My Research Challenge Re Creatio Ex Nihilo

[AV1611VET]

How does one research creatio ex nihilo?

By not understanding it.

Here's a post I made to you months ago:

That's because you don't know what "the test" is.

So you can ACT like scientists have checked into the Creation Week and found it lacking in data.

When in fact, they don't even know what to look for.

That's why I started a challenge thread on what they should look for.

Ion trail? plasma cloud? microwave background? time crystals? what exactly?

Post 2836

 

[dlamberth]

By not understanding it.

Here's a post I made to you months ago:

That's because you don't know what "the test" is.

So you can ACT like scientists have checked into the Creation Week and found it lacking in data.

When in fact, they don't even know what to look for.

That's why I started a challenge thread on what they should look for.

Ion trail? plasma cloud? microwave background? time crystals? what exactly?

Post 2836

In reading your reply I take it that you also have no idea on how to research creatio ex nihilo. Yet you insist that it be researched.

 

[AV1611VET]

In reading your reply I take it that you also have no idea on how to research creatio ex nihilo. Yet you insist that it be researched.

I do?

 

[eleos1954]

I always like the story of the sons of the prophets who insisted they go look for Elijah.

2 Kings 2:15 And when the sons of the prophets which were to view at Jericho saw him, they said, The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha. And they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the ground before him.
16 And they said unto him, Behold now, there be with thy servants fifty strong men; let them go, we pray thee, and seek thy master: lest peradventure the Spirit of the LORD hath taken him up, and cast him upon some mountain, or into some valley. And he said, Ye shall not send.
17 And when they urged him till he was ashamed, he said, Send. They sent therefore fifty men; and they sought three days, but found him not.
18 And when they came again to him, (for he tarried at Jericho,) he said unto them, Did I not say unto you, Go not?

I can also envision a search party being sent out for Enoch.

Genesis 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

ESP and other phenomena were researched in the '70s and found wanting.

And it looks like creatio ex nihilo was researched in the past, but people don't seem to want to admit it.

Perhaps, unlike Enoch and Elijah, the results for creatio ex nihilo (a.k.a., the CEN Theory) are too embarrassing to publish?



Based on research?



Maybe you should look around some more? do more research, before you make a doosey of a statement like this?



So do I.

That "something" is God.

And when He spake -- (you know, vocal cords and all) -- He called into existence the first thing in the universe with mass/energy: the earth.

Then, over a six-day period, called the rest of the universe into existence up around the earth, raising the level of mass/energy accordingly.

Despite what the First Law of Thermodynamics says.

Thats the point .... with creation there was something .... that being God (the source of all knowledge)

with CEN the universe kicked off from nothing

One article on CEN
Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo.

Most of us, when we talk about nothing, refer to a state where the thing we're referring to doesn't yet exist. But absolute nothingness, where space, time, and/or the laws of physics don't exist, is only a philosophical construct, without physical meaning.

scientific ideas must not only be testable, but must actually be tested .... how would this be done with CEN concept? How do you test nothing?

So it seems to me .... if one is willing to believe the CEN concept ( philosophical construct) .... then why wouldn't they be willing to believe in a creator?

Knowledge and information requires a mind.

Knowledge is the knowing of something (awareness/understanding), and information is what you can (or can't) know. Information is an abstract concept.

Abstract concepts do not require facts and that is what CEN is.

 

[AV1611VET]

So it seems to me .... if one is willing to believe the CEN concept ( philosophical construct) .... then why wouldn't they be willing to believe in a creator?

Now you got it!

Get science out of the way, and you are one [major] step closer to believing in God.

 

[dlamberth]

Get science out of the way, and you are one [major] step closer to believing in God.

Not necessarily true. It is because of Science that I do believe in God. That's because science has opened a window into how God Creates. If anything, religion has gotten into the way of my belief in God.

 

[dlamberth]

By not understanding it.

Here's a post I made to you months ago:

That's because you don't know what "the test" is.

So you can ACT like scientists have checked into the Creation Week and found it lacking in data.

When in fact, they don't even know what to look for.

That's why I started a challenge thread on what they should look for.

Ion trail? plasma cloud? microwave background? time crystals? what exactly?

Post 2836

So...what is one to look for???

You still have not said.

 

[sjastro]

Now you got it!

Get science out of the way, and you are one [major] step closer to believing in God.

No you and @eleos1954 definitely don't get it.
This "CEN theory" evolves into the BB model where the BB occurred 14 billion years ago and the Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago.
It has nothing to do with YEC or your nonsense of the Earth being created first and everything else followed.

 

[AV1611VET]

This "CEN theory" ...

... is one of the answers to #2 in my challenge.

 

[sjastro]

... is one of the answers to #2 in my challenge.

No it doesn't answer your question, if you had bothered to read the link the term "nothing" has a different context to what you think it is.

Therefore, we adopt the vision of a “flash of Universe appearing from nothing” [2], assuming that the starting phase of the Universe adheres with the “principle of ignorance,” and that “singularity is the ultimate unknowable, and therefore should be totally devoid of information” [3].

