IAP Political Forum

One of my pet peeves is when people try to tell me that everything happens for a reason.  Where is your evidence for this? Who is making these things happen for a reason?  When a kid chases a ball out onto the street and gets run over, it happened for a reason?  Did some magic man decide this kid needed to die?  Is there some spirit world that decided this? What force is acting on these events?

My cousin had his first baby the other day. (first grandchild in the fam) This baby girl was born on the anniversary of my grandmothers death.  Her middle name, which they had picked out prior to the birth is the same as our grandmother.

WOW! THIS MUST MEAN SOMETHING!!  :laugh: :laugh:

Lets look at this with a little logic and reason.

They had a 50 50 chance of having a boy or girl.

There is a 2 in 365 chance that this baby would be born on this anniversary of grandmas death or on her birthday.  Unlikely but certainly not a long shot.

They made her middle name the same as grandmas.  My cousin and grandma were very close. This is the first grandchild in the family.  I think its reasonable and maybe even expected to use grandmas name to honor her.  Plus her name was Leslie so its not like they had to give her an old school bad sounding name.

What kind of mental state do you have to be in to believe some magical force made this happen?  How could you not pick my above reasoning?  Do people enjoy lying to themselves and playing make believe?  It sounds nice so lets go ahead and believe it? Do we really need to give every special coincidence some meaning? 

Is there a teleos to the cosmos? Is there a presence or will or impulse, that gives the universe a broad direction? Is there a self transcending drive at the heart of the cosmos? Is what we see random chance or directionality, the hand and will of God or Spirit?

If your soul has never experienced contact with God; Then the only way you have of looking at this universe is from the viewpoint of materialism. Your world view only goes to the depth of the material. So everything , all of it that you see or can imagine, all of you is only the result of chance.

If you have had contact with God presence, and I think that the classic mystic teachers, like John of the cross and Christ's words about poverty have to be heeded, because only real poverty, not money, but ego, being very humble, allows you to see or to feel or to know that God is real. Then it makes more sense when people say things happen for a reason. Its impossible to know for sure if any given specific incident is ordained but people can feel confidence in knowing that God is at work in the universe in general.

I get that way to. Try telling neorealist that the Cubs lost for a reason, he'll bitch slap you.

It really is stupid. It's something people tell themselves to make them feel better about shitty things happening to them. I much rather go with the phrase "shit happens". Because as Forrest Gump says: sometimes. Sometimes shit happens, sometimes it doesn't.

Well, I am not a christian but sometimes I use the expression "Everything happens for a reason".

I think the equivalent can be applied across many religions, eg karma, Allah's will. It sort of means the same thing. It is like a destiny sort of thinking.

The way I think, it is like a coincidence mixed with destiny. I mean, think about the people who post in IAP. Most were total coincidence, we happened to google on a specifc day and IAP came up. Then we posted which lead to other events. It is one big chain reaction, caused by luck, coincidence with actions.

Anyway, I am not sure if all that made any sense. It made sense in my head but when I re read this post, it seemed to make less sense.  :-[

So, Delta, do you like your neice? Is she cute or what? :)

If shes my cousins daughter is she my niece?

Ya, shes cute. 

Kind of, maybe a second cousin. I'm not sure.

Things happen no need for reason. 

A simple answer, but i think it to be the most complicated.

When you try to reason the reasons for why something happens you should just concluded it happened. 

You can't be exact with probabilities; you can only assume. 

You think your getting closer as you approach zero; think about what zero is: Zero is undefined so ultimately your reaching nothing.

"Everything is the same, even though it's different."

I think everything has a cause.  The reasoning behind the cause is not fully understood and you cannot fully understand that reason.

Cause and reason are not the same thing.

I don't think anyone said they were.  I certainly did not.  Perhaps you need to reread the quote.

I would state that until you can fully understand the cause, you cannot undertand the underlying reason if there is one.

Then I'd agree with your clarification (this is slightly different from what you said 1st time round). Since we don't have infinite knowledge of everything we cannot 100% rule out some objective reason for everything. But we have no reason to believe there is one.

Its the same thing.  You make too many assumptions.

I see an abundance of evidence from this world that indicates a higher purpose and reason for why the world works the way it does.  IamMe, I am currious what makes you say there is no reason to believe there is a higher purpose or reason beyond basic cause and effect.

