And there you have it!

_{William Dembski

August 23, 2009

Eyes Rolling, Religion, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Janna Levin, Columbia astrophysicist, gives us the cutting-edge science on the origin of the universe: there was nothing, really nothing, nothing at all … but the potential to exist. Was it Aristotle who said that nothing admits no predicates? So where did nothing get the potential to exist and then bring the universe into existence? Not to worry. Janna does give us this assurance: “We know that something happened.” Yes, this is science at its best. Let’s not bring God or design into this discussion — we wouldn’t want to be accused of “acting stupidly.” Oh, one more thing, she’s an assistant professor (go here). Want to bet that she doesn’t have problems getting tenure? Compare this to Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State.

YouTube Source

Comments

Kariosfocus
I draw attention to my remarks at 135 – 6 above, esp:
Usually people draw attention to their remarks by simply posting their remarks. It's evident to all observers that you have now successfully created a situation where no matter what you say, people will simply scroll past without reading your posts. And why should they, you have been recycling the same "posts" for some time now. You now seem to be editing your "body of work" in response to comments, for example I've noticed that when you reference Hoyle you've now added in a pre-emptive "And don't bother with any Wikipedia rubbish refuting Hoyle, he got a Nobel you know". Is this your idea of debate then? Rather then debate issues, post a "newspaper" of your current thinking and those that do not conform and question instead are irrational or absurd? If you honestly wanted a debate or to honestly inform yourself and others you'd engage in the process of explaining why Wikipedias comments on Hoyle's fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy Are invalid. Don't just prempt any possible discussion by saying it's dealt with already thank you, you'll have to take my word for it. I guess you never took debate class. Then you accuse others of your own failing:
the appeal to “it just happens” meant to suggest or imply non-caused EVENTS, is an absurdity. Materialist reductio here hits yet another absurdity. (By now, their name is Legion.)
And then say "except, of course, for the one uncaused cause I believe in"
he appeal to “it just happens” meant to suggest or imply non-caused EVENTS, is an absurdity. Materialist reductio here hits yet another absurdity. (By now, their name is Legion.) GEM of TKI PS: this does not remove the logic of things that are and are uncaused. We live in a credibly contingent cosmos. Such entails the existence of a logically prior necessary being.
But what about that prior cosmos for the necessary being? And the prior cosmos for the prior being prior being prior being prior being prior being etc etc. You want to have it both ways. You see nothing absurd in
. Materialist reductio here hits yet another absurdity.
and
this does not remove the logic of things that are and are uncaused.
Nothing is uncaused except the thing I need to be uncaused for my belief to work. And you think "Darwinists" are funny for believing that life evolved without guidance..Blue Lotus_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

Here is a clearer (but no less nonsensical) version that bears your revision: "If an event requires certain physically NECESSARY conditions to occur, but if those conditions are not SUFFICIENT for its occurrence, and then SUFFICIENT conditions do arise and the event occurs, then that event is [A] unpredictable, [B] spontaneous, and [C] Not uncaused." If you don't like mine, cook up your own.Diffaxial_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 189:
—Diffaxial “Nobody liked my weather reference. I was surprised by that.” The issue does not concern the dependability of the sunrise, which is a question about probability based on reason, but rather whether or not the sun can do its own rising, which is a question about reason itself.
No, dummy, I was referring my statement that you had offered "some talk about the weather in the countryside (a fog blanketed the bluff, as I recall)." And, of course (although you missed it), "I was surprised by that" is an oblique way of stating everything else in your four collective responses is utterly unsurprising. By the way, another reason to reject your preposterous revision:.
If an event requires certain physically NECESSARY conditions to occur, but if those conditions are not SUFFICIENT for its occurrence, and, if under the circumstances, the event occurs, then that event is [A] unpredictable, [B] spontaneous, and [C] Not uncaused.
You now maintain that by "under the circumstances" you intended that since the event occurred, sufficient conditions must have been present.
The key phrase you trying to manipulate is ”under the circumstances” which was meant to convey the idea “if, as it turns out, sufficient conditions are also present [a perfectly reasonable interpretation]...
But were you to insert this reading into the above passage, it ceases to be intelligible, because if, as you maintain, BOTH necessary AND sufficient causal factors are present, then a quantum event would not be distinguishable from others (as quantum events often are) by being "[A] unpredictable, [B] spontaneous." That the passage breaks down with your revised reading is easy to demonstrate:
If an event requires certain physically NECESSARY conditions to occur, but if those conditions are not SUFFICIENT for its occurrence, and, if under the circumstances that SUFFICIENT conditions then arise and the event occurs, then that event is [A] unpredictable, [B] spontaneous, and [C] Not uncaused.
That, of course, makes no sense whatsoever vis "[A] unpredictable and [B] spontaneous" (Although [C] does follow.) It follows that it isn't true that two possible readings are available, and we have chosen to press one and ignore the other. The reading you suggest is unintelligible, and hence not a viable alternative. This again makes your intended meaning plain, as we have characterized it above, and compels rejection of your revision.Diffaxial_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

