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

Edit: forever/infinity

Rejoice in that.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Or you can read him saying "the physical observable universe" in the comment you were responding to. Spelling it out for you before the question. Was that really not clear enough already how he was using the word "universe"?

For the sake of expedience, I'll take a guess what your answer would be: no. Perhaps followed by an argument to argue for reasons why it wasn't clear enough to you when responding to that phrase; and now with the extra 2 lines given it's clear/unambiguous to you (as in "Oh, ok.") No need to bother. As long as it's clear to you now everything is fine right?

Checking the google dictionary regardless is fun anyway, it's fantastic, you learn all sorts of interesting new tidbits about things that you thought you already knew plenty about. Like that the phrase "gives rise to" is used in the definition for "cause". Indicating a beginning to whatever follows after that, in this case "...,phenomenon, or condition".

Definition for "cause" from the google dictionary:

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

"Give rise to" Synonyms, Thesaurus.com:

cause
verb. bring into being; bring about

begin

"Beginning" (definition from Merriam-Webster):

the point or time at which something begins : a starting point — beginning in a sentence.

Seems to indicate that a beginning comes before something else. As applied in the definition of the word "cause", it comes before the phenomenon, or condition. The cause begins/gives rise to a phenomenon, or condition. Logical requirement or follow-through: the cause has to exist before the phenomenon, or condition of that particular cause.

Oops, I did it again. Didn't want to spell it out when people can search for correct/true knowledge, facts about realities on their own without my help or encouragement. At least I learned something new in the process, that "give rise to" is a synonym for the verbs "cause/begin". Making it a lot harder to disconnect the concept of a beginning when discussing cause and effect/phenomenon for those so inclined to do so when using the phrase "its own cause" (cause they don't want people waking up to certain contradictions in their suggested possibilities or models and scenarios). See how interesting these tidbits are when using that routine? See my signature and description under my name to the left (or the entire 2 pages of that article, the 2nd page is linked in my signature).

Open question to the floor:

Can anything begin/cause/give rise to itself when it doesn't even exist yet to do or cause anything?

Think about the point in time where it logically needs a cause to begin to exist if one wants to talk about a cause, does it exist at that point in time if it still needs to begin to exist? Here's another definition for the noun "beginning" from the google dictionary (focussing on the important part and variation with the other definition):

1. the point in time ... at which something starts.

Most of the things I mentioned in this comment are actually facts that I've learned, discovered and added to my knowledge about these subjects from being in this thread. So thanks? I still had to search and dig myself, but others have affected me as to what I'm looking into.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

The 'State of Everything' includes its own cause....

There's the pee (contradiction) one needs to follow closely if learning facts or truth seeking is one's motive regarding these subjects.

Oh and don't take the advice from the magician in the video, don't keep your eyes on the shell, keep your eyes on the pee!

a reply to: whereislogic
And remember that a magician can rephrase the pee, so it's no longer under any of the shells. Making it even harder to spot where it went (Stephen Hawking for example uses the phrase "the universe...created itself". Same pee bolded.
The below is not an example of the above, just me keeping my eyes on the pee and providing a tool or aid for those who want to do that too.

originally posted by: luthier

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

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

Obviously, the Universe(s) is its own cause.

What a definitive appearing statement, as if one is really sure/certain/absolute/conclusive about this. And that it's obvious...ok. To some people apparently even though they haven't quite decided yet on whether to go with universe or universes, i.e. the multiverse, so why not mention them in a way that some people can get the wrong impression (or preconditioned trigger triggered) that these 2 things are the same thing or that the words "universe" and "universes/multiverse" can be conflated without issue; or thought of as if it doesn't matter stating clearly and plainly which of the 2 concepts one is referring to, "universe" or "multiverse/universes"; and whether or not what counts for one also counts for the other regarding the topic of causation. Seeing that the way it is phrased now seems to indicate that the person is arguing that what follows counts for both. But it's still open to interpretation if someone doesn't like to read it that way and prefers to conflate the 2 concepts in their mind.

originally posted by: luthier

An entity is its own cause and created the first motion or program, or the universe itself is its own cause.

