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

originally posted by: edmc^2

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.

I can't. It's impossible, so I was wondering how you knew the answer to it.

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

The universe has eternally existed, and has no beginning.

You mean the physical observable universe?

Or space itself you're referring to.

a reply to: edmc^2

What do YOU mean when you say "universe?" I meant to ask this days ago.

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

What do YOU mean when you say "universe?" I meant to ask this days ago.

the physical observable universe.

The universe that came out of the so called "big bang/singularity" theory.

The material universe.

originally posted by: edmc^2

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

What do YOU mean when you say "universe?" I meant to ask this days ago.

the physical observable universe.

The universe that came out of the so called "big bang/singularity" theory.

The material universe.

Oh, ok. So you are open to the idea that our Universe was possibly ejected out of a black hole or a number of other theoretical 'causes' that preexisted it? IOW, you are open to the idea that this Universe is not the only one or part of a cycle of 'Universe' death and rebirth?

If that's the case, then there are many possible and theoretical causes.

What caused the 'State of Everything' is the question I have been tackling here.

It feels like an inexhaustible supply of naval gazing.....

Question: if time isn't real, then what is measured as "beginning"?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Crap question is all lol

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: edmc^2

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

What do YOU mean when you say "universe?" I meant to ask this days ago.

the physical observable universe.

The universe that came out of the so called "big bang/singularity" theory.

The material universe.

Oh, ok. So you are open to the idea that our Universe was possibly ejected out of a black hole or a number of other theoretical 'causes' that preexisted it? IOW, you are open to the idea that this Universe is not the only one or part of a cycle of 'Universe' death and rebirth?

If that's the case, then there are many possible and theoretical causes.

What caused the 'State of Everything' is the question I have been tackling here.

Yes, I'm open to those ideas, but eventually, you will hit the ultimate cause of everything. Or as you put it "State of Everything".

It can't be an unending causality but a cause that had no beginning. The ultimate uncaused cause.

It's the only viable and logical explanation, like the concept of infinity.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
It feels like an inexhaustible supply of naval gazing.....

Question: if time isn't real, then what is measured as "beginning"?

14 billion years ago is a "beginning".

The material universe came to be.

originally posted by: edmc^2
Yes, I'm open to those ideas, but eventually, you will hit the ultimate cause of everything. Or as you put it "State of Everything".

It can't be an unending causality but a cause that had no beginning. The ultimate uncaused cause.

It's the only viable and logical explanation, like the concept of infinity.

Oh, good, then my answer wasn't off-track.

The 'State of Everything' includes its own cause...being that it is everything.

ETA: That's not to say I think the 'State of Everything' has a beginning in linear time. I do think it has a cause to exist though. I mean, obviously it has a cause to exist. it exists.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
It feels like an inexhaustible supply of naval gazing.....

Question: if time isn't real, then what is measured as "beginning"?

14 billion years ago is a "beginning".

The material universe came to be.

What are years? What are you measuring? Entropy? What rules require time to flow forward instead of in reverse?


Yes...pretty nonsensical (although valid) questions. Kinda like what you are asking. Honestly, what you ask isn't in the realm of metaphysics. Even though it seems to be. Perhaps because we are measuring universal entropy when we say "time".

originally posted by: edmc^2

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

The universe has eternally existed, and has no beginning.

You mean the physical observable universe?

Or space itself you're referring to.

Everything in existence occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe, (As we perceived it) officially begin. As stated earlier the universe has always existed in different forms, so asking whether observable, physical or tangible is redundant...still the Universe.

Read more at: phys.org...

a reply to: edmc^2

If something has no cause, does it have a beginning

The answer to the original OP question is that a CAUSE is a beginning

Maybe This should be the question:

If something has no cause, does it have an affect?

a reply to: Willtell

The question was loaded and silly.
An amusing question nonetheless, but loaded and silly.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Willtell

The question was loaded and silly.
An amusing question nonetheless, but loaded and silly.

I know i gazed at my naval for awhile.

BTW, i like how simple Willtell's response was. Although the question he asked is disappointingly quick to ponder.

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

If something has no cause, does it have a beginning

The answer to the original OP question is that a CAUSE is a beginning

Maybe This should be the question:

If something has no cause, does it have an affect?

only if the effect was not caused.

a reply to: edmc^2
Define "the".

Define "physical".

Define "observable".

Define ".".

Define "define".

Aren't people getting tired of this game already...

General tip for everyone:

Use google next time if you have trouble using and reading words. Just like I did with the word "cause" earlier. There's a first time for everything they say figuratively, that was my first time looking up the word "cause" like that as well. Checking to see whether the google dictionary mentions something about the concepts of "cause" and "beginning" being linked to eachother. The google dictionary also has something to say about whether or not the universe was created, i.e. had a beginning (and a specific age that is indicating that the universe is not eternal). Note, the Cambridge English Dictionary gets it wrong from my quick glance of it (the definition for the word "universe").

a reply to: whereislogic

Not one person asked about the definition for "the," "physical," observable," ".," or "define."

Here's a tip: when there seems to be some ambiguity about something another person said, it's WAY SMARTER to just ask them what they meant rather than assume what they meant.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
It feels like an inexhaustible supply of naval gazing.....

Question: if time isn't real, then what is measured as "beginning"?

...see anthropic principle....

I equate knowledge of the anthropic principle to be like the edic and emic principle in anthropology, you learn to separate your "self" by acknowledging your bias and thinking how you could move beyond it by recognizing both sides of the bias.

Ps should preface anthropic principle as the general idea of being biased by our position in time and space in the universe(s) (See "The Cave")

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Then you are either misusing the word "cause" or misusing the word "beginning". Using a warped meaning for either of those words in an attempt to disconnect the concepts. You can't just conveniently ignore the '"gives rise to" part and concept of the definition and meaning for "cause" (however it's phrased in other dictionaries if they mention it at all). Well, technically you can, willful ignorance and conveniently ignoring and redefining the meaning of the words we use in conversations is very popular amongst some people affected by those very proficient in that routine to make the words they use more conducive for arguing in favor for or marketing certain contradictions that are selling like hot buns because they're tickling people's ears, telling them what they want to hear.