Just to be clear...

It was suggested that every event has a cause.

I have two counters to this.

The first is that particular quantum events do not have a cause. It would be an error to talk of cause in discussing why an individual electron traveling through a slit veers right and not left. Similarly, it would be an error to ask why this particular uranium atom emitted an alpha particle now, or why an electron-positron pair appeared here rather than there.

The second is an issue of logic. "Every event has a cause" is an all-and-some proposition and hence can neither be proved, nor disproved. It's best treated as a methodological assumption, legitimising the search for a cause for any given event. It is certainly not one of the laws of thought.

The upshot, for the purposes of this thread, is that we are not compelled to agree that every event has a cause.

I'm not sure who said "every event has a cause," but they are wrong. Everything that undergoes change has a cause, yes, but that is very different from saying everything has a cause.

Another resource everyone should check out is this blog post discussing the cosmological argument (and clearing up lots of misconceptions about its premises) http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html

Furthermore, there is a difference between something being uncaused and something having an indeterministic effect. As someone in the comments to that blog post says: "what does happen in the realm of quantum processes, is that a cause does not have a deterministic effect anymore, but a probabilistic effect."

In other words, there is a big difference between "random effect" and "uncaused effect". Just because scientists can't predict which direction a particle may go in does not mean it is uncaused anymore than the fact that I don't know which side a dice will land on means that it is uncaused.

Everything that undergoes change has a cause, yes, — Michael Nelson

I disagree; or at the least, this is unproven. It seems to me that my counterpoints still apply.

I'll have a read of your link.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html — Michael Nelson

That's very good. Taking it as the basis for a thread on the Cosmological Argument would lead to a far more interesting discussion than is usually the case here.

So I would still say that "what comes into existence has a cause" is at best unproven, and hence any argument stemming from it would be unconvincing.

The first is that particular quantum events do not have a cause. — Banno

This is a statement of speculative physics, of which there are many varieties and no one commonly accepted version. We just aren't there yet. Therefore this statement is not a firm foundation from which to draw conclusions.

Every event has a cause" is an all-and-some proposition and hence can neither be proved, nor disproved. — Banno

Most would agree that an uncaused event is inconceivable. This is why "God" is sometimes used as a name for it. That word connotes, among other things, an insurmountable mystery.

So when speculating that we are not bound to accept causation for all events, one is asserting that the world may be beyond our capacity to imagine except with a placeholder.

Once that is accepted, the door has been opened to a far reaching skepticism.

This is a statement of speculative physics, — frank

Sorry - what? Are you still hoping for hidden variables?

Most would agree that an uncaused event is inconceivable. — frank

inconceivable?

Too strong. You conceive of it in writing that very sentence. So...?

This is why "God" is sometimes used as a name for it. That word connotes, among other things, an insurmountable mystery. — frank

Nah. It connotes a guy sitting on a cloud in charge of stuff. "God help us!", "God knows!", "Pray to God that doesn't happen", "God loves his children", "God said to Abraham..."... This ineffable mystery crap is just tacked on post hoc when we look at the top of the cloud and find it glaringly unoccupied.

You lost me. Not following how what you said relates to the bit you quoted. — Banno

Sure. You claimed that those who demanded every event have a cause were holding such antiquated views because their religion required it, despite current scientific views holding otherwise.

My point was that most mainstream Western religions hold that every event does NOT have a cause as a central tenant of their theological system. The concept of ex nihlio holds that creation came from nothing.

Nah. It connotes a guy sitting on a cloud in charge of stuff. "God help us!", "God knows!", "Pray to God that doesn't happen", "God loves his children", "God said to Abraham..."... This ineffable mystery crap is just tacked on post hoc when we look at the top of the cloud and find it glaringly unoccupied. — Isaac

This is a straw man. @frank specially presented a definition of God that he was working under, but you changed it so that you could offer this criticism.

SO there are uncaused events. Cool. I agree. — Banno

The second is an issue of logic. "Every event has a cause" is an all-and-some proposition and hence can neither be proved, nor disproved. — Banno

Has your view changed over the course of this thread? You seemed to go from a true disbeliever in causation to an agnostic.

frank specially presented a definition of God that he was working under — Hanover

No, he associated it with feelings "most" people have about the inconceivability of uncaused events. He claimed that it was the reason why God was used as a name for it, because of the connotations the word has. I'm denying that there's any evidence the word has those connotations for "most" people and therefore its very unlikely to be the reason why it is used in that way.

Sorry - what? Are you still hoping for hidden variables? — Banno

My hopes aren't the issue. Until we have QT that agrees with relativity, we have incomplete speculations and therefore no basis for metaphysical pronouncements.

You conceive of it in writing that very sentence — Banno

No, I didn't.

I am not sure having a cause and coming from nothing are the same things. That's one. I think an area where virtual particles can arise is a something. There are rules or patterns. There is potential. There's a somewhere. I am not so hinged to causes. In fact, I think this relates to another post of yours where cause is presumed. We'll know it's true if we notice me responding there.:grin:

I am not sure having a cause and coming from nothing are the same things. — Coben

If we take as a given that event X arose without a cause, then it would necessarily follow that event X arose from nothing, right?

I don't think so. But I do feel it is speculative either way. If virtual particles can suddenly arise in a complete vaccuum, i don't think that area was nothing. It has qualities, potentials, rules, tendencies. It's an area where these things happened. Perhaps that means there must also be a cause, perhaps stuff just happens THERE because of the qualities potential of that piece of space.

No, nothingness does not exist. Nothing to something is not possible by definition

Random thoughts:

• Why is there something rather than nothing? Because there has to be something to have nothing of.
• Nothing is the lack of anything. It can be conceived, understood, and communicated. It is something.
• But nothing doesn't exist. It is the necessary non-existent that allows reality.
• But nothingness exists—it is everywhere, in fact. Wherever one may find something, there is nothingness, hiding what isn't there.

Also, physicists don't know nuthin' bout nothing. :roll:

I don't think it is right to say that that contingent things are uncaused. — Michael Nelson

Certainly, "uncaused things" are contingent.