Have you read “the Moral Landscape” by Sam Harris? — DingoJones

I have not but am familiar with his thinking. The problem is that he tries to expand the idea of the objective to parts that are questionable (and he's also pushing the argument to favor his anti-Islam ideas and seems to be his primary goal, not creating a moral theory). And the overly focus on neurological facts for well-being seems to demand us to fully understand the mind before his ideas can be applied, which we can't yet. So before we know everything about the mind, he can't really claim science to conclude what is moral. That's why I'm trying to tackle this in another direction.

I'm more based in the idea of epistemic responsibility as a foundation for morality. That choices should be made out of the individual opening up their minds to a scientific method of questioning their choices before a choice is made. To scrutinize all options until the option and choice that makes the most sense in terms of well being can be decided.

It's the trolly problem. 5 people against 1. You have 30 seconds to decide, you choose according to utilitarianism because that makes most sense according to the situation. Even pushing the fat man is. But with more time you can question, who is the one person against the other five? Is that person someone who is of such importance to humanity that the utilitarian approach is to let five die and the one to survive and do the deeds that make it the better utilitarian choice. It's a variable method of morality based on the probability of a very basic definition of well being.

Ok, so your central claim seems to be that what is good for the individual is whats good for the group aa long as the good is defined as not doing harm to the body/mind. Is that correct? — DingoJones

Central claim to that part of the argument, yes. As what is good for the individual will eventually also be good for the group. What is good for the machine is good for each of the cogs in that machine and what is good for one cog will benefit the entirety of that machine. So a good moral choice is that which is good for the individual and the group. The idea for this part of the argument is that what is considered morally good can be calculated as a basic form in terms of harm/wellbeing, but the variations in how we know what is good is the problem with morality. Which is tackled in the other parts of the argument.

In a civilized society based in democracy, voting for stability and competence is a priority over partisan ideologies. Bad decisions out of ideological reasons left or right are not worse than incompetence that creates nation-wide chaos.

It doesn't matter what ideology or world-view someone has, no one benefits from Trump's incompetence and it doesn't matter who challenges him, as long as they are competent enough to keep stability. Under stability, we have the time and balance to question ideological ideas and debate specifics of politics, but the clusterfuck of incompetence negates that playing field.

No one in their right mind, no one rational who is capable of deductive thinking would ever propose Trump to stay in power, or getting that power in the first place. His presidency was the result of a nihilistic narcissism, greed and boredom in the voters who voted for him. People who wanted to create chaos against others because of a jealousy towards the educated.

The problem might be that there are only two choices in each election. Because when someone like Trump appears, the party belonging to that candidate need to vote for that candidate in order to get the power, even though the candidate is mentally incompetent to lead. So, on one hand, you have the nihilistic people wanting to just create chaos and on the other the republicans who have no choice but to vote Republican since they cannot choose a Democrat.

It's fundamentally broken as a form of democracy, enforcing a demagogical result every time.

It's interesting that any occupation in the world need education before handled, sometimes, in cases of dangerous jobs, it needs a specific license. But in the case of the leadership of a nation, no such certification or license is needed, even though the occupation is one of the most dangerous we have. I would argue that the bar to which we hold the standards of politicians in roles as leaders should be much higher. I would argue that while Plato was wrong in his philosopher-king argument, he is right in that they need to be philosophers.

We need a philosopher-republic instead, in which the ones able to be voted into power can only have that position with the right competence in philosophy and leadership. So that whoever is voted into power, they have a basic competence in order to enforce stability. That way we would minimize the risk of chaos and incompetence in politics that is downright lethal to the people.

Well Im not sure how that would change that there are exceptions to your claim that haven't been accounted for. How exactly do you mean objectively valuable? — DingoJones

By objectively valuable I mean things that do not have to do with preferences but necessities. The value of things that reduce harm and suffering while increasing well being. A smoker value smoking, but it isn't objectively valuable to that person as the smoking harms him. The objectively valuable thing is to stop smoking.

p1 What is objectively valuable to humans is that which is beneficial to humanity.

The value of things that do not harm and increase well being is that which is beneficial to humanity. For one is for all.

Or maybe this premise needs to be phrased differently? Maybe the intention of the premise is weak due to its rhetoric? What might be a better premise that speaks of what is good for one is good for all?
I might need to rephrase the entire argument of value-based morality?

What about if there are two harms, smoking and stress. The smoking relieves the stress, but harms the body, but so would stress. In that case, the smoking is harmful to body but its also beneficial to the human. — DingoJones

In this example, I would argue that the long term is an important factor as well, the smoking relieves stress, but the harm isn't visible until later. If the smoke directly caused instant harm, no one would use it to relieve stress. If someone got cancer after one smoke as a replacement for the harm of stress, no one would smoke to relieve stress. Human ignorance is the only thing arguing for a smoke being a good thing for them. What about yoga? Yoga has scientific support for relieving stress, so why choose a cigarette to battle stress when yoga has no side effects? By breaking down acts we can find to the best of our ability and time, which is most beneficial to humanity.

In this, we can go on to object that there are some things people feel is beneficial to them even if it harms them. Meaning, a smoker just likes to suck smoke and would gladly trade a few years of their life to reap the benefit of that smoke rather than doing yoga. But that would not be beneficial to others, people who need to deal with the consequences of this person's degradation in health, death, or people affected by second hand smoke.

So they are related. But in terms of one person, what is beneficial to one is not really always something that they agree with, but that still doesn't take away the fact that beneficial in an objective sense needs to be defined as not doing harm to body/mind. It's beneficial to be in good health and doing something that has the consequence of putting you in bad health is not beneficial to you.

p2 What is beneficial to a human is that which is of no harm to mind and body.

The counter-argument has to prove that there are beneficial things that do harm to the mind and/or body. What things are good for us, short and long term, that is harmful to the mind and/or body?

On a macro scale, what about decisions that benifit more people than it harms. Wouldnt any kind if utilitarian calculation be an exception to your rule? — DingoJones

This one is trickier, but I don't think it's an exception really. It can be argued as an extension to the argument and I think the final conclusion I'm trying to build to has to do with using a scientific mindset in order to calculate the best moral choice and that the intention to use the method will lead to the most probable good moral choice. So in terms of utilitarianism, if you calculate case to case that killing one to save 10 actually has merit, it is the good moral choice to do. The method is supposed to bypass absolutism and utilitarianism as both being valid and invalid depending on individual cases. It's a form of epistemic responsibility to not slave by moral broad concepts and/or teachings, but by a scientific method mindset of calculating each situation based on basic objective properties about benefit and harm. I guess it's a form of Nonconsequentialism?

It's more about the probability of good or bad rather than objectively good or bad. To calculate the probability of an outcome, choosing for the probability of most good, and in calculating that and choosing that, you are acting with good morals.

Maybe this moral theory needs another name. Something like Probabilitarianism (though another field of philosophy), Moral Probabilitarianism?

Shakespeare is wheeled on for this thought experiment rather than, say, Charles Dickens because he’s the supposed apogee of literary creativity. The reductionist probabilitarians are saying: you think Shakespeare’s the greatest – well, he can be reproduced by empty randomness. — Chris Hughes

The answer to this might be found in the library of babel? https://libraryofbabel.info/

Thanks for the replies.

Your conclusion should be that unsupported belief has a high probability of being less valuable to humanity (where chaotic consequences are bad for humanity). The “always” doesnt follow from the rest of your equation.
Also, you can have calculated consequences which are bad for humanity so P3 doesnt follow either. — DingoJones

Makes sense.

P1 is not true at all. Many large groups of humans value things that are not beneficial to all humanity. Its arguable humanity as a whole doesnt value what is beneficial to humanity as a whole, so I would say you need more support for p1. — DingoJones

What if I change to "objectively valuable"? Seems that within a context of objectively valuable for one the benefit for the many includes that one person. So to have a value objectively it needs to be of benefit for the whole? Or am I attacking this premise in the wrong direction?

P2 seems weak as well, as its quite a stretch to claim everything that does no harm to mind and body is beneficial to humanity. Don’t you think there are somethings which do no body/mind harm but do not necessarily benefit mankind? Or vice versa...the sun harms your body but is beneficial to humanity, — DingoJones

What things are beneficial to humanity and humans that do harm to the body or mind? The sun does only damage when exposed to it too much, so that means overexposure to the sun is not beneficial to humans and humanity while normal exposure to the sun is.

So what is beneficial is valuable as too much exposure to the sun is not beneficial or valuable. The premise also specifically points to one human, so not humanity as a whole, but could be applied with expansion to it. But it's hard to see anything beneficial to a human that is at the same time harming the body and/or mind. Even euthanasia can't be harming the mind of body if the purpose is to relieve the body or mind from suffering.

