L
LightSeaker
Guest
In Creato Ex Deo...God IS mass, energy, time, space, location AND everything else. But as to the question posed in the OP...so what?
Upvote
0
Ex Nihilo Creation, the Big Bang Theory, and the First Law of Thermodynamics
- Thread starter AV1611VET
- Start date
The only position of any certainty is that we do not know. Arguing over scripture and semantics is no doubt endlessly fascinating, but ultimately leads to the same position as I stated above.
Upvote
0
Nathan Poe
Well-Known Member
Actually, that's according to your attempt to apply scientific principles to a literal reading of Genesis 1.
In an act of ex nihilo creation, something comes from nothing -- that's all.
I'm sure there were plenty of things that didn't exist in Genesis 1 -- so what?
Upvote
0
corvus_corax
Naclist Hierophant and Prophet
Forget the Hebrew?
FORGET the Hebrew?
AHEM..........YOU brought it up.
You did it.
You cannot forget (or ignore) the Hebrew.
YOU brought it up.
As you have time and again (please keep in mind, I accurately quoted you regarding this subject instead of just throwing out some "Hebrew is bad says AV stuff")
Last edited:
Upvote
0
corvus_corax
Naclist Hierophant and Prophet
Which is exactly what he's saying.
Keep in mind, I don't agree with his science, but his theology......?
I dunno how to disagree with him or 'dad' regarding personal interpretation and theology.
You might have a better time of that than me.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,012
- 51,483
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,012
- 51,483
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
It shows that the First Law of Thermodynamics was not present when the earth and the sun and the stars and the moon were created.
If fact, plants and animals were in existence before the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics were put in place.
This universe was quite a bit different back in Genesis 1.
I wonder if the Sun was even yellow.
Upvote
0
WilliamduBois
BenderBendingRodriguez
- Mar 11, 2006
- 252
- 9
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
In fact, plants where there before the sun. Guess photosynthesis was put in later as well, huh?
Quite different. Perhaps the sun was a spotted purple?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,012
- 51,483
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Ya --- make your jokes.
And you guys wonder why you don't understand anything.Isaiah 57:4a said:
Upvote
0
AV you didn't fully answer my question, you talk about Ex Nihilo creation and I was hoping that you would provide some passages that clearly talk about Ex Nihilo creation.
Genesis 1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" for example doesn't really say anything about Ex Nihilo. Maybe there was already some particle X right there and god used those to create the heaven and the earth...
Afterall, god always existed. Maybe particle X (god particles if you like) also always existed and god simply used them.
Can you name a few passages that clearly contradict this or is your assumption that Genesis 1 is about Ex Nihilo creation just that.. an assumption?
- Ectezus
Genesis 1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" for example doesn't really say anything about Ex Nihilo. Maybe there was already some particle X right there and god used those to create the heaven and the earth...
Afterall, god always existed. Maybe particle X (god particles if you like) also always existed and god simply used them.
Can you name a few passages that clearly contradict this or is your assumption that Genesis 1 is about Ex Nihilo creation just that.. an assumption?
- Ectezus
Upvote
0
WilliamduBois
BenderBendingRodriguez
- Mar 11, 2006
- 252
- 9
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
I don't care about what Bible-verses could be applied to me... but alright:
In all seriousness then: do you agree that photosynthesis was added later?
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,012
- 51,483
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Let's go over this again, Ectezus:
- Assuming "particle x" = assuming creatio ex materia.
- Assuming creatio ex materia = not the topic of this thread.
If you care to address the OP --- as I wrote it --- w/o changing the words --- feel free to do so.
I know you want me to answer your queries as you wrote them --- do you mind if I expect the same?
Upvote
0
ragarth
Well-Known Member
First off, the big bang and expansion theory make no claims as to what existed before the big bang, in other words, they describe the expansion of the universe from moment 0, not what existed before moment 0, therefore we can extract no information from these theories on the state of mass and energy before these theories. Indeed, the Herschell satellite is designed to give us some answers on what existed before the big bang, I'm really excited. ^^
2nd, even if you had valid proof that the laws of thermodynamics didn't hold during the big bang, you propose no alternative laws governing these first few moments. You're argument appears to be the mass+energy of the universe *didn't need to* remain constant, which is very different than *cannot have* remained constant. Since we are assuming that big bang+expansion requires a constant amount of matter+energy, a constant state can exist within a *didn't need to* but cannot within a *cannot*.
Just because something doesn't need to be such a way does not mean that it is not that way.
Since god is hypothetically capable of maintaining a constant total of mass+energy in the universe as he is capable of giving it a random flux, we cannot extrapolate from his mere existence and capabilities anything of value about the big bang.
2nd, even if you had valid proof that the laws of thermodynamics didn't hold during the big bang, you propose no alternative laws governing these first few moments. You're argument appears to be the mass+energy of the universe *didn't need to* remain constant, which is very different than *cannot have* remained constant. Since we are assuming that big bang+expansion requires a constant amount of matter+energy, a constant state can exist within a *didn't need to* but cannot within a *cannot*.
Just because something doesn't need to be such a way does not mean that it is not that way.
Since god is hypothetically capable of maintaining a constant total of mass+energy in the universe as he is capable of giving it a random flux, we cannot extrapolate from his mere existence and capabilities anything of value about the big bang.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,012
- 51,483
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,012
- 51,483
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Did I say it did?
Ya, ya, ya --- I know you guys want to jump in there and impress me with your science, but frankly, I'm not interested.
What???
My point is that the Big Bang never happened --- that's an invention of science.
Here's my OP again --- with emphasis:
Mamma mia.
I'm admitting that in the Big Bang Theory, the amount of mass/energy is the same as it is today --- and therefore --- violates creatio ex nihilo.
I don't see how I can make this OP any simpler.
(I know you guys are just giving me a hard time, but this is ridiculous.)
Upvote
0
AV, that is completely unfair and arbitrary. Your OP looks like an attempt to use science to prove your own point in a 'sciencey' way. So you're allowed to use your own peculiar brand of 'science' but actual science you're not 'interested' in?
People aren't giving you 'a hard time'. They are questioning the validity of the claims you appear to make in your OP, which seems to me a perfectly valid response.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
ragarth
Well-Known Member
My understanding of your post is that because god need not have a constant mass in the universe, the fact that the big band postulates a constant mass disproves the big bang. This is fallacious. Just because something need not be a certain way does not make it so.
My pc speakers need not be arranged one on each side of my monitor, I could have them both setting to one side if I so desired. This doesn't mean that they are *not* one on each side of my monitor.
In the same way, even though god need not have a single constant mass in the universe, this doesn't mean he can't do it that way.
Further, as I stated, the total amount of mass/energy could have been 0 before the big bang, we don't know. The big bang and expansionism describes the expansion of the universe, not it's initial creation.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,012
- 51,483
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
If you (or anyone) will agree that creatio ex nihilo violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, I will consider this thread to have served it purpose.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
