It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 01:04 AM
a reply to: mOjOm

The philosophical concept of a prime mover, or a necessary being doesn't require a personality made up with folklore but it is a sound concept and answer to the cosmological question of how something came from nothing.

However so does multidimesional, multiverse, holographic universe, simulated universe, string theory etc.

It's the words and definitions that are wrong. Something doesn't have to come from nothing, but rather change states of being.

Metaphysics just don't have concrete answers.

I mean I have trouble grasping what a billion years is physically, never mind cosmological reality.

edit on 16-4-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 01:14 AM
a reply to: luthier

No, I know. I'm fine with the idea in some ways. However, it eventually seems to always get angled into supporting some agenda without any support.

I think, based on the title, that there is already some prescribed bias in why this thread was made though. It's a question that's being directed to a certain answer on purpose for a reason although that reasoning is kept hidden. That's my opinion.

But I agree, the words and definitions being used need to be clear and exact. Just the word nothing means two different things depending upon who you're talking to. To a philosopher Nothing is different than what it means to a physicist or cosmologist. So it makes things difficult when you have two people talking about something and using the same words but with different meanings that are unclear to each other.

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 01:17 AM
a reply to: luthier

I didn't realize it was a rebuttal.

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 01:19 AM
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Of course but the chicken and egg question is an over-simplification to start with.

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 01:40 AM
If no one has come up with a definitive answer, the question simply can't be answered. It isn't hard to believe that's why a bunch of seemingly intelligent people disregard this particular question.

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 01:53 AM
a reply to: edmc^2

Got an easier one, but no less unsolvable.

"What came first the chicken or the egg"?

Hint: No one knows the answer no matter how smart they sound.

Let me take a stab at it. If the question cannot produce an answer, it is likely the question is misworded.

The answer then becomes obvious, it is 'neither, it was the rooster that came first'.....

Actually it was an Omoeba... And the question? Nothing exists without cause which is in fact the question... The cause/reason for everything has always been the question. :-)

edit on 16-4-2017 by DreamerOracle because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 02:12 AM

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?

Truth is eternal and uncaused. All information is but part of truth, and that includes states of simulations.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: edmc^2
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?

What say you?

Allow me to shorten your fact and render the question moot.

Everything has a cause.

oh contraire - "Everything has a cause" is not the final answer. Because if "Everything has a cause" then what 'caused' Everything to exist in the first place?

Only truth exists. That is why everything is information which is truth. Which is why the world is in all likelihood a simulation, as information as truth it needs no justification to exist.

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:36 AM

originally posted by: peskyhumans
Or are you referring to quantum mechanics? ... Quantum Foam ... Wormholes popping in and out of existence. Virtual particles. Crazy stuff.

Did you know why Schrödinger brought up his story with the cat in response to some of the claims (or interpretations) made in Copenhagen (also referred to as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics)?

To demonstrate how some of the things that were said there and are still popular teachings about the subject of quantum mechanics are paradoxal, or a paradox. Wanna know some synonyms that are listed at for paradox?


synonyms for error: falsehood/lie/fable (I'm sure if I go through the pages at one point I'll run into the words "myth/false story" as well)

There's someone described in the bible who loves mysteries/paradoxes and teaching them to mankind as if they have merit in discussions about reality. He also is very good at making it sound persuasive, as if the evidence or the facts support these paradoxes/mysteries or this nonsense.

Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment, sometimes described as a paradox, devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935.[1] It illustrates what he saw as the problem of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects.

Source: wikipedia

Some history related to the one mentioned in the bible that I spoke about and what he's been up to all this time and how all this ties back into the meaning of the word "Babel" and the term "Babylon the Great" (and the agnostic philosophy and ideology of vagueness, if I can keep it short like that cause I've elaborated on that terminology before):
The Paradox of Tertullian
Note the mention of the teaching of a cyclical eternal universe at 7:10 below as well (also already mentioned in this thread):

Information about (Baʹbel) [Confusion] and another "mystery".
Revelation 17:5

On her forehead was written a name, a mystery: “Babylon the Great, the mother of the prostitutes and of the disgusting things of the earth.”

