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: 15
12
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
But first let me please state this scientific and incontrovertible fact:

Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

Newton's third law of motion only applies within the universe. We have no way to view and analyze if it applies to the universe as a whole or even outside of it. Also, it could be feasible that the cause was just a serious of random events and then the universe happened.

Your entire argument is flawed as well. Just because a question is unanswerable doesn't mean that the belief itself is wrong.




posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 08:14 AM
link   

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. The T-Rex was laying eggs LONG before it evolved into the modern chicken.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I often entertain myself by remembering that the chicken is the closest living relative of the T-Rex. You know, watch chickens and imagine what the T-Rex (or other dinos) may have behaved like.
edit on 4/17/2017 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Yeah, I bet there are quite a few extinct animals that scientists use modern versions of to determine their behaviors. Chickens are so different from T-Rexs, but at the same time are very similar. I can easily see how a relative species of the T-Rex could evolve those tiny arms into wings. Their feet are largely shaped the same too.

As for fun thoughts. Does this mean that dinosaurs taste like chicken too?



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thats an interesting (off topic) conversation....

I'd say some may have been similar to wild fowl. Have you ever eaten Emu? Its terrible....so not all birds are the same. And most of what we call "chicken" is created through genetic mutations developed with animal husbandry during the domestication era. Wild fowl tastes nothing like domestic fowl.

Think more like wild duck....considerably more greasy. Like alligator.

But in Africa there is a tale of the mokele mbembe, a creature that is remarkably similar to a brachiosaur in description. The flesh of that animal was reported to be poisonous/toxic.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 09:50 AM
link   

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?



I have an answer, but you might not like it.

Space-Time is a facet of our universe.

Cause and effect are part of linear time moving forward. That did not exist (as we understand it) prior to the big bang.

The laws of our universe were created with our universe.

The laws of Physics, time and space can be (and likely are) very different "outside" our known universe.

In order to go "Backwards" in time, something would need to exceed the speed of light, which is not possible with our current understanding.



But oddly, neither special relativity nor particle physics has a time orientation. In fact, antiparticles, the antimatter partners of regular particles, can be interpreted as either antimatter particles going forward in time or real particles traveling back in time, Hossenfelder said. And the equations of special relativity mean that an object going faster than the speed of light would travel backward in time, she added.

www.livescience.com...

My bottom line to your question?..

Our universe originated from a larger "something" that creates Universes like bubbles in soda...and that larger something does not have "time" as one of it's rules.


A different way to look at it?

The big bang was not an "event" because there was no time.



The only well tested theory of gravity we have right now is general relativity (GR).
In models based on GR, time and space only exist for t>0.
In relativity, we use the term "event" to mean a certain position in space at a certain time.
The big bang is not an event, because there is no time t=0

physics.stackexchange.com...
edit on 17-4-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Your statements don't really reflect modern cosmology. Time and space, entanglement, multidimensional (beyond 4), don't make a linear time and space for even the observer never mind a reality model.

We in fact are beginning to move faster than speed of light with information which is step one. With entanglement and teleportation, in fact one such satellite just went online.

GR is also not the only tested theory of gravity any longer. GR has some major problems explaining some cosmic events which is why it isn't "settled science"

Entropic gravity is being tested with early success but it also has some pretty solid papers pointing out its possible flaws.

Cosmology has come a long way with new equipment being used for observation that have only recently come to exist.

www.worldscientific.com...

edit on 17-4-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-4-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Indigo5


We in fact are beginning to move faster than speed of light with information which is step one. With entanglement and teleportation, in fact one such satellite just went online.



The Real Reasons Quantum Entanglement Doesn't Allow Faster-Than-Light Communication
www.forbes.com...

FTL” Communication with Quantum Entanglement?
physics.stackexchange.com...



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Could your point out what you believe is at fault. Neither of your examples are negating anything I have said. One of them is a forum the other an editorial trying to explain what ftl coding does.
edit on 17-4-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:35 AM
link   

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.


Scientifically speaking the archaeopteryx came first, but let's not split hairs.

Your question makes a fair point but is redundant as similar questions have already been asked such as ' if god created the universe then who created god?' Or 'what happened before the big bang?' Those questions are taboo to certain agnostics but to me I'd still would like an answer.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

There is no such thing as a question that is taboo to agnostics or atheists. We have no problem asking the question or even desiring an answer to the question (agnostics and atheists are curious too); what we DO have a problem with is assuming the answer without any evidence given OR assuming the answer first then looking for evidence to support the answer.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Agreed.
I have seen nothing in life to draw me towards believing in God's of any religious flavour, so I do not believe they exist.
Equally I recognise that the 'before big bang theory' has nothing to present regarding questions about that.

A god could of course have created a big bang event but again zero evidence so to believe so would be illogical.
I keep an open mind but theists appear not to.
Belief without evidence LMAO.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I just am not sure about your belief that is how God as a construct was created.

A necessary being(s) outside of space time is a fairly rational solution for infinite regress problems.

As an agnostic it doesn't bother me to say that.
edit on 17-4-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

There is a difference between postulating a possibility among some to many different possibilities and straight up assuming that one is real.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Agreed.
I have seen nothing in life to draw me towards believing in God's of any religious flavour, so I do not believe they exist.
Equally I recognise that the 'before big bang theory' has nothing to present regarding questions about that.

A god could of course have created a big bang event but again zero evidence so to believe so would be illogical.
I keep an open mind but theists appear not to.
Belief without evidence LMAO.


This may be true in a sense depending on the level of gnostic claiming.

But a designer is not illogical at all. It's perfectly logical. It may be perfectly false as well. But it's not illogical to follow the infinite regress far enough as a mental exercise to say we'll god isn't a bad solution really, in its basic a designer outside of everything that is its own cause.

It's not pretty and I don't like to spend too much time on it but it's not completely irrelevant or illogical.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

The very crux of the OP: is our universe one of action/reaction. Cause/effect.

If it is purely cause and effect, then there is no room for God (although it does not preclude God, as a greater genius would be creating a self monitoring/replenishing universe system).

If it is not, then we have never seen evidence. Nothing happens without a causative action.

To someone without any real imagination, this would be evidence of God, as "He" would be the catalyst for the big bang.

I think the more insidious viewpoint, however, is that if our universe is "cause and effect", then what does that say for free will? How can we think we decide to do anything, when our actions are simply cause and effect filtered through human neurochemicals?



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Measuring one entangled particle still causes the other to take on a definite state instantly. That information does 'travel' faster than the speed of light. What you linked to says that forcing a state in one entangled particle results in detanglement and the other link says that 'information' is not reaching anyone faster than the speed of light because if two entangled particles are separated, then the person on one end has no idea exactly when the Observer has measured the state of the other particle.

(Although, I personally feel that 'travel' is not appropriately used in the case of quantum entanglement...not that my opinion on that is worth anything.)



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

How does a being/god with zero evidence become a rational solution to you?
I would assert it is irrational and follows no logic whatsoever.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree. But sometimes the atheist position comes off as the entire philosophy about God relies on the bible or folks stories.

It's like politics swinging wildly from one side to the other.

Religion did a lot of damage to god for sure.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

How would you study theoretical physics, ontology, epistemology, if evidence was required for logic?

Is it logical to you to abandon coming up with hypothesis of cosmology and metaphysics?

If so that is fine cosmology and philosophy just isn't your thing.

But when people are interested in the field you study the work.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join