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: 47
25
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Idreamofme

Exactly. God created (big banged) it into existence




posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

That question is easily answerable: Everything that has a beginning has a cause. Everything that has a cause, has a beginning (except for looped causality, however, or if ever, that may be achieved).

The error in the question is the assumption that everything that exists must have both a beginning and a cause and have a time-line. The truth is that there are things that empirically exist, which are timeless. They have no cause or beginning.

Consider numeration, does the number Pi have a beginning or cause? The number 1? The square root of -2? It is obvious that these are conceptual and timeless. It is irrelevant to talk of the beginning or cause of such things.

We might argue that they are immaterial, however the entire material cosmos is utterly dependent upon such things which gives rise to how importantly we must treat the subject. We cannot deny the existence of such things based upon their 'non-material' nature.

They must absolutely exist for matter to exist and the universe to be describable mathematically.

They are absolutes, they are constants and they are unchangeable. That is the nature of atemporality.

That things do exist that have no beginning/cause, but that things bound-up 'within time' rationally have cause/beginning, is the answer to the question in the OP and to the further question it infers.

edit on 2/1/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: edmc^2
There's a question that had been asked around. But somehow, it's baffling why smart thinking people are unable to give a straight answer.
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?

Well let's see where you stand.

But first let me please state this scientific and incontrovertible fact:

Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

So, what's the answer to this simple question:

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

What say you?



You might call me an atheist and evolutionist, and I am not stumped at all. The question might seem very simple to you, but it's not.

Classically the universe looks deterministic. But when you try to look closer there is the uncertainty principle that gets in your way. So from my understanding no one knows.

Now to get back to your mockery of atheism and science. As an atheist I have no problems to admit that there are things that I don't know or understand. But in contrast to believers I don't make up deities to fill these gaps of knowledge.


An acknowledgement of a limitation of knowledge does not equate with 'filling it with a deity'.

Such is irrational.



posted on Jan, 6 2018 @ 10:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: edmc^2

That question is easily answerable: Everything that has a beginning has a cause. Everything that has a cause, has a beginning (except for looped causality, however, or if ever, that may be achieved).

The error in the question is the assumption that everything that exists must have both a beginning and a cause and have a time-line. The truth is that there are things that empirically exist, which are timeless. They have no cause or beginning.

Consider numeration, does the number Pi have a beginning or cause? The number 1? The square root of -2? It is obvious that these are conceptual and timeless. It is irrelevant to talk of the beginning or cause of such things.

We might argue that they are immaterial, however the entire material cosmos is utterly dependent upon such things which gives rise to how importantly we must treat the subject. We cannot deny the existence of such things based upon their 'non-material' nature.

They must absolutely exist for matter to exist and the universe to be describable mathematically.

They are absolutes, they are constants and they are unchangeable. That is the nature of atemporality.

That things do exist that have no beginning/cause, but that things bound-up 'within time' rationally have cause/beginning, is the answer to the question in the OP and to the further question it infers.


All things must have a cause except for the thing that caused those things, for nothing can exist without cause except that thing which causes those causes. To put it another way, every person must obey the laws of the land except for the one person who wrote those laws, for that one person is above their own law. Where I come from, this is known as a double standard. Is that a typical phenomena in physics?



posted on Jan, 6 2018 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: edmc^2
There's a question that had been asked around. But somehow, it's baffling why smart thinking people are unable to give a straight answer.
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?

Well let's see where you stand.

But first let me please state this scientific and incontrovertible fact:

Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

So, what's the answer to this simple question:

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

What say you?



You might call me an atheist and evolutionist, and I am not stumped at all. The question might seem very simple to you, but it's not.

Classically the universe looks deterministic. But when you try to look closer there is the uncertainty principle that gets in your way. So from my understanding no one knows.

Now to get back to your mockery of atheism and science. As an atheist I have no problems to admit that there are things that I don't know or understand. But in contrast to believers I don't make up deities to fill these gaps of knowledge.


An acknowledgement of a limitation of knowledge does not equate with 'filling it with a deity'.

Such is irrational.


Yes, the god of the gaps typically is irrational.



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 04:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: edmc^2

That question is easily answerable: Everything that has a beginning has a cause. Everything that has a cause, has a beginning (except for looped causality, however, or if ever, that may be achieved).

The error in the question is the assumption that everything that exists must have both a beginning and a cause and have a time-line. The truth is that there are things that empirically exist, which are timeless. They have no cause or beginning.

