A very simple question that seem to stumped both atheists and evolutionists alike.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Annee

And the "seems to stump atheists" part.

If any question hasn't been answered by science (yet) it must be assumed to be god, of course.

Always

Science is known or tested knowledge. With a lot of questions still not proven or answered.

Do not need a "sub in" for unanswered questions.

a reply to: peskyhumans

I answered it with a 'no' before you came and complained other people didn't. So did at least one other person. And someone else asked the OP to define what they meant by 'cause' before they wanted to answer

But you are the golden poster who brought the only worthy answer in nine pages.

*eyeroll*

Your original premise "Everything that has a beginning has a cause" is not true. Many things that have a beginning do not have a cause.

originally posted by: 00018GE
Your original premise "Everything that has a beginning has a cause" is not true. Many things that have a beginning do not have a cause.

such as?

a reply to: edmc^2

You're the OP. You should provide the example.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: edmc^2

You're the OP. You should provide the example.

Ok let's use the chicken n egg analogy again:

The question posted by annee was - which came first, the chicken or the egg?

If we say the egg, then the question will be how did the egg came to be?

Surely the egg can't will itself so it must came from somewhere. But where or what produced it?

Can't be the chicken if the egg came first. So how do we answer this conundrum? Beats me.

Now if we say, the chicken came first, they we can easily say - by way observation, experimentation and experience, the chicken produced the egg.

But now comes the difficult question (if you're an atheist), what caused the chicken?

Is it something with a beginning or an uncaused cause?

Can't be nothing since nothing causes nothing to exist.

What then?

One will arrive at the ultimate source - an always existing cause.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: edmc^2
They go round and round explaining how stuffs work and how science work but never giving an answer. ... Some say we don't know the answer. ... But really, are they being honest as to what they know or is it that they don't want to admit the obvious?

...

But first let me please state this scientific and incontrovertible fact:

Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

So, what's the answer to this simple question:

If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?

No.

See how easy it is to acknowledge a fact using one's thinking abilities properly (using logic and reason correctly, efficiently)? The reverse is also true/factual: when something has no beginning it cannot possibly or logically have been caused by anything, i.e. no cause.

The slogan "We don't know" is still going strong for denial purposes. If one wants to convince themselves that they're ignorant of something and others should embrace that ignorance as well regardless if there are already many people that do know and are willing to acknowledge the basic facts of life that can be determined by observation and logical follow-through, the least one could do is say something like:

"I don't know and I believe anyone who claims they do know is deluding themselves."

But when the ignorance is feigned that still wouldn't be completely honest with oneself, "I don't wanna know and..." might be more accurate and honest then. I guess it depends on the situation. The question "But really, are they being honest as to what they know or is it that they don't want to admit the obvious?" is very interesting to think about though. One might also wonder for themselves if they are really responding to the question or whether they are merely promoting either selective or general agnosticism and the Great 'We Don't Know (Yet)' God of the agnostic gaps of convenience. Perhaps that was being a bit too cryptic regarding what I'm thinking about.

Most of the times, whatever form of agnosticism people prefer (selective or general), agnosticism (or ignorance) doesn't work well with the motto from ATS, "deny ignorance", when it's promoted rather than just expressed (as in being ignorant about something). But people don't notice it usually when they are promoting agnosticism or ignorance regarding specific inconvenient subjects or in general. Perhaps because they feel they are merely expressing their ignorance or agnosticism regarding a specific (or selective) subject.

"We don't know (yet)" and the underlying thoughts that often go with it (sometimes arguments that come with it and are expressed) most of the times is a promotion of agnosticism and ignorance.

"I don't know" is an expression of ignorance (and possibly selective agnosticism or agnosticism regarding a specific subject depending on the personal situation of the one who says that, those 2 things are slightly different, the former is a choice, willful selective ignorance and occasionally it's accompanied by feigned ignorance once a person has figured it out but doesn't want to acknowledge the answer, or a fact/truth/certainty as being certain/true/absolute, which is what the verb "acknowledge" means).

acknowledge: accept or admit the existence or truth/certainty of. (source: google dictionary, I added a synonym as a reminder in relation to the video below)

Here's a funny representation of selective agnosticism slowly turning into general agnosticism (more and more subjects):

A better example would be near the ending of that episode when the kid being tortured with Dr. Pepper is asked "What's going on here?" and answers per his conditioning: "We don't know, we can't possibly know."

I hope I remember the quotations right, otherwise I'm paraphrasing. It's a very popular way of thinking regarding a variety of subjects on ATS, even subjects that are very simple to understand and shouldn't be so hard* to acknowledge to (*: or it shouldn't be too much of an issue).

Note the last line in the South Park agnostic code "So it's pointless to talk about it." Does that philosophy/idea and ideology "deny ignorance" (encourages people to do something about their ignorance and learn and discover something about a reality/certainty) or does it encourage people to embrace ignorance and perhaps even figuratively wallow in ignorance feeling really clever, "sophisticated" and enlightened about their ignorance (both expressed and promoted)?