Here we go again.

EDITED.

See "Forum Civility" at top of page.

What part of the thread do you not understand?

D9, you wouldn't believe in destiny or karma then?

I think the "everything happens for a reason" and destiny is illogical in many ways, and I am not a christian, but for some strange reason I tend to tell it to myself a lot.

 

I agree, this kind of post hoc rationalization floods the ranks of the religious and "spiritual" alike. I often hear it most from the New Ager's, the Theists simply say their version: "god did it for a reason".

I used to have a I Ching book and would ask a question, then toss some coins.  Guess what: EVERY QUESTION WAS ANSWERED!  It was a miracle!

"I Ching, will I go out with Lotte?" (I was in highschool...)

I Ching: "The horses drawn for war will be aligned in defensive position..."

"YEs!  Thats a clear sign!"


This is the same thing that happens with people who comb the OT for prophesies, or Kabalaists, or ID'ists.

It's trying to apply a pattern to a random event and making meaning out of it. We are mythmaking animals. We excel at this.

It doesn't make it objectively true.

One if forced to ask the question.

If you have a limited intellect and cannot figure out a reason, does it mean that no reason exists?  Or merely that you have exhausted your own ability to reason it out?

An observer watches two chess masters.  He sees some moves that make sense and he sees some moves he cannot understand.  Suddenly one of the masters, for no apparent reason, resigns.

Was the chess master who resigned illogical?  Or was the observer simply over his head?  Does the observer suddenly say to the audience, this game has no reason behind it.  Crap happens and we cannot know how or why the game went the way it did.  Of course some observers who have not exceeded their capacity to understand, they do see much of the logic behind the game, and they can reason.

Of course the observer could just be arrogant and say, well, since I can't figure it out, it must simply be random and not reasoned.

 ??? Poor observer, he is confused, but has faith in his ability, even when he might well be wrong.

I have come to the conclusion that you simply try logic as another vehicle to spew ad homs.  Its sad that you fail so miserably at both.

Read up on logical fallacies. Special Pleading, Argument from Ignorance, non sequiter and Category Error would be a great start.  You've committed all of these in record time.

And your whole premise relies on the fallacy: Post hoc ergo propter hoc, but you use a Straw Man to prop it up.



edit: btw, you are right that if you can't understand the reason for something it doesn't mean there isn't a reason. Determinism covers this nicely, as does Metholodogical Materialism.  You are simply making a claim of something that hasn't been shown to exist in the first place.  You need to prove that your "chess master" exists.

LOL, your non answer says more about you than you care to admit.  By the way you aren't even using the arguments correctly.  You should read up on them.

Sigh, another corner for you and you can't get out of it.

I am right, you are the observer, who doesn't understand the chess game, and therefore assumes through your ignorance that there can be no reason to it.  :-\

::)  Apparently you hadn't observed my Check Mate. Just because you can't explain an action doesn't mean you can jump to any conclusion you want.  Perhaps the "chess master" really was confused.  Perhaps the "chess master" is the observer and the poster: a Trinity of Raca's.

You don't get it.  You do exactly that, you jump to a conclusion.  You can't "reason" out something so you declare there is no reason for it.

You make an assumption because you can't understand the game.

Baldar, please get this through your head: in the context of what we are talking about:

An event happens, and someone declares "it happened for a reason".  I claim that there is no reason to think that it did, it could have just been chance, and until evidence presents itself, I see no reason to think it is something else.

You are already contructing an invisible chess game, with Masters toppling pieces, etc.

In the context of what we are talking about: WHAT GAME?  You haven't shown there IS a game in the first place, let alone tie it to the cause of an event.

Even if you somehow, miraculously showed a "Big Chess Game in the Sky" existed, you'd have to show the connection between the Game and the event.

You have only made the claim that a "chess game" exists. I am not agnostic about your chess game. I don't believe that it exists. I don't bleieve there are Chess Mssters in the sky.

I am not responsible to disprove your dellusion.

If must be hard for you....  :-[

When you start responding to yourself is a good time for me to take my leave.

We will assume you can't show there is some "Chess Game in the Sky" and just claim it exists.

Perhaps you can't seem to understand (which illustrates my point and when others wake up, I am sure they will see it too), that if you can't fathom the reason for something, it doesn't mean no reason exists.

