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.
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?
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?
originally posted by: peskyhumans
Or are you referring to quantum mechanics? ... Quantum Foam ... Wormholes popping in and out of existence. Virtual particles. Crazy stuff.
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.
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,...
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.
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.
Why?
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.
ty.
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.
originally posted by: edmc^2
Hence there's only one logical answer - an always existing cause.
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)