I happen to lean on the latter and even think of it as a panthiest or pandiest model.

'Straw man' contradiction (Don Quijote Windmill Giant) vs preferred and popular contradiction that is contrasted with straw man contradiction to appear more reasonable (more chivalrous and noble in the Don Quijote metaphor) or on the same level as the actual reasoning behind an eternal uncaused Designer and Creator (or less specifically described as "an entity" by the one making that contrast in their mind and expressing it here on ATS).

originally posted by: luthier

Without needing to go through infinite regress which is a fail in response to an argument in the formal padogody of logic, you come to a being, a thing, or a collective that lives outside of time space with its own cause.

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...

No, you are not speaking logically at all. Oops, pardon me. I'll shut up so one can focus on the pee.

originally posted by: luthier

But a designer is not illogical at all. It's perfectly logical. It may be perfectly false as well. But it's not illogical to follow the infinite regress far enough as a mental exercise to say we'll god isn't a bad solution really, in its basic a designer outside of everything that is its own cause.

It's not pretty and I don't like to spend too much time on it but it's not completely irrelevant or illogical.

Yes it is... illogical, the straw man version (or Don Quijote Windmill Giant) that was subtly put in place of an eternal uncaused Designer there with a pee, a contradiction, to put it on the same level of vagueness and supposed uncertainty ("may be...false") as the other so-called 'models' that are actually and certainly contradictions and thus certainly false.

Synonyms for paradox: contradiction/error/nonsense

Synonyms for error under the heading:

falsity
noun. dishonesty, deception

deceit
fallacy
lie
tale
treachery

So not "supposed uncertainty" or "may be...false"... contradictions ARE falsities. And that is a statement of a fact/reality/certainty. The fact remains: contradictions ARE falsities, not "possibilities logically speaking" as luthier claimed and argued for. And others without spelling it out and without answering my simple question about it.

Please, if there's any honesty in anyone making comments here, spell out your answer to the question:

Are contradictions possibilities? Yes or no?
And that's the short version of the question I posed to luthier in my 2nd comment to him that he never wanted to answer and I indicated was also posed to the floor (everyone who reads it), you may also answer that question as it is spelled out there, personally, I'm even more interested in your views regarding that question than this limited version of it.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: edmc^2
Define "the".

Define "physical".

Define "observable".

Define ".".

Define "define".

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

What are years?

Suddenly 'people' conveniently don't know* what the word "years" means anymore. (*: or imply ignorance regarding)

Regarding the word 'people': I'm of course talking about a pattern and using an example from just 1 person.

Is it really that hard, or is it out of convenience in support of denying facts/realities that are inconvenient to certain ways of thinking and arguing about these subjects? Or avoid having to acknowledge them when proposing challenges and arguments against someone raising a question and the question itself because the only possible, factual/correct, logical and reasonable answer is inconvenient to them and their line of argumentation and preferred way of thinking about these subjects. The preference described by luthier in my quotation of him or her above.

Do they really need this regarding almost every word used, even the most basic simple ones?

spoon-feed
ˈspo͞onˌfēd/
verb
gerund or present participle: spoon-feeding

feed (someone) by using a spoon.
provide (someone) with so much help or information that they do not need to think for themselves.

Source: google dictionary

Or is it feigned to play a debate game and to find ways to challenge and find a flaw in what someone is arguing or asking questions about? Or perhaps to distract from the question and that only possible factual/certain/absolute/correct, without error/conclusive/definitive answer? Or a little bit of both and some other possible motives?

a reply to: whereislogic
oops, out of edit time, Stephen Hawking's quotation is "create", not "created" (that would be the logical follow-through of what he's arguing for, I was getting ahead of myself).

another edit: ...contradictions ARE falsities (when presented as "possibilities" for example, then the list of synonyms I used earlier for "falsity" applies very well, especially some of those words when the person knows better and possibly even feigning ignorance or willfully deliberately avoiding or dancing around either acknowledging the facts or learning, discovering or even searching, looking for* the facts, i.e. willful igorance). *: attempting to discover or learn the facts about these subjects.

