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: 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.
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
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.
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.
originally posted by: gscott67
a reply to: edmc^2
it would have to have a beginning to determine if there was a cause
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
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