What Specific Evidence Should Point To Ex Nihilo Creation?

[AV1611VET]

What specific evidence should we expect to see, if the universe was created ex nihilo?

 

[Petros2015]

"Nothing will come of nothing" ~King Lear
So I would expect to see nothing.

 

[sjastro]

No such thing as ex nihilo.

 

[Homeowner]

So I would expect to see nothing.

Well creationist science has us covered there.

 

[SkyWriting]

What specific evidence should we expect to see, if the universe was created ex nihilo?

All evidence would point to a time where we could not see any farther back.
We would have evidence suggesting a beginning.
Everything would seem to be getting more disorganized and colder.

The source of the Cosmos would be a mystery.

The source of all energy would be a mystery.

My Time Crystals would be wearing out from overuse.

 

[Bradskii]

The cosmic microwave background.

 

[AV1611VET]

The cosmic microwave background.

Do you mind voting as such, please, for the record?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

What specific evidence should we expect to see, if the universe was created ex nihilo?

God's realm is not our realm. There is nothing to prove this other than faith as the beginning still remains with the Word.
Blessings

 

[Frank Robert]

Well creationist science has us covered there.

Creation science is belief and apologetics and is much more a cultural and political movement than it is a scientific one. Read the Wedge Document.

 

[Homeowner]

Creation science is belief and apologetics and is much more a cultural and political movement than it is a scientific one. Read the Wedge Document.

It is entirely a political and cultural movement. Which is why I said it has evidence of nothing.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What specific evidence should we expect to see, if the universe was created ex nihilo?

For me, the relevant question is: "By what praxis or set of evaluative criteria should we interpret evidence pertaining to any kind of creation"?

 

[AV1611VET]

For me, the relevant question is: "By what praxis or set of evaluative criteria should we interpret evidence pertaining to any kind of creation"?

Whatever works.

Scientists have been interpreting stuff for centuries now.

Let's not suddenly go 404 when someone wants them to apply their newest Johnny Seven technotoy to what happened in 4004 BC.

If they can't rush off to the Sinai and find two million Jews with their updated Skeletonscopes, I'm sure their myopic inventions aren't going to find an entire universe coming into existence out of nothing.

This thread shows they don't even know what to look for, and aren't honest enough to admit it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Whatever works.

Scientists have been interpreting stuff for centuries now.

Let's not suddenly go 404 when someone wants them to apply their newest Johnny Seven technotoy to what happened in 4004 BC.

If they can't rush off to the Sinai and find two million Jews with their updated Skeletonscopes, I'm sure their myopic inventions aren't going to find an entire universe coming into existence out of nothing.

This thread shows they don't even know what to look for, and aren't honest enough to admit it.

What are we to look for then, AV, and 'how' does the Bible instruct us about the exact criteria and method by which we are to discern what we are "to see" empirically of God's "apparent" handiwork?

I'm asking because I don't see any kind of overarching, comprehensive method or system being presented in the pages of the Bible for doing so ... and I'm honest enough to admit it.

 

[AV1611VET]

What are we to look for then, AV,

Nothing.

 

[atpollard]

A singularity origin.
(That all data points back to.)

Like ENROPY (Second Law of Thermodynamics) as one data point.

 

[Larniavc]

This thread shows they don't even know what to look for, and aren't honest enough to admit it.

Or simply that the evidence you are looking for does not exist so much that it is inconceivable.

 

[Rachel20]

Nothing.

lol reminds me of the kind of 'nothing' that Schroeder describes lies outside the universe - we can't even wrap our minds around it. We think of vacuums or empty space, but those things are something.

 

[AV1611VET]

lol reminds me of the kind of 'nothing' that Schroeder describes lies outside the universe - we can't even wrap our minds around it. We think of vacuums or empty space, but those things are something.

So true.

Nothing (i.e., nihilo) is so hard to comprehend.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I don't think there is any observation we could make in order to conclude that the universe came into existence ex nihilo. The concept of "nothing" is purely philosophical. It has never been, nor could it logically ever be observed. It is a state that is not possible to accurately conceive let alone experience. By definition. We can only conclude that there was something, likely always has been something, and it expanded into our Universe.

To be fair, I don't think any observation we could make could rule out ex nihilo creation either. Given that, however, I think that pushes the burden upon those who claim such an event occurred to both show that and to show that the entity they claim did it actually exists. Otherwise, there's simply no good reason to accept the claim.

 

[TLK Valentine]

So true.

Nothing (i.e., nihilo) is so hard to comprehend.

Actually, it's ridiculously simple.