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: 17
16
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

That is all acceptable. I was just seeing if you have ever had intuition for something that didn't have evidence that came to be true. Like a bad person you just met.

For me I recently stopped my daughter from picking up a water moccasin, I can't describe to you the intuition I had, never saw the snake until I was already reacting in the situation. Maybe some kind of quantum entanglement with nature.


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




posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Oh for sure I keep an open mind and have had some crazy ass experiences in my life which I struggle to explain.
Can't explain rather, just recognise the unexplainable experience.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

Well heck we aren't that far off.

I have issues with believing in god myself in a certain aspect but, I leave open maybe people feel like when I knew the moccasin was there, I personally can't imagine living that way let me say again.

I find the harder side of atheism which is absolutely sure the world is only phyaical and theists it's all gods plan to be similar type of rigid beliefs. I can't go to the playground without hearing a parent tell their kid after they fell it was god's will. And no I don't live in Syria I live in the deep south.

But I also think over responding to the negative human behaviour taints finding out if it's false or not. Which is all we can ever do. Evidence is not always available depending on the scale and subject. But you can say what is false. I can not walk on water. Yet.

But maybe in an alternate universe I can walk on water? Can I get there somwhow?

To me that is more interesting than kneeling down and standing up every three minutes.
edit on 17-4-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I will admit taboo was a bit too strong. However the strength of agnosticm is asking the question but never knowing the answer.

In our lifetime we might learn how the universe works but we may never know why the universe works if that makes sense. Einstein spent his dying days trying to unify quantum mechanics with GTR but came up with nothing and that is a strong argument for agnosticism.

If one of the smartest minds in history cannot explain how or why the universe works then what chance do we have of finding the route source of creation? We can't go back before time ergo we will never know how our universe (or universes) came into existence.


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



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The premise of the formal argument is the opposite of circular.

It says god (s) are their own cause. They are a necessary being for all other causes, they have always existed in infinity outside of all other time and space with no cause needed for their existence.

The problem is you can replace this with a pantheist model easily and say the multiverse is its own cause and exists outside of time and space. Time and space is a hologram of reality that only exists in the dimension the observation is being made in.

Anyhow this stuff is just thoughts. A human being in my opinion is kind of bound by the anthropic principle.


If something can be its own cause, why does the Universe(s) need a cause outside itself?



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   

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

See what I mean? You say chicken, other dude says egg. You both sound smart. And no one knows.

That's why I gave you a "HINT" which was also a slyly phrased answer. No one knows


I got one...

Why does it take one wrong immediate decision to destroy your credit, and years to build that crap back up? Same with grades. One F can dramatically pull your grade down, while it takes A after A after A to build it back up.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

We actually agree on plenty, I am just starving for philosophical conversation after moving deeper into the south. Maybe I am a jerk and stir the pot too much.


Ahhhh, can def understand that. Being atheist in AZ isn't exactly a "friendly handshake".

Don't want to derail, but I do believe everything is energy, that energy evolved with consciousness/intelligence. Thought being a creative force. That there are layers and layers of thought created manifestations.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

That is what I what the second part of the statement referred to. This is the problem with Aquinas and necessary being argument.

So then you get into teleological arguments of the design.

Apologists have used cosmological fine tuning observations to try and convert them to their argument with mixed results.

The point is to offer up possibilities and then falsify what can be proven false. If it holds up it gets a certain respect. Even if it isn't a definitive or even great theory.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Sorry, I see that you said that now. Somehow I missed it the first time I read it. Hard to thoroughly read with a three year old, at home, right now.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I have two, I get it.

And thank you for engaging with thoughtful dialogue. Because being stuck in the deep south, as much as I love plenty aspects of it, is tough intellectually with two little ones. I have to talk to a lot of evangelists and bite my lips. I try and have at least the philosophical conversations but many American Christians are unaware of them sadly.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   
A very simple question that seem to stumped both atheists and evolutionists alike.

According to Bugs Bunny.

Everything came from two tiny amoeba.

Through time (evolution)

Environment forced change.

Complex organisms form more complex organism.

Rinse and repeat for billions of years.

