My Ex-nihilo Challenge

[Eudaimonist]

Which is it?

Both statements are true. There is no conflict.

When I say that there has always been something, I do not mean an unchanging something. I mean that there has never been a "time" in which nothing at all existed. Something was always present.

When I refer to an initial something, I mean something (everything) at the very beginnings of change, IOW, at the beginnings of measurable "time".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[talkingmonkey]

...Trying to find God with electronic gadgetry is like trying to find a rubber ball with a magnet....

If the rubber ball has had a significant static charge put through it (say rubbing it against carpet really quickly), then yes you could find it with a magnet.

Ever rubbed a balloon on your head and wondered why your hair stands on end? It's known as static magnetism.

 

[TheBear]

http://christianforums.com/t6793820-the-big-kahuna.html

 

[AV1611VET]

Both statements are true. There is no conflict.

When I say that there has always been something, I do not mean an unchanging something. I mean that there has never been a "time" in which nothing at all existed. Something was always present.

When I refer to an initial something, I mean something (everything) at the very beginnings of change, IOW, at the beginnings of measurable "time".


eudaimonia,

Mark

How does this answer my OP?

 

[Eudaimonist]

How does this answer my OP?

By rejecting its false alternative and showing how the question itself contains a false premise.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[AV1611VET]

So this ---

... I challenge you to give me a coherent explanation as to how mass and/or energy first appeared.

--- equals this ---

... rejecting its false alternative and showing how the question itself contains a false premise.

--- ?

 

[Eudaimonist]

This is your undoctored OP:


"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."

I object to the false alternative of "If you do not ... I challenge you to ..."

I'm saying that I do not believe in creation ex nihilo, however, your challenge implies a false alternative. I am responding to your challenge by denying its validity for me. This may not be what you were looking for, but it is an on-topic response.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[plindboe]

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.

Nobody knows whether matter/energy existed forever or arose at some point, and if so, how it occurred, that includes you. Only hubris can convince people they know something they actually don't. I advice some humility.

Next question.

Peter

 

[AV1611VET]

This is your undoctored OP:


"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."

I object to the false alternative of "If you do not ... I challenge you to ..."

I'm saying that I do not believe in creation ex nihilo, however, your challenge implies a false alternative. I am responding to your challenge by denying its validity for me. This may not be what you were looking for, but it is an on-topic response.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Okay, Mark, I'm not going to dance with you. It's not really that hard a challenge, but if you have to stoop to calling a request for how something first appeared a "false alternative," then we're done. I also asked for a coherent explanation and, quite frankly, you guys are doing a very poor job of explaining it to this scientifically-challenged creationist.

In my opinion your science stinks, and you guys make poor spokesmen for it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nobody knows whether matter/energy existed forever or arose at some point...

But you're sure it wasn't creatio ex nihilo, right?

You don't know where it came from, and you don't know it hasn't always been here; but by golly, one thing's for sure: God didn't do it --- right?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Okay, Mark, I'm not going to dance with you. It's not really that hard a challenge, but if you have to stoop to calling a request for how something first appeared a "false alternative," then we're done.

Stoop? I'm not playing games with you. I'm telling it to you like it is. It is a false alternative.

I also asked for a coherent explanation and, quite frankly, you guys are doing a very poor job of explaining it to this scientifically-challenged creationist.

And I'm telling you that the "challenge" itself is based in a false premise.

In my opinion your science stinks, and you guys make poor spokesmen for it.

Try understanding it for a change instead of getting petulant.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[AV1611VET]

Try understanding it for a change instead of getting petulant.

No way --- no how --- no thanks.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

But you're sure it wasn't creatio ex nihilo, right?

You don't know where it came from, and you don't know it hasn't always been here; but by golly, one thing's for sure: God didn't do it --- right?

You don't know where it came from, and you don't know it hasn't always been here; but by golly, one thing's for sure: Krishna didn't do it --- right?

You don't know where it came from, and you don't know it hasn't always been here; but by golly, one thing's for sure: Huitzilopochtli didn't do it --- right?

You don't know where it came from, and you don't know it hasn't always been here; but by golly, one thing's for sure: I didn't do it --- right?

 

[Vene]

But you're sure it wasn't creatio ex nihilo, right?

You don't know where it came from, and you don't know it hasn't always been here; but by golly, one thing's for sure: God didn't do it --- right?

How cute, the creationist is invoking his God of the gap. So far we have not found a supernatural cause for anything. Everything so far has been explained using purely natural means. All you are doing is bringing in an unsupported entity. And just bringing in the question of where God came from. Was He created ex nihilo as well?

 

[milkyway]

But you're sure it wasn't creatio ex nihilo, right?

You don't know where it came from, and you don't know it hasn't always been here; but by golly, one thing's for sure: God didn't do it --- right?

No one knows for sure where the universe came from - not you or any scientist.
What we can say is that it is extremely unlikely that it was created by a god.

This may help you to understand how science works -read & learn courtesy of Richard Feynman:

"Some years ago I had a conversation with a layman about flying saucers — because I am 'scientific' I know all about flying saucers!!
I said 'I don't think there are flying saucers'. So my antagonist said, 'Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it's impossible?' 'No', I said, 'I can't prove it's impossible. It's just very unlikely'. At that he said, 'You are very unscientific. If you can't prove it impossible then how can you say that it's unlikely?'
But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible. To define what I mean, I might have said to him, 'Listen, I mean that from my knowledge of the world that I see around me, I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence.' It is just more likely. That is all."

 

[Eudaimonist]

No way --- no how --- no thanks.

Okay, don't strain yourself.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[MattTheAgnostic]

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.

Difficult to do since you can't know what things were like before matter and energy, or even if there was a before. But creation ex nihilo occurs all the time at this particular time anyway.

 

[plindboe]

But you're sure it wasn't creatio ex nihilo, right?

You don't know where it came from, and you don't know it hasn't always been here; but by golly, one thing's for sure: God didn't do it --- right?

Nopes, don't be so presumptuous. I don't know how stuff got here, and I don't pretend to know.

Peter

 

[AV1611VET]

Nopes, don't be so presumptuous. I don't know how stuff got here, and I don't pretend to know.

Peter

I do, though, and so can you, if you'll look in the right place ---

[bible]Hebrews 11:3[/bible]

 

[FishFace]

So you're saying the universe is? Sounds like a statement of faith to me.

Well clearly the universe is; if it weren't I would like to know how exactly we are holding this discussion.

More to the point, there is no evidence to suggest that the universe - or at any rate, mass and energy, as ever not been. Why then should we believe that it has been created, or even - and this means something different - that it came into existence?
First you need to establish that it came into existence, and then you need to establish that it was created. Why should we believe that it was either of these things?