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

originally posted by: edmc^2
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.

Again, what does this have to do with Evolutionary biology or atheism? Neither have any direct input on "the beginning of everything". So again, your question doesn't apply to the field of Evolutionary Biology, nor does it apply to atheism.

I don't think you're understanding this misconception. Perhaps you could explain why you believe Evolutionary Biology or Atheism makes such a claim?

originally posted by: edmc^2
In addition most if not all are materialist. So it's a good question for them.

You've generalized atheism as something that it is not. The only thing that relates any given atheist to another atheist is a lack of belief in any deities. They can believe whatever else they'd like, so every single answer you get is individualistic opinion that has no relation to them being an atheist.

You're also asking a very specific type of scientist in a very specific field of research, which has nothing to do with anything outside of what occurs when species reproduce, a question that involves philosophy.

Again, your question does not apply.

originally posted by: edmc^2
Biologist on the other hand are materialist, but they tend to be philosophical too when they try to explain the origin of things.

Could you provide biological research papers where the explanation of how the focal point of the research functions is explained primarily through philosophical means?

You may be confusing layman-term explanations directed at the general public as their actual view of how things work.

So I ask again, how does your question apply to the field of Evolutionary Biology and Atheism?

a reply to: edmc^2

You're not responding to several posters, including myself, who have outlined the scientific explanation to your question. Isn't it about time you do that???

a reply to: edmc^2

There are more than one to which you have not responded.

a reply to: Ghost147

To the contrary, what I said is true - about atheist/evolutionist. Here let me prove it to you.

I said:

"...most if not all are materialist"

"Biologist on the other hand are materialist..."

If not from something, where did life or the material / physical / corporeal universe come from?

Nothing? If so what is nothing?

Without delving into philosophy, can you explain what nothing is and how something can come from nothing?

You can't. So many will say "we don't know" but insist nonetheless that life came that way.

Hence it baffles / stumps atheist and evolutionist to come up with a logical answer to the question.

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

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: edmc^2

You're not responding to several posters, including myself, who have outlined the scientific explanation to your question. Isn't it about time you do that???

Is not that I'm not responding. Just a matter of time to get to it.

originally posted by: edmc^2

So, what's the answer to this simple question:

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

What say you?

Plenty of attempts to answer that simple question...

Sometimes a simple question has no answer...

originally posted by: Indigo5

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...

Interesting. Question is - where was time where there was no time?

originally posted by: JacKatMtn

originally posted by: edmc^2

So, what's the answer to this simple question:

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

What say you?

Plenty of attempts to answer that simple question...

Sometimes a simple question has no answer...

Or we could go to Occam's Razor.

Very complicated questions and answers here.

Occam's Razor can be applied here.

" Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected."

Basically, it is what it is , just be.

originally posted by: PhoenixDescending
I've enjoyed reading this discussion and credit the OP for that. It has provided food for thought, and it seems not just for myself, intellectual stimulation can be regarded as positive.

However without proper definition to the question, to what we are actually debating or thinking, claiming it's scientific rather than philosophical, OP comes across as arrogant. A cause has a beginning and a beginning has a cause and that cause had a beginning and what is a beginning and what is a cause and is infinity real and are we talking about numbers or space or everything and nothing and OP is so mysterious and very smart.

I have a length of string. It has a beginning and an end. Or is that end the beginning? What is the cause to the beginning of the string? Or are we talking about where the string began from, before it was a string. Haha.

Anyway, I digress. I don't have much to add, I don't think this is answerable and I found OP's approach annoying. The question and underlying topics are anything but simple, especially when you go to so much effort to complicate them. People have been debating this for Millenia, "god knows how long". Lol

lol, sorry if I annoy. not my intention.

In any case, the subject has something to do with Origins.

I.e. our "mysterious" existence.

What's baffling to some is obvious to others. So i was looking for an answer from the other side of point of view and at the same time challenged their thinking ability. The title was meant to do just that.

originally posted by: Groot
Very complicated questions and answers here.

