Creation ex nihilo challenge

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, so? That would be neither "nothing creating something" nor "something created something".

Well I suppose but to claim the universe was eternal would go against all current scientific evidence. So it really is a moot point.

 

[Delphiki]

Wouldn't this suggest an eternal creator?

It would suggest that there isn't even a beginning, so not at all.

 

[justlookinla]

No. Why would you think it would?

Maybe it doesn't. But if not, then an eternal nothing created something from nothing.

 

[justlookinla]

It would suggest that there isn't even a beginning, so not at all.

It would suggest a nothing, or something, either being eternal.

 

[Delphiki]

It would suggest a nothing, or something, either being eternal.

The latter. Yes.

 

[justlookinla]

The latter. Yes.

Something?

 

[Delphiki]

Something?

Yes. Another logically possible model would be a universe that has simply always existed. It would mean that everything wasn't created to begin with. There's not really evidence to support it, though. However, technically, anything that would hypothetically existed before the big bang would still be considered the universe, whether it was a cause, a deity, or neither... So in this case, the universe would have just always existed.

 

[Queller]

Well I suppose but to claim the universe was eternal would go against all current scientific evidence. So it really is a moot point.

No actually it doesn't because at this time we have no evidence of what came before the Big Bang. Creationists assume that there was nothing, but that is only an assumption. We don't know.

 

[Queller]

Maybe it doesn't. But if not, then an eternal nothing created something from nothing.

If the universe is eternal then something always existed. It simply changed forms.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well I suppose but to claim the universe was eternal would go against all current scientific evidence. So it really is a moot point.

Saying that trees emerged on the Earth before the Sun appeared would also go against all current scientific evidence, and yet that is what the Bible says happened.

 

[Loudmouth]

Plants before the Cambrian evidence:

No fruit trees, no grasses, no flowering plants at all . . .

Also, they appear after the Sun.

 

[justlookinla]

Yes. Another logically possible model would be a universe that has simply always existed. It would mean that everything wasn't created to begin with. There's not really evidence to support it, though. However, technically, anything that would hypothetically existed before the big bang would still be considered the universe, whether it was a cause, a deity, or neither... So in this case, the universe would have just always existed.

Then one's faith is placed in either nothing, which has always existed, and produced something, or something, which has always existed and produced something?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No actually it doesn't because at this time we have no evidence of what came before the Big Bang. Creationists assume that there was nothing, but that is only an assumption. We don't know.

Fair enough but knowing the physics of our universe and the fact that they were not present until the universe came into being, it would have had to have a beginning. It may be a part of a infinite cycle of universes but then what started the first universe that spawned ours and others?

 

[justlookinla]

If the universe is eternal then something always existed. It simply changed forms.

It sure seems that something has always existed. The 'cause' of everything?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No fruit trees, no grasses, no flowering plants at all . . .

Also, they appear after the Sun.

Right, I am under construction right now. Studying the Hebrew to determine some issues that RickG has provided me and so I have to research more.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It sure seems that something has always existed. The 'cause' of everything?

Something...had to.

 

[Queller]

Fair enough but knowing the physics of our universe and the fact that they were not present until the universe came into being, it would have had to have a beginning.

That does not follow. If the universe has always existed then the laws of physics have always existed.

It may be a part of a infinite cycle of universes but then what started the first universe that spawned ours and others?

What others? The multiverse hypothesis is still just that.

 

[Rubiks]

What's wrong with the idea of a god, who lives outside space and time, which didn't exist yet, decides to create the universe? I know people are going to object to me and say prove God exists, but that isn't the point of this thread. the point is to show merely how it is possible

 

[AV1611VET]

If the universe has always existed then the laws of physics have always existed.

Did these laws of physics exist when the universe was half-done @ the end of Day Three?

 

[Queller]

It sure seems that something has always existed. The 'cause' of everything?

Why is that scenario acceptable for you for God but not for the universe?