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

Thanks OP. I did a lot of study from other sources, but i get more confused than ever. The discussion in this thread really help me a lot to understand better about the egg/chicken analogue, singularity/infinite/time concept, some interesting theories like string, etc..

I cant answer your questions but I will try someday.

originally posted by: edmc^2
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".

It's illogical to say that the ideas of Nothing and Everything are not entangled like quantum particles. Neither idea can exist without the other idea to define it.

That's why we see ideas that come together in nature *magically* cause new ideas to manifest...like a sperm meets an egg and a child is *magically* created.

Ideas that are born in minds do not *magically* manifest. A mind cannot come up with an idea of a child and the child *magically* appears.

Therefore, science confirms...no 'mind' magically caused the universe(s) to manifest.

The entangled ideas of Nothing and Everything -- ideas from nature -- caused the universe(s) to manifest because the idea of Everything was certain to produce Observers at some point.

originally posted by: edmc^2


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

No.

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.

The egg, Dino's laid eggs, Dino's evolved into chickens...

a reply to: pikestaff

yeah, thats more like the correct answer..

I mean, all a species is are pools of genetic agreement.

Its strange how a panda born beige will be abandoned by its parents, yet a poodle will still feel amorous about a great dane. I guess each species feels a little different about what constitutes that genetic agreement. I was floored the first time I saw a "zonkey". Equines apparently find general agreement across the taxonomy. Humans, on the other hand, are both incapable and not typically desirable of breeding with other primates (although we did breed readily with currently extinct human peoples).

a reply to: edmc^2

You are assuming cause and effect always work in the same direction, that it is a law of the universe. Except before the universe, the big bang, the laws of the universe according to most physicists don't exist. Cause and effect only exist because the universe exists the way it exists. It is impossible to say what happened before the big bang because of the way we understand things.

originally posted by: luthier
Uh,..no

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.

Perhaps there is a designer, perhaps not, I tend to believe there isn't but it doesn't matter, we don't know yet and science is not jumping to conclusions, only theist people are.

I am pretty sure science will destroy the 'shrinking God of the gaps', because this 'God' is shrinking non stop: remember when we used to think God was responsible for lightnings? We now know better and we can explain naural phenomena, and God's power seems to be diminishing as we speak. Hence why I know science will one day get the answer we are looking for, perhaps not in our generation, perhaps not in the next century, but we will.

But people who enjoy and rely on science are not in a hurry to fill in what we don't know with a supernatural answer.

a reply to: Agartha

People Who know and rely on science are a very large group of people.

They certainly don't have one kind of thought, some are theists, some agnostic, some atheist.

Theists and hard atheists are very similar.

Science is currently doing all kinds of studies on the "supernatural".

The whole applied science mentality doesn't work with theoretical or particle physics.

For instance probability waveform collapse,...reality is very strange.

Maybe there is a quantum entanglement event with lightning. Maybe gods are creating it. Is a dude in a loin cloth making lightning odds are very low...did a programmer create an algorithm that would unfold and create the situation for lightning to exist?

We honestly are no where even close to eliminating god as a construct. The folkstories are another thing but a first cause or necessary being still makes perfectly logical sense. An agnostic aproach is a scientific approach. For a hard atheist or theist to say yeah or nay is complete speculation or faith.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: edmc^2
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".

That's why we see ideas that come together in nature *magically* cause new ideas to manifest...like a sperm meets an egg and a child is *magically* created.

Ideas that are born in minds do not *magically* manifest. A mind cannot come up with an idea of a child and the child *magically* appears.

Therefore, science confirms...no 'mind' magically caused the universe(s) to manifest.

This "magical cause", idea always fascinates me. I've spend over 2 decades finding the answer about the origin of life. ( I believe zygote/embryo is where human life begin and male sperm carries necessary dna code and energy to start a life within female egg environment ). Sadly science never answer it.


As for religious texts, I understand its nothing more than series of evolutionary ( subject to manipulation and alteration ) intrepretations and understanding of thousands years human, who once believe god create thunder ( and promote the complete opposite of literal meaning of the books. ) The idea has run out its time and its laws ( of human rights ) is no longer applicable in most countries. Faith is a primitive dangerous tool I'm not interested with.

a reply to: EasternShadow

I think if you actually study cosmology many of your presumptions would be changed.

