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: 29
12
<< 26  27  28   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2


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

What say you?


after 25+ pages of nothing but back and forth bickering and rhetoric, i now pose that very question to YOU. and i ask an additional question as well: how exactly does your answer resolve the conundrum at hand, without using cheap tricks/assumptions/nonsequiturs/sleight of mind? i must insist on a legitimate solution, seeing how you are so confident in your deductive abilities. let us see if you are not stumped by the very answer you propose to have ingeniously devised.


edit on 21-4-2017 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Not to detract from your wonderful comment and question -- I'd like the answer(s) from the OP, too -- but I would like to interject a thought.

This entire thread is built on the premise that a cause must come before an effect in a linear timeline.

Not only has that premise been proven wrong in experiments with photons and screens (link previously posted), but it is evident in real life, too.

For example, you get a wedding invitation from a friend 2000 miles away. You RSVP that you will attend and purchase an airline ticket for $500...you are so excited about the trip. That is cause and effect in chronological order.

BUT then something terrible happens: the groom dies in a car crash. The airline refuses to refund the money for the ticket. You are out $500 and the 'cause' of you spending $500 on an airline ticket that you don't need has come AFTER the effect of actually spending $500 on an airline ticket you don't need.

In fact, had you known about the groom's certain demise, you wouldn't have bought the ticket and/or would have warned the groom and saved his life.

But whether you knew the future or not, the future still affected the past.

I don't think it's a given that every cause must come before an effect in a linear timeline. We travel through the arrow of time, in one direction, and we can pretty much only make sense of 'cause' coming before 'effect,' because that is a limitation of our perception.

IF we could see the future, you better believe the future would very clearly and definitely have a significant affect on the past. And then we would rewrite the future...so the future we 'saw' was not even the future, at all.

All of time (even infinity) is a part of the 'State of Everything' -- so the "cause" of the 'State of Everything' (...or anything, at all) is not limited to events in the past...whether we can see the future and consider its effects on the past or not.

edit on 21-4-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   

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


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

What say you?


after 25+ pages of nothing but back and forth bickering and rhetoric, i now pose that very question to YOU. and i ask an additional question as well: how exactly does your answer resolve the conundrum at hand, without using cheap tricks/assumptions/nonsequiturs/sleight of mind? i must insist on a legitimate solution, seeing how you are so confident in your deductive abilities. let us see if you are not stumped by the very answer you propose to have ingeniously devised.



Here's my answer:

To avoid the infinite regress (of an infinite causes) - the only alternative is to conclude that an uncaused - first - cause was the ultimate source/cause of everything with a beginning.

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

No. It can't have a beginning since it's eternal.

That's all we're left with to untangle this conundrum. Any other explanation goes back to an infinite regress.

Occam's Razor.

Now, who or what that uncaused cause is - up to you.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

What if the 'beginning' that you speak of is like a '0' on a number line with the 'State of Everything' being (+)ideas joined by mathematical operators on one side and the 'Idea of Nothing' building as the opposite/inverse operations of (-)ideas on the other? Both a beginning and infinite. It's a hard concept to contemplate but it could be logical that there is both a beginning and infinity. Math says that's possible. Actually, mathematics says that the 'State of Everything' includes the ideas of 1, 0, -1....etc...
edit on 21-4-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2


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

No. It can't have a beginning since it's eternal.

That's all we're left with to untangle this conundrum. Any other explanation goes back to an infinite regress.

Occam's Razor.

Now, who or what that uncaused cause is - up to you.


a pretty anti climactic conclusion. but an honest one. congrats.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: TzarChasm

Not to detract from your wonderful comment and question -- I'd like the answer(s) from the OP, too -- but I would like to interject a thought.

This entire thread is built on the premise that a cause must come before an effect in a linear timeline.

Not only has that premise been proven wrong in experiments with photons and screens (link previously posted), but it is evident in real life, too.

For example, you get a wedding invitation from a friend 2000 miles away. You RSVP that you will attend and purchase an airline ticket for $500...you are so excited about the trip. That is cause and effect in chronological order.

BUT then something terrible happens: the groom dies in a car crash. The airline refuses to refund the money for the ticket. You are out $500 and the 'cause' of you spending $500 on an airline ticket that you don't need has come AFTER the effect of actually spending $500 on an airline ticket you don't need.

In fact, had you known about the groom's certain demise, you wouldn't have bought the ticket and/or would have warned the groom and saved his life.

But whether you knew the future or not, the future still affected the past.

I don't think it's a given that every cause must come before an effect in a linear timeline. We travel through the arrow of time, in one direction, and we can pretty much only make sense of 'cause' coming before 'effect,' because that is a limitation of our perception.

IF we could see the future, you better believe the future would very clearly and definitely have a significant affect on the past. And then we would rewrite the future...so the future we 'saw' was not even the future, at all.

All of time (even infinity) is a part of the 'State of Everything' -- so the "cause" of the 'State of Everything' (...or anything, at all) is not limited to events in the past...whether we can see the future and consider its effects on the past or not.


What actually is operating is a different criteria of cause going through your story

It’s another equation:

NEW EQUATION: 'cause' of you spending $500 on an airline ticket that you don't need has come AFTER the effect of actually spending $500 on an airline ticket you don't need.

But I see your point.

...that other dimensional factors have bearing on linear reality that can make it illustrate that our reality is inter-dimensional



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2


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

What say




Here's my answer:

To avoid the infinite regress (of an infinite causes) - the only alternative is to conclude that an uncaused - first - cause was the ultimate source/cause of everything with a beginning.

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

No. It can't have a beginning since it's eternal.

That's all we're left with to untangle this conundrum. Any other explanation goes back to an infinite regress.

Occam's Razor.

Now, who or what that uncaused cause is - up to you.



So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?

Stephen Hawking



I would like to confer, the beginning just is, as always was.
edit on 21-4-2017 by aliensanonymous because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

To fully describe the effect, though, is to say the purchase of the ticket was unnecessary -- at the time it was purchased. No, the purchaser didn't know it was unnecessary, at the time of purchase, but it was always unnecessary because the future caused it to be. The future made that certain.


Now that both the cause and the effect are in the past...it's easy to understand that. But if we could have seen both before they happened, it would have made perfect sense as a cause/effect scenario, too.


ETA: Also, your new equation is precisely what I have been saying...a cause can come after an effect. The universe(s) is a 'ticket you don't need,' so to speak, that was 'caused' to be a 'ticket that you don't need' by something in the future, in linear time.


ETA: Or a 'cause' that exists simultaneously and infinitely with/within it.
edit on 21-4-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2017 @ 07:48 AM
link   

The factual/certain/sure/absolute/correct, without error/true/truthful/conclusive/definitive answer to the question in the OP (and my question: Are contradictions possibilities?) is:

No.

Oops, I'm out of the dodging and deflection game played in the video.
edit on 22-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 26  27  28   >>

log in

join