So I had a scenario where this plays out not well for employee pitted against employer when the lockdown measures were not as stringent.. and I think this will be the same in any country, including Sweden. Check out the discussion here — schopenhauer1

This is exactly the kind of dilemmas that businesses in Sweden are facing today. They don't have orders to lock down and send home employees, but they have the option. This is where the trust in the public comes into play. There are many employees who's been vocal against their employer if they didn't change anything of how the business should go about through this crisis. And the employees generally win such arguments and the business changes their day to day routines. I don't have any numbers on this, but from what I've heard, there is plenty of businesses who without orders from the government already and early changed so that everyone who can work from home does so.

The hard part has been the non-essential and essential staff. But I think most companies have argued that by keeping as many as home as possible, it also lessens the risk of the essential staff, who needs to be at the company, to get infected.

So the ethical thing to do is to do everything that is rationally possible to help stop the spread and suffering, even if there aren't any orders from the government to do so. It is irrational to only follow the guidelines and orders from the government if there is a possible choice to be made that doesn't negatively affect the business and employees by doing so.

I.e Priority one is to follow the official guidelines and then ask what else you can do. I think the biggest mistake we can do as a people, is to view this crisis as a separate entity from the government. We have the government, but we are also a people fighting against this virus and if everyone accept to be a part of this fight, we can ask ourselves what we can do to help. If staying at home and not interacting with anyone is something we can do, that is a part to be played and everyone has a part to play. To not play a part in it, is to be an obstacle for everyone and unnecessarily endanger other people.

It's not just the media. There's always a duplicitous crowd prepared to use an event as a vehicle for politics and propaganda: leftists, rightists, westerners, easterners, etc., etc., each one with a mirror image at whom to hurl claims.

Its in the long term that a scientific view wins out. Give it time. — frank

I agree. But I don't know if scientific views always win out. I think that in order for scientific views to win out, it needs to be repeated and repeated how important that view is, otherwise the pseudo-science and tin foil hat mass wins out and dictates what is science and what is not as they influence public opinion.

But I do think we can (and should) criticize approaches that deny citizens their basic civil liberties and throw the global economy to the wind. Sure, that approach may work to stave off a pandemic or to prop up our inadequate healthcare systems, but the unintended consequences of such actions may end up being far worse. — NOS4A2

I think it's a delicate balancing act. People who can't see more than five days ahead scream of quarantining everything in society, shutting down everything and people who see far but aren't in groups who will suffer much from the virus argue for not shutting down anything. I think that keeping the curve down is a priority and in the cases where that needs to happen fast, there have to be much harsher restrictions.

There are also some interesting factors here. Sweden's approach is basically based on the notion that the people here, for the most part, listen to experts and scientists more than in many other nations. We also have a culture that already has social distancing built into it to some degree. So leaving the country semi-open with the recommendation that people stay at home and work from home as much as they can, actually works. How well, that's for the times to tell, but comparing this to a nation like Spain (which I have a contact in who's given me some grounded info on it), they continued social-cultural behaviors far into the spread of the virus, kissing on cheeks etc. This can also factor into why the spread there is so massive. Not a singular reason, but one of the reasons.

So cultural differences in how people behave in day to day life can also dictate how harsh the restrictions need to be in order to contain the spread of the virus. The balancing act can be a very complex question to solve and I don't think there's any good answer that is right for every nation; it's up to everyone to handle the situation out of the complexity it has, therefore discussions on which strategy is best between different nations become a bit fruitless.

I think we can do a little bit of sieving here, but actually the populous has to be kept calm too, and for that governments need to earn some trust with some honesty, not keep pretending things that people would wish for. — unenlightened

The biggest problem with the balancing act of keeping the populus calm and at the same time informed is that media is doing such a poor job. This is the problem with the kind of privatized media that do news based on where their funding comes from instead of informing the public based on knowledge and careful rhetoric. News dramatize and pushes emotion when emotions are the last thing we need governing how people should act through this and it's not a foundation for taking responsibility as a citizen.

Media today lacks the intelligence to inform the public in a good way. If reporters aren't pushed by who's funding them, they often lack the attributes to actually inform the public. Like the old saying: "if you read the news you're misinformed, if you don't read the news you are uninformed." It's media's fault that the public act with such panic and misinformation as we have institutions that provide lacking and badly interpreted data to a populus even less capable of handling that data. A big sign of this is how many youtubers who are scientists, or channels carefully going through data and the scientific information provided by publications, manage to handle the populus concerns much better than official news. But then you run into the problem of the lack of "markings" which channels and people online who truly are trustworthy.

The bottom line is that media can be blamed for a lot of the bad things that have happened, but we still need media in order to spread the things people need to know. I just wished the media could fire every journalist or personal who push uneducated dramatized bullshit into the publics eye, while highlighting journalists who are wise, educated and have good authority and rhetoric to bring necessary information to the public while minimizing the risk of misinformation and riling up emotions.

But as long as news media is a business before anything else, we will never have that.

Yes, but I'm not defending or condemning the current approach to the national handling of the crisis, because at the moment there are far too many unknown factors in the statistics which makes any interpretation heavily biased or plain wrong. As I said, I don't think anyone at this time can praise or criticize a certain nation's strategy because we have so little data to make such a conclusion.

What we can conclude though, is that leaders and politicians who make bad decisions when there's room for good ones, is objectively bad in terms of public health. Some nations create a business around breathing masks instead of supporting wherever they are needed, which is objectively bad. Making money on masks at this time can be argued through a libertarian point of view as justified, but no one gains from having the virus spread around, not even the ones doing a profit on masks, so it's an ouroboros point of view that doesn't hold up in any kind of long term perspective.

I think we have to take the risks though, because we need to do things even if they are not all the best things. Doing nothing, I am sure has a bad statistical outcome. It looks like Germany is doing a rather good job, so if you haven't a better idea, let's do what we can of what they do. — unenlightened

I agree that action is still better than inaction. However, problems arise when the mass influences decision making and the mass form their base of knowledge on faulty analysis of statistical data, dramatized news media with simplified writing and the entirety of post-truth behavior around knowledge.

In times of crisis, we need philosopher-kings and not demagogues. Even if we don't know whether or not Sweden's approach to this crisis will pay off, both short and/or long term, I still find it refreshing that the government give the populistic populus the finger and let the experts and scientists show them the way. It's a rarity today when most politicians act as demagogues and the decisions are based on calming the populus rather than fighting the virus spread.

Deaths rising 12% and the rate of infections rising also quickly. Sweden is leading the Nordic countries in infections and deaths by any measure. — ssu

We have to be careful when speaking about different nation strategies so that we don't just interpret good or bad based on a statistical number that doesn't really show the whole truth. It's easy in these times for people to just recite numbers or do their own interpretations of statistics, even not knowing themselves that they do.

We have to account for more factors, like that Sweden was almost a month earlier in their curve than the other Nordic countries, that we hade a large number coming back from a vacation week in northern Italy just as the breakout happened there, that we've had the unluck of spread within elder communities and homes, that our testing has been lower compared to other countries meaning the statistical percentage deaths against confirmed cases becomes higher than nations with higher testing numbers.

We will actually not know anything about which strategy is working best until all factors are accounted for in all nations after the crisis is over. It's dangerous to rule out or praise strategies in any direction when the statistical analyses are done by people without any knowledge of analyzing statistical data.

I see media outlets, people without education (at all or not in the area of expertise) all making their own interpretations of statistical data on a daily basis and it's one of the main reasons of spreading panic. One day we have a country doing great and then they're not and people are confused.

If we are to do something like calculating who's actually doing good and who's doing bad in this crisis, there has to be a much more rigorous and scientific approach to the data we have. Anything else risks spreading misinformation and chaos.

In what context do you conclude people to not be the same? If we are talking about biology and psychology, then yes, people are very different between individuals and groups.

However, the biological differences are rarely or ever sole reasons for who they become in life. The environment is at a greater play here; what people learn, think is truth etc. While measurable things in psychology like IQ shows a set framework for what a person's mental capabilities are, it's never possible to predict who they will be. If someone gets brain damage that radically changes their personality, it can either be positive or negative based on the damage.

So the differences that exist are irrelevant really. The responsibility for all to teach empathy with balanced morals and methods of handling conflicts and arguments in order to be what we call a "good person", is the only thing that matters in society if the purpose is to improve people's lives.

We already know that we are different from each other, so what is the point? The sky is blue, the grass is green, the rock is hard and the cloth is soft. That people are different from each other becomes a pointless remark that has no real practical value since it's an obvious truth with no relation to the problems it's mostly connected to. Only for eugenics, racists and similar thinkers are the differences a basis for ideals.

Some people are born stupid, lazy sociopaths — Dusty of Sky

Side note: you cannot be really be born a sociopath, that's a psychopath. A sociopath is someone who generally gains psychopathic traits out of purely sociological factors. While a psychopath doesn't have a conscience, a sociopath has, but it's barely there, probably because the sociological factors "programmed" them down that path.

if one atom of gold is not gold, then your ring, perhaps billions of atoms, cannot be gold, because no part of it is gold — tim wood

That's just my point; the characteristics of gold is only through a set of atoms, not one single atom. Even in gas form, it's the group of atoms which makes up gold, a single atom is neither gas, solid or liquid gold, it's specifically a gold atom. So the essence of gold is through the group of gold atoms making up gold, not single atoms. Point being, how we define the materials around us aren't based on the singular atoms, but the grouping of those atoms. A ring cannot be made of one gold atom, only a group of atoms, therefore, how we work and view gold as a substance does not come from the singular atom, but the group that makes up how we define it as a substance. Even in chemical reactions, one single gold atom is impossible to make enough reactions when in contact with a group of others. You wouldn't say that an iron dagger which has one gold atom in it, is an iron-gold alloy.

It's not really about what is technically true here, it's about language, how we define things. Technically, one gold atom is gold by the makeup of its neutrons, protons, and electrons, but no one would define gold as a substance with the essence of gold as we view it, if there was only one atom. Because the properties of gold as we know them comes from a group of those atoms, not one atom.

So your counter argument now is that I should give up? Did you try understanding what I'm aiming for here? What I wrote also applies to an iron atom. I think you are mistaking the science with what I refer to, which is how we define material in language. No iron atom or water molecule works as "iron" or "water" in any terms of how we define the properties of them. If you deal with this discussion as a chess match of who makes most "mistakes" as you put it, then I'm not interested, and that is not what a philosophical dialectic is about.

No. One water molecule is exactly water. — tim wood

Can you add properties like viscosity, gas, solid state to one water molecule? Can you hold it, drink it? Is the air essentially water since we have humidity levels? We say different things about water based on its form as a group of water molecules, but we cannot add any properties whatsoever to only one water molecule. Therefore, that water molecule is not specifically water, it is distinctly a water molecule. The essence of water, with all the properties of water as a group of water molecules, is out of them being a group, not a single molecule.

No. Iron is an element. One iron atom is iron. That's why it's called an element. Lots of things are not elements, like water. Water cannot exist at a level less than a molecule of water, a particular binding of hydrogen and oxygen. Or did you mean something else? — tim wood

Even if an iron atom is an element, it's still a certain group of neutrons, protons and electrons which we designate the definition of iron. But I think you improved my point because it's better to make that point with molecules rather than atoms. One water molecule isn't water, it needs to be a group of molecules to be water in any term of the word we define it.

I think the philosophy-infused series "The Good Place" has a point about this as well.

A statement is either true or false. — curiousnewbie

Schrödinger's cat is dead.

Population growth, larger groups than 12 people at a time, politics for larger societies, global scale politics, religious-based laws etc.

I could make a long list that equates down to... society is almost infinitely more complex today than during hunter-gatherer times and because it is more complex, there are far less short-term solutions and far more long term consequences of the choices made as nations, groups and globally.

And not having CNS problems probably equates to being even less of an expert, don't you think? — Pattern-chaser

A person without MS can still be more of an expert, otherwise, you wouldn't have experts in the medical field researching it. In my case, however, I wouldn't dare to question your knowledge in MS since having it would equal you knowing more both through experience but also the knowledge gained around it. :up:

Having said that, I'm here to tell you that the effects of CNS problems are often difficult to describe, or even to imagine, if you don't have such problems. I experience sensations for which there are no words. I.e. no words have been coined to describe these things, partly because so few of us (sufferers) need them, and partly because the effect of a partly-functioning/partly-damaged nerve gives rise to feelings that are ... indescribable. The explanation is easy. Living with it is less so. And, for most CNS conditions, there is no cure, which is a little depressing. — Pattern-chaser

And I wouldn't try to explain or argue about such experiences. What I referred to here specifically was an observation by my own CNS reaction to THC. And after having read about the cannabis research on Parkinson patients, I tried to induce why such improvements occur based on the observation of "lag" in intention and movement that I experienced. As you mentioned, it's hard to put into words those experiences you have subjectively within a framework of a hypothesis. I can only say that the CNS reaction to THC was very interesting and worth taking notice of. As long as I don't present anything as a theory of any scientific truth-claim I think it's worth mentioning this experience as I think even without having any problems myself I am, as well as everyone, interested in reaching progress with finding cures and solutions to things like this.

