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence Reveals a Universe Without Design
New York, Norton, 1987
You are not doing your credibility any favors.
Can we get more clarification from Dawkins what he intends to teach us ?
"All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If if can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker." p 5.
Same book.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
me: ... he first section of his book "The God Delusion" in which he gives his definition of Biology - where he says that Biology is the study of things which have the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was an incorrect statement made by me most likely, in terms of the SOURCE of the quotation. The quotation, as seen above, came from another book.
How much mileage do you think you can get from this mistake? Richard Dawkins, did make the statement, though I referred to the wrong publication.
And we can consider The God Delusion a continuation of his thoughts from The Blind Watchmaker.
As for Newton's success in expounding natural theology of giving his thoughts on design, that is probably a matter of opinion - How successful was he.
The point made successfully is that he attributed the laws he discovered to the intelligent Creator.
Another point made successfully is that an attempt to paint Newton as either mentally unbalanced or not at all concerned with intelligent design are the false propaganda of some in the science community biased toward championing Newton for secularism.
me: That's what makes me think he wants to establish the rules for doing Biology.
tw: You think wrong. Stop reading between the lines and then stating your imagination as fact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I am not wrong. New Atheism generally is on a militant campaign to show that Science has buried the necessity to believe in God. So the rules for doing Science are manipulated to accomplish that.
Ironically, many see that Science is burying Atheism instead as the 21rst Century progresses.
21 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonshipYou asked if I would 'own' a scientific finding.
I don't recall anything I wrote about anyone "owning" science.
So you accuse posters of "blatant falsehood" yet will not accept responsibility for an example your obvious truth. In this sonhouse at least took some responsibility.
Sorry, but I failed to parse that sentence. What were you trying to say?
I am aware of some arguable cases in which you apparently don't want to assume responsibility.
Again, your sentence doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If you have something to say, come out and say it in plain English.
But the phrase "blatant falsehood" was yours' Maybe you should revize that accusation to reflect some potential arguable examples might be sited.
Again, cannot parse. Please rewrite in English.
As it stands there is no blatant error in the philosophical premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause.
True. And I never claimed otherwise. However claiming that the premise is known to be true, or has scientific backing is blatantly false.
Take responsibility for your accusation that the a version of the law of causality so stated is a blatant falsehood by some examples.
I don't need to provide examples. The so called 'law of causality' is not a scientific law. If it was, you would have readily quoted a science paper or some other reference showing that it was. It isn't.
And don't think I don't see you trying very very hard to move the claim to something I didn't say.
The statement that everything that begins to exist has a cause is a philosophical statement upon which Science can be done. I don't think you appreciate or like the fact that Science is based upon a philosophy of Science.
I don't think you are making any sense.
This goes back to the matter of Scientism I think.
An accusation you totally failed to make stick last time but never admitted that you got it completely wrong.
There are ways to know truth besides doing Science.
Good to know. So are you going to now tell us that you know that the premise is true by philosophical means? If so, please present your philosophy paper and collect your Nobel prize. If not, you have to admit that I am right.
It appears that you lack examples that you have confidence in prove something began to exist that had no cause.
I never once claimed to have any such proof. In fact I stated the exact opposite ie that it would be impossible to provide any such proof.
My claim is indisputable. I really don't see the point of continuing the conversation given that you are incapable of admitting when you are wrong even when it is so blatantly obvious that you are wrong. You are trying very hard to pretend you didn't understand what I said or that what I contested was something different or that by making a strawman demand you have scored a point. But you are wrong and you know it. Just admit it and move on.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
22 Aug 15
4 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou asked if I would 'own' a scientific finding.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I asked you if you were willing to take responsibility of providing samples of something which begins to exist that did so without cause.
Googlefudge (?) gave it a good college try.
Basically, I asked if his examples were what you would submit.
me:
So you accuse posters of "blatant falsehood" yet will not accept responsibility for an example your obvious truth. In this sonhouse [b][I think it was googlefudfge] at least took some responsibility.
tw: Sorry, but I failed to parse that sentence. What were you trying to say?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You gave no example of what proves a version of the law of causality was "blatant falsehood". Whether or not you stand behind the example sonhouse gave is still rather fuzzy to me.
You do?
You don't?
I'm not sure this morning.
me: I am aware of some arguable cases in which you apparently don't want to assume responsibility.
tw: Again, your sentence doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If you have something to say, come out and say it in plain English.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
me:
But the phrase "blatant falsehood" was yours. Maybe you should revize that accusation to reflect some potential arguable examples might be sited.
tw: Again, cannot parse. Please rewrite in English.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the phrase "blatant falsehood" was yours. Maybe you should revize that accusation. For example, you might say that some virtual particles, as of yet, appear to begin to exist without a cause.
