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: 25
20
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

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

What caused God then? Or THE Gods, or the holy pasta?



Obviously, the Flour, Eggs, and Holy Water combined to cause the Holy Pasta. R'amen.

I asked pages ago what a God(s) is made of. I didn't get an answer.


Since God (and whatever He is made of) precedes the universe and is not bound by its laws, God cannot be defined by any standards we can perceive.

It would be like a video game character trying to define the game programmer. Everything about the programmer is outside the comprehension of the game character. So while God must be made of something, we have no way to describe what that something is.


If 'God' is made of something, then that something came from somewhere.

A video game programmer is made of stuff that came from somewhere, whether the character they created can conceive of it or not.
edit on 19-4-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: luthier
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).

Because effect A did not exist yet to cause effect A if effect A is proposed to be the cause of effect A's emergence ('gives rise to') and nothing else caused effect A's emergence or beginning.

Which again, is what the argument from luthier, Stephen Hawking and others boils down to.


It's not, you have ignorance of the argument and I think hawking is a physical cosmologist who works on black holes. His opinions in philosophy can be extremely juvenile.

Logic equations don't work in cosmology it's a larger falsifiability system with many disciplines.

You should consider trying to understand the anthropic principle to understand how to move beyond simple solutions and why our mind would move towards these answers. Your first instincts are bound by something that isn't the entire picture much like "the cave"

There are forces within the universe which are unexplainable currently. Entropic gravity could be keying in some explanations in the future.

But since your ignorant to the premise in string, m theory, and bosonic theory your arguing using a celebrity physicists views on philosophy. He knows his part of physics. He is a piece, a big one in terms of event horizon theory and certain physical cosmology but he isn't an expert on everything.

Dawkins for instance is a terrible philosopher. But a great evolutionary biologist.

Maybe your faith has made you think one person or being has the answers, but that isn't the way I work.

Agnosticism for me is the wonder I still have for what it all means. Just because you "decided" on which train to take doesn't mean you know where your going or if your on the right one.

I prefer to stay open to the reveal from nature itself rather than decide I have all the answers.

If you do fine, but I have heard your argument it goes back to B.C. nobody wins.
edit on 19-4-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

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

What caused God then? Or THE Gods, or the holy pasta?



Obviously, the Flour, Eggs, and Holy Water combined to cause the Holy Pasta. R'amen.

I asked pages ago what a God(s) is made of. I didn't get an answer.


Since God (and whatever He is made of) precedes the universe and is not bound by its laws, God cannot be defined by any standards we can perceive.

It would be like a video game character trying to define the game programmer. Everything about the programmer is outside the comprehension of the game character. So while God must be made of something, we have no way to describe what that something is.


If 'God' is made of something, then that something came from somewhere.

A video game programmer is made of stuff that came from somewhere, whether the character they created can conceive of it or not.


Something out of nothing is more a common argument tile than semantically correct statement.

This thread is a veiled argument for Aquinas whether or not the op knows that history. Seems like his ways no?

Or say Diagoras, Aristotle and scores globally throughout history.

The thing is people smarter than us still admit nobody won, so why not discus the specifics and pro cons rather than get caught in something with no answer?


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



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I think I am an agnostic under your definition and an atheist under my own.

Since I see no evidence of ideas born in 'minds' materializing *magically* -- without borrowing from other ideas (material AND imagined), first -- YET I do see material ideas (found only in Nature) combine, fuse, interact, etc. materialize into new ideas *magically*, then I cannot say I see any evidentiary support for ideas born in a Creator/God's mind having anything to do with the material state of 'Everything.'

But if I do ever see such evidence, I would have to change my mind about the possibility.

What I love about your comments, luthier, is your obvious attention to all kinds of theories (philosophical, scientific, religious). When I was in college, I had a mainly liberal arts curriculum. There was plenty of philosophy, religion, and even logic. I had the bare minimum of science and math.

Looking back, I loved it all and learned to explore a lot of questions. After reading your comments, I realized that I stopped looking outside of myself for answers. I stopped trusting that maybe someone else really did hit on something profound. I decided that 'spirituality' and 'understanding' can only come from within....even though I leaned on scientific theory for answers to scientific questions.

And then I spent some time with your comments on this thread. Anything I wasn't familiar with, I went and looked up. It's been very satisfying because -- just like in college -- it inspired a stream of new thoughts that would have taken me years, if ever, to consider.


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



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

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

What caused God then? Or THE Gods, or the holy pasta?



Obviously, the Flour, Eggs, and Holy Water combined to cause the Holy Pasta. R'amen.

I asked pages ago what a God(s) is made of. I didn't get an answer.


Since God (and whatever He is made of) precedes the universe and is not bound by its laws, God cannot be defined by any standards we can perceive.

It would be like a video game character trying to define the game programmer. Everything about the programmer is outside the comprehension of the game character. So while God must be made of something, we have no way to describe what that something is.


If 'God' is made of something, then that something came from somewhere.

A video game programmer is made of stuff that came from somewhere, whether the character they created can conceive of it or not.


Something out of nothing is more a common argument tile than semantically correct statement.

This thread is a veiled argument for Aquinas whether or not the op knows that history. Seems like his ways no?

Or say Diagoras, Aristotle and scores globally throughout history.

The thing is people smarter than us still admit nobody won, so why not discus the specifics and pro cons rather than get caught in something with no answer?




Well, I kind of think that 'Everything' would logically include its own cause. It's frustratingly vague, not very satisfying, and it doesn't answer all questions by a long shot....but I think it's a logical answer to the OP's question. If there is a beginning to 'Everything,' then it caused itself. Whether there is a beginning or infinity...the 'State of Everything' is its own cause.

The 'State of Everything' includes every. single. thing...even its own cause.



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



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Phantom423

That the universe can and will create itself (when it didn't even exist yet to do anything). Among other logical implications of what he was arguing in favor for without having to spell it out or spell out that he's arguing in favor for it, teaching it, promoting it, etc. As well as other things he said about the word "nothing" (his misleading and warping usage of that word).


Can you give me a link to whatever he wrote? I haven't read all his work and I'm not familiar with what he said about the universe creating itself. Remember, he's also a theoretical physicist. He's not declaring absolutes. He's pondering questions which he attempts to work out mathematically, of course, on the shoulders of those who went before him i.e. Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, etc. A link would be appreciated. Thanks.



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Phantom423

What I will counter with is that even absurd ideas -- which only fleetingly existed in a 'moment' within a 'mind' -- actually exist in the 'State of Everything' because 'the 'State of Everything' includes every idea, realized or not.

A man has the idea of an automobile, he builds it. It doesn't cease to be an idea because the idea was realized. In fact, the automobile that was built is a very specific and defined idea. And if the inventor never built it, the idea would still exist -- if only in the inventor's mind and fleetingly in Time.

Moreover, someone could set up a mathematical equation that would take 10 billion years to solve. It still has an answer, now and forever -- regardless of the linear time it takes for 'minds' to solve it.

Likewise, the 'State of Everything' will always be 'Everything' regardless of whether 'minds' can discern what it's made of or not (not, because many things only exist in the future in the linear timeline through which we travel).


Well that's an interesting point. And I understand what you're driving at: that an idea is a real entity, even if that idea never takes shape in the physical world. You're right in line with Isaac Asimov! What I would say is that you're thinking more about probabilities i.e. what's the probability that someone will build a car as a result of an idea. I'm not sure how that fits in with what we know about consciousness and the human mind. In QM everything has a probability distribution - in other words, an event could happen or not happen or could be something in between. The "State of Everything" also has a probability distribution - and everything remains a probability distribution until someone observes it - Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. That's a mind-boggler, I know, but I don't think anyone has come up with an alternative theory.

And there's another reason for you to watch those videos - and maybe watch a few more on the subject. You're obviously interested - so why not dive in?



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



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Yes, I will dive in. I already have the Leonard Susskind one set to play on my iPad when I go to bed.





posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 10:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Phantom423

Yes, I will dive in. I already have the Leonard Susskind one set to play on my iPad when I go to bed.




This is a lecture from Richard Feynman, the Nobel Prize winner - he was called the "Great Explainer". I thought of this lecture for you because you talked about ideas - the end of the lecture when he talks about the Mayans and their clocks brings home the message that ideas are the path to the future.


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



posted on Apr, 19 2017 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Wonderful video...just finished it and it left me with new ideas (to me) to think about.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier
Denial of honest rephrasing of your argument and claimed possibility of the universe creating itself (or the universe being its own cause, same thing, which you have still avoided to acknowledge) leads to contradicting yourself.

What is it, is it possible for the unverse to be its own cause as you claimed earlier which is the unambiguous equivalent of the universe creating itself before it existed to do anything, or is that not possible?

How convenient you dance around acknowledging your own argument and claim earlier when someone rephrases it to something that more clearly shows it's a contradiction without changing the essence of the claim and argument that this is a possibility and suggest that they are ignorant for rephrasing it that way. I'm not ignorant about your claim and argument and how it can be honestly rephrased or what it really boils down to, you're feigning ignorance about it though by conveniently denying them all (either directly or by not responding and acknowledging ANY of them or by cherry-picking the one that is the easiest to twist and distract away from cause you don't want to wake up and you don't want others to wake up and see the contradiction when I'm rephrasing it and spelling it out which you refuse to do).

If you don't like your own earlier argument and claim anymore and want to deny all my numerous ways of rephrasing the same argument and claim, please be honest and spell it out for people here instead of continuing your game of dodges and deflections, followed by lies about my way of rephrasing somehow not being accurate/true. Deny everything that's inconvenient to what you're arguing or claiming right?

I do not need to understand the anthropic principle to see that you're dancing around any type of rephrasing of your argument and claim that is actually honest and clear about what you're doing and where the contradiction can be found in your claim with all trickery and vagueness removed (making sure you don't spell out the contradiction as clearly as I've now done probably more than a dozen times in a dozen different ways). Just deny everything (that is inconvenient) and then pretend to be really clever by bringing up red herrings such as the anthropic principle or beans making casseroles.


I wish I could actually drag 1 honest statement out of someone regarding their earlier claims that were contradictory. But I give up as well (see last video). People who have no intention to be honest about what they're arguing for and claiming cannot be reasoned with. Continue your promotion of logical contradictions, I'll shut up about it, cause people don't wanna know anyway. Long live ignorance! is the real motto of ATS (while claiming others are ignorant when they're not but simply pointing out a contradiction of the one pointing fingers).

Unlike the suggestion and painting that was painted on me earlier in this thread by someone else, I'm not the one who won't be clear and honest about what I'm really arguing for (the complete logical follow-through included, all the logical requirements for the claim and the usage of particular words such as "cause"). Indigo5 said about me:

You seem to be intentionally constructing sentences in a convoluted and cryptic manner...
If you are incapable of (or unwilling) stating or defending whatever your own views are then there is little reason anyone should invest in responding to your posts.

Why is that painting never painted on the people actually doing that if one adds the terms "clearly and honestly" after "own views are".

Has anyone yet bothered to answer whether or not logical contradictions can be honestly and accurately described or suggested as possibilities "logically speaking"? Don't think anyone has touched that question to state their "own views" clearly and honestly about that subject either...

Or tried to respond to any of my rephrased formulations of luthier's argument or claim and acknowledge that these are contradictions the way I'm describing it (let alone acknowledging that that is in essence what luthier is arguing for and claiming as a possibility, thus an honest person should be able to acknowledge that luthier is proposing a logical contradiction as a possibility, so my question is really appropiate here, why won't anyone acknowledge anything that is true about this subject? I mean this isn't hard logic or hard to understand. Just acknowledge that logical contradictions are not possibilities (or the way I phrased it earlier).
edit on 20-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 04:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

I recognize a claim and the teaching and promotion of a philosophy when I see one. Agnosticism and the philosophy that "science does not deal with absolutes" isn't going to change the teaching and way of arguing in favor of a particular view or scenario, a possibility, that I''m observing.

Someone who suggests logical contradictions as possibilities and makes money on selling those in a book that is perceived as (and often listed under) "science", is not being honest and is still making and teaching claims about supposed possibilities that are actually impossible contradictions.

Please answer my question to the floor, are logical contradictions possibilities? Yes or no? I spelled out the question better before.
Stephen Hawking's proposed logical contradictions (proposed as possibilities or a possibility) are discussed in the video below from 16:10 - 21:52:

Peter Atkins is discussed as well in that section. Regarding the last phrase in that section, please consider acknowledging that these logical contradictions are "nonsense" as described there and demonstrate that any possible claims or implications about being on the rational side of this debate are not hypocritical self-marketing attempts of the views you cling on to related to philosophical naturalism and a claim you made long ago about nature supposedly designing the human brain without logical evidence or support for such an extraordinary claim and misuse of the verb "design", which nature cannot do or perform by definition. The process of designing is not a process that can be caused or performed by the forces of nature alone, that is a myth for which there is no evidence that survives honest inspection. The word "design" also simply doesn't apply if the forces of nature are the sole cause, in that case it isn't a design because it wasn't designed. The verb "design" has logical implications and requirements that can't be met with the forces of nature, that is not why humans began using the verb "design" in honest rational conversations where people aren't warping the correct and understandable use of specific words. It's not referring to a process that can be performed by the forces of nature, that's the whole point for the word "design" to differentiate from what was caused by the forces of nature exclusively.
edit on 20-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 05:17 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Keeping track of how you (mis)use the word "nothing" (and warp its meaning). And some other words and concepts.
edit on 20-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 06:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Well, I kind of think that 'Everything' would logically include its own cause. It's frustratingly vague, not very satisfying, and it doesn't answer all questions by a long shot....

That's because it's a logical contradiction in hiding (under a shell metaphorically as well, just like earlier with the word "nothing" and various other words and concepts).

Are you willing to acknowledge the meaning I earlier gave from the google dictionary regarding the word "cause"?

Connecting the concept of a "beginning" to "everything" in the statement "that 'Everything' would logically include its own cause". Or to phrase it differently, if "everything" has a cause as suggested, than "everything" has a beginning in that scenario, right? Note that talking about "its...cause" is assuming, implying or suggesting that "it" ("everything") has a cause, thus a beginning (and "it" is identified as a "phenomenon or condition" of that cause, see earlier definition for "cause").

Do you acknowledge that?

acknowledge: accept or admit the existence or truth/certainty of.

The assumption I bolded does not reflect reality btw but the contradictory hypothetical or imaginary scenario that you mentioned and described as "frustratingly vague, not very satisfying". It is after all an erronuous and contradictory assumption that everything has a cause; which is something one can discover if one has learned more information about this subject and thought it all the way through (but I skipped a lot of steps now, so you can forget I mentioned that the assumption is erronuous and contradictory if you can't see it already because it's so vague).

Oh btw there's a book called the bible that uses a prophecy somewhere that describes a particular human behaviour that would be very prevalent during a specific age of mankind, it uses the phrase "not open to any agreement".
edit on 20-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 07:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: yorkshirelad
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.

No, it's not an assumption, see the definition for "cause" I gave in my comment to luthier from the google dictionary. It's the correct and honest* usage of words such as "cause" and "beginning".

*: honestly without warping and attempting to redefine language to accomodate the suggestions and promotion of philosophies that are logical contradictions, promoting them as possibilities (maybe-so stories, possibly-so stories, most likely-so stories and sometimes even as just-so stories depending on the person and situation). Logical contradictions are impossibilities, that's why they are called contradictions/errors/mistakes/paradoxes/nonsense (all synonyms).

Colossians 2:4

I am saying this so that no one may delude you with persuasive arguments.

And to encourage:
...turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.” [Latin: "scientia"; KJV: "science"] (1 Timothy 6:20b)

Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception... (Col.2:8a)
edit on 20-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Even if all that there is, is just our one Universe -- there exists nothing else -- THEN ....

Hold on for a moment, if at this point in the logical pathway you want to think or talk about a cause for this phenomenon or condition: "our one Universe", keep in mind that you are also invoking or arguing for a beginning to "our one Universe" and thus a time where "our one Universe" did not exist as per the meaning of the word "cause" that I'll quote again just to make sure.

cause: a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.

When something doesn't exist yet it can't cause anything right? Let alone cause itself into existence (cause its own beginning). So is a logical pathway even possible towards thinking about a cause&beginning for "our one Universe" in this imaginary scenario? If nothing else exists that could have caused it ("our one Universe"), and at the time where it needs a causation it doesn't exist itself yet ("our one Universe"), so there's nothing left that could have caused it; might this universe in this imaginary scenario have some other attributes than having a beginning and a cause so we don't even need to go there?
edit on 20-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

It is utterly amazing that your backing the argument that you are. It's the cheesiest ontological argument I have ever seen.

Let's do some real simple stuff so you can try and stay on point and stop the gotcha tricks apologists like to do.

The universe we can study with instruments is separate from the overlying cosmological understanding of what that universe could mean for the bigger picture of reality.

Your working on a really lame and juvenile semantic argument you think is profound by ignoring the meaning of the arguments.

When you want to play with the adults try and get a grasp of the actual argument



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Cause: "a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition."

Yep. I acknowledge and agree with that. But no where does that say the cause has to come first in a linear timeline.

Ponder this:

Experiment Shows Future Events Affect The Past

The ramblings you left about me misusing "words & concepts," are cute.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

It's possible.

The thing is nothing ever can get rid of god, it's a tough one to say doesn't exist. It's easier to just not believe if you know what I mean.

God is always hiding in the gaps but that is also the strength of the argument. No matter what we find out about the universe it doesn't really disprove a necessary being.

If we understand dimensional reality it still doesn't disprove a necesay being etc.

So we are stuck with the eternal Joel Osteen.

I have decided to just accepted the argument even though I don't believe it......

I keep saying all this to give the theist a way to compromise but it doesn't seem to be working.



posted on Apr, 20 2017 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier
Is there a specific reason you click reply to my comment yet are not really responding to my questions directly by plainly and clearly stating what's in the questions and giving your plain view on the matter? I've asked yes or no type of questions and similar questions asking for acknowledgements regarding specific things that you will not repeat in that manner when making your comments (even if it was just to disagree with it or make it clear that the logical contradictions I described are not possibilities).

Are the logical contradictions that I described possibilities? (regardless if you agree or not that they represent what you presented as a possibility)

Are logical contradictions possibilities?

Will you answer the first question in my 2nd reply to you one day? Any chance? Or is it a rule, not answering inconvenient questions?




top topics



 
20
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join