Also the logic of something existing outside of spacetime to create a first cause has never been diminished. It's purely whether or not it makes sense to you. If your truly agnostic it's a theory that deserves respect. It isn't easily challenged.

However the physics that does challenge the necessary being concept are equally hard for "science minded people" aka engineers who use science in physical artifacts.

The quantum world is every bit as strange and mysterious as God folklore and honestly most people who believe they are "science based" have a very hard time accepting sciences cosmological theories. They question whether or not reality actually exists and what observations role in reality is among other hard to grasp concepts including the 10 dimensions in string theory, the 11 in m theory, the 26 dimensions in bosonic theory etc. These things become interesting when considering "supernatural"

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

That sounds fantastic. But wouldn't the chicken need hatching from the egg?

Or did it just kinda big bang into existence and start crapping out a bunch of eggs?

Not necessarily. A chicken could be birthed, and a mutation then causes eggs to be laid instead.

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

What say you?

What does this have to do with evolution or atheism?

Neither have anything to do with, or say anything about philosophy.

Could you be more specific with your question? Do you believe that something in particular has had no cause which relates to atheism or biological evolution that you're referring to?

If not, then the reason you're not getting a clear answer is as follows:

- evolutionary biologists deal with biologicaly, not philosophy.

- there is no doctrine of atheism, it's just an absence of a belief. There is no scripture or set belief system that all atheists follow, this their opinions are subjective when it comes to philosophy

originally posted by: Ghost147

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

What say you?

What does this have to do with evolution or atheism?

Neither have anything to do with, or say anything about philosophy.

Could you be more specific with your question? Do you believe that something in particular has had no cause which relates to atheism or biological evolution that you're referring to?

If not, then the reason you're not getting a clear answer is as follows:

- evolutionary biologists deal with biologicaly, not philosophy.

- there is no doctrine of atheism, it's just an absence of a belief. There is no scripture or set belief system that all atheists follow, this their opinions are subjective when it comes to philosophy

I agree but would add hard and soft versions of atheism are pretty different. One says I hold no beliefs while the other has a belief there is no God or can be no god (s). Which in philosophy we see as two different positions.

And evolutionary biology (or biologists) usually doesn't have any concern for the matter unless their name is Dawkins.

Who is an outstanding evolutionary biologist yet a terrible cosmological philosopher. Hence why people generally stay in their lanes. When they start making claims they can't support and don't have the expirience with they look foolish and amateur like.

Cosmology, epistemology, and ontology are really the disciplines that deal with these questions. They all have answers as well. Most people just don't study or know anything about the subjects formal studies and therefor make claims or rehash debates that happened more than 3000 years ago with Diagoras and Aristotle.

a reply to: DreamerOracle


But momma....that's where the fun is.....

originally posted by: luthier
I agree but would add hard and soft versions of atheism are pretty different. One says I hold no beliefs while the other has a belief there is no God or can be no god (s). Which in philosophy we see as two different positions.

I'm aware there are hard and soft positions when it comes to atheism. However, I was referring to atheism as a generalization considering the OP simply grouped all atheists together.

From the most basic and total description of atheism (a lack of a belief in any form of deities), their question would not apply.

Even when it comes to Hard and Soft Atheistic viewpoints, their question still applies only at a subjective level per individual because again, atheism has nothing to say for itself as there is no belief system surrounding it, and hard and soft atheistic views are as varying as the population that makes up their numbers.

It appears as though the OP simply doesn't understand either Atheism or scientists that study Evolution.

originally posted by: edmc^2
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".

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with Agartha (since he stated that science doesn't claim 'the universe came from nothing") or if you didn't realize he said the same thing.

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

The cause for the universe as we know it is the rapid expansion of the singularity.

What caused that expansion we are not sure as of yet.

a reply to: flatbush71

When you're young, you thirst to know everything.
When you're old, time grows short, and "everything " less important. Some things are better as mysteries than mundane knowledge.

originally posted by: luthier
Also the logic of something existing outside of spacetime to create a first cause has never been diminished. It's purely whether or not it makes sense to you. If your truly agnostic it's a theory that deserves respect. It isn't easily challenged.

It has taken me all day to respond to this comment. It really resonated with me and I wanted to give it the thoughtful attention it deserves. Reading it made me want to share my thoughts with you on this.

