If God spoke the universe into existence...

[EternalDragon]

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?

Calling things dumb is just.....not making an argument at all.

No one is dumb. People just have different presuppositions and opinions but we all have the same evidence. The real loss is holding onto an outdated theory like Darwinian evolution and trying to call it "science".

 

[Doveaman]

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

That would depend on which language God spoke.

Wouldn't the universe, with all it's cosmological and geological evidence, be more so the word of God than the bible?

The universe reveals God relating to us. The Bible reveals how we relate to God.

Why do creationists read and believe mere printed words relayed by man over the actual thing God spoke into existence?

We believe those printed words were also spoken into existence. And then printed.

If one actually believes God spoke the universe into existence, then how is the universe not literally the word of God?

God spoke Hebrew. The universe does not exists in Hebrew.

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

We do.

No bible quotes (obviously). Try not to reference the bible

*The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands...For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — His eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.* - ((Ps 19:1-2,Rom 1:20).

I tried.

 

[Davian]

That would depend on which language God spoke.
The universe reveals God relating to us. The Bible reveals how we relate to God.
We believe those printed words were also spoken into existence. And then printed.
God spoke Hebrew. The universe does not exists in Hebrew.
We do.
*The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands...For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — His eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.* - ((Ps 19:1-2,Rom 1:20).

I tried.

Invisible things are clearly seen? Is this a biblical attempt at humour?

 

[Belk]

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.

So, if I am understanding this correctly, in the first case God is ordering the nothingness to produce something but is not using his power to create it directly. In the second case he is directly using his power to create something. Is that a fair summation?

 

[rikerjoe]

No one is dumb.

I beg to differ. Anyone that is not willing to correct their view after being shown countless times how wrong they are, that is just plain dumb.

People just have different presuppositions and opinions but we all have the same evidence.

If that was the case, no one would come up with stupid statements like:

The real loss is holding onto an outdated theory like Darwinian evolution and trying to call it "science".

 

[Delphiki]

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.

In both examples, the earth is created by the man. Neither of these are creatio ex nihilo. The first example is a creation of the earth as a product of the man's actions or command. The second example is a creation of the earth as a product of the man's physical body...


In fact, we can take this further. Lets say there was no man in your first example at all. It still wouldn't be creatio ex nihilo because a box is still something. And the contents you say the earth is created from is also something. Perhaps you should rethink your understanding of "nothing".

 

[Strathos]

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?

Yes.

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?

The Bible deals with spiritual matters, faith, and the soul. It was never meant to be a science book describing the universe literally. A lot of it is metaphorical. If you take it as a literal description of how life was created, etc. then (at least in my opinion) you are missing the point.

 

[biggles53]

Yes.



The Bible deals with spiritual matters, faith, and the soul. It was never meant to be a science book describing the universe literally. A lot of it is metaphorical. If you take it as a literal description of how life was created, etc. then (at least in my opinion) you are missing the point.

So, why could not the resurrection story be simply a metaphor. In fact, why could not the entire life of Jesus be simply metaphorical, as many early Christians (perhaps even including Paul) believed...?

 

[AV1611VET]

So, if I am understanding this correctly, in the first case God is ordering the nothingness to produce something but is not using his power to create it directly. In the second case he is directly using his power to create something. Is that a fair summation?

I'm showing you the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex deo; and I've yet, in all my years, to see an unbeliever understand NOTHING, and how it applies to creation.

Some say they do, but demonstrate otherwise.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps you should rethink your understanding of "nothing".

I'll pass.

 

[Delphiki]

I'm showing you the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex deo; and I've yet, in all my years, to see an unbeliever understand NOTHING, and how it applies to creation.

Some say they do, but demonstrate otherwise.

You're only showing us your poor interpretation of what those terms mean.

Perhaps it's not the non-believers with the problem. Instead of passing or giving up, how about you address my argument that the man, the box, and its contents are all things, thereby making your first example not illustrative of creatio ex nihilo at all. "Nothing" is pretty simply "no things".

Again, your idea of "nothing" is really just "nothing else" -- as in "God created the universe from nothing else." For the universe to truly be created from nothing, then not even God could exist before the universe. What is so difficult to understand?

How about you explain what you think "nothing" is.

 

[AV1611VET]

How about you explain what you think "nothing" is.

Why don't you just Google it for yourself?

God is outside of the universe ... what we call transcendent.

So "nothing else" is misleading.

You're coming across as:

In the beginning was the universe, and only God was in the universe at the time.

 

[FatBurk]

God is outside of the universe ... what we call transcendent.

God is so outside of the universe he is nowhere to be found, it's as if God didn't exist...what could be called non-existent.

 

[Delphiki]

God is so outside of the universe he is nowhere to be found, it's as if God didn't exist...what could be called non-existent.

THAAAAAAAAANK YOU.


Once again, AV admits to being an atheist without even realizing it.

 

[Delphiki]

Why don't you just Google it for yourself?

God is outside of the universe ... what we call transcendent.

So "nothing else" is misleading.

You're coming across as:

In the beginning was the universe, and only God was in the universe at the time.

Very well:


https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+nothing&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

noth·ing
ˈnəTHiNG/
pronoun
pronoun: nothing; plural noun: nothings

1. 1.
   not anything; no single thing.
   "I said nothing"
   synonyms:not a thing, not anything, nil, zero, naught/nought; Moreinformalzilch, zip, nada, diddly-squat, squat
   "all my efforts add up to nothing"
   
   
   
   antonyms:something
   • something of no importance or concern.
     "“What are you laughing at?” “Oh, nothing, sir.”"
     synonyms:a trifling matter, a trifle; Moreneither here nor there;
     informalno big deal
     "forget it—it's nothing"
   • (in calculations) no amount; zero.
     synonyms:zero, naught/nought, 0; Morelove
     "the share value fell to nothing"
   
   
   
   

adjectiveinformal

adjective: nothing

1. 1.
   having no prospect of progress; of no value.
   "he had a series of nothing jobs"

adverb
adverb: nothing
1.
not at all.
"she cares nothing for others"

No where does the definition say "...and God." or even "...and God outside the universe."

So how about in your own words. Tell me what "nothing" is. Educate this completely ignorant atheist on what the word "nothing" means. Please.

Your move.

 

[AV1611VET]

So how about in your own words.

How about in these words?

The Judeo-Christian doctrine which acknowledges ABSOLUTE creation. This dogma, which distinguishes Judaism and Christianity (and perhaps Islam) from all other religious cosmologies about the "beginnings", holds that a transcendent, eternal, uncreated, self-existent God created everything that is the natural universe (and every angelic spirit) out of nothing. It differs from the Hindu idea that God created the universe out of Him/Her/Itself and from the ancient quasi-pantheistic Greek idea that creation "emanated" from God/the gods. The concept of absolute creation is extremely difficult to grasp(perhaps impossible), since it assumes that God "invented" or "thought up" matter, time, and energy and set them in motion by His own will (that is, He had NOTHING with which to create, but really created entirely NEW things which were not already pre-existent). The Church has held to this dogma (NOT a particular VERSION of this dogma, i.e. young earth creationism, old earth creationism, theistic evolution) which has never been directly challenged (and seems to even be supported) by modern science, since most physicists agree that the universe had a beginning.

Source: Urban Dictionary

 

[Delphiki]

Seems to overlook the glaring fact that even one's own breath and ideas are still a product of themselves. The reason why it's hard to explain is because it's poorly thought out, despite the fact that it's had centuries worth of opportunities to ponder it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Seems to overlook the glaring fact that even one's own breath and ideas are still a product of themselves. The reason why it's hard to explain is because it's poorly thought out, despite the fact that it's had centuries worth of opportunities to ponder it.

Well ... you'll never straighten it out.

Not in the condition you're in.

I'll guarantee it.

I've been here seven and a half years, and believe me, it won't happen.

 

[Belk]

I'm showing you the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex deo; and I've yet, in all my years, to see an unbeliever understand NOTHING, and how it applies to creation.

Some say they do, but demonstrate otherwise.

So, is my summation wrong in some respect? I am trying to understand your response. If I have demonstrated an incorrect understanding of NOTHING somehow can you explain how I am going wrong?

 

[Loudmouth]

Any Born Again Christian I know of follows the Bible.

Just as any true Scotsman puts honey in his porridge. If he doesn't, then he is not a true Scotsman.

What you are missing is that a belief in a literal Genesis is not a requirement for being a christian, and it never has been, just as it is not a requirement to put honey in your porridge in order to be a Scotsman. Nowhere in the Nicene Creed do you see any requirement that christians belief in a young Earth or separate creation.