Basically twhitehead, your saying that "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is a "blatant falsehood" was bluster.
Basically your saying the statement was a "blatant falsehood" was some blatant "hot air" and pretension.
me: As it stands there is no blatant error in the philosophical premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause.
tw: True. And I never claimed otherwise. However claiming that the premise is known to be true, or has scientific backing is blatantly false.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So then there is no blatant falsehood in the statement that everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Now, what examples do you take responsibility for to prove that HERE is something that begins to exist which has no cause ?
I think it is fair to say that blatant falsehood must mean that you have an abundant number of obvious examples in science.
Give us, say 10.
me: Take responsibility for your accusation that the a version of the law of causality so stated is a blatant falsehood by some examples.
tw: I don't need to provide examples. The so called 'law of causality' is not a scientific law. If it was, you would have readily quoted a science paper or some other reference showing that it was. It isn't.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it a true statement ?
Is it a false statement ?
Do you prefer to remain neutral or non-committed ?
Does our experience suggest it is virtually a fact?
And don't think I don't see you trying very very hard to move the claim to something I didn't say.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think we can clear up any deliberate or accidental misunderstanding.
Everything which begins to exist must have a cause.
Easy to state, less easy to demonstrate. It is also not known to be the case in current science and in fact science strongly suggests it isn't true.
What examples suggest that it isn't true ?
The ones that sonhouse provided suggest that it isn't true ?
I was challenging your claim that "Everything which begins to exist must have a cause." and pointing out that it is not known to be true.
Demonstrate that it is a "blatant falsehood" .
It seems by now we should have had 20 or 30 examples to demonstrate the statement is a blatant falsehood.
As I review, I think it was googlefudge and not sonhouse who submitted the example. Sorry sonhouse. How come you guys remind me of each other ? ? Strange.
While we're scrolling through the posts, I noticed that Atheist philospher who argued so strongly against the possibility of miracles did affirm that everything that begins to exist has a cause.
" I never asserted such an absurd proposition as that anything might arise without a cause."
Is it sneaky to say that David Hume would not agree with you that it is a "blatant falsehood" to suggest in ANY way that things arise without a cause ?
Now I am searching for your "blatant falsehood" charge.
So I come across your statements here:
. Given that the emission of photons happens practically all the time on any surface, randomness appears to be highly prevalent in the universe. Of course it is impossible to rule out a cause, but in the absence of evidence for one it would be premature and totally unscientific to claim that everything is caused.
[My emphasis]
Okay. Is it sneaky to say that if something scientifically cannot be "ruled out" or that it is impossible to rule out a cause, then you exaggerate to say in ANY manner it is a "BLATANT FALSEHOOD" ?
Scientifically, if it is impossible to rule out a cause in your example, then don't you exaggerate to claim the law of causality as expressed in any guise is a "blatant falsehood" ?
me: The statement that everything that begins to exist has a cause is a philosophical statement upon which Science can be done. I don't think you appreciate or like the fact that Science is based upon a philosophy of Science.
I don't think you are making any sense.
This goes back to the matter of Scientism I think.
An accusation you totally failed to make stick last time but never admitted that you got it completely wrong.
There are ways to know truth besides doing Science.
tw: Good to know. So are you going to now tell us that you know that the premise is true by philosophical means? If so, please present your philosophy paper and collect your Nobel prize. If not, you have to admit that I am right.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't have to win a Nobel to say that the law of causality is not scientifically proven to be "blatantly false".
Here you did not specify anything OTHER than a statement that you were challenging.
I was challenging your claim that "Everything which begins to exist must have a cause." and pointing out that it is not known to be true. Now you ask me to answer a question that relies on the premise I challenged and claimed is not true. Sorry, not going to happen. Reread my post till you understand it, then rephrase your question.
[My emphasis}
Is that statement born out by the usual observation of humans in history? Do you have proof that the statement is "blatantly false" ?
The example you seem to discuss you say entails the impossibility of ruling OUT a cause.
That means it is at least arguable that you have something uncaused that began to exist. Saying it is blatantly false to hold to general human experience of noticing causality is reckless exaggeration.
You do no favors to the process of Science or to the activity of reasoning.
I never once claimed to have any such proof. In fact I stated the exact opposite ie that it would be impossible to provide any such proof.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, absolute proof other than in mathematics is hard.
Is it virtually true - the law of causality expressed as we have been expressing it ?
English not good enough above ?
[b] My claim is indisputable.
-----------------------------------------------
I don't think so, if "claim" is the blatant falsehood of the law of causality expressed as it has been so here.
I could dispute that we as of yet have not detected a CAUSE for some things in, say, Quantum fluctuations. But I don't think its magic.
I really don't see the point of continuing the conversation given that you are incapable of admitting when you are wrong even when it is so blatantly obvious that you are wrong.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're playing like a clever lawyer.
You are trying very hard to pretend you didn't understand what I said or that what I contested was something different or that by making a strawman demand you have scored a point. But you are wrong and you know it. Just admit it and move on.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am trying to score a point for what is realistic.
Expressed in any way the statement "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is certainly not, as you charge, a "blatant falsehood".
Now if you think I am being unfair then please quote the exact post where you first used that expression "blatant falsehood". I am having trouble locating it.
Now, before I go, on the subject of scoring cheap points.
Why did you not simply say " Hey, the quote from Richard Dawkins was not in "The God Delusion" but in another book by him, "The Blind Watchmaker" ?
I take your grandstanding that he never said ...
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
22 Aug 15
3 edits
cont.
You don't trust me?
You think I am being sneaky?
Well, I think you are being sneaky. I take some of you tactics as staling for time to score cheap points and your expecting my apologies to be strawmen and cheap points.
I expect to close this writing window and sometime latter see 10 clear examples proving scientifically the blatant falsehood of the law of causality. If I see instead more talk about not understanding you, I'll be ... let's say ... puzzled.
It is possible that your posts need to be read three times or more before I comment.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
22 Aug 15
I was challenging your claim that "Everything which begins to exist must have a cause." and pointing out that it is not known to be true. Now you ask me to answer a question that relies on the premise I challenged and claimed is not true. Sorry, not going to happen. Reread my post till you understand it, then rephrase your question.
Does anyone see a explanation that it is not known in science to be true ?
I was challenging your claim that "Everything which begins to exist must have a cause." and pointing out that it is not known to be true.
It looks to me like he means the statement simply is not true.
In fact he says it is blatantly false, I'm pretty sure.
Stay tuned for twhitehead's examples to demonstrate the blatant falsehood of the statement he challenges.
I was challenging your claim that "Everything which begins to exist must have a cause." and pointing out that it is not known to be true.
[My Bolding ]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
22 Aug 15
1 edit
I never once claimed to have any such proof. In fact I stated the exact opposite ie that it would be impossible to provide any such proof.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So then, is it fair of me to say that you consider the statement "Everything that begins to exist must have cause" to be a very poor foundation for doing Science ?
We probably cannot PROVE that the earth circles the sun - ABSOLUTELY. It is theoretically possible that only the earth is standing still. But most likely what we see is the earth moving around the sun.
Do you think believing so is a good foundation for studying the solar system ? Or is it blatantly false ... blatantly false that the earth circles around the sun because it is probably impossible for us to absolutely prove it ?
The analogy may not be perfect.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
22 Aug 15
2 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
me: There are ways to know truth besides doing Science.
Good to know.
tw: So are you going to now tell us that you know that the premise is true by philosophical means? If so, please present your philosophy paper and collect your Nobel prize. If not, you have to admit that I am right.
There are people more capable than I in philosophy that have already demonstrated that it s true ENOUGH to be a good foundation upon which Science can be done.
David Hume, the atheist philosopher, agreed with it.
To be fair, I think he did write that we cannot KNOW the certainty of a CAUSE of anything. But I would have to review that.
Are you going to present a Nobel Prize worthy paper either scientifically or philosophically that it is a "blatant falsehood" to believe in a virtual law of causality expressed this way ?
22 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonshipNo, you did not. Go back and read your own post since you have clearly forgotten.
No, I asked you if you were willing to take responsibility of providing samples of something which begins to exist that did so without cause.
Basically, I asked if his examples were what you would submit.
No, you asked if i would take responsibility for his examples.
Anyway, I have clearly stated that I have no wish nor need to provide examples. If you are not aware of examples, you can go look for them or not, its up to you. It remains irrelevant to the claim being made.
You gave no example of what proves a version of the law of causality was "blatant falsehood". Whether or not you stand behind the example sonhouse gave is still rather fuzzy to me.
I do not stand behind the example and do not plan, nor need to give any examples. The claim that any 'law of causality' is a scientific law or backed by scientific findings remains a blatant falsehood.
Basically twhitehead, your saying that "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is a "blatant falsehood" was bluster.
I did not say that it was a blatant falsehood. I said that claiming that it is a known scientific fact or that it has scientific evidence in its favor is a blatant falsehood.
