I instantiate that everything in this world has a cause and effect, per the PoSR. — Shawn

That's it?

In logic, it's called material implication — Shawn

Hmm. that strikes me as a stretch. It would require that "everything in this world has a cause and effect" is the very same as p⊃q ⊢ ~p v q. I can't see how that would work.

in science it's called a cause for every effect. — Shawn

Well, every cause has an effect simply because what we mean by effect in such cases is simply something that has been caused. Better to claim that science thinks "everything in this world has a cause and effect"

But I don't see that as a scientific principle. Indeed, it is not hard to find uncaused events.

I tend to agree. We seem to demand everything have a causal explanation. But what if something just don't have any? For example:

That something can come from absolutely nothing. We cannot conceive of how this could be possible, but it may.

But this would move us from your OP.

Principle of Sufficient Reason falls apart at the atomic and sub-atomic level. Events happen randomly with no prior cause. Particles randomly pop into existence out of of nowhere. These events do follow certain statistical laws/patterns, but each individual event has no prior cause or reason. There is no cause & effect at the quantum level.

Better to claim that science thinks "everything in this world has a cause and effect" — Banno

Yes, I agree.

But I don't see that as a scientific principle. Indeed, it is not hard to find uncaused events. — Banno

I believe that Quantum Mechanics, which you allude to, isn't a sufficient reason to do away with the PoSR altogether. It's a powerful tool in estimating the soundness of beliefs subject to reason.

Am I mistaken on this?

The world makes little sense without a center. Call it Brahmin or Spinoza's God. In fact if I remember correctly Spinoza says in the Ethics that God created the world through us. At least that's how the post-Kantian idealist understood him.

That something can come from absolutely nothing. We cannot conceive of how this could be possible, but it may.

But this would move us from your OP. — Manuel

I seem to think that even with this fact considered, there are grounds for believing that what Hawking meant with his estimation that God need not be invoked to account for the fact that there is something rather than nothing is intriguing. So, additionally, the ex nihilo argument seems satisfied if there are indeed uncaused events ascribed to Nature.

How did this purely internal thing come to be? — Valentinus

We don't know

If it is separated from all the other stuff, when did that happen? — Valentinus

The mystical side of life offers view answers that can be expressed with certainty

And if one is to accept such a possibility, why bother trying to make sense of other things that are not like that if the internal thing is primary? — Valentinus

Well we are bodies. God is in our consciousness, which has a mystical side

Yes true. But that's one instance where the definition of the PoSR was not fully fulfilled.

The world makes little sense without a center. — Gregory

Well, going down that path, many people believed that the Earth was at the center of the universe or that the sun orbited the Earth. Strange and ungrounded beliefs.

I understand those answers but will ask if that means you have no interest in causes, as discussed in the thread.

Am I mistaken on this? — Shawn

Well, let's explore.

PSR = everything in this world has a cause and effect

Now this clearly falls into the logical category of haunted-universe doctrines. It can't be proved, because we are incapable of examining every instance of an effect. Nor can it be disproved, since if we come across an example of an effect for which we cannot find a cause, we might conclude not that there is no such cause but only that we have not yet found it.

SO it's not an empirical notion.

Is it a methodological notion? Does it tell us what we might do, is we are to act in a scientific fashion? In that case, isn't it too strong? We might indeed look for a cause for any event, but we cannot assume ahead of our investigations that there must be one... Nor need we assume that there must be a cause in order to look for a cause. It is open to us to look without such an expectation.

Hence it seems to me that PSR is not needed for either science nor for logic.

Hence it seems to me that PSR is not needed for either science nor for logic. — Banno

But, when encountering all encompassing beliefs of notions such as God, it seems necessary to attribute the PoSR to explaining the notion that God is not needed to explain why there is something rather than nothing or ex nihilo arguments alike.

I understand those answers but will ask if that means you have no interest in causes, as discussed in the thread. — Valentinus

I side with the materialists who that science can explain the world on an empirical level.

Well, going down that path, many people believed that the Earth was at the center of the universe or that the sun orbited the Earth. Strange and ungrounded beliefs. — Shawn

Look at general relativity. It explains the world as interactions of reference frames. But what connects one consciousness to another is the spiritual side of us, otherwise GR leads to solipsism

I believe that Quantum Mechanics, which you allude to, isn't a sufficient reason to do away with the PoSR altogether. — Shawn

Well, there seems to be nothing that causes an individual electron to veer right or left on egressing a slit. SO there is that.

But also, and apart from quantum, which it is always a bad sigh to see in a thread, there is reason to think classical physics is not determinate.

Now I want to be very careful with the argument I am presenting. It is not necessary to present an example of an uncaused event to carry my case. That there are scientific considerations which do not rely on PSR is sufficient to show that PSR is not a principle on which science relies.

