My Ex-nihilo Challenge

[Soul Searcher]

If you do not believe in creatio ex nihilo, I challenge you to give me a coherent explanation as to how mass and/or energy first appeared.

Some form of energy or matter must have always existed. This holds true in the Christian and creationist models as well since the belief is that God has always existed and God is all powerful.

That would mean that God had to have enough energy to create the matter in the universe. If he did not have the energy to do so or a means of harnessing existing energy then he could not have done it.

In either case God did it or big bang or both there had to be a massive source of energy to begin with.

 

[milkyway]

If you do not believe in creatio ex nihilo, I challenge you to give me a coherent explanation as to how mass and/or energy first appeared.

If anyone on these forums had a scientifically verifiable response to that question...well we wouldn't be on these forums!!

Er, OK...next "challenge" AVey baby?

 

[FishFace]

If you do not believe in creatio ex nihilo, I challenge you to give me a coherent explanation as to how mass and/or energy first appeared.

Two possibilities. It either just appeared in which case it wasn't created since "creation" implies a creator. Or it has been here forever.

 

[LeSabot]

The key things to look at are spontaneous symmetry breaking on the zero point field, and the zero point vacuum energy.

Energy is a tricky concept, one much more foreign than people readily understand. At its core energy is not a "thing", but rather a mathematically defined quantity that is always conserved. Even the Big Bang does not necessarily mean that there is not a conservation of energy.

Looking at recent works, one can see that there is an inherent instability associated with a null state. Think about the initial state of the universe as a pencil balanced on its point. This is a symmetrical yet unstable state. It COULD hang out like that forever, but it is much more likely to break symmetry and evolve in a particular direction. If we look at the initial symmetrical state of the universe we see a very unstable situation, one which would readily break symmetry and evolve along various cosmological paths. As long as the SUM of the energy in the system is constant, there is no issue. True, there might be large concentrations of energy in a particular area, but that does not mean that the OVERALL energy distribution is any different than the zero point field energy would be.

This is not to say that there is 100% certainty as to how the universe began and where all of the matter originated, but modern astrophysics provides a reasonably satisfying and testable explanation without the need for a god. Since the system would be no different with the injection of a god, it just seems reasonable to leave him out and go with the cohesive and inclusive explanation.

 

[Nathan Poe]

If you do not believe in creatio ex nihilo, I challenge you to give me a coherent explanation as to how mass and/or energy first appeared.

Space Hamsters from Alpha Centauri.

I challenge you to prove me wrong.

 

[tcampen]

If you do not believe in creatio ex nihilo, I challenge you to give me a coherent explanation as to how mass and/or energy first appeared.

However your God first appeared...that's how mass and/or energy first appeared. Whatever you might apply to the cause of your god's existence, apply to the universe. Satisfied?

No that I've answered your question, why do you answer this....what's North of the North Pole?

 

[Bushido216]

The Space Chickens did it!

Or if you prefer:

 

[rjw]

If you do not believe in creatio ex nihilo, I challenge you to give me a coherent explanation as to how mass and/or energy first appeared.

What are you suggesting? That if I cannot, (and I cannot), then creation ex nihilo explains it?

Interesting. Tell me how.


Regards, Roland

 

[MrGoodBytes]

So far, I take it this thread should be empty.

You should make yourself comfortable with the fact that some people actually prefer honesty over making things up.

 

[tanzanos]

If you do not believe in creatio ex nihilo, I challenge you to give me a coherent explanation as to how mass and/or energy first appeared.

Energy always existed. You cannot create energy. Since energy transforms to mass then there you have it.
Colliding Branes is a good theory of how our universe came to be.

I challenge you to give me a coherent explanation as to how God created from nothing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Energy always existed.

This is the one answer I was prepared to accept, and indeed, in my opinion, the only valid answer to this challenge. Although it doesn't explain where energy came from, per se; one would have to take on faith that energy is self-existing. Thus I submit this as proof that "scientists" have to do at least one of two things:

• Suspend judgment on where energy came from.
• Take it on faith that energy is self-existing.

 

[tanzanos]

This is the one answer I was prepared to accept, and indeed, in my opinion, the only valid answer to this challenge. Although it doesn't explain where energy came from, per se; one would have to take on faith that energy is self-existing. Thus I submit this as proof that "scientists" have to do at least one of two things:

• Suspend judgment on where energy came from.
• Take it on faith that energy is self-existing.

Sorry but this is where you are wrong about scientists. Science strives to understand and increase knowledge. Scientists will never cease to search. That is the aim of Science.

We used to think that lighting was some god's weapon until some scientist proved it was nothing more than an electrical discharge.

Search and ye shall be rewarded!

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry but this is where you are wrong about scientists. Science strives to understand and increase knowledge. Scientists will never cease to search. That is the aim of Science.

