God did not create from nothing

2PhiloVoid · Jul 8, 2026

Platte said:
I suppose you are looking for evidence that all mountains and all deserts were covered with water in the past also?

That would help.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jul 8, 2026

Platte said:
Subjective comment

No, objective comment based on objective fact. There's no indication at all that the Earth was created 6000 years ago in 6 days apart from the Old Testament, and God's own creation does not show that to a be fact either.

Hans Blaster · Jul 8, 2026

Platte said:
The non-existence Creation, The non-existence Exodus. The non-existence Resurrection , The non-existence Salvation.

I agree those are correct.

Platte said:
Thats what the non-existence think.

Could you re-write that in English? I don't speak non-existence.

Hans Blaster · Jul 8, 2026

Platte said:
I suppose you are looking for evidence that all mountains and all deserts were covered with water in the past also?

As our friend said, that would help you establish your case. Why have you not been presenting that evidence instead of just making assertions?

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jul 8, 2026

Hans Blaster said:
Could you re-write that in English? I don't speak non-existence.

I think he might have gotten it mixed up with non-believers.

2PhiloVoid · Jul 8, 2026

Platte said:
The non-existence Creation, The non-existence Exodus. The non-existence Resurrection , The non-existence Salvation.

These four ideas do not all hold the same historiographical, epistemological or ontological structures or significance.

What does this mean? It means that someone like myself can deem the 'Creation' accounts as being somewhat derivative in their ancient literary nature, whereas the Exodus event and the Resurrection account can be seen as (possibly) being more substantial, where cultural, literary and historical [circumstantial] evidences may be applied to truth bearing claims supporting them.

It's best not to mix these up by imposing a confused and artificial, extrapolated theoretical viewpoint about the supposed 'Unity of Scripture' from beginning to end. Doing so conflates a number of underlying issues that are best considered separately and distinctly.

AV1611VET · Jul 8, 2026

sjastro said:
So what makes your blind faith any better or worse than anyone else's version of Christianity, when all parties can state science "can take a hike" because it doesn't conform to their version of faith.

If science can take a hike because science doesn't apply, then it doesn't matter what faith is being practiced.

Jehovah's Witness, Mormon, Muslim, whatever.

Science isn't going to magically appear just because someone believes it had something to do with the formation of the universe.

Either science was there, or it wasn't -- whether we believe it or not.

So, yes.

Re the creation week, all parties should say SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE.

But unfortunately they don't.

The result?

Schism.

Platte · Jul 8, 2026

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
No, objective comment based on objective fact. There's no indication at all that the Earth was created 6000 years ago in 6 days apart from the Old Testament, and God's own creation does not show that to a be fact either.

More subjective comments...thrown in with some false ones. You are starting out the day as one would expect from you.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jul 8, 2026

Platte said:
More subjective comments...thrown in with some false ones. You are starting out the day as one would expect from you.

Then show me that I'm wrong. If my comments are subjective, you can show me how. Don't be a coward and just say they're wrong. Put in the effort to show me or forfeit any attempt you might have at acting haughty towards me and others.

Platte · Jul 8, 2026

The non-existence Creation, The non-existence Exodus. The non-existence Resurrection , The non-existence Salvation.

2PhiloVoid said:
These four ideas do not all hold the same historiographical, epistemological or ontological structures or significance.

These four ideas hold the same Biblical signficance. Thats what is important to me.

I don't care about your humanistic studies.

2PhiloVoid said:
What does this mean? It means that someone like myself can deem the 'Creation' accounts as being somewhat derivative in their ancient literary nature, whereas the Exodus even and the Resurrection account can be seen as (possibly) being more substantial, where cultural, literary and historical [circumstantial] evidences may be applied to truth bearing claims supporting them.

It's best not to mix these up by imposing a confused and artificial, extrapolated theoretical viewpoint about the supposed 'Unity of Scripture' from beginning to end. Doing so conflates a number of underlying issues that are best considered separately and distinctly.

I'm sure it is very confusing to you

2PhiloVoid · Jul 8, 2026

Platte said:
The non-existence Creation, The non-existence Exodus. The non-existence Resurrection , The non-existence Salvation.

