Undeniable logic proving that god created the universe.

page: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   

greavsie1971
Are you being serious? That is your op? Far too short and vague for an op. Come on, this is ATS.



Yeah...what gives? this is a popular thread? Worst part is I got excited to read but then was let down




posted on Sep, 13 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Cedik
reply to post by winofiend
 



Ok here goes I will explain the logic in more detail.

"

Even if asteroids filled the earth with these chemicals, evolutionists still have the problem of figuring out how simple amino acids could combine to make proteins, which are essential to life. And how could you get nucleotides, in order to make DNA and RNA? And how could other chemicals come together to make cell membranes, which make up the very complex "skin" on the surface of every cell of living things? Membranes are more than just grease bubbles. Many in the past have tried to answer these questions … Oparin, Miller, Urey. Their experiments are famous in our high school and college science textbooks, but modern biologists know that they really never did answer the question. That's why some evolutionists are now looking to the stars. Others are still betting on the sea. Harold Morowitz and Robert Hazen, of George Mason University, have suggested that metal catalysts around hot geysers on the ocean floor could have caused the chemical reactions that could make the starting chemicals of life. So it goes on.

www.etcsa.org...

So these clever science people also have no real idea of how life is created from nothing. They will say, 'could have caused' life and things of that type. We can see life creating life everyday. No one (as far as we know) has ever seen life created from nothing.


First off, you're confusing evolution with abiogenesis. The origins of life on Earth and Evolution are actually two separate but interrelated fields of study. One deals more with the chemistry of early earth and the other deals with adaptive changes in biological organisms. Second, if your source material doesn't grasp that nuance and paints everyone who doesn't believe in god as an evolutionist, it discredits itself from the get go. I also find it interesting at how incredulous you are that scientists continue to strive to understand the nature of our world and its origins and that apparently makes them wrong about everything. Science isn't a rigid structure like mathematics. As our understanding and perceptions advance along with our technology, it is inevitable that we will come to new understanding, discard outdated and irrelevant models and sometimes discover brand new things we had never imagined while searching for answers. I'm not sorry to say that I'll take that over a god or gods who can't be bothered to change with the times. If god was as smart as evolution he too would adapt to survive in a world of ever increasing doubt, agnosticism and atheism in the face of the ever changing world around us.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Cedik
reply to post by paradox
 




I am not here to discuss who or what god is. This thread is not about that. Interesting thoughts for your own thread?

edit on 13-9-2013 by Cedik because: (no reason given)


Also at this point I will say that I will ignore all posts that comment on who or what god is.
edit on 13-9-2013 by Cedik because: to add stuff


To claim God created the universe and then ignore looking at what you claim to have created the universe is well pointless



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Cedik
 


as your original claim follows the form :

" nothing can exist with out a creator , ergo GOD "

a claim that comes preloaded with a special pleading that your alledged god does not need a creator

you must , to validate your claim demonstrate the " special pleading " that frees your alledged god from this need to have a creator

this cannot be done [ IMHO ] without addressing the nature of your alledged god - as you must evidence the metric by which your alledged god does not require a creator - thus revealing the fundamental nature of your alledged god , at least is sofar as how it differes in nature from the universe at large



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Biigs
 





What if the universe and everything in it was not created but was just converted via a savage explosion from some other universe with its own 'rules' for energy, time and matter?

Theres no proof at all. In fact chasing the proof is almost a waste of time given our tiny perspective in space and time.


My point is by now clear and in many respects you are right. You cannot prove that life is only created in this universe by life itself. Yet due to the amount of everyday evidence existing showing the propensity of life to create life over anything dead creating life does suggest that it is as likely if not more likely to occur than the alternative.

I am going to draw this to a close and indeed I will read the rest of the posts and respond if necessary. I admit te title of the post was slightly misleading but I wanted to air my belief under scrutiny and I think I understand more about absolutes after this.

If I choose to believe something which is equally as likely as your belief system then that is my prerogative and should not be ridiculed. If you could provide evidence to disprove my belief then great. I would change it tomorrow.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


I believe diamond is an emergent property ( if I am using the term correctly ) but is not an example of live being created from dead matter. The diamond itself is formed from heat, pressure and pre-existing carbon.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Cedik
 


Thank you for this! Star and flag!

There are many created creatures in this universe!