Don't forget the earlier video that I linked about Dawkins&Krauss selling (promoting, teaching, arguing in favor for) their preferred contradiction/paradox. Stephen Hawking has similar contradictions he's selling in his book "The Grand Design". John Lennox gets into it around 16:14 (I don't really recommend much of the rest and you can pretty much get straight to the point by going to 16:14, the primary reason I'm sharing this video for is what he says about Hawking's contradictions cause I don't feel like spelling it out myself in this comment, done it before on ATS too many times):

That is one of the many reasons why I trust the bible. Human behaviour throughout the history of mankind up till this day.

1 Timothy 6:20

20 Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.”* [*: Latin: "scientia"; KJV: "science"]

That's by no means the only verse speaking about this behaviour.

A little assistance in seperating facts from fiction, quoting from the wikipedia page about the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and bolding the fiction part:

According to the Copenhagen interpretation, physical systems generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured, and quantum mechanics can only predict the probabilities that measurements will produce certain results. The act of measurement affects the system,...

The facts related to this subject do not logically (necessarily) lead to the bolded conclusion or interpretation. Also note how this might be an argument from ignorance...just think about the part that says "prior to being measured". The above also relates to the claim that particles are popping in and out of existence. Also not a necessary conclusion based on the facts alone. Hmmm, what did Newton say again in the Principia? "For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy*.” (*: i.e. a historically proven efficient method to acquire science/knowledge about realities/facts/certainties/truths, that which was later dubbed "modern science" and some people may prefer the terminology: a "scientific method").
edit on 16-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:43 AM

originally posted by: EvillerBob

Unfortunately that's not true, it's a more pragmatic issue of where you draw the line in terms of taxonomy.

The chicken evolved from an earlier creature, therefore there is a stage where taxonomy would say "this generation now contains the elements that define this as a chicken". So, logically, at some point, an animal that didn't meet the definition for a "chicken", laid an egg that contained a creature with whatever defects where necessary for it to meet the definition of "chicken".

On that basis, the egg came first.

This is the correct answer if you do not consider genetic mutation in the pre-chicken, thereby turning it into a chicken.

I think that is possible but would happy to be corrected

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 04:11 AM
I've enjoyed reading this discussion and credit the OP for that. It has provided food for thought, and it seems not just for myself, intellectual stimulation can be regarded as positive.

However without proper definition to the question, to what we are actually debating or thinking, claiming it's scientific rather than philosophical, OP comes across as arrogant. A cause has a beginning and a beginning has a cause and that cause had a beginning and what is a beginning and what is a cause and is infinity real and are we talking about numbers or space or everything and nothing and OP is so mysterious and very smart.

I have a length of string. It has a beginning and an end. Or is that end the beginning? What is the cause to the beginning of the string? Or are we talking about where the string began from, before it was a string. Haha.

Anyway, I digress. I don't have much to add, I don't think this is answerable and I found OP's approach annoying. The question and underlying topics are anything but simple, especially when you go to so much effort to complicate them. People have been debating this for Millenia, "god knows how long". Lol

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 04:21 AM

originally posted by: edmc^2

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

Got an easier one, but no less unsolvable.

"What came first the chicken or the egg"?

Hint: No one knows the answer no matter how smart they sound.

That's easy. Scientifically speaking - the chicken.


Because there are things in the chicken that are not in the egg. However - everything in the egg can be found to be in the chicken.

You need to study up more.


This makes no sense to me, and followed up with "You need to study up more." Prime example of OPs arrogance.

Scientifically speaking, the chicken was born of an egg - no?

Just because the chicken contains all that's in the egg - which is debatable - how does that prove that the chicken came first?

A loaf of bread contains all parts of the flour that was used to make it, yet the flour was clearly there before the bread.

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 04:56 AM
Best thread, I need this stuff....kinda grounds me.....proud to know you posters.i learn so much

And the Christians think the chicken came first, idky
edit on 16-4-2017 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 05:10 AM

originally posted by: Davg80
a reply to: uncommitted

but we dont really know how atoms work, like if electrons just stopped moving would matter just disappear, looking at a stone like its just a stone is like saying that something is "just" a placebo.

When did I say 'just' a stone? I suggested it has no cause in and of itself, and therefore proved the OPs premise false.

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 05:28 AM

originally posted by: edmc^2
Hence there's only one logical answer - an always existing cause.

And many scientists agree with that, hence the string theory, the CCC theory etc. We just don't know yet.

We live in the year 2017, we know so much more than people 2000 years ago, we don't need a deity to fill gaps when we don't know an answer. Science will help us get there one day, soon.