The source for my synonyms for "paradox" and "error" earlier was thesaurus.com again.

Everything I've said in this thread about paradoxes/contradictions that are presented as either possibilities or being "obvious" facts (if one takes into account someone's earlier usage of the verb "is" after the word "obvious", which makes it a statement of a supposed fact, or makes it appear to the reader as if it's meant to describe something that is obviously factual/true/correct, without error); also counts for the Trinitarians that might be out there reading this:
The Paradox of Tertullian

a reply to: skunkape23

this whole chicken and egg talk is getting tedious, the real question should be, how did chickens not get snuffed out before human evolved to keep them safe in cages...... get it!

chickens 50 million years old...... humans 200 thousand years old.


if humans died out today....the chicken race wouldn't last a week, that would be certain, but who protected them say 300,000 years ago..... monkeys, bears...?

doesnt make sense unless the annunaki left them here so we could build muscle with all that protein

originally posted by: toktaylor
...Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe...begin. ...the universe has always existed...

Why do we need to add or think about "(as we perceived it) officially"... just before "begin"? Do you think it's going to hide and obscure the contradiction* better by saying "officially"? Why do you switch meaning for the terminology "the universe" mid-comment or -argument and think it's still OK because you specified the switch partially (half, only one time, not when switching again)? And would it make it any more OK if you did specify the switch again? You can read "honest" instead of "OK" in those questions as well.

*: the figurative 'pee' in this case, it's a shell game people. Follow the contradiction, remove the fluff. It's not quote mining or misrepresenting someone's argument (or not understanding them or ignorance of what they're talking about as was claimed earlier as well by luthier).

Use discernment: Discernment is “acuteness of judgment.” It is “the power or faculty of the mind by which it distinguishes one thing from another.” A person with discernment perceives subtleties of ideas or things and has good judgment.

Using discernment, we will be able to recognize those who are merely using “smooth talk and complimentary speech” in order to “seduce the hearts of guileless ones.” (Romans 16:18) Discernment enables you to discard irrelevant information or misleading facts and distinguish the substance of a matter. But how can you discern when something is misleading?
...

Source: article in my signature (I really recommend reading the rest there)

I just noticed btw that I didn't ask the more general question: 'Are contradictions possibilities?' in my 2nd comment to luthier yet, it was somewhere in my commentary after that. Page 21 or 22 perhaps. There the question is more specified and focussed on the subject of honesty and describing contradictions as possibilities, promoting them, arguing in favor of them, expressing them in a favourable light, not making it clear that they are false and contradictory, or simply desperately clinging on to them as if they are rational suggestions.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
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.

If you decide to dive in and learn, there's a couple of books which would be handy to have around. They're written for the general public and are not loaded with complex mathematics. They're also good references when you have questions about something.

1. QUANTUM: A Guide for the Perplexed. Jim Al-Khalili
2. Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology, Jim Al-Khalili and Johnjoe McFadden
3. From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time. Sean Carroll.

All can be found on Amazon. Sean Carroll also has a great blog with a wide array of topics. Link: www.preposterousuniverse.com...

a reply to: whereislogic
This comment (take special note of "..., etc."; luthier used more than 1 terminology than "multiverse"; toktaylor had yet another description for it that wasn't referring to a "multiverse", "multiverse" is not the keyword here) describes the behaviour that I just quoted and explained from toktaylor:

...did the universe...begin. ...the universe has always existed...

Remember, the first part wasn't a question.
The comment described the behaviour and way of arguing or thinking about these subjects in advance, or before toktaylor made his comment. Because it has a recognizable pattern that is described in the bible. And somewhat elaborated on in the 2 pages of the article in my signature and similar articles.

And this comment is the comment I couldn't find before with the question to the floor:

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

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.

I recommend reading the rest of the comment as well, it's quite an important comment in relation to what I quoted above. There's also another comment that describes the 1st question in more detail and focusses on the subject of honesty (it uses "honest" in the question), still haven't found that one.

a reply to: whereislogic

Again with your childish semantic argument.

Go back to school and learn to debate the meaning of arguments.