These four ideas hold the same Biblical signficance. Thats what is important to me.

I don't care about your humanistic studies.

I'm sure it is very confusing to you

Is this the only thing you can toss at me: your autistically patterned rhetoric??

Platte · Jul 8, 2026

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Then show me that I'm wrong. If my comments are subjective, you can show me how. Don't be a coward and just say they're wrong. Put in the effort to show me or forfeit any attempt you might have at acting haughty towards me and others.

If you can't even acknowledge your statements are subjective then I won't bother commenting on your statements.

Do I have to explain what a subjective comment is? If you agree your comments are subjective - then sure I'll comment why I think your subjective comment is wrong. But you trying to pass off your comments for anything other then subjective is futile to me.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jul 8, 2026

Platte said:
If you can't even acknowledge your statements are subjective then I won't bother commenting on your statements.

Do I have to explain what a subjective comment is? If you agree your comments are subjective - then sure I'll comment why I think your subjective comment is wrong. But you trying to pass off your comments for anything other then subjective is futile to me.

If you want to say my comment is subjective, then SHOW ME that it's subjective. Show me that I'm wrong. SHOW ME.

Platte · Jul 8, 2026

2PhiloVoid said:
Is this the only thing you can toss at me: your autistically patterned rhetoric??

I could have opened up a dialog about what I see is the impact your humanistic studies have done to you but that would require a new thread.

In the meantime - I pesonally would focus on the Bible.

2PhiloVoid · Jul 8, 2026

Platte said:
I could have opened up a dialog about what I see is the impact your humanstic studies have done to you but that would require a new thread.

In the meantime - I pesonally would focus on the Bible.

First off, Logic and Critical Thinking are not 'humanistic' in nature. Get that through your thick skull!

Secondly, there is nothing in nature or anything written on a rock that holds a large picket sign saying: FIRST, CONSULT THE BIBLE BEFORE THINKING !!

So, until you offer authentic evidence rather than simple disparagement of other people's intelligence and a solipsistic demand on your part to axiomatically begin with and hold to the Bible at all cost without discernment, you have nothing by which to gain anyone's attention or trust.

Instead, we'll just be sitting here asking: How does he know?

Platte · Jul 8, 2026

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
There's no indication at all that the Earth was created 6000 years ago in 6 days apart from the Old Testament

Recorded History is an indication that the Earth was created 6000 years ago.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jul 8, 2026

Platte said:
Recorded History is an indication that the Earth was created 6000 years ago.

No, recorded history is an indication that recorded history began roughly 6000 years ago. What you said is a terrible example of correlation equals causation and it doesn't even fit, especially since, once again, we have the existence of MANY THINGS that existed long before writing was invented.

Hans Blaster · Jul 8, 2026

Platte said:
I could have opened up a dialog about what I see is the impact your humanistic studies have done to you but that would require a new thread.

Do you mean studies in the "humanities"? Humanistic implies, to me, something related to Humanism. Humanism is a group of philosophies and moral systems, some of them are Christian, some are incompatible with Christianity, but none of them are actually on topic in this sub-forum.

Platte said:
In the meantime - I pesonally would focus on the Bible.

Then I would suggest you find a bible study. If you want to argue for your creationist position, instead, then this is the place, but could you please get on with an argument.

2PhiloVoid · Jul 8, 2026

Platte said:
Recorded History is an indication that the Earth was created 6000 years ago.

Actually, similarities between Genesis and 'recorded history' is only an indication that the original writer(s) of Genesis may have been drawing upon earlier known texts or oral traditions by which to construct his/their own (even if it might have been with God's direction).

AV1611VET · Jul 8, 2026

Hans Blaster said:
I don't know how many times you plan to say that, but it does not make it so.

What makes it so is the Documentation.

Hans Blaster said:
There is no evidence for what you claim.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

God did not create from nothing

Theology with a 'spin'!

Well-Known Member

Your turn, Atlanta!

Your turn, Atlanta!

Well-Known Member

Theology with a 'spin'!

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Theology with a 'spin'!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Theology with a 'spin'!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Your turn, Atlanta!

Theology with a 'spin'!

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads