(June 6, 2016 at 11:41 am)ChadWooters Wrote: My observation, one that seems pretty obvious is that only actual things can cause change. Is the observation itself valid? Is there a compelling reason to suppose that this observation is an illusion? Why do you feel justified excluding this particular observation from rational inquiry?

What do you mean by 'cause change'? This seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of cause, as cause is nothing more than an a posteriori derived relationship between two entities. It's not a thing in itself. To answer your question, an entity possessed of low entropy, like the initial state of our universe, can result in change because of the statistical probability of there being an easily accessible higher state of entropy. Is entropy an actual thing in the sense that you mean? No it is not. So no, your observation did not include all relevant observations and was wrong. Why do you want to exclude the creation of the universe from your observations?

(June 6, 2016 at 11:41 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(June 5, 2016 at 2:30 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: But if you're so big on evidence, why don't you provide some.  Show me some evidence that God is uncaused

You must be Irish. Rather than address the question on the table you want to talk about something else. That is fine. I’m not asking you about any specific conclusions drawn from a certain observation; but rather about the observation itself. For example, Newton observed the apple falling toward the ground. Based on this observation he came to certain conclusions leading to the theory of gravity. I thought that was how people gain knowledge? They observe things, then they reason about it, then they reach conclusions. When asked about the evidence that supports their conclusions, they then point back to the initial observation. That seems pretty basic to me. Are you suggesting an alternate process for learning about the world?  

My observation, one that seems pretty obvious is that only actual things can cause change. Is the observation itself valid? Is there a compelling reason to suppose that this observation is an illusion? Why do you feel justified excluding this particular observation from rational inquiry?

 
I don't even know where to start with this self professed scholar .....

Newton observed  (disputed this even happened) an apple falling then set about explaining the process with science, his observations weren't his evidence ....

When Newton came to the frontier of what he could scientifically explain he then evoked God to fill the gap in his knowledge ....

Observation isn't evidence its a question that requires answers .... God is like Dark energy/matter/force a term to explain what we don't yet understand ...

(June 6, 2016 at 2:27 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: What do you mean by 'cause change'? … cause is nothing more than an a posteriori derived relationship between two entities. It's not a thing in itself.

Are you talking about relationships between two physical objects or events in succession? You seem to be making it an either/or whereas, I see it as both/and. Causes are connected by being party to one event. For example:

Since a ball striking the window is simultaneous with that window breaking, there is no extension spatially or temporally between events. They are the same event differently described. Within that one event, the baseball serves as a cause because it changes the glass from a whole into pieces. The glass also serves as a cause because it changes the ball (loss of momentum, altering its trajectory, etc.).

(June 6, 2016 at 2:27 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Why do you want to exclude the creation of the universe from your observations?

Because the term creation carries too much baggage, like an implied starting point followed by an accidental series of events. My concern is about why things realize potentials in co-temporal, essentially ordered sequences.

(June 6, 2016 at 4:00 pm)madog Wrote: Newton observed  (disputed this even happened) an apple falling then set about explaining the process with science, his observations weren't his evidence ....

That's just a semantic point. When Robinson Caruso observed footprints on the beach he took those as evidence that he was not alone.

(June 6, 2016 at 4:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(June 6, 2016 at 4:00 pm)madog Wrote: Newton observed  (disputed this even happened) an apple falling then set about explaining the process with science, his observations weren't his evidence ....

That's just a semantic point. When  Robinson Caruso observed footprints on the beach he took those as evidence that he was not alone.

Eh .... it depends on what you want to conclude from the question posed from the footprint .... Is there someone on the Island? Did someone visit the island? Did I sleep walk, was it aliens, was it proof of God, etc?

There is a big difference in making an assumption purely on the observation of a footprint for your own survival than making an assumption that it was an entity that the rest of mankind should worship.

Even if the individual perceived footprints appearing in the sand beside him, I would first consider the mental stability of the individual before believing his assertion that he was walking with Jesus.

(June 6, 2016 at 4:43 pm)madog Wrote:

(June 6, 2016 at 4:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: That's just a semantic point. When  Robinson Caruso observed footprints on the beach he took those as evidence that he was not alone.

Eh .... it depends on what you want to conclude from the question posed from the footprint .... Is there someone on the Island? Did someone visit the island? Did I sleep walk, was it aliens, was it proof of God, etc?

There is a big difference in making an assumption purely on the observation of a footprint for your own survival than making an assumption that it was an entity that the rest of mankind should worship.

Why is this even a problem? People make observations. They reason about those observations to reach conclusions. When asked how they reached their conclusions they refer back to the observation and call it evidence.

(June 6, 2016 at 4:51 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: People make observations.

Not everyone observes rationally. It is why psychology and psychiatry were created.

(June 6, 2016 at 4:46 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: Even if the individual perceived footprints appearing in the sand beside him, I would first consider the mental stability of the individual before believing his assertion that he was walking with Jesus.

Exactly .... We have used observation to conclude there is a God since early man/woman ... Lightening was once proof of God, eclipses was once a proof of God? the list is endless ....

Some in modern times realize that unexplained observations don't have to be a God/s or something supernatural, it is just amazing that some apparently educated people continue relying on observational interpretation of natural events  as the supernatural.

I blame it on indoctrination, that has led to even the educated being able to compartmentalize against reason when the subject involves religion

---

(June 6, 2016 at 4:51 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(June 6, 2016 at 4:43 pm)madog Wrote: Eh .... it depends on what you want to conclude from the question posed from the footprint .... Is there someone on the Island? Did someone visit the island? Did I sleep walk, was it aliens, was it proof of God, etc?

There is a big difference in making an assumption purely on the observation of a footprint for your own survival than making an assumption that it was an entity that the rest of mankind should worship.

Why is this even a problem? People make observations. They reason about those observations to reach conclusions. When asked how they reached their conclusions they refer back to the observation and call it evidence.

Its not a problem until you rely on that evidence for important issues.

I may observe propoganda that safety equipment that I rely on is properly manufactured when it isn't life threatening, but I want more evidence than a simple claim I observed from the manufacturer  if my life depends on it. 

(June 6, 2016 at 4:58 pm)madog Wrote: Its not a problem until you rely on that evidence for important issues.

That may be, but to you I ask if this observation of mine is valid regardless of what demonstration gets built upon it?