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: 35
18
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier


You bring up a lot of interesting concepts and ideas that are definitely worth consideration. I know that you and I occasionally butt heads when it comes to physical science clashing with philosophy. It's not because I'm not fascinated with the concepts or disinterested in any way. I just try to stay within the bounds of what I know well and concepts that I can support with evidence. But I certainly do enjoy entertaining philosophical ideas so please keep 'em coming.




posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Butting heads is OK when it's done thoughtfully. I can be in a bad mood or have a certain gripe which doesn't make communicating ideas any easier.

I certainly appreciate your knowledge and debate and ATS is a better place when your around. It's turned a scary place since Hilary and Trump's battle tore up the rest of civility. Asking someone to support their argument has become like an insult.

The swirling of star dust is really something amazing. It's certainly as fascinating and mysterious as any superstition to me.

In fact reality is very strange right now in physics. Much weirder than a Wiccan coven in my opinion. Maybe the kids can find rebellion in bosonic theory.
edit on 18-7-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: edmc^2
The question is a paradox, where both answers yes and no have a clear cut answer, and that would fall into both the science and the philosophical and theological realms. However, the answer to the question If something has no cause, does it have a beginning? The answer is yes and no that everything has a beginning.

What the op is asking falls more into quantum physics, and only a few people, more specifically those who study such, would be able to answer such in a more detailed answer.



sdcigarpig it's a paradox indeed! Especially at quantum level where "things" tend to behave in a mysterious way - beyond the grasps of (current) science.

Take for example the single point of origin in time and space, when the very first atom appeared? What caused it to appear? Surely it couldn't be from "nothing". If we say energy as proposed by Einstein's formula E = mc2, where did Energy come from? It can't be from matter since matter is only a transformation of energy. In other words, what was the raw material that caused energy to appear?

Again, it can't be from nothing since nothing can't caused anything to manifest. So it has to be from a source that can both manifest energy and transform it into matter - hence the physical universe to appear.

To use Whitehat's description - it has to be the "non-thing" not nothing.

Question to answer is -what is the "non-thing"?

The uncaused cause?



posted on Jul, 18 2017 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2


Sure the very first finite timespace must come from nothing. Because only nothing can be absolute. And is the only timespace that is infinite.

- What is nothing?

Nothing is a void without finite timespace. Nothing is absolute neutral.

- We know that finite timespace is not infinite. Finite timespace dont take up all Space there is. THere for it can not be absolute. And this is probably one of the reasons we Call a finite spacetime for finite....it is not infinite. THat means it can not be infinite in any way.......


The only once who doubt this,... is non other then us humans.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

You sincerely need to read what modern cosmology is saying.

You continue to repeat things that are not true and don't relate to modern physics cosmological models.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Research the 'Newcomb Paradox'.

Also, this is a thinly veiled attempt on the part of the OP to 'prove' he likes worshipping gods.

It's probably in the right forum, I'll give the OP that.

Let's pose a counter-question. Does the OP's child attend a school system that teaches 'Creationism', and is anti-science?



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Of something has no cause, it has no beginning.

That is because if something has no cause, that something caused everything else.

"Everything else" includes time.

Per our own science, time has a known beginning (the Big Bang). Where was time before that? Time did not exist, because entropy did not exist. Also, space did not exist because everything was in a state called "Prefect Symmetry."

Hope that helps!



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 10:05 AM
link   

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

Of something has no cause, it has no beginning.

That is because if something has no cause, that something caused everything else.

"Everything else" includes time.

Per our own science, time has a known beginning (the Big Bang). Where was time before that? Time did not exist, because entropy did not exist. Also, space did not exist because everything was in a state called "Prefect Symmetry."

Hope that helps!


Well, there are many many theories. And most are related to models in string, m, bosonic, and a list of other cosmological models of the multiverse, many dimesnsions, simulation, holographic etc.

They are constructed with math, hyposthesis, particle physics etc.

The big bang is a theory of the beginning of the universe we can measure. There are other things in the universe however, that indicate other universe/dimensions.

As well as out study of the quantum world, entanglement, virtual particles, black holes, gravity etc.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
The uncaused cause? That would be the energy potential of the universe/multiverse/bulk - no gods required.


edit on 19-7-2017 by MarsIsRed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 10:58 AM
link   
I've gone through two pages of this thread and can't by the love of me finish.

You ask a question. For others to answer. That's where your scientific/philosophy comes to a screeching halt.

It's not about the question.

It's about how that question gets you to question.

There is no right and wrong answer. Just how it deals with your own perspective of life.

What ever answer your looking for. You won't get it from others. Only within yourself.



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: olddognewtricks





Per our own science, time has a known beginning (the Big Bang). Where was time before that?


Before Our finite time there was a absolute constant timeline.

Time has always existed and always will. Our universal timeline is finite and had a beginning. There must have existed a timeline before Our universal timeline. Here is where People have problems and start With their mombo jumo scentific supidity.

Science cant explain With facts, the timeline that leads up to the Big Bang. And never will.






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



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 10:14 PM
link   

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

You sincerely need to read what modern cosmology is saying.

