Creation ex nihilo challenge

[Delphiki]

Demonstrate that creating something ex nihilo is possible.

 

[Strathos]

How, hypothetically, would one do that?

 

[PsychoSarah]

How, hypothetically, would one do that?

Magic

 

[justlookinla]

Demonstrate that creating something ex nihilo is possible.

It's a faith-based belief. The most extreme is the belief that nothing took nothing and created something from it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It's a faith-based belief. The most extreme is the belief that nothing took nothing and created something from it.

Basically, you can't demonstrate it or prove it.

 

[justlookinla]

Basically, you can't demonstrate it or prove it.

Right, it's a faith-based belief. Everyone has a faith-based belief on how creation occurred.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Right, it's a faith-based belief. Everyone has a faith-based belief on how creation occurred.

Case closed then.

 

[justlookinla]

Case closed then.

I reckon.

 

[lesliedellow]

Demonstrate that creating something ex nihilo is possible.

Demonstrate that it isn't - especially for an omnipotent being.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Demonstrate that it isn't - especially for an omnipotent being.

You have to demonstrate an omnipotent being exists before it can be factored in as a variable.

 

[Delphiki]

How, hypothetically, would one do that?

Consider the claim that anything at all could be created ex nihilo is what I'm challenging, that's up to those who accept the challenge to figure out, not me.

 

[Delphiki]

Demonstrate that it isn't - especially for an omnipotent being.

No. My challenge thread. My challenge.

Now that you've introduced the idea that an omnipotent being is required for creation ex nihilo, I suggest you get cracking on finding evidence for an omnipotent being.

 

[lesliedellow]

You have to demonstrate an omnipotent being exists before it can be factored in as a variable.

I can't demonstrate that gravity isn't suddenly going to stop working tomorrow. In order to hold a belief, it only has to seem reasonable to me.

 

[Delphiki]

I can't demonstrate that gravity isn't suddenly going to stop working tomorrow. In order to hold a belief, it only has to seem reasonable to me.

That's fine and dandy for personal beliefs, but doesn't do squat for demonstrating the actual truth.

 

[lesliedellow]

That's fine and dandy for personal beliefs, but doesn't do squat for demonstrating the actual truth.

If I can't demonstrate that gravity isn't going to stop working tomorrow, how am I supposed to demonstrate the reality of God to somebody whose very presuppositions exclude the idea?

"That doesn't mean goddidit" can stop a conversation just as effectively as "goddidit".

 

[Delphiki]

If I can't demonstrate that gravity isn't going to stop working tomorrow, how am I supposed to demonstrate the reality of God to somebody whose very presuppositions exclude the idea?

You can determine that the persistent consistency of gravity in the past is enough proof to conclude with very reasonable about of certainty that it will not change tomorrow. Nothing is 100% certain, but the idea that gravity will be the same is pretty darn close.

On the other hand, the existence of an omnipotent being has never once been empirically demonstrated, there is no proof of any kind with which to jump to the conclusion that one exists in the first place.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If I can't demonstrate that gravity isn't going to stop working tomorrow, how am I supposed to demonstrate the reality of God to somebody whose very presuppositions exclude the idea?

"That doesn't mean goddidit" can stop a conversation just as effectively as "goddidit".

We don't exclude the idea, but we are going to need more than just opinions to think god exists.

 

[lesliedellow]

We don't exclude the idea, but we are going to need more than just opinions to think god exists.

Somebody whose fundamental presupposition is that everything must have a natural explanation, will either find one, or else insist that there must be one, even if they don't know what it is.

And that doesn't exclude a sign suddenly appearing in the sky saying, "Hello, I exist, yours sincerely God." Either it would be an accidental cloud formation, or it would be mass hallucination, or it would be something else. The one thing it wouldn't be is proof that God exists.

 

[justlookinla]

We don't exclude the idea, but we are going to need more than just opinions to think god exists.

Wouldn't we need more than nothing created everything to believe that nothing created everything?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Somebody whose fundamental presupposition is that everything must have a natural explanation, will either find one, or else insist that there must be one, even if they don't know what it is.

And that doesn't exclude a sign suddenly appearing in the sky saying, "Hello, I exist, yours sincerely God." Either it would be an accidental cloud formation, or it would be mass hallucination, or it would be something else. The one thing it wouldn't be is proof that God exists.

And I would say there is no particular reason god should hide itself or only present itself that way, especially when the souls of its creations depend on it.