It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
reply to post by Blarneystoner
This isnt about if we have free will its a comment on the mindset of god. Yes mankind has free will what ever thats supposed to truly mean. But its like you being able to prevent someone killing someone and doing nothing.It says something about the individual just because i give my kids the ability to make decisions doesnt mean im not going to step in if there going to do something to hurt themselves or worse.
reply to post by peter vlar
Dont all living entities have to consume organic matter to survive?
reply to post by iterationzero
Is a "living organism", by your definition, one made up of organic matter?
I would say yes.
Out of interest. How can you prove scientifically that a plant is alive? Is there a term for this?
reply to post by Cedik
Ah, metaphysics and it's application to religion, to those of us already religious it is a no brainer but to those with a more enquiring mind and perhaps less religious persuasion it is merely a branch of philosophy.
Take superspace, a hypothetical realm without law's and with all law's of physics that both does and does not exist, it has perhaps a infinite number of universe within it's undefinable confines yet for something to exist those confines must be defined so what is doing this, well not to quote simple boolian algebra and the point that a not not is not a not we must there fore conclude that it is itself, let us call it the GOD of superspace that by it's will defines existance and manifests from the otherwise self anihilating chaos a level of order, we might call it the GOD of order or the GOD of chaos whom creates and enforces order, now weather a person if religious or not the very fact existance is -- is itself a miracle of the most improbable and statistically unlikely kind that the the very universe itself should not exist or for that matter even superspace or the greater sea of chaos should not exist as it should cancell itself out yet something maintains it, maybe we don't exist and maybe we do- (back to the padded cell, Ah ha they said I was mad but I'll show them - "mad scientist cacking").
(We need a Janus Emoticon or a ying yang symbol here).
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.
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.
You are wrong.
At the physics 101 level, you pretty much just have to accept this as an experimental fact. At the upper division or early grad school level, you'll be introduced to Noether's Theorem, and we can talk about the invariance of physical law under displacements in time. Really this just replaces one experimental fact (energy is conserved) with another (the character of physical law is independent of time), but at least it seems like a deeper understanding. When you study general relativity and/or cosmology in depth, you may encounter claims that under the right circumstances it is hard to define a unique time to use for "invariance under translation in time", leaving energy conservation in question. Even on Physics.SE you'll find rather a lot of disagreement on the matter. It is far enough beyond my understanding that I won't venture an opinion. This may (or may not) overturn what you've been told, but not in a way that you care about.
Maybe a better title for the thread would have been "what I believe, the universe was created" To claim you have undeniable logic and then make appeals to ignorance why back tracking saying "this is a philosophical discussion" seems to be very dishonest. We have a thread for the dishonest tactics of creationists.
Time is part of the universe, if God created the universe then he created time. Form this we assume (and also told in scriptures but we will leave the religion bit out for now) that God exists outside of time. If there is no time how can he have a beginning?