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: 77
42
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Well i'll try again since I was ignored the first time.

What if the universe wasn't created and has just always been there. It's not a concept we can fathom, we believe everything had to come from something, but then again that means something at one point HAD to come from nothing.

What if we are simply just grasping onto it and scratching the surface of fringe?

The universe always was there, even though we decide in our minds that it HAS to have a creating point, it doesn't. It is so far beyond our comprehension that some will literally shut it out completely in an attempt to satisfy a personal rational answer. I know I've done that. Now I look at things in a bigger and broader perspective. I realize that I'm less than a billionth of a grain of sand, I realize I'm made up of a composition of chemical compounds, I realize there is actually life that is insanely more complex and adaptive than my own biological makeup that consist of very few cells.

How the hell could a god decide I was the one species and then make me so flawed, then again I think to myself if that god actually existed it would be cool to have a cold one together.




posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
Well i'll try again since I was ignored the first time.

What if the universe wasn't created and has just always been there. It's not a concept we can fathom, we believe everything had to come from something, but then again that means something at one point HAD to come from nothing.

What if we are simply just grasping onto it and scratching the surface of fringe?

The universe always was there, even though we decide in our minds that it HAS to have a creating point, it doesn't. It is so far beyond our comprehension that some will literally shut it out completely in an attempt to satisfy a personal rational answer. I know I've done that. Now I look at things in a bigger and broader perspective. I realize that I'm less than a billionth of a grain of sand, I realize I'm made up of a composition of chemical compounds, I realize there is actually life that is insanely more complex and adaptive than my own biological makeup that consist of very few cells.

How the hell could a god decide I was the one species and then make me so flawed, then again I think to myself if that god actually existed it would be cool to have a cold one together.


I don't remember your post. If you did I must have missed it.

In any case, if the universe is as you say "... wasn't created and has just always been there" and that "at one point HAD to come from nothing", then we're back to square one.

That is, how could nothing create something?

It doesn't make sense based on logical "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity" (AshFan).

Hence not a valid concept as there is no basis for it.

So what's the logical alternative?

Only one. Something or Someone (The Prime Mover) MUST by necessity exists first for the universe to have a beginning (at the Point Of Singularity).

So logically, the question to ask then is this - where then did the something or the Prime Mover come from?

Again, since we already know that ABSOLUTE NOTHINGNESS is illogical, the answer then is - Absolute Existence, an INFINITE Existence.

That is, the Prime Mover MUST have Always Existed, Eternal with no beginning or end. An uncreated Entity not bound by time and space or by the things he created.

Of course, we have evidence of His existence as we see them in Nature but the decision is up to you to accept it as fact or not.

The Bible with its prophetic content is another evidence of his existence, but up to you believe it or not.

So basically, it boils down to this:

Which one makes logical sense?

Infinite Existence

or

Absolute Nothingness



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

I think it is interesting you see the species as so flawed. It is all relative I guess but just the other day I had the total opposite observation.

Whoever designed and created life, human or otherwise must have had prior experience. There is no way this is all a first or only try. The intricacies of my own body bug me out sometimes. It's amazing.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Toothache
Energy can not be created or destroyed based on physics. This means you need a God that created energy outside of the universe and then inserted it in afterwards. The Big Bang was literally god banging the universe and spraying his energy everywhere.

G + U = E Logical 101, boys.


At a quantum level, that axiom (Energy can not be created or destroyed) is no longer valid.

Hence a RAW material MUST exist first for Energy to be created then transformed into matter - vice versa.

Question is - where did the RAW MATERIAL originate?

Nothingness or from someone who Always Existed?

edit:

The answer will be profound when you find it. It will change your point of view about life, about existence. Puts you on a different level.






edit on 30-9-2016 by edmc^2 because: edit



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

And this is where your argument fails, again.

You said...


At a quantum level, that axiom (Energy can not be created or destroyed) is no longer valid.

Hence a RAW material MUST exist first for Energy to be created then transformed into matter - vice versa.

Question is - where did the RAW MATERIAL originate?

Nothingness or from someone who Always Existed?


IF that's true (I'm not saying it is), then who/what created the creator?

Now, if you say "the creator always has been", the answer to "what created energy" can be "energy always has been".

See the problem?
edit on 3092016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99




How the hell could a god decide I was the one species and then make me so flawed, then again I think to myself if that god actually existed it would be cool to have a cold one together.


You were not made flawed, we were not made flawed, it was passed down to us. But the one who created the universe is not powerless to make you / us flawless again. But that's another topic.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: edmc^2

And this is where your argument fails, again.

You said...


At a quantum level, that axiom (Energy can not be created or destroyed) is no longer valid.

Hence a RAW material MUST exist first for Energy to be created then transformed into matter - vice versa.

Question is - where did the RAW MATERIAL originate?

Nothingness or from someone who Always Existed?


IF that's true (I'm not saying it is), then who/what created the creator?

Now, if you say "the creator always has been", the answer to "what created energy" can be "energy always has been".

See the problem?


The problem is you don't see it. Hence you see it as fail.

TIP:

RAW material MUST exist first for Energy to be created then transformed into matter - vice versa.



ciao!


edit on 30-9-2016 by edmc^2 because: ciao!



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Right. This will be fun.

"RAW material MUST exist first for Energy to be created then transformed into matter - vice versa".