If it is complicated for you, it is only because you will dance through hoops rather than admit as much.  ;)

Is this argument different than 'does god exist?' If god (all knowing and all powerful) exists than clearly everything happens for His reasons. If not I can't think of anywhere to put responsibility for everything other that quantum hijinx (randomness)

Likewise those who put their faith in determinism and methodological materialism, which like the chess master, neither one of these philosophies has been shown to be correct have much to answer for.  The idea that everything can be reduced to material causation is very poorly supported by the evidence and observation from this world.  On the very key points, materialism and determinism utterly fail.  Determinism directly contradicts the social patterns that support and enable societies to function.  Free choice and chance are foundational that if treated as false would remove the mechanisms of accountability and make law and order impossible.   Methodological materialism has a blind spot that makes it impossible for those who subscribe to it to even consider non-materialistic explanations.  Therefore the cause of any event that might actually have a non-materialistic explanation (many candidates exist including the cause of this universe, the physical laws guiding this universe, life from non-life, development of high order biological components and functions,  and many documented historical events) can never be discovered by this prejudicial philosophy.

But more often than not when a Christian remarks that this or that or everything happens for a reason, they are not claiming that an undetectable force actively conspired to cause a particular thing to happen.  Most often they are acknowledging their belief in a higher purpose for this world and life in it.  This belief seems well supported by the evidence from this world, our own ability to be introspective, and the conclusions most reach when we do introspect without bias.

As an unsupported statement this is just tripe. It is the very success of reductionism that makes it such a strong doctrine.  I would never claim that it has all the answers, but comparatively speaking, in accounting for much of the physical world it has no serious cotender.  When it comes to the social/psychological phenomena, there are other, 'mysterion' theories.  This, I think, reflects our current weakness in truly philosophical foundations for defining 'the mental'. 


This too is nonsense.  There is nothing in western doctrines of free will that is necessary to the establishment of a stable society.  Baldar had a point when he referred to high complexity blinding people to the nexus of forces and causes that might lead lead to an outcome.  I realise that he used the metaphor of the chess players to push a line concerning 'purpose' and 'reason'.  I totally disagree with that, but the epistemological transcendence of the physical world is not a reason for us to assume that there is a 'something' that DOES understand it and manipulates it. 


It is not a logical sequence to go from 'there is a possibility' to 'can never be discovered'.  This 'prejudicial philosophy' has underpinned the processes that have given us all our drugs, high yield GM crops, MRI, the Might of the most powerful nation the world has ever known, hedge funds, coca cola, etc.  It even contains its own 'let-out' clause - show us some evidence and we'll investigate.  Just listing the current problems is not an argument that a methodology has failed (yet).  Show us the alternative that has anything like the same success.


No it is not.


most christians take unquestioningly and without examination both the results of that 'ability' and what it consists in.  Therefore they arrive inevitably at...


All the great superstructure of this religion (and most others) is founded on the phenomenon of consciousness.  The tables turn here.  Because this pernicious philosophy of mysticism has a blind spot, it is incapable of understanding the physical nature of the mental. Sadly, it does not have a let-out.    (I was amazed to see the 'without bias'!!!)

Are you conscious?

Then on closer inspection, you actually agree with me.  I have no complaint with reductionism, which as you say is generally effective.  The issue I raise is with methodological materialism, which holds that everything can be reduced to material causes.


Accountability, responsibility, and the idea that intent implies the choice and our system of crime and punishment seems to contradict your counter argument.


None of which changes the reality that those wedded to methodological materialism have a blind spot and indeed will not consider alternatives.  I fail to see the error of logic you claim.


This is not the experience I observe in my very broad Christian community. 


I am having difficulty recognizing this blind spot you speak of.  Clearly I accept a degree of what you call mysticism and yet I am quite capable of understanding the physical nature and workings of the brain.  Those who argue for dualism do not prejudicially reject the physical and material workings of our nervous system.  What am I missing?

Greatest post on the new forum.

You are the best.

