Creation ex nihilo challenge

[Oncedeceived]

Empty Godless suppositions aren't very convincing either.

Depends on one's faith-based view.

Good point.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Isn't it funny how the only ones that propose that something was created from nothing are creationists?

Seriously? You don't think that the universe was a chance event from nothing? Or do you believe in the all powerful multi-verse bringing it into existence?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Like everyone else, my parents created me.

I don't have a faith based view nor positive claim regarding the origin of the universe. What I do have is a null position, which the challenge of this thread is to fill it with a provable/falsifiable hypothesis or something tangible and demonstrable.

Nobody wins here until it can be demonstrated that something, anything can be created ex nihilo.... which by the way, means from nothing, and is actually your belief, not mine.

We have a universe that was nothing and now is something. How would you like to explain that in totally natural terms with evidence?

 

[Delphiki]

I have a faith-based view that God did it. There was a cause.

Ok, so, no evidence then. Come back when you can participate in the challenge.

 

[Delphiki]

That wasn't the challenge. Shifting the goal post?

It certainly is within the scope of the challenge. Offering faith-based opinions in no way demonstrates that anything can be created ex nihilo. You need evidence for that.

 

[Delphiki]

We have a universe that was nothing and now is something.

Prove it.

(For the record, you are asserting that there was once "nothing")

How would you like to explain that in totally natural terms with evidence?

Your problem, not mine.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think there is supportive evidence for God's creating the universe by the evidence from science.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This is like a heading or title rather than what many see as the first act in Creation. It is stating that there was a beginning to our universe and that God created both the heavens and the earth. This is supported later in Genesis. The Big Bang theory supports that the universe did have a beginning.

Now the earth was unformed and void,

This is stating that the earth was not formed yet. Which supports my viewpoint that the first verse is not the first act of Creation.


and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

Science has shown that the early universe was dark (see below)
Up until recently, there was a conflict with Science due to the fact that it was considered impossible for a liquid form to be present during the formation of the universe. This also comes in below.



And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

2 3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ht_010808.html

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Astronomers announced Tuesday they have seen through the fog of the early universe to spy some of the first light emitted during a "cosmic renaissance" that occurred when the first galaxies were born.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The announcement came just days after a different research group said they had spotted the first evidence of the cosmic dark ages, the period long thought to have preceded this newly spotted cosmic brightening.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Together, the studies provide glimpses into the earliest mechanisms of the universe, after the Big Bang. Astronomers familiar with the studies called them important for helping create a timeline of the universe's evolution.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Evidence for the two epochs have long been sought by astronomers and cosmologists, who believe the universe began in a Big Bang some 12 to 15 billion years ago, after which the universe expanded rapidly but remained dark for millions and millions of years. Lumps and bumps were thought to form in an otherwise smooth distribution of matter during these dark ages, and the first galaxies were born after gravity caused these clumps of matter to grow larger. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The galaxies marked the end of the dark ages and the beginning of the cosmic renaissance.[/FONT]


6 And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. {P}


In the beginning was ... a perfect liquid? - Technology & science - Science | NBC News

Liquid, not a gas
The quark-gluon plasma was made in the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider — a powerful atom smasher at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, N.Y. Unexpectedly, the quark-gluon plasma behaved like a perfect liquid of quarks, instead of a gas, the physicists said.

9 And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good.
This again was thought conflicting with Scientific findings, it was thought that the early earth was too hot for a liquid state but that has been shown not to be the case. Early earth did have water on its surface.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Prove it.

(For the record, you are asserting that there was once "nothing")


Your problem, not mine.

Ok, so you are demanding evidence that you do not require for your own faith held views?

 

[Oncedeceived]

It certainly is within the scope of the challenge. Offering faith-based opinions in no way demonstrates that anything can be created ex nihilo. You need evidence for that.

Why? You don't demand that of your own personal beliefs.

 

[Delphiki]

Ok, so you are demanding evidence that you do not require for your own faith held views?

Again, I'm not making a claim. I'm starting with the intellectually honest null position. I don't make any claim about the origin of the universe until I've been shown evidence. There's not even any claim for me to have faith in to have a faith based claim.

 

[Delphiki]

Why? You don't demand that of your own personal beliefs.

I do. That's the point.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I do. That's the point.

Oh you do but you won't present it. Considering I am pretty well versed on the options allotted to the natural arising universe I would say you really have no evidence to support any belief you might hold. I could always be wrong but of course, you aren't willing to provide evidence for your faith based position on creation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Again, I'm not making a claim. I'm starting with the intellectually honest null position. I don't make any claim about the origin of the universe until I've been shown evidence. There's not even any claim for me to have faith in to have a faith based claim.

