tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post24119697117528695..comments2024-03-18T11:10:18.708-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Was the beginning of the universe uncaused?Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger370125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79930942067070686412011-11-02T04:26:27.968-07:002011-11-02T04:26:27.968-07:00That there are uncaused events is known as the Cop...That there are uncaused events is known as the <i>Copenhagen interpretation</i> of quantum mechanics. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<br />Copenhagen_interpretation, <i>Astrophysicist and science writer John Gribbin describes it as having fallen from primacy after the 1980s.</i><br /><br />This is confirmed by the two recent articles quoted above. The article at arxiv.org is from 2008, and the article at plato.stanford.edu was given a <i>substantive revision Thu Jan 21, 2010</i>.<br /><br />So articles and theories from 1980s about QM should probably be read with this in mind.Per Ovenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53560857441585376872011-10-24T06:39:42.488-07:002011-10-24T06:39:42.488-07:00Per Ove: "If radioactive decay is causeless, ...<b>Per Ove:</b> "<i>If radioactive decay is causeless, to me it seems strange that it has a regular rate.</i>"<br /><br />I'd thought of mentioning that, too; but I long ago gave up trying to reason with unreasonable persons.<br /><br />Those who assert that there are uncaused events are generally doing several things; without trying to go into the psychology of <i>why</i> they assert causelessness, they are, non-exhaustively:<br />1) asserting that ignorance of the cause or causes is evidence of causelessness;<br />2) <i>denying causality in general</i>;<br />2a) declining to understand that if one event is uncaused, then probably all events are uncaused;<br />2b) or, in any event, if there actually even one uncaused event, then we could never know that any event is caused;<br />3) THUS, this odd insistence upon uncaused events is just another way of asserting that knowledge by humans is utterly impossible, it is a way of "scientifically" asserting that truth cannot be known.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-31021174580638845802011-10-24T03:53:44.669-07:002011-10-24T03:53:44.669-07:00(Cont.)
If radioactive decay is causeless, to me i...(Cont.)<br />If radioactive decay is causeless, to me it seems strange that it has a regular rate. Anyway, strange things can happen, especially in QM. But I found another article, at arxiv.org.<br /><br />arxiv.org/pdf/0707.0834<br />P.4: <i>The spooky arguments in favor of ‘uncaused change’ (Mortensen 2002) with reference to radioactive decay demonstrate simply the common misunderstanding of the processes of spontaneous emission (see details at the end of Section 3.2).</i>.<br /><br />In section 3.2, radioactive decay is dissussed from p. 27 on. <br /><br />P. 28: <i>...likewise, radioactive decay of nuclei is directly caused by zero oscillations of vacuum nuclear fields. “...There is no such thing as truly spontaneous emission; its all stimulated emission”.(Griffiths 1987b)</i>.<br /><br />Lunch is over. But the discussion about (im?)possible uncaused events probably not.Per Ovenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29426334559032241182011-10-24T03:46:47.270-07:002011-10-24T03:46:47.270-07:00@ One Brow and SteveK
As an awed amateur, I still ...@ One Brow and SteveK<br />As an awed amateur, I still try to follow your discussion about something from nothing. It's said that radioactive decay might be a causeless event. Now I've found two articles written not by amateurs saying something more.<br /><br />http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/ writes about quantum mechanics in section 4.4:<br /><i>Popular belief (even among most physicists) holds that phenomena such as radioactive decay, photon emission and absorption, and many others are such that only a probabilistic description of them can be given. The theory does not say what happens in a given case, but only says what the probabilities of various results are. [...] At the microscopic level the world is ultimately mysterious and chancy.<br /><br />So goes the story; but like much popular wisdom, it is partly mistaken and/or misleading.</i><br /><br />You'd better read the section yourselves rather than me trying to make an extract.<br /><br />Earlier I mentioned that reality always is interpreted, so also in quantum mechanics. One of my questions is if this might be one of the reasons the disagreement. <br /><br />(Cont.)Per Ovenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52622189038534688582011-10-18T16:43:44.633-07:002011-10-18T16:43:44.633-07:00SteveK said...