---Diffaxial "Nobody liked my weather reference. I was surprised by that." The issue does not concern the dependability of the sunrise, which is a question about probability based on reason, but rather whether or not the sun can do its own rising, which is a question about reason itself.StephenB_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

Nobody liked my weather reference. I was surprised by that.Diffaxial_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

---Upright Biped: “I have had to allow myself to stand in my own mind and be wrong about my beliefs; to question myself, to set aside metaphysics and ask the questions and answer them again and again. I know many ID proponents have had to do the same.” I have had the same experience. Someone once said that education is a series of questions, the answers to which cause confusion, frustration and a whole new series of questions at a higher and more important level. I agree with that assessment. Without the confusion and frustration, there is no growth. Those who allow their ideology to insulate themselves from that process get nowhere. It seems that we are of one mind on that subject.StephenB_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT}

"Vivid, did you notice that Diffaxial just spent 633 words @180 responding to your comment without once addressing the question." Nor will it be forthcoming. Upright nailed it "I have little tolerance for people like Diffaxial who never allow themselves to be questioned. His state of mind is evident in the willfully incessant demands he places upon the conversation itself. It’s a coward’s weakness. The fact that he is an intelligent person only makes his weakness all that more unbecoming" SB "Quite the contrary, I often point out that it is the Darwinists who posit causeless events" Perhaps that explains why they are Darwinists. For those who believe in magic anything is possible. Vividvividbleau_{September 1, 2009
September
09
Sep
1
01
2009
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT}

