- 1,425
- 12
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
Not necessarily. That statement can be based off of life experiences stand point not just dealing with the past. It's fairly pragmatic. I should add just because we don't know the cause of something doesn't mean it doesn't have one. But anyway even if it were based off past experiences....Originally Posted by Master Zik
None of the stuff in here are facts, just theories. If there were absolutes we'd have a much better understanding of life.
Take the "everything has a cause" what says that A caused B? Is it based on past experience?
Past experience speaks nothing on the future. Just because I have missed 100 shots int he past, doesn't mean I'm going to miss the next 100 shots. a simple example to prove that the past has no barring on the future, thus there is no proof to this causality except what we think to be causality. What says that because I throw a brick through window, the window has to break? A doesn't have to cause B we just assume it does, thus there is no proof to causality thus can't be a law.
The empirical argument states otherwise. Experience are just our senses; sight, smell, hearing, touch, and taste. If you're looking to "know" something for certain but if you're just generalizing nvm. What was stated is every cause has an effect and every effect has a cause. I don't know if you worded it wrong but throwing a brick through something and at something are two different things, even so you're assuming that all bricks threw windows break. In an example like that there other possible causes. Same for the 100 shots. You're skipping over things that are vital to cause and effect. Ofcourse there's nothing concrete to back up that if you missed a 100 shots you will miss the next 100. The factors of practicing and getting better, probability, and even the possibility that you purposely missed all 100 shots are part of cause and effect.
Anyway like I said though none of this is factual they're basically theories falling under philosophy. When discussing metaphysics and epistemology there are no absolutes. If there were there would be no discussion and this would all be a waste of time.
None of this stuff should be talked about in a sense of "I believe" and "I don't believe" more like "I think" and "I prefer this idea" There all theories that should be considered and then you choose which areas you'd like to further investigate.
I'm not sure your understand what I was saying. What I'm saying is that causality isn't certain. Experience can't prove causality,because it happened before doesn't mean it's going to happen in the future is the point that I was making. What I'm saying is nothing may have acause it just be a bunch of coincidences, that appears to be causality. Whether throwing a brick through or at something, in either case the window doesn'thave to break. I could practice everyday and never make a shot, or never practice and make 1 million shots. Causality is the "everything happens for areason" type idea, but in reality things may not happen for a reson, things may just happen. It's hard to swallow because we like to think theuniverse has order, has purpose, but it is just as logical, if not more logical, that the universe has no order no purpose, the only laws it adhears to are thelaws of math, and thast only because that is how humans are constituted to understand thigns.