It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

page: 63
42
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 08:41 PM

Where did you pull "X creates Y" from?

Who said X never creates X?

Here let me simplify it further.

Can you create yourself if you didn't exist?

posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 08:53 PM

I could say that I can and have.

Then I could say that it has to do with an invisible reality that you have not caught a glimpse of yet.

Now what do we do?

posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 08:58 PM

I could say that I can and have.

Then I could say that it has to do with an invisible reality that you have not caught a glimpse of yet.

Now what do we do?

OK - humor us.

Explain how something (you) that didn't exist (nothingness - absolute nothing) can create itself?

I'm all ears on this.

posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 09:00 PM

I created I.

It's just the fact jack.

posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 09:04 PM

I created I.

It's just the fact jack.

It's a miracle!

posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 09:10 PM

See? Told you that YDK.

Here is where I would like to say "Ok seriously" but I can't. I don't go into it because I can't prove it but I do somewhat mean it when I say "I created I" and that it has to do with an invisible reality that you may not have caught a glimpse of yet. Not how I would say it but it also works.
edit on 23-9-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 09:10 PM

Again with your circular, biased logic. I'll play your little algebra game too.

If X can't be created, X can't create Y, therefore X doesn't exist.

posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 01:53 AM

originally posted by: TerryDon79

Again with your circular, biased logic. I'll play your little algebra game too.

If X can't be created, X can't create Y, therefore X doesn't exist.

I think you not only made it into a circular biased logic but a scrambled egg.

If X can't be created, X can't create Y, therefore X doesn't exist.

translating what you just said:

"If God can't be created, God can't create, therefore God doesn't exist".

What you said didn't made sense if you compare it to what I said:

X creates Y but never X creates X. So by necessity X must exist first in order to create Y.

Translating:

"God creates the universe but never God creates God. So by necessity, God must exist first in order to create the universe."

And since God is eternal, always existing, therefore he's not a created God but the ultimate Creator, the Prime Mover. The one who lit the 'blue torch'.

Conversely, if there was nothingness, absolute nothingness - from the beginning of time, then there was nothing to create. Hence no universe, no life as there was absolutely no one to create, nothing to "light the blue torch".

So by necessity, there MUST be a pre-existing life, the Prime Life, the Prime Mover, an uncreated Being to bring about the transformation of energy into matter. Full Stop.

E = mc2.

posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 02:24 PM

"God creates the universe but never God creates God. So by necessity, God must exist first in order to create the universe."

assumption 1: the universe was created

assumption 2: the universe was created by a god

assumption 3: the definition of said god

Begging the question, sometimes known by its Latin name petitio principii (meaning assuming the initial point), is a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the statement under examination to be true. In other words, begging the question involves using a premise to support itself.

Conversely, if there was nothingness, absolute nothingness - from the beginning of time, then there was nothing to create. Hence no universe, no life as there was absolutely no one to create, nothing to "light the blue torch".

another misrepresentation. can you demonstrate that there was absolutely nothing at the very beginning of this universal cycle? the current understanding states that all of matter was focused into one very dense very small mass. that is not nothing, that is a tremendous amount of something in a very condensed state.

So by necessity, there MUST be a pre-existing life, the Prime Life, the Prime Mover, an uncreated Being to bring about the transformation of energy into matter. Full Stop.

refer to both the above fallacy and the list of assumptions i noted.
edit on 24-9-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 02:28 PM

All you did was use assumptions to "prove" your assumptions correct. That's exactly the same as what I did.

Oh wait. My assumption was that god doesn't exist. THAT'S why you think it's wrong.

ETA: TzarChasm said it better than me lol.
edit on 2492016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 06:49 PM

originally posted by: TerryDon79

All you did was use assumptions to "prove" your assumptions correct. That's exactly the same as what I did.

Oh wait. My assumption was that god doesn't exist. THAT'S why you think it's wrong.

ETA: TzarChasm said it better than me lol.

It's not an assumption in order to prove my point but it's a choice between what's logical and not.

Your position as I pointed out is illogical.

In fact if we really want to get at the bottom line, your position is I Don't Know.

But like I said, I'm fine with that. You accept or may I say, you "believe" on what you don't know.

On the other hand, I believe what I know to the be the reality and had shown it to be logical.