Would it be better for democracy to evolve to be more long sighted? — frank

Yes, but impossible in the current form. This is the biggest critique against democracy, especially representative democracy, that it is a paradoxical system; Without expert knowledge and insight into everything you cannot vote for experts to rule everything. Current democracy tends to become demagogical in every case applied. Only after a disaster does the status quo change and always balance itself too far in one direction.

The longer the range of a plan, the more widespread and deep its consequences are likely to be. That means depending on the wisdom of today to try to protect the children of tomorrow. Maybe we aren't that wise and allowing things to evolve naturally without interference is the smarter plan. I'm prone to supporting that theory. — frank

If the consequences are widespread and deeper and made with the intentions of improving society, is always good and better than anything short-term.

How do you define "evolving naturally"? In what way does something "evolve" without interference? Evolution and progressive change only occur if there is interference towards what is static. And short term interference with the static always leads to a higher probability of disaster, by examples throughout history.

Today's anti-intellectual smack talk against intellectuals and experts is the result of the increasing individualistic society in which people claim themselves to be experts, but rarely see past their short-sightedness because of it. This leads to an increase in movements like anti-vaccers who are responsible for the return of diseases which were almost extinct.

The reason for this, I think, is that the internet brought forth a way to search for information by yourself, without any tools of how to find out if what you gather is true or not. Because of this, people have been living in a world where people start to question knowledge itself, all while clustering together in tribalistic groups online.

It's a soup of ultra-cognitive-bias. The marks of such groups are higher shortsightedness because they don't have the tools to question and research their own conclusions. All while others within the group validify their conclusions back and forth. That means they cannot see past the short-term. None of this is good for society. In order to evolve society naturally and improving on it, you need to progress with long term insight and methods, otherwise, you could just flip a coin and decide society based on it. There are far too many examples of suffering and disasters coming out of short-sighted decisions.

Essence is simply a way of thinking about things--it's what an individual considers necessary features to apply a concept term as they've formulated the concept. — Terrapin Station

Example:
An iron atom is not iron, but only a definition of the set of electrons, neutrons and protons together with their charge. So iron itself is a set of iron atoms, but the atoms aren't iron.

Please be careful about theorising what people with neurological conditions might experience - unless you have Parkinson's yourself? I have MS, and your 'explanation' seems garbled to me. How much do you know about the human CNS, and how it actually works? — Pattern-chaser

I'm not theorizing in any scientific matter, how can you make that interpretation? I was speculating based on what I've read about cannabis research for Parkinson's and the observations I've made both on others and myself. It's speculation, a hypothesis, not a theory. And having CNS problems does not equal being an expert or telling others that they cannot think or speculate about such things. It's like saying people can't talk about cancer if they don't have it themselves. I would much rather break down the hypothetical ideas I had, in order to find out if they aren't valid because of... if they are incomplete because of... or if they are valid because of... If you have knowledge on this subject that counter-argues or help expand the ideas presented that would be much more welcomed.

something accepted with no evidence or proof. — Pattern-chaser

But there's lots of evidence for causality in physics.

Physics adopts cause and effect as an axiom, an unjustified assumption, honestly declared as such, because no form of proof exists for it. — Pattern-chaser

Physics doesn't just accept an axiom and form theories from it, the concepts work as premises in an argument, they need to be true and are measured and calculated through math. It's a combination of real observations from large scale galaxy events, down to elemental particles found at CERN combined with theoretical physics which needs extreme scrutiny in order to be accepted at all. To dismiss this as something close to being a "belief" is seriously a naive perspective on physics.

no evidence to back your claim; no reason for it to be true. You see? — Pattern-chaser

How about most major publications in physics? Causality is a basic part of it, so what evidence do you mean doesn't exist?

Oh look! Another unjustified assertion! — Pattern-chaser

No, based on what we know in physics. Before Big Bang and within a black hole, we can only speculate since we don't have data and observations that can describe it. And even if there are possibilities outside the current understanding of physics, it is as close as we can get to the nature of causality within our laws of the universe. So how is that an unjust assertion?

But I believe we can conclude there was a start of time and a first cause. So lack of specific knowledge of the detailed processes involved does not prevent high level deductions being made. — Devans99

We cannot know, how can we? How can you make a certain deduction without the certainty of the properties of pre-BigBang? You make an assumption that fit the narrative of a first cause argument, but you simply cannot know. And as the math shows about things like black holes, it's not easy to simply slap a "first cause" to something that doesn't exist under our known laws of physics. Before we know the properties of pre-BigBang, we cannot assume anything. And doing so is only in support of an agenda, not deductive truth.