Consider numeration, does the number Pi have a beginning or cause? The number 1? The square root of -2? It is obvious that these are conceptual and timeless. It is irrelevant to talk of the beginning or cause of such things.

We might argue that they are immaterial, however the entire material cosmos is utterly dependent upon such things which gives rise to how importantly we must treat the subject. We cannot deny the existence of such things based upon their 'non-material' nature.

They must absolutely exist for matter to exist and the universe to be describable mathematically.

They are absolutes, they are constants and they are unchangeable. That is the nature of atemporality.

That things do exist that have no beginning/cause, but that things bound-up 'within time' rationally have cause/beginning, is the answer to the question in the OP and to the further question it infers.


All things must have a cause except for the thing that caused those things, for nothing can exist without cause except that thing which causes those causes. To put it another way, every person must obey the laws of the land except for the one person who wrote those laws, for that one person is above their own law. Where I come from, this is known as a double standard. Is that a typical phenomena in physics?


So,what 'caused' the number one? The unitary case?



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 06:29 AM
link   

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

Got an easier one, but no less unsolvable.

"What came first the chicken or the egg"?

Hint: No one knows the answer no matter how smart they sound.


Neither came first as the "final identity" that is the chicken and is the egg is a result of eons of development and change whereby both are interdependent to exist at all in this their current stage.



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: edmc^2

That question is easily answerable: Everything that has a beginning has a cause. Everything that has a cause, has a beginning (except for looped causality, however, or if ever, that may be achieved).

The error in the question is the assumption that everything that exists must have both a beginning and a cause and have a time-line. The truth is that there are things that empirically exist, which are timeless. They have no cause or beginning.

Consider numeration, does the number Pi have a beginning or cause? The number 1? The square root of -2? It is obvious that these are conceptual and timeless. It is irrelevant to talk of the beginning or cause of such things.

We might argue that they are immaterial, however the entire material cosmos is utterly dependent upon such things which gives rise to how importantly we must treat the subject. We cannot deny the existence of such things based upon their 'non-material' nature.

They must absolutely exist for matter to exist and the universe to be describable mathematically.

They are absolutes, they are constants and they are unchangeable. That is the nature of atemporality.

That things do exist that have no beginning/cause, but that things bound-up 'within time' rationally have cause/beginning, is the answer to the question in the OP and to the further question it infers.


All things must have a cause except for the thing that caused those things, for nothing can exist without cause except that thing which causes those causes. To put it another way, every person must obey the laws of the land except for the one person who wrote those laws, for that one person is above their own law. Where I come from, this is known as a double standard. Is that a typical phenomena in physics?


So,what 'caused' the number one? The unitary case?


Numbers are a human expression of spatial phenomena, like paintings are an expression of nature and colors are an expression of frequency. If you think numbers are immutable, then compare miles to kilometres to inches, all of which can be used to describe the same quantity but are more relative than absolute. Human expression of spatial phenomena. Even the numerical system itself has been edited and reinvented over the course of history. Much like other concepts I could mention.



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Your question is poorly formed. It's a 'set up'. Look at a proto-galaxy. What is the cause? There is not a single, simple cause, and to suggest there is a cause is teleological, similar to what is the cause of a giraffe having a longer neck than its ancestors.

The proto-galaxy is forming, over a long period of time due to concentration of atoms of hydrogen and gravitational forces. It's not an instantaneous thing. Your question is pre-supposing there is a 'snap-your-fingers' beginning. One might not even be able to say 'when' a beginning happened, because it's too amorphous, or not clearly defined in specific terms.

Would you say the proto-galaxy was caused when the first two atoms of hydrogen became attracted to each other? Would anyone, any science be able to detect that, record it, or document it? Not really.

You look at a rock that is being sculpted by a river and erosion. It's got an interesting shape. What caused that shape? Can you point to the first drop of water that hit the rock and say 'oh, it was that drop of water'? No it would be meaningless and unnecessary. You'd say the rock was caused by geological forces in the formation of the Earth, deposited in such a place and then a river formed and began an erosion process. There is no 'cause' such as 'what caused the book to fall off the table'?

The idea the OP is positing is one of a single defined event, such as a book falling to the floor and conflating that to try to falsify a belief in an evolved or process state. It's specious.