The BB equivalent to this is the Planck time when the Universe was no older than 10⁻⁴³ s and small enough to behave quantum mechanically where the laws of physics breakdown as scientists are struggling to explain gravity at such small scales.
Like the CEN theory, the Planck time is devoid of information, the energy levels of this epoch are way beyond anything a particle accelerator can probe, it is not about absolute nothingness.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Now you got it!

Get science out of the way, and you are one [major] step closer to believing in God.

Then that defeats the object of researching it from a scientific standpoint then.

You've set us up to fail.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then that defeats the object of researching it from a scientific standpoint then.

Did scientists take that into consideration 200 years ago?

You've set us up to fail.

You mean when I claim creatio ex nihilo isn't science: it's a series of one miracle after another that raised the level of mass/energy in the universe from zero to its current level over a period of six days?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Did scientists take that into consideration 200 years ago?

That's the thing though: they tried to find scientific explanations for the less mundane and natural things they knew of.

You mean when I claim creatio ex nihilo isn't science: it's a series of one miracle after another that raised the level of mass/energy in the universe from zero to its current level over a period of six days?

I think you very much know well what I'm talking about when I say that you've set people up to fail when I quote you saying:
"Now you got it!

Get science out of the way, and you are one [major] step closer to believing in God."

 

[Mountainmike]

I'm not aware of any research into it... but it would be hypothetically researchable if there was a cooperative source of it.

If someone who was capable of creating ex nihilo wanted to demonstrate the effect to scientists it would be trivial to organise... it hasn't happened, so either creation ex nihilo doesn't happen or its source has no interest in demonstrating it.

Some of us would argue with “ whether it happened “ and so is indeed researchable .
But you do highlight a limitation of the scope of science And the models so created.

It is a process that does not work very well , if it relies on anything with free will to cooperate or not.
Add “ wants to repeat” to the normal requirements as entry points to science of “ can be repeated “ or “ does repeat Normally”

 

[Mountainmike]

That's the thing though: they tried to find scientific explanations for the less mundane and natural things they knew of.



I think you very much know well what I'm talking about when I say that you've set people up to fail when I quote you saying:
"Now you got it!

Get science out of the way, and you are one [major] step closer to believing in God."

That is easily reversible.
Get God out of the way and you are one major step closer to belief in scientism.

Science is just a model of the observable and repeatable In your sensor space . it is limited.
There is no basis to believe all is observable Indeed science presumes it is not. The add the problems of non repeatability , the question of objectivity , even lack of determinism.

Our modern world has invented a strange God called science.
If only most knew how limited it was.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That is easily reversible.
Get God out of the way and you are one major step closer to belief in scientism.

Science is just a model of the observable and repeatable In your sensor space . it is limited.
There is no basis to believe all is observable Indeed science presumes it is not. The add the problems of non repeatability , the question of objectivity , even lack of determinism.

Our modern world has invented a strange God called science.
If only most knew how limited it was.

I like how you make the point to agree that yes, science can only be used to study the observable. But then you completely swing into lunacy by trying to turn science into a religion.

 

[AV1611VET]

Our modern world has invented a strange God called science.

The Bible portrays Egypt as a type of the world.

And given that Satan has an infrastructure of fallen angels set up here, I submit he has Thoth in charge of teaching science in our classrooms today.

HOWEVER

If Satan is using the muses to teach the world science, then I submit he has Urania in charge.

If only most knew how limited it was.

When the Rapture occurs, and the Holy Ghost is taken out of the way, all science is going to break out on the earth, and people are going to be deceived into taking the Mark.

Satan is even going to make an image come to life, probably as a demonstration of abiogenesis.

 

[AV1611VET]

But then you completely swing into lunacy by trying to turn science into a religion.

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.

While the term was defined originally to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to natural scientists", some scholars have also adopted it as a pejorative term with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)".

SOURCE

I read it this way:

Scientism is the doctrine that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.

While the term was defined originally to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to natural scientists", some scholars adopted it as meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)".

 

[Mountainmike]

I like how you make the point to agree that yes, science can only be used to study the observable. But then you completely swing into lunacy by trying to turn science into a religion.

Read the words I Used.
Scientism is indeed a belief .
Science is a tool of limited scope.

Yet scientism makes science , the foundation Of the universe,
not what it really is - a suit of clothes that touches and fits only the bits we can see.

Scientism is A strange God that makes an idol of science. .

Too often , scientism provokes atheists into promoting ideas way beyond true status.
Conjecture becomes hypothesis or theory.

eg There is no hypothesis for Abiogenesis and both the first cell(s) and evolutin to present minimum cells are an unknown. But that’s not what you read in supposed science books that now have become scientism.
What is gravity? Where did it come from? Who knows? We know only the pattern in what it normally does.
To promote it from observation pattern to explanation of the universe is scientism.

Science is a tool. Like a hammer. or a meter.
It is strange to make a hammer a God, the centre around which all rotates,

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Scientism is the opinion

Opinion. Noted.

Not doctrine, as you like to claim, but opinion.