But... that's my view. :listening:

The only way it could be wrong if something spontanously popped into existance wether that be energy or matter. I actually mean spontanous not seemingly so.

How can you tell if something isn't spontaneous but just seems that way?

That is the point. It is an impossiblity that something actually did spontaneously appear in the way i described which is why siting any examples is just an appeal to ignorance. The only two possiblities would be we dont know how it happned (appeal to ignorance) or that we know and just the person giving the example doesnt. Spontaneous existance of anything is not consistent with the law of conservation of mass or energy. And contradicts most laws of thermodynamics.

Causal determinism is not a threat to freewill.

The key word in the above paragraph is "necessitated". It's this term that gives the argument its weight. It's also this term that is decidedly unscientific. There's no possible way to test if an event is necessary i.e. it has to happen. You could flip a coin once a second and have it land on heads for the next 1,000 years but you still wouldn't have observed anything necessary. There's no possible way to test between something that has to happen vs. just does happen. In all cases we can only observe what happens. Even if something always happens that doesn't therefore mean that it must happen.

If the following statement is true...

1. You will wear a yellow shirt tomorrow.

...then it is true only because, tomorrow, you, in fact, wear a yellow shirt.

Likewise, if the following statement is true...

2. Nothing accelerates faster than the speed of light.

...then it is true only because, at all times and places, nothing, in fact, ever accelerates faster than the speed of light.

Statements take their truth from the world. The statement "the cat is on the mat" is true iff the cat is on the mat.

Though, some people have it curiously twisted. They think that, in fact, nothing accelerates faster than the speed of light because the statement "nothing accelerates faster than the speed of light" is true! Instead of the statement being true because it corresponds with reality, reality conforms itself to the truth of the statement. That sounds much like the way chanting a magic spell such as "open sesame" can make the world conform to its power.

At this point, most people would say...

"But if it's true that nothing accelerates faster than the speed of light then I can't accelerate faster than the speed of light!"

This is a retreat to logical determinism and this is also a form of the modal fallacy. Strictly speaking, it's not that you can't. It's that you won't. Let's go back to a mundane example. If it's true now that..

3. Tomorrow I will wear a yellow shirt.

...then it seems like I have no choice but to wear a yellow shirt. I can't change my mind. That's false though. The solution to the problem is that (3) is only true because I don't change my mind. If I do change my mind then (3) won't be true. By saying (3) is true we're also implying "I will change my mind and wear blue instead" is false.

If we take this further and make it a law-like statement...

4. Night Ripper only wears yellow shirts.

...then (4) is true only if I never decide to wear a different color of shirt. If one day I decide to wear blue then (4) is false. However, we're already taking (4) as true now. Therefore, I don't (not that I can't) ever change my mind.

The universe isn't governed in the sense that the universe has to behave a certain way. It's rather that the universe can be described with law-like statements. The truth of these statements don't thereby force us into doing anything, however.

You didn't answer my question satisfactorily. You're making a claim that nothing is spontaneous yet there's no possible way for you to provide evidence to support that claim. All you've said so far is that it just "seems spontaneous" but it really isn't. How do you know that it isn't? What method of reasoning gives you this knowledge?

I have stated scientifically proved laws of the universe that contradict the notion. If that isnt enough than nothing will be.

In other words, you have no argument so you're giving up.

No in other words I grow weary of people who fail to evaluate what has been said. I have gave a suffcient answer. All that I am saying is that no ammount of reason or evidence will ever change your mind. If you don't believe in science and in cause and effect just say so. Dont beat around the bush.

I'm not the one making claims that I can't back up with evidence. You are. You made a claim that nothing is spontaneous yet you can't even explain why you believe that. You just make vague appeals to science. Yet, I'm the one with a scientific viewpoint. You're still stuck in the 19th century.

Laws of nature are true descriptions. They are not "governing" or "controlling" decrees of order. The simplest and most rational belief is that the universe is completely contingent and random, everything is spontaneous. We aren't forced to do anything at all.

The simplest and most rational belief is that the universe is completely contingent and random, everything is spontaneous. We aren't forced to do anything at all.

Boy I sure hope I don't spontaneously become pregnant considering I'm a dude. I guess I'll just keep my fingers crossed

Boy I sure hope I don't spontaneously become pregnant considering I'm a dude.

I have backed up EVERY claim. You are just like a theist you are appealing to strawmen and ignorance. By saying that everything is random you did answer my question on wether or not you believe in science and cause and effect. Apparently you believe in neither.

But it it implies that it is a real possibility that you will become with child, it is obviously false.

We can predict it won't happen because we have no evidence that it has happened. How does that tell us whether it's spontaneous or not? You aren't addressing the actual issue of whether or not something happens because it has to or spontaneously.



You have literally no clue what you're talking about. I think we're done.

We can predict it won't happen because we have no evidence that it has happened. How does that tell us whether it's spontaneous or not? You aren't addressing the actual issue of whether or not something happens because it has to or spontaneously.

We can predict it won't happen because we have no evidence that it has happened. How does that tell us whether it's spontaneous or not? You aren't addressing the actual issue of whether or not something happens because it has to or spontaneously.



You have literally no clue what you're talking about. I think we're done.



It's never happened and never will but why isn't it still a real possibility? Do you think that everything that's a real possibility has to eventually happen? But surely somethings are really possible even though they never happen. How do you tell the difference? Is that also just obvious to you? It's not to me.

then claim i never addressed the issue

That comment wasn't directed at you. Pay attention to who is being quoted.

Simply because we cannot say with 100% certainty that something is not logically necessary does not mean that it isn't.

I cannot say for 100% certainty that I'm not in the matrix however it does not follow that because I can't be 100% certain then I must be. It may simply be the case that, yes, I am in fact not in the matrix.

are you saying a reason cannot be established why people cannot simply pop into existence?

If everything is random and the possibilities are endless. (Apparently this is your view if think its possible for a man to become randomly pregnant.)
Is it possible for a square circle to come into existance? of course not. Will you please stop arguing this incredibly dumb point of view.

No, this is not about skepticism. I will take the following (or any other law-like statement) as true for the sake of argument.

1. Nothing ever travels faster than the speed of light.

So, assuming that (1) is true, my claim is, that still doesn't mean that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, only that nothing does travel faster than the speed of light. Do you see the difference?

It has nothing to do with whether or not we can ever know the truth of (1). I'm assuming it's true but that still doesn't imply that it's physically impossible.



Square circles are logically impossible not physically impossible. You don't even understand the different kinds of possibility, which, isn't in itself a bad thing but ignorance and arrogance are a terrible mix.

Subjunctive possibility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia