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: 23
12
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

You can encourage thinking all you want but I'd rather have an answer to my simple straightforward questions. That would be more useful and a nice surprise from not getting any straight answers but the dodges and deflections that were earlier painted on another group of people in this thread as using those in a nicely obscured generalization.

Quoting PeterVlar:

Just look at their citations... Awake and The Watchtower, both JW propaganda rags thst wouldn't know science if Neil DeGrasse Tyson gave them a lap dance while reciting the periodic table. There is no debate, no discussion. Only deflection. It's pretty standard at this point.

Nice psychological projection and generalization as well as slander and ridicule. Nobody needs to say anything about that behaviour right? Is he addressing any of the points made or things brought up in the commentary or doing something else?

Also don't think I've forgotten your earlier use of the terminology "is" a possibility "logically speaking" when trying to switch back to agnosticism and deny everything-mode regarding earlier claimed facts about what is supposedly a possibility "logically speaking". You've made your claim. You've stated that it's a fact that it is a possibility "logically speaking" without spelling it out like that. No need to run back to your Great 'We Don't Know (Yet)' god of the agnostic gaps of convenience. You've already stuck your neck out, which was a whole lot braver than the backpeddling that I'm seeing in your last comment.

So round and round we go and we're stil left with your claim that it is (factual/absolute) that it is a possibility "logically speaking" that a universe can exist that is its own cause and I'm arguing and reminding people that it is a logical contradiction to argue or claim that it is a possibility that an effect (like the universe) is also its own cause, therefore, an impossibility.

Effect A cannot be the cause of effect A. (and please don't try to twist that by talking about types of effects, grouping things together, that's not what the A stands for).
edit on 19-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

What I understand keenly is apologists avoid the topic themselves.

You turn the argument around.

You want a simple answer where one is not appropriate.

There isn't one.

I can find a million faults with legends and folklore as well.

When it comes down to it a first cause or necessary being can be a diest viewpoint, it does not prove any kind of biblical god who cares for people.

Page one,...no back pedaling. Which makes you making a strawman.

Notice I say each of the concepts including a necessary being is logical. My personal preferences are irrelevant. I admit they all have logic.

Jeez man. You would do OK if you read closer. And thought more after.
edit on 19-4-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

You can encourage thinking all you want but I'd rather have an answer to my simple straightforward questions. That would be more useful and a nice surprise from not getting any straight answers but the dodges and deflections that were earlier painted on another group of people in this thread as using those in a nicely obscured generalization.

Quoting PeterVlar:
"Is he addressing any of the points made or things brought up in the commentary or doing something else?"


I tried to give you a logical answer as to how the state of 'Everything' is both it's cause and effect. It's the state of 'Everything'...how could it NOT be both?

If you don't address it, don't fault anyone for noticing.

These really aren't 'simple' questions, btw. Humans have been trying to answer them since they had the ability to.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Again agnosticism is the position of inquiry. When you know everything you can't learn anything.

I enjoy sufism and Buddhism quite a bit so yes I lean towards pantheism.

I just don't need to admit I "know everything" and therefor believe anything that is logical to feel progress.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: luthier

You can encourage thinking all you want but I'd rather have an answer to my simple straightforward questions. That would be more useful and a nice surprise from not getting any straight answers but the dodges and deflections that were earlier painted on another group of people in this thread as using those in a nicely obscured generalization.

Quoting PeterVlar:

Just look at their citations... Awake and The Watchtower, both JW propaganda rags thst wouldn't know science if Neil DeGrasse Tyson gave them a lap dance while reciting the periodic table. There is no debate, no discussion. Only deflection. It's pretty standard at this point.

Nice psychological projection and generalization as well as slander and ridicule.


Get over yourself and your high horse. My statement was none of the things you attempt to portray the statement as. What exactly am I projecting aside from facts? In nearly every single post since you have joined ATS includes a citation to a JW rag. It's also not a generalization in any way. There was nothing vague or indefinite regarding my comment. In fact, I was Esther specific so quite contrary to what a generalization typically consists of. It's not slander either because I have said nothing untrue. If you feel ridiculed, perhaps it's because your tenuous and fantasy based system of viewing the world is ridiculous and you are instead the one projecting your own shortcomings upon those who criticize your BS.



Nobody needs to say anything about that behaviour right?


Apparently you're the only one who feels this way.


Is he addressing any of the points made or things brought up in the commentary or doing something else?


Perhaps in addition to getting yourself a nice dictionary, you may want to explore getting Hooked on Phonics as well because comprehensionis t your strong suit apparently. I was addressing a specific poster and replying to one of their posts. If that was lost on you while you were overreacting and accusing me of slander and a host of other adjectives you don't appear to understand the definitions of, that's on you not me. The fact is though that you do not believe in evolution, you do not understand the science you atte or to dispute and yogi seldom use your own words and instead rely on JW propaganda rags to make your point. Please tell me which part is untrue and I will gladly issue you a public apology. The facts stand on their own though. You've cited Watchtower and Awake in this thread and you've been quite clear regarding your ignorance and inability to comprehend the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. So no, I've not generalized, I've not projected, I've definitely not slandered and if you feel ridiculed, that's our cross to bear not mine. But you should because your views on the science involved is ridiculous.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

again with the sutble paint brushes as if others are claiming to "know everything" or as if it's even relevant to bring up that phrase. No, no, no, bad form, bad form.

Can you at the least acknowledge one thing regarding your earlier claims?

For example your claim that it is a possibility "logically speaking" that a universe can exist that is its own cause?

I.e. the universe is the cause for the universe. The same one. Why am I the one subtly accused of not reading closely enough when you won't even acknowledge anything you've claimed before?

So really, try to elaborate why it is not a logical contradiction to argue that the universe is the cause for the universe (or that scenario as a possibility), cause according to you I'm not getting it. Perhaps it has something to do with someone not willing to state things clearly and plainly as they are arguing for it but twisting and dancing around the issue.
edit on 19-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

For example your claim that it is a possibility "logically speaking" that a universe can exist that is its own cause?

I.e. the universe is the cause for the universe. The same one. Why am I the one subtly accused of not reading closely enough when you won't even acknowledge anything you've claimed before?

So really, try to elaborate why it is not a logical contradiction to argue that the universe is the cause for the universe, cause according to you I'm not getting it. Perhaps it has something to do with someone not willing to state things clearly and plainly as they are arguing for it but twisting and dancing around the issue.



*raises her hand*

I am going to answer the same as I have before but in a slightly different way. I imagine you will continue ignoring my answers though.

Even if all that there is, is just our one Universe -- there exists nothing else -- THEN it would still have to be its own cause because it is 'EVERYTHING.' And that would include its 'cause.'

There is only the 'State of Everything' and the 'Idea of Nothing.' Any 'cause' for the 'State of Everything' would LOGICALLY be included as a part of 'Everything.' How could it not?

So answer that question: How could the 'State of Everything' (even if it's only our Universe) not include its own 'cause?'

Or are you saying there is something besides 'Everything' and 'Nothing?'

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



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: luthier

again with the sutble paint brushes as if others are claiming to "know everything" or as if it's even relevant to bring up that phrase. No, no, no, bad form, bad form.

Can you at the least acknowledge one thing regarding your earlier claims?

For example your claim that it is a possibility "logically speaking" that a universe can exist that is its own cause?

I.e. the universe is the cause for the universe. The same one. Why am I the one subtly accused of not reading closely enough when you won't even acknowledge anything you've claimed before?

So really, try to elaborate why it is not a logical contradiction to argue that the universe is the cause for the universe (or that scenario as a possibility), cause according to you I'm not getting it. Perhaps it has something to do with someone not willing to state things clearly and plainly as they are arguing for it but twisting and dancing around the issue.


How do you explain virtual particles coming in and out of existence with no cause? If the universe is infinite, it obviously would not have a cause. How do you explain that? Do you even know if the universe is infinite or not? You have a lot of 'splainin to do my man.

P.S. Please dispense with the YouTube videos. They contribute nothing to our knowledge.




edit on 19-4-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-4-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar
oh yes, agitate those emotions. It's working so well. You can also describe it as deflection away from my questions and points that I'm bringing up in relation to the topic of cause and effect as it applies to topics such as the universe or the biomolecular machinery and technology in lifeforms. As well as stories about such things as walking whales and related behaviour and ways of reasoning and arguing.

Should I turn a blind eye to the ways of arguing by those who don't spell out "walking whales" in their storyline that is the same except for that terminology or the claim that "whales had feet and actually walked on land" as claimed by Dr. Annalisa Berta* in the video promoting supposed evidence for the "evolution of whales" from terrestrial animals, the same supposed evidence used by Kenneth Miller who is famous for his youtube video about the Chromosome #2 fusion myth and erronuous postdiction that he describes as a prediction while knowing better?

*: referred to as "a biology professor at San Diego State University"

synonyms for "actually": absolutely/really/literally/as a matter of fact/in fact/in truth/in reality
edit on 19-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 04:18 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?



42


It may be, however, that you dont understand the question



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   
The universe is "god/s/", therefore, since "god/s/" always has been, so has the universe.

cyclical universe
edit on 1942017 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2


If, as you say, "literally everything has a cause", then you're basically saying there's no end to the cause.

That is, the cause has an unending cause. The 1st cause was caused by the one that preceded it, the one that preceded it was also caused by the one that preceded it, and on and on we go - ad infinitum.


it is quite the conundrum yes. I never said i don't understand why you would be tempted to take shortcuts, I only said the puzzle deserves more than such lackadaisical problem solving.


That's where you're logic breaks down.

So what to do?

What's the alternative?


what to do? go back to the drawing board of course. and bring your A game this time. just because you came up with a snazzy brain teaser doesnt mean you solved the riddle. you just rephrased it in an effort to look clever. lets see some actual answers please. take your time, there is no deadline.


while you are preparing to reevaluate your hypotheses, maybe you would like to explain why my logic is more faulty than your proposed solution?

Edit to add: perhaps we produced our own universe. perhaps one of our experiments created (or will create) the universe in which we now exist, and we simply have never been aware of it. imagine a torus that starts from a later point in this universe and ends at the beginning of it. a fascinating idea.
edit on 19-4-2017 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: whereislogic

For example your claim that it is a possibility "logically speaking" that a universe can exist that is its own cause?

I.e. the universe is the cause for the universe. The same one. Why am I the one subtly accused of not reading closely enough when you won't even acknowledge anything you've claimed before?

So really, try to elaborate why it is not a logical contradiction to argue that the universe is the cause for the universe, cause according to you I'm not getting it. Perhaps it has something to do with someone not willing to state things clearly and plainly as they are arguing for it but twisting and dancing around the issue.



*raises her hand*

I am going to answer the same as I have before but in a slightly different way. I imagine you will continue ignoring my answers though.

Even if all that there is, is just our one Universe -- there exists nothing else -- THEN it would still have to be its own cause because it is 'EVERYTHING.' And that would include its 'cause.'

There is only the 'State of Everything' and the 'Idea of Nothing.' Any 'cause' for the 'State of Everything' would LOGICALLY be included as a part of 'Everything.' How could it not?

So answer that question: How could the 'State of Everything' (even if it's only our Universe) not include its own 'cause?'

Or are you saying there is something besides 'Everything' and 'Nothing?'


I don't understand your logic. Are you suggesting that the universe was a spontaneous event and that it includes the "state of everything"? A spontaneous event may or may not have a cause. Why would you think that the universe was a spontaneous event?

There really isn't a state of "nothing" in the universe. Vacuum fluctuations are transitions between "nothing and something" i.e. virtual particles. There's no cause. There's no effect. There's no matter. There's no energy. There's no time. It's the ground state.

A couple of videos which may clarify these ideas:



If you want to really get into it (and drive yourself crazy at the same time), watch these lectures. My favorite professor:

The YouTube video won't load for some reason: Here's the direct link: www.youtube.com...
edit on 19-4-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Ah, but I never said there was a 'state of Nothing.' I said there is an 'idea of Nothing.' You quoted me saying that.

The 'Idea of Nothing' is whatever the 'State of Everything' is not.

And it is entangled with both the state and idea of Everything. (Technically the 'State of Everything' is the 'Idea of Everything'.)

'Everything' would include its own cause....because it includes everything.

ETA: Also, I said the Universe could be a part of the 'State of Everything,' or maybe it is the 'State of Everything.'

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



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
The universe is "god/s/", therefore, since "god/s/" always has been, so has the universe.

cyclical universe


First you need to demonstrate "god/s/" exist, then you need to demonstrate that they "always has been," along with the universe. And even if you could demonstrate "god/s/" exist, it will still be useless information concerning the how.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
Now it can easily be replaced with a panthiest like model or purely the universe itself is its own cause, but these are two possibilities logically speaking ...

We're just focussing on 1 of the 2 suggested possibilities here. Let's not get sidetracked.

Logical contradictions are not possibilities (or possible scenarios), do you deny or acknowledge that?

I think we've already established that you deny that the suggested possibility is a logical contradiction even though it's in essence arguing for a supposed possible scenario of:

the universe is the cause for the beginning of the universe (itself) and the universe is the creator of the universe (itself) before it (the universe) had begun to exist. So apparently the universe could both cause and create the universe (itself) into existence before it (the universe) existed.

All of that is implied and expressed by logical follow-through in the bolded part. They are just different ways to phrase it cause no matter how many ways I turn and twist in order to accomodate your dance, it still remains an impossibility because it's a logical contradiction to suggest that anything is its own cause for it beginning to exist or its existence.

The same question I raised earlier is for everyone who is clicking the reply button on my commentary to luthier or commentary about these subjects and is expecting answers to their questions from me, you first.


While you're at it, you can share your opinion on whether what I described above as the suggested possible scenario by luthier was indeed what he was arguing for or suggested as such and whether or not it's a logical contradiction to say or in essence to argue that (it is possible that*):

the universe is its own cause, or caused its own existence, or caused itself to come into existence (before it existed)

*: it's not just a logical contradiction because it's suggested as a possibility (which is suggesting a logical contradiction as a possibility)

Meaning of the word "cause" as used in the context of this thread: 1. a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition. (source: google dictionary)

"gives rise to" is talking about a beginning to the ..."phenomenon, or condition". True or False? Open question to the floor. Remember that luthier nor anyone else in this thread is exempted from using the word "cause" with that implied meaning by logical follow-through in this thread. His argument about a suggested possibilty was first about a universe that had a beginning yet some really mysterious magical powers before it existed to do anything, let alone cause anything and he or she has not retracted that claim of a supposed possibility that is actually an impossibility because it's a logical contradiction.
edit on 19-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: flyingfish

originally posted by: TerryDon79
The universe is "god/s/", therefore, since "god/s/" always has been, so has the universe.

cyclical universe


First you need to demonstrate "god/s/" exist, then you need to demonstrate that they "always has been," along with the universe. And even if you could demonstrate "god/s/" exist, it will still be useless information concerning the how.


That's kind of the point.

1, you (and I) can't prove god/s/ exist.
2, you (and I) can't prove the universe is infinitely cyclical.

You (and I) also can't prove the counter, that neither of them do and are.

All this thread is is another religious thread trying to prove "god" in a way that doesn't.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
...it still remains an impossibility because it's a logical contradiction to suggest that anything it its own cause for it beginning to exist or its existence.



GAH!

Why are you ignoring the logical explanation? You act as if it hasn't been explained, again & again.

There are only two ultimate ideas....Everything & Nothing. There is only one possible state: EVERYTHING.

The 'State of Everything' INCLUDES its own cause....it's EVERYTHING...including it's cause.

ANSWER THE QUESTION: How could the 'State of Everything' NOT include it's own cause?



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Well the statement that "everything that has a beginning has a cause" is not a fact it's an assumption. You are preloading the subsequent question.

So your thread is boll.cks.

Bye.......



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Phantom423

Ah, but I never said there was a 'state of Nothing.' I said there is an 'idea of Nothing.' You quoted me saying that.

The 'Idea of Nothing' is whatever the 'State of Everything' is not.

And it is entangled with both the state and idea of Everything. (Technically the 'State of Everything' is the 'Idea of Everything'.)

'Everything' would include its own cause....because it includes everything.

ETA: Also, I said the Universe could be a part of the 'State of Everything,' or maybe it is the 'State of Everything.'


Do you mean entangled in the quantum mechanical sense?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join