Events must involve real things. Ca...SteveK said...<br /><i>Events must involve real things. Call them objects or just real things.</i><br /><br />Events are real, but are not things nor objects. they have no material cause, for example. <br /><br /><i>It may look that way to you. Just because you can't pinpoint or understand the cause doesn't mean it is uncaused. That's what is often referred to a "god of the gaps" thinking, isn't it? Do you want to go there?</i><br /><br />My understanding is that radioactive decay is uncaused, by the the nature of radioactive decay. I am not using "uncaused" to mean "unpredictiable". <br /><br /><br /><i>Not really.</i><br /><br />Yes, really. A reason need not be a cause.<br /><br /><i>For example, Suppose you said X *cannot* cause a pot of water to exist as steam. We can then say to someone who tells me it's possible - that we have no reason to think X can bring steam into existence from a pot of water.</i><br /><br />I did not understand your point here.<br /><br /><i>You were attempting to give reasons.</i><br /><br />I was describing its character. I suppose you could call that "giving reasons" loosely. However, since I had no intent to affirm or deny, I was not using the principle of sufficient reason.<br /><br /><i>Here's the problem. Without the PSR, no reason is needed to justify a conclusion. </i><br /><br />You can choose any number of other conditions on which to base affirmation or denial, some of which may be either stonger or eaker than the PSR, some orthogonally related. You choose what is useful for your needs.<br /><br /><i>Thinking people love arguments like that. </i><br /><br />No, thinking people dislike simplistic aphorisms that cover up meaning rather than uncover it.<br /><br /><i>Without the PSR nobody need reasons to accept the PSR as being true either - and therefore both arguments are valid and sound. </i><br /><br />The PSR is a tool to use in argumentation, or not. It is not the subject of argumentation.<br /><br /><i>In fact, all forms of argument are valid and sound because the PSR can be denied. </i><br /><br />Normally, you choose the acceptable forms of argumentation before you begin an argument.<br /><br />You spent a couple of paragraphs assuming that without the specifically choosing the PSR, we could not do science. This is laughable.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49526692114511825262011-10-18T12:40:38.430-07:002011-10-18T12:40:38.430-07:00One Brow,
>>> Events are not objects.
Ev...One Brow,<br />>>> Events are not objects.<br /><br />Events must involve real things. Call them objects or just real things.<br /><br />>>> Radioactive decay is uncaused. <br /><br />It may look that way to you. Just because you can't pinpoint or understand the cause doesn't mean it is uncaused. That's what is often referred to a "god of the gaps" thinking, isn't it? Do you want to go there?<br /><br /><br />>>> Again, you equate "reason" to "cause" inappropriately.<br /><br />Not really. I took your statement about gravity and offered a logical conclusion based on that statement. <br /><br />For example, Suppose you said X *cannot* cause a pot of water to exist as steam. We can then say to someone who tells me it's possible - that we have no reason to think X can bring steam into existence from a pot of water.<br /><br />>>> The principle of sufficient reason is not something that can be affirmed or denied, so how could I be giving you reasons to deny it?<br /><br />You were attempting to give reasons.<br /><br />>>> The principle of sufficient reason is either relatively useful in helping to form a model of a phenomenon, or not relatively useful.<br /><br />Here's the problem. Without the PSR, no reason is needed to justify a conclusion. You do have reasons behind every valid conclusion that you form, but it's not necessary. Congratulations, you've just lumped rational thought in with irrational thought.<br /><br />>>> Theists do seem to love arguments like that.<br /><br />Thinking people love arguments like that. <br /><br />Let's say you are correct. Without the PSR nobody need reasons to accept the PSR as being true either - and therefore both arguments are valid and sound. <br /><br />Nobody also needs reasons to deny arguments in favor of the law of non-condradition. In fact, all forms of argument are valid and sound because the PSR can be denied. <br /><br />Looking at the methods of science...if we think we have found something without explanation, we spend a lot of intellectual energy trying to determine or prove to ourselves the explanation for there being no explanation. <br /><br />If the PSR doesn't hold, then all of that scientific time and energy is not necessary. We can just conclude that no reason is needed to explain anything. And when we so find a reason, we can deny it without reason. <br /><br />This is the epitome of anti-rationalism. And you support this? I hope you will reconsider.SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58874678479792039812011-10-17T17:15:33.607-07:002011-10-17T17:15:33.607-07:00SteveK said...