Occam's Razor can be applied here.

" Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected."

Basically, it is what it is , just be.

I like ur avatar Groot!

Hence the simple answer is no.

The challenge is how to prove it's the right answer.

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

To the contrary, what I said is true - about atheist/evolutionist. Here let me prove it to you.

I said:

"...most if not all are materialist"

"Biologist on the other hand are materialist..."

If not from something, where did life or the material / physical / corporeal universe come from?

Yes, and carpenters use tools and building materials, therefore they must be 'materialists', thus they must have a say on where the universe came from...

Your logic is circular and flawed.

Just because something focuses on things that exist physically doesn't mean they have any say on where the universe comes from.

Evolution has nothing to do with where life came from, that would be Abiogenesis. Evolution only relates to what occurs with life once it already exists.

So again, your question doesn't apply.

The very core definition of Atheism is a "lack of theism", nothing else. So again, your question doesn't apply.

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Ghost147
where did life come from

This scientific research is under Abiogenesis, not Evolution and not a lack of a belief in a deity.

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Ghost147
Where did the material, physical, corporeal universe come from?

This scientific research comes from Astrophysics and Cosmology, not Evolution and not a lack of a belief in a deity.

It's not that Evolutionary Biologists and atheists "always get stumped on your question", it's that you don't understand how your question doesn't relate to either.

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Ghost147
Nothing? If so what is nothing?

Now, let's actually address this, shall we?

Science (particularly Astrophysics and Cosmology) states that the universe didn't "come from nothing", it came from the rapid expansion of a singularity. That's the answer you're looking for.

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Ghost147
Without delving into philosophy, can you explain what nothing is and how something can come from nothing?

I never claimed that something came from nothing, you just believe I do for some unfounded reason.

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Ghost147
You can't. So many will say "we don't know" but insist nonetheless that life came that way.

When did I state that life came from nothing? We have very credible hypothesis that explain how life can begin, and not so shockingly, it came from something else. I am more than willing to explain to you the most prevailing hypotheses within the study of Abiogenesis if you'd like. But first I need to know that you understand how your question has nothing to do with Evolution or Atheism.

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Ghost147
Hence it baffles / stumps atheist and evolutionist to come up with a logical answer to the question.

Yes... because your question doesn't apply to either

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Ghost147
If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?

I happen to study Biological Evolution, and also happen to be an atheist. I do not, nor have not ever claimed that "everything came from nothing", nor that anything that we have yet witnessed or posited within the viewable universe has not had a cause.

Believe it or not, but it is in fact you that doesn't understand your own question...

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

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

How many decimal places has Pi been worked out to by a person? How many decimal places exist between 1.1 and 1.2? Mathematically, there are an infinite number of decimal places between those 2 numbers, Pi is the same, it can be worked out seemingly forever.

Your question is a paradox because there is no 'something' to begin with, you are, at a most fundamental level, referring to 'something' in order for you to conceptualize it's very existence....as to whether this 'something' occurred in order for 'something' to exist. Likewise with 'cause' - 'cause' is 'something'.

You're correct Sublimecraft.

Fundamental to understanding "where something came from or why it exists" it to first establish a starting point.

On this matter, we have to rule out "no/thing" (borrowing from a poster) since "no/thing" produces nothing. Hence we're left with the ultimate truth that "something" uncaused (no beginning) must have existed for everything (else) to exists.

It's the only logical answer to the question.

Occam's razor.

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

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

How many decimal places has Pi been worked out to by a person? How many decimal places exist between 1.1 and 1.2? Mathematically, there are an infinite number of decimal places between those 2 numbers, Pi is the same, it can be worked out seemingly forever.

Your question is a paradox because there is no 'something' to begin with, you are, at a most fundamental level, referring to 'something' in order for you to conceptualize it's very existence....as to whether this 'something' occurred in order for 'something' to exist. Likewise with 'cause' - 'cause' is 'something'.