HTH



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

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




Theoretically it could have a Cause and Beginning Outside of our Present Physical Universe , and Not be Able to be Perceived by Humans as of Yet....
edit on 7-1-2018 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: edmc^2

That question is easily answerable: Everything that has a beginning has a cause. Everything that has a cause, has a beginning (except for looped causality, however, or if ever, that may be achieved).

The error in the question is the assumption that everything that exists must have both a beginning and a cause and have a time-line. The truth is that there are things that empirically exist, which are timeless. They have no cause or beginning.

Consider numeration, does the number Pi have a beginning or cause? The number 1? The square root of -2? It is obvious that these are conceptual and timeless. It is irrelevant to talk of the beginning or cause of such things.

We might argue that they are immaterial, however the entire material cosmos is utterly dependent upon such things which gives rise to how importantly we must treat the subject. We cannot deny the existence of such things based upon their 'non-material' nature.

They must absolutely exist for matter to exist and the universe to be describable mathematically.

They are absolutes, they are constants and they are unchangeable. That is the nature of atemporality.

That things do exist that have no beginning/cause, but that things bound-up 'within time' rationally have cause/beginning, is the answer to the question in the OP and to the further question it infers.


All things must have a cause except for the thing that caused those things, for nothing can exist without cause except that thing which causes those causes. To put it another way, every person must obey the laws of the land except for the one person who wrote those laws, for that one person is above their own law. Where I come from, this is known as a double standard. Is that a typical phenomena in physics?


So,what 'caused' the number one? The unitary case?


Numbers are a human expression of spatial phenomena, like paintings are an expression of nature and colors are an expression of frequency. If you think numbers are immutable, then compare miles to kilometres to inches, all of which can be used to describe the same quantity but are more relative than absolute. Human expression of spatial phenomena. Even the numerical system itself has been edited and reinvented over the course of history. Much like other concepts I could mention.


Your previous example seems to be confusing numeration with measurement.

Breaking down your previous example; a measurement is a comparison. If we perform measurement, we are comparing it to a standard and determining if it is a multiple or a division of that standard.

Numerative descriptions must rationally and conceptually exist to make any comparison against a standard.

Those numerative descriptions do not have their origin in the measurement - the measurement does not create them.

They exist forever as concepts regardless of if we invoke them. They are atemporal, in that they rationally must exist for us to make temporal comparisons/measurements with magnitude, about them.

Does a 'concept' exist, or is a concept non-existent? It is obvious that a concept is both non-material and existent.

The point I was making is that things may objectively exist, that have no cause.

edit on 7/1/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Nothing is something.



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: moebius

originally posted by: edmc^2
There's a question that had been asked around. But somehow, it's baffling why smart thinking people are unable to give a straight answer.
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?

Well let's see where you stand.

But first let me please state this scientific and incontrovertible fact:

Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

So, what's the answer to this simple question:

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

What say you?



You might call me an atheist and evolutionist, and I am not stumped at all. The question might seem very simple to you, but it's not.

Classically the universe looks deterministic. But when you try to look closer there is the uncertainty principle that gets in your way. So from my understanding no one knows.

Now to get back to your mockery of atheism and science. As an atheist I have no problems to admit that there are things that I don't know or understand. But in contrast to believers I don't make up deities to fill these gaps of knowledge.


An acknowledgement of a limitation of knowledge does not equate with 'filling it with a deity'.

Such is irrational.


Yes, the god of the gaps typically is irrational.



What is irrational is the belief that notional gaps indicate a gap in the structure of reality.

It is an obvious and rational presumption that nature represents a continuum of cause and effect. There are no holes or gaps in nature.

A God hypothesis, similarly, has no holes or gaps. It embraces a natural continuum entirely, and follows natural rules (as well as rules outside of the natural). God's universe, by nature of deductive reasoning, would have no gaps. It is explorable and knowable from a human intellectual perspective, and is fully known by God.

It is the scientific body of knowledge that has the gaps. Numerous and vast ones. These are not representative of gaps in the structure of reality but are specifically limitations in the knowledge accumulated by science.

Suggesting that other people, who see there are no inconsistencies in reality under a God hypothesis, have a "the God of the gaps" conception which they don't hold, is a very poorly reasoned and fallacious strawman type argument.

So how can someone decrying their own ignorance even speak to the question of the existence of God?

