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

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Wedni

I am not being thick neighbor, but you pulled that one from your rear, and you can't back it up. Thus recant or prove.

I'm not Abrahamic, thus I don't agree with your unproven "Satan's White Rose" nonsense.

I'm having a good laugh trying to figure out what you have found to disagree with. Do you think I mean three literal roses, one containing... lab coats and such... another rose, that's built of... tears? What?

a reply to: Wedni

Of course you are having an issue. Looking at your introduction post, it is clear you wanted some sort of attention.

So here have a cookie

You missed the bit where I said I was a polytheist it seems

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Wedni

I am not being thick neighbor, but you pulled that one from your rear, and you can't back it up. Thus recant or prove.

I'm not Abrahamic, thus I don't agree with your unproven "Satan's White Rose" nonsense.

Don't worry, it's not even an Abrahamic thing. At least not in any bible I've ever read. There's some Harry Potter fan fiction that talks about it. Unles the poster who brought it into the discussion despite it not actually pertaining to the thread topic can provide some sort of citation and context for the comments?

Alas,that unfortunately seem as likely as Spy66 supporting their perturbed claims with a citation after multiple posts of flat out refusing to do so while hypocritically demanding thise same citations from those of us who actually have provided citations and shared our combined decades of experience studying and working in fields related to the subject matter that they don't understand while claiming we are the ones who don't know what we're talking about.

I honestly feel that 3 dozen plus pages later were being trolled hardcore. And if not I fear for the future if that mindset is what education is producing these days. I

realize it's a tad pedantic, but I have a really hard time taking someone seriously when they're telling me that's Hawking is wrong and they are in fact the correct ones while demonstrating a grating inability to utilize basic 3rd grade grammar and spelling. When one takes no pride in their ability to construct a sentence properly and then disputes science that can be undependantly reproduced while refusing to support their own position... sad times are upon us indeed!

originally posted by: Wedni

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Wedni

I am not being thick neighbor, but you pulled that one from your rear, and you can't back it up. Thus recant or prove.

I'm not Abrahamic, thus I don't agree with your unproven "Satan's White Rose" nonsense.

I'm having a good laugh trying to figure out what you have found to disagree with. Do you think I mean three literal roses, one containing... lab coats and such... another rose, that's built of... tears? What?

Maybe you could drop the metaphors and similes and just explain what the hell youre going on about. Wouldn't that be easier?

a reply to: peter vlar

OH I know where its from I tend to be a bit of a historian of Cults I just like poking these individuals to try and justify their odd little ideas.

IF you look at "Wedni"'s introduction, which you likely have, you understand its either someone trolling (hopefully) or someone truly in need of some mental health care. Or perhaps both. My guess is it someone who is sure they are "Dark" and "mysterious".

to be or not to be that is the question

a reply to: edmc^2

I think you're the one with the problem. If you understood infinity, you would answer your original question.
The fact is you don't understand how science works. So why should anyone expect you to understand scientific concepts?
No brainer.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: peter vlar

OH I know where its from

I tend to be a bit of a historian of Cults

I just like poking these individuals to try and justify their odd little ideas.

IF you look at "Wedni"'s introduction, which you likely have, you understand its either someone trolling (hopefully) or someone truly in need of some mental health care. Or perhaps both. My guess is it someone who is sure they are "Dark" and "mysterious".

I am very happy you are promoting my introduction to people. Looks better than when I do it myself, thanks mate. "Which you most likely have", really? Calm down, I'll start flicking my hair.

a reply to: Wedni

You do understand that you can't tell someones mood online right? Or perchance you just want another cookie....

a reply to: Noinden

I figured you were probably aware. You know me though, I'm a big fan of due diligence, dotting my I's and crossing my T's. This entire thread has taken an ironically hilarious turn down the left hand path of the rabbit hole and hasn't actually addressed the Op's premise in quite a number of pages and just keeps getting farther and farther off course at this point. It's a little odd even for an ATS religious refutation of MES.

a reply to: peter vlar

Well given it was yet another thread which was "evolution is wrong because we don't know how life first happened" I did not expect much else. It does amuse me that this thread has shaken a few "new" (in name if not in poster) nuts from the tree however

originally posted by: edmc^2
Just because you say so doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I never suggested it did. I said that there was no evidence of any infinite. Just because you say so, doesn't mean it does exist.

The concept of infinity exists because it's part of our understanding that when something has no beginning nor end - it's INFINITE.

My goodness.

My goodness indeed. I know infinity exists as a concept. That doesn't mean it exists in reality. We use numbers to describe things. How hard is that to understand? Concepts don't magically become reality simply because you believe them. Until either of you shows evidence in anything infinite, I have every logical reason to not believe it exists. Just like with your religion. No evidence is no evidence, bud. Sorry you don't like it, but evidence talks, BS walks.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2
Just because you say so doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I never suggested it did. I said that there was no evidence of any infinite. Just because you say so, doesn't mean it does exist.

The concept of infinity exists because it's part of our understanding that when something has no beginning nor end - it's INFINITE.

My goodness.

My goodness indeed. I know infinity exists as a concept. That doesn't mean it exists in reality. We use numbers to describe things. How hard is that to understand? Concepts don't magically become reality simply because you believe them. Until either of you shows evidence in anything infinite, I have every logical reason to not believe it exists. Just like with your religion. No evidence is no evidence, bud. Sorry you don't like it, but evidence talks, BS walks.

Hahaha, too bad for you then. Your ability to go beyond the physical has reached its limit.

No wonder you can't go forward.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: peter vlar

Well given it was yet another thread which was "evolution is wrong because we don't know how life first happened" I did not expect much else. It does amuse me that this thread has shaken a few "new" (in name if not in poster) nuts from the tree however

new thread coming up ... soon.

a reply to: edmc^2

I await with baited breath .... though my expectations are low, so as not to be disapointed

originally posted by: edmc^2

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

What say you?

This was probably answered on page 2, but I came late to this party...

Your question is very interesting, but it contains a contradiction within the first half. "If something..." If it's "something" it must be part of our observable reality, therefore it is causal. If you're talking about a concept like "time" somebody has introduced that concept and therefore it is also causal.

originally posted by: edmc^2
Hahaha, too bad for you then. Your ability to go beyond the physical has reached its limit.

No wonder you can't go forward.

So I take it you have figured out how to go beyond the physical then? Why aren't you a Nobel prize winner? Oh wait, you don't have that ability either, you just believe it all based on pure faith. Silly me, for a second there I thought you might actually know something.

Sorry man, things don't exist just because you believe in them.

originally posted by: AllIsOne

originally posted by: edmc^2

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

What say you?

This was probably answered on page 2, but I came late to this party...

Your question is very interesting, but it contains a contradiction within the first half. "If something..." If it's "something" it must be part of our observable reality, therefore it is causal. If you're talking about a concept like "time" somebody has introduced that concept and therefore it is also causal.

No you're not late, can't seem to get a clear answer and yours is very close to answering it.

In a way, it seems to be a contradiction but if you look at it this way - before and after the "big-bang", then the question becomes clear.

That is, was there already something before the "big-bang"? If so, where did "it" come from?

If the "big-bang" is the beginning of the physical/material universe then what created it?

It can't be "something" that has a beginning otherwise the question will keep repeating. What preceded the beginning of the beginning and so on. The question becomes highly illogical and will have no answer.

So the only logical answer must be "it" always existed.

Hence...

Everything that has a beginning has a cause - (hence the physical).

But...

If something has no cause, then it must have no beginning - (hence the immaterial/invisible).

Of course, materialist scientists can't accept this because to them only the material can exist.

Thus when you introduce the immaterial, they balk at the idea and call you names.

Their mental acuteness becomes dull and falls apart.

To prove my point, paraphrasing the well known Prof. Krauss:

'Because something is physical, nothing must be physical, especially if you define it as the absence of something.'

www.amazon.com...

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2
Hahaha, too bad for you then. Your ability to go beyond the physical has reached its limit.

No wonder you can't go forward.

So I take it you have figured out how to go beyond the physical then? Why aren't you a Nobel prize winner? Oh wait, you don't have that ability either, you just believe it all based on pure faith. Silly me, for a second there I thought you might actually know something.

Sorry man, things don't exist just because you believe in them.

Wow, according to you, looks like I'm the only ONE who came up with the idea of INFINITY and its existence and believes it! Thanks.

So I'm getting my Nobel prize soon, I suppose.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2
Hahaha, too bad for you then. Your ability to go beyond the physical has reached its limit.

No wonder you can't go forward.

So I take it you have figured out how to go beyond the physical then? Why aren't you a Nobel prize winner? Oh wait, you don't have that ability either, you just believe it all based on pure faith. Silly me, for a second there I thought you might actually know something.

Sorry man, things don't exist just because you believe in them.

Wow, according to you, looks like I'm the only ONE who came up with the idea of INFINITY and its existence and believes it! Thanks.

So I'm getting my Nobel prize soon, I suppose.

No you did not. You appropriated the answer I gave you: if something has no cause, then it's infinite. It has no beginning and no end. And since we cannot prove infinity, the question is a moot point. It's meaningless.

And I seriously doubt that atheists and scientists who study evolution find this to be a conundrum. We simply have no way of knowing. There's no test for infinity.

This thread is not worth 45 pages. At the very least, you should have been able to answer the question yourself just using deductive logic.