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: 30
20
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

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.





The OP (and others) never respond to posts where they would have to deal with hard evidence. Science is an anathema to them.


Not true.




posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 04:25 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2
Just the usual psychological projection and picture painting. Only few people answering the question in the OP with yes or no. Which indeed, is a simple question with an easy to understand answer (only 1 that is logical and correct).

Time to do a count how many people posted here that were willing to answer with either yes or no? And a count how many people got it right? Without contradicting themselves after answering with "no" when thinking they're talking about a new subject?

I went ahead and was startled at who was the first one to correctly answer the question in the OP, without ambiguity even (or promotion of the philosophy of vagueness, as if it isn't certain, he/she actually used the word "obvious" rather than simple and the statement was nicely definitive and logical). Wanna know who it was and why it startled me so much?

It was nameless of all people! (on page 3, it took 3 pages for the first answer or person willing to stick their neck out) So surprising, but a very nice positive surprise. I do think I've seen an 'everything is possible' type of argument once or twice from nameless, which would then include logical contradictions such as answering the question in the OP with yes, that's why it was so surprising and a delight to see such a clear "no" in the comment. I rejoice when people are acknowledging things. She (I think it's she) even gave almost the same illustration I gave earlier when I used the terminology "effect A". Actually, to give some credit where credit is due, she did it better than the way I did, more clear. I didn't like my version, that luthier was quick to quote and respond to ignoring all my other versions of phrasing the same point. She makes the same point in another way, much better (of course the part of the point I was emphasizing or the way I put it was caused or affected by what luthier and MotherMayEye were arguing for; hmm, now it becomes interesting to me to see if she got the same type of responses to that point by the luthier and MotherMayEye types that I got, with a lot of painting of negativity for daring to make that point, and painting that I just don't understand and need to learn more, and be less definitive in my statements and commentary and other reasons for why I'm supposedly saying things that people should ignore or look down upon with derision and disdain, certainly not take it serious or even think too long about what I'm talking about; and providing reasons for not responding to questions).

acknowledge: accept or admit the existence or truth/certainty of.

At least it seemed to have been phrased with that implication. "obvious" being a synonym for:

explicit
adj. specific, unambiguous

absolute
certain
clear
correct
definite
definitive
sure

Source: Obvious Synonyms: Thesaurus.com

Nameless was right on page 3, it is clear/obvious/sure/certain/absolute/unambiguous that the only correct/true/factual answer to the question in the OP is "no". No other possibilities regarding that question.

Nameless said:

"If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?"
Which would obviously be 'no',...
A is a function of B, no B = no A.

Leaving out the confusing distracting parts of the comment. And reading "effect/phenomenon, or condition" instead of "function". Since I mentioned in response to luthier's argument about a supposed 'possibility' "logically speaking" ("a universe being its own cause"):

So round and round we go and we're stil left with your claim that it is (factual/absolute) that it is a possibility "logically speaking" that a universe can exist that is its own cause and I'm arguing and reminding people that it is a logical contradiction to argue or claim that it is a possibility that an effect (like the universe) is also its own cause, therefore, an impossibility.

Effect A cannot be the cause of effect A.

To which I got the response from luthier that accused me of (between brackets is mine):

What I understand keenly is apologists avoid the topic themselves.

You turn the argument around.

You want a simple answer where one is not appropriate. [promotion of the philosophy of vagueness regarding my question "Are contradictions possibilities?" I presume; perhaps the question in the OP but I didn't ask that question, could be any of my other questions addressed specifically to the contradiction "its own cause"]

There isn't one.

I can find a million faults with legends and folklore as well. [red herring]

