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

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

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.

Quite right. It doesn't need to predate the beginning since it was always there to 'cause' something to have a beginning.

Question now is this - based on what was "caused" to exist, does the the 'cause' sentient?

not a pet rock?

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

It's not illogical for something to come from nothing unless you define your vernacular very carefully.

Even so that isn't the premise anyway. Modern .physics says you don't have the definitions for your nouns and adjectives correctly.

Look a prime mover, necessary being is no more accurate than a multiverse of interdimesional infinity, or a holographic simulation.

Your entire premise of the question begs a question. I am wondering if it's honest.

Unfortunately as mortals, we have no choice but to use the best way we can to convey an idea outside of our own experience.

Yet, fascinating thing is, our mortal mind is not a prisoner of the material but is able to travel space and time.

As to the Q;

It's an honest question - as much "why we're here"?

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

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.

Quite right. It doesn't need to predate the beginning since it was always there to 'cause' something to have a beginning.

Question now is this - based on what was "caused" to exist, does the the 'cause' sentient?

not a pet rock?

Wrong track. You are still trying to place the 'cause' before the 'effect' in a linear timeline.

'Everything' was defined instantly -- both 'cause' and 'effect' included. This means that 'Nothing' was also defined in that instant. 'Nothing' is whatever 'Everything' is not.

These definite states didn't wait for all ideas to unfold in a linear timeline. I don't have to type out 1+1=2 in order for that equation to exist.

The definition of 'Everything' includes BOTH 'cause' and 'effect.' It always has included both simultaneously..instantly, infinitely.

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

The chicken/egg analogy is circular thinking - you always come back to where you started.

I gave you my answer here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

If everything has a cause, then you should be prepared to describe the cause of anything - including virtual particles. Now, I know you can't do that. Neither can I. We assume there's no cause because that's what the data shows. But since science is about discovery and evidence, anything can change in the future.

The real answer to your question is curiosity - are you curious enough to dig deep to find the answer. Why do birds and reptiles develop eggs for reproduction rather than give live birth like mammals? The evolutionary path of egg development is interesting in and of itself. Does it have to do with cause? Sure, you can follow the biological path of development and discover "causes". But does the organism itself require a "cause"? Probably not. You could say the same about life and the universe. A "cause" would be a tangible concept with some evidence. There is no hard evidence for a "cause". You can propose abstract logic but abstract logic is not evidence. It's only the mind playing games.
Of course, all bets are off if our universe turns out to be a simulation!

This is an interesting article about randomness and the appearance of life. It's about how one scientist approaches the question "Why and How".

www.quantamagazine.org...

"The chicken/egg analogy is circular thinking"

Sure! if you don't consider an ultimate source , you go round and round.

But to have a meaningful discussion all parties involved must agree to an ultimate cause.
Then only then the answer can be arrived at.

Back to the 'chicken egg' (per Whereslogic) analogy.

Without the raw materials to produce the egg, how can you put it together? Where do you start?

What causes it to become an egg?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

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.

Quite right. It doesn't need to predate the beginning since it was always there to 'cause' something to have a beginning.

Question now is this - based on what was "caused" to exist, does the the 'cause' sentient?

not a pet rock?

Wrong track. You are still trying to place the 'cause' before the 'effect' in a linear timeline.

'Everything' was defined instantly -- both 'cause' and 'effect' included. This means that 'Nothing' was also defined in an instant. 'Nothing' is whatever 'Everything' is not and it, too, was defined in the same instant

These definite states didn't wait for all ideas to unfold in a linear timeline. I don't have to type out 1+1=2 in order for that equation to exist.

The definition of 'Everything' includes BOTH 'cause' and 'effect.' It always has included both simultaneously..instantly, infinitely.

Sure if you put it that way.

But what I'm referring to as "Everything" is "Everything with a beginning" apart from "something that has no cause".

Meaning, before everything, there was already something existing - and had no beginning.

And that something is not affected by any cause but was the cause of everything.

to get 2, 1 needs to exist before the effect.



Edit:

signing out....

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

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.

Quite right. It doesn't need to predate the beginning since it was always there to 'cause' something to have a beginning.

Question now is this - based on what was "caused" to exist, does the the 'cause' sentient?

not a pet rock?

Wrong track. You are still trying to place the 'cause' before the 'effect' in a linear timeline.

'Everything' was defined instantly -- both 'cause' and 'effect' included. This means that 'Nothing' was also defined in an instant. 'Nothing' is whatever 'Everything' is not and it, too, was defined in the same instant

These definite states didn't wait for all ideas to unfold in a linear timeline. I don't have to type out 1+1=2 in order for that equation to exist.

The definition of 'Everything' includes BOTH 'cause' and 'effect.' It always has included both simultaneously..instantly, infinitely.

Sure if you put it that way.

But what I'm referring to as "Everything" is "Everything with a beginning" apart from "something that has no cause".

'Everything' is ONE infinitely complex idea (and state) that is completely opposed to the idea of 'Nothing.' If you are suggesting that a 'cause' exists outside of the state of 'Everything,' and that the cause of 'Everything' is a 'God'/Creator...then you are saying that a 'God'/Creator is 'Nothing.'

I do not disagree.

Meaning, before everything, there was already something existing - and had no beginning.

How can that 'something' not be a part of 'everything?' Now THAT is not logical.

***

ONE definition of 'Everything.' And that definition includes both 'cause' and 'effect,' simultaneously. And 'observers' are all that are needed to define the state of 'Everything.'

AND *voila* sure as sh*t, here we are.

That doesn't mean there are not other 'observers' that existed in linear time before humans...and it doesn't preclude any other 'observers' from existing after us or concurrently, in a linear timeline. Whatever 'observers' ever exist(ed) -- at any point in 'Time' -- they were always a defining feature of 'Everything.'

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

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.

Quite right. It doesn't need to predate the beginning since it was always there to 'cause' something to have a beginning.

Question now is this - based on what was "caused" to exist, does the the 'cause' sentient?

not a pet rock?

Wrong track. You are still trying to place the 'cause' before the 'effect' in a linear timeline.

'Everything' was defined instantly -- both 'cause' and 'effect' included. This means that 'Nothing' was also defined in an instant. 'Nothing' is whatever 'Everything' is not and it, too, was defined in the same instant

These definite states didn't wait for all ideas to unfold in a linear timeline. I don't have to type out 1+1=2 in order for that equation to exist.

The definition of 'Everything' includes BOTH 'cause' and 'effect.' It always has included both simultaneously..instantly, infinitely.

Sure if you put it that way.

But what I'm referring to as "Everything" is "Everything with a beginning" apart from "something that has no cause".

Also..I see you are still married to some idea that science has proven every cause must come BEFORE an effect in a linear timeline. That is wrong.

The 'universal law' you speak of just says that every cause has an effect and vice versa. It doesn't dictate the order in a linear timeline.

See:

The universal law of cause and effect states that for every effect there is a definite cause, likewise for every cause there is a definite effect.

See? Get away from the linear thinking.

originally posted by: edmc^2

to get 2, 1 needs to exist before the effect.

The IDEA of Nothing...or some kind of 'state' of Nothing....could never exist without an IDEA and state of Everything. I don't see how anyone gets around that. Each one defines the other....whether they are 'ideas' and/or 'states.' Each idea is whatever the other is not.

Nothing: ONE idea
Everything: ONE idea

One idea plus one idea equals two ideas...and the idea of two is 'born'...AND with it, the equation: 1+1=2.

*poof* The equation was born.

Also born is the equation of +1 + -1 = 0

Every idea in math can be extrapolated from those inherent, inescapable equations, alone.

originally posted by: edmc^2

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

The chicken/egg analogy is circular thinking - you always come back to where you started.

I gave you my answer here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

If everything has a cause, then you should be prepared to describe the cause of anything - including virtual particles. Now, I know you can't do that. Neither can I. We assume there's no cause because that's what the data shows. But since science is about discovery and evidence, anything can change in the future.

The real answer to your question is curiosity - are you curious enough to dig deep to find the answer. Why do birds and reptiles develop eggs for reproduction rather than give live birth like mammals? The evolutionary path of egg development is interesting in and of itself. Does it have to do with cause? Sure, you can follow the biological path of development and discover "causes". But does the organism itself require a "cause"? Probably not. You could say the same about life and the universe. A "cause" would be a tangible concept with some evidence. There is no hard evidence for a "cause". You can propose abstract logic but abstract logic is not evidence. It's only the mind playing games.
Of course, all bets are off if our universe turns out to be a simulation!

This is an interesting article about randomness and the appearance of life. It's about how one scientist approaches the question "Why and How".

www.quantamagazine.org...

"The chicken/egg analogy is circular thinking"

Sure! if you don't consider an ultimate source , you go round and round.

But to have a meaningful discussion all parties involved must agree to an ultimate cause.
Then only then the answer can be arrived at.

Back to the 'chicken egg' (per Whereslogic) analogy.

Without the raw materials to produce the egg, how can you put it together? Where do you start?

What causes it to become an egg?

Well that's the point, isn't it? Who says there has to be a start? It's not obvious.

Why do all parties have to agree to an ultimate cause? Since there's no evidence for a cause, all hypotheses are on the table. It always goes to the evidence. In the post about virtual particles, those particles come in and out of existence without a "cause". Maybe the universe does the same thing.

if you're convinced there is a cause, then you need to present that evidence. Your original post focused on scientists, not philosophers. Scientists look for evidence. Philosophers use logic to draw conclusions. Perhaps your question is really more philosophical than scientific?

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

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

The chicken/egg analogy is circular thinking - you always come back to where you started.

I gave you my answer here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

If everything has a cause, then you should be prepared to describe the cause of anything - including virtual particles. Now, I know you can't do that. Neither can I. We assume there's no cause because that's what the data shows. But since science is about discovery and evidence, anything can change in the future.

The real answer to your question is curiosity - are you curious enough to dig deep to find the answer. Why do birds and reptiles develop eggs for reproduction rather than give live birth like mammals? The evolutionary path of egg development is interesting in and of itself. Does it have to do with cause? Sure, you can follow the biological path of development and discover "causes". But does the organism itself require a "cause"? Probably not. You could say the same about life and the universe. A "cause" would be a tangible concept with some evidence. There is no hard evidence for a "cause". You can propose abstract logic but abstract logic is not evidence. It's only the mind playing games.
Of course, all bets are off if our universe turns out to be a simulation!

This is an interesting article about randomness and the appearance of life. It's about how one scientist approaches the question "Why and How".

www.quantamagazine.org...

"The chicken/egg analogy is circular thinking"

Sure! if you don't consider an ultimate source , you go round and round.

But to have a meaningful discussion all parties involved must agree to an ultimate cause.
Then only then the answer can be arrived at.

Back to the 'chicken egg' (per Whereslogic) analogy.

Without the raw materials to produce the egg, how can you put it together? Where do you start?

What causes it to become an egg?

Well that's the point, isn't it? Who says there has to be a start? It's not obvious.

Why do all parties have to agree to an ultimate cause? Since there's no evidence for a cause, all hypotheses are on the table. It always goes to the evidence. In the post about virtual particles, those particles come in and out of existence without a "cause". Maybe the universe does the same thing.

if you're convinced there is a cause, then you need to present that evidence. Your original post focused on scientists, not philosophers. Scientists look for evidence. Philosophers use logic to draw conclusions. Perhaps your question is really more philosophical than scientific?

I would say this is only half true. Having worked a little years ago while getting my philosophy degree in cosmology, it's a multidisciplinary subject.

Theoretical physics does not always require emperical evidence, it draws conclusions from previous data but it does not itself have "evidence" the same way a mechanical engineer has evidence his machine works and is aligned with our current knowledge of say thermodynamics.

When theoretical physics began gaining steam a system using falsification rather than emperical evidence was created to expidite the theories usefulness or failure before the equipment for observation is invented.

So there is a robust argument in science and philosophy that says even falsifiability is not appropriate for theoretical physics.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness

originally posted by: Davg80
a reply to: whereislogic

well if you put it this way, what came first the chicken, or the egg of the chicken? then there really can be only one answer!

I did... the awareness that was existent before the concept of chicken or egg was given to carry as also existent. The same is true for everyone with every concept that is carried.

Just to be clear, not calling anyone a wacko with the video below, it's just funny and a fitting follow-up regarding the mention of "translation" and in relation to something said about finding an answer to something (paraphrasing, being stuck in a loop actually, as some other people seem to be in this thread):

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.

And frogs turned into princes, we've all heard the stories (or swap out frogs with fish). I don't think some of you are truly hearing yourselves, as in getting it ('know thyself', which I prefer to phrase as "understand thyself"). Tyrannosauri-Rex turned into chickens like Darwin's 'bears turned into whales'-story? Uhm, 'right...'

"Walking whales", "Mermaids" a.k.a. "the aquatic apemen hypothesis", apemen, humans are apes, humans are animals and so on...some people sure like to:

In more than 1 sense. Hey, that's odd, no humans in the center of the attention in the video even though it says "animals" in the title.

a reply to: whereislogic

The hell are you talking about? ETA: OHHHHH You are a evolution denier. Gotcha. I'm not going to watch your crummy Youtube video. I prefer looking at science not propaganda.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: whereislogic

The hell are you talking about? ETA: OHHHHH You are a evolution denier. Gotcha. I'm not going to watch your crummy Youtube video. I prefer looking at science not propaganda.

I find his username incredibly ironic.

a reply to: whereislogic

Listen, I understand that some focal points of research in science impede your religious views from obtaining reality, but I also know a lot of religious people who accept these fields (such as biology and what occurs to it).

The difference between them and you is usually just a simple and honest misunderstanding, regarding the field of research in question.

Could you elaborate on why you believe evolution cannot occur? Perhaps we can explain it more clearly

a reply to: Ghost147

To put it in perspective Laimatre was a priest, he layed all the ground work for testing and creating the big bang theory (not the show)

Mendel was a monk.

The Jesuit, that people on ats think are global cabal gangsters have been educating scientists for a long time and teaching critical thinking. Hence why these conspiracy ultra born again opinions get circulated.

Besides corporations are the new religious zealots. They hire scientists to write junk articles and fake studies in journals to fabricate their results for maximizing prophets...or profits I can't remember.

So they also supress science that could be competition.

originally posted by: Indigo5
My bottom line to your question?..

Our universe originated from a larger "something" that creates Universes like bubbles in soda...

Compare the metaphorical implication of the last few seconds with my signature. Btw, I'm the fish swimming in the back earlier that says something important about a (propaganda) box (this system of things) metaphorically.

originally posted by: edmc^2

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?

My answer would be there both "was" and "is".

In the void..."Space" and therefore "time" does not exist. The rules of physics are embedded in "space".

I visualize it as bubbles in soda.

Our universe is a bubble and between the bubbles is void. Other bubbles can have other rules of physics.

originally posted by: edmc^2

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

It's not illogical for something to come from nothing unless you define your vernacular very carefully.

Even so that isn't the premise anyway. Modern .physics says you don't have the definitions for your nouns and adjectives correctly.

Look a prime mover, necessary being is no more accurate than a multiverse of interdimesional infinity, or a holographic simulation.

Your entire premise of the question begs a question. I am wondering if it's honest.

Unfortunately as mortals, we have no choice but to use the best way we can to convey an idea outside of our own experience.

Yet, fascinating thing is, our mortal mind is not a prisoner of the material but is able to travel space and time.

As to the Q;

It's an honest question - as much "why we're here"?

Again in philosophy in the modern age of physics mortality is simply biological. We have no way of knowing what consciousness is yet. Perhaps the self travels dimensionally as in most religious folklore consider a soul and heaven.

Maybe old masters of the self could direct their next travel in the multiverse.

Maybe we had knowledge of dimensional science that got lost after cataclysmic events, when archaic man had to repopulate.

Who knows those are ideas.

The glaring fault I find with many abrahamic believers is the lack of self study disciplines.

A book with metaphor is profound and it can be useful. But being read to like a child from an adult does not make a person able to enter realms of thought and observation on elevated levels. The old system ascetic people used to control "mind over matter" is distinctly faded from modern religion and in my opinion was the only valid part of it.

Perhaps the old masters did find truth in the silence, I have no doubt a mind is a very special thing in the universe, one like it hasn't been found for miles yet anyway.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: whereislogic
...evolution denier.

Name-Calling

Some people insult those who disagree with them by questioning character or motives instead of focusing on the facts. Name-calling slaps a negative, easy-to-remember label onto a person, a group, or an idea. The name-caller hopes that the label will stick. If people reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative label instead of weighing the evidence for themselves, the name-caller’s strategy has worked.
...
Making Generalizations

Another very successful tactic of propaganda is generalization. Generalizations tend to obscure important facts about the real issues in question, and they are frequently used to demean entire groups of people.
...
Lies, Lies!

Certainly, the handiest trick of the propagandist is the use of outright lies.
...
Many respond to this pressure by absorbing messages more quickly and accepting them without questioning or analyzing them.

The cunning propagandist loves such shortcuts—especially those that short-circuit rational thought. Propaganda encourages this by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic.

Source: The Manipulation of Information: Awake!—2000

originally posted by: Ghost147
Could you elaborate on why you believe evolution cannot occur?

Put words in someone’s mouth: Cambidge Dictionary (with a question in this case, I guess the "are you saying..." games have all been played too much already on this forum):

to say that someone means one thing when the person really meant something else:

Or to imply that someone has said something which they didn't say in a question, that works as well. And nice for setting up a fight against a...

strawman

1. an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

Or at least paint that picture without doing any arguing against it because the picture alone is enough for the desired purpose of discrediting someone and whatever they dared to say that might have anything to do with someone's precious beliefs and philosophies/ideas.

originally posted by: edmc^2


to get 2, 1 needs to exist before the effect.

In order to cross a distance on 100 miles...You must first arrive at the half-way mark of 50 miles..

In order to arrive at 50 miles..you must first arrive at 25 miles..

before that 12.5 miles..

before that...6.25 miles

before travelling 6.25 miles you must first travel 3.125 miles..

Ad infinitum..

The only way to actually move is a succession of teleportation's?

reductio ad absurdum

The Dichotomy Paradox..

It is a Math problem, not a reality problem.