For a creator to be exist, you must concede that he/she/it is made from SOMETHING. So....

What made the creator of the material?
edit on 3092016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 01:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
Nothingness or from someone who Always Existed?

Another member of ATS is always saying that that someone (maybe something) is nothingness. Maybe he has gotten to a level you have not.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

God is special (pleading).
The best kind of logic.

edit on 10/1/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 02:09 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Wow, way to twist my words.

I simply said I believe the universe has always existed.

I also said our human minds cannot grasp that concept because we require a starting and ending point.

The eternal universe cares little about our personal thoughts and beliefs, it just keeps on being a universe.

In a few hundred-million-trillion years it might start running out of energy to expand.

My belief requires no god for creation, because the creation always has been there.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 02:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: sputniksteve
a reply to: Vector99

I think it is interesting you see the species as so flawed. It is all relative I guess but just the other day I had the total opposite observation.

Whoever designed and created life, human or otherwise must have had prior experience. There is no way this is all a first or only try. The intricacies of my own body bug me out sometimes. It's amazing.

If we aren't the first try then god is kinda debunked.

Another thing to boggle your mind. if god is omnipotent, can he create a rock so heavy he himself cannot lift?



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 04:08 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2



I beg to differ. It's of great importance because it tells you the genius behind what was created! It's a big deal if you're trying to understand the mind behind it. Just like the Monalisa gives you an idea the of the genius behind it.

I don't know dude! It does not seem all that important. I do believe your highly and grossly exaggerating the importance of life the universe and everything there in it, after all even the universe does not seem to give much importance to it. Which is why in just a few short billion years this whole place will be nothing but space dust.

As for the Monalisa? It's just a painting. I think Leonardo just painted a version of himself as a female, hence the little smile. Who know why? And who cares, the guy was a great painter and sculptor and inventor, but he was a bit of a weirdo. And as we know, weirdos are prone to do weird things. No mystery there.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

So to you, there is no difference at all between scientific experiments that prove things, and a scientist having an opinion about something he doesn't know?

Interesting.

Also you keep referring to someone as the source. Why can't it be something, rather than someone? You are inherently biased toward a conscious creator and have already made that conclusion long before you tried to apply any sort of logic or reasoning to it. We don't know where the earliest known energy came from yet. That's really the end of the discussion.

Your opinion, yes. The only possible logical conclusion? No.
edit on 10 1 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   
That awkward moment when you use the word "logical", yet have zero clue as to it's meaning.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: sputniksteve
a reply to: Vector99

I think it is interesting you see the species as so flawed. It is all relative I guess but just the other day I had the total opposite observation.

Whoever designed and created life, human or otherwise must have had prior experience. There is no way this is all a first or only try. The intricacies of my own body bug me out sometimes. It's amazing.

If we aren't the first try then god is kinda debunked.

Another thing to boggle your mind. if god is omnipotent, can he create a rock so heavy he himself cannot lift?


I am not trying to play semantics with you, but just to be clear I didn't mention God only a creator. I am also not going to interject my irrational opinions into this conversation just wanted to make that observation.

Having said that do you presume that Humans not being a first try only negates existence of God or also of any kind of Creator? And to either answer, I am curious why you think that? I am not trying to challenge you I just don't see the correlation myself.

I have no idea, if you ever see him please ask and let me know.
edit on 10/1/2016 by sputniksteve because: Grahma



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   
let us pause now for a moment of science..



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Before you can make decisions on a matter we must first be able to demonstrate it and understand it.

It being 'Absolute Nothing'.

Show me what you mean about that and so we examine this nothing?

If you cant then what are we arguing about? A something that is purly abstract. That cannot fully be explained because theres no real life examples of this nothing.

Otherwise the best answer is.... 'i dont know. Do ghost bears still take a sh!t in the woods?'.

Coomba98



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: sputniksteve

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: sputniksteve
a reply to: Vector99

I think it is interesting you see the species as so flawed. It is all relative I guess but just the other day I had the total opposite observation.

Whoever designed and created life, human or otherwise must have had prior experience. There is no way this is all a first or only try. The intricacies of my own body bug me out sometimes. It's amazing.

If we aren't the first try then god is kinda debunked.

Another thing to boggle your mind. if god is omnipotent, can he create a rock so heavy he himself cannot lift?

Having said that do you presume that Humans not being a first try only negates existence of God or also of any kind of Creator? And to either answer, I am curious why you think that? I am not trying to challenge you I just don't see the correlation myself.

I don't have any objections to a "creator" when it comes to complex life, but I do disagree that an all powerful something created everything.

We are trying to create complex life as we speak, and if/when we create AI will we not be creators of life? That doesn't mean we created the universe and stuff, just that we created something. So yea, in that sense I have no problem with a "creator".



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: edmc^2

Wow, way to twist my words.

I simply said I believe the universe has always existed.

I also said our human minds cannot grasp that concept because we require a starting and ending point.

The eternal universe cares little about our personal thoughts and beliefs, it just keeps on being a universe.

In a few hundred-million-trillion years it might start running out of energy to expand.

My belief requires no god for creation, because the creation always has been there.



Sorry. I didn't mean to twist your words - but I thought that's what you said. That is: "at one point HAD to come from nothing"




What if the universe wasn't created and has just always been there. It's not a concept we can fathom, we believe everything had to come from something, but then again that means something at one point HAD to come from nothing.


If not then my apologies.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join