We aren't talking about 2 causa...SteveK said...<br /><i>We aren't talking about 2 causal events, just the one event. </i><br /><br />Since we are discussing the possiblity of uncaused events, and different uncaused events can have different natures, I am trying to be inclusive about the varieties of uncaused events. Since the "no real thing" discusses an ontologically prior thing/act, while for uncaused events we attirbute the lack of causality to either an ontologically prior form or to having a form no ontologically prior, there is no contradiciton between the "no real thing" and the existence of areason.<br /><br /><i>Pick one or more of the 4 causes as the reason an object exists as it does. They're all causes.</i><br /><br />Events are not objects.<br /><br /><i>Additionally, can you cite an example where what you are saying is true?</i><br /><br />Radioactive decay is uncaused. The actual spin of a particle (as oppose to the existence of spin). Hawking says the universe itself seems to be uncaused, at least potentially.<br /><br /><i>>>> However, gravity is not ontologically prior to the universe, and hence can not be a cause for it.<br /><br />You're making my argument for me. Gravity is not the reason it came to exist.</i><br /><br />Again, you equate "reason" to "cause" inappropriately.<br /><br /><i>Ha! Notice you are giving me reasons (not sufficient though) to deny the principle of sufficient reason. </i><br /><br />The principle of sufficient reason is not something that can be affirmed or denied, so how could I be giving you reasons to deny it? The principle of sufficient reason is either relatively useful in helping to form a model of a phenomenon, or not relatively useful.<br /><br /><i>By giving me reasons to deny it, you confirm its necessity.</i><br /><br />Theists do seem to love arguments like that.<br /><br /><i>That's why I said we have no reason to think gravity is necessary.</i><br /><br />By which you seem to mean, we have no reason to think gravity is necessary nor any reason to think it is contingent, and no guess in one direction is any better than in the other direction. I'm OK with that.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20902783929108173302011-10-17T12:28:08.892-07:002011-10-17T12:28:08.892-07:00One Brow,
>>> Since the "no real thi...One Brow,<br />>>> Since the "no real thing" is at time A and an efficient cause, while the "real thing" would either be a time B or a formal cause (depending on the particular event), there is no contradiciton.<br /><br />We aren't talking about 2 causal events, just the one event. <br /><br />>>> However, that does not make a reason into a cause, unless you mean specifically a final cause.<br /><br />Pick one or more of the 4 causes as the reason an object exists as it does. They're all causes.<br /><br />Additionally, can you cite an example where what you are saying is true?<br /><br />>>> However, gravity is not ontologically prior to the universe, and hence can not be a cause for it.<br /><br />You're making my argument for me. Gravity is not the reason it came to exist.<br /><br />>>> It has no proof, and it ceases to be a useful model for reality, there is not need to keep it. <br /><br />Ha! Notice you are giving me reasons (not sufficient though) to deny the principle of sufficient reason. By giving me reasons to deny it, you confirm its necessity.<br /><br />>>> However, gravity may well be necessary within the universe. How could you tell, one way or the other?<br /><br />It's a real possibility, I agree. How could you tell? I don't think you could. I don't see how anyone could ever come to discover that something was necessary - that something could not possibly fail to have existed. What would such a reality look like or act like?<br /><br />That's why I said we have no reason to think gravity is necessary.SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40440874790124087022011-10-17T06:23:48.864-07:002011-10-17T06:23:48.864-07:00SteveK said...
The reason for the uncaused event c...SteveK said...<br /><i>The reason for the uncaused event can be found in "no real thing" and "a real thing" at the same time and in the same way. Contradiction.</i><br /><br />Since the "no real thing" is at time A and an efficient cause, while the "real thing" would either be a time B or a formal cause (depending on the particular event), there is no contradiciton.<br /><br /><i>The way I am using the term is that a reason is a way of explaining why an object exists as it does. This concept is found in the 4 causes.</i><br /><br />However, that does not make a reason into a cause, unless you mean specifically a final cause.<br /><br /><i>Your reason entails causality according to the 4 cause theory. Gravity explains why the universe exists as it does.</i><br /><br />However, gravity is not ontologically prior to the universe, and hence can not be a cause for it.<br /><br /><i>You can't just say it's uncaused without offering a sufficient reason why it is uncaused (see principle of sufficient reason again). </i><br /><br />The princikple of sufficient reason is an assumption you make to build into a formal system. It has no proof, and it ceases to be a useful model for reality, there is not need to keep it. <br /><br /><i>Necessity would be a sufficient reason, but we have no reason to think gravity is necessary to reality. We'd need a reason to think that before we could conclude that gravity explains the universe.</i><br /><br />However, gravity may well be necessary within the universe. How could you tell, one way or the other?One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-15345283067335675202011-10-16T15:48:53.244-07:002011-10-16T15:48:53.244-07:00One Brow,
>>> "Contradiction" i...One Brow,<br />>>> "Contradiction" is very specific term for a sentence of the type "A & not-A".<br /><br />I know. The reason for the uncaused event can be found in "no real thing" and "a real thing" at the same time and in the same way. Contradiction.<br /><br />>>> Already, we are sliding to an equivocal phrase. A "reason" is not a "cause". <br /><br />The way I am using the term is that a reason is a way of explaining why an object exists as it does. This concept is found in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes" rel="nofollow">4 causes.</a>.<br /><br />>>> You can say "the reason the universe can exist uncaused is a property like gravity", and there is no internal contradiction.<br /><br />Your reason entails causality according to the 4 cause theory. Gravity explains why the universe exists as it does.<br /><br />You can't just say it's uncaused without offering a sufficient reason why it is uncaused (see principle of sufficient reason again). <br /><br />Necessity would be a sufficient reason, but we have no reason to think gravity is necessary to reality. We'd need a reason to think that before we could conclude that gravity explains the universe.SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45215921892295590862011-10-15T08:39:47.942-07:002011-10-15T08:39:47.942-07:00SteveK said...
