But how do you prove there is no underlying mechanism?
Science is still all about proof right? They didn't move those goalposts too?
As the great prophet Stevie Wonder said:
When you believe in things that you don't understand
Then you suffer
Superstition ain't the way
:)
No scientific proof is able to give you 100% certainty. If something is proven by science, it only means that it is more reasonable to believe than to not believe, and that is all. Science has already proven that it is not reasonable to believe that everything MUST have a cause.
But you have 0% proof of acausality. Show me any actual proof of no-mechanism.
You can't. It's logically impossible.
Think about it, it may take some time, it took me a few years.
There can be no proof of acausality - it's impossible to prove a negative.
The religion is strong with you Luke...
Modern science is a religion, and you've just proved me right again and again, with every comment.
You've done nothing to show you understand any of it really, you just take it as faith, because the priest-scientists said so. God bless you, but you are a bit gullible...
(Gull-able: Gulls will swallow any old rubbish that's tossed their way...)
Look on the bright side, it means there loads of information you can learn which is actually correct instead of being bullshit... Surely that's gotta ease the burden of being wrong this once? ;)
Of course I can prove a negative, but never with 100% certainty, but with reasonable certainty. For instance, if you say there is an elephant in your garage, and I look for the evidences and find none, it is very reasonable to say that there is no elephant, because of the total lack of evidence. 99% of the things you do not believe is because of the lack of evidence for it.
And modern science is not a religion, because it cannot adopt dogmas, but only proven (reasonable) truths.
So you trot out the old strawman fallacy... Elephant in the garage? Really?
Sigh...
All the best then, catch you later. :)
"You cannot prove a negative". Really?