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.

 

Stupid Question #1—What Came First: Cause or Effect?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Stupid Question #1—What Came First: Cause or Effect?


Something is affected by a word on a screen. The word on a screen is an effect of fingers pushing keys on a keyboard. Fingers pushing keys on a keyboard are an effect of a human typing. A human typing is the effect of a human being. A human being is the effect of humans having sex. Humans having sex is the effect of natural processes. Natural processes is the effect of nature.—And so on to infinity.

Nature is the cause of natural processes. Natural processes are the cause of humans having sex. Humans having sex is the cause of a human being. A human being is the cause of a human typing. A human typing is the cause of fingers pushing keys on a keyboard. Fingers pushing keys on the keyboard are the cause of the word on the screen. The word on the screen effects something.—And so on to infinity.

Everything is both a cause and effect of something else.

If everything is both a cause and an effect of something else, what came first? cause or effect?




posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
That's a good question - I actually have a paper written about a quantum theory of mind that states that humans, at least, have the ability to choose something without any reasoning behind it whatsoever and then backs it up with science


Think about when you are learning to do something for the first time, like throwing a baseball... you will use free will to try new ways of throwing it (like a random number generator) and then, over time, store the functions that work in your memory for later use without the need for free will, unless you want to modify the function to learn a new technique.

--

An interesting question, though, that I might as well toss back at you to keep things interesting - are we simply discovering baseball techniques that already existed before the beginning of time?

In other words, does the effect exist in some kind of cloud in the multiverse until we cause it to manifest?
edit on 06pmWed, 06 Nov 2013 23:13:59 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

edit on 06pmWed, 06 Nov 2013 23:14:39 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


Okay goes like this,

In the west, both cause and effect emerge simultaneously from a single hypostasis.

In the east, they just answer that question by smacking you with a stick.




posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 11:28 PM
link   
By definition it would have to be Cause. Even if you don't know what the "First Cause" is, by definition Cause must at least come before the Effect. Since those are our only choices.

Cause:
noun
noun: cause; plural noun: causes

1.
a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.
"the cause of the accident is not clear"
synonyms: source, root, origin, beginning(s), starting point

Effect:
noun
noun: effect; plural noun: effects

1.
a change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.
"the lethal effects of hard drugs"
synonyms: result, consequence, upshot, outcome, repercussions, ramifications



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Bybyots
 


LOL - don't know about the western approach

but

... in the East (after the stick wacking) Buddhists have the doctrine of "Dependent Origination". Simply put, every effect has numerous casuses, ad infinitum.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Cause and effect are the same thing. They can't exist without each other.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by mOjOm
 





By definition it would have to be Cause.


But if everything is both a cause and an effect, it would go to show that something must first be an effect before it is a cause. In other words, something must be an effect of something else, before it can be a cause of something else.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


Not according to it's definition:

Cause:
noun
noun: cause; plural noun: causes

1.
a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.
"the cause of the accident is not clear"
synonyms: source, root, origin, beginning(s), starting point



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   

TheSubversiveOne

Stupid Question #1—What Came First: Cause or Effect?


Something is affected by a word on a screen. The word on a screen is an effect of fingers pushing keys on a keyboard. Fingers pushing keys on a keyboard are an effect of a human typing. A human typing is the effect of a human being. A human being is the effect of humans having sex. Humans having sex is the effect of natural processes. Natural processes is the effect of nature.—And so on to infinity.

Nature is the cause of natural processes. Natural processes are the cause of humans having sex. Humans having sex is the cause of a human being. A human being is the cause of a human typing. A human typing is the cause of fingers pushing keys on a keyboard. Fingers pushing keys on the keyboard are the cause of the word on the screen. The word on the screen effects something.—And so on to infinity.

Everything is both a cause and effect of something else.

If everything is both a cause and an effect of something else, what came first? cause or effect?



Let us hope it stops at question # 1.

Cause came first - about 200 years before effect.

Besides - Effect is from a Cause. Cause is the start and Effect the end.
edit on 7-11-2013 by ChuckNasty because: ...



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by mOjOm
 


I'll ask you a different question. If things are both cause and effect. How can cause come first? Because the dictionary tells you so?



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ChuckNasty
 





Let us hope it stops at question # 1.

Cause came first - about 200 years before effect.

Besides - Effect is from a Cause. Cause is the start and Effect the end.


But everything is both cause and effect. How can something come before itself?