Basically your saying the statement was a "blatant falsehood" was some blatant "hot air" and pretension.
No it wasn't. You just can't follow simple logic. The fact that I refused to answer your demand for something I do not need to provide does not make my claim 'hot air' nor pretension.
So then there is no blatant falsehood in the statement that everything that begins to exist has a cause.
No, there isn't. But it is not known to be a true statement and has no evidence to support it being true.
It remains a carefully concocted religious statement intended to try and prove the existence of God (yes, I didn't miss the 'begins to exist' clause specifically put there to allow God in).
I think we can clear up any deliberate or accidental misunderstanding.
Everything which begins to exist must have a cause..
Easy to state, less easy to demonstrate. It is also not known to be the case in current science and in fact science strongly suggests it isn't true.
And finally you actually quote me correctly. Read it carefully several times and maybe it will clear up any deliberate or accidental misunderstanding.
Then admit that the fault was yours and that my claim remains undeniable fact.
I haven't bothered reading the rest of your post as you seem to be just going over and over trying to prove your strawman.
22 Aug 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe cockroach and the human are exactly the same.
I agree. For example I have 10 toes and they do not. But I think what you are referring to is things like morality and spirituality. However, those are largely a result of the greater intelligence, and partly a result of our particular evolution. I am sure you would also like to suggest that we are superior to insects, and on that count I would claim just ...[text shortened]... k that the true statements in this thread are stored in different way from the false statements?
The only difference between the human and the cockroach is.............That the human has the option to explore God and the cockroach does not.
If the human does not explore God, he is the same as the cockroach.
Proof of this is this: If I put 1 gram of cockroach ashes into one hand, and the human ashes in the other hand,..................You could not tell them apart.
The real person is not the cockroach or the human.................But the eternal soul within.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
23 Aug 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadAre you pretending that we cannot get settled whether or not I asked you for examples of things ?
About examples from you of the violation of causality for some things which began to exist :
No, you did not. Go back and read your own post since you have clearly forgotten.
Then why do you insist that you will not give examples if I didn't ask any ?
me Yes, I think sonhouse talked about as of yet undetected causes for virtual particles. Is that your example you wish to use and which you are responsible ?
tw: No, I have no wish to give any examples at all. You are aware that there are examples, that is sufficient. Demanding that I provide some or take responsibility for some (whatever that means) doesn't prove or even indicate anything. The fact remains that it is not a known scientific fact that everything that begins to exist has a cause and there are cases where we do not know of a cause and have good reason to think there is no cause.
You "wish" to give no examples at all. But I never asked for any ?
If I didn't ask for any then there is no need to inform me that you will not give any.
Clearly forgot huh ?
I didn't ask you for any examples but you tell me I already know of examples?
me: Basically, I asked if his examples were what you would submit. [
tw: No, you asked if i would take responsibility for his examples.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think I may have clearly forgot how many tricks you resort to.
Anyway, I have clearly stated that I have no wish nor need to provide examples. If you are not aware of examples, you can go look for them or not, its up to you. It remains irrelevant to the claim being made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You cannot give examples, most likely.
That's all the time I'm giving to your tricks this morning.
23 Aug 15
Originally posted by sonshipNo, in what way would you think I am pretending? I have never said nor implied that you didn't ask for such examples. I have very clearly stated multiple times that:
Are you pretending that we cannot get settled whether or not I asked you for examples of things ? .
1. I have not provided any such examples.
2. I have no intention of providing any such examples.
3. Providing any such examples is irrelevant to my claim.
4. Your focus on such examples is a strawman argument by you to try and take the focus of the fact that you are wrong, and quite obviously so but are incapable of admitting it.
About examples from you of the violation of causality for some things which began to exist :
No, you did not. Go back and read your own post since you have clearly forgotten.
That is a reading comprehension fail on your part.
This is what I really said that in response to:
I asked you if you were willing to take responsibility of providing samples of something which begins to exist that did so without cause.
My italics. My response was to your claim that you had asked me to take responsibility for providing examples, when in actual fact what you asked me to take responsibility for was someone else's examples.
You cannot give examples, most likely.
I have no need to. Examples are only required in your stawman argument.
That's all the time I'm giving to your tricks this morning.
The tricks are clearly yours. Once again you have attempted to play word games and failed miserably.
My claim still stands:
The claim that 'everything that begins to exist has a cause' is not a known scientific law and is unsupported by evidence. Any claim to the contrary is ignorance or blatant dishonesty. In your case it is blatant dishonesty given that you can no longer claim ignorance since the topic has been covered many times in the past.