What Specific Evidence Should Point To Ex Nihilo Creation?

[AV1611VET]

I have read it. It's not "meticulous documentation." It's a narrative written in the literary form of a legendary story.

Let's stop playing games.

Is it meticulous, or isn't it?

I don't think you know the difference.

 

[Norbert L]

Evidence doesn't wander off, particularly when there's an (apparently) all-powerful god involved. Evidence being removed, hidden, or disguised - whichever deception you want to pick the conclusion is still dishonesty. You may not want to attribute character traits, but if the perpetrator displays such traits what should you conclude?

I would conclude there is one different way for hidden evidence to go unnoticed which is unrelated to having a person con everyone. Yes I agree, it can be similar but that's not what I'm arguing for. It's more about what is known and unknown about how science is used to calculate things like the Big Bang.

Seems physicists are aware that using present technologies for experiments to determine the age of the universe have limitations. They're missing the first few nano seconds before the event. It's absent, nothing is showing itself.

To use a cat in the box analogy. You're told there is a cat in a box but that is all. You don't know if it's alive or dead. You decide to open the box and discover it's empty. Most people would jump to the conclusion that someone took it or it was a con, however it's also possible that it was actually never there for the person to observe. It's absence is evidence that the knowledge of what happened to it is so far unattainable. So what am I arguing for and where am I going with this?

I'll go with the evolutionary process, that mankind is also evolving in intelligence and not merely about having two opposable thumbs.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll go with the evolutionary process, that mankind is also evolving in intelligence and not merely about having two opposable thumbs.

"Evolving," or "growing"?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Perhaps they know the difference between divine cleanup and "wise-men" cleanup?

Perhaps... but probably not.

 

[BPPLEE]

In essence the Big Bang theory is about the evolution of the universe not its creation so there is no overlap between the two.
This is beside the point as I was describing the disingenuous nature of the poster of once again trying to turn the thread into a science and scientist bashing post (which I should take personally if I took him very seriously).

If the poster did a bit of research he would know cosmologists have very little understanding of what happened at the original Big Bang (as opposed to the Hot Big Bang which occurred after the inflation era) as the laws of physics breakdown at the Planck scale which they are honest enough to admit contrary to the accusations.

So is it safe to say that we just don't know?

 

[TLK Valentine]

It's called "clean up."

The smart criminals do it at crime scenes to avoid detection...
... but they're rarely smart enough.

Do you know now why we [allegedly] have nothing?

Because you wouldn't deign to worship anything you thought was smarter than yourself?

Or do you need it further explained?

Nah... I see what you're peddling -- now I'm waiting to hear the price.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps... but probably not.

You wouldn't know how to grade their papers, would you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Nah... I see what you're peddling -- now I'm waiting to hear the price.

Take my word for it: it's priceless.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Question: Would you rather have God clean up after Katrina, or let us do it ourselves?

I'd rather have the One responsible do the cleanup... it's a moral issue; don't worry about it.

I have a feeling that, had God cleaned up after Katrina like He did the Flood, you guys wouldn't be so quick to label Him "deceptive."

It would be an improvement to see Him clean up the mess He made... for a change.

 

[AV1611VET]

It would be an improvement to see Him clean up the mess He made... for a change.

So why would a world-wide flood be deceptive, whereas a city-wide flood would be an improvement?

 

[AV1611VET]

Because you wouldn't deign to worship anything you thought was smarter than yourself?

The fact that you keep equating me with God as an attempt to rile me into stop making points you can't understand isn't working.

They mistook Paul and Barnabas for gods, but they didn't do it on purpose.

Their ignorance was genuine -- yours, I think, is fake.

(And that's giving you credit, as I'm getting the impression you seriously can't tell the difference between genuine and fake, when it comes to things in the Bible.)

 

[AV1611VET]

The fact that you keep equating me with God as an attempt to rile me into stop making points you can't understand isn't working.

They mistook Paul and Barnabas for gods, but they didn't do it on purpose.

Their ignorance was genuine -- yours, I think, is fake.

