My Ex-nihilo Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Do you understand the difference between "creating" and "appearing"?
["Creating", as opposed to "appearing") is a transitive verb - it requires a subject (creator) and an object (creation, creature).]

Okay --- got it --- by "appeared" you don't mean "came into existence."

How do you differentiate between something that came into existence ex nihilo, from something that only looks like it came into existence ex nihilo?

 

[quatona]

Okay --- got it --- by "appeared" you don't mean "came into existence."

Yes, that´s what I mean. I am differenciating between "coming into existence" and "being created (by a creator) into existence".

How do you differentiate between something that came into existence ex nihilo, from something that only looks like it came into existence ex nihilo?

You mean, how do I tell from the result? I don´t, and I wouldn´t know how it´s relevant here.
I´m not the one who claims to have an explanation, after all. You came here and asked for alternative "explanations" to yours. I gave you some examples that would match the standards yours has set: just like it they are mere wild guesses and unsubstantiated claims and don´t explain anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

I gave you some examples that would match the standards yours has set: just like it they are mere wild guesses and unsubstantiated claims and don´t explain anything.

Well, I could have made it much harder on you guys --- I could have stated the OP like this:

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. And back it up with written documentation.

Or even harder with this:

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. And back it up with written documentation from the 1st century AD.

Or even harder with this:

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. And back it up with written documentation from Moses' time.

But being the nice guy that I am --- I'm cutting you guys some slack.

And you're welcome ---

 

[quatona]

Well, I could have made it much harder on you guys --- I could have stated the OP like this:
Yes, you could have done



Or even harder with this:



Or even harder with this:

Yes, you could have done all that.
I would still not see the point, and I wouldn´t see what and whom it would actually challenge - unless we would first have established that people at Moses´ time and/or in the first century in the Middle East were authorities in questions of the origin of the universe - more knowledgeable than people at any other time and in any other area of the world.

 

[Vene]

How do you know George Washington was our first President?

Multiple records of his existence help.
http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trt022.html

As do legal documents bearing his signature as a president.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

How about his farewell speech?
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

I know, the Letters of Marque!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque

So, there's more than one record to verify he existed that was written by him. There are multiple presidential documents signed by him. There's also his final speech as president. Yep, that's enough to convince me that he existed and was president.

 

[Dragar]

However, if some of those documents claimed George Washington rose from the dead, flew across America like Superman, and smote his enemies with thunderbolts, I think I'd consider those elements exaggeration. It would be silly to believe them on those details.

 

[AV1611VET]

...unless we would first have established that people at Moses´ time and/or in the first century in the Middle East were authorities in questions of the origin of the universe...

They weren't --- they just wrote what they were inspired to write from Someone Who was.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, there's more than one record to verify he existed that was written by him. There are multiple presidential documents signed by him. There's also his final speech as president. Yep, that's enough to convince me that he existed and was president.

Good --- you'll need more though --- much more to match mine.

I've got 66 --- from three different continents.

 

[Vene]

Good --- you'll need more though --- much more to match mine.

I've got 66 --- from three different continents.

And none of them were written by Jesus, nor were they written during his lifetime.

 

[Skavau]

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.

Granted. A key observation. However, this has little relevance to the virtuous pursuit of science. The pursuit of science is to understand reality through rigorous observation and experimentation of natural phenomena. Individual scientists might have their own viewpoint on the source of all energy. They might take it by faith or by reason that it is self-existing or they might completely withdraw judgment. These however would be individual opinions based on individual understanding. These would not be science. They would not be scientific and no-one would claim that they would be. You mistake the opinions of scientists with science.

Science itself says nothing on the origin of energy. Your complaint is pointless.

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.

Sorry, science is not based on the assertions of the Bible. Science has any reason whatsoever to care what the Bible says.

