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.

 

Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

page: 2
42
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2 Thank you, thinking of God in terms of infinity, I can better wrap my mind around this as a very comforting yet awe inspiring concept.




posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

How ever your religion does not state god is a living being.... He is consciousness, not life.

So by your own fact you have just disproved creationism. What life did this consciousness create us from?

We can in fact create the building blocks for life, as well many of them occur naturally in nature. They don't spontaneously produce life either so I'm not saying that, but the theory I believe in, is no less far fetched.

Tell me how a being that exists, but is neither alive nor dead merely conscious, created life.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 01:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence
So, you're saying it's more logical to believe in a "creator" of which there is ZERO direct proof, than it is to believe that

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," .... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist
?

THAT is illogical.

We can directly perceive the universe, parts of it, life, and matter. It's much more logical to believe it has always been here and never had a beginning, or that a spontaneous generation occurred, or that the universe *is* "god," than it is to say there is a "being" that we can't directly perceive who consciously "created" all this stuff.



Here lies the problem of your logic.

You said:



much more logical to believe it has always been here and never had a beginning


Yet we have evidence of a beginning - the "Singularity" commonly known as "The Big Bang".

Now, if you can prove to me that there was no "Big Bang" or a "Beginning", then you might be on to something.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 01:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: edmc^2



Why? because it's a scientific fact.

Certainly, life often comes from life. That is a fact.
That does not mean that it always must.

It often rains on a cloudy day. That does not mean that it always does.






Well if there are clouds out then it is cloudy. If it rains there are clouds.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 01:44 AM
link   
edmc^2 Just to clear this up. Are you claiming to understand your God ?



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta




posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Is the Big Bang considered life?



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hijinx
a reply to: edmc^2

How ever your religion does not state god is a living being.... He is consciousness, not life.

So by your own fact you have just disproved creationism. What life did this consciousness create us from?

We can in fact create the building blocks for life, as well many of them occur naturally in nature. They don't spontaneously produce life either so I'm not saying that, but the theory I believe in, is no less far fetched.

Tell me how a being that exists, but is neither alive nor dead merely conscious, created life.


Problem with your concept of God is the way you look at it.

In fact, here's what I said in the OP.

"Matter of fact, that is how, I believe, many if not all atheists look at the evidence, in a purely materialistic, naturalistic way."

You're thinking of God as something Material, like human life. God is Life but of a different "stuff".

The Scriptures says - He is an incorporeal being - a Spirit being.

Thus, he is far beyond different from the material.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Hijinx

Sure looks like clouds to me



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 01:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Hijinx
a reply to: edmc^2

You use a lot of words like logical, and fact.... how ever you do not provide either to support your claims.

Lots of faith, hope, and belief... no facts.


Here's a simple fact for you if you missed it:

"Life comes from pre-existing life"

Hence, you can't get life from nothing. It's impossible no matter what experiment you do.



Then explain "god" in that argument.

If god is (also) life, who created god?


"Life comes from pre-existing life"

If this statement is wrong and unprovable, then my entire belief crumbles.


It *IS* unprovable because it can neither explain nor prove the existence of god.

To use the "first cause that's the end of it" argument is a convenient cop out for those who have no answer.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 01:50 AM
link   
I do enjoy this. Someone watches a few religious debates on YouTube and feels they have the answers, as always.

"How can life come from nothing" they say
"How can god come from nothing " we say
"Oh don't worry about that guy ". This logic is laughable .

I have spent hours listening to debates and there isn't one arguement that can be proven wrong by christians. Nothing. Other than stupid claim like "look around you, how do you explain the complexities of the human eye, life is proof of god". All child like claims yet you don't have the objectivity to comprehend what you are trying to convey.

Just cos science minded people have the answers doesn't mean vague comments are the answer.

Well composed thread but absolutely laughable points and conclusions. Statements like life comes from nothing are bible belt comments and belong in the realms of youtube. Watch any religious debate, please, you will very soon realise that is how you are being perceived.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 01:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: thedeadtruth
edmc^2 Just to clear this up. Are you claiming to understand your God ?



thedeadtruth, understanding is relative.

If I studied the paintings of Rembrandt and learned from the passing of time his methods of painting. The way he moves his paint brush, how much pressure he applies on a particular area of the canvas. The kinds of paint he used. Does this mean that I understand him?

Yes, but at what level?

Same thing with my God.

Through His Creation, I understand Him.

Through His only begotten son Jesus Christ, I understand him.

Through the pages of the Bible, I understand him.

And this understanding will never end.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 01:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Liquesence
So, you're saying it's more logical to believe in a "creator" of which there is ZERO direct proof, than it is to believe that

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," .... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist
?

THAT is illogical.

We can directly perceive the universe, parts of it, life, and matter. It's much more logical to believe it has always been here and never had a beginning, or that a spontaneous generation occurred, or that the universe *is* "god," than it is to say there is a "being" that we can't directly perceive who consciously "created" all this stuff.



Here lies the problem of your logic.

You said:



much more logical to believe it has always been here and never had a beginning


Yet we have evidence of a beginning - the "Singularity" commonly known as "The Big Bang".

Now, if you can prove to me that there was no "Big Bang" or a "Beginning", then you might be on to something.



You fail to see (or understand) the point in my comment. There's no problem in my logic. The *possibilities* for the origin (or eternity) of the universe i presented are more logical than yours because the universe is directly perceivable and god is not.

Also, which part of

that a spontaneous generation occurred
(e.g. big bang) did you not comprehend?

The big bang is not fact, therefore not a fact that there even *was* a beginning; therefore, it is just as LOGICAL to presume is has always been here or always always been self generating than to believe a unperceivable "being" who was not created created it.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Hijinx
a reply to: edmc^2

You use a lot of words like logical, and fact.... how ever you do not provide either to support your claims.

Lots of faith, hope, and belief... no facts.


Here's a simple fact for you if you missed it:

"Life comes from pre-existing life"

Hence, you can't get life from nothing. It's impossible no matter what experiment you do.



Then explain "god" in that argument.

If god is (also) life, who created god?


"Life comes from pre-existing life"

If this statement is wrong and unprovable, then my entire belief crumbles.


It *IS* unprovable because it can neither explain nor prove the existence of god.

To use the "first cause that's the end of it" argument is a convenient cop out for those who have no answer.



To believe and accept that "nothing" created the universe IS a cop out. A dead end!

An unprovable philosophical idea. It's not even scientific. It's unfalsifiable!

But to believe and accept that "Life comes from pre-existing life" is the beginning of wisdom.

It's just a starting point of an unending journey. Once you come to understand what it means, the entire universe is opened up to you.

It's like learning how to fix an engine. Once you understand the concept, the motive and the genius of it's creator, then you will appreciate and want to learn more about its creator.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:14 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Our absence of knowledge regarding the creation of the universe does not equate to proof of a divine creator. It simply means we don't know - we can't know - what lead to the creation of matter and space. You can buy into fairy tales all you want, nobody will stop you. Ultimately, what you believe doesn't matter, but please, don't try to pass off this heap of s*** as factual evidence of god; it's childish.

We have discovered certain universal laws through physics, laws that tell us how our universe operates. We believe the universe is expanding, we believe that all of the matter in our universe could be compacted into the size of a walnut. When it comes to creation theories regarding our universe, physics is uncovering more and more proof that we're actually living in a simulation; that none of this is real. If that's the case, then it doesn't really matter how the universe came to be, does it? Somebody coded our universe's laws and let the rest of it run its course. We're insignificant biological programs trapped in the simulation, like a really advanced sims game. We created god to explain the things we couldn't understand. We don't need god anymore.
edit on 2-10-2015 by DestroyDestroyDestroy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:14 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Their laws prove their models. Somehow "ex nihilo" these laws existed. Take big bang cosmology for instance. Gravity compresses everything into some unknown ultradense form of matter yet gravity is a result of the big bang?

Gravity may have saved the universe after the Big Bang


In a new study, the team describes how the space-time curvature — in effect, gravity — provided the stability needed for the universe to survive expansion in that early period. The team investigated the interaction between the Higgs particles and gravity, taking into account how it would vary with energy. They show that even a small interaction would have been enough to stabilize the universe against decay.


So in essence gravity held everything together before there was anything but then when everything/nothing exploded and expanded this expansion caused gravity (they are calling space-time-curviture) and prevented it from all falling apart .



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Liquesence
So, you're saying it's more logical to believe in a "creator" of which there is ZERO direct proof, than it is to believe that

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," .... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist
?

THAT is illogical.

We can directly perceive the universe, parts of it, life, and matter. It's much more logical to believe it has always been here and never had a beginning, or that a spontaneous generation occurred, or that the universe *is* "god," than it is to say there is a "being" that we can't directly perceive who consciously "created" all this stuff.



Here lies the problem of your logic.

You said:



much more logical to believe it has always been here and never had a beginning


Yet we have evidence of a beginning - the "Singularity" commonly known as "The Big Bang".

Now, if you can prove to me that there was no "Big Bang" or a "Beginning", then you might be on to something.



You fail to see (or understand) the point in my comment. There's no problem in my logic. The *possibilities* for the origin (or eternity) of the universe i presented are more logical than yours because the universe is directly perceivable and god is not.

Also, which part of

that a spontaneous generation occurred
(e.g. big bang) did you not comprehend?

The big bang is not fact, therefore not a fact that there even *was* a beginning; therefore, it is just as LOGICAL to presume is has always been here or always always been self generating than to believe a unperceivable "being" who was not created created it.


Yes, I understood clearly your logic or illogic.

When you say "eternity" does it equate to "origin"?

No. eternity by its very word means eternal - no beginning, no origin. Hence if the universe has no Origin/Beginning, then it must be eternal. Hence no "singularity", hence no "big-bang" hence no CBR.

But evidence show otherwise:


Cosmic Microwave Background: Big Bang Relic Explained


www.space.com...


In every direction, there is a very low energy and very uniform radiation that we see filling the Universe. This is called the 3 Degree Kelvin Background Radiation, or the Cosmic Background Radiation, or the Microwave Background. These names come about because this radiation is essentially a black body with temperature slightly less than 3 degrees Kelvin (about 2.76 K), which peaks in the microwave portion of the spectrum. This radiation is the strongest evidence for the validity of the hot big bang model. The adjacent figure shows the essentially perfect blackbody spectrum obtained by NASA's Cosmic

...
Evidence for the Big Bang

The cosmic background radiation (sometimes called the CBR), is the afterglow of the big bang, cooled to a faint whisper in the microwave spectrum by the expansion of the Universe for 15 billion years (which causes the radiation originally produced in the big bang to redshift to longer wavelengths). As shown in the adjacent intensity map of the background radiation in different directions taken by the Differential Microwave Radiometer on NASA's COBE satellite, it is not completely uniform, though it is very nearly so (Ref). To obtain this image, the average dipole anisotropy exhibited in the image above has been subtracted out, since it represents a Doppler shift due to the Earth's motion. Thus, what remains should represent true variations in the temperature of the background radiation.
In this image, red denotes hotter fluctuations and blue and black denote cooler fluctuations around the average. These fluctuations are extremely small, representing deviations from the average of only about 1/100,000 of the average temperature of the observed background radiation.


csep10.phys.utk.edu...

Now unless, you're correct and they are wrong on their findings. Then you'll have to show your evidence.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:21 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2
Just clear things up...no you don't understand him. Do you understand Einstein because relativity affects you? No. Do you understand brunel when crossing one of his bridges? No. Do you understand a god from a son ( you never met) from processes you can't explain, from pages of a book where livestock is paramount, no. You can't make statements like that and believe any sane person would agree with that. Atheists, study rembrandts techniques, the paint he uses , the type of canvas but in no way shape or form do they ever claim to understand rembrandt. You can't carry on down this road . Think of your own comparisons, not those of deluded charasmatic religious leaders.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:21 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

There are no gods.

I'll let you into the atheists' secret:

You are not immortal-all you have is this life-don't waste it.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: thedeadtruth
edmc^2 Just to clear this up. Are you claiming to understand your God ?



thedeadtruth, understanding is relative.

If I studied the paintings of Rembrandt and learned from the passing of time his methods of painting. The way he moves his paint brush, how much pressure he applies on a particular area of the canvas. The kinds of paint he used. Does this mean that I understand him?

Yes, but at what level?

Same thing with my God.

Through His Creation, I understand Him.

Through His only begotten son Jesus Christ, I understand him.

Through the pages of the Bible, I understand him.

And this understanding will never end.



So to recap. You understand what other Men told you to think about your God.

Ok Dokey.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join