What is matter?

[untermensche]

Just give me a possible way there can be a behavior with no cause and I will believe we don't know.

How could "no cause" do anything?

Please elaborate.

I have no idea.

How could everything have a cause? I have no idea how that works either - BOTH options appear to be logically impossible.

You like your infinite regress? Fine. That doesn't make it reasonable, much less certain.

And stop trying to shift the burden of proof. You are making a positive claim. Support it, or GTFO.

That's like saying, "How is it possible to know every human was born?"

 

[bilby]

I have no idea.

How could everything have a cause? I have no idea how that works either - BOTH options appear to be logically impossible.

You like your infinite regress? Fine. That doesn't make it reasonable, much less certain.

And stop trying to shift the burden of proof. You are making a positive claim. Support it, or GTFO.

That's like saying, "How is it possible to know every human was born?"

And your position is like saying "Every human has two humans for parents, therefore humans must have always existed".

You have two options, both of which appear to be impossible. You have made an error by choosing one to dogmatically believe and defend. Obviously there is something we don't know that either allows for a first cause, or that allows for an infinite regress of causes. But there is not one shred of evidence to indicate which is the better choice. You have stated your preference, which is fine. But to insist that your preference must be correct is stupid. Opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one, and often they are full of shit.

 

[fromderinside]

That's like saying, "How is it possible to know every human was born?"

Discovery of the immaculate thought.

Consider the world has always existed, exists now, will exist eternally. Why must there be causes?

Things bump into things. Causes? Why? Is time necessary?

Now back to the story.

Someone was stalking them in the shadows. King rubbed against Sargent Preston's leg alerting him of the danger. Preston felt something cool coursing down his leg. Is this the end of the famous team?

 

[untermensche]

Consider the world has always existed, exists now, will exist eternally. Why must there be causes?

The only real question is; How can there be causes?

 

[bilby]

Consider the world has always existed, exists now, will exist eternally. Why must there be causes?

The only real question is; How can there be causes?

No it isn't. There are loads of real questions.

'Do Geckos lay eggs, or give birth to live young?' for example; or 'How long can a penguin hold its breath?'.

Your insistence that you have some special insight into what the 'only' questions are is probably the root cause of your incoherence.

 

[untermensche]

That's like saying, "How is it possible to know every human was born?"

And your position is like saying "Every human has two humans for parents, therefore humans must have always existed".

You have two options, both of which appear to be impossible. You have made an error by choosing one to dogmatically believe and defend. Obviously there is something we don't know that either allows for a first cause, or that allows for an infinite regress of causes. But there is not one shred of evidence to indicate which is the better choice. You have stated your preference, which is fine. But to insist that your preference must be correct is stupid. Opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one, and often they are full of shit.

No. My position is like saying "Every human has two parents, therefore any human you could possibly meet had two parents".

"Cause" is not a specific, and all you have to produce is an effect and prove it had no cause to demonstrate such a thing is possible.

You haven't even demonstrated "without a cause" has any meaning what-so-ever.

As far as you've shown it is some fantasy like Casper the Ghost.

 

[untermensche]

The only real question is; How can there be causes?

No it isn't. There are loads of real questions.

'Do Geckos lay eggs, or give birth to live young?' for example; or 'How long can a penguin hold its breath?'.

Your insistence that you have some special insight into what the 'only' questions are is probably the root cause of your incoherence.

That was a direct response to somebody else and in it the words "only real question" have a specific context.

Only the most desperate mind and stillborn imagination could think it referred to all contexts.

 

[bilby]

And your position is like saying "Every human has two humans for parents, therefore humans must have always existed".

You have two options, both of which appear to be impossible. You have made an error by choosing one to dogmatically believe and defend. Obviously there is something we don't know that either allows for a first cause, or that allows for an infinite regress of causes. But there is not one shred of evidence to indicate which is the better choice. You have stated your preference, which is fine. But to insist that your preference must be correct is stupid. Opinions are like arseholes. Everyone has one, and often they are full of shit.

No. My position is like saying "Every human has two parents, therefore any human you could possibly meet had two parents".

"Cause" is not a specific, and all you have to produce is an effect and prove it had no cause to demonstrate such a thing is possible.

You haven't even demonstrated "without a cause" has any meaning what-so-ever.

As far as you've shown it is some fantasy like Casper the Ghost.

I don't have to demonstrate shit.

YOU are making the claim. YOU have the burden of proof. YOU have not presented any evidence. YOU can therefore be assumed to be wrong until YOU prove otherwise.