(And that's giving you credit, as I'm getting the impression you seriously can't tell the difference between genuine and fake, when it comes to things in the Bible.)

Another thing I think stunts you guys' perception of the Bible, is the fact that you deny (or question) the tripartite nature of man.

In doing so, it causes you (plural) to assume that Adam should have died physically the day he ate of the forbidden fruit.

When he didn't, that causes you guys to question the veracity of the Bible right from the get go.

Just like the serpent did to Eve.

To alleviate this "problem," you relegate the first ten chapters of Genesis to the status of myth, legend, lie, fable, fairy tale, or anything else but what it is.

And from there, it just snowballs.

I submit that the denial of the tripartite nature of man is one of the biggest problems that leads to academically-generated atheism there is.

 

[ottawak]

Let's stop playing games.

Is it meticulous, or isn't it?

I don't think
you know the difference.

Meticulous: showing great attention to detail; very careful and precise.

The flood story is certainly not that. As for documentation, there isn't any. All we have is the narrative.

 

[AV1611VET]

Meticulous: showing great attention to detail; very careful and precise.

The flood story is certainly not that. As for documentation, there isn't any. All we have is the narrative.

Fair enough.

This:

And there God apparently made a mistake, because He did not meticulously document it.

... can take a hike then.

I submit you wouldn't know it if He did.

What more should He have added to the narrative to add meticulousity to it? time of day?

 

[ottawak]

Fair enough.

This:
... can take a hike then.

I submit you wouldn't know it if He did.

What more should He have added to the narrative to add meticulousity to it? time of day?

What documentation supports the narrative? By itself, it's just a vague and unsubstantiated story.

 

[AV1611VET]

What documentation supports the narrative? By itself, it's just a vague and unsubstantiated story.

There are sixty-five other books of the Bible that support Genesis in one way or another.

That's more than twice the thirty-two volume set of the Encyclopædia Britannica that cross-references itself.

In addition, Jesus supports the narratives of Genesis as well.

(He should -- since He wrote it.)

 

[ottawak]

There are sixty-five other books of the Bible that support Genesis in one way or another.

That's more than twice the thirty-two volume set of the Encyclopædia Britannica that cross-references itself.

In addition, Jesus supports the narratives of Genesis as well.

(He should -- since He wrote it.)

Adding more unsupported assumptions doesn't help your case.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

NOW do you see the difference between God cleaning up something, and mankind doing it?

I do. But you don't appear to see the difference between creating a world and cleaning up after a flood. That explains a lot.

Question: Would you rather have God clean up after Katrina, or let us do it ourselves?

I have a feeling that, had God cleaned up after Katrina like He did the Flood, you guys wouldn't be so quick to label Him "deceptive."

Irrelevant when we're talking about creation ex-nihilo.

 

[AV1611VET]

Adding more unsupported assumptions doesn't help your case.

How would you know if they were supported or not?

Just because they don't carry the official Seal of Academia,* doesn't mean they aren't supported.

* And don't ask me to post it: I don't want to get moderated.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I would conclude there is one different way for hidden evidence to go unnoticed which is unrelated to having a person con everyone. Yes I agree, it can be similar but that's not what I'm arguing for. It's more about what is known and unknown about how science is used to calculate things like the Big Bang.

Seems physicists are aware that using present technologies for experiments to determine the age of the universe have limitations. They're missing the first few nano seconds before the event. It's absent, nothing is showing itself.

To use a cat in the box analogy. You're told there is a cat in a box but that is all. You don't know if it's alive or dead. You decide to open the box and discover it's empty. Most people would jump to the conclusion that someone took it or it was a con, however it's also possible that it was actually never there for the person to observe. It's absence is evidence that the knowledge of what happened to it is so far unattainable. So what am I arguing for and where am I going with this?

I'll go with the evolutionary process, that mankind is also evolving in intelligence and not merely about having two opposable thumbs.

The absence of the cat demonstrates either dishonesty on the part of the person making the claim or a lack of care on their part that they didn't notice somebody removing the cat. So, to finish your analogy, is God dishonest or is he careless and not omniscient, and therefore dishonest in making claims that he is omniscient?