God's Existence logically proved?

[warpspeedpetey]

• In Brownian Motion…

If you deny causality, you deny the validity of the scientific method.

 

[CatSci]

If you deny causality, you deny the validity of the scientific method.

How so?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

How so?

Correlation does not imply causation. No causation, no science.

 

[vz71]

For you to be able to claim that everything happens for a reason, you’ll have to provide a reason for why the above things happen.

With one problem in your logic.
The proposal that things happen with no cause was the first proposed.
With that first assertion comes burden of proof.

I don’t need to make the assumption that because we have been unable to find a cause then it must be random to show that you are wrong. Still though and even though it doesn’t matter, I maintain the causes for these things have been determined to be random an not simply assumed to be so because of a lack of explanation.

OK, I am confused here…
Are you arguing a random cause or no cause?
The two are different.

Further, your arguments that a coin-flip isn’t random and has reasons from the minute details of how the coin was flipped doesn’t add weight to an argument of god’s existence logically proven from a series of “causes” or reasons for things.

I made no such argument.
Please provide the post where you are reading this.

 

[CatSci]

Correlation does not imply causation. No causation, no science.

Huh? You’re not making sense.

 

[CatSci]

With one problem in your logic.
The proposal that things happen with no cause was the first proposed.
With that first assertion comes burden of proof.

Irrelevant. You’ve claimed that everything has a cause and you haven’t supported your assertion.

Besides, the OP was where it was claimed that everything happens for a reason and I was responding to that so I wasn’t the first asserter.

OK, I am confused here…
Are you arguing a random cause or no cause?
The two are different.

I’m arguing that a random process, such as radioactive decay, has no cause for one particular atom over the other being the next to decay and that this means that some things do not have a reason for why they’ve happened.

I made no such argument.
Please provide the post where you are reading this.

When you argued that the inability of a computer to generate truly random numbers meant that we couldn’t use the models of radioactive decay to show that it is random.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Irrelevant. You’ve claimed that everything has a cause and you haven’t supported your assertion.

That’s a little disingenuous, you accept the laws of physics, electrodynamics, nanochemistry, medicine and so on. All of these inductions are considered rock solid by people that don’t know any better, but causality, an induction that seems to happen anytime 2 objects interact. That you deny. I wonder why you think one induction is better than any other?. It seems that logical consistence demands that if you reject one thing on the basis that it is an induction, then you should treat all other inductions equally.

 

[CatSci]

That’s a little disingenuous, you accept the laws of physics, electrodynamics, nanochemistry, medicine and so on. All of these inductions are considered rock solid by people that don’t know any better, but causality, an induction that seems to happen anytime 2 objects interact. That you deny.

I don’t deny that causality exists… just that everything has a cause.

I wonder why you think one induction is better than any other?. It seems that logical consistence demands that if you reject one thing on the basis that it is an induction, then you should treat all other inductions equally.

I don’t reject an induction, I accept the fact that some things have to been shown to not have a cause.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I don’t deny that causality exists… just that everything has a cause. I don’t reject an induction, I accept the fact that some things have to been shown to not have a cause.

Please. Post what you think happens without a cause. Not simply an unknown cause. But something shown to happen without a cause.

 

[vz71]

I’m arguing that a random process, such as radioactive decay, has no cause for one particular atom over the other being the next to decay and that this means that some things do not have a reason for why they’ve happened.

So please prove that all other environmental factors have no effect.

Perhaps in the attempt you will understand the illogic of the position.
You cannot rule out every possible influencing factor without perfect knowledge of the whole. You are arguing a negative.

 

[vz71]

When you argued that the inability of a computer to generate truly random numbers meant that we couldn’t use the models of radioactive decay to show that it is random.

At no point did I state what you are claiming.

Please elaborate. And you may wish to provide references as well.

 

[vz71]

Please. Post what you think happens without a cause. Not simply an unknown cause. But something shown to happen without a cause.

I can list only one item. But modern science cannot prove it even exists.
So would we consider that a matter of faith?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I can list only one item. But modern science cannot prove it even exists.
So would we consider that a matter of faith?

It is perfectly acceptable and justified to accept it on Faith if one wishes to do so, but as Aquinas pointed out its a matter of logic. If what we called G-d was anything less than the very act of existence than what we called G-d would be contingent on whatever was the act of existence and not be G-d. The act of existence, or G-d, does not need a cause because the alternative to existence “no-thing exists” is a logical contradiction, a violation of the Law of Non-contradiction and therefore an impossibility. There is literally no other possible state for reality than for there to be G-d.

 

[CatSci]

So please prove that all other environmental factors have no effect.

