It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 11
12
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
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.


it's merely an analogy to arrive at what's obvious.




posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 11:13 PM
link   

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




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


Please give an example.


the concept of infinity for one.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
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.


it's merely an analogy to arrive at what's obvious.


Yes, that it's easy to come to a wrong conclusion when the original premise is flawed.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 11:15 PM
link   


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.


Most interesting answer ive read in this one.

Maybe cause and beginning are one in the same? What about the question of potentiality that something could actually exist without a cause? Although rare,the maths would probably tell you it could happen,logic would tell you the same thing.

Somewhat relevant i guess,i actually thought of a question myself the other day others might like to ponder.If nothing is truley symmetrical as we understand it so far? Would "god" or "the cause" be symmetrical? Would being truley symmetrical mean non existence? For something to exist,it must be nonsymmetrical? Thats how it seems to be?

CHeers



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: edmc^2

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



If "something" exists - - why would it exist without a cause?



good question. here lies the conundrum.

The ultimate question to our existence.

Can something exist without a cause?



Something meaning what? I'm getting the feeling this is a Creation question.

I believe everything is energy and evolved from energy.

What is the source of energy?


It's a scientific question - as well as philosophical.



How is it in any way scientific?


it can be subjected to scientific methodology to arrive at the correct /proper conclusion.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
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.


it's merely an analogy to arrive at what's obvious.


Yes, that it's easy to come to a wrong conclusion when the original premise is flawed.


and the flawed premise is/was?



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: edmc^2
Now up to you to decide what or who is the source of energy.

To me, there's only one logical answer.


No, there isn't just only logical answer because science is discovering new things every day, new facts that bring new theories (and let's clarify that in physics a theory is a mathematical model, not a wild guess or a hypothesis).

Of course everything has a cause, nothing appears by 'magic'. And I don't see why this question stumps atheist and evolutionists. If you are suggesting science is saying our universe started from nothing, then you are mistaken as science is saying nothing of the sort.

Science has many theories for the creation of our universe, and it's also saying that we still don't know. Emphasis on 'still' because I know one day we will: a few thousand years ago we thought the sun and storms were created by gods. A century ago (aprox) we thought the sky above was the limit of our universe. Every generation is now discovering so much more.

To summarise: everything needs a cause to come into creation and there are many logical answers to explain it.



no. The universe didn't come from nothing - it's illogical and unscientific. In fact it takes a lot of "faith" to say "nothing caused the universe to exist".

Hence there's only one logical answer - an always existing cause.


edit:
need to step away to take care of something.



edit on 15-4-2017 by edmc^2 because: zzz



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
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.


it's merely an analogy to arrive at what's obvious.


Yes, that it's easy to come to a wrong conclusion when the original premise is flawed.


and the flawed premise is/was?



Well since there was no first chicken and you are using it as an analogy for the beginning of everything. Perhaps there was no beginning of everything either.

Do you agree that there was no first chicken?



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Why not just an always exisisting universe? Why is there some creator needed to make it??



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

There had to be a first chicken. Chickens were not always here.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Start with a pile of sand and take one grain of sand away at a time.

At what point does it stop being a pile?



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Define pile??



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 12:00 AM
link   
the reason this question, as well as the Egg question, is because of Perspective, everyone's is different from the experiences they remember, At the end of life, it is said your life flashes before your eyes. My perspective on this is you are already at the end of your life and you are just remembering it. The "cause" is the universe being remembered, hence the memory of its creation. Everyone thinks they are looking to the future but in reality, you are just remembering the past. the entropy has past



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 12:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Define pile??


Pile
1.
a heap of things laid or lying one on top of another.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Ok, then I would say as long as no grains of sand are laying on top of each other then you'd no longer have a pile.

In fact you could keep all the same sand and simply space them out so none are on top of each other and still have the same amount but not a pile by definition.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

It's not illogical for something to come from nothing unless you define your vernacular very carefully.

Even so that isn't the premise anyway. Modern .physics says you don't have the definitions for your nouns and adjectives correctly.

Look a prime mover, necessary being is no more accurate than a multiverse of interdimesional infinity, or a holographic simulation.

Your entire premise of the question begs a question. I am wondering if it's honest.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I think the point was that some chicken type bird came before the first chicken. It supposedly was the red jungle fowl. At some point there were enough changes for it to be called something else.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Infinite regress is a bad rebutte.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Sort of.

But it's not one point.
No animal has ever given birth to a different species.

That's the misunderstanding a lot of people have about evolution.
There is no such thing as a "first" chicken.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Another problem I have with this thread is that the title seems to be singling out Atheists and basically any Non-God-Believers as being the ones who have no answer for this question.

But the fact is nobody has an answer for this question that can be shown to be valid.

Christians and Creationists love the fact that they can simply state anything regardless of how demonstrably untrue it may be simply because they reference the bible in saying it. Since to them the bible is always true, that makes anything they want to say using it as a reference true too. But that's complete BS.

Saying that "God did it" simply because it's in the bible is no more valid than my saying "A big purple Dinosaur did it". We both have zero evidence to support either position so we can say whatever we want.

Just because a Creationist comes to the conclusion that God or some Creator must be behind the scenes of the universe doesn't make it so any more than my Dinosaur being behind the scenes doing it. Until they can establish some way to verify such a claim then my Purple Dinosaur has just as much credibility as they do.




top topics



 
12
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join