Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

If there were nothing living anymore, anywhere in the universe..

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   
life would still exist.

It is not we who are the cause of life to exist. It is life that can be the cause of us existing. What is life? There are those that say life is a force, but it may not be the same force life is that fuels us. It can be something derived from it. Life therefore isn't something we are connected to. Maybe it is something manifesting us.

If life was a part of us, we might be able to kill it.

We cannot kill life, for there is one life fueling all of mankind.

Killing all of mankind doesn't make that one kill life.

Life is untouchable.

What do you think?




posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Angle
 


I got lost like half way through this......So if all life as we know it ends, life would still exist? Can you elaborate please?



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   
The universe wouldn't exist without life observing it.
But your title and post is confusing...If nothing was alive how can life exist?



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angle
What do you think?

I think that the universe doesn't exist without something to observe it. You can say it's a quantum collapsing wave function thing, or simply that if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, is there even a tree?

And you know what is making the universe physically expand? It's not "dark energy." It's imagination. I know it's a little counter-intuitive, but it's the truth.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift
or simply that if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, is there even a tree?

And you know what is making the universe physically expand? It's imagination. I know it's a little counter-intuitive, but it's the truth.


1. You're not stuck with the tree-issue are you?

2. That's what may go around about the universe, but it is not the truth now is it.

3. Keep following my following threads. Your imagination may expand your mind.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


Would you agree then, that God is observing you when noone else does? For if God was to be no more, we surely wouldn't exist.
edit on 27-3-2013 by Angle because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Angle
 


Look your title and post contradicts each other.....
Blueshift replied to your post but you have just made a confusing thread...If this one is to go by no thanks to your other threads.
Oh you brought God into it
moving on cya.
edit on 27-3-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Everything would be what it is regardless of having an observer. Only meaning and value would cease because that is given to objective reality by the observer.



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


Didn't I explain clear in the opening post what I meant?

Life is something external to lifeforms. Without lifeforms life still would be. edit/ but lifeforms wouldn't be anymore if life wouldn't be anymore.
edit on 27-3-2013 by Angle because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Angle
 


What is life if only a state of being and what is a state of being without life.

If a Rock's state of being is to be a Rock and experiance a Rock's life then mission accomplished. The same still holds true that the Rock is in fact not lifeless it's just the Rocks's state of being.

Hrmmm mind boggling~



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Angle
 


Life is us, but we are not Life.

"God is a rock, but a rock is not God"



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Angle
 


Life has some properties that differentiate it from inanimate objects such as rocks, hydrogen gas etc... If the only life is indeed found on earth and somehow our planet would be completely obliterated than yes, life would cease to exist. Until the right circumstances bring it back to , well "life".

Also , to say that the Universe only exists because we can observe it is completely wrong. The Universe was doing very fine billions of years before the first cell showing the charachteristic of life appeared and will be just fine after we are gone.
edit on 27-3-2013 by ParovStelar because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ParovStelar
 





Life has some properties that differentiate it from inanimate objects such as rocks, hydrogen gas etc... If the only life is indeed found on earth and somehow our planet would be completely obliterated than yes, life would cease to exist. Until the right circumstances bring it back to , well "life".


You are correct to the point that if our Earth was destroyed that "Life as WE know it will no longer exist"

You are incorrect in stating the properties of life, as even as young as our sciences still are we are finding different building blocks to life and life where no life (as we humans know life) was thought ever to be found.

And by your last statement I'm deducing your a "Big Bang" kind of guy, so I would ask of you define "Right Circumstances"? And please no Goldy Locks Theories~



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by sulaw
 


You are talking of building blocks of life, Those building blocks are not alive. Just like amino acids and what not. When talking of right circumstances I am talking of those building blocks, that even though are not alive can come together giving a living organism.

Right circumstances are also that hydrogen gas needs to be present still in the universe to form star so that thermonuclear fusion may occur and that the star may explode spreading a multitude of other atoms that were not there before the star was created then give time to those atoms to form different inanimate structures such as the sun and planets for other atoms to form different kinds of proteins and building blocks to life.
edit on 27-3-2013 by ParovStelar because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-3-2013 by ParovStelar because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ParovStelar
 


Ok I agree to a point, now what about the amino acid's prior to bonding and changing? Your saying Amino's Acids are lifeless when they are the building blocks of life. So to an extent Amino's Acid's state of being is lifeless until the right properties are added then by some magic they react and create life? Wouldn't it take life to notice those changes to start creating a new life unlike the one of it's last state of being?

I would say that even at the most basic stages of Proton's, Nutron's. Ameba's, Amino Acids



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by sulaw
 


Sorry but I do not agree, these building blocks are lifeless, It is the entire organism that is alive, take the calcium of my body, it is needed for me to be alive but it is not life itself, calcium cannot reproduces itself or evolve due to changes in its environement.

Also, A state of being does not equal a state of life. An atom of hydrogen is, but is not alive.
edit on 27-3-2013 by ParovStelar because: (no reason given)


For something to exist, It does not have to be alive. For something to be alive it has to be alive or it goes back to being. Just like our atoms will go form other inanimate structures when we die or maybe go into the production of a new plant, crocodile or human. The atom is not alive but will exist untill it eventually decays.
edit on 27-3-2013 by ParovStelar because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ParovStelar
 


Then I'll agree to disagree, with a firm handshake a farewell and until we meet again, in some state of being~



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by sulaw
 


Cheers to that!



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Angle
 





Life is something external to lifeforms. Without lifeforms life still would be. edit/ but lifeforms wouldn't be anymore if life wouldn't be anymore.


No, lifeform would not exist, the possibility for life to exist would remain but not life itself.
edit on 27-3-2013 by ParovStelar because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angle
Would you agree then, that God is observing you when noone else does? For if God was to be no more, we surely wouldn't exist.

There is no such thing as "God," at least anything you can reasonably define. I have my own point of view, which defines my reality. When I die, so will reality. At least as far as I'm concerned, and that's the only thing that matters.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join