Things "known" only by their effects?

[JRKH]

One of the arguments that I have heard from Atheists got me to thinking and I would like some (name removed by moderator)ut from the good folks here.

The argument goes that there is no direct evidence for God’s existence. That our “evidence” is simply “effects” that may or may not be “God”…or something else…or nothing else…

In other words the effects do not prove the cause…

So - I’m wondering. What things are there - widely and generally accepted in science - are only “known” by their effects, but have never been directly observed?

One thought I had was the concept of the “fabric of space”, “bending of space” etc. It explains a lot of things but only it’s “effects” can be observed (gravity, bending light).

Any other things - the simpler the better…

Peace
James

 

[GEddie]

You can’t observe your own mind; only it’s operations such as thoughts, memories, perceptions, etc.

You can’t observe the physical life of your own body. Only by the effects of life in you is it known that you are alive (your breathing, body heat, muscle tone, movement, sense pereception etc.)

God Bless, ICXC NIKA

 

[MarcoPolo]

That a tree makes a sound with no one to observe. That Munch painted The Scream. If a rabbit goes down into a hole, we don’t assume he disappeared because we can’t observe him. Big Bang is not directly observed. Sciences of archaeology or forensics does not deal with the directly observed. Just the aftermath is studied.

 

[sw85]

One of the arguments that I have heard from Atheists got me to thinking and I would like some (name removed by moderator)ut from the good folks here.

The argument goes that there is no direct evidence for God’s existence. That our “evidence” is simply “effects” that may or may not be “God”…or something else…or nothing else…

In other words the effects do not prove the cause…

So - I’m wondering. What things are there - widely and generally accepted in science - are only “known” by their effects, but have never been directly observed?

One thought I had was the concept of the “fabric of space”, “bending of space” etc. It explains a lot of things but only it’s “effects” can be observed (gravity, bending light).

Any other things - the simpler the better…

Peace
James

The arguments for God’s existence also reveal much about His nature. For instance, the First Cause and Unmoved Mover arguments point to the necessary existence of a principle of unqualified being. It must be unqualified with respect to every possible level of being: material (that is, unconstrained by physical dimensions – so spiritual and omnipresent), vital (that is, possessing the power to actualize all potentialities, so omnipotent), and rational (that is, possessing all cognitive faculties – reason, will, personality, etc.). And it must possess them all to the highest degree possible. And of course, “unqualified being” must be singular, since things are differentiated from one another by virtue of relative deficiency and this being is supremely perfect in every respect. And, as Aquinas argues, goodness and being are convertible: being is the standard by which the goodness of a thing is ultimately measured.

So from the arguments for the existence of God (or a “creative life force” if you prefer), we can deduce that this “creative life force” must be a single entity that is all-present, all-knowing, all-powerful, all-creating, and all-good. If only we had a word to describe that!

 

[promethius]

One of the arguments that I have heard from Atheists got me to thinking and I would like some (name removed by moderator)ut from the good folks here.

The argument goes that there is no direct evidence for God’s existence. That our “evidence” is simply “effects” that may or may not be “God”…or something else…or nothing else…

In other words the effects do not prove the cause…

So - I’m wondering. What things are there - widely and generally accepted in science - are only “known” by their effects, but have never been directly observed?

One thought I had was the concept of the “fabric of space”, “bending of space” etc. It explains a lot of things but only it’s “effects” can be observed (gravity, bending light).

Any other things - the simpler the better…

Peace
James

Prove that ANYTHING you have seen is not a fabrication of your mind. Prove that when you saw and object flying towards you and it hit you that there was REALLY an object there, and not merely light and an electrical firing of nerves to indicate contact… that your brain didn’t just create the experience for you despite the lack of a distinctive reality. Prove that there is actually a computer sitting in front of you without relying on your senses, which are ONLY capable of measuring effects.

These things are all phenomenon… they are EFFECTUAL measurements. In fact, the entirety of EVERYTHING we know is phenomenal experience… we have NO WAY of knowing whether or not the noumenon (the objective reality) is ACTUALLY anything like we experience, because we can only ever perceive of effects.

So to carry this atheist’s silly argument to its logical conclusions is to dismiss EVERYTHING we know of science and human experience, to doubt that there is anyone or anything other than our own consciousness in the universe, and therefore to live a VERY strange and lonely life.

When we understand that EVERYTHING we know and experience is nothing more than the effects (phenomenon) of objects that we are unable to experience directly (noumenon), then it becomes clear that it is ludicrous to somehow hold God’s effects to a different standard.

 

[Godmachine]

I suppose it could be said that everything that exists is the effect of a previous cause. You have to go a long way back in the chain of cause and effect to get to something that might be called a god. Just one of the reasons I remain agnostic.

 

[promethius]

I suppose it could be said that everything that exists is the effect of a previous cause. You have to go a long way back in the chain of cause and effect to get to something that might be called a god. Just one of the reasons I remain agnostic.

Except that the whole of human existence is promulgated on that idea being false. There would be no such thing as a justice system or rule of law if it were the case that everything was merely a matter of effect from previous causes and that there were no such thing as free will. Every criminal sentenced for crimes they were FORCED to commit by causal fate would be a glaring example of injustice done… and we would be FORCED into committing that injustice by our own causal prison.

That belief is simply incompatible with human life as we know it. Even people who claim to believe it live as though they don’t. You know what we call a belief that NOBODY actually lives by? Hollow words.