The Return of My Ex Nihilo Challenge

AV1611VET said:

Best answer ever:

Click to expand...

Special pleading and begging the question... it's not particularly profound.

AV1611VET said:

Did you watch it?

Those who understood clapped.

Click to expand...

I did watch it.

Those who already share the faith clapped.

I'm unconvinced because it assumes the existence of God's attributes as a justification for his existence... it isn't logically sound.

AV1611VET said:

Um ... he was answering the question as to where God came from?

So it was okay for the person asking Ken to assume God exists, but Mr Hovind can't answer accordingly?

The man asking the question is assuming God is confined within His creation.

Kent is using what you call "unsound logic" to show God would have to be outside of His creation.

And the audience clapped -- as did I.

Click to expand...

It's unsound logic because the response to how does a spiritual God create the Universe is to say that he can because he's God with God's appropriate attributes... it's not an explanation, it's a description.

AV1611VET said:

Best answer ever:

Click to expand...

But he does not support ex nihilo. Time, matter and space have their origin in God.

Shemjaza said:

I did watch it.

Those who already share the faith clapped.

I'm unconvinced because it assumes the existence of God's attributes as a justification for his existence... it isn't logically sound.

Click to expand...

Unconvinced of what? That God exists outside of time and space?

AV1611VET said:

From AI Overview:

The belief that time, space, and matter originate from God is often associated with the concept of creationism and is a core tenet of theistic religions, including Christianity and Islam. It posits that God, as a transcendent being, is the ultimate source and sustainer of the universe, bringing everything into existence through an act of creation.

So far it agrees with you.

But then it goes on to say ...

Here's a more detailed explanation:

Creationism:

This belief system asserts that the universe and all life were created by God, often described as "ex nihilo" (out of nothing), rather than evolving from pre-existing matter.

Click to expand...

We seem to have either have creatio ex nihilo or creatio ex materia.

But I actually opt for a 3rd possibility eminationism. In the 3rd century it was rejected by most Jews, Christians, and Muslims. But we have come a long way in understanding the universe since then. It seem to me that eminationism is the only way to reconcile immanence and transcendence. It is basically a version of process theology which deserves a more careful consideration. Creation doe snot come from nothing. It comes from God.

AV1611VET said:

Again ... did you watch the video?

You said you did, but ... well ...

There was no question about how God created the universe.

The question was where God came from.

Click to expand...

And the answer is simply the timelessness trait... while ascribing time dependent activities like "creating".

It's a description of a trait that is labelled as necessary, then special pleading it's possibility.

Akita Suggagaki said:

Unconvinced of what? That God exists outside of time and space?

Click to expand...

Of anything. A unsound argument is as useless as a demonstration of a true thing as it is of a false one.

If I claim the day's sky is blue because my coffee cup is blue, it's still an unsound argument despite the conclusion being correct.

I thought creationists might have done better instead of using a convicted criminal to make the case for creationism.

Year	Conviction	Counts / Charge Details	Sentence
2006‑07	Federal tax evasion & structuring	58 counts: payroll tax evasion, structuring, obstruction	10 years prison + $600K+ restitution
2015	Criminal contempt (linked to forfeiture)	1 contempt count	Later vacated; released in 2015
2021	Domestic violence	Assault on estranged wife	30 days jail, fine, restitution

Click to expand...

Of course I might be engaging in a terrible strawman attack against this individual who appears to be on a money making exercise out of creationism rather than a genuine crusader in spreading the word.