You're correct Sublimecraft.

Fundamental to understanding "where something came from or why it exists" it to first establish a starting point.

On this matter, we have to rule out "no/thing" (borrowing from a poster) since "no/thing" produces nothing. Hence we're left with the ultimate truth that "something" uncaused (no beginning) must have existed for everything (else) to exists.

It's the only logical answer to the question.

Occam's razor.

originally posted by: Ghost147

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

To the contrary, what I said is true - about atheist/evolutionist. Here let me prove it to you.

I said:

"...most if not all are materialist"

"Biologist on the other hand are materialist..."

If not from something, where did life or the material / physical / corporeal universe come from?

Yes, and carpenters use tools and building materials, therefore they must be 'materialists', thus they must have a say on where the universe came from...

Your logic is circular and flawed.

Just because something focuses on things that exist physically doesn't mean they have any say on where the universe comes from.

Evolution has nothing to do with where life came from, that would be Abiogenesis. Evolution only relates to what occurs with life once it already exists.

So again, your question doesn't apply.

The very core definition of Atheism is a "lack of theism", nothing else. So again, your question doesn't apply.

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Ghost147
where did life come from

This scientific research is under Abiogenesis, not Evolution and not a lack of a belief in a deity.

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Ghost147
Where did the material, physical, corporeal universe come from?

This scientific research comes from Astrophysics and Cosmology, not Evolution and not a lack of a belief in a deity.

It's not that Evolutionary Biologists and atheists "always get stumped on your question", it's that you don't understand how your question doesn't relate to either.

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Ghost147
Nothing? If so what is nothing?

Now, let's actually address this, shall we?

Science (particularly Astrophysics and Cosmology) states that the universe didn't "come from nothing", it came from the rapid expansion of a singularity. That's the answer you're looking for.

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Ghost147
Without delving into philosophy, can you explain what nothing is and how something can come from nothing?

I never claimed that something came from nothing, you just believe I do for some unfounded reason.

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Ghost147
You can't. So many will say "we don't know" but insist nonetheless that life came that way.

When did I state that life came from nothing? We have very credible hypothesis that explain how life can begin, and not so shockingly, it came from something else. I am more than willing to explain to you the most prevailing hypotheses within the study of Abiogenesis if you'd like. But first I need to know that you understand how your question has nothing to do with Evolution or Atheism.

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Ghost147
Hence it baffles / stumps atheist and evolutionist to come up with a logical answer to the question.

Yes... because your question doesn't apply to either

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Ghost147
If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?

I happen to study Biological Evolution, and also happen to be an atheist. I do not, nor have not ever claimed that "everything came from nothing", nor that anything that we have yet witnessed or posited within the viewable universe has not had a cause.

Believe it or not, but it is in fact you that doesn't understand your own question...

I appreciate your position and explanation, but still, to Atheists Evolutionist who are confronted with the question of the ultimate origin, there are only two choices to chose from:

Nothing was responsible for everything

or

We don't know.

Otherwise you become a believer of the "Uncaused Cause" - no beginning.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
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?

The answer to the question changes your perspective.

If you accept that the universe just came to be, that nobody or no/thing cause it, then what's the ultimate effect? Nothing. Live your life as you see fit.

But if it was caused, what then?

To put simply, why did the carpenter made the chair?

originally posted by: edmc^2
I appreciate your position and explanation, but still, to Atheists Evolutionist who are confronted with the question of the ultimate origin, there are only two choices to chose from:

Nothing was responsible for everything

or

We don't know.

Otherwise you become a believer of the "Uncaused Cause" - no beginning.

I just answered your question, as an atheist and a person who studies Evolutionary biology, neither of your "only two choices" were applied.

Are your actually actively rejecting reality here? I mean honestly, I'm not sure how I could make these issue of yours any more clear.

Your question doesn't applied the the field of evolutionary biology or a lack of deities.