There is no necessary connection between 'our' system of crime and punishment and the rationalisations you offer.  People who are found to have acted in a way that siociety idsapproves of are made to suffer.  A machine that malfunctions is scrapped or 'corrected'.  Intent does not imply choice within this system, it only exists to identify the malfunctioning unit and the nature of the malfunction..  'Was the action performed by this unit?'  'Yes, Judge' 'Was the unit functioning in its normal mode?' Yes -> 'Correction'. No -> psychiatric correction.  You may like to start a new topic on this if you feel I have oversimplified (rather than waste too much time in this topic on a digression)

[/quote]

That your blindspot consists in (wihout bias, of course) pre-deciding that what you are dealing with in consciousness is NOT something that falls within the realm of the physical.  You noticed that I used exactly the same form and almost the same words in describing your position as you used to describe physicalism.  I think that the balance of probabilities is that all the problems you listed will be eventually resolved by a form of physical reduction.  There is no evidence that a mystical approach has, does or will help us to understand them, except in the closed-system language of the Mysterions. However, as I said, holders of my view CAN accept such evidence should it ever appear.  We are back to the not believing that.. versus believing that not... versus believing that... argument. 

I am fully aware that I am here proposing a form of 'agnostic' physicalism and not the full-fledged materialism that you are attacking.  But disagree that I am in any way agreeing with (certainly the spirit) of your attack.  To risk repeating myself - materialism may probably give all the answers: if it is flawed, then its practical arm (science in general) will admit and demonstrate that flaw, and be able to revise its operation.  Dualism may possibly give an answer: if it is flawed, it has no way of admitting it, and its practical arm (religion) can only become extinct.  This alone may explain the remarkable tenacity the religion meme has: its fighting for its existence.

Your review of our legal system is incorrect.

Intent does imply choice.  That is why we regard intentional acts as more worthy of punishment than merely negligent ones.


An appeal to knowledge we do not have is an appeal to no knowledge at all.  It is an appeal to faith.


I would be interested in how a methodology that purports to accept only material evidence would move to accept other evidence.  I don't object in any way to methodological materialism the adherants of which can acknowledge its own limits (as I believe the methodological variety does), but applying it to test the truth of non-materialistic claims burdens it unduly.

They did lose for a reason.... The reason being they suck.

I kid, I kid

A blind spot to WHAT!?

You keep repeating an Argument from Ignorance. Is it Magic?  How can you even begin to account for something we can't even percieve?

MM isn't as absolutist as your religion. Perhaps... Maybe... there could be "something else" but that is so far beyond our ability to even come close to a quess that it is irrational.  Maybe the Buddists are right, but how would you even validate it?


Believe what you want about "the other side", just don't expect your claims about it to hold any water, or any weight - They don't Matter.

I see no evidence. Presumably you do.

Then you meant to say that in your opinion you see no reason to believe . . .  Why do you deny the evidence that is before you?

Presumably because it is not sufficent evidence to count for any particular claim.  Like Yeti footprints in the snow.   Unless you want to introduce a conspiracy theory, why do YOU think he 'denies the evidence' (whatever that may be)?

Zukiphile responded well to this point.  What you describe is malfunction and correction which is very different from crime and punishment.


That your blindspot consists in (wihout bias, of course) pre-deciding that what you are dealing with in consciousness is NOT something that falls within the realm of the physical.  You noticed that I used exactly the same form and almost the same words in describing your position as you used to describe physicalism.[/quote]

The difference is that methodological materialism by definition specifically and prejudicially rejects non-material explanations.  My purely empirical approach does not include an apriori assumption and so you must place one on me without certainty that I hold to such a presumption.  In order for you to be correct, it is necessary that I personally hold the prejudice  you have assigned to me.  I claim that I don't subscribe to that presupposition.



How would you ever recognize such evidence?  When I provide the evidence of an event that has no materialistic explanation, you and your friends simply claim ignorance as you just described. 


Indeed, and quite frankly it comes across rather phony.  What is your objection to empiricism?


Only to the extent that some in the field reject methodological materialism and instead follow the evidence wherever it takes them.


What you describe here is simply those who have a prejudice for dualism.  the same thing is true of those who have prejudice for monism or any philosophical tendency.  Once again, the issue is that a bias has been inserted into science by inclusion of a faulty concept, namely, methodological materialism. 

Except that he said "I see no evidence".  He rejects the evidence outright.  In your presumption you have him admitting the evidence but claiming it is not sufficient to count.

I have no interest in a conspiracy theory, I don note that many who take the tact that they see no evidence are at least partially motivated by the desire to avoid the implications.  i would be interested in IamMe's explanation though.