Activity / Source	Description	Financial Benefit	Possible Criminal Indicators
Creation Science Evangelism (CSE)	Hovind’s primary ministry founded in 1989 in Pensacola, FL. Operated as a tax-exempt religious entity.	Income from seminars, donations, merchandise	Operated without registering as a proper nonprofit; refused to withhold taxes or report employee wages.
Dinosaur Adventure Land (DAL)	A creationist theme park in Florida used to attract supporters and raise funds.	Paid entry, sales of merchandise	Property held in church trust to avoid taxes; used unpaid labor and circumvented building codes/zoning laws.
Speaking Engagements & DVDs	Extensive traveling ministry offering lectures, debates, and video sales.	Tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars	Received in cash, allegedly structured to avoid federal reporting laws; no income tax paid on proceeds.
Sale of Creationist Materials	Hovind sold books, DVDs, seminar recordings, and merchandise promoting creationism.	Revenue via CSE store and online sales	Business profits not reported; income often routed through personal or ministry accounts.
Unreported Wages to Employees	Paid workers in cash or as “love offerings” or “missionaries.”	Saved payroll tax obligations	Convicted for willfully failing to withhold/pay employment taxes (12 counts in 2006 conviction).
Structuring of Bank Withdrawals	Withdrew >$430,000 in increments under $10,000 to evade reporting requirements.	Avoided IRS scrutiny	Convicted of 45 counts of structuring transactions to evade federal reporting requirements.
Bankruptcy Abuse and Legal Obstruction	Filed false documents in bankruptcy, made threats, filed frivolous lawsuits to resist IRS actions.	Attempted to keep assets	Convicted of obstructing the IRS (2006), including destruction of records and legal harassment tactics.
Use of Church Trusts & Sham Entities	Transferred property to “trusts” named after God (e.g., “Trust One” to “Trust Nineteen”).	Shielded assets from seizure or taxation	Alleged misuse of religious trusts to hide assets; not formally charged on this count but cited in court filings.
Mailing Campaigns to Judges and Officials	Sent letters attacking court officials and promoting “sovereign citizen” theories.	No direct profit but legal strategy	Cited in contempt and obstruction hearings as intimidation and improper interference with judicial proceedings.
Continued Online Fundraising After Conviction	While in prison and afterward, supporters raised funds for legal defense and to restart ministry.	Ongoing donations	Not inherently illegal, but questions remain over donor transparency and tax filings of new ventures.

Click to expand...

According to the science nothing is created Ex Nihilio.

AV1611VET said:

It is Day One of the Creation Week and God creates Earth ex nihilo (from nothing) by speaking it into existence.

Heretofore the level of mass/energy in the physical universe is zero; since the physical universe didn't exist yet.

Afterwards, the level of mass/energy in the physical universe is now equal to the earth.

Here's my question:

What physical evidence would convince you this happened?

I submit there isn't any.

What say you?

Click to expand...

the entire Genesis creation account is in a chiastic pattern. every verse has a pair either the opener or the closer. Gen 1:1 is a perfect example at it's parallel is Gen 2:1 which can be seen as follows:

[open] 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
[close] 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

This reveals to us that Gen 1:1 is not of creative action because it is mirrored in Gen 2:1 as it's closing which is clearly a conclusionary statement; thus Gen 1:1 is an introductory statement where the 2 function a bit like bookends. This is important to establish if we are trying to map out a timeline of when God created what

Gen 1:2 is also interesting as it lists 3 raw incomplete state
1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

It's paired with 2:2-3. For reference, I'll refer to 1:2 as [day 0] and 2:2-3 as day 7 (even though I know there is no formal [day 0], which is why I put it in square brackets)

where [day 0] is formless day 7 is formed, [day 0] is empty, day 7 is full, [day 0] is of darkness, day 7 is of light and we can go on contrasting the two, chaos/rest, dark/light, incomplete/complete, etc... The text shows us how day 7 is the antithesis and answer to this [day 0]. This also points to a salvation metaphor where we ourselves start as unformed, chaos, darkness, incomplete etc... and when light (salvation from Christ) is spoken into us it starts a process that ends in rest, it also foreshadows Christ (who calls himself the light of the world), baptism, the resurrection, the new heaven and earth and anything from old to new, empty to full, dark to light, etc.... To me this passage is one of the most impactful of all scripture, and through this chiastic pattern, it helps reveal to us some of the intentional order and contrasts which point to deeper meaning, such as salvation.

Another thing that is contrasted in day 7 is God's order, whereas [day 0] is not revealed of or from God's order. This is why it is important to establish that 1:1 is not of creative action but functions as an introductory statement to the passage as a whole. This means God did not create the contents of 1:2 out of the action listed in 1:1 as 1:1 does is not refer to direct action but instead introduces the account.