We could go into detail on causality in itself, but I think the key answer to the question of causeless effects is that in our universe, no, not possible. But we have areas, both before Big Bang and for example in black holes, that defy our laws of physics, which means we cannot know if it is possible without making a huge assumption on what was before and what is inside a black hole.

Did you read the entirety of what I wrote? Causality in our universe from Big Bang has mathematical precision, before it, we don't know. Therefore defining anything based on causality or any properties of our known universe to something outside of it is impossible with our current knowledge.

It's not the point. The point, the conclusion I made was that because we don't have enough data and understanding of pre-BigBang properties we cannot conclude anything. You cannot apply our universal laws to something that defies them or works in another way. Just as you cannot explain the properties of the center of a black hole.

As long as you can't solve what was before, you can't conclude anything. For example, why is there not equally an amount of anti-matter to matter? It all formed at Big Bang, so if you know the properties of pre-BigBang, you would have an answer to that question as well.

Assertions (without justification) are a problem here. We are wondering if effects can happen without causes, and you respond by saying they can't and don't, but you offer no justification. — Pattern-chaser

I'm referring to entropy, to causality for any large events (large being larger than quantum level, which means smaller than atoms, neutrons/protons and even quarks, is the quantum limit. If the probability of events not happening at random is at an infinite number as soon as their properties as matter and energy becomes defined by quantum events, then causality can't be broken, i.e causality for large scale events are determined. But at quantum levels, where matter and energy get properties by how the elemental particles behave, particles can form out of nothing. Meaning, there is no cause to a particle popping into existence and there's nothing after it disappears.

My conclusion isn't that this concludes in any answer, my conclusion is that because of this, we don't have an answer. Therefore to claim that something cannot come from nothing is lacking enough data to support such a conclusion, especially when little is known about the properties of the universe pre-BigBang.

The simple conclusion we can arrive at by just reasoning is that we simply don't know at this time and cannot conclude anything out of that uncertainty. Any attempt is to assume something we have no data in support of.

But the theist doesn't simply want you to regard his argument as reasonable enough to be taken into account, he wants to convert you completely. — Merkwurdichliebe

Which may be a key difference between a theist and an atheist. I can't speak for all atheists, there are undoubtedly those who have hate towards religion which drives them, but for most atheists, it's not about converting theists to become atheists, it's about questioning why to use that framework for the understanding of the world and universe. If the theist tries to convert me I would not really try to convert them back, I'm simply asking the "why" to everything. It's also the constant "why" that define atheists. It's never "why - because this" it's "why? - because this - why? - because this - why?" to infinity. There are no final answers, only questions and living with constant questions is daunting for many people. Which means it's daunting for theists that others ask them the "why" to their beliefs. I understand where belief is coming from, I could go through the psychological science of it and it wouldn't matter to a theist since accepting the questions is enough to shake the foundation of existence for them. This makes a fundamental difference; I can accept theists having their personal ideas of the universe but will question them if they put that conviction into the world as "truths" without any rational reasoning or evidence provided that survive the scrutiny all other truth claims in the world needs. A Theist, however, has a hard time accepting there even to be ideas that don't follow their personal belief, since that would be to accept questioning of their belief to be a valid perspective.

Does every effect have a cause, or is it possible for causeless effects to happen? — Pattern-chaser

Every effect on large scales has a cause. In quantum physics, however, there are particles popping in and out of existence all the time. The famous outburst from Einstein about not playing dice with the universe is in relation to that. What causes these particles to pop in and out of existence? They seem to be exactly that, something out of nothing, then back to nothing.

The full understanding of this is unknown at the time and that's just the point. If we cannot know it, we cannot deduce that something cannot come from nothing. Claiming that requires knowing more than all of science can know at this time in history.

They will never succeed in convincing atheist. — Merkwurdichliebe

To argue for a conclusion that has been decided upon before the argument is a basic logical fallacy. It doesn't matter if it's about convincing an atheist. I would even argue that if your argument is solid, the atheist will definitely take that into account, not to become a believer, but to accept the conclusion since it cannot be countered easily. The point though, is that it doesn't matter if it's an atheist or a theist or whatever at the receiving end; philosophical arguments need to make sense and not be riddled with biases and fallacies. Convincing anyone needs hard work and making the conclusion before the argument will never work, ever.