You continue to repeat things that are not true and don't relate to modern physics cosmological models.



Unfortunately modern cosmology has no satisfactory answer - if they even try to attempt to answer the question.

They always end up with what Krauss has postulated - "something from nothing".

Say which model are you referring to?

Any of these:

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

As to modern physics - it's also grappling in coming up with a viable answer.

Unless of course you already know the answer.

what was there before space and time?



posted on Jul, 19 2017 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Maverick7
Research the 'Newcomb Paradox'.

Also, this is a thinly veiled attempt on the part of the OP to 'prove' he likes worshipping gods.

It's probably in the right forum, I'll give the OP that.

Let's pose a counter-question. Does the OP's child attend a school system that teaches 'Creationism', and is anti-science?



why are you introducing faith in the discussion when the question doesn't even mention it? Is it uncomfortable to you that the answer might lead to something unwanted?

As to my kid, the answer is no.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

One problem i see with the question is, it assumes we need a beginning. Logically speaking, i would say a beginning is quite impossible. Because it supposes there was nothing at one point, which is also illogical.

Therefore, i would say everything always existed, it changed form and shape for sure, and there can be a huge multiverse, where ours is a grain of salt.

So if something has no cause, which i believe is the case (unless creativity is the cause so to speak) there is no beginning, only changes.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 01:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Conan The Usurper
a reply to: edmc^2

One problem i see with the question is, it assumes we need a beginning. Logically speaking, i would say a beginning is quite impossible. Because it supposes there was nothing at one point, which is also illogical.

Therefore, i would say everything always existed, it changed form and shape for sure, and there can be a huge multiverse, where ours is a grain of salt.

So if something has no cause, which i believe is the case (unless creativity is the cause so to speak) there is no beginning, only changes.



quite right. But let's presupposed there was no beginning, then what do we say about an expanding universe? Why is it expanding and to what it's expanding to?



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 02:21 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

If you knew the answers, i believe you would not live in a 3 dimensional world, and not as a human being where everything here are opposition from one to another. I think when we get a better understanding, not just materialistically, but conceptually and spiritually of what the universe is, our physical appearance will not be the same. Or at the very least, our current interaction with our species (dialogues, languages, perceptions and perspectives etc.) will have changed drastically. A whole new paradigm will emerge.

Only then we will start 'grasping' the basics of the universe. So i think anyways.


edit on 20-7-2017 by Conan The Usurper because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Conan The Usurper

The universe complexity, it's purpose (if it got one, i don't know), whether there are many dimensions or not, if there is a multiverse, much more complex life forms than us, and so on cannot be understood with our materialistic approach alone. I think there are numerous facets to it, thousands of new kind of pattern thinking and new paradigms needs to develop. I think we have barely scratched the surface. We definitely need to accept that there might be many valid ways to look at the universe and not just from a scientific approach. What if ultimately the understanding was not important, but to live fully was? What if we already knew it?

What if imagination was the ultimate tool? What if thoughts created things for real? What if we were all creators? What if there was no purpose whatsoever, other than the one we might wanna give?

questions, questions, questions



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 07:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

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

You sincerely need to read what modern cosmology is saying.

You continue to repeat things that are not true and don't relate to modern physics cosmological models.



Unfortunately modern cosmology has no satisfactory answer - if they even try to attempt to answer the question.

They always end up with what Krauss has postulated - "something from nothing".

Say which model are you referring to?

Any of these:

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

As to modern physics - it's also grappling in coming up with a viable answer.

Unless of course you already know the answer.

what was there before space and time?



Again I have listed many models. Super strings, m theory, bosonic theory, explorations in the quantum world.

What you keep repeating is this something from nothing concept which none of the cosmological models suggest.

What you can't understand is that the big bang is not the beginning. Physics does not state this as the beginning even in the big bangs theory.


It is the beginning of the universe we have been observing in 3 d.

However, other observations in the cosmos and in the quantum world have shown possibilities of other universes and possibly other dimensions based on creating theories from these observations cosmological models are created by philosophers and physicists working together.

Your
something from nothing question is ignorant to the theories science is suggesting. You need to spend about a year trying to decipher the theories, they are heavy and require a fairly high level of math to truly comprehend.

Sure st Anselm has a point but it's an old one, that doesn't really do well with modern cosmology. It could be correct through eliminating infinite regress but I don't believe so. And it's a subject I spent years studying formally.


And no your website is not what I am talking about.


edit on 20-7-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Conan The Usurper

These are interesting questions.


Let me put it this way. The same human beings 250k years ago could have created space x or computers. They had all the mental and physical faculty to do so. What they lacked was the knowledge.

There are very driven highly intelligent people working in theoretical physics. It isn't a high paying career path full of crony capitalism.

Many of these theories are the combination of the quantum world and the visible world. Concepts like superposition for instance or entanglement. What do these things mean?

The op does not have knowledge of these concepts and has asked st Anselm ways all over again. Really the best argument for god is the teleological one but I won't tell the op. It has its rebuttal as well but it's far less antiquated.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Very basic start to one branch of current cosmology.

en.m.wikipedia.org...
edit on 20-7-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join