When it comes down to it a first cause or necessary being can be a diest viewpoint, it does not prove any kind of biblical god who cares for people. Notice I say each of the concepts including a necessary being is logical. My personal preferences are irrelevant. I admit they all have logic. [red herring, and I already explained that in both proposed "possibilities" the same logical contradiction "its own cause" was used, leading to one of the 2 proposed "possibilities" to become a straw man version of the argument for an eternal uncaused God, who is NOT "its own cause" as suggested in the supposed possibility by luthier for a bilbical God scenario, that's why it's a straw man version of the biblical God; I also explained why this is being done in this manner, to put it on equal footing with the other proposed contradiction]
Jeez man. You would do OK if you read closer. And thought more after.[Thanks 'man' (or should I say person/being to be on the safe side of accuracy?), I guess those suggestions are only needed when I'm making the point, not when nameless is doing it, because she isn't talking about propaganda and deception techniques at the same time, she ends up expressing the same erronuous philosophies that already are so popular in this system of things; the kind of stuff luthier and MotherMayEye don't have any issues with when people believe those philosophies/ideas; and of course it might be that nameless is contradicting what I quoted from her before answering the question in the OP with "no" with her commentary about edmc^2's first statement of a fact regarding the relation of the word "cause" with the word "beginning"; that could be another reason it's OK for those who love vagueness/ambiguity, confusion and falsehoods since then she's still not really acknowledging everything related to the subject and the question and it it's still confusing the way she talks about it if you don't discard what I just discarded as irrelevant from her comment. Just thinking out loud here, I haven't drawn any definitive conclusions yet regarding this last part.]
edit on 25-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 06:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss
"Everything that has a beginning has a cause."
...
But it makes sense to me, I'm willing to tentatively equate the two.

...since 'cause' is equated with 'beginning',

Just remember that the noun "cause" should not be equated or seen as a synonym for the word "beginning", it doesn't mean the same thing.

The verb "cause" however is a synonym for "give rise to/begin". Which gives a clue what the relation between the noun "cause" and the word "beginning" is. What it implies logically in relation to the statement of the fact/certainty in the OP that was quoted above. As demonstrated by my quotation of a definition for the noun "cause" earlier and my elaboration of these logical implications or follow-throughs. Which you yourself gave a clue or hint about as well when mentioning the stuff about A and B; possibly without noticing given your earlier commentary about not being sure that what was quoted was actually factual/certain and not merely a "syllogism" as you called it; which doesnt seem to apply at all when I'm reading:

an instance of a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn (whether validly or not) from two given or assumed propositions (premises), each of which shares a term with the conclusion, and shares a common or middle term not present in the conclusion (e.g., all dogs are animals; all animals have four legs; therefore all dogs have four legs ).

In the google dictionary.
edit on 25-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

So, basically your sticking with Aquinas 5 ways and make no concession this argument goes all the way back to pictographic writing.


Good job guys you have really done a good job regurgitating one side of the arguement that has been going on for thousands of years.

Someday I will make a thread of philosophical arguements for and against God so all the philosophical posers can be exposed to what argument they are trying to advance, that most likely already has an accepted rebuttal.

The arguments around cosmology require a person to think beyond their senses. Something most of the theists positioning themselves with aquinas here don't get.

Aquinas was smart. Heck William lane Craig was pretty good at tearing down bad atheist arguments.

This from you is juvenile philosophy 101 stuff. This is not a new argument. This isn't original. This has no yes or no answer. And it's not a simple question.

The entire spectrum of answers which would be yes or no would signify you know the ultimate ontological question. What is reality?

Can you answer what is reality?

Without that answer you have no way of adressing this question as a yes or no answer.

Since your bound by the anthropic principle you have to find a way to move beyond the senses and mind your universe has provided. Which franky may be impossible.

There is and never will be a yes or no answer here.

Most atheists don't make claims about god.

If your advancing the arguement presented by Aquinas it has a rebuttal. You don't need to argue anymore. If you think you've made an advancement in this long and well rehearsed argument you should try it in an academic philosophy debate. With moderators.

Or maybe your real purpose is evangelism which brings me to my very first post, regarding the honesty of the op question.
edit on 25-4-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

You don't respond to posts with real science in them. You avoid them like the plague.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

It seems you don't like a yes or no answer to any question. Makes twisting and spinning harder (as well as marketing or arguing in favor of contradictions as possibilities or even "science"), just like you're doing again by misrepresenting what I'm doing or arguing and bringing up other things to paint a negative picture on my commentary. Aquinas and the earlier link you shared about his way of arguing were total red herrings used as straw men versions of my commentary. As well as still dodging my question to you and deflecting away from the topic along with more promotions of the philosophy of vagueness and selective convenient willful agnosticism or ignorance regarding these questions and the answers. Denial of the facts.