That is, the ONLY logical alternative to explain the existence of the universe is an Always Existing Entity. A Being who possesses dynamic energy and has the ability to transform it into matter.

Case in point.

The LHC has shown us how we can transform energy into matter. Now, if we're capable of doing this in our limited ability, why is it hard to accept and believe the existence of a higher being with the capability and ability to transform energy into matter?

E = mc2 comes to mind also.

Behold The Future...Large Hadron Collider creates matter similar to 1st moments of universe at record-high energy. The CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has broken a new record, smashing together lead-ions at the highest energy levels ever. The record-breaking collisions are aimed at studying a state of matter that existed shortly after the Big Bang took place. The latest accomplishment of the world's largest particle collider saw the LHC smash together lead-ions at 1,045 trillion electron-volts – two times higher than any previous experiment of this kind. “It is a tradition to collide ions over one month every year as part of our diverse research program at the LHC,” CERN Director General Rolf Heuer said in a press release. “This year however is special as we reach a new energy and will explore matter at an even earlier stage of our universe.” Scientists at CERN are aiming to examine the state of matter that was present just after the Big Bang took place. “Early in the life of our universe, for a few millionths of a second, matter was a very hot and very dense medium – a kind of primordial ‘soup’ of particles, mainly composed of fundamental particles known as quarks and gluons,” the press release states. That matter was a far cry from what is present in today's “cold universe.” “In today’s cold universe, the gluons 'glue' quarks together into the protons and neutrons that form bulk matter, including us, as well as other kinds of particles.” By increasing the energy of the lead-ion collisions, the LHC increased the volume and temperature of the “soupy matter,” quark and gluon plasma. The scientists were able to reach a temperature of several trillion degrees.

posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 06:56 PM

The LHC has shown us how we can transform energy into matter.
Yeah, that's pretty much what the "Big Bang theory" is all about. There was this tiny, tiny ball of a whole lot of of energy. When it started expanding and cooling, matter showed up...

why is it hard to accept and believe the existence of a higher being with the capability and ability to transform energy into matter?
It's pretty easy to accept, actually. And many do. And that's cool. But the fact that human physics shows that's what happens when a tiny, tiny ball of a whole lot of energy starts expanding doesn't really mean that someone made it happen. Unless your God is that tiny, tiny ball of a whole lot of energy.

You are free to think that if you wish. It doesn't make you right. It does become problematic when people start claiming to know what the intent of that "someone" was. It does become problematic when people start using that to tell other people what they should or should not do. It does become problematic when it leads to superstition.

edit on 9/24/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 06:56 PM

originally posted by: TzarChasm

"God creates the universe but never God creates God. So by necessity, God must exist first in order to create the universe."

assumption 1: the universe was created

assumption 2: the universe was created by a god

assumption 3: the definition of said god

Begging the question, sometimes known by its Latin name petitio principii (meaning assuming the initial point), is a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the statement under examination to be true. In other words, begging the question involves using a premise to support itself.

Conversely, if there was nothingness, absolute nothingness - from the beginning of time, then there was nothing to create. Hence no universe, no life as there was absolutely no one to create, nothing to "light the blue torch".

another misrepresentation. can you demonstrate that there was absolutely nothing at the very beginning of this universal cycle? the current understanding states that all of matter was focused into one very dense very small mass. that is not nothing, that is a tremendous amount of something in a very condensed state.

So by necessity, there MUST be a pre-existing life, the Prime Life, the Prime Mover, an uncreated Being to bring about the transformation of energy into matter. Full Stop.

refer to both the above fallacy and the list of assumptions i noted.

Sorry but you obviously missed my point.

That is, there are only two realities or I should say paradigm to choose from when it comes to Origin Of the Universe.

1) An Always Existing Entity/Being - God

or

2) Nothingness, Absolute Nothingness.

The 1st is provable, whilst impossible on the 2nd.

posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 07:11 PM

originally posted by: Phage

The LHC has shown us how we can transform energy into matter.
Yeah, that's pretty much what the "Big Bang theory" is all about. There was this tiny, tiny ball of a whole lot of of energy...

why is it hard to accept and believe the existence of a higher being with the capability and ability to transform energy into matter?
It's pretty easy, actually. But the fact that human physics shows that's what happens when a tiny, tiny ball of a whole lot of energy starts expanding doesn't really mean that someone made it happen. Unless your God is that tiny, tiny ball of a whole lot of energy.

