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

a reply to: Barcs

The truth is we don't know what lies beyond what science has discovered.

I agree, and that same truth will one day lead all humanity to one undeniable conclusion; we have a creator.

a reply to: edmc^2

I got an opinion.

Everything have a beginning, but not necessarily have an ending life is forever.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Barcs

The truth is we don't know what lies beyond what science has discovered.

I agree, and that same truth will one day lead all humanity to one undeniable conclusion; we have a creator.

You're assuming this creator is our friend.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Barcs

The truth is we don't know what lies beyond what science has discovered.

I agree, and that same truth will one day lead all humanity to one undeniable conclusion; we have a creator.

Yeah, sure thing. Get back at me when science discovers god, until then we should all be skeptical.

Your question has no logic - you are equating some known logic, that something that has a beginning has a cause, and then juxtaposing that next to "does something with no cause have a beginning". The two are unrelated, and the question is illogical. It has the same effect of asking "what does purple smell like".

We are speaking of impossibility - as beings in this existence only know beginnings and causes. Totally outside of our perception. But nonetheless, a fun question to ask.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Barcs

The truth is we don't know what lies beyond what science has discovered.

I agree, and that same truth will one day lead all humanity to one undeniable conclusion; we have a creator.

Yeah, sure thing. Get back at me when science discovers god, until then we should all be skeptical.

Even if science discovers some God like being, how could we understand the difference between highly advanced technology and miracles? A being like this could enslave the human race. Why would you worship it?

a reply to: edmc^2

well if there is no cause and no beginning
then there has to be an equal opposite right

so non beginning and non causality would create a cause and begining by default to balance out the no cause no beginning

just a thought

a reply to: flyingfish

I dunno im quite sure we live inside god , not in the sense that we live in the stomach of a bearded man

as in the universes as it has the power to destroy us completely
and also looks like magic to us as we dont understand it

a reply to: sapien82

I dunno im quite sure we live inside god

How can we live inside a man made concept? It is far more likely Gods live inside the imagination of man. You can actually see this being played out, cause all Gods are created in the image of their creators ethnicity.

Nothing gives birth to a new species...
No dinosaur or any other creature that lays eggs lays chicken eggs or ever has...
A Chicken egg can only be produced by a mature hen...
Only the mature hen has what is needed to produce the shell of the egg...
An egg cannot come before the Chicken which is required to produce not only the life inside the egg but the very eggshell itself...
The Chicken came first...
Yet the first Chicken could not have come from an egg...

Nice thread.

I am not an atheist, but I do have an answer to the original question: "If something doesn't have a cause, does it have a beginning?"

Generally, I would say each beginning has a cause, but I can see how there is a "singularity" there. There might be exactly one beginning without a cause. That is what a "singularity" generally is -- the single exception.

For example: the formula Y = 1/X has a value for all "X' -- except where X is zero. The value X = 0 for the equation is a singularity.

The concept of a "singularity" is a valid idea that comes up all the time throughout life -- a single exception. It is just a weird piece of our realities fabric. Singularities exist everywhere, and probably exist with your original premise.

Anyway, I wanted to contribute my answer. Perhaps someone else also said this somewhere, because it seems like an obvious answer, once you think about it. But if nobody suggested this as a possible answer, I wanted to contribute here.

This thread got me thinking for a while, thanks!

a reply to: 5StarOracle

If any of the scenarios you described above were to occur, then that would falsify the MES. But none of that occurs and that's not how evolution works. Differentiation between species in a country ntinuous evutionary lineage, like our own Genus Homo for example, is (and I'm dumbing this down considerably) somewhat of a way to mark a Genus progression in geologic history. A Homo Erectus didn't magically give birth to Homo Heidelbergensis one day. There is a long period of mutations and adaptation coupled with gene expression altering minor morphological features over time. The same holds true for every single species that has ever existed. Even if you want to try to ignore the fossil and geologic evidence, genetics supports and proves this.

If what you posted above is a reflection of how you perceive evolutionary theory, I would strongly suggest actually reading the scientific literature to see what Anthropologists, geneticists, biologists etc... actually say regarding the topic because none of that has ever occurred not is it what the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis states. Your entire view point of MES rests precariously on the back of a nonexistent strawman that you
Have created yourself or perhaps parroted from someone else. Either way,
It is grossly inaccurate and terribly misrepresents the actual scientific evidence.

I see that this thread has slowed down a lot but because I only discovered it I will give my input too.

I don't know why people complicate things with creation, and creators and all kind of beliefs, and how the question is related to either atheism or evolutionism. I think is much simpler than that.

"If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?"
The keyword here is "someTHING".
Not that you will find many things without a cause out there. For something to be "a thing" it has to have a cause, so every thing has a cause and therefore a beginning.

But let's take for example space. It has no cause, obviously. It has no beginning and no end. It was not created and cannot be finished some day or some place. Is just is. ( I know, Big Bangs and other space-time folding theories but I'm not sold on mere "theories"; logically even the Big Bang or whatever was before it needed a space within which could retract or expand)
Space needs nothing in order to exists, is just there. Everywhere. The rest of the things needs space in order to manifest themselves. Without space nothing is possible.
Yet space is not really "a thing", is more a no-thing, is really nothing, but a nothing essential for the rest of manifested world to exist.

