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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: edmc^2

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

No, again, IMO.

But a 'cause' doesn't need to predate the 'beginning.' It just needs to 'cause' something to have a beginning.

Quite right. It doesn't need to predate the beginning since it was always there to 'cause' something to have a beginning.

Question now is this - based on what was "caused" to exist, does the the 'cause' sentient?

not a pet rock?

I suspected you would bring this up ( based on your title ). LMAO.
That's why you question atheist and evolutionist.

Do you consider the "(first) cause or singularity or energy ( whatever term people use ), sentient or a pet rock?

For me, I dont know. I'm still looking up the stars. Looking inside my active neurochemical brain wave. Yet my "Consciousness"‎ and my "instinct" still elude me from the answer I seek.

This thread has already elvolved over 20 pages in just few days, it hard to keep up ( due to my lack of understanding to grasp certain element ). Sorry if i skip some pages. But

a reply to: edmc^2

You need to familiarize yourself better with the concepts in these arguments.

You are literally trying to position yourself in arguments that have hashed out for thousands of years.

Like I said....nobody wins.

See: Anthropic Principle and subjective reality.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

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.

so it is necessary to attend the wedding but unnecessary to attend the funeral. questionable morals aside... the cause changed its stripes, not its impetus. i dont know why you translated physics into psychology either. apples and oranges, particles and emotions.

the op (edmc) has already indicated that this question/conundrum is pretty open ended, ergo inconclusive. seems pretty logical to me. i prefer to leave it to experts with equipment and techniques that surpass the average ats member.

a reply to: Phantom423

As a polytheist, I have no issue with this I still want to know why these people are "there has to be a cause" (does there?) but can't find one for their deity. I know logic is not expected from creationists

a reply to: MotherMayEye

But what SORT of flour? Are gods gluten free? I mean my Gods (yeah I'm a polytheist) are probably a bit more meaty, than the Spaghetti monster, but no less or more real

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
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.

I read one paper that discussed the universe creating itself do to the fact in spacetime past present and future are all there.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: MotherMayEye

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.

so it is necessary to attend the wedding but unnecessary to attend the funeral. questionable morals aside... the cause changed its stripes, not its impetus. i dont know why you translated physics into psychology either. apples and oranges, particles and emotions.

the op (edmc) has already indicated that this question/conundrum is pretty open ended, ergo inconclusive. seems pretty logical to me. i prefer to leave it to experts with equipment and techniques that surpass the average ats member.

There are two sides of the coin. Up to you to chose which side you want to be on - which reality you want to be in.

A reality where there was / is no cause

or a..

Reality with a cause.

Once you absolutely know which one you belong to, then you can carve your path according to that reality.

But know this - chose wisely for one IS not the reality.

I know my reality.

And it's a wonderful one.

Ciao!

a reply to: edmc^2

I don't know my reality but the reality I perceive is wonderful

a reply to: TzarChasm

Well, previously, I left a link to an article about an experiment with photons showing the future affected past events, but it was skipped over (not by you, by whereislogic), so I was trying to come up with an example that might be easier to understand.

Sorry, I am so average.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
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.

I read one paper that discussed the universe creating itself do to the fact in spacetime past present and future are all there.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Phantom423

As a polytheist, I have no issue with this

I still want to know why these people are "there has to be a cause" (does there?) but can't find one for their deity. I know logic is not expected from creationists

That's because they don't see a role for science when it comes to their religious beliefs. There is no conflict between the two - it's just a matter of understanding that religion is a belief system with no evidence and science is systematic evidence.

The statement by the OP is very telling and confirms what I just said:

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?

The OP (and others) never respond to posts where they would have to deal with hard evidence. Science is an anathema to them. It's a strange position to take because if their deity is responsible for all of creation, he/she/it is also responsible for all the science that has enabled civilization - to include the internet.

Makes no sense to me.