Ok, fair enough. By the way I responded to your post prior to seeing this so I apologize for that.

So you stand in a position of I don't know. That works.

 

[Delphiki]

I think there is supportive evidence for God's creating the universe by the evidence from science.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This is like a heading or title rather than what many see as the first act in Creation. It is stating that there was a beginning to our universe and that God created both the heavens and the earth. This is supported later in Genesis. The Big Bang theory supports that the universe did have a beginning.

Now the earth was unformed and void,

This is stating that the earth was not formed yet. Which supports my viewpoint that the first verse is not the first act of Creation.


and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

Science has shown that the early universe was dark (see below)
Up until recently, there was a conflict with Science due to the fact that it was considered impossible for a liquid form to be present during the formation of the universe. This also comes in below.



And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

2 3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ht_010808.html

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Astronomers announced Tuesday they have seen through the fog of the early universe to spy some of the first light emitted during a "cosmic renaissance" that occurred when the first galaxies were born.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The announcement came just days after a different research group said they had spotted the first evidence of the cosmic dark ages, the period long thought to have preceded this newly spotted cosmic brightening.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Together, the studies provide glimpses into the earliest mechanisms of the universe, after the Big Bang. Astronomers familiar with the studies called them important for helping create a timeline of the universe's evolution.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Evidence for the two epochs have long been sought by astronomers and cosmologists, who believe the universe began in a Big Bang some 12 to 15 billion years ago, after which the universe expanded rapidly but remained dark for millions and millions of years. Lumps and bumps were thought to form in an otherwise smooth distribution of matter during these dark ages, and the first galaxies were born after gravity caused these clumps of matter to grow larger. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The galaxies marked the end of the dark ages and the beginning of the cosmic renaissance.[/FONT]


6 And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. {P}


In the beginning was ... a perfect liquid? - Technology & science - Science | NBC News

Liquid, not a gas
The quark-gluon plasma was made in the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider — a powerful atom smasher at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, N.Y. Unexpectedly, the quark-gluon plasma behaved like a perfect liquid of quarks, instead of a gas, the physicists said.

9 And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good.
This again was thought conflicting with Scientific findings, it was thought that the early earth was too hot for a liquid state but that has been shown not to be the case. Early earth did have water on its surface.

All I see here is one of many interpretations of a creation mythology. This is not evidence.

In fact, you're clearly attempting to retroactively interpret the bible to align with current scientific knowledge. This is also evident in the fact that nobody actually believed what you interpret the bible to say here until after these facts were discovered in science. That demonstrates the utter uselessness of the bible as a science textbook, let alone as any kind of evidence that something... anything... can be created ex nihilo.

 

[CabVet]

Oh you do but you won't present it. Considering I am pretty well versed on the options allotted to the natural arising universe I would say you really have no evidence to support any belief you might hold. I could always be wrong but of course, you aren't willing to provide evidence for your faith based position on creation.

Present what? Evidence for evolution? How much of it do you want?

 

[Delphiki]

Ok, fair enough. By the way I responded to your post prior to seeing this so I apologize for that.

So you stand in a position of I don't know. That works.

Correct. "I don't know"

Now the only claim I am asserting here is that you don't either.

 

[Oncedeceived]

All I see here is one of many interpretations of a creation mythology. This is not evidence.

In fact, you're clearly attempting to retroactively interpret the bible to align with current scientific knowledge. This is also evident in the fact that nobody actually believed what you interpret the bible to say here until after these facts were discovered in science. That demonstrates the utter uselessness of the bible as a science textbook, let alone as any kind of evidence that something... anything... can be created ex nihilo.

So when it was thought that the universe could not have had any liquid present due to the high temps and it was used against the Bible's account, that was just using science against a passage proven incorrect; but when it is shown that there could be liquid it then is wrong because it is a fact after science discovered it. Right.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Present what? Evidence for evolution? How much of it do you want?

We are discussing the creation of the universe. Whatcha got?

 

[CabVet]

So when it was thought that the universe could not have had any liquid present due to the high temps and it was used against the Bible's account, that was just using science against a passage proven incorrect; but when it is shown that there could be liquid it then is wrong because it is a fact after science discovered it. Right.

So, when science supports what is in the Bible you "believe" it, and when it doesn't, you don't "believe" it. How is that different from AV's "science can take a hike" model?

 

[CabVet]

We are discussing the creation of the universe. Whatcha got?

I got this: I don't know. And I am completely satisfied with that. You? A deity creating something out of nothing?