Fact: contradictions are not possibilities
Fact: this is clear/unambiguous/certain/obvious

Why? Because it's the meaning of those words as humans have agreed upon them for rational honest conversations (and it is logical reasonable and rational behaviour to accept and use words according to their intended and agreed upon meaning in spite of irrational persons not agreeing and teaching or arguing otherwise and warping logic and language). And not constant warping of the meaning of words in an attempt to do this technique from the article about propaganda in my signature which I elaborated on from pages 21-25 and 28:

...capitalizing on the ambiguity of language...

Page 28 in particular is where I focussed on that when I also addressed toktaylor's mid-argument swapping for his interpretation or the meaning that he was using for the term "the universe". Which has 2 different meanings in his comment and keeping track of what meaning he was using at what point in his argument was like keeping track of a pee in the shell game. Much like keeping track of contradictions that people are arguing in favor for (either as facts or possibilities; MotherMayEye was using the word "obvious" again in relation to the contradiction "its own cause").

Suggesting the phrase "its own cause" as a possibility (or in a supposed possible scenario) leads to a contradiction in terms.

a statement or group of words associating objects or ideas that are incompatible.
"“true fiction” is a contradiction in terms"

Source: Google dictionary

"Possible contradictions" is a contradiction in terms. Just like suggesting "its own cause" (contradiction) as a possibility. Allthough in that case the contradiction in terms isn't spelled out so just calling it "suggesting a contradiction as a possibility" is a more accurate way of describing what someone is doing then.
edit on 25-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: whereislogic

You don't respond to posts with real science in them. You avoid them like the plague.



There is a common theme with apologists that reality is not what the mundane world is. So the goal posts can easily shift and players be tricked. The world of miracles for example, a different dimension with death etc, when theoretical physics begins to make sense of how "super natural" events could happen for some reason it can scare the narrow minded. Even though it doesn't disprove "god". Why would it, that it a topic of philosophy.

Lets go back to Darwin. Evolution exists. Denying it is like saying mamals don't use oxygen. In reality do they? I don't know. It sure is by far the best theory based in what seems to be collective reality. So here we are mixing ontology with cosmology. First we need to know what reality is. I sure don't. Could zeus throw lightning, maybe? How much can we falsify though. Does lightning have another possibility? Yes. Check one against the theory.

In my opinion when science begins using dimensional reality as in string, m-theory, bosonic theory you would think an inquisitive theist would be very excited. Why would any of this science make claims about God?

God can exist within these theories.

But it doesn't have to either....



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   
You can also describe the suggestion of something like a or the universe being its own cause (or anything else being its own cause), as being self-contradictory (just like "created itself", or "...the universe can and will create itself...", quoting Stephen Hawking from his book "The Grand Design").

Self-contradictory Synonyms: Thesaurus.com

as in illogical

adj. not making sense

absurd
false
inconsistent
incorrect
irrational
unreasonable
unscientific

And if you take a few from the list with a difference in color scheme (indicating they are slightly less related but still synonyms):


fallacious
faulty
invalid
mad
meaningless
nutty
screwy
wacky


Bringing us back to my comment on page 19, it's a loop allright. Groundhog Day on ATS. Maybe I should also just start juggling with words and contradictions (5:20 - 6:30) :

edit on 25-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: namelesss
"Everything that has a beginning has a cause."
...
But it makes sense to me, I'm willing to tentatively equate the two.

...since 'cause' is equated with 'beginning',

Just remember that the noun "cause" should not be equated or seen as a synonym for the word "beginning", it doesn't mean the same thing.

The verb "cause" however is a synonym for "give rise to/begin".

Hold on a moment.
For there to be 'causing', there has to be a 'causer'. (seems every other '-ing' has an '-er'!)
To accept the premise of the existence of 'cause/creation', then there must be, ipso facto, a 'causer/creator'.
The premise, of course, fails under critical scrutiny.

