Atheism (2)

[createdtoworship]

What is your aversion to answering questions? I'm not asking for the opinion of some website, or apologist... I'm asking why you believe what you believe.

just watch and see, video's are good. they have hitchens and bart ehrman on there.

 

[Dave Ellis]

okay lets put you on the fireing wheel,

do you believe something created the universe, or that it came from nothing?

in the beginning that is.

I believe it is likely it arose through a natural process that we don't understand yet.

I have no idea if there was nothing, or something prior to the big bang.


In short, I don't know. But I do believe we should continue searching for evidence to discover what actually happened in the beginning.

 

[Belk]

You are actually mistaken.

No I am not. Claiming that science does not know the answer therefore we must accept God did it is the definition of god of the gaps.

A theist needs to provide evidence that would make his claim that an intelligent being created the universe more plausible than its negation.

A theist first needs to establish that the universe had a beginning. Then they would need to establish it was created. Once those two criteria are met we can talk about the plausibility of the creators intelligence.

You seem to misunderstand, as many of your fellows have as well, that empirically verifiable evidence is not the only type of evidence used in determining the veracity of a truth claim.

Fair enough and I agree. There are non empirical ways of reaching conclusions. However, I would submit that all such conclusions are considered tentative until empirical evidence for them is produced.

If it were, then the vast majority of what we consider historical knowledge must be considered mere speculation since little of what we know about history can be proven empirically. The same is true of moral values, logical laws, and mathematical principles. Clearly we have knowledge of these things, and yet we lack empirical evidence for them. Indeed, empirical evidence is not even possible for such things.

And all of these have empirical evidence that back up. We have more empirical evidence that math works then we have for any other human description of reality. In fact, if there is one thing that we truly know through empirical evidence it is where math works and where our models fall short.

We have large amounts of empirical evidence for much of our history. In point of fact that is how we determined that the biblical creation story must either be allegory or incorrect. We 4.5 billion years of empirical evidence for our history

Logic is shown to be either effective or ineffective via empiricism as are morals.

Do we have any system other then religion that does not, in the end, rely upon empiricism to establish that it is indeed true?

 

[Dave Ellis]

just watch and see, video's are good. they have hitchens and bart ehrman on there.

I understand Hitchens and Bart Ehrman's views, as well as William Lane Craigs.


I'm asking you what you believe, and why you believe it. I'm asking you to justify your position, not to link me a video.

Do you not understand your position, and have only accepted it because it's what the apologists tell you to believe?

 

[Tinker Grey]

------------

This must be the typo of the year!!

That's EXACTLY what the book of Genesis states!!

------------

Well to be fair, Genesis never says God made anything at all ex nihilo. It says, In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth. Then goes on to specify the order. That "the earth was without from, and void" has led some to speculate that the author, borrowing from neighboring religions' ideas, had Elohim make stuff out of primeval or primordial matter.

As far as I recall, nowhere in the Bible does it state that everything came from nothing. It was Christian attempt, I think, to marry Greek philosophy and justify that God is above and beyond all -- and therefore before God "created" there was nothing -- that these ideas arose.

Sometimes the verse that says God made everything, both "visible and invisible" is used to justify "out of nothing". But, of course, that which is invisible is not nothing.

Nevertheless, you are correct that that is the usual Christian assertion and that gradyll should answer for it.

 

[Belk]

it is an exceptional claim, I agree. But no others explain why we are here in existence, and why there is pain and suffering and a whole host of other things that God answers.

Unmitigated poppycock. Everything from a completely naturalistic beginning to American Indian nature myths explain it just as well.

 

[createdtoworship]

Well to be fair, Genesis never says God made anything at all ex nihilo. It says, In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth. Then goes on to specify the order. That "the earth was without from, and void" has led some to speculate that the author, borrowing from neighboring religions' ideas, had Elohim make stuff out of primeval or primordial matter.

As far as I recall, nowhere in the Bible does it state that everything came from nothing. It was Christian attempt, I think, to marry Greek philosophy and justify that God is above and beyond all -- and therefore before God "created" there was nothing -- that these ideas arose.

Sometimes the verse that says God made everything, both "visible and invisible" is used to justify "out of nothing". But, of course, that which is invisible is not nothing.

Nevertheless, you are correct that that is the usual Christian assertion and that gradyll should answer for it.

genesis 1:1 means in hebrew = bara = created out of nothing

 

[createdtoworship]

Unmitigated poppycock. Everything from a completely naturalistic beginning to American Indian nature myths explain it just as well.

why there is pain, and why we are here, and why we die?

nada

 

[Non sequitur]

You put too much stock in the scientific method my friend. Scientists don't even put as much stock into as you do. In fact, what you are espousing is more or less "scientism" than anything.

I guess you also do not understand that when you assert: "something must be subject to the rigorous standards of the scientific method in order for it to be proven true or false or plausible as opposed to implausible", you are forgetting that the scientific method itself cannot even be verified scientifically. To do so would be arguing in a circle. So please I would encourage you to just relax, and try to understand your own position a little more thouroghly before you attempt to discredit someone else's.

So, being able to test, demonstrate and falsify (which got us things like penicillin)... is not the best and only way to know something. Awesome.

What is a better method than testing, demonstrating and falsifying?

 

[Tinker Grey]

genesis 1:1 means in hebrew = bara = created out of nothing

Here you go: From Did God Create from nothing?

