What Specific Evidence Should Point To Ex Nihilo Creation?

[Bungle_Bear]

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

If we ever find it I'm sure somebody will point it out.

It's interesting that you take the creationist tack (here's the conclusion, what evidence do we need to support it?) rather than the scientific tack (here's the evidence, what conclusion can we draw?).

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

If we ever find it I'm sure somebody will point it out.

It's interesting that you take the creationist tack (here's the conclusion, what evidence do we need to support it?) rather than the scientific tack (here's the evidence, what conclusion can we draw?).

This is an excellent point.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's interesting that you take the creationist tack (here's the conclusion, what evidence do we need to support it?) rather than the scientific tack (here's the evidence, what conclusion can we draw?).

Science can take a hike.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Science can take a hike.

While creationism just sits on the couch getting fatter and less healthy?

 

[sjastro]

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.

Who exactly is not being honest here when you conduct a survey under false pretenses when your real objective is to engage in one of your silly science bashing exercises?

As I explained in post #3 and in this post current thinking does not lend itself to the creation of a universe ex nihilo.
A survey of cosmologists including those with non mainstream models such as eternal inflation, conformal cyclic cosmology or brane cosmology would reveal the majority will state the universe is not created ex nihilo.

 

[ottawak]

Who exactly is not being honest here when you conduct a survey under false pretenses when your real objective is to engage in one of your silly science bashing exercises?

As I explained in post #3 and in this post current thinking does not lend itself to the creation of a universe ex nihilo.
A survey of cosmologists including those with non mainstream models such as eternal inflation, conformal cyclic cosmology or brane cosmology would reveal the majority will state the universe is not created ex nihilo.

I'm not sure why it matters, anyway. It is not essential Christian doctrine, the Bible does not specifically endorse it and it does not reflect universal Christian thinking on the subject.

 

[public hermit]

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

There can be no evidence for nothing. Ex nihilo is an article of faith. Evidence, by its nature, pertains to something observable. Since something is not nothing, there can be no evidence for creation ex nihilo. That doesn't negate the value of evidence and science. So, no, science does not need to take a hike; science is secure in its domain. For the same reason, claims of faith can't be put forward as competition for evidential claims. They are different categories.

I would say faith claims should come with a certain amount of humility (doxastic humility) since faith claims do not enjoy the widespread intersubjective agreement that empirically verifiable claims do.

 

[sjastro]

I'm not sure why it matters, anyway. It is not essential Christian doctrine, the Bible does not specifically endorse it and it does not reflect universal Christian thinking on the subject.

In essence the Big Bang theory is about the evolution of the universe not its creation so there is no overlap between the two.
This is beside the point as I was describing the disingenuous nature of the poster of once again trying to turn the thread into a science and scientist bashing post (which I should take personally if I took him very seriously).

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

If the poster did a bit of research he would know cosmologists have very little understanding of what happened at the original Big Bang (as opposed to the Hot Big Bang which occurred after the inflation era) as the laws of physics breakdown at the Planck scale which they are honest enough to admit contrary to the accusations.

 

[AV1611VET]

There can be no evidence for nothing.

I totally agree.

So, no, science does not need to take a hike; science is secure in its domain.

Let me remind you why I said science can take a hike:

It's interesting that you take the creationist tack (here's the conclusion, what evidence do we need to support it?) rather than the scientific tack (here's the evidence, what conclusion can we draw?).

Science can take a hike.

I'm second to none here saying there is no evidence for the creation events.

So why in the world (pun intended) would I contradict myself and take the "scientific tack"?

 

[zippy2006]

There can be no evidence for nothing. Ex nihilo is an article of faith. Evidence, by its nature, pertains to something observable. Since something is not nothing, there can be no evidence for creation ex nihilo.

Er, what?? Everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that creatio ex nihilo is not nothing. It is an act of creation, from nothing. It may well be that there is no possible adjudicative evidence for such a thesis, but the syllogism everyone keeps giving is unsound:

1. There can be no evidence for nothing.
2. Creatio ex nihilo is nothing.
3. Therefore there can be no evidence for creatio ex nihilo.​

(2) is false.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

So why in the world (pun intended) would I contradict myself and take the "scientific tack"?

You miss the point (as usual). Why are you drawing a conclusion and then asking for non-existent evidence to support it? There is already plenty of evidence in existence, so why not analyse it and see what conclusion you could reasonably draw from it?

Take one of your favourite hobby horses - Klebold & Harris. What specific evidence would we expect to see if the Columbine shooting was actually the act of a pair of aliens from planet Tharg?

 

[DamianWarS]

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

ex nihilo nihil fit

the problem with "nothing" is that it needs to be defined but the rub is the moment you define nothing it means you can measure it and if you can measure it then it's no longer nothing it's something. so the concept is paradoxical.

If nothing is the absence of the observable/measurable then nothing is a mystery, out of the boundaries of what science can see and it neither means it's there nor it's not there, it just means it cannot be known. You can easily call God nothing as the concept of God would preexist the space-time vacuum that science is based in and God would exist outside this and would be of a foreign substance that science is unable to see.

ex nihilo is just a way of expressing that which cannot be known.

 

[Rachel20]

There can be no evidence for nothing.

I'm persuaded. Swapped my vote from CMB, which is evidence of a finite universe, but not one that came from "nothing".

 

[TLK Valentine]

If we ever find it I'm sure somebody will point it out.

It's interesting that you take the creationist tack (here's the conclusion, what evidence do we need to support it?) rather than the scientific tack (here's the evidence, what conclusion can we draw?).

Well, he is a creationist who thinks Genesis is history and that the universe was created about 6,000 years ago, even if he doesn't want to be lumped in with the other YECs... not special enough.

 

[RileyG]

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

This is more theological than scientific IMO.

God, who is eternal, created everything out of nothing. Science is used to look at the truths of the universe. Depending on your interpretation, they can work together.

 

[RileyG]

So true.

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

God himself is incomprehensible

 

[TLK Valentine]

God himself is incomprehensible

That's funny -- you can't swing a stick in this country without hitting someone who has a detailed list of what He likes, dislikes, loves, hates, demands, forbids....

 

[RileyG]

That's funny -- you can't swing a stick in this country without hitting someone who has a detailed list of what He likes, dislikes, loves, hates, demands, forbids....

That's true. There are so many interpretations of scripture, it's impossible to mention them all.

(I see you are an agnostic. To be clear, I am not a fundamentalist nor a creationist. I am very much pro-science and pro-evolution and accept them as scientific fact.)

 

[Frank Robert]

There can be no evidence for nothing. Ex nihilo is an article of faith.

I disagree.

 

[Norbert L]

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

Just had a thought strike me:

The absence of evidence is the evidence. You can define nothing without it becoming something when it is absent.