If God spoke the universe into existence...

[Aman777]

If God spoke the universe into existence...

If God spoke the universe into existence, doesn't that mean the universe is actually the word of God?

Dear Delphiki, Absolutely NOT. Jesus is the Word of God. John 1:1-3

Now read this verse:

Hbr 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.

Without Jesus was not anything made which was made. John 1:3

BTW, Invisible Energy can be used to change things into that which is seen physically. Jesus knew that BEFORE our world was made. Can you tell us HOW the ancient men who wrote the Bible knew that?

In Love,
Aman

 

[AV1611VET]

So, ED and AV: You both don't believe God spoke the universe into existence?

Hebrews 11:3a Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,

I take it you don't understand NOTHING.

And until you do, you aren't going to understand anything.

Creationists literally bring NOTHING to a conversation on creationism.

 

[Delphiki]

Hebrews 11:3a Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,

I take it you don't understand NOTHING.

And until you do, you aren't going to understand anything.

Creationists literally bring NOTHING to a conversation on creationism.

I understand what "nothing" is. I just wasn't aware that you've deconverted to atheism.

 

[EternalDragon]

So, ED and AV: You both don't believe God spoke the universe into existence? If you believe in ex nihilo, then this means you don't believe God was the creator. Isn't this a little distant from Christian believe, "born again" or not?

Well, lets start at the beginning. Get hold of a bible, preferably King James, and start reading. You will see at the beginning of each paragraph where God created it says, "And God said...."

...Let there be light
...Let the earth bring forth grass
...Let us make man in our image

God said it and then made those things appear.

 

[Delphiki]

Well, lets start at the beginning. Get hold of a bible, preferably King James, and start reading. You will see at the beginning of each paragraph where God created it says, "And God said...."

...Let there be light
...Let the earth bring forth grass
...Let us make man in our image

God said it and then made those things appear.

That's what I thought. So, when I say God spoke the universe into existence, why are you and AV telling me this is not the case? Is it because it's more important that you tell me I'm wrong whether I am or not?

 

[Oncedeceived]

If God spoke the universe into existence, doesn't that mean the universe is actually the word of God? Wouldn't the universe, with all it's cosmological and geological evidence, be more so the word of God than the bible? The bible, and all of it's editions, revisions, versions, and copies, are still just a minuscule fraction of the universe itself. Why do creationists read and believe mere printed words relayed by man over the actual thing God spoke into existence? If one actually believes God spoke the universe into existence, then how is the universe not literally the word of God?

If one wants to learn about the universe, why wouldn't one look at the universe to do so?

This ought to be a pretty straightforward question, so please do your best to give a straight forward answer using your own words. No bible quotes (obviously). Try not to reference the bible to explain why the bible is more reliable (for hopefully obvious reasons). And also, no Last Tuesdayism (dad).

First you begin this thread with something that you could only arrive at using the Bible. How would one know that the universe is created by God and how without the use of the Bible as its starting point. You are doing what so many do, using the foundation of the Bible to set up your arguments against it.

The universe declares the work of God and this is seen by the fact that it has a beginning, it is expanding, it is fine tuned for life and its attributes are invisible as written in the Bible. So yes, the universe tells us God Created the universe and it declares His work. Jesus holds the universe together by His word. So the Bible is what tells us to look to the universe to learn and seek God.

 

[Delphiki]

First you begin this thread with something that you could only arrive at using the Bible. How would one know that the universe is created by God and how without the use of the Bible as its starting point. You are doing what so many do, using the foundation of the Bible to set up your arguments against it.

The universe declares the work of God and this is seen by the fact that it has a beginning, it is expanding, it is fine tuned for life and its attributes are invisible as written in the Bible. So yes, the universe tells us God Created the universe and it declares His work. Jesus holds the universe together by His word. So the Bible is what tells us to look to the universe to learn and seek God.

That is true. The basis for the post starts with something the bible tells us (unless an atheist says so, then it's the opposite, but that's not the point here).

Taking that into consideration, then: What is it that ensnares and entraps the creationist into heeding only the literature and not the actual created universe itself when trying to learn more about the created universe? If God created the universe, then how is a collection of books considered more valid evidence than what the created universe actually contains?