If my house burns down and someone offers 'as evidence' that Zeus hurled a thunderbolt at it - the witness SAW a Zus-like thing that day - then I take his evidence to be insufficient to count for any particular claim.  And I could honestly say 'I see no evidence'.  Am I rejecting the 'evidence' outright - too right I am!

So, why do YOU think he 'denies the evidence'  (whatever you may be claiming as such)?

Good luck getting a response other than "he has father issues" or something.


RF, when someone says "i see no evidence" they mean that the evidence you claim is solid is not evidence. You are offering your opinion that the existence of the universe, or design in nature, or the bible, is evidence of a god. You are offering your opinion that a few anonymous authors claims are evidence that a man was born of a virgin and that, in turn, is "god spoor" - that it is evidence that a god exists.  Even if you could show a supernatural occurance, you have no way of knowing if it was, or if a god was on the other end of it. You have yet to show that you can detect what a god does or doesn't do. You only have a subjective Faith that you want everyone to take seriously.


So, your "evidence": can you show us why it means there is a god? (And, "what else could it be?" is not an answer, it is just an Argument from Ignorance.)

...must of happened for a reason.  ;D

 ::) Back to the topic...

People say that things happen for a reason so that they can apply meaning to their sad fatalistic lives.  It just perpetuates the illusion that life is more than just eating, shitting, sleeping, fucking and then dieing. 

However, I prefer the illusion.  It keeps things fun.  Makes me feel more...alive.  So even if we are just spun in a universe of randomness that is made up of infinite probability, at least I made some type of attempt to find some way to enjoy it.

Then again, for those who say there is no meaning, you fall into the same category of finding meaning.  It means nothing to you and therefore, perpetuate the human dogma that has been conflicting us for years.

The idea of the soulless automaton where no meaning can be found in the intellectual world resting in our minds is a myth.  I have come to accept that but god I wish I was a rock... 

Existing would be so much easier.

Well, I think there is a difference between two ways of "things happening for a reason".

Someone dies in a car accident. The reason is that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Spiritualists would argue that God had them knocked off for a purpose. Unknown, but you are supposed to find solace in that non-answer.

Why a Tsunami? God did it.
Why the Holocaust? God did it.
Why did little Susie fall off her bike? God did it.

If everything happens for a reason in the sense that God allows or denies things, then there is nothing in the Universe that happens without one.

Its a Cartoon Universe: one in which people can disappear, rise from the dead, walk on water, have elephant heads, rip open their stomachs and live, turn into coyotes or chickens. One where tea leaves tell the future, sacrifices appease the gods, the number 23 is a link to the "other world", ghosts still inhabit where they died, eating meat on Friday will upset the gods, etc...

It's a marvelous way to live - to think all these things are happening just out of reach of our perception - but it is a bigger illusion, and yes, very entertaining and exhilarating. Like Disney Land.

I think that is the superior rationale.  It is the one that makes us the least crazy.  Much more easy to accept. 


 :laugh: Truth.

Not so true when people start killing each other over it.   :-\

Indeed, religious extremism certainly puts a damper on any appreciation that one can have of mythology.

Edited. --Ahk

Being unable to see a reason for something isn't a good reason to believe there is a reason.

No one said it was.  The premise of the argument is that there is no reason for things happening.  Those who claim this put forth the idea that because they can't see it, it must not exist.

My argument, which was deleted for some reason, is that if you are intellectual incapable of understanding a reason then it is foolish to believe no reason can exist.  I do not make the claim that reason must exist, I simply point out the fallacy.

Your response, tadpole, reflects an adherence to that fallacy in your belief that if everyone isn't "with you" they must be "against you" in the idea of the existence of reason for actions.

EDITED-Patton

Is it correct to claim because you cannot divine a reason, reason itself cannot exist?

To sum it up, allow me to quote Walter Lippman

I'm sorry, I thought I was describing your pov.  For someone who has recourse to empiricism in his arguments, I am perplexed as to how you would excise materialism from the methods of science.  Let me guess... a vision of the virgin mary aligning the spin of 'sibling' photons is to be taken as proof that it happens? or even as an explanation of how?   Or would our eschewing of materilaism be limited to acceptance of miracles?

I presume the science that encompassed witches and angels was superior to our current degenerate stuff?