SO it's not an empirical notion. — Banno

The PoSR is not an empirical notion, you say?

So, what methodology would you propose instead of assuming the PoSR in science?

Either way, if you assume that Nature has uncaused events such as the birth of the universe, then it doesn't seem logical to assume the existence of a creator.

all have had profound experiences that reveal such truths to them. — Manuel

Subjective experiences are not evidential, not admissible in the Court of Mikey as evidence; the only evidence which is admissible is objective in nature, and perceptible by those other than the claimant. If an objectively perceptible proof is manifested that any God exists, then that proof must be phenomenologically physical by definition, meaning that the phenomenon cited as proof must obey the laws of physics (that is, by the laws of mechanics) and be measurable by instrumentation, and so natural, which would then render this hypothetical God a natural being...something which exists in the realm of nature. (Now, how's that for some stream of consciousness shit?)

We might indeed look for a cause for any event, but we cannot assume ahead of our investigations that there must be one — Banno

I am familiar with pursuits of causes that become too enmeshed with circumstances to separate one influence from another. Are you suggesting something else? Things happen because of agents we do not understand but outside of that sort of causality?

But, when encountering all encompassing beliefs of notions such as God, it seems necessary to attribute the PoSR to explaining the notion that God is not needed to explain why there is something rather than nothing. — Shawn

I'm not sure what this says.

Are you now arguing that while PSR is not needed for logic nor for science, it is needed for god?

Then do away with god.

Look at general relativity. It explains the world as interactions of reference frames. But what connects one consciousness to another is the spiritual side of us, otherwise GR leads to solipsism — Gregory

I'm not quite interested in invoking unique theories to rationalize away. It's not of concern to me that QM is not subject to scrutiny under the PoSR.

I'm more concerned with working methodologies for examining the phenomenon whether God is necessary to explain existence itself.

The article I cited argues that uncertainty is found in classical as well as quantum physics. AN easier version can be found at Has physics ever been deterministic?

The argument for PSR is, as I understand it, that it is necessary to assume PSR in order to do science. My purpose is to question that argument.

God is not needed to explain why there is something rather than nothing — Shawn

This would be the beginning of the path to disprove God, that 'Nothing' cannot be, making the base something not to be an option but mandatory, it having no alternative or opposite; thus, no supernatural magic is required.

It is not necessary to present an example of an uncaused event to carry my case. That there are scientific considerations which do not rely on PSR is sufficient to show that PSR is not a principle on which science relies. — Banno

Yes, I agree. But, at a more fundamental level logic relies on the PoSR, doesn't it?

logic relies on the PoSR, doesn't it? — Shawn

How? If material implication is PSR, then

It would require that "everything in this world has a cause and effect" is the very same as p⊃q ⊢ ~p v q. I can't see how that would work. — Banno

If material implication is PSR, — Banno

Wouldn't it be just the same as mathematics working in physics? In math doesn't work in physics then what's the point of physics at that point?

I'm more concerned with working methodologies for examining the phenomenon whether God is necessary to explain existence itself. — Shawn

I agree that logical applies to the world (nothing comes from nothing, everything has a cause), but this doesn't prove an external God imo

Subjective experiences are not evidential, not admissible in the Court of Mikey as evidence; the only evidence which is admissible is objective in nature, and perceptible by those other than the claimant. — Michael Zwingli

I agree.

Many people do not. You hear people speaking of "my truth" or "it's true to me" all the time. Yeah, such statements aren't suitable for logic, given the context. But people will continue to use it as evidence.

proof must be phenomenologically physical by definition, meaning that the phenomenon cited as proof must obey the laws of physics and be measurable by instrumentation, and so natural, — Michael Zwingli

Yes.

If there is a God it would have to be a natural and/or physical being.

everything has a cause — Gregory

But, that is not to say that every phenomenon is purposeful, just that it is caused.

Wouldn't it be just the same as mathematics working in physics? In math doesn't work in physics then what's the point of physics at that point? — Gregory

What? I'm not following that.

I'm not sure what this says.

Are you now arguing that while PSR is not needed for logic nor for science, it is needed for god?

Then do away with god. — Banno

Out of my dealing with reading a little of Spinoza and his necessitarianism or Schopenhauer and his haunted world, it seems to me that the PoSR is a hinge proposition upon which beliefs are better scrutinized, especially when confronting notions of God's existence.

Please keep in mind that just because nature might not obey the PoSR, actually implies that our understanding of it is imperfect. But, science has done very well with assuming that there is a cause and effect for every phenomena in nature and at the heart of it that's just human intelligibility at it's core. Unless, we come up with a better way (if intelligible to deal with how we rationalize things in the World).