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 





Im going to point out that "life creates life" is not what abiogenesis claims.

As per usual creationists are not prepared to even discuss these topics.


I had not heard of abiogenesis and clearly the cursory glance that I gave the wiki page will not effectively enlighten me however I did notice this:


In 1952, in the Miller–Urey experiment, a mixture of water, hydrogen, methane, and ammonia was cycled through an apparatus that delivered electrical sparks to the mixture. After one week, it was found that about 10% to 15% of the carbon in the system was now in the form of a racemic mixture of organic compounds, including amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins.

en.wikipedia.org...

This is very interesting because it is finally some evidence to hint that in fact life could be created from dead matter. I would say that this effect could also be as a consequence of the electricity used in a wave type reaction.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 





Please define "create" and "life" in the context of your "logic".


Ok what I am saying by "create" is the creation of a living organism.

By life i mean organic matter.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by filledcup
 





explain to me how you can create a plastic toy without plastic.. and ill explain to you how u can create lifeforms without life/consciousness.


A good point too. Notice how I said that god was unknown. I do not know who or what god is and I do not wish to think it over too much. People seem to kill each other over this point and I thing that if we all said life is # lets help each other, rather than he said this yada yada life would be better I simply believe in the creation of the universe as the most plausible explanation I have studied so far.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 





You have a premise – “It is impossible to create anything in this world/dimension without life itself being ther(sic) creator.”
According to Phyiscs, energy (matter) is neither created nor destroyed, only transformed.

…which means your argument is not sound because your premise is invalid. See how that works?


ok so you can explain the transformation of matter via physics but unless I am wrong, you cannot understand why.



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Evil_Santa
 


Sounds interesting, I will look into this in more detail



posted on Sep, 14 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Cedik
 


Ok what I am saying by "create" is the creation of a living organism.

By life i mean organic matter.

Is a "living organism", by your definition, one made up of organic matter?



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Cedik
 


Science has indeed created life from basic chemicals in a lab so non life became life. cheers for now.



posted on Sep, 15 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Cedik
reply to post by iterationzero
 





Please define "create" and "life" in the context of your "logic".


Ok what I am saying by "create" is the creation of a living organism.

By life i mean organic matter.



Again we see a failure to grasp the timescale over which life has evolved combined with confusion about abiogenesis and evolution.

Just out of curiosity, can you give an example of what you would consider to be the most basic properties of life?



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Cedik
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 





You have a premise – “It is impossible to create anything in this world/dimension without life itself being ther(sic) creator.”
According to Phyiscs, energy (matter) is neither created nor destroyed, only transformed.

…which means your argument is not sound because your premise is invalid. See how that works?


ok so you can explain the transformation of matter via physics but unless I am wrong, you cannot understand why.


You are wrong.

E=MC2

In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of an object or system is a measure of its energy content.

The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed.

The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can change form; for instance, chemical energy can be converted to kinetic energy.



Matter is built on flaky foundations. Physicists have now confirmed that the apparently substantial stuff is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum.


It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations


Hit the books dude... this is pretty basic stuff.



posted on Sep, 16 2013 @ 10:59 AM
link   

iterationzero
reply to post by Cedik
 


Ok what I am saying by "create" is the creation of a living organism.

By life i mean organic matter.

Is a "living organism", by your definition, one made up of organic matter?


I like this question because one definition for life is an organism that can pass on its genetic code to another generation. But i see in the future computers being able to make programming for other computers i all ways wonder if at that point will they be a life form.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 

I like my question because I'm still waiting for an answer to it. Must have been a real puzzler for the OP.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


A new lease of life.

Who is to say that a creator would need time or is/was a victim to time.I agree hawkings argument (if used in the right way) is inductive as it can only be assumed that god is affected by time.

The universe was created in a bang right? It continues to expand right?

It is only by thought in my opinion, living thought that anything is created. There has never been a shred of proof that anything could be created in any different way. THat would then allow for the creation of the universe and everything in it. Otherwise everything seems a bit odd don't you think?



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


I agree with all of that apart from the end bit.

You say that logic doesnt apply to any form of god. I would say that if you have read the entire thread you would see that in fact their is more logic behind there being a creator than not.

The reason that I have faith is because I do but In terms of the thread the reason I have faith is due to a weight of evidence rendering your argument invalid. Please let me know what you base your beleifs on.






top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join