Please.  Share with us how science can be non-materialistic - what methods and practices do you propose?

This is the only "evidence" that religious people bring up as proof. They claim this experience points ONLY towards the existence of a God, and undoubtedly their God. (the one their parents gave them) They never translate this experience with a logical conclusion, because it is base solely on emotion.



Emotionality is the rationalization to your previously held beliefs, it is not a logical theory.

Having decided to skip a few posts and take a stab at this topic, I do ask for a little bit of leniency if I step on someone else's point.

Does anyone here understand the idea behind the Null Hypothesis.  Essentially, Delta Nine started in an impossible position, he started by saying something does not exist, in this case, he states that thing do not happen for a reason, something that cannot be proven.

Here is the jest of the Null Hypothesis, You can prove something exists, but you can't prove that something does not exist.  So in the chess game brought up in the beginning of this thread, did the player have a reason for giving up after the unpredictable move, probably, so in that case something happened for a reason.  Now, the kid that gets hit by a car, was there a reason, we cannot conclude that there is a reason, but due to the Null Hypothesis, we cannot say there isn't one.  Now, we can say, there is not enough evidence to show a reason exists for this to happen as of yet. 

By saying I reject the evidence outright you are assuming there is evidence. Show me the evidence, I'll show you why it isn't evidence.

Good luck with that thought process Callum.


I'm quite sure you know what I propose.  I am disappointed that you pretend ignorance at my cost.

Exactly.

I also like the way you used "jest" instead of "gist", whether you meant to or not (I will assume you meant to), it is an excellent play on words.

Appreciate that you confirm my assessment.  Evaluation of the evidence is a bit off topic, and in any case we would have to first agree on a definition of evidence given your propensity to self define common terms and then claim it is settled.  Next we would have to agree on rules for evaluating evidence.  If you start a new thread and propose a definition and rules, I'm in.

RF, it is impossible to show evidence of the supernatural.  The best you can claim is that there is a Gap in our knowledge.
You and Baldar make the leap that the answer must somehow conform to your world view.

And despite you characterization, MM doesn't state "thats all there is" (again, a strawman by you and baldar). It claims that we have no way of testing for it (that which nothing can be said about is best to remain silent on), and that the fact that the study of matter is unfinished, and that it has produced results (unlike supernaturalism: prayer, etc.), that is it the best explanation for events in the universe.

You are, however, allowed to dream of worlds beyond our own filled with magical creatures that are wholly undetectable to any means known to material processes. I won't stop you.

I have a few problems figuring out what is happening here with the two examples.  It seems that we are in danger of assigning two different menaings to the word 'reason' and then mixing them up.

The kid was knocked down.  There was a set of conditions that caused the event - he was where he was, the car was travelling at a certain speed on a certain path, etc.   The move the chess player made was equally caused - the two players had a plan to play a game, the rules of the game gave them certain goals and objectives, the skills they had acquired produced a framework for judgements, one of the players made a move that the other judged was decisive.  In both cases we can analyse the causes of the event. 

In the chess case much of the proximal causes are within the players mind.  That seems to be the distinction we are making - causes involving the mental are called 'reasons'.  Those which don't are something else: causes, simpliciter (?).

On this basis, there was no 'reason' for the kid getting knocked down - unless you want to start to analyse his reasons for being where he was, or the driver's reasons for driving as he did.  But if we start to look at those, we will find that ultimately there was some form of external cause for every mental event that contributes to the 'reason'.  Back to the chess players - they had to learn the moves, the openings, the theory, they had to be motivated to play, etc.  No matter that most of the input was representational (words, diagrams), it flowed from elsewhere and was simply stored in their brains awaiting activation in this particualr set of circumstances.  The idea of a 'reason' as involving the mental is valid if thats where we want to stop our analysis.  And no doubt there are many who do not wish to consider further for whatever reason (!).

But I suspect that this isn't what the everything-happens-for-a-reason brigade intend.  They are smuggling in notions of a cosmic mentality along the lines of 'what was the reason for the earthquake and volcano destroying Sodom?'.  And this, if I may guess, is because they do not wish to analyse chains of causes further, since they find a 'cosmic mentality' to be sufficient for their view of the world. 

We just need to look out for mixing of meanings like this to be able properly to analyse puzzles.  A large number of our philosophical problems can be traced to unexamined use of language.

