A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained

Not only is "cause and effect" not mentioned in the scientific method, the scientific method was used to discover effects which have no apparent cause.--Percy

Yes, that's true, it would not change your argument and it would still be wrong, because scientific processes were used to discover effects that have no apparent cause.--Percy

No, of course it's not agreed. I was pointing out that your statement that scientific processes are based upon cause and effect is incorrect because scientific processes were used to discover effects that have no cause. These effects are scientific processes that have no cause. Claiming that scientific processes are based upon cause and effect isn't a semantic problem, it's wrong.--Percy

Mine is a common usage within physics. The Doppler effect has a cause, the Casimir effect does not (or ultimately, the virtual particles that are responsible for the effect have no cause).A non-physics definition where effects require causes would eliminate from consideration effects that do not have causes, such as occur in the quantum world. You propose the word "event" instead, and maybe that would help, but I don't like inventing fine distinctions that can only be remembered for a post or two. Effects and events are just things that happen, and some things that happen have causes and some don't.--Percy

You seem to be conveniently avoiding the central issue. Do virtual particles have a cause? In the double-slit experiment, does which slit a particle goes through have a cause? Is there a cause behind whether Schrodinger's cat is dead or alive?--Percy

Now this is perplexing. I thought NoNukes had a particularly good point when he thought you were using the definition of effect that requires a cause, but here you concede the existence of acausal effects. You originally said that the scientific method was based upon cause and effect, and when I challenged that you changed it to be that scientific processes are based upon cause and effect, and yet you concede here that acausal effects exist.I hope you don't think my point has been that there's no cause and effect in science. The point is that there are, in your very own words, "both causal and acausal effects."--Percy

Let me summarize what you just said: There are acausal effects caused by quantum mechanical law.Using synonyms for "cause" like "gives rise to" doesn't change what you're saying. Your logic had a number of steps, and one them was about scientific processes being based upon cause and effect. This step was non-core? How does one tell core steps from non-core?--Percy

I assume that what you just said has already been said, but this was in familiar terms. Your explanation makes sense to me, and the argument about sets didn't.--Percy