My Apple Challenge

[BananaSlug]

I just want to point out that creatio ex nihilo generates no [known] evidence.

That's all I want from this thread.

Thank you for your honest answer.

So you disagree with the Bible?

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20

You also disagree with most other creationists who believe there is evidence for creation. Who is right, you or them?

 

[Skavau]

92

Despite my skepticism with the claim that creation ex nihilo leaves no evidence (we have no known incident of anything being 'created' ex nihilo) - what is your point? It is hardly a meaningful conclusion we could to agree with on this thread.

 

[SkyWriting]

I just want to point out that creatio ex nihilo generates no [known] evidence.

I don't know that is the case. Adam would be the person to ask on that.
From what we read, everything ...oh wait....actually you covered this.
The original creation, any original creation would be perfect.
Genetically and otherwise.

Holy cow, that just answers a related observation.
Why doesn't God "Poof" things into existence anymore?
Because God is perfect and unable to access our imperfect world directly!

Anything that is "perfect" for our world needs to be corrupt first.
If God created even a mouse for the current day, it would die because of lack of an immune system capable of fighting disease, because it hadn't already been exposed to it!
To summarize, anything that is "perfect" must be imperfect to exist in our world. In order for God to visit earth He HAD to become a man through a "natural" channel rather than just "poof".

That's why all God's miracles we see "today" are re-purposing of existing structures.
Amazing how Science eventually ties in and confirms ones faith.

I have new respect for the What-me-worry avatar.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you disagree with the Bible?

20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20

You also disagree with most other creationists who believe there is evidence for creation. Who is right, you or them?

Could we please leave the Bible out of this thread -- thank you.

 

[SkyWriting]

Let me put it this way! Since all life is made up of non living chemicals then suffice it to say that life can come from non living things.

If that were the case, we'd have to populate the rest of the Cosmos with life just to make that statement true. So strange how all the evidence is against you, yet the scientific mind persists.

Now since science has a very good explanation of how the non living things are created then the only question that begs to be answered is: What happened before the big bang!

There is no "before" from the Scientific and Faith view either.
Time doesn't exist before the creation event.
(Before matter)

 

[AV1611VET]

That's why all God's miracles we see "today" are re-purposing of existing structures. Amazing how Science eventually ties in and confirms ones faith.

Could we leave God out of this thread, please?

 

[Belk]

In my opinion: none.

Yours?

What leads you to the conclusion there would be no evidence?

 

[BananaSlug]

Could we please leave the Bible out of this thread -- thank you.

You claim there is no evidence for creation ex nihilo. I was merely pointing out that the Bible, and other christians, suggests otherwise. What do you have to say to that?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Accepting the OP at face value, let's suppose that someone creates ex nihilo an apple in my hand. Suppose that I am convinced of this. Suppose that it actually happened.

Now, how would I convince a friend that this happened? On the basis of evidence would I convince him? There is no evidence. I cannot show it.

So now two things may happen:
1. He rejects my attemps to persuade him, or
2. He accepts them.

Now if 1 occurs, my friend is wrong about what happened. But, is he wrong to have rejected my attempts to convince him? I would argue that yes, he is wrong. When should anyone accept a truth-claim? I would contend that we should accept a truth claim only when the evidence is convincing. Now, AV1611VET has agreed that there is no evidence nor could there be. Therefore, the friend is correct to reject the ex nihilo apple. (I would also contend that seeing an apple appear in my hand is not evidence that it was created ex nihilo and hence I should reject it also -- even though I was there.)

Consider the alternative. That is, what happens if we argue that we should accept truth claims without sufficient evidence? Then what should we ever reject except that which is explicitly proven false. Indeed, what things could explicitly be proven false? A invisible non-corporeal dragon in my garage? That there is an apple in this box? (Maybe you blinked when the statement was made, or maybe it is invisible to only you.)