The reason uncaused events makes no...SteveK said...<br /><i>The reason uncaused events makes no sense is because it results in a contradiction. </i><br /><br />"Contradiction" is very specific term for a sentence of the type "A & not-A".<br /><br /><i>If there is a reason ...</i><br /><br />Already, we are sliding to an equivocal phrase. A "reason" is not a "cause". You can say "the reason the universe can exist uncaused is a property like gravity", and there is no internal contradiction.<br /><br /><i>The cause can be external or an internal part of the thing itself. </i><br /><br />The cause of an event needs to act prior to the event (ontologically), a reason for an event does not.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24513828436396195202011-10-14T13:15:42.131-07:002011-10-14T13:15:42.131-07:00>>> They always existed as a matter of ne...>>> They always existed as a matter of necessity.<br /><br />I guess this is a reason.SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16969768692136121892011-10-14T13:12:58.656-07:002011-10-14T13:12:58.656-07:00With the contradition resolved, what remains to be...With the contradition resolved, what remains to be resolved is the infinite regression of causality. <br /><br />The conclusion of people smarter than me is that some real things must be a necessary part of reality. In other words, some real things must not require a reason or a cause to explain their existence because they must always exist. They always existed as a matter of necessity.<br /><br />Isn't this fun?SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29556046723678272832011-10-14T12:55:07.829-07:002011-10-14T12:55:07.829-07:00One Brow,
The reason uncaused events makes no sens...One Brow,<br />The reason uncaused events makes no sense is because it results in a contradiction. <br /><br />If there is a reason for an event, then there is a real thing that explains the event. That real thing is found in the reason given. If there is no reason then literally "no real thing" explains the event - which is a contradition because it doesn't exist and thus can't be an explanation. <br /><br />The cause can be external or an internal part of the thing itself. Reference the principle of sufficient reason. <br /><br />For example, the nature of agency is the reason people can be the first cause of events.SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82971248206577375682011-10-14T11:35:36.499-07:002011-10-14T11:35:36.499-07:00Ilion was kind enough to refer to himself as "...Ilion was kind enough to refer to himself as "Antirationalist", so the least I can do is respond.<br /><br /><i>True enough: my metaphysics does not create the causes of things; rather, it recognizes the truth that there are no effects/events without causes. </i><br /><br />It can make the assumption, but the assumpiton can be wrong, and by all evidence is wrong. There are events that, as far as we can determine their nature, are fundamentally uncaused. The assumptions built into a metahysics are also not proof otherwise.<br /><br /><i>1) all events are the effects of causes; or,<br />2) no events are the effects of causes.</i><br /><br />Why not some events, according to the nature of the particular event? That is, events of types A, B, and C are uncaused, as that is their respective nature, while events of type a, b, and c are casued, as that is their respective nature?One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74527736511445027962011-10-14T08:17:04.387-07:002011-10-14T08:17:04.387-07:00Paps,
You don't like my statement about life s...Paps,<br />You don't like my statement about life so I'd like to get your take on this. <br /><br /><i>"It has been demonstrated that once the state of non-life has been reached (death), life never returns."</i><br /><br />Do you agree with this? Feel free to tweak it.<br /><br />After you do that, tell me how you reconcile this with your theory that life came from non-life on it's own?SteveKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00497892283006396471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83342326183762734302011-10-14T07:50:53.578-07:002011-10-14T07:50:53.578-07:00Papalinton wrote to SteveK:
I suspect the bible wi...Papalinton wrote to SteveK:<br />I suspect the bible will eventually be characterized as a litany of metaphors and allegory strung together by elements of historical fact variously appropriated for the purpose of making the narrative seemingly cogent and based in reality.<br /><br />POS says:<br />Most churches never thought the Bible is so exactly that it can be used to reject scientific ideas. Ideas like a moving earth or a very old earth has some times been criticized, but usually on the basis of either reason or observations.<br /><br />A good place to start for those who would like to know how the church fathers interpreted Genesis is Augustine's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Refutation-Unfinished-Commentary-Translation/dp/1565482018/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318603626&sr=1-1" rel="nofollow">On Genesis</a>. The Bible was not read literally at that time either, even a thousand years before the great discoveries.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16178816789389805017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1901722471077349762011-10-14T07:48:22.133-07:002011-10-14T07:48:22.133-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03334829490839089408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-90039569185778080052011-10-14T07:32:52.048-07:002011-10-14T07:32:52.048-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16178816789389805017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86272109252802120902011-10-14T03:11:45.188-07:002011-10-14T03:11:45.188-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16178816789389805017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71478166725408463962011-10-14T02:54:27.500-07:002011-10-14T02:54:27.500-07:00Papalinton said:
The whole edifice of christendom ...Papalinton said:<br />The whole edifice of christendom and most particularly Catholicism was established at a talkfest in Nicea in 325CE.<br /><br />POS says:<br />After my advice to check statements about history better, and not just about Galilei and Bruno, and after you checked just one source about some prize, I'm a bit surprised of this. However, if you give me name of a historian who supports this, or if you give me your source, I'll come back to you.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16178816789389805017noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20483419602603392002011-10-13T23:33:00.350-07:002011-10-13T23:33:00.350-07:00... consider this what this silly, silly (and vain...... consider this what this silly, silly (and vain), man has said as he attempts to side-step the importance of the question I have twice asked --<br /><br /><b>One Brow:</b> "<i>If it's just a matter of the right chemicals coming together in the right conditions, why do rational beings guiding the process matter?</i>"<br /><br /><b>Ilíon:</b> "<i>BUT, if 'biology' is fully explained by chemistry -- that is, if "life is just chemical reactions" -- then the fact that those chemicals normally and consistently *stop* reacting cannot be squared with the faith-requirement that "life is just chemical reactions". What? Do chemicals keep a count of the reactions they've undergone, and when they reach some limit they get tired and sluggish until they've taken sufficient rest?</i>"<br /><br /><b>Ilíon:</b> "<i>If 'life' is "just a matter of the right chemicals coming together in the right conditions", why do organisms routinely die? Do those "right chemicals [which came] together in the right conditions" get bored with the whole thing and just kind of drift off to pursue other interests?</i>"<br /><br /><b>One-thought-many-rationalizations:</b> "<i>For some reason, you seem to think this is an intelligent point.<br /><br />No the chemicals don't get bored. many liveing things show no signs of age. Some plants are thousands of years old, and while they might die from environmental causes, show no signs of dying from internal causes.</i>"<br /><br /><b>Paps-In-Drag:</b> "<i>There'a a whole science on aging, what happens, and why it happens, that is not based on chemicals getting bored. You can look it up if you want to.</i>"<br /><br />It never ceases to amaze me how <i>blatantly</i> people will affirm what I have just said even as they are asserting that it is false (or, as in this case, asserting that it is "not even false").Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82433514711504038012011-10-13T23:16:37.395-07:002011-10-13T23:16:37.395-07:00One-thought: "For some reason, you seem to th...<b>One-thought:</b> "<i>For some reason, you seem to think this is an intelligent point. ...</i>"<br /><br />For some reason, you decline to understand that it is an intelligent, and important, point.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3047619558802749902011-10-13T23:04:22.520-07:002011-10-13T23:04:22.520-07:00... randomness is an even worse slave-master than ...... <i>randomness</i> is an even worse slave-master than determinism is.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69861043771971344062011-10-13T23:03:08.844-07:002011-10-13T23:03:08.844-07:00Antirationalist: "The "laws of nature&qu...<b>Antirationalist:</b> "<i>The "laws of nature", in and of themselves, can not be an efficient cause for an event if the event sometimes does not apply in identical circumstances. If "law" Q is in effect at time t1 and event X does not happen, then at time t2 event X does happen, Q is not an efficient cause of X. X is still uncaused.</i>"<br /><br /><b>Antirationalist:</b> "<i>X is not uncaused. You ignorance of the full causes of X does not equal no cause of X.</i>"<br /><br /><b>Hater-of-Reason:</b> "<i>Nor does your metaphysics create a cause where none exists.</i>"<br /><br />True enough: my metaphysics does not <i>create</i> the causes of things; rather, it recognizes the truth that there are no effects/events without causes. <br /><br />On the other, and antirational, hand, you and your metaphysics are asserting the knowledge-repudiating and self-defeating claim (*) that there can be, and are, events without causes. But, you cannot have "just enough" acausality to protect your atheism from rational critical analysis -- either:<br />1) all events are the effects of causes; or,<br />2) no events are the effects of causes.<br /><br />(*) for, your claim is itself an event ... which is, according to your metaphysical assertions, uncaused. ANd, when you randomly assert the opposite on some random other day, that too will be uncaused.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.com