Over your head and below your knees I suppose.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 

Perhaps the idea of cause and effect is in fact one that is occurring simultaneously and through what would be a compressed perspective, you are simply viewing the illusion of what appears to be a continuity of fragmented parallel spaces that infers the belief that "this" leads to "that" or "that" leads to "this."

That is why cause and effect can appear interchangeable, because which occurs first depends upon which tunnel, which perception you choose to view it through, because again, they are the same thing occurring simultaneously.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   

TheSubversiveOne
reply to post by ChuckNasty
 





Let us hope it stops at question # 1.

Cause came first - about 200 years before effect.

Besides - Effect is from a Cause. Cause is the start and Effect the end.


But everything is both cause and effect. How can something come before itself?

Over your head and below your knees I suppose.


True, both cause and effect play roles together in everyday life, if not everything in creation...with creation being one huge cause and effect.

But to not understand the basics and assume everything is cause and everything is effect, therefore they are the same, is very stupid.

Example:
Hunger is a cause - so you eat, which is the effect. No longer feel hungry right? You cannot be full and hungry at the same time.

...read a book or two and stop asking stupid questions. (Stating stupid question again - it is in your title and I mean no malice)
edit on 7-11-2013 by ChuckNasty because: dumb



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


intention.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Cause and effect are the result of the presence of time. Time takes what is in its original disposition all at once and string it out into small events with consequences.

I understand that throwing time into the equation complicates the answer to some minds, but in examining cause and effect, the questioner should examine at least three conditions of cause and effect.

These are explained as follows:

First Cause - that cause which initiates a set of conditions what all of the cause and effect react to. First cause exists as an Absolute and is not approachable by time language or mind.

Second or Secondary Cause and Effect - these are the ones that help us see change and the resulting decay or growth. They are initiated by First Cause to establish evolution and transparency of universe development. Without secondary cause and effect, the universe would implode on its on inaction and lack of development.

Tertiary Cause and Effect - another way of stating this definition is to say that these are the causes and effects within a molecular system of evolution. Let us use an example. Gravity. Gravity exists as a first cause as something called absolute gravity, and as such is not reactive to linear gravity, which is a tertiary cause. Tertiary causes and effects operate not as the over control of natural systems such as the gravity in a solar system. First cause does not control the gravity in a solar system, but tertiary cause does in that it comes into effect when the power of cause places them in relationship to each other.

Our likes and dislikes in personal relationships are tertiary causes. They exist because there is a social system we all react to in some manner. Secondary cause and effect is the power, as an example, of the plague to destroy tertiary systems of reaction by removing them. Primary cause or first cause does not enter the picture except indirectly in a time-space system of other causes and effects.

The original poster is right in stating that something had to have started everything first. I will add that First Cause exists as a self-existing state, and is above philosophical examination as to intention or by method, and is so called an Absolute because First Cause is a totality of all that could be or ever will be. First Cause does not, can not, operate within the constrictions of time without converting everything to First Causes.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ChuckNasty
 





True, both cause and effect play roles together in everyday life, if not everything in creation...with creation being one huge cause and effect.

But to not understand the basics and assume everything is cause and everything is effect, therefore they are the same, is very stupid.

Example:
Hunger is a cause - so you eat, which is the effect. No longer feel hungry right? You cannot be full and hungry at the same time.

...read a book or two and stop asking stupid questions. (Stating stupid question again - it is in your title and I mean no malice)


Call me stupid all you wish and lie as much as you want that it is without malice, but you are dancing around my argument and resorting to fallacy, which is a mark of stupidity.

Isn't hunger, however, the effect of something else? Therefor, hunger is an effect before it is a cause. Isn't this true?



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   

TheSubversiveOne
reply to post by mOjOm
 





By definition it would have to be Cause.


But if everything is both a cause and an effect, it would go to show that something must first be an effect before it is a cause. In other words, something must be an effect of something else, before it can be a cause of something else.



Nope - binary thinking. Duck, Duck, Go "Schrodinger's Cat". It's difficult to get your mind around (or mine anyway, younger people more often just 'get it'.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


I think the question has already been answered. They are one and the same.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


neither.
first was the illusion of time, because without time you cannot distinguish cause from effect.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   

jedi_hamster
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


neither.
first was the illusion of time, because without time you cannot distinguish cause from effect.


I was wandering when Time would come in on this. Totally agree with you. Without time you cannot distinguish between Cause and Effect.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join