(May 11, 2014 at 5:59 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: I probably accept causal closure. I think I'd attribute that more to my being a naturalist than to my atheism.

I'll be agnostic on this one. If there is anything non-physical, how are we supposed to recognize it as the cause of certain things? If we can't, then the only way to rule it out is to make sure that our physics can predict everything with 100% accuracy, even the particle behavior of waves.

Hence I vote #2.

---

(May 11, 2014 at 12:37 pm)Chad32 Wrote: I've never heard the term casual closure. As far as physical history goes, Many things once called magic have been found to come from natural causes. The more we know, the more we understand without using magic to explain it.

That's the Coffee Jesus fallacy. Tends toward, therefore ends at.

(May 12, 2014 at 11:20 am)Coffee Jesus Wrote:

(May 11, 2014 at 5:59 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: I probably accept causal closure. I think I'd attribute that more to my being a naturalist than to my atheism.

I'll be agnostic on this one. If there is anything non-physical, how are we supposed to recognize it as the cause of certain things? If we can't, then the only way to rule it out is to make sure that our physics can predict everything with 100% accuracy, even the particle behavior of waves.

Hence I vote #2.

---

(May 11, 2014 at 12:37 pm)Chad32 Wrote: I've never heard the term casual closure. As far as physical history goes, Many things once called magic have been found to come from natural causes. The more we know, the more we understand without using magic to explain it.

That's the Coffee Jesus fallacy. Tends toward, therefore ends at.

I love it. The coffee Jesus fallacy. Perfect.

Composition fallacy is the real name of it. :p

(May 12, 2014 at 3:05 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Composition fallacy is the real name of it. :p

Mystery solved!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

I guess hasty generalization says it pretty well too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

Option 1 quickly devolves at the quantum level.
Option 2 might cover the quantum, but this would merely be a resort to probability.
In either case I was a non-believer long before even considering any of that and it has more to do with being able to spot a blatant lie.