Personally, I do suspect there is ‘something’ outside of 'SpaceTime'...a grander dimension. A dimension that is infinite (unlike Time and Space or ‘SpaceTime’). Obviously, this is only my personal favorite theory -- but I have tried to base it on what I understand about ‘science.’ Admittedly, I am a novice and it‘s difficult for me to not let philosophy seep into my digestion of scientific theories. But, my theory is fluid and evolves as I come to understand better...and more. And, of course, I may discover I am entirely off-base. If that happens, I am willing to reconsider my thoughts accordingly. I know ‘personal theories’ on the origin of it all can be annoying, but I really like that you seem to be open to ‘something outside of SpaceTime,’ like me.

Also, I DO consider myself to be a pretty hardline atheist because the probability of there being a Creator is as insignificant to me as there being an enormous and invisible tennis shoe that has a mind and watches us for its own amusement and its favorite food is lasagna.

So, I don’t discount a Creator, per se, but I also don’t think the probability is significant enough to let it label/define/restrict my thinking. I also try not to ridicule theists and choose my words carefully when I disagree. My sister is a devout Christian...one of the best people I know...my best friend. If more people were like her, the world would be a better place. I pale, by comparison.

That may not actually be ‘hardline’ as I understand you to mean it, though.

***

Anyway, to explain my theory -- and this is my first fairly exhaustive attempt, ever -- I ask that you imagine that you can see ‘ideas’ (represented by the small dots in the graphic below). Also, imagine that ideas, themselves, are quantum particles -- they can be observed and/or measured -- whether they are found in Nature or only in our Minds.

The ideas/particles interact, collide, fuse, connect, build, etc...bringing about new ideas in a chain of events that stretches through SpaceTime.

Some ideas are entangled...like ‘left’ & ‘right,’ ‘up’ & ‘down,’ ‘Everything’ & ‘Nothing.’ Entangled ideas are defined (ie. take on a 'definite state') simultaneously. Whatever one idea is, the other is not, by default.

And every idea -- including the idea(s) of ‘SpaceTime’ -- exists within a larger & infinite ‘Dimension of Ideas.’

This ‘Dimension of Ideas’ exists because there is an inherent and inescapable paradox between the ideas of ‘Everything’ and ‘Nothing.’ Neither 'idea' and/or ‘state’ could exist without the other to define it. And, yet, they both MUST exist as ‘ideas’. Moreover, no ‘Mind’ was required for these ideas to exist. Yet, an ‘Observer’ is required for both ideas to exist. (Obviously, ‘Nothing’ can only exist as an idea...that is its ‘state.’)

The observation/measurement of any part of the state of ‘Everything’ simultaneously defined/defines the idea/state of ‘Nothing.’ 'Nothing' is whatever 'Everything' is not.

Moreover, ideas produced in/by Nature AND ideas that are created ONLY in Minds (even absurd ones), ALL exist in the infinite ‘Dimension of Ideas.’

Lastly, my personal favorite theory also states that there is only one infinite moment in the ‘Dimension of Ideas’....and that is the infinite defining of what the ideas/states of ‘Everything’ and ‘Nothing’ are.

I tried to represent my thoughts with the visual aid below....I only spent the afternoon on it and I am certain it is lacking in many ways. I could keep going, but this is all i feel confident about sharing:



I know I have not refined my thoughts, in all of this -- I hope you can make some sense of it -- but i think it captures the gist and it's the best I can do in an afternoon.

a reply to: Ghost147

I agree to a point but the hard atheist position is more in line with theism as far as beliefs, it's just opposite. Where as a soft atheist simply doesn't believe.

They are very different positions. One requires an explanation when used to argue against theism as is most often done in hard atheism. Like for instance Richard Dawkins, who often let's his absolute hatred of religion promote sophomoric ideas in philosophy.

So when people generalize atheists it's usually from the bully atheist interaction who is merely the opposite of a bully theist evangelizer.

Agnostics and soft atheists have a closer general outlook than soft and hard atheist.

A person who knows something without proof is not a position most soft athiests or agnostics generally agrwe with. Generalizing of course.

I believe in a God but don’t believe in creation per se in God directly creating humans like one creates a car or toy.

I believe in a creative matrix where things can be created somewhat naturally because of the creative matrix involved.

The world we live in is a creative matrix


There are worlds that aren’t creative matrixes


Sure, there are causes of things but you’ll never find the ultimate cause of anything,
only the immediate cause.