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

originally posted by: violet

But where did the chicken come from?

Dinosaurs

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: Ksihkehe

But i can prove that infinity does not exist.

If you can prove that you can prove a finite number of things exist so I'm not sure why you were asking me how to do it. Prove away then. I'll be anxious to read about it, but for now I need some sleep.

a reply to: edmc^2

difficult via text, but what I was saying is that no things is nothing. Nothing is simply nothing, no features at all never was or never will be (is nothing).

a reply to: Sublimecraft

My brain just exploded. Don't be so true.

a reply to: Ksihkehe



Because we are having this conversation. At 3:33am. If everything that ever existed always had, then everything that could've happened already did.

Time would be irrelevant in an infinite universe, because everything that happened already did.

You cannot add more to infinity, and you cannot take away from infinty.

But that is exactly what you and I are doing.

By typing this, I am adding more information to the universe. That may seem insignificant. But simply by living, you and I are doing something. Something that hasn't been done before.

If the universe was infinite, I would have already said this. But I haven't. Until right now.

Why are we more concerned about whether the chicken or egg came first as opposed to the woman or the womb?

Any answers given to any of these questions are pure speculation, even if there are scientific facts that support your theory, we will probably never get to the bottom of it.

Maybe it was a genetic abnormality.

I watched a documentary not long ago about viruses, and how they can permenantly change the genetic makeup and may possibly be the key to evolution...really interesting. I don't think either came first, most likely a very gradual series of small changes that happened over a long period of time.

Who knows? Even if someone comes along and hits on the right answer...we've no way of verifying it and that person will most likely be met with disagreement and opposing opinions.

a reply to: Idreamofme

originally posted by: darkbake

originally posted by: edmc^2
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?

I would like to see your proof for "everything that has a beginning has a cause". For example, a human life has a beginning, but is there any proof it has a cause?

All life has a purpose at its most basic it's to live and multiply.

originally posted by: edmc^2
Now up to you to decide what or who is the source of energy.

To me, there's only one logical answer.

No, there isn't just only logical answer because science is discovering new things every day, new facts that bring new theories (and let's clarify that in physics a theory is a mathematical model, not a wild guess or a hypothesis).

Of course everything has a cause, nothing appears by 'magic'. And I don't see why this question stumps atheist and evolutionists. If you are suggesting science is saying our universe started from nothing, then you are mistaken as science is saying nothing of the sort.

Science has many theories for the creation of our universe, and it's also saying that we still don't know. Emphasis on 'still' because I know one day we will: a few thousand years ago we thought the sun and storms were created by gods. A century ago (aprox) we thought the sky above was the limit of our universe. Every generation is now discovering so much more.

To summarise: everything needs a cause to come into creation and there are many logical answers to explain it.

This is just semantics, atheism and evolution have absolutely nothing to do with it.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Idreamofme

The chicken, except it wasn't the chicken as we know it today, but an ancestor that used to gestate in the womb before it evolved to lay eggs.

What womb gestating ancestor might that be?

a reply to: edmc^2

First Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Conservation of Energy:

"This states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. However, energy can change forms, and energy can flow from one place to another. A particular consequence of the law of conservation of energy is that the total energy of an isolated system does not change."

Cannot be created or destroyed implies no cause...it just exists, always has, in one form or another. So, does energy have a beginning or an end? Yes and no. That depends on whether you are observing a form change. You may perceive a beginning, and it may be a new beginning of form, but the energy simply exists, and the perceived new beginning is simply change.

This is all under our assumption that the First Law of Thermodynamics and the Law of Conservation of Energy are proven...and if it is valid everywhere, every space, every time. You see now, all things may be possible in thought...which may be a form of Energy.

Your answer is yes and no. When did it start snowing?...well, nothing truly starts or ends if Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but only changes forms. Again, this is only true if our physics are correct, everywhere, every space, every time. And then we lead down the hole where everything, everywhere, every space, every time both exists and does not exist simultaneously.

The egg came first. Unless there is evidence that the first chickens were created from something else.

We certainly have a need to attribute causes to events, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is impossible for an event to happen without a cause. Can something be created from nothing? Stephen Hawking seems to think so and he's cleverer than me.

originally posted by: darkbake

originally posted by: edmc^2
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?

I would like to see your proof for "everything that has a beginning has a cause". For example, a human life has a beginning, but is there any proof it has a cause?

It's extremely challenging to reason with those in 'deny everything'-mode (or approaching that mode if one considers what facts they are conveniently* denying already) and get them to acknowledge that something is "proof" or evidence for something else.

*: so that they don't have to deal with the logical implications (follow-through).

This stuff should require no further debate (especially not from those who claim to adhere to reason, rationality and/or science). Can't we just move on already to the next point in the process of figuring out new things about the realities around us?

Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The fact/truth/certainty/reality that was bolded in the quotation from edmc^2 is not even "milk" anymore, it's like the nutrients that are administered to the embryo through the umbilical cord.

Hebrews 5:11-14

11 We have much to say about him, and it is difficult to explain, because you have become dull in your hearing. 12 For although by now you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong.

"Distinguish both right and wrong", true and false. Fact vs fiction:

Real science, knowledge of realities compared to philosophies and stories

a reply to: edmc^2

What came first ...The chicken or the egg? Answer.....neither. That's my answer and I'm sticking to it. If the beginning always was, then why would it need a cause. So there never was a beginning.

My view is that existence exists because the mere possibility of existence is something that exists, therefore there cannot be non-existence.a

So it's basically the steady state theory, the universe (or at least a multiverse) has always existed and always will.

a reply to: edmc^2

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

Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

How exactly is that a scientific and incontrovertible fact? How widely do you define what is a cause? To be born is ultimately to die, is dying a cause?

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.

Unfortunately that's not true, it's a more pragmatic issue of where you draw the line in terms of taxonomy.

The chicken evolved from an earlier creature, therefore there is a stage where taxonomy would say "this generation now contains the elements that define this as a chicken". So, logically, at some point, an animal that didn't meet the definition for a "chicken", laid an egg that contained a creature with whatever defects where necessary for it to meet the definition of "chicken".

On that basis, the egg came first.

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

everything has a cause. until we run up to quantum mechanics and other physics phenomena where it is currently unknown, and this continues up to the big bang and god itself.

If you want a real gotcha question I created one back in High school

"Is an ant an animal?"
8/10 people will say "no it is an insect"
Was a fun way to make my teachers look stupid.
It exposes peoples schema's or/and use of heuristics

originally posted by: edmc^2
But first let me please state this scientific and incontrovertible fact:

Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

Just watch 'm. Rationality flies out the window though when denial takes over.

incontrovertible: not able to be denied or disputed.

Just plain old denial is done easily. Even just disputing it (without proper reason or logical justification but for example with "persuasive arguments", "meaningless talk", 'profitless talk', “smooth talk and complimentary speech” in order to “seduce the hearts of guileless ones.”, etc.). Of course I understand you to be using that word "incontrovertible" in a different manner, which could be expressed by adding "rationally and reasonably" to that definition earlier.