And that's why I always reply: keep looking.

But, of course, I get criticized for saying that, too. If I said I was AV1611VET, I'm sure someone somewhere would agree. This is why when anyone other than a Christian says it, it's not challenged; but when a Christian (or worse, a creationist) says it, it's automatically wrong.

This is one thing I've learned about how "scientists" think. Only they are qualified to speak for reality. They will tell us where the boundaries are, and nature-forbid that the Bible should say otherwise.

 

[[serious]]

This is the one answer I was prepared to accept, and indeed, in my opinion, the only valid answer to this challenge. Although it doesn't explain where energy came from, per se; one would have to take on faith that energy is self-existing. Thus I submit this as proof that "scientists" have to do at least one of two things:

• Suspend judgment on where energy came from.
• Take it on faith that energy is self-existing.

well, better to assume something we've seen is self existing than something we haven't.

Also, the expansion of the universe may have actually been what caused "time".

 

[atomweaver]

This is the one answer I was prepared to accept, and indeed, in my opinion, the only valid answer to this challenge. Although it doesn't explain where energy came from, per se; one would have to take on faith that energy is self-existing. Thus I submit this as proof that "scientists" have to do at least one of two things:

• Suspend judgment on where energy came from.
• Take it on faith that energy is self-existing.

I'd accept the first as fairly accurate; "suspend judgment on where energy came from" is fairly true, we don't presume to know the state of the universe pre-Big Bang, yet, as we have no way of making measurable observations to that "time*". I'd still dispute that you havn'et shown us a reason why energy has to "come from" somewhere, though. But yeah, each scientific theory has a bounded context under which it's model applies; the ToE models the diversification of species; a model which doesn't necessarily apply to abiogenesis. Quantum mechanics describes atomic and sub-atomic phenomena, the model doesn't apply to the migratory behavior of penguins.

Bullet 2; Take it on faith that energy is self-existing. Well, energy exists, thats measurable.
Why is it a faith statement or say that it is 'self-existing'..? Do you mean that scientists take it on faith that energy has always existed? No, they don't. They don't have a position on the pre-Big Bang state of the universe either way, until such time as they can measure something about that state; which is what makes people say that it is just as plausible to say "energy may have been around forever" as it is to say "energy came from somewhere". We have equal evidence for both positions, which is to say, no evidence at all.
That fact is irrelevant to the accuracy of the models that they do use, though, which all take observations of the universe as we know it into account.

(* Yeah, I know... space-time expanded, 'north of the north pole' is a meaningless expression. Someone give me better verbiage, here, please...)

 

[AV1611VET]

well, better to assume something we've seen is self existing than something we haven't.

[bible]John 20:28-29[/bible]

 

[FishFace]

This is the one answer I was prepared to accept, and indeed, in my opinion, the only valid answer to this challenge. Although it doesn't explain where energy came from, per se;

No indeed it does not. Just the same way that the theory of oxidation doesn't explain how phlogiston is formed. If energy didn't come from anywhere, then there can be no explanation of where it came from. Obviously.

one would have to take on faith that energy is self-existing.

Step 1 - define "self existing." Step 2 - justify the hidden premise in your enthymeme. It may turn out to be tautology, though.

(The suppressed premise is "whatever has always existed self exists.)

EDIT: Why can energy not have begun to exist by simply popping into existence? This isn't creatio ex nihilo but it is "ex nihilo." No creator required.

 

[atomweaver]

And that's why I always reply: keep looking.

Sure, but your keep looking seems to imply that you believe that, eventually, enough evidence will become assembled to have the science coincide with your Biblical interpretation... It won't. Whatever the future iteration of the ToE is, it must accomodate evidence which already refutes your particular Biblical interpretation. As such, it cannot ever fully reconcile with the way your keep looking suggests it might.

An aside; As your interpretation of the Bible is at odds with what is observed, it is equally useful for me to reply to your reply; keep interpreting.

 

[Nathan Poe]

And that's why I always reply: keep looking.

But, of course, I get criticized for saying that, too. If I said I was AV1611VET, I'm sure someone somewhere would agree. This is why when anyone other than a Christian says it, it's not challenged; but when a Christian (or worse, a creationist) says it, it's automatically wrong.

This is one thing I've learned about how "scientists" think. Only they are qualified to speak for reality. They will tell us where the boundaries are, and nature-forbid that the Bible should say otherwise.

The problem is, you only say half of what the reply should be.

Would you object to: keep looking, no matter where it takes you?

Of course you wouldn't.

You want: Keep looking until you can find a way to fit into AV1611VET's way of reading the Bible.

So why should anyone believe such dishonest motives?

 

[Vene]

Space Hamsters from Alpha Centauri.

I challenge you to prove me wrong.

No, it was Eris, she only made it look like it was the Space Hamsters from Alpha Centauri.