Raisin Bread

[SithDoughnut]

Is the raisin bread fresh or stale?

What kind of grapes were used?

Did I actually see it happen?

What kind of flour is in the bread?

Does He do catering?

I need to know these before I can begin to answer the question.

 

[AV1611VET]

Who said?

You guys did -- here: 1.

As did you, yourself, in this very post:

Yet of any evidence for how God accomplished his creation acts (tools, methods etc.) there is a complete vacuum and utter silence.

I'd say that this vacuum of evidence is a strong indication that creation never happened the way the Bible portrays it.

 

[Split Rock]

If God created a loaf of raisin bread ex nihilo tomorrow, would you accuse Him of deception?

What does God look for when creating a loaf of raisin bread?
Does he eat raisin bread himself?
Does he like dark or white raisins?
Does he add cinnamon? If so, how much?
Does the loaf have spaces in it from air bubbles that never existed?
Is the bread perfectly cooked on all sides?
How are the raisins arranged in the bread? In perfect symmetry, or randomly?
Who's recipe does God follow?

Of course, these are all silly questions, because the O.P. is silly. God (if He exists) does not create this way. If God creates, he does it the smart way.. He creates a universe, so that everything unfolds the way He wants. He doesn't need to tinker and make his own raisin bread loaf. The inhabitants of the universe He created will do that without any extra effort on His part.

 

[Chesterton]

</mysterious delurk>

Wow, three posts in 6 1/2 years, and to make a point about raisin bread? You do delurk in mysterious ways.

 

[Zalasta]

Wow, three posts in 6 1/2 years, and to make a point about raisin bread? You do delurk in mysterious ways.

That's the whole point of mysteriously delurking!

 

[Mike Elphick]

Creatio ex nihilo leaves no evidence behind.

Who said?

You guys did -- here: 1.

As did you, yourself, in this very post:

No. 'Creation out of nothing' means what is says — nothing more and nothing less (excuse the pun) — and that means it does not include the condition that it leaves no evidence behind. That is your embellishment and, as I proposed, a cop-out.

Of course absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. However, just because there is no evidence for a biblical 'creation out of nothing', does not mean such (absense of evidence) is an essential, constituent part of the (theoretical/theological) phenomenon of 'Creatio ex nihilo' — look it up, it's not. In fact, in the face of other evidence, it goes against the biblical creation stories.

 

[Zalasta]

Creatio ex nihilo leaves no evidence behind.

Are you suggesting that God is incapable of creating a loaf of raisin bread in such a manner that it would leave evidence behind in the bread itself that would indicate it is created 'ex nihilo'?

 

[Zalasta]

Of course, these are all silly questions, because the O.P. is silly.

Is the situation itself silly? I think so, but so are most analogies and what if's. And I have to say that from all of AV's challenges, this one seems to depict his beliefs most closely. Paraphrasing AV, if I may: "Creation from nothing with embedded age without history, evidence or deception"

Although completely in style with the rest of them, it leaves out the necessary information in order to answer the question.

It is believed God does X, but there is no evidence of X, it leaves 3 options:

A. God is incapable.
B. God is deceptive
C. It didn't happen.

(potentially a D: 'God does not want us to know', but then how can it be believed that He did so? So I discounted this one)

Which is of course where the whole "Creation Science" movement comes from, they believe there *must be* evidence to avoid exactly this situation.

 

[Split Rock]

No. 'Creation out of nothing' means what is says — nothing more and nothing less (excuse the pun) — and that means it does not include the condition that it leaves no evidence behind. That is your embellishment and, as I proposed, a cop-out.

Of course absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. However, just because there is no evidence for a biblical 'creation out of nothing', does not mean such (absense of evidence) is an essential, constituent part of the (theoretical/theological) phenomenon of 'Creatio ex nihilo' — look it up, it's not. In fact, in the face of other evidence, it goes against the biblical creation stories.

You are not the first to bring this point up, Mike. AVET is purposely defining 'Creatio ex nihilo' as leaving no evidence behind only because he knows that there is no evidence. Its a type of "front-loaded" argument. The best that he can hoenstly claim, is that God can create out of nothing without leaving evidence behind, if He wanted to.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course, these are all silly questions, because the O.P. is silly.