What you're committing here is an embracement of ignorance. Not only do you refuse to acknowledge that neither individual has any views other than individualistic viewpoints on this subject, because the question doesn't apply to atheism or evolutionary biology, but you JUST had an actual atheist who studies Evolution answer your question, and you've just completely ignored it by saying "no no no, you were supposed to say what my false premise dictated!"

It's lunacy.

I, an atheist who studies evolution, am here, telling you right now, that I do not believe that nothing came from nothing, and that everything we see in the viewable universe thus far has had a cause.

I added a bit of visual flair since you clearly missed it the first time I stated it.

Going to sleep know, can't wait to continue tomorrow

originally posted by: edmc^2

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

No, again, IMO.

But a 'cause' doesn't need to predate the 'beginning.' It just needs to 'cause' something to have a beginning.

originally posted by: PhoenixDescending

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.

This makes no sense to me, and followed up with "You need to study up more." Prime example of OPs arrogance.

Scientifically speaking, the chicken was born of an egg - no?

Just because the chicken contains all that's in the egg - which is debatable - how does that prove that the chicken came first?

A loaf of bread contains all parts of the flour that was used to make it, yet the flour was clearly there before the bread.

Well, you can't make an omelette without breaking the egg.

My point is, just like the bread - all the ingredients to make the egg is in the chicken.

But if you insist that the egg came first - then where did the egg come from?

Dino-egg? So where did the dino who laid the egg come from...............no end to it untillll

.... you will arrive at the ultimate origin.

So the question is - if something has no cause, does it have a beginning?

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

To the contrary, what I said is true - about atheist/evolutionist. Here let me prove it to you.

I said:

"...most if not all are materialist"

"Biologist on the other hand are materialist..."

If not from something, where did life or the material / physical / corporeal universe come from?

Nothing? If so what is nothing?

Without delving into philosophy, can you explain what nothing is and how something can come from nothing?

You can't. So many will say "we don't know" but insist nonetheless that life came that way.

Hence it baffles / stumps atheist and evolutionist to come up with a logical answer to the question.

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

I am an atheist and I am not baffled. I'm not settled on what is or isn't true about the 'cause' of it all, but I can tackle answering your question logically.

And I specifically addressed all of the above pages ago.

To answer, again, (and I am borrowing most of this from the earlier comment I left):

Imagine that you can SEE ‘ideas’. 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,’ AND ‘Everything’ & ‘Nothing.’ Entangled ideas are defined (ie. take on a ‘definite state’) simultaneously. Whatever one idea is, the other is not, by default. It requires an 'Observer' for entangled particles to take on a definite state, otherwise they both exist simultaneously in all possible states.

I theorize that 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. And even though 'Everything' is also an idea...two opposing ideas can exist simultaneously because they are not the same idea!

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

AGAIN: The idea of ‘Nothing’ is what ‘Everything’ is not.

Nothing can be no more nor less than an 'idea.' And that idea is totally defined as 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 theory states that there is only ONE infinite moment in the ‘Dimension of Ideas’....and that is the infinite building of the ideas and/or states that constitutes what is ‘Everything’ and ‘Nothing.'

So, if you could SEE 'ideas,' then you would see that the 'state' of 'Everything' consisted of every idea that has ever been or will be in one infinite DEFINING moment -- EVEN the 'CAUSE' of the Universe(s) (aka. 'Observers'). 'Time' is merely a necessary dimension so that 'Observers' could evolve to a certainty through a chain of ideas. But, 'Observers' were always a 'part' of 'Everything's' defined state. It doesn't matter that no 'Observer' existed at the beginning 'Time,' as we understand it.

I agree with Phantom. You seem to have glazed over responses. Perhaps, you just can't tackle them with logical responses? I don't want to assume that, but you fail to consider that a 'cause' may not have to predate (in linear time) the 'effect.' It's frustrating.

Don't ask for thoughtful answers if you don't have any desire to give them the thought they deserve in return.