And note, you are claiming 'X'; I am countering that both 'X' and 'not X' lead to logical contradictions; any argument from you of the form 'not X leads to a logical contradiction, therefore X' doesn't address my position at all, much less refute it.

 

[bilby]

No it isn't. There are loads of real questions.

'Do Geckos lay eggs, or give birth to live young?' for example; or 'How long can a penguin hold its breath?'.

Your insistence that you have some special insight into what the 'only' questions are is probably the root cause of your incoherence.

That was a direct response to somebody else and in it the words "only real question" have a specific context.

Only the most desperate mind and stillborn imagination could think it referred to all contexts.

Or someone who was engaged in a battle of wits against an unarmed opponent, who was looking to inject some levity into the thread - given that reasoning with you is evidently impossible.

You are REALLY bad at this 'thinking of other possibilities' business, aren't you. It's almost impressive, the way you latch on to a single thought, and just refuse to consider anything else at all.

 

[untermensche]

No. My position is like saying "Every human has two parents, therefore any human you could possibly meet had two parents".

"Cause" is not a specific, and all you have to produce is an effect and prove it had no cause to demonstrate such a thing is possible.

You haven't even demonstrated "without a cause" has any meaning what-so-ever.

As far as you've shown it is some fantasy like Casper the Ghost.

I don't have to demonstrate shit.

YOU are making the claim. YOU have the burden of proof. YOU have not presented any evidence. YOU can therefore be assumed to be wrong until YOU prove otherwise.

And note, you are claiming 'X'; I am countering that both 'X' and 'not X' lead to logical contradictions; any argument from you of the form 'not X leads to a logical contradiction, therefore X' doesn't address my position at all, much less refute it.

Of course you don't have to do anything.

You can say, I will not engage.

But it is you that is making a positive claim.

You are claiming "without a cause" is a possibility.

So it is up to you to prove it is a possibility and tell us what it is.

Is it some invisible friend or is it just a string of words? Is it anything worthy of any consideration at all?

Of course it is completely up to you if you want to rationally engage.

But it is most definitely up to you to demonstrate this thing "without a cause" is a thing anybody should spend one second believing exists.

 

[bilby]

I don't have to demonstrate shit.

YOU are making the claim. YOU have the burden of proof. YOU have not presented any evidence. YOU can therefore be assumed to be wrong until YOU prove otherwise.

And note, you are claiming 'X'; I am countering that both 'X' and 'not X' lead to logical contradictions; any argument from you of the form 'not X leads to a logical contradiction, therefore X' doesn't address my position at all, much less refute it.

Of course you don't have to do anything.

You can say, I will not engage.

Yes; and I should. But it's like driving past a pile-up on the freeway - you don't want to look, but you just can't help it.

 

[untermensche]

Of course you don't have to do anything.

You can say, I will not engage.

Yes; and I should. But it's like driving past a pile-up on the freeway - you don't want to look, but you just can't help it.

I am not laughing at you.

I am partially sickened by you.

So you have chosen not to engage. Fine. Thanks for trying.

 

[skepticalbip]

Silly goose. What the hell does that have to do with what anyone has said? You are the only one I see stating absolutes. "We don't know that which we don't know" is a long way from meaning what you want it to mean.

So how about offering some support for your confident assertions.

You are claiming we do know.

You claim we do know we do not know.

I claim we know.

If we claim we know there are only two options, so we should start by simplifying and assuming we do know. I hope you can comprehend that assuming is used to explore an option. It is not any dogmatic claim.

1. For there to be behavior there is a cause.

2. There can be behavior without a cause.

So let's explore option 2.

What does "without a cause" mean? Is it even a logical conception or merely just words strung together?

Here we get stuck of course because I can't dogmatically define "without a cause".

So that is for the people who say we don't know to define.

Option 1 is something observed. Option 2 is not.

So for the people who say option 2 is possible, and therefore "we don't know" it is up to them to define "without a cause".

What could that possibly mean?

Loads of semantic bullshit like that is acceptable in the philosophy forum. Move over there is you want to prattle such nonsense.

I have so far refrained from asking a mod if they would move your posts that are obviously not suited for the science forum to a suitable forum (if there is one) but, if this is what you now want to post, I may ask them if they agree.

 

[untermensche]

You are claiming we do know.

You claim we do know we do not know.

I claim we know.

If we claim we know there are only two options, so we should start by simplifying and assuming we do know. I hope you can comprehend that assuming is used to explore an option. It is not any dogmatic claim.

1. For there to be behavior there is a cause.

2. There can be behavior without a cause.

So let's explore option 2.

What does "without a cause" mean? Is it even a logical conception or merely just words strung together?

Here we get stuck of course because I can't dogmatically define "without a cause".

So that is for the people who say we don't know to define.

Option 1 is something observed. Option 2 is not.

So for the people who say option 2 is possible, and therefore "we don't know" it is up to them to define "without a cause".

What could that possibly mean?

Loads of semantic bullshit like that is acceptable in the philosophy forum. Move over there is you want to prattle such nonsense.

I have so far refrained from asking a mod if they would move your posts that are obviously not suited for the science forum to a suitable forum (if there is one) but, if this is what you now want to post, I may ask them if they agree.

If we want to talk about something to laugh about.

This idea that there is no philosophy in science is the most laughable ignorance one can spew.

So you have given up trying to engage as well.

Perhaps there may be somebody willing to engage in this scientific question: Can there be behavior without cause?

We of course can't do experiments here. But we can certainly ask the question. Is the concept "without a cause" even something to scientifically examine?

 

[bilby]

...we can certainly ask the question. Is the concept "without a cause" even something to scientifically examine?

We certainly can; but to do so would clearly be Philosophy, and not Natural Science.

 

[skepticalbip]

This idea that there is no philosophy in science is the most laughable ignorance one can spew.

There is obviously real philosophy in science, however not the semantic backflips that you call philosophy. Einstein engaged in some very meaningful philosophy. He saw the piles of data showing that no matter how or where the speed of light of light was measured it always was measured at the same speed. This was contrary to everything that science believed at the time so he pondered what the hell it could mean. His long philosophical pondering of the seemingly crazy data eventually led to the Theory of Relativity. Current cosmology is primarily an exercise in philosophy.

 

[untermensche]

...we can certainly ask the question. Is the concept "without a cause" even something to scientifically examine?

We certainly can; but to do so would clearly be Philosophy, and not Natural Science.

So you engage, but then whatever, you decide to stop engaging for some reason I don't care about.

THEN you claim the whole thing belongs somewhere else.

Only one word to describe it.

Pathetic.

 

[bilby]

We certainly can; but to do so would clearly be Philosophy, and not Natural Science.

So you engage, but then whatever, you decide to stop engaging for some reason I don't care about.

THEN you claim the whole thing belongs somewhere else.

Only one word to describe it.

Pathetic.

I wouldn't be quite that harsh, but I have asked for the derail to be moved to Philosophy, where I need not be surprised by how pathetic it is.

 

[untermensche]

This idea that there is no philosophy in science is the most laughable ignorance one can spew.

There is obviously real philosophy in science, however not the semantic backflips that you call philosophy. Einstein engaged in some very meaningful philosophy. He saw the piles of data showing that no matter how or where the speed of light of light was measured it always was measured at the same speed. This was contrary to everything that science believed at the time so he pondered what the hell it could mean. His long philosophical pondering of the seemingly crazy data eventually led to the Theory of Relativity. Current cosmology is primarily an exercise in philosophy.

Science is most definitely discussion as to what could possibly be examined and how.

The reason we don't find this concept "without a cause" taught in any science class is because it is just illogical nonsense. It has no real meaning and certainly no existence.

- - - Updated - - -

So you engage, but then whatever, you decide to stop engaging for some reason I don't care about.

THEN you claim the whole thing belongs somewhere else.

Only one word to describe it.

Pathetic.

I wouldn't be quite that harsh, but I have asked for the derail to be moved to Philosophy, where I need not be surprised by how pathetic it is.

Wherever it is moved your failure to engage is clearly seen.

 

[skepticalbip]

There is obviously real philosophy in science, however not the semantic backflips that you call philosophy. Einstein engaged in some very meaningful philosophy. He saw the piles of data showing that no matter how or where the speed of light of light was measured it always was measured at the same speed. This was contrary to everything that science believed at the time so he pondered what the hell it could mean. His long philosophical pondering of the seemingly crazy data eventually led to the Theory of Relativity. Current cosmology is primarily an exercise in philosophy.

Science is most definitely discussion as to what could possibly be examined and how.

The reason we don't find this concept "without a cause" taught in any science class is because it is just illogical nonsense. It has no real meaning and certainly no existence.

- - - Updated - - -

So you engage, but then whatever, you decide to stop engaging for some reason I don't care about.

THEN you claim the whole thing belongs somewhere else.

Only one word to describe it.

Pathetic.

I wouldn't be quite that harsh, but I have asked for the derail to be moved to Philosophy, where I need not be surprised by how pathetic it is.

Wherever it is moved your failure to engage is clearly seen.

Aside from the rather confused and meaningless response to my post, you really don't want to post responses like that to bilby. That looks like goading to me which is frowned on by the powers that be.