Oh, a few things come to mind:

• four-footed locusts
• satyrs
• behemoths
• hares that chew their cud
• fowled bats
• a water canopy
• an empty tomb
• Sodom and Gomorrah
• the ten-man Syrian chariot
• the Sinai desert for artifacts
• Cyrenius as governor of Syria in 4 BC
• extra-Biblical references to Jesus
• Noah's Ark

--- for starters.

Why should we look for the above anymore than we should look for the Flying Spaghetti Monster? You don't get science, do you. Not at all. Science doesn't look for anything in particular. It does not assign an agenda. No decent scientist ever would say "Today we shall look for evidence for Noah's Ark!" Why? Because it is a false scenario. It implies an assumption that evidence for Noah's Ark (and that Noah's Ark for that matter) even exists. A real scientist would just look indiscriminately. No objective, no agenda, no presumption. Only the desire to discern what is true and what is false.

That is science. That is also something you seem to constantly not understand.

In my honest opinion --- it's too late. We live in the latter days, and the chances of finding evidence of those are about as great as finding Judge Crater. You'll have to go on written Documentation as your evidence.

Why, precisely? The existence of documentation asserting something does not mean that it is true. The existence of documentation claiming something does not mean that it is true or is at all meaningful. You freely admit there is no evidence or rather little chance for evidence for the claims you presented - so why should we assume the written documentation is correct? Should we take Hindu scriptures as evidence? Why or why not?

 

[AV1611VET]

Science doesn't look for anything in particular.

Like S.E.T.I does --- or those that look for water/life on Mars?

 

[FishFace]

How do you know George Washington was our first President?

To be honest, I don't have a clue. I'm not Amer'can. But if I did know, then I would suggest that it was because of evidence.

So, yes, why should we trust what Jesus is said to have said?

 

[FishFace]

And none of them were written by Jesus, nor were they written during his lifetime.

Also, AV is trying to show that something appeared ex nihilo, from records that talk about people rising from the dead.
He just asked us to show that some guy did some rather mundane stuff that noone else did before (but that plenty of other people did afterwards.)

 

[GrayCat]

Where in the Bible does it say "And God then created everything Ex Nihilo"?

 

[AV1611VET]

Where in the Bible does it say "And God then created everything Ex Nihilo"?

Right next to where it says, "And the Rapture is God coming back for His saints."

Oh, wait ---

Maybe it's before He says, "We are the trinity."

Somewhere around there.

And what did you mean by then?

 

[GrayCat]

Right next to where it says, "And the Rapture is God coming back for His saints."

Oh, wait ---

Maybe it's before He says, "We are the trinity."

Somewhere around there.

And what did you mean by then?

Look, i've never read the Bible, I don't know the context of those quotes you posted from it. I was just asking. How do you believe ex nihilo if it's not stated anywhere in the Bible? (since you base your beliefs on the bible)

Idk what I meant by "Then." I guess like if he did a series of things, and there were some things that he did before creating everything.

 

[AV1611VET]

Look, i've never read the Bible, I don't know the context of those quotes you posted from it. I was just asking. How do you believe ex nihilo if it's not stated anywhere in the Bible? (since you base your beliefs on the bible)

Idk what I meant by "Then." I guess like if he did a series of things, and there were some things that he did before creating everything.

Okay --- I apologize, GrayCat.

I [we] interpret the "and God spake" passages in Genesis 1 as individual acts of creatio ex nihilo.

 

[AV1611VET]

Also, AV is trying to show that something appeared ex nihilo, from records that talk about people rising from the dead.

Could we please stop using that word?

It's misleading, and I already misunderstood a point from Quatana, who used it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

How do you know George Washington was our first President?

he wasn't -- he was actually our 8th president. But most people don't bother to study history enough to learn these things.

 

[FishFace]

Could we please stop using that word?

It's misleading, and I already misunderstood a point from Quatana, who used it.

Could you please address the point? Namely, we have plenty of evidence for our everyday beliefs, but very little evidence for religious beliefs.
That, and that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, puts you in a tight spot.