When people say things happen for a reason, they usually aren't talking about the "no shit" definition, like "a cause." If I drop a ball, the reason it falls is due to gravity.

What they try to say is that there is some divine purpose, plan, or motivation for something to happen. Despite the emotional appeal of that, it's just not true. The reason why they believe that is so they can feel better about themselves. The world is a chaotic place and it doesn't care about you. Religion is often a way of anthropomorphizing it so it seems more familiar, understandable, manageable. If people think there's some "plan," they can just shirk reality and go "well, it must be happening for a reason!"

It's the divine father figure syndrome.

No, simply because you cannot divine the purpose, does not mean the purpose does not exist.  It only means that you do not know what that purpose is, or was.

There is no evidence of purpose, ergo, there's no reason to project purpose. Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation that fits the evidence without multiplying assumptions is the best explanation. It unnecessarily multiplies entities by assuming God or anything else "planned", give naturalistic, mechanistic explanations an the absence of this magical being.

One might as well claim the divine banana peel is responsible.

There is an abundance of evidence for causes that don't involve material mechanisms.  In the science section I have provided several already.  A universe that includes purpose and non-materialistic explanations fits available observable evidence far better than the belief you have placed your faith in.  I can and have done far better than just claim there are gaps.  You see only gaps because your prejudice has trained you only to see gaps.


That is not my characterization and you know it.  Again you change my meaning because you cannot impeach the properly framed argument.


Yet there do exist tests for purposeful design.

Part of the issue here is the absolute certainty many of the arguments from either perspective (yes, everything happens for a reason, or no it doesn't) bring to the table.  Both need to recognize that all is not known, and that in both cases, there is strong evidence within the support of their own arguments that brings a question about its validity.  The faith in a Judeao-Christian God's creation of the world has some weak points if examined by the evidence of evolution, for instance.  But our abilities to explain variations in evidence from the perspectives of science are not absolute either.  Did our inability to measure infrared waves in the 19th century negate their existence?  Is it rational to argue that what cannot be proved, cannot be, when the proof may be beyond our capacity?  That God can't be, can't be, can't be, because I can't measure him or find him, is no more compelling a proof he doesn't exist than the notion that infrared wasn't there in the 19th century.  That seems to be arrogance, when certainly many of the "beliefs" of science have been shown as inaccurate, just as many of the beliefs of religion are.  The dogmatic absolute of being "right" unites both systems of belief in being wrong sometimes.  Maybe the baby was born at the time she was because factors the parents were unaware of came into play--they wanted to bring in a new life in respect to the imminent passing of a loved one--and named her as they did for the same reason, and the birth was triggered by the stress of the relative's death.  Or God smiled.  Proof of either is beyond us.  And evidence of both can be admitted by each.  I suspect most people are better able to prove the earth is flat in their own experience, than are able to prove the reality.  Meanwhile, isn't it a warm fuzzy to think the baby's birth happened for a reason within that context, (and until someone can disprove warm fuzzies, some of us will stay there)?

I don't know that everything happens for a reason.  I am saying it is utterly ridiculous to believe you know that everything does or does not happen for a reason simply because one can't quite "reason it out".

This is one area of thought where you would expect to see a degree of agreement between those who see a higher power either participating in the creation or having setting up the rules for specific purposes and materialists who see the universe as destine or determined to operate the way it does.   It is interesting that even here there is debate at all levels.

You are the only one claiming that anyone has said that. I doubt you'll find one person on the planet who believes that since it is self-evidently illogical.

Flames, insults, arguements on terms and strawmen not substantial to the topic split to Inferno.

equivication is a bitch. everything does happen for a reason but not in the sense the supernaturalists mean. they mean that somehing happens for a reason that is made manifest by a supernatural power: made for a future purpose.

two different things, and people are confusing the issue unneccesarily.

Indeed it does, I appreciate the correction.


Different but also the same.  Those who believe there is no transcending creative agent (God) and instead have faith in materialism and/or determinism also subscribe to things happening for a reason.  There is no practical difference between those who accept materialism/determinism and those who accept a transcending creator.  Both are faith based beliefs.  To better see this is true, recognize that there is no direct evidence for materialism.  Nothing to indicate that this universe was caused by material mechanisms.  Nothing to indicate material mechanisms can account for life from lifeless matter.  No evidence to support the premise.  materialists are indeed driven by faith.

They are very different points of view. One suggests that a tsunami wipes out people because of tectonic shifts, the other, because it was the Will of a being who moved the tectonic plates. We have evidence of the former, but not of the latter.

You could certainly ascribe a "reason" behind something, whether or not there's evidence. Of course you can. Just be sure to make a note, though, that you are just pulling shit out of your ass and pretending it's a real answer. I can claim magic easter bunnies are responsible for the weather too. Doesn't mean that's worth anything.

Exactly.

What about the suggestion that a tsunami was the result of creating "something", and that "something" is allowed to evolve without influence of the one who created it?

An architect builds a building...and leaves...25 years later the building falls because someone knocked out a wall...or pipes leak...or the bricks and mortar just get old.

You have simply substituted 'creating' for purpose... but creating something does imply a purpose.   Its all a way of smuggling in some form of outside-of-reality 'mind'.

I do not deny something is/was created for a "purpose"....but the "purpose" of the creation is not the issue with the example I provided....I did not state the "purpose" of the building...only that once made, it was left alone to stand forever or fall by those who created it.

All kinds of people here seem dead set on stating that if they cannot find a reason, it must not have one.

I believe there can or cannot be a reason and we have not been able to divine it at this point, and we may never.

1. No one is saying this, it is only you. And you don't seem to understand this.
2. How do you determine which event has a reason and which doesn't?

Re #2, you seem to say that there MAY be a reason for things but you might not know because you can't understand the chess master (that is, there may be an agency that creates the event for a reason, but the reasoning is beyond us - perhaps forever (since, who will be as smart as god?))

So, you seem to be saying that we don't have the capacity, due to physical or mental barriers to understand certain actions that may, in fact, be for a reason.  That is, we have eyes, but we cannot see.

Even more, we have eyes, but because those eyes (eyes being a metaphor for our physical bodies, or materialistic existence, or lack of intelligence) are rooted in a world that is forver removed from the intelligence of god (or the chess master, or whatever), we CAN'T see.

That is, we have eyes, therefore we can't see.  I think this is close to your and Zuk's argument. That we as humans are limited by our nature to know whether there is a purpose or not, and therefore, we can't know if there was a purpose or not.

Is this a fair assessment of your position?

Obviously I disagree. I think we can see, and do. And I see no reason beyond materialistic mechanisms.

Your opening statement says it all.

Might or might not.  No magical force necessary, it might have reasoning it might not.  You don't know, but you automatically assume stupidity on your family's part.

I cannot speak for 'all kinds of people'.  For myself, I have asked what is meant by 'a reason' in this context.  I proposed that it meant 'the existence of some mental process in the flow of events'.  This is in effect supported by your own use of a Chess Game as way of illustrating 'a reason'. However, in the original context - physical events - this is meaningless. There is no mental process discernable in any way. 

It is not that there is or isn't a reason FOR something happening - it is that the question is nonsense.

Its been explained in context.  You apparently don't care.

Is this a fair assessment of your position?

OK i am not reading this whole thread.

My opinion:

Everything happens for a reason is crap.

It flies in the face of everything I beleive as a christain and anyone who uses it as an excuse is weak minded oir had no answer for the question at hand and only wants to sooth the injured party.

A ch9ild asks "Why did mommy have to die?" and the grieving father or grand mothers says "All things happen for a reason and according to gods plan."

Well thats not biblical but I imagine I would do the same in the same situation.

Remember the orginal sin, the KNOWLEDGE of sin came from free will. God did NOT intend Adam to ve seduced to eat of the vine of knowledge any more than he intended for some moron to drive drunk and kill some kids mom.

"FREE WILL, Its a bitch somtimes." Brownie points to the person who can name the movie.

Not saying everything happens for a reason, just saying we can't say if it does or doesn't.

I sure can't figure out the reasons for most things in the world.

what gives you the idea that there is a reason to discover in the first place?

what gives you the idea that there is a reason to discover in the first place?

no answer I see.
this is the problem. in order to suggest there is "something else" you have to be able to describe it, or provide some explanation why you think it exists.  just because you want it, have faith that it, or hope it exists doesn't make it true.

and to simply declare that "something" exists is not a claim. it is vagueries and religous talk: nothing.

What make