It reflects only the ignorance and inablilty to reason, of the accuser.

edit on 7/1/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 05:14 PM
link   

edit on 7-1-2018 by Grimpachi because: wrong poster



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: chr0naut



I must applaud your ability to completely ignore definitions of long substantiated words and phrases then go on to redefine those things to your liking to fit your argument.

It is absurd and marvelous to watch.You make statements with such conviction that you almost make me think that you actually believe it yourself.


Are you sure?

I try to be explicit with language.

Perhaps you could give a specific instance.


edit on 7/1/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

My apologies.

I replied to you instead of the post I intended to. Now that I lost track of which page I was on I deleted that post.



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: chr0naut

My apologies.

I replied to you instead of the post I intended to. Now that I lost track of which page I was on I deleted that post.


Thanks.

I hope I don't mess around with definitions too much.

But feel free to point out where I do. I would rather be clearly understood than confusing.




posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

You are fine I just had too many pages open.



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Maverick7
Your question is poorly formed. It's a 'set up'. Look at a proto-galaxy. What is the cause? There is not a single, simple cause, and to suggest there is a cause is teleological, similar to what is the cause of a giraffe having a longer neck than its ancestors.

The proto-galaxy is forming, over a long period of time due to concentration of atoms of hydrogen and gravitational forces. It's not an instantaneous thing. Your question is pre-supposing there is a 'snap-your-fingers' beginning. One might not even be able to say 'when' a beginning happened, because it's too amorphous, or not clearly defined in specific terms.

Would you say the proto-galaxy was caused when the first two atoms of hydrogen became attracted to each other? Would anyone, any science be able to detect that, record it, or document it? Not really.

You look at a rock that is being sculpted by a river and erosion. It's got an interesting shape. What caused that shape? Can you point to the first drop of water that hit the rock and say 'oh, it was that drop of water'? No it would be meaningless and unnecessary. You'd say the rock was caused by geological forces in the formation of the Earth, deposited in such a place and then a river formed and began an erosion process. There is no 'cause' such as 'what caused the book to fall off the table'?

The idea the OP is positing is one of a single defined event, such as a book falling to the floor and conflating that to try to falsify a belief in an evolved or process state. It's specious.

HTH


It's an enigma wrapped in logic.



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


Your previous example seems to be confusing numeration with measurement.


you're right, I was unclear in my reasoning. let me try again:

"So,what 'caused' the number one? The unitary case?"

what caused the cause that gave rise to the number one?


Those numerative descriptions do not have their origin in the measurement - the measurement does not create them.


i disagree. imaginary numbers are one example. theoretical figures that don't actually exist being used to support an active formula. perhaps god is the number 0.


Does a 'concept' exist, or is a concept non-existent? It is obvious that a concept is both non-material and existent.


much like love, truth, and the pursuit of happiness. all of which are subjective if you dig deep enough. is the apple red? or is it every color except red? hmmm.


The point I was making is that things may objectively exist, that have no cause.


wait...do concepts qualify as 'things'?

furthermore, if a concept forms and no one is around to talk about it or remember it, does it actually form?


a reply to: chr0naut


A God hypothesis, similarly, has no holes or gaps. It embraces a natural continuum entirely, and follows natural rules (as well as rules outside of the natural). God's universe, by nature of deductive reasoning, would have no gaps. It is explorable and knowable from a human intellectual perspective, and is fully known by God.

It is the scientific body of knowledge that has the gaps. Numerous and vast ones. These are not representative of gaps in the structure of reality but are specifically limitations in the knowledge accumulated by science.


I'm not talking about the "structure of reality". god of the gaps means that god fits best where the scientific method hasn't yet been fully applied. you know, where the gaps are. the only places where the god concept doesn't have to challenge the scientific method directly.


Suggesting that other people, who see there are no inconsistencies in reality under a God hypothesis, have a "the God of the gaps" conception which they don't hold, is a very poorly reasoned and fallacious strawman type argument.


it's not a strawman at all. I'm not misrepresenting anything. I stated in very plain english the mechanics of the god of the gaps. you are the one who just misrepresented the scientific method as being unreliable simply because it doesn't magically answer every imaginable question in less than a decade. because it isn't magic, it's an intellectual technique that requires time, training, and rigorous protocols. that's why god prefers gaps.


So how can someone decrying their own ignorance even speak to the question of the existence of God?


because the god of the gaps pretends to be gapless. and that is where the trouble starts.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join