Should a beginner play d4 or e4 first?

Id go with the london, and honestly id give that advice to anyone thats not a professional point blank period. 

@LeonSKennedy992 The Scandinavian is a good choice because there is not that much to learn. What's your favorite line in the Scandinavian?

As I said before as White you don't have to play the open sicilian. I play the following variations to avoid the main lines.

The Rossolimo and the moscow variation are  good and sound ways to reduce the amount of theory. Sometimes I get Maroczy-type position where the game takes up a more strategic character where you have to know how to use your space advantage. I learnt a lot in this pawn structure. Other times I got positions with double pawns. That taught me how to play against a weak pawn structure. 

Since I play the ruy lopez (I exchange may bishop a lot on c6) the positions are a little bit familiar to me so I can use my knowledge from another opening.

Against 2. ...e6 I play b3 which is not that bad and also I'm playing on my home urf on move 3. After a little bit of preparation I can play this line for a long time.

Also I don't disagree with you on the LS. I only think that a beginner will be able to play the LS a lot better when he gains some experience with a wide range of open positions. Also as a beginner it's not a bad thing to lose to traps. It's a learning experience and teaches you to be more careful. This will also help to play the London System on a decent level.

I strongly believe tactics , endgame , and general strategy is the way to go 

Traps and pitfalls are some of the reasons why 1.e4 is recommended. You jump right into the fighting of chess which is just tactics. Under 2000 chess IS tactics. So it makes sense to just immerse yourself into the craziness now because it's only going to get crazier. Besides, traps only work when someone blunders and since everyone blunders you may as well start working on that tactical vision. The other point is gambits. There's no easier way to learn about compensation for a pawn than just sacking one and there are a lot of ways to do it after 1.e4. It's not that easy to do it after 1.d4.

But no one's going to tell anyone not to play 1.d4. It's as good a move as any and as long as you're developing your pieces, following the rules of chess, and calculating when you should you should be fine. It's when you see stuff like 1.d4 d5 2.Qd3 when you need to help the beginner out.

I love the scandinavian defense. After exd5, I like to play the Scandinavian GAMBIT and play Nf6....followed by c6 or e6 (e6 is the icelandic gambit). After the capture on c6 or e6 by the knight or bishop, the game is usually veryyy tactical and odd...(engine says position is still equal, even though down a pawn)

@Capa_Jaque I agree with you. But who says that endgames, tactics and general strategy aren't part of 1.e4 openings?

Just because I play 1.e4 doesn't mean that I'm screwed after 5 or 6 moves. If a beginner is taught basic opening principles and knowledge about pawn structure, basic plans of an opening he will come up with maybe not always the best moves(according to theory) but moves that lead to a decent position which isn't lost. 

What about the traps? Who cares, you lose, so what? Just analyze the game and find the mistakes you made. An opening doesn't guarantee a draw or win out of the box.

I have the feeling that some people think that playing 1.e4 = neglecting endgame, middlegame.

I don't know your chess club but in my chess club the kids play 1.e4 but they also are taught how to mate, spot tactics, mating patterns, basic endgames, pawn structures etc. etc.

And let me tell you something. I've seen so many London System players on and offline. Many but not all of them ( I'm not speaking talking about strong players who play the London System with their brain) just mindlessly repeat their London System setup without thinking in every single game.

I've seen some GM games where the white side plays also some non-typical LS moves. 

GM Gata Kamsky played the LS a lot. And he doesn't always play the knight to e5 like many LS players on lower levels do. It's not always the best move.

I'm not saying not to play the LS. I think it's a good opening which you can take up at a later stage of your chess journey.

1.e4.  Not even debatable. 

over all , I just find that people who plau e4 especially in this era of computer chess are just fishing for some get rich quick dream. Learning traps and gambits move by move isnt the answer and though e4 is rich in tactics and basic strategy i do believe it robs beginners.  Ive only been playing about 3 years now and can honestly say especialy starting this late ( age 31 now) that I would have felt like I was wasting valuable time any other way. 

My vote is for e4. More motivation to keep playing chess. If they think the Sicilian is all that, then have them play it as defense or switch to 1 c4. They will see as a defense, you will lose a lot of games until everything is in order....and even then there will be many scares playing black. There are many games as white to go over that will boost their confidence.

If they do take an interest in defense, then sure...d4 or c4 is better....it all goes to personality and keep em playing.

@Capa_Jaque Who says that playing 1.e4 means that I'm relying on tricks and traps? Let's say you play the four knights game. It's not an opening which has many traps but it avoid a lot of theory and is a good starting point for a beginner. There are some traps in there but not many (e.g. when black plays a bishop to e6 there is a possibility of a fork after playing d4) but a beginner who learned basic tactical patterns and can calculate 2-3 moves will spot it with his chess skills and not with his memory.

But if the opponent doesn't commit such mistakes it's just a normal game. 

You don't have to study 100 hours (I'm exaggerating) to get up and going with 1.e4. A lot things you will learn along the way. If you lose some games it's not a big deal. Unless you quit chess immediately after a loss you will get stronger by analyzing your game and the mistakes you made.

Also playing 1.e4 will teach you a lot about different pawn structures like the french pawn structure.

Why is that important? Look at the games of GM Gata Kamsky who was one the GMs who played the LS a lot against strong opposition. In some of the games he pushed his pawn all the way to e5 and he got a french like position. If you played structures like that before (e.g. After 1.e4 e6 etc. ) you will know how to handle them and that's not opening theory that's middle game strategy.

Maybe everyone is misunderstanding me... I dont think it matters what you play at all really. an opening is an opening. what am saying is their more to chess and this question has been beat to the ground and again ive only been around chess 3 years and on this site almost a year. Its sad that this is coming from a neub

You said: " I just find that people who plau e4 especially in this era of computer chess are just fishing for some get rich quick dream. Learning traps and gambits move by move isnt the answer."

I was referring to that. If I misunderstood you I'm sorry.

carlsen plays the QID against the London so I beg to differ...

Its cool. I just was talking in general . 

That's not really important. Black can pretty much do the same things he always does against attempts to avoid the king's indian mainlines. White is still attacking the queenside and Black is still attacking the kingside. And stuff like queen's indian is also fine as Black can just play some kind of hedgehog looking setup and it's just a game there too. 

The real problem is when people play stuff like this to avoid blunders rather than because they just like playing it. All playing the London rather than the Scotch game is going to do at most is to move the blunders from move 5 to like move 10 or something. But a blunder on move 39 can be just as decisive as a blunder on move 10. It's like trying to last longer without something going wrong. There is some practical use to this kind of approach but it's not really going to stop blunders from happening. And besides, games don't win themselves. Even after the win of a pawn or more you still have to win without blundering yourself.

Just the other day in the Man vs. Machine match White had a +2 advantage over the computer and still couldn't drive it home because the position would get too complicated. This kind of stuff can happen.