The methodology that atheism relies on has proven itself, but it hasn't been proved. But it doesn't matter because as long as it works, it is working. This is where atheist belief lies. — Merkwurdichliebe

What hasn't been proved you mean? The method of gaining knowledge that is detached from human biases and fallacies is very well thought out. You can claim that because we cannot know anything for sure, even these methods are not certain to be the best. However, as we countless of times make predictions about the universe, predictions even outside of the current understanding of everything, like general relativity, for example, it means that the nature of logic exceeds human perception and is why we can understand and reason things far beyond human perception and also act upon them. This is not a belief, it's relying on a method that has proven itself to arrive at facts that are as close to the truth as we can get. And as I mentioned, if we want to gain knowledge about what is true; we need the methods that take us as close as humanly possible, not rely on fantasies because it's convenient. So there's no belief to be seen. If the methods change in favor of better tools to explain things, we change them, but there's no belief in the method, the method is just a method.

The necessity to attach belief to atheism only seems like a way to undermine what it's about through rhetoric. I would argue that if theists were even interested in understanding the atheistic perspective, belief should be left out of the terminology for defining it. Clear definitions are one key to better understanding, but people's agendas seem to favor using terms in certain ways to win arguments, not gain an understanding of something.

They certainly believe in their methodology. — Merkwurdichliebe

Because it demands more than accepting something that is convenient or comforting. The methodology favors gaining more and more understanding and knowledge about something and never settling on something being "truth". Theists settle with a conclusion and then tries to argue for it. The logic of just viewing these two perspectives against each other makes it clear which perspective has the least viability for actually gaining knowledge and which does not. Claiming that we can't know anything for sure does not render the two equal, one is clearly more fit to scrutinize knowledge over the other. That's just logic.

We sometimes find the truth difficult - maybe even impossible? - to determine, and your response to this is to say that sometimes people reason improperly? Well so they may, but it has no effect on whether truth can be determined, or what we might do instead if it can't, does it? — Pattern-chaser

Truth is difficult and may very well be impossible because we are humans lacking the perspective to see things as they actually are. But we have reasoning, tools, and methods to actually understand beyond what we can experience and see without such tools. We know about atoms and quantum physics, even though we have no way of detecting them by only ourselves as humans. But because we have the tools, we know how to use atoms and quantum physics and our inventions out of that knowledge show us that we can actually know things we can't detect by only ourselves.

When it comes to reasoning, we have the power of logic. If someone abandons logic because they have a belief they want to be true, that is not the pinnacle of human understanding.

We have limits to what we can know, but people rarely even try to reach those limits. It's only at the limits of our understanding where we can deduce the truth-value of anything. If there are any doubts, we haven't reached that pinnacle. And flawed reasoning, flaws in logic, irrational beliefs and so on are not even close to that pinnacle, it's at the bottom.

Atheism is more of a belief that the knowledge that can be extracted from the unknown is reliable. — Merkwurdichliebe

It's not a belief. Atheism just accepts what we observe, prove and measure to be known, the unknown is fascinating, but there's never a belief like described and not as you describe. Atheists do not just accept data to be reliable, the difference is that theists just conclude that fact with "...and therefore God", which is a lot worse as a rational stance than "we have enough data to have a scientific theory". The fact that no theists has been able to act upon their conclusions while scientific theories has been acted upon countless of times shows that there's more reliability in what we actually can know about the universe than anything else.

So it's not a simplistic caricature of atheism, the idea that atheists blindly rely on data extracted. It's that we can actually use the data. But that doesn't mean anything can be defined as deductive truth from it. This is the main core of theists arguments, that because we have that doubt about knowledge... "therefore God". Atheism is just accepting the world as we know it, as we can know it, nothing more, nothing less. Atheism doesn't need fantasy to explain anything. Relying on fantasy is unnecessarily complicated if we want to understand more about everything. It's like an Occam's razor for perspective.

The difference between faith and belief: faith is a fixed and necessary position; belief is amendable, and any alteration in understanding has the potential to change one's belief. — Merkwurdichliebe

Which is why I never use belief in relation to atheism, since the theistic perspective of atheism is always through the lens of their own belief. Belief can be anything outside of God, Gods, spiritual etc. but in terms of atheism and theism, belief has a clear definition and any claim that relates any kind of belief to atheism is a misunderstanding of what atheism really is.