Creation ex nihilo challenge

[Queller]

You said "Picture a string that has always existed and contains all the matter and/or energy in existence".

Isn't the string, and matter and energy something?

Yes, but it didn't create anything.

 

[justlookinla]

Yes, but it didn't create anything.

But something came from something?

 

[Queller]

There was no mention in either of those posts that points to you thinking God created the universe.

Even if something (the universe) always existed that means our universe came from something (the universe). So that is not a third option but something from something.

Something from something was not one of justlookinla's original options. It was "something created everything". That is a different claim.

 

[Queller]

But something came from something?

Yes, which was not one of your original claims

Either something created everything or nothing created everything.

 

[justlookinla]

Yes, which was not one of your original claims

How is "something created everything" different from "something came from something"?

 

[PsychoSarah]

How is "something created everything" different from "something came from something"?

The difference is one is intentional, and the other isn't. How can you not see the different implications?

 

[justlookinla]

The difference is one is intentional, and the other isn't. How can you not see the different implications?

The view of intentional doesn't address the question. Doesn't matter if the something created the something intentionally or not.

 

[Queller]

How is "something created everything" different from "something came from something"?

As PsychoSarah stated, and you hand-waved away, "creating" something is an intentional act. If I create art, I have to do something that results in that art.

Something creating something is not the same thing as something coming from something?

Do you believe a seed creates a plant?

 

[justlookinla]

As PsychoSarah stated, and you hand-waved away, "creating" something is an intentional act. If I create art, I have to do something that results in that art.

Something creating something is not the same thing as something coming from something?

Do you believe a seed creates a plant?

I don't think the seed/plant example is going to work. The seed is 'programmed' to produce, isn't it? In other words, plant an apple seed, get an apple tree. You're not suggesting that the something (universe?) which existed before the big bang programmed the 'coming' of all we observe today in the universe, are you?

In any case, the something in your scenario did produce something from something which as always existed? The eternal power, force, source in other words?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I don't think the seed/plant example is going to work. The seed is 'programmed' to produce, isn't it? In other words, plant an apple seed, get an apple tree. You're not suggesting that the something (universe?) which existed before the big bang programmed the 'coming' of all we observe today in the universe, are you?

In any case, the something in your scenario did produce something from something which as always existed? The eternal power, force, source in other words?

But that force wasn't conscious, the result wasn't intentional

 

[Queller]

I don't think the seed/plant example is going to work. The seed is 'programmed' to produce, isn't it? In other words, plant an apple seed, get an apple tree. You're not suggesting that the something (universe?) which existed before the big bang programmed the 'coming' of all we observe today in the universe, are you?

No, for what surely must be the sixth or seventh time I have said this, I am not proposing that something "created" something else.

The plant coming from a seed is the exact same thing as what I am talking about. The plant comes about as a result of the seed. Nothing intentional or volitional has to happen.

In any case, the something in your scenario did produce something from something which as always existed? The eternal power, force, source in other words?

Yes, but it did not create anything. There is a difference that you seem bound and determined not to acknowledge.

 

[AV1611VET]

I thought we have more "faith" than you guys do.....

And that means it doesn't take faith to believe in creationism?

If you accept evolution by faith, and we accept creationism by faith; then, as Mr. Hovind says: Don't call what you believe "science," and what we believe "religion."

 

[HitchSlap]

And that means it doesn't take faith to believe in creationism?

If you accept evolution by faith, and we accept creationism by faith; then, as Mr. Hovind says: Don't call what you believe "science," and what we believe "religion."

Except, when you believe in something based on reality, we don't call it faith. Remember what Sam Clemens said about faith.

 

[Split Rock]

And that means it doesn't take faith to believe in creationism?

If you accept evolution by faith, and we accept creationism by faith; then, as Mr. Hovind says: Don't call what you believe "science," and what we believe "religion."

But then you tell us our mistake is that we "walk by sight rather than faith." So... which is it?

 

[justlookinla]

No, for what surely must be the sixth or seventh time I have said this, I am not proposing that something "created" something else.

I especially avoided the word "created" in my last response. The fact remains, something didn't exist (this present universe) then, through an alleged big bang, something which didn't exist (this present universe), existed (this present universe). Something was responsible which produced, generated, this present universe (that did not exist before) and if I understand your viewpoint correctly, the pre-universe universe was the something from which the present universe was produced, generated? (Whew)

I've taken special pains again not to use the word "created". Hopefully "produced" or "generated" will be words acceptable to you.

The plant coming from a seed is the exact same thing as what I am talking about. The plant comes about as a result of the seed. Nothing intentional or volitional has to happen.

The plant analogy just isn't working. As I pointed out before, a seed is 'programmed' to produce according to the seed. Apple seeds produce apple trees. If this present universe is the plant in the analogy, and the pre-present universe universe is the seed, then this present universe is the result of a 'pre-programmed' seed. It produced after the kind of seed which was planted.

Yes, but it did not create anything. There is a difference that you seem bound and determined not to acknowledge.

Hopefully the words "produced" or "generated" will suffice. If not, what word would you use to describe the coming forth process of this present universe from the previous pre-present universe universe?

 

[AV1611VET]

Except, when you believe in something based on reality, we don't call it faith. Remember what Sam Clemens said about faith.

Sam Clemens definition of "faith" makes a mockery out of those martyred for their faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

But then you tell us our mistake is that we "walk by sight rather than faith." So... which is it?

I'll admit that the "it takes more faith to be an atheist" remark is wrong ... in my opinion.

But I'm open to correction.

Our pastor has said that before, and he's smarter and more in tune with the Holy Spirit than I am.

 

[HitchSlap]

Sam Clemens definition of "faith" makes a mockery out of those martyred for their faith.

A hard truth to swallow, isn't it.

 

[Queller]

I especially avoided the word "created" in my last response.

Yes, you simply used a different euphemism for created. Semantically, there is no difference.

The fact remains, something didn't exist (this present universe) then, through an alleged big bang, something which didn't exist (this present universe), existed (this present universe).

No. This universe existed but in a different form. That is the point of my original contention 2 days and 180 posts ago.

The universe could be eternal and cyclical.

Something was responsible which produced, generated, this present universe (that did not exist before) and if I understand your viewpoint correctly, the pre-universe universe was the something from which the present universe was produced, generated? (Whew)

No. See above.

I've taken special pains again not to use the word "created". Hopefully "produced" or "generated" will be words acceptable to you.

No, because the way you are using them them is still as euphemisms for "created" (as in "God created the heavens and earth).

The plant analogy just isn't working. As I pointed out before, a seed is 'programmed' to produce according to the seed. Apple seeds produce apple trees. If this present universe is the plant in the analogy, and the pre-present universe universe is the seed, then this present universe is the result of a 'pre-programmed' seed. It produced after the kind of seed which was planted.

There was no "pre-present universe". It is all the same universe just like the string was always the same string.

Hopefully the words "produced" or "generated" will suffice. If not, what word would you use to describe the coming forth process of this present universe from the previous pre-present universe universe?

See above. There was no "pre-present" universe. The universe was always present.

 

[AV1611VET]

A hard truth to swallow, isn't it.

No.

From Wikipedia:

... Twain stated that he believed in an almighty God, but not in any messages, revelations, holy scriptures such as the Bible, Providence, or retribution in the afterlife.

SOURCE

And I'm supposed to accept his definition of faith?

Ain't gonna happen.

No wonder you guys like it.