You are free to think that if you wish. It doesn't make you right.

You missed my POINT Phage.

It takes a genius mind to produce the LHC then use energy to create (or to transform it into) matter.

Nothingness can't do this.

There's no model to look at to clearly show that you can get something from a state of absolute nothing.

On the other hand, we have lots model showing you can get something from something.

So to my point again:

X creates Y but never X creates X. So by necessity X must exist first in order to create Y.

Translating:

"God creates the universe but never God creates God. So by necessity, God must exist first in order to create the universe."

Now, I've notice you've been attacking me for a while now without proving that my premise is false.

So may I ask, since you don't accept and popoing that an Always Existing Entity was responsible for the creation of the universe, what's your alternative other than a lazy cop-out I Don't Know?

posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 07:17 PM

"An Always Existing Entity/Being - God."
How convenient, you get something from nothing.. Always?

posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 07:19 PM

You missed my POINT Phage.
Unless you've changed it, no, I didn't.

It takes a genius mind to produce the LHC then use energy to create (or to transform it into) matter.
No. It takes smart people to attempt to create an inadequate model of the singularity.

Nothingness can't do this.
The singularity was not nothing.

Now, I've notice you've been attacking me for a while now without proving that my premise is false.
If you consider offering counterpoint to be an attack, so be it. But what you ask can't be done. Nor can you prove that unicorns do not exist.

So may I ask, since you don't accept and popoing that an Always Existing Entity was responsible for the creation of the universe, what's your alternative other than a lazy cop-out I Don't Know?
My "alternative" is that the Universe began with a singularity of energy. My "alternative" is that there is no reason or need to speculate beyond that, unless it is a need to validate one's belief system.

If you want to say your God make the singularity, fine. Just leave the other crap out of it.

edit on 9/24/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 07:25 PM

originally posted by: flyingfish

"An Always Existing Entity/Being - God."
How convenient, you get something from nothing.. Always?

What's the alternative other than a lazy IDK cop-out?

posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 07:26 PM

Much better to say "I know" rather than "I don't know?"
Seems arrogant.

edit on 9/24/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 07:37 PM

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

"God creates the universe but never God creates God. So by necessity, God must exist first in order to create the universe."

assumption 1: the universe was created

assumption 2: the universe was created by a god

assumption 3: the definition of said god

Begging the question, sometimes known by its Latin name petitio principii (meaning assuming the initial point), is a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the statement under examination to be true. In other words, begging the question involves using a premise to support itself.

Conversely, if there was nothingness, absolute nothingness - from the beginning of time, then there was nothing to create. Hence no universe, no life as there was absolutely no one to create, nothing to "light the blue torch".

another misrepresentation. can you demonstrate that there was absolutely nothing at the very beginning of this universal cycle? the current understanding states that all of matter was focused into one very dense very small mass. that is not nothing, that is a tremendous amount of something in a very condensed state.

So by necessity, there MUST be a pre-existing life, the Prime Life, the Prime Mover, an uncreated Being to bring about the transformation of energy into matter. Full Stop.

refer to both the above fallacy and the list of assumptions i noted.

Sorry but you obviously missed my point.

That is, there are only two realities or I should say paradigm to choose from when it comes to Origin Of the Universe.

1) An Always Existing Entity/Being - God

or

2) Nothingness, Absolute Nothingness.

The 1st is provable, whilst impossible on the 2nd.

ah... imposing a false dichotomy based in your own misunderstanding of the big bang theory. useful for elevating ideas that have trouble on their own legs, so you need something to throw under the bus. have fun trying to do that to modern evolutionary synthesis or the big bang theory. maybe you can prove that gravity is actually a divine miracle and not a natural phenomena.

edit on 24-9-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 07:38 PM

My "alternative" is that the Universe began with a singularity of energy. My "alternative" is that there is no reason or need to speculate beyond that, unless it is a need to validate one's belief system.

Exactly my point!

there is no reason or need to speculate beyond that

is a lazy cop-out.

If great minds like Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Kepler and others stopped speculating and followed your lead, we may never have known the many wonders of the universe.

That's a dead end way of looking at things.

In fact many hypothesis and theories (scientific or otherwise) we're based on speculations. In fact, Evolution Theory is full of speculation.

So you might need to rethink your position.

new topics

top topics

42