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: 22
12
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Davg80

In all honesty, the age didn't really change. The "newer" Planck data indicating an age of 13.82 BA is well within the margin of error for the age assigned by analyzing the WMAP data. When trying to determine the ages of anything, whether a cosmological phenomenon, a 10 KA archaeological find or a 100 MA Paleontological find, there is always an ascribed margin of error included.

It's not as if anyone is ever trying to give you a date with exacting specificity, ever. The dates
given are always presented as the best information available at the time based on the amount of actual data being reviewed and the technological limitations of the tests being performed to obtain those dates. Even with something as well understood as 14 C dating, there are well known margins of error included because we know that there are other
factors that can affect the end results.

I do realize though that once something is picked up from a Journal and is filtered through words of someone who is
writing for a scientifically interested but lay audience and in doing so, a lot of minutiae is lost in translation.

I also want to point out that I don't actually disagree with the premise of your post, that newer data and better instrumentation will inevitably lead us to different answers. Sometimes these are just refined and more accurate updates of prior experiments such as your above example comparing the WMAP to the Planck data. I just wanted to address a common misconception that many others on here seem to adhere to. The gist of your post was on point. It's just that far too many will latch onto that and use it to rationalize their own willful ignorance and prop up their own strawman arguments against MES so please don't take it as if I'm trying to jump down your throat. It was more for the benefit of others who may have used your example out of proper context.




posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 12:31 PM
link   

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

oh joy - another round of mental mastrubation

the opening line :

"Everything that has a beginning has a cause "

is all you need to read to know that everything following it is appologetics beaten to provide the " correct " answer

it amazes me that people so critical of science - leap so readily [ and desperatly ] to the most pathetic special pleading immaginable


critical of science?

who?

If not for science we might not have known, discovered the mysteries of the universe and formulate hypotheses and theories.

If not for science you'll have no way of communicating here via your keyboard.

If not for science, modern medicine, engineering, bionics, QM, particle physics and so much more may not have happened.

So sayz who?

critical of science?

So nope, we're not being critical of science - but expanding the horizon of possibilities and probabilities.


edit on 19-4-2017 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Yet here we are.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

I would venture to say very boldly if your are lost in what I am saying you have not thought this out, or spent any significant time checking your falacy.

The op is exactly about cosmology and what came first.

Three well vetted answers that don't rely on silly propaganda which is what you are using are.

A necessary being(s) it's own cause outside of "reality", a universe that is its own cause (dimensional, muliverse, etc), or we simply can.only know what the universe we were created in is because of that very fact like in the anthropic principle.

Those are the stripped versions of how you get something from nothing.

It's because clearly nothing is not possible. Nothing does not truly exist. There is no nothing in reality.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Implying a universe that is its own cause has logical implications and follow-throughs that I rephrased earlier and you did not respond to. It is a logical contradiction and not a possibility "logically speaking" as you claimed.

Was anything I rephrased regarding what that argument really means and is arguing for misleading on my part?

Are you not arguing for the possibility "logically speaking" of:

"A universe creating itself when it doesn't even exist yet to do anything let alone create itself."

When one is talking about a universe that has a cause one is also implying (by logical follow-through) that said universe had a beginning. That in turn boils down to arguing that said universe (no quick swapping to multiverse here) is the cause for its own beginning, which in my opinion honestly translates to what I just described above (you may also swap out "creating" and "create" with "causing" and "cause", I was just being more specific). Why not spell it out honestly like that next time when arguing for this supposed possibility "logically speaking" that is more clearly shown to be an impossibility, when one is honestly and reasonably speaking without obscuring the real argument and everything it stands for or leads to if one applies the logic consistently and follows through the argument and claim that this is supposedly a possibility.

It's not a possibility as shown by my rephrasing of it and demonstrating what Captain Subtext would say about someone using the phrase:

...a universe that is its own cause...

in the manner previously described as 'is a possibility "logically speaking"' (paraphrasing and quoting).

So Captain Subtext says:

A universe creating or causing itself when it doesn't even exist yet to do anything let alone create or cause itself.

edit on 19-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

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

oh joy - another round of mental mastrubation

the opening line :

"Everything that has a beginning has a cause "

is all you need to read to know that everything following it is appologetics beaten to provide the " correct " answer

it amazes me that people so critical of science - leap so readily [ and desperatly ] to the most pathetic special pleading immaginable


critical of science?

who?

If not for science we might not have known, discovered the mysteries of the universe and formulate hypotheses and theories.

If not for science you'll have no way of communicating here via your keyboard.

If not for science, modern medicine, engineering, bionics, QM, particle physics and so much more may not have happened.

So sayz who?

critical of science?

So nope, we're not being critical of science - but expanding the horizon of possibilities and probabilities.


Every so often you say something sensible. But it's hard to notice through all the special pleading, trying to shoehorn mythological deities into modern science.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic




"A universe creating itself when it doesn't even exist yet to do anything let alone create itself."


The same argument can be used for a god.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

And how would you do that for a God that has existed eternally and therefore cannot logically (have?) been created otherwise he wouldn't have existed eternally? Why would one want to argue for such 'a God creating Himself when He doesn't even exist yet to do anything let alone create itself' when a person is actually arguing for an eternal God and the phrase "doesn't even exist yet" doesn't apply* at all in any thought process about such an eternal God? *: likewise the notion of "creating" doesn't apply, or otherwise phrased as the logical requirement or need to have been created
edit on 19-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic




And how would you do that for an eternal God that cannot logically have been created otherwise he wouldn't be eternal?


Then why could the universe not be eternal? What was the first cause of your deity? You assert the universe must have a first cause when you have no way of knowing this.
edit on fWednesday171142f115502 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Again your not understanding this which is OK but you have to slow down.

There are several ideas as many as there are God's of creation for the universe being it's own cause.

One there is no before. It's just a constant big squeeze and big bang back and forth for infinity, the concept of time and space being severely limited by out position to make observations on the earth.

There are multiple dimensions of reality where all possibilities exist. Similar to the cat in the box scenarioin QM.

The "universe" is a collective consciousness or divine oneness that exists throughout all time and space in multiple universes.

As I said the "universe" being it's own cause is not a reference to this particular universe but the collections or concepts related to the thing that holds matter and energy.

And God could be dead. There could be a new god born every (insert time we don't understand) writes a code and dies again only to be reborn when the next locusts sing.

You never know.
edit on 19-4-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: whereislogic
Then why could the universe not be eternal?

Perhaps you should ask the person who was talking about a cause for the universe, before swapping meanings for that terminology "the universe" (or "cause", cause "the universe" was suggested to be this "cause") to "multiverse,...,etc.".

I do have some ideas about why philosophical naturalists, fans of evolututionary philosophies, types like Stephen Hawking, neglect to argue properly and clearly* for an eternal universe or the universe having existed eternally (*: straight, without contradictions talking about causes for a universe that sometimes has a beginning but then later in the argumentation doesn't have a beginning because it just turned into a multiverse in the logical pathway tracing back what someone is really arguing for).
edit on 19-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Whereislogic do you mind responding to this post please?


originally posted by: Ghost147

If you actually do accept the theory of evolution, then all you need to say is that you do, and then my first response will be totally void.

But instead all you've done is go rambling on about how I'm manipulating this conversation in some way.

Just say "sorry, but you're wrong, I actually do accept evolution as a fact" if that's the case.

Here. I'll make it blasingly simplistic for you. Answer the following question.

Do you accept the current scientific theory of biological evolution?

I am honestly just wondering. I'm not playing any games. It just came off as if you didn't, and so I asked... that's it...



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Yes I mind because you don't really respond to what I'm talking about. And your questions are red herrings away from what I'm bringing up or asking you.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

You don't have a very good idea at all. That isn't the argument nor the concepts.


edit on 19-4-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Obviously, the Universe(s) is its own cause. Or more accurately, the state of 'Everything' is its own cause in that it is entangled with the idea of 'Nothing.'

Nothing doesn't exist in reality, it is only an idea and the idea of 'Nothing' cannot be escaped -- that 'idea' certainly exists.

But 'Nothing' couldn't exist as an idea unless it's defined by the state of 'Everything' (as opposed to 'Something,' which is the word luthier used).

The idea of 'Nothing' is whatever 'Everything' is not. To say the idea of 'Nothing' is whatever 'Something' is not doesn't go far enough.

Therefore, both 'cause' and 'effect' exist simultaneously in the state of 'Everything.' Neither one 'came first.'

The idea of 'Nothing' is defined as NOT being what happened a billion years ago and, also, NOT being whatever happens a billion years from now -- the idea of 'Nothing' is whatever 'Everything' is not.

Just because we only understand what 'Everything' and the idea of 'Nothing' are -- from one present moment to the next in linear time -- it doesn't mean that's all that 'Everything' is. 'Everything' includes the future, too. 'All of Time' exists in the state of 'Everything.'

To say that only one thing ('Something') defined the idea of 'Nothing,' at some point at/before the 'beginning,' isn't logical because the idea of 'Nothing' is whatever 'Everything' is not.

I submit that the paradox of the idea of 'Nothing,' and the state of 'Everything' (which is necessary to define it), is both cause & effect. Neither could exist without the other.

And it's self-evident that both the idea of 'Nothing' and the state of 'Everything' do, in fact, exist -- even if you believe we live in a holograph.

The state of 'Everything' allows the idea of 'Nothing' to exist within it...and that is its 'cause,' IMO.

A state and idea of 'Nothing' that somehow existed BEFORE the state and idea of 'Everything' came into existence is an absurd idea. Neither could exist for even a 'moment' without the other and neither could not exist either.

So, all of this is to say that 'Everything' is bound by a 'scientific law:' Every idea (real, imaginary, material, and even absurd ideas) exists in the state of 'Everything' because entangled ideas caused them to exist....beginning with the ideas of 'Nothing' and 'Everything'...and, including the ideas of 'up' & 'down,' 'left' & 'right,' '+1' & '-1,' etc.. Because ideas build on each other in a chain, we perceive them through linear time. But all of time already exists infinitely in the state of 'Everything.'

edit on 19-4-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Are you not arguing for the possibility "logically speaking" of:

"A universe creating itself when it doesn't even exist yet to do anything let alone create itself."

I think I elaborated enough on why your words boil down to what I said above. You can try to swap the meaning of "universe" to "multiverse" all you want to produce one red herring after another to distract away from the fact that the above is what you were arguing for. As you are doing here with yet another attempt at rephrasing that swapping routine (and warping language and "capitalizing on the ambiguity of language", a tactic earlier described in my commentary about propaganda techniques):

The "universe" is a collective consciousness or divine oneness that exists throughout all time and space in multiple universes.

boils down to "The universe" = something that exists in multiple universes which is not much different than saying = a multiverse.

And the "is" in there makes it a statement as if it's a fact. Something that is factual/certain/absolute. Why do you get to redefine what the word "universe" or the terminology "the universe" is referring to?

Let me attempt another rephrasing of your argument to something that sounds a little bit more honest and recognizable what the flaw in it is.

Are you not arguing for the possibility "logically speaking" of:

"the universe" or "a universe" being the cause for the existence and beginning of that existence of the very same universe earlier in this sentence?

And did you not earlier swap the "cause" (which above is "the universe" or "a universe") to suddenly not be referring to the same universe anymore but a "dimensional, multiverse, etc." when you said:

a universe that is its own cause (dimensional, muliverse, etc)


What is the cause, "a universe" (that universe mentioned at the beginning of the sentence as being its own cause) or the (a) multiverse? You can't have it both ways. The whole "its own cause" cannot be explained away like that. There's your logical contradiction for ye. Effects or phenomena cannot be their own cause. That is an impossibility, logically speaking or any other way. It remains a logical impossibility.

No why does the term circular argument suddenly enter my mind when thinking about someone suggesting an effect to be its own cause? It probably doesn't apply to blatant logical contradictions like that but still I can't shake the thought...
edit on 19-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Very nice.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
So, what's the answer to this simple question:
If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?

Time is an illusion. Don't get so hung up on cause-effect. It's just something that we poor dumb humans use as a way to try to make sense of existence, even though we probably don't have the ability to ever really comprehend it.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
There's a question that had been asked around. But somehow, it's baffling why smart thinking people are unable to give a straight answer.
They go round and round explaining how stuffs work and how science work but never giving an answer. Sometimes they say the question doesn't make sense. Some say we don't know the answer. But some protest that it's a leading question. But really, are they being honest as to what they know or is it that they don't want to admit the obvious?

Well let's see where you stand.

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 thought atheists were the same as evolutionists; the opposite of creationists?

I think that that 'something' has to be acknowledged by a witness- before it can make any claim as to the possibility of even being in existence?
Two atoms never know about each other unless they make some kind of contact. And when they do make that contact, there becomes two witnesses to that fact.

An effective result can only stem from it's cause.
Formula
edit on (4/19/1717 by loveguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

You should think harder. Not even close.

We are debating. I have established I don't have hard beliefs in any of this.
edit on 19-4-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
12
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join