My Ex-nihilo Challenge

[GrayCat]

Why do you honor God's Word, rather than God himself?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Why do you honor God's Word, rather than God himself?

He's not even doing that -- he's honoring the Bible, and even it says it's not God's "Word." First verse of John proves that.

 

[God-free]

If you do not believe in creatio ex nihilo, I challenge you to give me a coherent explanation as to how mass and/or energy first appeared.

There is no definitive answer to this question... yet. So, I don't know. Do you? If so, please provide the observable, testable, falsifiable evidence to a reputable astrophysicist for testing.

~Barbara

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no definitive answer to this question... yet. So, I don't know. Do you? If so, please provide the observable, testable, falsifiable evidence to a reputable astrophysicist for testing.

~Barbara

Sure --- I'll give him this.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Sure --- I'll give him this.

IOW, you'll give nothing, and insist that it's something simply because you say so.

I can see why even other YECs stay away from you.

 

[God-free]

Sure --- I'll give him this.

Okay. And once the astrophysicist has considered your 'evidence' please be sure to let me know what his response is. I'll be waiting to hear from you.

~Barbara

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay. And once the astrophysicist has considered your 'evidence' please be sure to let me know what his response is. I'll be waiting to hear from you.

~Barbara

I can tell you ahead of time what he would say (if he was honest) --- nothing.

I've said this a thousand times --- there is no evidence for the Creation --- it did not leave an audit trail outside of the Bible.

 

[Freodin]

I can tell you ahead of time what he would say (if he was honest) --- nothing.

I don´t think that this is quite correct.... this is what YOU would say and...

I've said this a thousand times --- there is no evidence for the Creation --- it did not leave an audit trail outside of the Bible.

... as we see here what you indeed DO say all the time. Doesn´t make it true though.

The real problem with this "challenge" of your´s is that it is definitional: you have DEFINED your variant as leaving no evidence, and thus can safely ignore any proposals, because they disagree with your definition.

 

[God-free]

I can tell you ahead of time what he would say (if he was honest) --- nothing.

I've said this a thousand times --- there is no evidence for the Creation --- it did not leave an audit trail outside of the Bible.

Well, then, all I can say to that is: If the biblical account of creation cannot be shown to be accurate, then there is no way to determine that it has any truth value at all. So, why believe it?

~Barbara

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, then, all I can say to that is: If the biblical account of creation cannot be shown to be accurate, then there is no way to determine that it has any truth value at all. So, why believe it?

~Barbara

That's a poor reason not to believe in something. Just because you can't see it in a microscope or telescope, or recreate it in a laboratory.

 

[Eudaimonist]

That's a poor reason not to believe in something. Just because you can't see it in a microscope or telescope, or recreate it in a laboratory.

It sounds like an excellent reason to me, for certain varieties of truth claims.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[AV1611VET]

It sounds like an excellent reason to me, for certain varieties of truth claims.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I'd have a comma in my sentence too, if I began it like that.

 

[Freodin]

That's a poor reason not to believe in something. Just because you can't see it in a microscope or telescope, or recreate it in a laboratory.

It is an excellent reason... and you know that for yourself!

If I may quote you...

"I create an apple ex nihilo into the palm of your hand.

What evidence would you use to convince your friend I did this?"

Your answer: none. There is no evidence to convince.

 

[Danyc]

Actually that sounds like a pretty good reason to me.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's a poor reason not to believe in something. Just because you can't see it in a microscope or telescope, or recreate it in a laboratory.

Actually that sounds like a pretty good reason to me.

Tell that to the people at S.E.T.I.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Tell that to the people at S.E.T.I.

Did they see something in their telescopes? No. Did they recreate anything in a laboratory? No. Did they claim to have done anything of the above? No.

Once again, your arrogance undermines your own position.

 

[Freodin]

Tell that to the people at S.E.T.I.

Oh, I see. You are doing at again, playing little games with language.

I recapitulate the conversation:

God-free: "f the biblical account of creation cannot be shown to be accurate, then there is no way to determine that it has any truth value at all. So, why believe it?"

AV1611VET: "Just because you can't see it in a microscope or telescope, or recreate it in a laboratory."

Do you have a way to show the biblical account of creation - your "ex-nihilo-creation" as accurate beyond microscopes, telescopes or laboratories?

According to your own "challenges", you have none. Not none of certain types - none at all. Nada, nothing, nichts. There can be non, according to your "challenges".

So try again: If you cannot show your claims to be accurate, then there is no way to determine that is has any truth value at all. So, why believe it?

 

[God-free]

Well, then, all I can say to that is: If the biblical account of creation cannot be shown to be accurate, then there is no way to determine that it has any truth value at all. So, why believe it?

~Barbara

That's a poor reason not to believe in something. Just because you can't see it in a microscope or telescope, or recreate it in a laboratory.

What would be a good reason to believe that the Bible is anything more than an ancient (and superstitious) civilizations' way of filling in the gaps of their knowledge about the world and their limited naked-eye-view of the universe?

~Barbara

 

[quatona]

The fact that it´s god´s own word, silly.

 

[paug]

You really don't understand quantum physics do you?

And you do?

“If you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory.”

~ Richard Feynman