"Everything that has a beginning has a cause. "
~~~ Your logical premise


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

Obviously not.
Thus the One Universe has no 'beginning' because it has no 'time' or 'motion', thus no 'creator'.
No cause = no beginning/no beginning = no cause.
You are right, a very simple question... *__-





edit on 25-4-2017 by namelesss because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

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!




i choose to encourage a reality where i balance a keen sense of cosmic insignificance with a humanitarian drive to be a better person today than i was yesterday. a seamless blend of pragmatic wisdom and neighborly love. everything else is just politics. that includes your "false choice" dilemma. if all you care about is being right, then you miss the point entirely. bottom line, your conundrum is still inconclusive. but do we really need a reason to be the best people we can be?

ciao indeed ...til next time anyway.

edit on 25-4-2017 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




if all you care about is being right, then you miss the point entirely


It's not about being right or being wrong but what's right and wrong. What's real and what's not.

Uncaused cause or infinite causes.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 10:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: whereislogic

You don't respond to posts with real science in them. You avoid them like the plague.



There is a common theme with apologists that reality is not what the mundane world is. So the goal posts can easily shift and players be tricked. The world of miracles for example, a different dimension with death etc, when theoretical physics begins to make sense of how "super natural" events could happen for some reason it can scare the narrow minded. Even though it doesn't disprove "god". Why would it, that it a topic of philosophy.

Lets go back to Darwin. Evolution exists. Denying it is like saying mamals don't use oxygen. In reality do they? I don't know. It sure is by far the best theory based in what seems to be collective reality. So here we are mixing ontology with cosmology. First we need to know what reality is. I sure don't. Could zeus throw lightning, maybe? How much can we falsify though. Does lightning have another possibility? Yes. Check one against the theory.

In my opinion when science begins using dimensional reality as in string, m-theory, bosonic theory you would think an inquisitive theist would be very excited. Why would any of this science make claims about God?

God can exist within these theories.

But it doesn't have to either....


Yes, I agree with you. I think part of this perception of deities comes down through the ages as anthropomorphic characterizations. I mentioned previously that there's some speculation that the universe might be a simulation. We don't have the technology to know this to be true, but could this be a "be careful what you wish for" moment?

And it's very true what you said about the "inquisitive theist" - they should be head-over-heels with enthusiasm about the natural world that physicists investigate. And some of them are. But not Creationists. Because they're scared to death that something might contradict their rock-solid, incontrovertible "truth" about their deity. Humans on this planet have been around that block hundreds of times - every culture has created their deity to account for that which they don't understand. The major religions i.e. Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Protestanism - accept the discoveries of science as part of the natural world.

Creationism is simply a cult like the Jonestown tragedy and the folks who thought the Hale-Bopp comet would take them to heaven. Neither one turned out well.....



There is a difference, however, between those sorry people and Ken Ham, the modern day guru of Creationism. Ham is a junk bond salesman. He's a complete fraud. But that's another story.




edit on 25-4-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

They never respond to posts where they need evidence , as they are aware they are being hypocrites. It would be like me demanding they prove their little deity is the only little deity. When I can't even prove my many.



posted on Apr, 26 2017 @ 09:50 PM
link   

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




if all you care about is being right, then you miss the point entirely


It's not about being right or being wrong but what's right and wrong. What's real and what's not.

Uncaused cause or infinite causes.


in other words, you are proving my point. and missing the point in the process, as predicted. gg no re.



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

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




if all you care about is being right, then you miss the point entirely


It's not about being right or being wrong but what's right and wrong. What's real and what's not.

Uncaused cause or infinite causes.


in other words, you are proving my point. and missing the point in the process, as predicted. gg no re.


Nope. I'm just stating the fact.

That is - which one is real and not.Which one makes logical sense.

Uncaused cause or infinite causes or we can add one more - no cause at all.

or your point - we just plain don't know.



posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Idreamofme

the egg as the saying is, what came first the chicken or the egg, it does not say what came first the chicken or the chicken egg plus the chicken must of hatched from an egg in the first place



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

If it has no cause it has infinite possibilities.

It is potential state.

When it 'begins' it is finite state, it will eventually end.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Preachers are gonna preach. If only they had real arguments instead of easily debunked BS.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2



Why not ask how this got here from this state of viod.


How did this:




Form this:




I bet no one have the answer. The reason is that common People dont have the mind to think.
Science don't have the answer. But still i do.... how is that?



edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Of course nobody has an answer to your query, it's a total strawman because photo 1 of nothing, is not what preceded the Big Bang. Prior to expansion of the singularity, there was still a singularity. There was never nothing, the universe didn't appear from nothing out of thin air. I don't understand why this piece of data is ignored by everyone who continues to show how little they actually want to learn. I just don't comprehend the vast number of people who attempt to dispute scientific theories prior to actually trying to understand what those theories actually Stare and demonstrate.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join