A note: I draw attention to my remarks at 135 - 6 above, esp:
5 –> “Spontaneous” events are generally those deemed to occur as brute facts of nature, usually in the context of stochastic chains of undirected contingent causal factors. It just happens to be so, but could have just as easily been otherwise. Chance + blind mechanical necessity are enough to explain the event, in short. [There was an earthquake, and the boulder resting on the ledge tumbled off and bounced around along the side of the cliff, until it hit bottom; where it happened to land.] 6 –> In the case of quantum events, such as the appearance of spontaneous particle-antiparticle pairs, it should be noted that there is an underlying quantum vacuum seething with energy. This is a necessary condition; as is the presence of a space-time continuum in which the particles may emerge etc, etc. Quantum events are thus not UNCAUSED, though the relevant sufficient factors may well be unknown to us and possibly unobservable to us, given the issues over uncertainty etc. We see spontaneous, stochastic quantum phenomena, but that is hardly the same as that such are uncaused. (As was explained in painful details in previous threads.) . . . . Spontaneous more properly is a synonym for natural: that which goes on by itself in the observable world, based on whatever initial conditions happen to obtain and whatever dynamical forces and inertial resistances and structures happen to be there. (Cf my falling rock example [an earthquake triggers a boulder to fall off a ledge, bounding down the rough side of a cliff, and ending up at a chance position at the bottom.].)
In that context, sometimes we only can access a list of necessary factors, and so are unaware of what will be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back. that such is there, we may infer form the fact that the event happens at a certain time and place. But, since we see it not -- or we may only see a stochastic process playing out -- we see spontaneity that often fits a statistical/probabilistic pattern. that an event is stochastic and appears to our observation and even anlysis at an iunpredictable locus in space-time, does not entail that it is without cause. Indeed we may readily identify blocking factors -- i.e the necessary conditions. These start with the presence and energy density of space-time itself. A vacuum in today's science is not nothing, nor is it without properties and energy storage. (For that matter, let us note how it is known since C19 that light traverses space at a definite phase velocity determined by measurable electrical and magnetic properties of space itself c ~ 1/ root- epsilon nought times mu nought]; reflecting definite properties and constraints, i.e necessary conditions. Light's speed in vacuo is not causeless.) Again, Stephen and the undersigned do not stand in contradiction, and the principles of right reason that events are constrained by sufficient and necessary causal factors, remains foundational to sound science. The appeal to "it just happens" meant to suggest or imply non-caused EVENTS, is an absurdity. Materialist reductio here hits yet another absurdity. (By now, their name is Legion.) GEM of TKI PS: this does not remove the logic of things that are and are uncaused. We live in a credibly contingent cosmos. Such entails the existence of a logically prior necessary being. (Until the big bang theory prevailed, it was convenient for materialists to assert that the physical cosmos was that necessary being. Poof! [And that logical implication is part of why the big bang was so stoutly resisted. Stir in the fine tuning observations and we see the place of the other half of ID: cosmological design.])kairosfocus_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PDT}

---Diffaxial: "In short, the entire context, as well as the entirety of your words, clearly establish that you sought to characterize quantum events as displaying necessary, but not sufficient causal conditions, and further sought to argue that causality was present nonetheless. It was your attempt to rescue causality in light of quantum events. Fortunately, I am immune from those who would dishonestly characterize my position because I have held it too long and too consistently. [a] There are no causeless physical events, and [b] Physical events require both necessary and sufficient causes. It was I who introduced the words "sufficient cause" into the discussion long ago, so I would hardly have gone down that road if I thought physical events could occur without them. Everyone who spends any time at all on this site knows that I am congenitally incapable of believing that a physical event can occur in the absence of necessary and sufficient causes. Quite the contrary, I often point out that it is the Darwinists who posit causeless events. So, any attempt to misrepresent my position by tracking down what appears to be a dangling prepositional phrase in something I once wrote is bound to fail. On the other hand, I need not misrepresent your position in order to expose its flaws. You really do think events can occur without causes of any kind, necessary or sufficient. By characterizing unpredictable quantum events as causeless, you compromise the indispensable rational underpinning that science depends on. If quantum events can be uncaused, why cannot other kinds of events be uncaused, either at the micro level or at the macro level? Once having gone down that road, how would we know which ones are caused and which ones are not? We couldn’t. Science would be out of business without an uncompromising principle of causality. You should spend less time drumming up false scenarios about what I DON’T believe and spend more time making a rational case for what you DO believe.StephenB_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
11:01 PM
11
11
01
PM
PDT}

To Stephen, I know you would prefer that I not continue to abuse Diffaxial (and I am certain that I stretch my posting freedoms with Clive as well). But I find it hard not to shoot at the target. I have had to allow myself to stand in my own mind and be wrong about my beliefs; to question myself, to set aside metaphysics and ask the questions and answer them again and again. I know many ID proponents have had to do the same. I have little tolerance for people like Diffaxial who never allow themselves to be questioned. His state of mind is evident in the willfully incessant demands he places upon the conversation itself. It’s a coward’s weakness. The fact that he is an intelligent person only makes his weakness all that more unbecoming.Upright BiPed_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
10:51 PM
10
10
51
PM
PDT}

SB to Vivid - "Vivid, did you notice that Diffaxial just spent 633 words @180 responding to your comment without once addressing the question." It is a personal "skill" that Diffy excels at. Perhaps it is his only one. (It is certainly not logical consistency, nor is it intellectual courage).Upright BiPed_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT}