Allen P. Ross says
"The word bara (‘created’) may express creation out of nothing, but it certainly cannot be limited to that (cf. 2:7). Rather, it stresses that what was formed was new and perfect. The word is used throughout the Bible only with God as its subject." [Ref. 4 p. 28]


Thomas E. McComiskey says:
"The root bara has the basic meaning ‘to create’. It differs from yasar ‘to fashion’ in that the latter primarily emphasizes the shaping of an object while bara emphasizes the initiation of the object" [Ref. 1:127-128]


Kyle Yates commentary:
"Created (bara) is a verb used exclusively of God. Man could not reach up to the powers inherent in this word, for it describes full miracle. By the sovereign, originative power of God something absolutely new was brought into being."[Ref. 5 p. 2]


Bruce K. Waltke comments:
"created (bara). ... Although many verbs denote God’s activity of bringing creation into existence, bara distinguishes itself by being used exclusively of God. His creation reveals his immeasurable power and might, his bewildering imagination and wisdom, his immortality and transcendence, ultimately leaving the finite mortal in mystery. The earth endures in part because it is brought into existence through God’s wisdom, which entails his righteousness." [Ref. 7 p. 58-59]

Matthew Henry’s commentary:
"God created, that is made it out of nothing; there was not any pre-existent matter out of which the world was produced." [Ref. 10 p. 1:2]


Vine’s comments:
"The verb bara expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: ... (Gen. 1:1; cf. Gen. 2:3; Isa. 40:26; 42:5)" [Ref. 3 p. 51]

Thus it is not clear at all that "out of nothing" is what the author intended. Also, note that Genesis 1:27 says that God bara Man, Male and Female created (bara) he them. Yet Genesis 2 says he created Adam out of dust and Eve from Adam's rib. Not "nothing" at all. So that is either a contradiction or the author is using the word in different ways (leaving it to the reader to discern) or the author never meant "out of nothing".

I submit that the concept "out of nothing" would not have existed when Genesis was written.

 

[Tinker Grey]

See also this from Randy Alcorn's website: Please explain your interchangeable use of the Hebrew words bara (creation ex nihilo) and asah (making from what already exists) - Resources - Eternal Perspective Ministries

Answer from Randy Alcorn:

Bara is used of man’s creation, which is not ex nihilo but out of the earth (Gen. 1:26, 5:1, etc.). So the word is NOT restricted to making something out of nothing (as is often stated), but includes making something out of what already exists. Just because it was used as ex nihilo the first time, in Genesis 1:1, does not require that meaning to be read in to subsequent passages. Context, not any inherent limitation of the word bara, is the key.

Another example: bara is used in Isaiah 41:19-20 in reference to God creating pine, myrtle and olive trees, etc., and it’s a present tense reference. This means God says he “bara”ed trees which actually came from the ground, from seeds, etc. Clearly He is not saying he created those trees from nothing. In fact, even the first trees, in Genesis 1, he brought out of the ground, which preexisted them.

Hebrew and Greek words are very elastic and potential meanings are considerable, just as they are in English. The context usually shows these meanings. What bara always means is “created” or “made” and sometimes that means created out of nothing and other times it means made out of what already exists. So I don’t think it is inconsistent to believe both that God created the original universe out of nothing, and that he will make or remake the new earth out of components that already exist from his original creation (no matter to what degree those components have been reduced through the destruction described in 2 Peter 3).

 

[createdtoworship]

Here you go: From Did God Create from nothing?


Thus it is not clear at all that "out of nothing" is what the author intended. Also, note that Genesis 1:27 says that God bara Man, Male and Female created (bara) he them. Yet Genesis 2 says he created Adam out of dust and Eve from Adam's rib. Not "nothing" at all. So that is either a contradiction or the author is using the word in different ways (leaving it to the reader to discern) or the author never meant "out of nothing".

I submit that the concept "out of nothing" would not have existed when Genesis was written.

"it was used as ex nihilo the first time, in Genesis 1:1, does not require that meaning to be read in to subsequent passages."

so He agrees, it was ex nihilo the first time.

 

[Dave Ellis]

why there is pain, and why we are here, and why we die?

nada

How does that address his point at all?

 

[Non sequitur]

*mind blown*

 

[createdtoworship]

How does that address his point at all?

I gave three solid examples of the superiority of Christianity to other religions.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I gave three solid examples of the superiority of Christianity to other religions.

You didn't give any examples, you asked him three questions.

Regardless, the fact that we're here and experience pain and death in no way tie to Christianity over anything else.

In fact, it could be, and often is used as an argument against Christianity. Refer to "The Problem of Evil" argument.

 

[Tinker Grey]

"it was used as ex nihilo the first time, in Genesis 1:1, does not require that meaning to be read in to subsequent passages."

so He agrees, it was ex nihilo the first time.

This wiki page (Ex nihilo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) indicates that the idea of Creatio ex nihilo didn't become a thing until the 2nd century AD.

That the word could mean that, it need not and appears likely that it doesn't.

I should note that I quoted from Christian websites to minimize the question of bias. That bara could mean "ex nihilo" the first time doesn't mean that this is what was meant.

As noted in my earlier post there are 3 possibilities: 1) There is a contradiction, 2) the author used the word inconsistently though legitimately (and thus you cannot know what he meant), and 3) he didn't use the word to ever mean "out of nothing" -- possibly because the concept didn't exist.

 

[Eudaimonist]

do you believe something created the universe, or that it came from nothing?

Neither. That's a false alternative.

My view is that the universe (in the general sense of physical reality) is uncreated, and existed at the very beginning of time/change.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[someguy14]

Every beginning has an ending.

 

[quatona]

it is an exceptional claim, I agree. But no others explain why we are here in existence

An exceptional claim is not an explanation, to begin with.
Again: If we allow for exceptional claims to be accepted as explanation there are plenty of other options to "explain" everything.