Probably read up on the QM and physics as well so you don't keep asking questions that have already been answered, you understand what is said, and what the argument actually is rather than the semantic approach.

It's valid in formal debate sure. But once the semantics are cleared up your left still completely and utterly lost debating the actual premise of the argument.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: whereislogic
This comment (take special note of "..., etc."; luthier used more than 1 terminology than "multiverse"; toktaylor had yet another description for it that wasn't referring to a "multiverse", "multiverse" is not the keyword here) describes the behaviour that I just quoted and explained from toktaylor:

...did the universe...begin. ...the universe has always existed...

Remember, the first part wasn't a question.
The comment described the behaviour and way of arguing or thinking about these subjects in advance, or before toktaylor made his comment. Because it has a recognizable pattern that is described in the bible. And somewhat elaborated on in the 2 pages of the article in my signature and similar articles.

This^^^^^

Is exactly the garbage philosophy I am talking about.

You again choose (and struggle at that) to attack semantics.

Perhaps your entirely unaware of the arguements?

Is this the first time you have heard of Aquinas ways and it's rebuttals?

I mean if you chose fine tuning you would be better off, the teleological argument is much stronger.....but still completely unprovable.

And your argument seems a lot like Anselm. Where your trying to use semantics. It is by far seen as one of the weakest argument for the existence of God.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Or you can read him saying "the physical observable universe" in the comment you were responding to.

*facepalm*

That is what the OP asked if SOMEONE ELSE meant by the word 'Universe.'

Then I asked the OP what s/he meant.

See? That how adults communicate. They want to understand one another. if there is some ambiguity, they ask for clarification. They don't just assume the other person is wrong about what they intended to say and then post stupid shell game videos, like a four year old.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

The argument style of anselm is very popular in apologist argument. It's very semantic based. Which I define as using word meaning over the sentence meaning.

It's like being an editor to teach someone to make more cohesive sentence structure but it never gets any deeper, nor has its own point of view or meaning.

Anselm's argument

He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, then an even greater being must be possible — one which exists both in the mind and in reality. Therefore, this greatest possible being must exist in reality.

Uhhh

a reply to: MotherMayEye

And in case the formal argument is unfamiliar to anyone made by aquinas.

en.m.wikipedia.org...(Aquinas)

He was a brilliant man. Truly great thinker. I mean that sincerely, but I still don't "believe" him.

a reply to: whereislogic

And since you like links so much....

You should try and study this:

en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: luthier

if thoughts are energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed, then every thought must already exist, in another fabric of string, opening pandora's box may be a realisation of this truth..... if it were a truth that is

originally posted by: Davg80
a reply to: luthier

if thoughts are energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed, then every thought must already exist, in another fabric of string, opening pandora's box may be a realisation of this truth..... if it were a truth that is

Exactly. The dance is in the learning not the knowing.

to humans...nothing exists until it can be observed or measured, all else is speculative thought.

OP, don't know where I stand.
Personal experience for me, the argument of divine creation-religious...etc/vs evolution/big bang etc...always boils down to this weird argument:

Religion - "What created the 'thing' that exploded?"

B.B. - "Maybe it is a cycle that always existed, forever expanding and contracting"

Religion - "what created it?"

B.B. "it could have possibly always existed"

Religion - " No, it can't have always existed, something created it. Had to be a supreme being or God or ...etc"

B.B. "who created god?"

Religion - "omnipotence: God is Omnipotent in Creation- Isaiah 44:24 – “This is what the LORD says—your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself.”

B.B. - "Lmao. Ok."

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 remember watching South Park and listening to the commentary on the DVD. Trey Parker and Matt Stone were talking about Atheism vs Religion and they didn't like religion, but also laughed at the idea that the answer to the big questions would be basically "Just 'cause" and that answer is pretty lame. "Why is the Universe here?" "Just 'cause" ... "Well because why?" .... "Just 'cause!"

So if "just 'cause" and having no cause are the same and the universe is here "just cause" than that would mean that yes. Something that has no cause has a beginning.

Personally, I don't think the answers to those questions are "just because". I'll never know them.