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: 9
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Agartha

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.



Right. Science says our entire universe could have come from something as small as a pea. An energy burst from a "pea".

Then String Theory that it is ongoing and possibly multiple.

They just "still" don't know exactly what that "pea" is.


If you use relativity yes if you use quantum mechanics the big bang wasnt the beginning and there was no singularity. The big bang just becomes a stage in the evolution of the universe. Truth is we just dont know what happened a billionth of a second after the big bang. So the big bang might have just been a stage of the universe which is always changing.

Several scientist have been exploring the idea of quantum gravity and that changes alot.


Yes. I'm fascinated by science, but not scholarly in it.

I also tend to simplify everything.

My belief is - - everything is energy. We (everything) is created from energy. If there is a God - - it's energy.




posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
Right. Science says our entire universe could have come from something as small as a pea. An energy burst from a "pea".

Then String Theory that it is ongoing and possibly multiple.

They just "still" don't know exactly what that "pea" is.


There are so many theories. One I learned recently is the CCC theory, Conformal Cyclic cosmology, the work of Sir Penrose from Oxford university. He claims that the big bang wasn't the beginning, but only one of many cyclical bangs (or aeons as he called them). He says that the cosmic microwave background radiation created after the big bang, is evidence of that. Here is a link that explains it a lot better than me.

Which theory is correct? I don't know, but they are all much more plausible than a deity creating the universe and telling us about it in a book full of contradictions and errors.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
They go round and round explaining how stuffs work and how science work but never giving an answer. ... Some say we don't know the answer. ... But really, are they being honest as to what they know or is it that they don't want to admit the obvious?

...

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?

No.

See how easy it is to acknowledge a fact using one's thinking abilities properly (using logic and reason correctly, efficiently)? The reverse is also true/factual: when something has no beginning it cannot possibly or logically have been caused by anything, i.e. no cause.

The slogan "We don't know" is still going strong for denial purposes. If one wants to convince themselves that they're ignorant of something and others should embrace that ignorance as well regardless if there are already many people that do know and are willing to acknowledge the basic facts of life that can be determined by observation and logical follow-through, the least one could do is say something like:

"I don't know and I believe anyone who claims they do know is deluding themselves."

But when the ignorance is feigned that still wouldn't be completely honest with oneself, "I don't wanna know and..." might be more accurate and honest then. I guess it depends on the situation. The question "But really, are they being honest as to what they know or is it that they don't want to admit the obvious?" is very interesting to think about though. One might also wonder for themselves if they are really responding to the question or whether they are merely promoting either selective or general agnosticism and the Great 'We Don't Know (Yet)' God of the agnostic gaps of convenience. Perhaps that was being a bit too cryptic regarding what I'm thinking about.

Most of the times, whatever form of agnosticism people prefer (selective or general), agnosticism (or ignorance) doesn't work well with the motto from ATS, "deny ignorance", when it's promoted rather than just expressed (as in being ignorant about something). But people don't notice it usually when they are promoting agnosticism or ignorance regarding specific inconvenient subjects or in general. Perhaps because they feel they are merely expressing their ignorance or agnosticism regarding a specific (or selective) subject.

"We don't know (yet)" and the underlying thoughts that often go with it (sometimes arguments that come with it and are expressed) most of the times is a promotion of agnosticism and ignorance.

"I don't know" is an expression of ignorance (and possibly selective agnosticism or agnosticism regarding a specific subject depending on the personal situation of the one who says that, those 2 things are slightly different, the former is a choice, willful selective ignorance and occasionally it's accompanied by feigned ignorance once a person has figured it out but doesn't want to acknowledge the answer, or a fact/truth/certainty as being certain/true/absolute, which is what the verb "acknowledge" means).

acknowledge: accept or admit the existence or truth/certainty of. (source: google dictionary, I added a synonym as a reminder in relation to the video below)

Here's a funny representation of selective agnosticism slowly turning into general agnosticism (more and more subjects):


A better example would be near the ending of that episode when the kid being tortured with Dr. Pepper is asked "What's going on here?" and answers per his conditioning: "We don't know, we can't possibly know."

I hope I remember the quotations right, otherwise I'm paraphrasing. It's a very popular way of thinking regarding a variety of subjects on ATS, even subjects that are very simple to understand and shouldn't be so hard* to acknowledge to (*: or it shouldn't be too much of an issue).

Note the last line in the South Park agnostic code "So it's pointless to talk about it." Does that philosophy/idea and ideology "deny ignorance" (encourages people to do something about their ignorance and learn and discover something about a reality/certainty) or does it encourage people to embrace ignorance and perhaps even figuratively wallow in ignorance feeling really clever, "sophisticated" and enlightened about their ignorance (both expressed and promoted)?

Notice how the word "sophisticated" is used in the cunning propaganda game played in the video below and how it relates to something in the article in my signature:

Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.
...
Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.
...
Propagandists sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and (sometimes) moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

Psychology: Dawkins&Krauss selling the philosophy and contradiction that nothing is something
edit on 15-4-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?


I am going to answer,"no."

(Atheist, here)



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: Annee
Right. Science says our entire universe could have come from something as small as a pea. An energy burst from a "pea".

Then String Theory that it is ongoing and possibly multiple.

They just "still" don't know exactly what that "pea" is.