The constant state of motion called life.
edit on 17-4-2017 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Yeah. Outside of a human literally figuring out how to witness such a thing, there is unlikely to be an answer to that question. We just have no idea how things within the universe would behave outside the universe. We have no point of reference to even BEGIN assuming these things either.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Davg80
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

what came first the creator or God?

could be another way of posing the question... no?

i would think that is a harder question to answer!

evolution for me would have the chicken evolving through certain conditions to be an egg laying animal.

and another thing, if it wasn't for humans i reckon chickens would be extinct, too easy a prey!

foxes are on every continent apart from Antarctica, foxes love chicken more than i do.


Awareness; it is a logical assumption that form follows function. It is a logical fallacy to assume that function followed form... concepts are thought forms... ending thought is the erasure of all known concepts.

In Buddhist philosophy freedom is the goal, well what is the the actual goal in fruition nirvana if one is separate from all things trying to learn and know all things... then an ego exists. So killing all ego and thought of concept as existent within oneself and whoosh the veil is pierced... so much knowledge so much so fast and the feeling of all being as an awareness void of all thought feeling perception yet just simply being. Form and formless but no concept can give anyone a taste of that... the grasping with mind and ideation is not that but can point to that.

Eventually with continued practice and not resting on any laurel gained in the conceptual world one finds themselves back in? Then the hole widens and grows and all becomes equal in sight, sound, smell, taste and touch... being all is contact never in separation at that point any longer.

The eye holds nothing but sight itself... if anything arises with sight it is an attachment to concept otherwise there is just clear seeing. Those not in such a state of clear seeing? The allegory of Plato's cave.... same with the other senses.

Contact cannot end it has no discernible beginning between form and formless... there just is. Of course the idea of I am? That is a consciousness of a sense it falls into discrimination of this but not that. It becomes or births a self a separation not a unity in total or in equanimity.

So as a concept? who or what perpetuates any of those concepts as real or existent? They can exist but nothing need be said about them they just are and they are after such an experience of equanimity... only until one's past intent or grasping at all that one sees different, special, a possession to be had, fought, won, stolen, taken, kept... as one's own. Being in a state of pure awareness then how can one not be aware of something as that awareness dwells in the space that is wholly not that.

How many times does one go through life forgetting their shadow, and yet it is always there... with them every single moment... and like everything growing and shrinking just like the breath beating like a heart... pulsing like a star.

It is what it is; the I am is what attempts to make it all different. The I am is to be seen as a sickness to all life and form itself... it robs with one hand and gives with the other one in awareness and one in unawareness.

Equanimity balance awareness and all is simply being.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Thank you...same to you, too, luthier!



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

it would have to have a beginning to determine if there was a cause



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: gscott67
a reply to: edmc^2

it would have to have a beginning to determine if there was a cause


If that's the only case available for us to evaluate. But it's not. We have the concept of infinity as well as space itself.

Both of which can be deduced as having no beginning nor end.

So can you wrap your mind around this concept and let me know if a beginning or a cause is required?



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

I noticed you didn't get around responding to my point from a few pages ago, mind taking a gander?


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

edit on 17/4/17 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: edmc^2

I noticed you didn't get around responding to my point from a few pages ago, mind taking a gander?


Sure will - as sooon as I find it.



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: edmc^2

I noticed you didn't get around responding to my point from a few pages ago, mind taking a gander?


Sure will - as sooon as I find it.


I added a quote to it in my last comment. Sorry using my phone, not as easy



posted on Apr, 17 2017 @ 08:32 PM
link   

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


First off, I can't ask a theist the same question because the answer is already obvious to them.

The answer is NO. No, in that, the cause must be uncaused for everything (with a beginning) to exist.

How else can the CAUSE of everything be caused if it had no beginning? It's very illogical to state such matter. It doesn't make logical sense.

Hence, the question was pointed/addressed to atheists and evolutionists alike.

In addition most if not all are materialist. So it's a good question for them.

As philosophy, it touches on the subject because most materialist tend to delve in philosophy when explaining such matter as existence. Take for example Dr. Lawrence Krauss when he explained "something from nothing". If you've read or seen what he said - it's mostly philosophical in nature instead of scientific.

Biologist on the other hand are materialist, but they tend to be philosophical too when they try to explain the origin of things.

Although Dr. Richard Dawkins is not a biologist, he tries to explain biological existence in a philosophical way a la "The Selfish Gene". Most biologists tend to agree with the professor.

Dr. Szostak comes to mind also. He did a very impressive experiment on how life began. Unfortunately he too suffers the difficulty of explaining the origin of things without dabbling in philosophy.

So that's why the question was asked.

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

As for sets of "beliefs" - we have that whether you "believe" it or not.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join