ID on its head

BluffThis writes:

"1) The vast majority of things and processes can be shown to have a cause.
2) Nothing has yet been proved not to have a cause.
3) Therefore, anything that can be observed but at present cannot be attributed to a cause can be assumed to in fact have one."

This is a common line of argument amongst those who support ID.

Of course, these same folks would likely be the first to dismiss the following (all I did was replace "cause" with "scientific explanation"):

"1) The vast majority of things and processes can be shown to have a [scientific explanation].
2) Nothing has yet been proved not to have a [scientific explanation].
3) Therefore, anything that can be observed but at present cannot be attributed to a [scientific explanation] can be assumed to in fact have one."

You may futilely debate #2, but nothing has been proven *not* to have a scientific explanation. In cases like quantum mechanics, there are phenomena for which we don't know the scientific explanation, but this is not the same as proving there is not one, as BluffThis wrote in #2.

Thus, using the very logic and words of BluffThis and the ID crowd, I have just logically "proven" that the universe has a rational scientific explanation.

They can dispute this conclusion, but they will have to tear down their own logic to do it.

[BluffTHIS!]

You should know from my postings that I describe ID as psuedoscientific bunk. Despite their claims not to identify the designer or reconcile the fossil record with a 6000 year intrepretation of time in Genesis, ID is just a front for those who do believe that and who are too stupid to realize that true doctrine and true science theologically can have no conflicts, because they adhere to a set of doctrines that includes many false ones.

And again you misquote me by not referencing a First Cause. You haven't proven squat.

[ QUOTE ]
And again you misquote me by not referencing a First Cause. You haven't proven squat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have proven exactly what you have proven. If you feel that a "there is a first cause" definition serves as a caveat in your logic, then throw in a "there is a unifying theory" as a caveat for the scientific argument. Thus, my proof is exactly the same as yours in structure. The statements are just as true. But you disagree with my conclusion and accept your own conclusion. Thus, you haven't proven squat, either. (which was my point)

BLUFFTHIS:

0) There is a First Cause which is the source of all causes.
1) The vast majority of things and processes can be shown to have a cause.
2) Nothing has yet been proved not to have a cause.
3) Therefore, anything that can be observed but at present cannot be attributed to a cause can be assumed to in fact have one.

KIDLUCKEE:

0) There is a [unifying theory] which is the source of all [scientific explanations].
1) The vast majority of things and processes can be shown to have a [scientific explanation].
2) Nothing has yet been proved not to have a [scientific explanation].
3) Therefore, anything that can be observed but at present cannot be attributed to a [scientific explanation] can be assumed to in fact have one.

Exact same arguments -- your words, your logic. So, I take it you still believe your conclusion is proven but mine isn't?

[BluffTHIS!]

I don't like to get mired in semantic arguements, so I am going to restate my arguement as follows not in syllogistic form:

1) Everything and process has an antecedent cause and is part of a chain of causation
2) No thing or process can be its own cause
3) A chain of causation cannot be of infinite length
4) Therefore, there there is a First Cause of all things and processes.

So I state that you cannot scientifically prove that any of the first 3 statements are invalid and thus they logically lead to the conclusion in #4.

And your attempt to use the term "scientific explanation" in place of "cause" is not correct because it simply is not rigorous enough. A scientific explanation for a process or thing could easily be not a single thing but a miniature causal (explanative) chain. It should also be obvious to you, that should science ever in fact actually prove something like a unified filed theory that eluded Einstein, that such a theory would itself be only a [scientific explanation] of how various things and processes cause [explain] other things and processes, and thus not a cause itself.

Please answer also whether you think Hawking is wrong, since he would agree with what I have said as scientifically sound.

[kbfc]

"So I state that you cannot scientifically prove that any of the first 3 statements are invalid and thus they logically lead to the conclusion in #4."

Really?

[BluffTHIS!]

Do it then champ.

[kbfc]

That was to be read as, "Really? That's a valid implication?"

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
Please answer also whether you think Hawking is wrong, since he would agree with what I have said as scientifically sound.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bluff, where does Hawking state this position? I'd really like to read up on his views regarding many of the positions that people bring up on this board.

[NotReady]

Premise 1 is false because the cause of the universe, that is existence itself, has not been proven and all things and processes in the universe most likely have the same ultimate cause as the universe itself.