Notice how the word "sophisticated" is used in the cunning propaganda game played in the video below and how it relates to something in the article in my signature:

Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.
...
Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.
...
Propagandists sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and (sometimes) moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

Psychology: Dawkins&Krauss selling the philosophy and contradiction that nothing is something

Well put ..logic!

To me, they know the answer but they just can't get themselves to say it.

a reply to: edmc^2

You sure?

I think I avoided the chicken & egg discussion.

originally posted by: edmc^2
But now comes the difficult question (if you're an atheist), what caused the chicken?

Is it something with a beginning or an uncaused cause?

Can't be nothing since nothing causes nothing to exist.

What then?

One will arrive at the ultimate source - an always existing cause.

It is the same for the creationist. What caused god?

Whatever answer you are willing to accept there must also apply to the universe always just existing as well.

That's a question that I will take time and effort into trying to answer but I won't take the "fairytail" answer. "Because god says so." That's a stupid answer

a reply to: edmc^2

The chicken and egg question just shows a misunderstanding of evolution.

There is no such thing as the first chicken.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: edmc^2
If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?

I am going to answer,"no."

(Atheist, here)

Thanks for the answer. Brave you are.

Now comes the follow up question:

It is unreasonable to believe then something could exist without a cause?

for example - infinity.

originally posted by: edmc^2

One will arrive at the ultimate source - an always existing cause.

Nah. I don't think the observer (cause) has to come BEFORE the 'beginning.' 'Observers' just had to be a certainty in the algorithm that's played out since the beginning....and *voila* here we are. It was a certainty....and maybe other observers existed even before us.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: edmc^2

You sure?

I think I avoided the chicken & egg discussion.

I thought it was you, then maybe not. In any case, it's a analogy to use.

a reply to: edmc^2

I don't think it matters or is relevant. I don't think the cause (observer) has to exist before the effect. The cause just has to be certain to exist, at some point.

The algorithm existed as an idea before anything *actually* existed...much like 1+1=2 existed as an idea before 1 of any *thing* actually existed.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: edmc^2

One will arrive at the ultimate source - an always existing cause.

Nah. I don't think the observer (cause) has to come BEFORE the 'beginning.' 'Observers' just had to be a certainty in the algorithm that's played out since the beginning....and *voila* here we are. It was a certainty....and maybe other observers existed even before us.

but eventually though, you will arrive at the ultimate source when you've exhausted everything else.

i.e. there must always be a pre-existing cause for everything with a beginning to exist.

Just my 2 cents...

Doesn't make sense, for something to come from nothing. Nothing can't cause something.

So what caused heaven and earth (the universe) must have no beginning, always was/is/will be.

If the creator of the universe was created, you have to answer what created the creator, and what created the creator of the creator, and what created the creator of the creator of the creator, and you see how that leads to nothing.

So must be the creator of the universe was not created, and always was/is/will be.

You can say AN egg came before a chicken. You can say the egg from my mom's ovaries were there before I was born.

But you can't say the very first chicken came from an egg. Because that would mean the very first chicken came from nothing. An egg must be fertilized, and can't produce a chicken from its own materials.

So the very first chicken must have also come from the creator of the universe.

You can try to dispute this by saying the very first chicken was a cross breed of different flightless birds that weren't chickens. But that argument is just nitpicking that leads to nothing, because you still have to answer where those early chicken ancestors came from.

Oh and another point, I saw mentioned here, I don't see how time can be something: time is a measurement of something, but time is not something.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: edmc^2

I don't think it matters or is relevant. I don't think the cause (observer) has to exist before the effect. The cause just has to be certain to exist, at some point.

The algorithm existed as an idea before anything *actually* existed...much like 1+1=2 existed as an idea before 1 of any *thing* actually existed.

yet one must exist first to produce 1+1=2. otherwise how can 1 cause 1? It's illogical.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: edmc^2

One will arrive at the ultimate source - an always existing cause.

Nah. I don't think the observer (cause) has to come BEFORE the 'beginning.' 'Observers' just had to be a certainty in the algorithm that's played out since the beginning....and *voila* here we are. It was a certainty....and maybe other observers existed even before us.

but eventually though, you will arrive at the ultimate source when you've exhausted everything else.

i.e. there must always be a pre-existing cause for everything with a beginning to exist.

No, I don't think that's a 'must.' As long as the path the universe took to unfold was certain to result in observers that could 'measure' parts of the universe...it's satisfactory 'cause.' The effect came first. But the ideas of the 'cause' and the 'effect' preexisted it all.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: edmc^2

I don't think it matters or is relevant. I don't think the cause (observer) has to exist before the effect. The cause just has to be certain to exist, at some point.

The algorithm existed as an idea before anything *actually* existed...much like 1+1=2 existed as an idea before 1 of any *thing* actually existed.

yet one must exist first to produce 1+1=2. otherwise how can 1 cause 1? It's illogical.

And yet the idea of 1+1=2 has existed for infinity. 'Minds' didn't come up with that.