If we must accept ex nihilo creation of apples, we should also accept leprechuans even if there is no evidence of their existence. If we contend that we should accept ex nihilo creation of apples, then we lose all ability to discriminate between that which is false and that which is true. This is the situation we find for case 2 above.

Case 1 might be wrong about reality, but he is right to not believe based on lack of evidence. Case 2 might be right about reality, but in principle he could never know, nor if he continued in that decision policy could he know anything at all.

 

[SkyWriting]

Jesus was a Jew... he told the stories that Jews tell.

Really? Really? Jews often spoke like Jesus did?
Jesus as the Wisdom of God
The Son of Man Title
Use of "Abba"
Use of "I Say Unto You"
The "I Am" claims
"Son of God"
The Alpha and the Omega
Miscellaneous Claims

 

[SkyWriting]

Again, could we please leave religion out of this?

Its ALL religion. Some just more mainstream, some less.
Even our language and the meanings are taken on Faith.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Its ALL religion. Some just more mainstream, some less.
Even our language and the meanings are taken on Faith.

Oh brother.

 

[AV1611VET]

You claim there is no evidence for creation ex nihilo.

That would be -- creatio ex nihilo -- not creation ex nihilo.

I was merely pointing out that the Bible, and other christians, suggests otherwise.

Okay.

What do you have to say to that?

Nothing here.

 

[tanzanos]

I just want to point out that creatio ex nihilo generates no [known] evidence.

That's all I want from this thread.

Thank you for your honest answer.

That is not correct. When mass is created it is done so by converting energy into mass. This will produce heat in the form of radiation. Eventually this radiation (as the apple cools) will degrade to microwaves.

Thus in conclusion we can ascertain if something was created ex nihilo by the remnant radiation produced by the process!

Everything leaves a tell tale sign!

Like they say in my country: "Nothing is hidden under the sun".

 

[AV1611VET]

That is not correct. When mass is created it is done so by converting energy into mass.

Technically, that's creatio ex materia -- creation out of something already created.

In creatio ex nihilo, even energy doesn't exist.

nihilo ≠ energy

 

[MoonLancer]

That would be -- creatio ex nihilo -- not creation ex nihilo.



Okay.



Nothing here.

Why should we take your word as a christain that this is the Truth over other Christians who claim something else and that that is the Truth. Maybe you guys should get your story stright before preaching. Really this is the side effect of Luther. For a long time only the church knew the word of God. Now everyone has gotten it in thier heads that any interpretation they dream up is the True word of God. I will tell you a little secrete. Peoples opinions will always be different from eachother and this is no exception. So trying to claim that these opinions are somehow the word of God. Its very informative about whats really going on to people like me.

 

[MoonLancer]

Technically, that's creatio ex materia -- creation out of something already created.

In creatio ex nihilo, even energy doesn't exist.

nihilo ≠ energy

This would be true except what your trying to apply creation ex Nihilo to does in fact have evidence. The aged world has evidence that would not exist if the world was created as you say.

Your example would be like you picking a fruit from a tree and claiming you created it from nothing.

To assume that the world was created and continue to believe so because its unfalsifiable is logical or even honest.

If the world was created from nothing there would not be fossils embedded in rock that are millions of years old. You may have to pray to a dishonest and deceptive god to make your theology work but dont expect everyone else to do so as well.

 

[AV1611VET]

[deleted]

 

[AV1611VET]

[deleted]

 

[BananaSlug]

Then let's employ Occam's Razor, as I did with Belk, and skip the last five days of the Creation Week and just concentrate on Day One for ease of understanding.

Show me what evidence would exist after God brings the earth into existence.

It is now the end of Day One, and Day Two is about to begin.

What evidence is in existence?

All of the minerals found on earth are no older than 6,000 years.

The jist of the OP is that we need to convince a friend that you created an apple ex nihilo. The fallacy of the OP is that you merely want us to convince a friend that you did such an act while God, who supposedly created the entire universe ex nihilo, wants us to worship him as creator without leaving any physical evidence of his creation. What artist would not "leave his signature" on his artwork?