There are so many theories. One I learned recently is the CCC theory, Conformal Cyclic cosmology, the work of Sir Penrose from Oxford university. He claims that the big bang wasn't the beginning, but only one of many cyclical bangs (or aeons as he called them). He says that the cosmic microwave background radiation created after the big bang, is evidence of that. Here is a link that explains it a lot better than me.

Which theory is correct? I don't know, but they are all much more plausible than a deity creating the universe and telling us about it in a book full of contradictions and errors.



Yes, definitely more plausible than a deity.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

hmm i would say God is consciousness, and all the energy vibrates and creates waves and is always in motion communicating, and Consciousness and energy both evolve each other in perfect unison....... well that one of my theories anyway



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
This is an old debate. Very old pre Aquinas.

There need be no beginning or end to be philosophically sound. There need be no necessary being if there isn't truly an end or beginning.

If there is only interdimensional transformation and biology is but one state of existence then the language and vernacular we have created does not reflect reality. Think modern cosmology with super strings or simulation based holographic reality.

Same goes for a necessary being or prime mover, it is also sound philosophy.

Metaphysics doesn't have yes or no type answers it has answers based on logic but that is as far as it goes.
edit on 15-4-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Davg80
a reply to: Annee

hmm i would say God is consciousness, and all the energy vibrates and creates waves and is always in motion communicating, and Consciousness and energy both evolve each other in perfect unison....... well that one of my theories anyway


1. Energy
2. Energy evolved to have consciousness
3. Energy thought creates.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 06:03 PM
link   

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?






The word cause has several definitions. So your question could be any of the following:

If something is the not producer of an effect, does it have a beginning?
If something has no motive, does it have a beginning?
If something has no good reason, does it have a beginning?
If something is not a case for a judicial decision, does it have a beginning?
If something is not a subject of discussion, does it have a beginning?
If something is not a movement to which one is dedicated, does it have a beginning?
If something is not the welfare of a person or group, does it have a beginning?

Which is it?



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: icanteven

Agree....took me bit to figure out what I thought the OP meant...'cause' and effect.

And I could be wrong about that.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: icanteven




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?


Quantum vacuum fluctuations, or virtual particles, come in and out of existence and have no "cause". But they do have a beginning and an end - energy created and destroyed without a "cause".

So the answer to his question is yes - something that has no cause can have a beginning and an end.

A Mobius strip appears to be infinite - no beginning, no end with only one boundary. But infinity cannot be proven mathematically (Cantor's conjecture). So all three states are possible: a beginning, an end and the infinite. And none of them require a "cause".

I asked him for an example of his question, but hasn't answered.
edit on 15-4-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: icanteven

Agree....took me bit to figure out what I thought the OP meant...'cause' and effect.

And I could be wrong about that.


I'm glad it wasn't just me.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: icanteven
I'm glad it wasn't just me.

Knowing the OPs history, "cause" means "God".

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

Is implying that god is needed for the universe to have a beginning.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: rockintitz

Be it infinite universes, god, anything. Each are equally unknowable.



It seems to me that God would just be an expression of what was prior to a singularity. If we suggest intelligent design then that seems like nothing more than a human concept to explain the explainable.

I don't think there are different unknowables just different ways we name it.


Agreed..Humans will be the Ones to find out everything..it is our DUTY.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: icanteven
I'm glad it wasn't just me.

Knowing the OPs history, "cause" means "God".

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

Is implying that god is needed for the universe to have a beginning.



I figured that was what the OP was getting at.

I say, "no," is the answer to the question.

I think observer effects just have to be a certainty...the observer need not be there 'at the beginning.'



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: icanteven
I'm glad it wasn't just me.

Knowing the OPs history, "cause" means "God".

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

Is implying that god is needed for the universe to have a beginning.


Yes, I've already stated (twice) this sounds like a thread on Creationism.

I think he replied its also a philosophical question - - so yeah - - Creationism.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

We are merely finite beings, we have a definitive beginning and end, so trying to understand something that doesn't is difficult for us to do. It's a good hypothetical question but one we are simply too simple to answer...



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

And the "seems to stump atheists" part.

If any question hasn't been answered by science (yet) it must be assumed to be god, of course.



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2





Energy ......Matter.......interchangeable......Indestructible......Infinite.....We ARE , and Have ALWAYS Been.........
edit on 15-4-2017 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   
For the love of smoke. OP asks a simple yes or no question and it results in 9 pages of beating around the bush.

NO something without a cause cannot have a beginning. It's a simple logic problem. In order for something to begin, something has to cause it to begin. Aristotle is a moron who died over 2300 years ago and he could have answered this after thinking about it for less than 5 seconds.

Now I want to know where you are going with this - Do you believe in the Big Bang, or do you think the Universe is eternal? Personally I think there was a Big Bang that was the beginning, and God was the cause. "Let there be light" and all that jazz. As for God, he would be eternal. He would have no beginning, and no need for a cause. "I am that I am"

Or are you referring to quantum mechanics? In classical physics the Universe is determinate. Everything acts according to cause and effect and can be precisely measured and known in totality if you were only were capable of seeing all the information. However in quantum mechanics there is an inherent randomness to the Universe. The Quantum Foam is chaotic. Wormholes popping in and out of existence. Virtual particles. Crazy stuff. So are you suggesting that the Universe must be eternal, if the Quantum Foam is indeterminate?
edit on 4/15/17 by peskyhumans because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join