This is regardless of the fact that the evidence created in the supposedly created universe contradicts what's in the bible anyway, so I'll put that aside for the sake of argument.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is true. The basis for the post starts with something the bible tells us (unless an atheist says so, then it's the opposite, but that's not the point here).

Taking that into consideration, then: What is it that ensnares and entraps the creationist into heeding only the literature and not the actual created universe itself when trying to learn more about the created universe? If God created the universe, then how is a collection of books considered more valid evidence than what the created universe actually contains?

This is regardless of the fact that the evidence created in the supposedly created universe contradicts what's in the bible anyway, so I'll put that aside for the sake of argument.

Ok, Creationists are a group of people that believe that God created the universe and that the Creation narrative (and other parts of the Bible) are how this was done. I am sure you know that the narrative is not meant to be a scientific document but that being said it should reflect the truth of the universe. Which most creationists would agree. The problems arise for all of us that we are looking at this through our own interpretations. There are the OEC and YEC the literals and those that think it is more a less a symbolic representation. So each person according to their own interpretation is going to answer differently and think differently about this question.

This is not so unlike the science arena when differing hypothesis's are surmised and explored to see what comes out of it. What you and others have to understand is that we as creationists know God is real. God created the universe is a unifying point in all interpretations. So if something goes against the interpretation that one holds it has to be seen through this fact. So if someone thinks that the literal six days is correct and that the universe is only 10,000 years old anything else goes against God Himself. Even if that might not be the case, it is their interpretation and God is real so the evidence if it goes against that must be wrong. Which evidence can be wrong. Science explains things and changes that explanation when new information is added. So as you can see, the authority is what it is all about. God is authority and He knows. That we all agree upon.

So for me, I don't think that if the evidence is really convincing that it can be ignored nor does God ask us to do so. He made the universe for us to explore, if not He wouldn't have made us intelligent beings with the ability to explore and learn about the universe. We might be wrong in our interpretations of the universe, we and the scientific community but that is the nature of the endeavor. So for me, I am amazed that the more we learn about the universe the more it points to God as the Creator. Science is providing the evidence of His words.

 

[AV1611VET]

I understand what "nothing" is.

I'll have to take your word on that, and ... well ... we'll leave it there.

I just wasn't aware that you've deconverted to atheism.

Yup ... you understand NOTHING alright.

Like I said, we'll leave it there.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's what I thought. So, when I say God spoke the universe into existence, why are you and AV telling me this is not the case? Is it because it's more important that you tell me I'm wrong whether I am or not?

Again, Mr. Iunderstand, God spoke the universe into existence from NOTHING.

The technical term is creatio ex nihilo.

God did not speak the universe into existence from HIMSELF.

The technical term is creatio ex deo.

Do you know the difference between GOD and NOTHING?

(Of course not ... you're an atheist, and to an atheist, the two are synonymous. That's what is confusing you.)

 

[Delphiki]

Again, Mr. Iunderstand, God spoke the universe into existence from NOTHING.

The technical term is creatio ex nihilo.

God did not speak the universe into existence from HIMSELF.

The technical term is creatio ex deo.

Do you know the difference between GOD and NOTHING?

(Of course not ... you're an atheist, and to an atheist, the two are synonymous. That's what is confusing you.)

Actually, this just shows you haven't a clue as to what "nothing" means. Whether God spoke the universe into existence from himself or nothing else, it's still a product of an action of God, therefore not truly "creatio ex nihilo".

For the universe to come from nothing, there would have to be nothing before the universe, including deities. A god is a something, regardless of how it would be responsible for creating the universe.

What you mean by "nothing" is actually "nothing else".

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, this just shows you haven't a clue as to what "nothing" means.

You're entitled to your opinion; but for the record, the answer to this question ...

If God spoke the universe into existence, doesn't that mean the universe is actually the word of God?

... is NO.

We don't believe in Spinoza's God.

 

[HitchSlap]

You're entitled to your opinion; but for the record, the answer to this question ...

... is NO.

We don't believe in Spinoza's God.

Who's "we?"

 

[FatBurk]

You have no problem because you don't understand what science is, you don't even realise that you only exist today because of science, without science billions of people who are alive today would never have existed.

Science has done more to benefit mankind than any religion past or present put together.

That's like saying you only got here because of gasoline.

Yes, gasoline runs the car, but where do the cars come from?

Nature runs the hardware that God created.

No, without science the steamships would not have been invented so the millions who went to the US would not have gone, without science disease would have decimated the US many times over and we haven't touched on food or steel production yet, you never know but the Indians may have killed all of the settlers as they arrived, with no scientific technology to use against them what was to stop them?

Without science billions of people who are alive today would never have existed.

 

[EternalDragon]

No, without science the steamships would not have been invented so the millions who went to the US would not have gone, without science disease would have decimated the US many times over and we haven't touched on food or steel production yet, you never know but the Indians may have killed all of the settlers as they arrived, with no scientific technology to use against them what was to stop them?

Without science billions of people who are alive today would never have existed.

No one is disputing operational science, technology, inventions, etc. They certainly make life easier but some do come with a cost. More pollution, more deaths, cutting down large areas of forest, animal extinctions, etc.

 

[juvenissun]

If God spoke the universe into existence, doesn't that mean the universe is actually the word of God? Wouldn't the universe, with all it's cosmological and geological evidence, be more so the word of God than the bible? The bible, and all of it's editions, revisions, versions, and copies, are still just a minuscule fraction of the universe itself. Why do creationists read and believe mere printed words relayed by man over the actual thing God spoke into existence? If one actually believes God spoke the universe into existence, then how is the universe not literally the word of God?

If one wants to learn about the universe, why wouldn't one look at the universe to do so?

This ought to be a pretty straightforward question, so please do your best to give a straight forward answer using your own words. No bible quotes (obviously). Try not to reference the bible to explain why the bible is more reliable (for hopefully obvious reasons). And also, no Last Tuesdayism (dad).

You do not understand the purpose of God's creation.

We do can read the universe and understand a part of God's words. But we can only read a small part of the universe (think: we are still trying to read our solar system). And you and many others can't even read a few words of God by looking at His another wonderful creation: rock.

We are very limited and we are created with a special purpose. We can only live a few tenth of years on the earth. Read the universe (or the solar system, or the earth) is far far less efficient than read the Bible. The Bible is written for us. The universe is not. Besides, the Bible points out what to read about the universe (and the earth, and the rock, ...)

A good question. But, not good enough.

 

[juvenissun]

Actually, this just shows you haven't a clue as to what "nothing" means. Whether God spoke the universe into existence from himself or nothing else, it's still a product of an action of God, therefore not truly "creatio ex nihilo".

For the universe to come from nothing, there would have to be nothing before the universe, including deities. A god is a something, regardless of how it would be responsible for creating the universe.

What you mean by "nothing" is actually "nothing else".

You better first define what is a "thing". I bet you can not do it. For example, is a vacuum space a "thing"?

 

[FatBurk]

No one is disputing operational science, technology, inventions, etc. They certainly make life easier but some do come with a cost. More pollution, more deaths, cutting down large areas of forest, animal extinctions, etc.

Everything comes with a cost, without science there would be no United States of America.
What is creationism costing the US today in lost brain power? why are Dumb and Dumber creationists?

 

[Belk]

Again, Mr. Iunderstand, God spoke the universe into existence from NOTHING.

The technical term is creatio ex nihilo.

God did not speak the universe into existence from HIMSELF.

The technical term is creatio ex deo.

Do you know the difference between GOD and NOTHING?

(Of course not ... you're an atheist, and to an atheist, the two are synonymous. That's what is confusing you.)

AV, I get the feeling there is a distinction here that I am missing. Is there a way you can explain in layman's terms the difference between ex nihilo and ex deo? From an ignorant agnostic point of view it is God using his power to call forth the universe. Is this not the case?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, I get the feeling there is a distinction here that I am missing. Is there a way you can explain in layman's terms the difference between ex nihilo and ex deo? From an ignorant agnostic point of view it is God using his power to call forth the universe. Is this not the case?

This is a crude but effective way of explaining the difference:

Picture a man standing next to a box with nothing in it.

Creatio ex nihilo: The man orders the box to produce, from its contents, the earth. The box opens up, and the earth comes out.

Creatio ex deo: The man orders the earth into existence as part of himself (there is no box). His mind projects a part of himself outward and forms the earth. Looking at the earth is the same thing as looking at his mind.