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 05:56 AM
okay so what's going on here is that OP is trying to wrangle us all into a Turtles All The Way Down style paradox.
We're being shown - in this case with a distinct and deliberate air of patience and mystical grace - that every moment of history has rested on the moment that came before it. Then when we're asked to point out the first one, we're supposed to say "an infinite pile of turtles?! that's absurd!" and promptly beat feet to the nearest appropriate spirituality dispenser.

it's a nice party trick but unfortunately for OP it's also a fallacy.
Linear time - the very notion of there being a 'before' or a 'first' is a product of the laws of physics in effect within the little bubble of spacetime we inhabit. Our entire existence, every aspect of every way we grapple with the universe, takes these laws as constant and immutable but 'out there' our way of conceptualising fails utterly.
There's no need to invoke deities to fill the gaps.
we're just too small and too simple and too linear to understand the true scope of existence.

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 05:57 AM
a reply to: whereislogic
Here's where Newton took his advice from on how to proceed in discovering and learning new facts/certainties/truths about the realities around him:

1 Thessalonians 5:21

21 Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.

"Sure" is a synonym for "certain", I don't even have to check, I'm sure of it.

Hebrews 5:14

14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong.

"right and wrong", true and false, correct and incorrect. Facts vs fiction.

If I'm making a comment now anyway...

Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

You may consider what Newton is implying here when he's using the word "other" in relation to the conclusions that are drawn using this methodology.

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 06:08 AM
a reply to: Agartha


God in the gaps is not the same as the philosophical concept of a necessary being. We are no closer to finding the answer than Plato was.

In fact the Christian philosophers have done a pretty good job with the teleological argument. I personally dont buy in but I can't negate the reality that we don't know enough and most likely never will to have a definitive answer about the original cosmological origin.

As a person who studies cosmology from the philosophical side I would say science is no where remotely close to the answer. There are literally thousands of peer reviewed papers regarding fine tuning. This is an argument that Christian apologists often use. While the scientific papers don't mention god or have that purpose it does create a sound argument in the teleological sense. Again I don't find it to be convincing enough to believe in a traditional god, but the universe is actually looking more like a design or program scientifically speaking than it ever has. Which does make you wonder if there was a designer. .which could be giant college kids creating a simulation and we are AI. ...just saying I wouldn't be so sure science is going to destroy god in the gaps.

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 06:29 AM
a reply to: edmc^2

Perhaps you should say "chicken egg" whenever you're saying "egg" so people don't get confused with the other game played or expressed (inadvertently as in not knowing it's a mindgame courtesy of evolutionary philosophers, philosophical naturalists and pantheists) earlier in this thread. When people refer to eggs of other animals and organisms when they are arguing that the egg came before the chicken while the question is about chicken eggs, not just eggs in general. Even though you weren't the one that brought up the question but interpreting the question any other way makes it a bit pointless to bring it up in this thread since that's not what the question is famous for or why it's raised in relation to the type of discussions on this particular forum.

So all of that is ignoring that the question was a bit red herring-like anyway to the question in the OP. But a nice setup for those wanting to express the 'game' I just explained and really go into 'red herring'-territory.

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 07:33 AM
a reply to: whereislogic

well if you put it this way, what came first the chicken, or the egg of the chicken? then there really can be only one answer!

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 07:40 AM
a reply to: edmc^2

The chicken/egg analogy is circular thinking - you always come back to where you started.

I gave you my answer here:

If everything has a cause, then you should be prepared to describe the cause of anything - including virtual particles. Now, I know you can't do that. Neither can I. We assume there's no cause because that's what the data shows. But since science is about discovery and evidence, anything can change in the future.

The real answer to your question is curiosity - are you curious enough to dig deep to find the answer. Why do birds and reptiles develop eggs for reproduction rather than give live birth like mammals? The evolutionary path of egg development is interesting in and of itself. Does it have to do with cause? Sure, you can follow the biological path of development and discover "causes". But does the organism itself require a "cause"? Probably not. You could say the same about life and the universe. A "cause" would be a tangible concept with some evidence. There is no hard evidence for a "cause". You can propose abstract logic but abstract logic is not evidence. It's only the mind playing games.
Of course, all bets are off if our universe turns out to be a simulation!

This is an interesting article about randomness and the appearance of life. It's about how one scientist approaches the question "Why and How".

edit on 16-4-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in