Please provide just one factor that does have an effect.

You cannot rule out every possible influencing factor without perfect knowledge of the whole.

Don’t have to, modeling it with randomness matches what we observe,

You are arguing a negative.

So? If I couldn’t argue negatives, then I’d never know when to go on a beer run.

When you argued that the inability of a computer to generate truly random numbers meant that we couldn’t use the models of radioactive decay to show that it is random.

At no point did I state what you are claiming.

Please elaborate. And you may wish to provide references as well.

See messages #37 and #40.

 

[vz71]

Please provide just one factor that does have an effect.

I do not need to.
It is your contention that needs the backing.
So let’s see it.

Don’t have to, modeling it with randomness matches what we observe,

So you have shown that something in nature matches up with a psuedo-random machine…
You have not proven anything.
I can build a program that simulates any number of things. What does that prove though?

So? If I couldn’t argue negatives, then I’d never know when to go on a beer run.

But you also cannot prove the negative.
You are arguing a non-provable contention.

See messages #37 and #40.

And I still do not see anywhere that I referenced a coin toss scenario to prove anything.

 

[CatSci]

I do not need to.
It is your contention that needs the backing.
So let’s see it.

I’ve already provided you with examples of things that have been shown to be random and without cuase.

You’ll have to provide a cause to support your claim of there being a cause.

So you have shown that something in nature matches up with a psuedo-random machine…
You have not proven anything.
I can build a program that simulates any number of things. What does that prove though?

If it matches what we observe, then it proves that your model is correct. If your model is random and without cause, then it proves that the thing is too.

But you also cannot prove the negative.
You are arguing a non-provable contention.

And yet, I’m still capable of proving when I need to go on a beer run.

And I still do not see anywhere that I referenced a coin toss scenario to prove anything.

The coin toss was analogous to your argument.

 

[vz71]

I’ve already provided you with examples of things that have been shown to be random and without cuase.

Actually you have only shown what apparently is random.
You have not accounted for all other variables to conclude ‘no cause’.

If it matches what we observe, then it proves that your model is correct. If your model is random and without cause, then it proves that the thing is too.

You are jumping ahead of yourself.
If a model matches observation, it shows the model is good. But that is a long way from proving the model accounts for all variables involved.
I can build a model of sunspot activity…and it will appear right even though we have not accounted for nearly all of the variables involved.

But also, what if a model is only psuedo-random???
Is the radiation that it simulates also psuedo-random?

The coin toss was analogous to your argument.

No, the coin toss that YOU brought into the debate shows that you have little understanding of my argument.
It is not analogous at all. Llike these simulations you have spoken of that do not account for all variables, it fails to address the point.

 

[CatSci]

Actually you have only shown what apparently is random.
You have not accounted for all other variables to conclude ‘no cause’.

What other variables? You don’t have to account for them anyways. The behavior is already explained, your imaginary possible variables don’t actually get in the way.

We can drop weights and figure the acceleration due to gravity without having to account for the invisible pixies that are dancing on the surface and pushing it towards the ground. We don’t have to eliminate those from the explanation when our understanding of gravity works without them.

Principle of Parsimony.

No, the coin toss that YOU brought into the debate shows that you have little understanding of my argument.
It is not analogous at all. Llike these simulations you have spoken of that do not account for all variables, it fails to address the point.

What other variables?

 

[vz71]

What other variables?

The ones that explain the cause perhaps?
Or maybe the ones that explain the apparent randomness?
It really does not matter. Since you do not account for any variables then you really cannot say what does or does not effect the cause.
You are dropping an entire side of scientific research to claim ‘no cause’
The side where you work out what exactly is happening and why.

So the way I see this debate evolving here, we have someone that has proclaimed things happen with no cause.
This same individual has listed items with apparent random actions but has not shown anything that is truly causeless.
And now this indivvidual is claiming we need not look any further into the issue to learn what is going on since we already know enough.

Your scientific process, like your logic, is lacking.

This actually makes sense though.
As another poster has rightfully shown, eliminate causation and you eliminate the scientific process.

This is shown in the quote:

We can drop weights and figure the acceleration due to gravity without having to account for the invisible pixies that are dancing on the surface and pushing it towards the ground. We don’t have to eliminate those from the explanation when our understanding of gravity works without them.

Indeed why further research gravity…we can simulate it on a computer so well we obviously have nothing more to learn.
And the proposal that there is more to it is met with insinuation of fantasy from the ‘invisible pixies’.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Please. Post what you think happens without a cause. Not simply an unknown cause. But something shown to happen without a cause.

Hello? the production of something that you know exists without a cause?