---Vivid: "Diff will this defense be forthcoming? Vivid, did you notice that Diffaxial just spent 633 words @180 responding to your comment without once addressing the question.StephenB_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT}

Vividbleau @ 179:
What is being lost in the clutter is that Diff still has not kept his promise to StephenB “You promised to defend the proposition that you can, at the same time, remain rational and disavow causality. It was your promise, not mine. ” Diff will this defense be forthcoming? Vivid
Rely upon Stephen's paraphrase of others' remarks at your own peril. My offer was that if Stephen had a sharper accusation, “then we’d have something to discuss.” See mine at 99 and 127. I certainly have discussed. In my discussion I noted that StephenB's Unchanging, Self-evident Truth vis causality has apparently changed. No explanation, no defense, not a word, just a denial unburdened by content and some talk about the weather in the countryside (a fog blanketed the bluff, as I recall). I also noted that his statement that "all causes have effects" is tautological compels the conclusion that "all effects have causes" is also tautological. No explanation, no defense, not a word. I have further noted that reliable and theoretically secure empirical regularities justify my belief that roads do not simply get wet, with no cause, and stated that I find it rational to found my view of the world and actions therein upon those empirical regularities and their theoretical justification. A disconnect here appears to be that Stephen (and others here) apparently believe that only beliefs that are founded upon First Principles may be held rationally, and firmly. (Of course, there is no first principle that can state, without self-referential paradox, that one must rely upon first principles, which is why Stephen's comments about Ayer et al. above belong in middleschool. There is no argument that can compel acceptance of its own foundations.) So, for example, although I have stated that I do not believe that roads can become wet without cause, Stephen insists that, because I do not state on the basis of unassailable first principles that this is impossible, I actually do believe that roads simply get wet without cause (even though I don't), and/or I am hopelessly irrational for believing otherwise. I encountered a similar argument on a previous thread in which it was claimed that, bereft of certain favorite first principles (including belief in God) I should be fearful that the sun will not rise tomorrow, and that my collapse into insanity is imminent, because it is irrational for me to believe otherwise. My response there is applicable here:
Your sunrise argument fails because you are asserting that, absent a basis for unassailable certainty, we should experience anxiety about the sun rising (and similar constancies), yet all the while, by your own description, the maximum confidence offered by the cosmological argument for the persistence of the world is “beyond reasonable doubt,” NOT logical or unassailable certainty. My expectation that the sun will rise in the morning certainly attains the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt,” given the trillion and more sunrises that have gone before, without exception. Your argument - even for those who accept it - offers no greater certainty than that. Hence even those who accept your argument, and “believe” on that basis, are just trading one form of reassurance for another, both of which attain only “beyond reasonable doubt.” Your anxieties should therefore be equal to those of your favorite imaginary atheists who career toward insanity as we speak.
Since I do not share the belief in God that motivates my discussant above, or any confidence that Unchanging, Self-Evident truths accomplish what is claimed for them, these first principles therefore fail to attain for me anything resembling the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt." It doesn't help that, when presented with objections and questions such as the above vis unchanging laws that are changelings, and self-evidence that is admittedly tautological, their primary advocate here talks about the weather. Fortunately, regularities such as trillions of sunrises and the means by which roads become wet, understood against the background of both long collective experience and the relevant sciences, certainly attain that standard. Given the doubts I happen to harbor about the alternative, my choice is as rational as it gets.Diffaxial_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT}

Let me repeat: What is being lost in the clutter is that Diff still has not kept his promise to StephenB “You promised to defend the proposition that you can, at the same time, remain rational and disavow causality. It was your promise, not mine. ” Diff will this defense be forthcoming? Vividvividbleau_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT}

