collegestudent22 wrote:We know they work because we assume certain things that make them work? That's totally logical then.
It's deductively true. That doesn't make it true, unless deduction is a valid way of seeking truth. You cannot logically prove this, you have to assume it.
Deduction is a valid way of seeking truth! That's what Mathematics is! Nearly all logic is Deductive - It rests on Assumptions! Simple, self-evident assumptions, mostly definitional, about what we mean when we talk about a line or number, or space.
I typed. Text appears on the screen. Pushing 'submit' then sends it out to the server, where you can then download it. This is, by itself, a test of the principle of cause and effect. Your objection is almost identical to objecting to GR because we don't have on-site, experimental proof that it works in some distant, random point in space. Quantum mechanics is not a valid objection, because assuming something is random because you don't know the cause is faulty logic.
No. What you've proved is that your typed message corresponds to that on the screen. Indeed, they may always have that relationship. You might examine the workings of the computer and find evidence to suppose that electrical pulses occur ect., ect. You might prove absolute correspondence between the various physical phenomena - an understood relationship. But that doesn't mean one caused the other. You're making assumptions about how these phenomena work in relation to Time works, about our experience of time. It's a perfectly valid assumption for the most part but it's still an assumption that the evidence doesn't necessitate .
Furthermore, let's say that the empirical evidence alone proves a causal relationship. That doesn't give rise to some general principle that all things must have causes.
Just because x causes y in one circumstance, it doesn't prove that in all future circumstances that for every phenomena, n, there must be some cause, p.
You're not making sense. How can one use induction to apply a theory such as GR, but not a theory of causality - which can be proven by any number of actions. The only possible objection could be QM, but even then, it isn't that we know there is no cause, but that we see no cause. (It's roughly like assuming there is no cause for the wind in ages past.)
GR and all other physical laws are ones about specifics, specific models with specific data to support that model. F=ma is a specific relationship between force, mass and acceleration. Even if we supposed, (as I've said above) that we could prove Casualty in a similar way, you'd only be doing so for the specific phenomena you investigated; typing causes text on the screen. You're not making some far reaching statement that every phenomena must have a cause - it's not Induction.
The definition of change requires Time. Mathematically, it consists of a difference in some property at different points in Time. Without Time, the concept of change is meaningless, and yet you claim that change occurred.
Nonsense. Mathematics (or rather Calculus - the study of change) can have things change in relation to everything, Xs, Ts, all sorts of abstract quantities. In Economics you can change in relation to quantity. Change is just the idea that one thing alters in relation to the alteration of something else.
Something must have motivated a change from a singularly dense point to an unfolding universe. "It just happened" isn't any more logically valid than a belief in a God that exists in another time-like dimension causing it, even if you assume a priori that God does not exist.
Perhaps, and couldn't that change have occurred from within the singularly dense point? According to some specific law. I mean because it's only within that point that time exists, which by your logic (in which time is necessary for change) makes it the only place it could have happened. Outside of that point there is no time, no potential for change surely? All dimensions collapse in on themselves with the Universe.
Also my belief isn't a priori, that'd be silly. Well actually... Elements of God seem mutually self-contradictory - at least the specific elements as are usually advanced: contradictory even in the abstract.
I didn't say it does nothing. I said it isn't testable. It does quite a bit - on a spiritual, emotional, and intellectual level. I, personally, have been inspired and uplifted after praying. Rarely, however, will it do anything directly on a physical level.
Sure, but let's suppose God didn't exist for a moment. Prayer would still have an emotional affect right? So the Power of Prayer can only be taken as evidence for God if (as indeed most people who pray think) it affects the vicissitudes of the physical world then it will be measurable in the physical world, surely?
“People understand me so poorly that they don't even understand my complaint about them not understanding me.”
~ Soren Kierkegaard