Creation ex nihilo challenge

[PsychoSarah]

If you understand Scripture, you understand that it takes faith, not evidence, to accept creationism.

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Yes, it takes faith. Because there isn't any evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, it takes faith. Because there isn't any evidence.

I'm sure he kno...

I'm pretty sure he knows that by now.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'm sure he kno...

I'm pretty sure he knows that by now.

But do you?

 

[EternalDragon]

If you understand Scripture, you understand that it takes faith, not evidence, to accept creationism.

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Hey, that's a great chapter in it's entirety!

It explains a lot about what faith means.

 

[AV1611VET]

But do you?

I've read about it a few times.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hey, that's a great chapter in it's entirety!

It explains a lot about what faith means.

Indeed it does!

With great examples!

 

[Split Rock]

If you understand Scripture, you understand that it takes faith, not evidence, to accept creationism.

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

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

 

[Queller]

Right, the big bang came out of something. It's your view that the big bang came out of a universe which preceded the current universe?

No, the Big Bang did not come out of something. It was a direct result of (according to the cyclical model of the universe) the contraction of the previous universe. Not out of nothing nor was it created by something.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, the Big Bang did not come out of something. It was a direct result of (according to the cyclical model of the universe) the contraction of the previous universe. Not out of nothing nor was it created by something.

So correct me if I'm wrong, you don't feel that God created the Universe?

 

[justlookinla]

No, the Big Bang did not come out of something. It was a direct result of (according to the cyclical model of the universe) the contraction of the previous universe. Not out of nothing nor was it created by something.

The previous universe wasn't something? It was nothing?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The previous universe wasn't something? It was nothing?

IIIMMMMM SSSooooo Confused!

 

[justlookinla]

IIIMMMMM SSSooooo Confused!

LOL. I'm fairly cornfuzzled myself.

 

[Oncedeceived]

LOL. I'm fairly cornfuzzled myself.

 

[Queller]

So correct me if I'm wrong, you don't feel that God created the Universe?

Yes, you are wrong and it looks like you don't even really bother to read my posts on this thread.

In posts #98 and #100, justlookinla made the claim that "something created everything or nothing created everything"

My hypothesis about a cyclical universe was nothing more than an attempt to show there is a third option, everything always existed in one form or another. It has nothing to do with my personal beliefs at all.

 

[Queller]

The previous universe wasn't something? It was nothing?

No, it was not nothing and there is no possible way for you to have reasonably derived that from previous post where I stated the exact opposite.

I will try one last time and then I am done.

Picture a string that has always existed and contains all the matter and/or energy in existence;

---------------------

Now picture that same string that expands and contracts along its length

-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0

At no point is any expansion created out of nothing, nor does the string act on itself to create the expansion, it is simply the result of the nature of the string.

Here are links to several different hypotheses that have this basic idea as their foundation.

Cyclic Universe

Conformal cyclic cosmology

Loop quantum cosmology

Big Bounce

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, it was not nothing and there is no possible way for you to have reasonably derived that from previous post where I stated the exact opposite.

I will try one last time and then I am done.

Picture a string that has always existed and contains all the matter and/or energy in existence;

---------------------

Now picture that same string that expands and contracts along its length

-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0

At no point is any expansion created out of nothing, nor does the string act on itself to create the expansion, it is simply the result of the nature of the string.

Here are links to several different hypotheses that have this basic idea as their foundation.

Cyclic Universe

Conformal cyclic cosmology

Loop quantum cosmology

Big Bounce

So the singularity is the string is that correct?

 

[justlookinla]

No, it was not nothing and there is no possible way for you to have reasonably derived that from previous post where I stated the exact opposite.

I will try one last time and then I am done.

Picture a string that has always existed and contains all the matter and/or energy in existence;

---------------------

Now picture that same string that expands and contracts along its length

-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0

At no point is any expansion created out of nothing, nor does the string act on itself to create the expansion, it is simply the result of the nature of the string.

Here are links to several different hypotheses that have this basic idea as their foundation.

Cyclic Universe

Conformal cyclic cosmology

Loop quantum cosmology

Big Bounce

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?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, you are wrong and it looks like you don't even really bother to read my posts on this thread.

In posts #98 and #100, justlookinla made the claim that "something created everything or nothing created everything"

My hypothesis about a cyclical universe was nothing more than an attempt to show there is a third option, everything always existed in one form or another. It has nothing to do with my personal beliefs at all.

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

Non-Sequitur much?

Burden of Proof fallacy much?

 

[Queller]

So the singularity is the string is that correct?

The singularity, if that's what it was is part of the string, as is the expansion portion.