Stephen @ 177:
Everything you have written turns on what you perceive to be a misplaced prepositional phrase.
Baloney. The context of your remarks was a discussion of the implications of quantum theory for causality. The irreducible randomness (within probabilistic limits) of quantum events such as particle decay and the appearance of virtual particle pairs presents a severe challenge to your Unchanging Truth that every effect has a cause, as there are variables within quantum events (the timing of such events, for example) that take values that can be said to be uncaused. There are NO sufficient facts that determine (cause) those quantum values, hidden or otherwise. In an effort to deny that some quantum events and variables may therefore be said to be uncaused, and rescue your view of causality, you attempted to characterize such quantum events as reflecting necessary, but not sufficient conditions, the necessary condition (in the case of virtual particles) being the presence of the quantum vacuum. You argued that absent sufficient conditions they would be spontaneous and unpredictable, yet, having necessary conditions, they were still (you sought to argue) caused. That was the clear content and intent of the entire passage in the context of the give and take of that discussion, an intent that was clear at the time. That clear intent is still plainly evident in the words you used, oft quoted here. Your current attempt to furiously backpedal by means of a preposterous revisionist reading of your words is horsepucky, plain and simple. Indeed, other statements you made then, statements you have recently repeated times many, make no sense within the context of your revisionist reinterpretation, but comport perfectly with the events I describe above. For example, your repeated assertion that BOTH necessary and sufficient conditions must be absent before an event could be said to be uncaused is intelligible only in support of the argument that causality would be sustained in the event that sufficient conditions were absent, but necessary conditions were present (as is suggested by the indeterminacy of quantum events). On your current view, only ONE of those aspects of causality would need be absent for causality to entirely fail, as there would be (on your current reading) no event to discuss were EITHER absent. Therefore there is no need (on your current view) to repeatedly emphasize that BOTH need be absent before an event could be said to be uncaused. In short, the entire context, as well as the entirety of your words, clearly establish that you sought to characterize quantum events as displaying necessary, but not sufficient causal conditions, and further sought to argue that causality was present nonetheless. It was your attempt to rescue causality in light of quantum events. Apparently you are now regretting that the baby went out with the bath water.Diffaxial_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT}

Rob, you need to let it go, you really do. If you believe that logic cannot be tested in the real world of examples, then you simply don't understand the subject. indeed, one of the reasons we provide examples is to test the logic. That way we can distinguish those who know what they are talking about from those who don't. If one cannot make his abstract ideas concrete in some way or illustrate them with real world examples, he doesn't know what he is talking about. He is just blowing smoke with symbols. That is what you are doing. ----"The conclusion makes no sense, so we’re stuck without a sensible interpretation, unless StephenB can offer an alternative to those above. I’m open to any correction in or questions about the logic. We’ll see if we can get over this hurdle before moving on to the rest of the argument." What rest of the argument? Everything you have written turns on what you perceive to be a misplaced prepositional phrase. The conclusion makes perfect sense. If you try reading for context instead of looking for perceived dangling prepositional phrases to twist, you will be far better off. The paragraph in question reflects the argument that there are no uncaused events, meaning that it is emphasizing what is NOT the case rather than affirming what IS the case. Darwinists always miss the context. There is no need to add the additional fact that when an event occurs, a sufficient condition must be present. That point should be obvious. [From the definition of “sufficient cause,” it follows that all physical events require sufficient causes.] So, the point of the passage was not to belabor what everyone knows [except Darwinists], namely that physical events require sufficient causes, but rather to point out what many do not know, namely that there are no causeless events. If you had either read for context or understood the meaning of “sufficient cause,” you would have known that the words, “if, under the circumstances, the physical event occurs,” automatically means, “if sufficient conditions are present.” Apparently, you are taking the words, "under the circumstances," to mean "under the conditions of a solely necessary cause" even though I didn't mean them that way. I meant the words to convey a thought such as, "if, as it turns out." or "if the event does happen." Read for context and stop looking for loopholes. If the phrase wasn't meaningful and reasonably accurate, even as written, I could not have substituted the words as written and converted them into examples. Once the concept of sufficient cause is introduced into the discussion, the phrase "if an event occurs" automatically means that the sufficient conditions were present. Wrap your head around that fact.StephenB_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

I am still unable to make sense of StephenB's argument on the earlier thread in light of his currently stated position. Let's take it a sentence at a time, starting with the following:
If an event requires certain physically NECESSARY conditions to occur, but if those conditions are not SUFFICIENT for its occurrence, and, if under the circumstances, the event occurs, then that event is [A] unpredictable, [B] spontaneous, and [C] Not uncaused.
StephenB says that "under the circumstances" should be interpreted as "as it turns out, sufficient conditions are also present". Okay, we'll do so, but problems remain. Again, so we're not plagued with ambiguity, I'll formalize it. Given that an event occurs, we'll define N as the set of all necessary conditions, and S as the set of all sets of jointly sufficient conditions. From the definitions of necessary and sufficient: (1) ∀X∈S:N⊆X StephenB's currently stated position says: (2) N∈S The most natural meaning of "those conditions are not SUFFICIENT" seems N∉S, which of course contradicts (2), so that can't be right. The only other interpretation I can think of for "those conditions are not SUFFICIENT" is: (3) ∃X⊆N:X∉S But given (1), (3) is true for all N:|N|>1 (assuming that empty sets don't count). So it follows from this sentence that all occurring events that have more than one necessary condition are unpredictable, spontaneous, and not uncaused. (Thus the standing question: What is the difference between a spontaneous and non-spontaneous event?) The conclusion makes no sense, so we're stuck without a sensible interpretation, unless StephenB can offer an alternative to those above. I'm open to any correction in or questions about the logic. We'll see if we can get over this hurdle before moving on to the rest of the argument.R0b_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

---Rob: ""StephenB, your supposed test adds fallacy to fallacy. You are getting tripped up on your own words and symbols. Here is a second example. For Plato, knowledge is sufficient for virtue. For Aristotle, knowledge is necessary but not sufficient for virtue. For Aristotle, both knowledge of the good and a trained will strong enough to follow the good are sufficient. Accordingly, if one knows the good, [a necessary cause] but does not train his will to follow it, his knowledge will not lead to virtue. On the other hand, if I were to say, “If, under the circumstances, x is virtuous, I need not explicitly say that he has trained his will. That is understood. Even if you fail to understand the meanings of the words, the broader point is that I have obviously not changed my position. I have always held that physcial events require both necessary and sufficient causes. That you continue to suggest otherwise does not serve you well.StephenB_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT}

StephenB, your supposed test adds fallacy to fallacy. 1) You cannot test logic by applying it to a specific case and seeing if the conclusion is correct. 2) "one must also X and X" describes necessary conditions, not necessarily sufficient conditions. Because of this mistake, what you ended up showing was that, in this particular case, the occurrence of the event implied the presence of necessary conditions. Of course that's true for all cases by definition of "necessary conditions", so your test is tautological and irrelevant to your conclusion in 171. Your logic in 171 is fallacious because the conclusion does not follow from the two definitions.R0b_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

----Rob: "Until I have time for a longer comment, I’ll point out the the logic in 171 is fallacious. As usual, StephenB doesn’t actually state the logic by which he derives the conclusion, but he appears to be affirming the consequent." The logic at 171 can easily be tested. If an event [graduation] requires certain physically NECESSARY conditions to occur, [being alive in order to graduate] but if those conditions are not SUFFICIENT for its occurrence, [one must also be alive and attend classes] and, if under the circumstances, the event occurs, [graduation], then obviously the person was alive and attended classes.StephenB_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

Until I have time for a longer comment, I'll point out the the logic in 171 is fallacious. As usual, StephenB doesn't actually state the logic by which he derives the conclusion, but he appears to be affirming the consequent.R0b_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

Necessary causes. If x is a necessary cause of y, then the presence of y necessarily implies the presence of x. The presence of x, however, does not imply that y will occur. Sufficient causes: If x is a sufficient cause of y, then the presence of x necessarily implies the presence of y. Because of those definitions, if one uses the phrase, “if an event occurs,” it automatically means that the sufficient cause[s] was [were] present. It is not necessary to make the point explicit with each new correspondence.StephenB_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

