It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Elementalist
The very first flaw I have with this theory; is the fact that it would assume nature came after spontaneous production.. then nature goes on to create things from nothing, for no reason.
How and Why is nature all of a sudden creating things; and what faculty would nature have that allows it to create miraculously flawless geography, designs, and numerical consistencies?
In human logic, it would take quite a large brain to process all this information/knowledge, especially coming from nothing.
How would nature get the information to be so flawless in sciences, mathematics, geometry down to the MICRO and up to the MACRO scale?
Where is the knowledge and information coming from, if from nothing at all... surely nature doesn't think like the things it created, right?
Secondly; how does nothing create everything is ONE side of this debate.The other side is; how did nature (which apparently came from nothing) create things that can think on their own.
Said creations can think about anything and everything. Things that exist and things that don't our brain/mind can create things (mentally) that don't even exist within the universe.
Thirdly; why did nature decide to create bodies, that think and feel, but also have TWO counter parts?
If nothing (represented by 0) created everything (represented by 1), why would it then create a counter part (like eve from Adams rib story) for further reproduction of that created body (represented by 1+1=2)?
originally posted by: IAmPhoenix7
a reply to: JUhrman
So what is nature?
who made nature?
You seemed to be banking in the notion that nature shoukd be the starting point of creation. Did i get you right? Enlighten me i am quite confused.