So my opinion is that there are "things" and there are "non-things". Things have causes, and therefore beginnings and ends. That makes them things.
"Non-things" are just present, always, without beginning or end.
If the question would have been "if there is no cause there can be a beginning?" the answer would have been obviously NO. Whatever is without a cause it's simply is.
But because the question it's formulated as it is, regarding "some-thing", it's quite an impossible question as logic goes.
Unless of course someone can give an example of a thing without a cause. A thing, not a concept or a theory of a thing. And right there we will have the answer too.

a reply to: peter vlar

Did you see me mention evolution?
What I did state about the Chicken and the Egg is entirely accurate...
So you should stop smoking your straw man...
If you were even close to as smart as you think you are you would realize that for yourself...

As for evolution...
Im am not brainwashed like you...
Im sure as hell not stupid enough to regurgitate the latest drivel proposed by so called evolutionary experts who change their opinions more than you change your underwear...
No Evolution is not what you think it is...
The only part you have right is mutations...
But these mutations do not take a long time as suggested...
Instead I believe they happen rapidly when genetics are altered by elements in an enviroment which have the ability to cause such gentic alterations...
I will use radiation as an example...
Those who grossly misrepresent science are the blind followers of evolution who buy the latest lie every time...
And believe themselves most intelligent quoting the latest tidbit verbatim...
Get real...

a reply to: WhiteHat

In physics, spacetime is most definitely considered a thing. It is theorized to cause gravity and expand along with energy and matter as a result from the big bang.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Don't lie, your very first line said a species cannot give birth to another species and then went on a tirade about it. You actually know nothing about chickens or eggs or how species change via genetics, yet somehow dismiss evidence blindly from certified trained experts as "drivel" in favor of your ignorant over generalized rhetoric. Sorry, I'm not buying that some random dude on the internet who can barely write a complete sentence knows more than experts in biology.

originally posted by: WhiteHat
I see that this thread has slowed down a lot but because I only discovered it I will give my input too.

I don't know why people complicate things with creation, and creators and all kind of beliefs, and how the question is related to either atheism or evolutionism. I think is much simpler than that.

"If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?"
The keyword here is "someTHING".
Not that you will find many things without a cause out there. For something to be "a thing" it has to have a cause, so every thing has a cause and therefore a beginning.

But let's take for example space. It has no cause, obviously. It has no beginning and no end. It was not created and cannot be finished some day or some place. Is just is. ( I know, Big Bangs and other space-time folding theories but I'm not sold on mere "theories"; logically even the Big Bang or whatever was before it needed a space within which could retract or expand)
Space needs nothing in order to exists, is just there. Everywhere. The rest of the things needs space in order to manifest themselves. Without space nothing is possible.
Yet space is not really "a thing", is more a no-thing, is really nothing, but a nothing essential for the rest of manifested world to exist.

So my opinion is that there are "things" and there are "non-things". Things have causes, and therefore beginnings and ends. That makes them things.
"Non-things" are just present, always, without beginning or end.
If the question would have been "if there is no cause there can be a beginning?" the answer would have been obviously NO. Whatever is without a cause it's simply is.
But because the question it's formulated as it is, regarding "some-thing", it's quite an impossible question as logic goes.
Unless of course someone can give an example of a thing without a cause. A thing, not a concept or a theory of a thing. And right there we will have the answer too.

Nicely done Whitehat. Very well thought of reply. The analysis of the questions is thought provoking. But as corporeal beings, our understanding of the origin of "things" is limited to the materialistic world we inhabit. Hence the question is geared towards that understanding. But how do we define a "thing" that is a "non-thing"? It's hard under this condition or under our circumstances. So we're left to ponder with how best we can describe it.

But in any case, when "something" or "some-non-thing" creates a "thing" then it's by necessity must be greater than the "thing" that created it. Otherwise it doesn't make sense. For how can the pot be greater than that potter?
The potter must be of higher substance than the "thing" "it/he" created.

In the case of the universe, what made it? Is the universe a "thing", a "non-thing" or is it a product of "something" of greater stuff?

Again it's the case of the potter and the pot. If the universe had a beginning then by necessity "its" maker / creator must have no beginning. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

So who or what made the universe? Is it a "thing" or a "non-thing" (as you put it)?

It can't be a "thing" if the universe is a "thing".

So we're left with with one choice - it must be a "non-thing".

What then is this "non-thing"?

That I leave to you to ponder further.

As for this:

If the question would have been "if there is no cause there can be a beginning?" the answer would have been obviously NO.

I agree with the answer. Hence that which has no beginning then must be the beginning of all "things" created.

a reply to: flyingfish

well when I said we live inside a god, what I mean is the universe itself is god like!

and as for gods well here are just two examples of the top of my head who arent humanoid in form

quetzalcoatl - non human god

Typhon - non human god

a reply to: edmc^2

this appears to be the oldest debate the mind over matter or matter over mind way of looking at the universe.
To the mystery schools it was the mind over matter

and the universe is a product of consciousness forming matter , condensing matter into the 3rd dimension

of course science would argue against this vehemently

One day far away all the stars in the universe will burn out/explode and stop giving off energy and long after that the expanding universe will probably stop expanding. Gravity should start attracting all the mass back to a singular point.

It may stay that way for an unimaginable amount of time. It could become unstable and explode.

Then a very very long time after that some life may begin somewhere and if a species gains the ability to communicate with each other coupled with a slight bit of reasoning I am sure at some point they will waste their time asking unknowable questions.

a reply to: Grimpachi

according to the mystery schools matter will start to become less dense and return to the formless in 9000 years