So in 1:2 there is a formless/empty earth, darkness over the surface of the deep, and the waters (the spirit of God was hovering over). The next 3 days God speaks into being with his "let there be..." statements of light, water and earth. When we look at 1:2 what is listed are acting as preexisting materials but existing in a type of chaos or low entropy and God then orders and separates them. darkness and the deep is this type of abyss that you stay away from, the sea is often connected with the deep and death itself (in Rev, the sea gives up their dead), these are in ways that frighten, it is also etymologically speaking connected with the Leviathan (a competing creation myth) that God silences by speaking light and is spoken word is gone. the spirit of God is hovering over the waters, which is implicitly in a chaotic state too, in day 2, God separates them and orders them. the earth is formless and empty also in a chaotic state, and in day 3 God separates and orders them. There is a trend happening here and what I see is base pre-existing materials use in creation, which is how an ancient would understand the text as well.

how you create something from nothing would be a more troublesome question than where does the something come from. Look at how Adam is created, he is not zapped into being exnilo, he is formed out of earth. Like building a home requires the materials first then they are organized and put together so that they turn into a house, the house did not just appear and the materials for the house preexistes the house. This is easy to understand and it's how an ancient would understand creation as well, which is why so many ancient myth accounts use things already existing as forming the first structures of land or people that we see as silly today, but made sense to ancient people groups because they start with building materials rather than from nothing.

day 4, 5, 6 have a similar focus. Now that God has organized the preexisting materials of 1:2 he now fills them up. the hebrew word to "create" is more of a filling up or even a concept of "fattening". So in day 4 the cosmos are filled up (connected with day 1) day 5 the skies and sea are filled up (connected with day 2), and as the pattern predicts, day 6 the lands are filled up (connected with day 3)

Exnilo is an abstract concept that would be hard to grasp for an ancient. They would instead approach the concept as an organizing, ordering, filling up, etc... from that which was already there, and that is exactly what we see in the creation account. Is it exnilo? I'm not really sure, I wasn't there, but the account itself I think, favours an ancient concrete model over a modern abstract one, and there's is no need to stuff things in between the lines that the text cannot support.

AV1611VET said:

1. God speaks and heaven is created.

Click to expand...

1:1 acts as an introduction for the whole account, being summed up as "the heavens and the earth". We can identify this role paralleled in 2:1 in the chiastic pattern that is present in the account. "thus the heavens and the earth are created". 2:1 is a conclusionary; thus, 1:1 is introductory, the two mirror each other. The first explicit creative act is "Let there be light". So who created the primordial soup that we see in 1:2? The text does not identify its origins, even if we can infer it was God. The goal of the account is to emphasize a monotheistic God over competitive pagan/polytheistic accounts. woven in is a redemptive message where light overcomes darkness and ends in rest, which to me is far more interesting.

"create" in hebrew is also used more of forming out of something than it is an abstract exnilo concept. There is a mechanical translation (RMT) of the Hebrew text meant to preserve the concrete reading of the text over being replaced with distant abstracts. for 1:1 it reads "In the summit Elohiym shaped the skies and the land" an older version used "fattened the skies and the land" because "to fatten" is also a releated concept. "create" may be too abstract for this sort of depth and it is vital to look at the ancient heberic understanding of these words rather than superimpose distanct abstracts over them. the first word is also worthy of more attention "bereysh*t" (astriks used so it's not censored). it is most often traslated as "in the beginning" which we quickly interpreted as the beginning of all things but the text can equally mean at the head or start, like how we would address a race and it doesn't preclude any sort of preexisting undeveloped universe(s).

But I don't think the text supports these sort of hyper analysis of the words used. As mentioned, to me, what is far more interesting is the redemptive message in the account. Let's talk more about that! exnilo or not imho is so far down the priority list that it's irrelevant to the text.

AV1611VET said:

Show me "heavens" (plural) in Genesis 1:1.

Click to expand...

I'll be happy to discuss that in the appropriate thread