---Diffaxial; "Strangely unbidden, Rose Mary Woods stretching to get the phone comes to mind." Perhaps you will, in time, come to learn the meaning of the word, "sufficient."StephenB_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

----Diffaxial: Sorry Steven, I’m not going down any more twisty little passages, all alike with you until you, a) retract your statement that I have lied, and b) circle back to my many times repeated questions regarding your new, ever changing law, “all physical events have causes,” formerly known as, “all effects have causes.” I haven't chaned anaything. Darwinists, like yourself, do not understand that the laws of the mind correspond to the laws of the universe, and therefore, they [and you] confuse epistemological references with metaphysical references.StephenB_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 166:
It is my understanding that you hold that the principle of non-contradiction cannot be used to judge events in the real world...
Sorry Steven, I'm not going down any more twisty little passages, all alike with you until you, a) retract your statement that I have lied, and b) circle back to my many times repeated questions regarding your new, ever changing law, "all physical events have causes," formerly known as, "all effects have causes."Diffaxial_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

StephenB @ 163:
”Under the circumstances” ... was meant to convey the idea “if, as it turns out, sufficient conditions are also present [a perfectly reasonable interpretation]...
LOL! Strangely unbidden, Rose Mary Woods stretching to get the phone comes to mind.Diffaxial_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

---Diffaxial: "The only statement I have ever made vis the law of non-contradiction was to agree that it holds, with a caution that grammatically well formed statements can sometimes be neither true or false, and can therefore be troublesome in a contentious discussion." It is my understanding that you hold that the principle of non-contradiction cannot be used to judge events in the real world. I interpret that to mean that you disupute the notion that the logic of the mind corresponds to the logic of the universe. Or, to put it another way, you don't think that the LNC can be used to make judgments about the existence and non-existence of real world entities. Is that a fair interpretation of your position?StephenB_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

To clarify: Rob and Diffaxial have NOT said that I claimed that physical events can occur without causes. They say that I claimed that physical events can occur without SUFFICIENT causes. That false charge is addressed at 163.StephenB_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT}

----Rob: "In other words, he claims that I am saying that some events can occur without causes." Duly noted. You are saying that I claimed that an event can occur without sufficient causes, not without causes. The latter charge is untrue. Read 163.StephenB_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

---Rob: "Of course, I may be twisting his words with my paraphrasing." Yes, you are. You wrote that I stated that events that occur under necessary but insufficient conditions are spontaneous but not uncaused. Obviously, that is not true. If one introduces the concept of sufficient causes, one is automatically arguing that sufficient causes are required. Necessary causes: If x is a necessary cause of y, then the presence of y necessarily implies the presence of x. The presence of x, however, does not imply that y will occur. Sufficient causes: If x is a sufficient cause of y, then the presence of x necessarily implies the presence of y. It is not necessary to conclude the correspondence with, “don’t forget now, ‘sufficient’ means ‘sufficient.’” You hearken back to these comments that I wrote: If an event requires certain physically NECESSARY conditions to occur, but if those conditions are not SUFFICIENT for its occurrence, and, if under the circumstances, the event occurs, then that event is [A] unpredictable, [B] spontaneous, and [C] Not uncaused. The key phrase you trying to manipulate is ”under the circumstances” which was meant to convey the idea “if, as it turns out, sufficient conditions are also present [a perfectly reasonable interpretation], you are interpreting to mean, “if the event happens solely under the influence of a natural cause." If you perceived an ambiguity in the phrase, the proper way to address it is to ask the author what he meant, and I was available to be asked. You didn't do that. Indeed, after I provided a reframing followed by several examples, you hearkened back to your interpretation and ignored my explanation of what I meant. That is dishonest---and pathetic. In any case, once the word "sufficient" is introduced into the discussion, then physical events can occur only when sufficient conditions are present. That is why the word sufficient was introduced to the concept of causality.StephenB_{August 31, 2009
August
08
Aug
31
31
2009
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 10 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply