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

a reply to: MotherMayEye
Oh great, do I now have to explain what "gives rise to" indicates timingwise, sigh... no, not doing that. You'll figure it out one day.

a reply to: whereislogic

I have responded hundreds of times.

Your choosing to make arguments and ask questions that have already been answered or are completely juvenile. Literally. Not as an adhominem

Your asking questions that are false. They are about false understanding.

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

So your turn - what's the answer to my question?

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

You haven't shown that anything has no cause. If nothing has no cause, your question is meaningless.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: MotherMayEye
Oh great, do I now have to explain what "gives rise to" indicates timingwise, sigh... no, not doing that. You'll figure it out one day.

Oh, I get the mundane, obvious, incomplete explanation you have for 'cause' and 'effect.'

But I just linked to an article about an experiment that showed future events can affect the past. Apparently, you just skipped right by it.

And you never answered my question despite all the bellyaching you have done that other people haven't answered your questions:

How could the 'State of Everything' not include its own cause?

If you want to argue that the 'Idea of Nothing' was its cause, I think that's a worthy discussion. But I would argue that even that exists infinitely within the 'State of Everything.' It didn't come first in a linear timeline, because the 'Idea of Nothing' is defined solely as whatever the 'State of Everything' is not.

a reply to: Phantom423

I watched about half of the Susskind video, last night. I will finish tonight. I really enjoyed it and you are correct that it was right up my alley.

a reply to: luthier

I don't think anyone can prove or disprove a 'Creator'/'God.' Rather than rely on the label 'Atheist' or 'Agnostic,' it's probably more productive to just state my thoughts as precisely as I can.

I haven't seen any evidence to support a belief in a 'Creator'/'God,' so I am comfortable saying I don't believe in a 'Creator'/'God' (or Gods). But my beliefs are not the last word and if I found evidence of a 'Creator'/'God,' I would certainly change my beliefs.

My sister wanted me to start calling myself 'Agnostic,' and I told her I would be willing to but it wouldn't change my views. So, no, it really isn't a compromise to theists.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Oh I didn't mean it that way.

I meant the compromise is I can't make your argument a foolish pile of nonsense so I compromise and say it's valid.

You can be an atheist and just say I don't believe at all in that, but what I was saying is the compromise is excepting I can't disprove the argument for god either.

I am an agnostic because I tend to lean towards diesm and pantheism. But being atheist is fine that's not what I meant.

Although hard atheism to me is similar to theism.

Once you get to that point it starts to be about evangelism of it doesn't get any more specific then this Aquinas style argument.

I was more writing to expose a dialogue for others than argue with your point. I agree with what your saying.

a reply to: luthier

i think the approach you take is productive and should encourage healthy discussion....even if it doesn't work with some people.

In the case of whereislogic, they don't seem open to any theories or ideas but their own.

a reply to: whereislogic


That was an interesting video. Lennox is a mathematician and a philosopher, bringing the two disciplines together into what he feels is a coherent explanation for the divergent views of theoretical physicists, particularly Hawking.

My comments are listed below:

1. First, I don't think that including Dawkins in the mix contributes anything to the conversation. As I've said before, I don't agree with Dawkins' take on God because he's declaring an absolute which he can't prove. I think he's very much the extremist when it comes to the subject of God. So I just choose to ignore any statement which includes Dawkins' views.

2. I think Lennox failed to make the distinction between science and philosophy when he asks the following questions:

a. How did the universe begin; what made it “happen”. This is a question for science. Why? Because if you're looking for a physical explanation in the natural world, you must employ physical means to get there. If I asked how plants use photosynthesis for respiration, I wouldn't turn to philosophy to answer the question. I'd go into the lab, tear it apart and work it out.
b. Why are we here? What's the purpose? This is a question for philosophy. You can't bring that question into the lab and work it out. A proof in philosophy is not the same as a proof in science. Philosophy requires the input and agreement of many different minds to come to a conclusion. Science requires hard evidence that you only get at the bench.

3. About Hawking's book “The Grand Design”. I haven't read it but I'm getting a copy and will read it. As far as I can tell from the lecture, there's a huge issue with terminology here. Lennox alludes to that when he mentions vacuum fluctuations. When Hawking says “nothing”, I doubt that he really means the absence of anything. Therefore, when he says “something from nothing” and suggests that the Law of Gravity allows that to happen, I think it's a bit more complex than Lennox portrays. Remember mathematics is the language of science, not English. Lennox, as a mathematician, should recognize this. There are many, many concepts that are represented by mathematics that are difficult to explain in human language. As I said, I will read his book and look at his reference material (that's actually where you'll find the papers that may support his position).

And remember that Hawking is a theoretical physicist. He's the “idea man”. He works out his hypotheses in mathematics and then sees if it holds up against other theoretical propositions. After that comes the really difficult work of proving the concept as a physical reality. Unfortunately, I think this book probably has a lot of statements which are interpreted to be absolutes when they are not.

4. Also the Law of Gravity he refers to is probably more in line with quantum gravity. That's a huge area of research – to characterize a graviton, if there is such a thing. So again, I think there's a big problem with terminology. Lennox is talking classical mechanics when we know that it's the quantum world that probably holds these answers.

5. Lennox suggests that scientists like Dawkins have given the ignorant public a choice: You either choose God or science. You can't have both. Well, you know my opinion of Dawkins so no sense going there. That "choice" is a complete falsehood. You can favor one over the other or reject them both. But that doesn't mean you have hard evidence for any position. Here Lennox says, and I agree with him that “A statement made by a scientist (or many scientists) doesn't make a scientific statement”. He's absolutely correct. A scientific statement is grounded in hard evidence. It doesn't mean that it's an absolute. It only means that enough research has gone into the subject to make a credible statement about it. A scientist who makes a statement (like Dawkins) is merely stating his/her own opinion. It may have some evidence, but isn't considered within the general realm of accepted science.

6. Lennox admits that neither side has an absolute answer. He rationalizes a God because he's a Christian and that's his belief system. But nowhere does he provide evidence that there is this God. It's a hypothesis. If you choose to believe it, that's fine. If you choose not to believe it, that's okay too. Because neither side can provide hard evidence. Only speculation. I personally think it's a huge mistake for either side not to lay that out from the git-go because most people are not equipped to distinguish scientific fact from scientific hypotheses. And this happens all the time when this topic comes up. It's the responsibility of the lecturer – be it Lennox, Hawkings or Dawkins – to lay down the ground work for the discussion. You rarely see anyone do this because they're more interested to get their own opinion out. This would give the audience the opportunity to review the topic objectively and not just buy into someone's opinion.

7. And remember – there are other theories about a “creator”. The universe as a simulation is a hot topic of discussion. And by default, a simulated universe would require a “programmer”, or whatever you want to call it.

Anyway, that was one of your better videos. I'll let you know what I think of the book.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Well thank you. I can be a tyrant.

But honestly the good bits are in the actual what is it, rather than this broad vague question Diagoras was recorded asking 2700 years ago when the gods seemed rediculous to him.

Turns out they aren't as weird as QM.

Personally I think it's all fascinating. Except propaganda.

Including from Stephen hawking or Richard Dawkins.

The reality is its all magic and dragons at this point. It may always be.

The point should always be to discover as much about yourself and the universe as possible. Or else your just reacting from one event to another, of something else's cause.

originally posted by: schuyler

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

So your turn - what's the answer to my question?

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

You haven't shown that anything has no cause. If nothing has no cause, your question is meaningless.

this is exactly the point i made back on page 19 or 20. the question IS meaningless. rather than eliciting an instructive discussion, it is intended to stymie us. it is a game and not even a good one at that. edmc is as predictable as always in his or her or its efforts to impress and humble us, as evidenced by literally dozens of threads just like this one. I look forward to the day that something substantial floats down the river and gives us a genuine breakthrough...this is not it.

originally posted by: schuyler

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

So your turn - what's the answer to my question?

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

You haven't shown that anything has no cause. If nothing has no cause, your question is meaningless.

You missed the point of the question.

That is, by necessity, there must be an uncreated cause for everything - with a beginning - to exist. Otherwise you will be in an unending loop of who caused the first caused and so on.

It can't be nothing since nothing produces - guess what - nothing.

It's a logical conclusion to the matter.

No other logical alternative - scientific or otherwise.

The evidence supports that fact.

the thing that must exist must be the thing that now exist and has always existed....the Universe. Anything else is fairy tale and wishful thinking.

originally posted by: toktaylor
the thing that must exist must be the thing that now exist and has always existed....the Universe. Anything else is fairy tale and wishful thinking.

And what caused to universe to exists?

a reply to: edmc^2

the statement is self explanatory,the universe has always existed (in one form or another). Measurement of time is a human concept of trying to lend credence to our existence.

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

the statement is self explanatory,the universe has always existed (in one form or another). Measurement of time is a human concept of trying to lend credence to our existence.

In that case, the universe is eternal then?

Hence, no cause and no beginning?

a reply to: edmc^2

The universe has eternally existed, and has no beginning.

a reply to: edmc^2

A big explosion occurred at some point, yes– but not one that essentially arose out of nothingness, or marked an actual beginning...it is at this point that Scientist recognized the beginning of 'time and space" as we know it.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: toktaylor
the thing that must exist must be the thing that now exist and has always existed....the Universe. Anything else is fairy tale and wishful thinking.

And what caused to universe to exists?

How do you know that cause and effect works outside of the universe? Got any proof or evidence to show that it does?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: toktaylor
the thing that must exist must be the thing that now exist and has always existed....the Universe. Anything else is fairy tale and wishful thinking.

And what caused to universe to exists?

How do you know that cause and effect works outside of the universe? Got any proof or evidence to show that it does?

this like asking does infinity have different dimension?

deduce it for yourself my friend.