You do realize that you are ridiculing an example that can help you understand, don't you?

I don't believe God went the TE route, but I don't say it is 'silly'.

The point of this thread is that God cannot create a simple thing as a loaf of raisin bread without incurring the charge of 'deception', let alone a whole universe.

And while I don't believe in Omphalism, it's not because it is 'silly' or 'deceptive'.

 

[MoonLancer]

Nothing spilled, no leftovers, no oven cooling down, no dirty pots and pans, no background radiation, no big bang heard -- nothing.

Are you talking about some sort of alternative universe where there is no evidence that shows the earth as being millions of years old?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you suggesting that God is incapable of creating a loaf of raisin bread in such a manner that it would leave evidence behind in the bread itself that would indicate it is created 'ex nihilo'?

No.

 

[AV1611VET]

The best that he can hoenstly claim, is that God can create out of nothing without leaving evidence behind, if He wanted to.

That's why He admitted to what He did -- in Writing.

The Bible replaces any evidence He would have had to manufacture to convince us empirically.

In short, He convinces us through the heart, not through the empirical senses -- inside out, so to speak.

 

[MoonLancer]

The point of this thread is that God cannot create a simple thing as a loaf of raisin bread without incurring the charge of 'deception', let alone a whole universe.

but instead you find that a loaf of bread is quite complex and there are questions which you simply cannot answer in regard to this act of creation.

A loaf of bread realized by many causal acts working together. If god bypasses these causal acts to create bread, The question is, is there evidence of these casual acts or not?

If a friend told you he baked bread and created from nothing, but you are able to determine causal effects on the bread your not likely going to believe him.

If a book claims god created bread and the bread has causal effects that can be detected its the result is the same. a reasonable person shouldn't believe the bread was created ex nihilo. Its mighty suspicious when the book makes such a claim but god is nowhere to be found and wont make bread anymore.

 

[MoonLancer]

That's why He admitted to what He did -- in Writing.

The Bible replaces any evidence He would have had to manufacture to convince us empirically.

In short, He convinces us through the heart, not through the empirical senses -- inside out, so to speak.

If God wants to admit something he can do it personally. Seeing has how the bible has many erroneous errors it does not fill me with confidence that a god of any ability wrote it.

Im sorry AV but the bible does not replace the need for the empirical, as it itself needs to be verified as the word of God. If God wants to set me straight on the issue i welcome him to do so. In the meantime the bible is just a bronze age manuscript making incredible claims and no evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

but instead you find that a loaf of bread is quite complex and there are questions which you simply cannot answer in regard to this act of creation.

Um ... MoonLancer ... the focus should actually be on the raisins, not the bread.

The raisins represent old things found in the earth; and just like dry* grapes enhance the bread, old things enhance the earth.

* Notice I am avoiding the use of the word 'dried', since the grapes came into existence already dried -- thus no passage of time necessitated.

 

[AV1611VET]

If God wants to admit something he can do it personally.

He did.

 

[MoonLancer]

He did.

You must not understand the would "personally". the bible was written by men, and in no way that even reconciles what we are talking about. It makes contradictory statements which simply shows its wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

You must not understand the would "personally"

What makes you so special that you can demand a one-on-one with God for the purpose of clarifying Genesis 1, when Christians are praying and asking God why their loved ones are lying in hospitals dying of cancer and whatnot?

I have a feeling that should God decide to grant you your demand and show up, the last thing on earth you would want to do is keep your appointment.

Even mother nature isn't going to stand in His presence in the end:

Re 20:11 ¶ And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

 

[Split Rock]

You do realize that you are ridiculing an example that can help you understand, don't you?

No, I don't.

I don't believe God went the TE route, but I don't say it is 'silly'.

No, you claim it is Blasphemy.

The point of this thread is that God cannot create a simple thing as a loaf of raisin bread without incurring the charge of 'deception', let alone a whole universe.

I never mentioned deception.

And while I don't believe in Omphalism, it's not because it is 'silly' or 'deceptive'.

If it isn't silly, then go ahead and answer my questions.