Creation ex nihilo challenge

[Delphiki]

I said made visible.

To whom?

And you know that things are visible because they emit, reflect, refract, or block light, don't you?

 

[Oncedeceived]

To whom?

And you know that things are visible because they emit, reflect, refract, or block light, don't you?

Your point?

 

[Delphiki]

Then why did you ask "Revealed to whom?" And say "He (God) is
the only entity that exists at that point".

Because God is the only sentient thing that exists throughout day 4 of the creation myth. Adam was created on day 6. He was the first sentient thing other than God in the creation myth. There is nobody to "show" the sun and stars to. Now, I know you Christian creationists just LOOOOVE mangling your own holy book to make it mean what you want to mean (which is, in itself against your own holy book), but this discussion is straying off topic, and you are not Aman777.

So, let's get back to the part where you try to demonstrate that something can be created ex nihilo.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because God is the only sentient thing that exists throughout day 4 of the creation myth. Adam was created on day 6. He was the first sentient thing other than God in the creation myth. There is nobody to "show" the sun and stars to. Now, I know you Christian creationists just LOOOOVE mangling your own holy book to make it mean what you want to mean (which is, in itself against your own holy book), but this discussion is straying off topic, and you are not Aman777.

So, let's get back to the part where you try to demonstrate that something can be created ex nihilo.

The sun is important to life. The sun was needed before mankind could see it. It was important for the atmosphere to be as it was for life to take off.

However, I am fine with moving back to the original challenge although, there is nowhere for it to go. IMHO.

 

[Queller]

So if I am following you, you are claiming that the laws of physics take cycles of existing and then not existing?

No you are not following me if you think I am claiming that. I said the universe and the physical laws may have always existed; as opposed to existing then not existing. In fact, what you are asking is the exact opposite of what I'm hypothesizing.

 

[Queller]

This is why I'm KJVO: to avoid mistakes like you just made here.

That's not a mistake, even by KJVO standards.

 

[Delphiki]

The sun is important to life. The sun was needed before mankind could see it. It was important for the atmosphere to be as it was for life to take off.

And yet, according to the creation myth, there was life before the sun too...

However, I am fine with moving back to the original challenge although, there is nowhere for it to go. IMHO.

Ok, then let's see it.

 

[Queller]

This is so funny, that is exactly what I am being lead to right now. That the universe was complete with the sun in the beginning and the passage on day four is when the atmosphere clears and the heavenly bodies are visible.

Except that is not what the Bible says.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

This clearly states that the lights were created on Day 4, not simply made visible. Now, as it happens, I think this is describing the process exactly as you state, the atmosphere cleared enough for heavenly bodies to be visible, but let's not kid ourselves that we can come to that understanding using a literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

[Queller]

We both agree that the universe hasn't always existed though, don't we?

No, we don't. I don't see how you can come to that conclusion about what I may or may not believe based on what I have written.

"The universe may have always existed" (what I hypothesized) is the exact opposite of "the universe hasn't always existed" (what you are claiming I believe).

But, if the universe was the something that has always existed, wouldn't the conclusion be that the universe is the 'cause' of everything.

No, the conclusion would be that the universe already contained everything.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No you are not following me if you think I am claiming that. I said the universe and the physical laws may have always existed; as opposed to existing then not existing. In fact, what you are asking is the exact opposite of what I'm hypothesizing.

We have evidence that the laws of physics did not exist prior to the Big Bang.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, we don't. I don't see how you can come to that conclusion about what I may or may not believe based on what I have written.

"The universe may have always existed" (what I hypothesized) is the exact opposite of "the universe hasn't always existed" (what you are claiming I believe).

No, the conclusion would be that the universe already contained everything.

Ok so what do you provide as evidence for the universe always existing?

 

[justlookinla]

No, we don't. I don't see how you can come to that conclusion about what I may or may not believe based on what I have written.

"The universe may have always existed" (what I hypothesized) is the exact opposite of "the universe hasn't always existed" (what you are claiming I believe).

No, the conclusion would be that the universe already contained everything.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. We then have an eternal creator, the universe.

 

[Queller]

I said made visible.

Pointless quibbling over irrelevant semantic differences. There is no functional difference between "revealed" and "made visible".

 

[Queller]

We have evidence that the laws of physics did not exist prior to the Big Bang.

Great. Post a source.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Pointless quibbling over irrelevant semantic differences. There is no functional difference between "revealed" and "made visible".

Really? Is a tree visible in a forest if no one is there to see it?

 

[Queller]

Ok, thanks for the clarification. We then have an eternal creator, the universe.

At this point I think you are deliberately misconstruing what I am saying. I said the universe as always existed. "The universe" includes everything in the universe.

 

[Queller]

Really? Is a tree visible in a forest if no one is there to see it?

Is a tree in a forest obscured by fog revealed when the fog dissipates if there is no one there to see it?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Great. Post a source.

What came before the big bang? - Boing Boing

 

[Oncedeceived]

Is a tree in a forest obscured by fog revealed when the fog dissipates if there is no one there to see it?

I would say yes. Why wouldn't you?

 

[justlookinla]

At this point I think you are deliberately misconstruing what I am saying. I said the universe as always existed. "The universe" includes everything in the universe.

No, I'm not deliberately misconstruing what you're saying, it's just that I'm not clear on what you're saying.

I don't think you're claiming that the universe is more than 14-15 billion years old, are you?