What Specific Evidence Should Point To Ex Nihilo Creation?

[AV1611VET]

I do.

* cough *

But you don't appear to see the difference between creating a world and cleaning up after a flood.

I don't need to.

I only need to see the difference between God cleaning up after the Flood, and Mardi Gras supporters cleaning up after Katrina.

By the way, have you noticed in my posts that I actually AGREE with you guys that you can't find any evidence of a world-wide flood?

That explains a lot.

Sure does.

Irrelevant when we're talking about creation ex-nihilo.

Oh ... of course!

What you call "irrelevant," I usually call "a good question."

And what's "creation ex nihilo"?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I only need to see the difference between God cleaning up after the Flood, and Mardi Gras supporters cleaning up after Katrina.

That's awesome. But irrelevant to the topic of creation ex-nihilo.

What you call "irrelevant," I usually call "a good question."

It's also known as moving the goalposts.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's awesome. But irrelevant to the topic of creation ex-nihilo.

Oh, dear.

Someone who didn't vote, railing about what's going on.

You sound like an armchair politician.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Oh, dear.

Someone who didn't vote, railing about what's going on.

You sound like an armchair politician.

Not really. Unlike you I am aware that irrelevancies are not relevant, and moving goalposts is poor form in a discussion.

 

[TLK Valentine]

So why would a world-wide flood be deceptive, whereas a city-wide flood would be an improvement?

Because the city-wide flood actually happened.

We know what He did, when He did it, why He did it, where He did it, how He did it, what order He did it in, how long it lasted, how He cleaned it up (He didn't), why He cleaned it up (He didn't), and who the eyewitnesses were.

 

[ottawak]

How would you know if they were supported or not?

Just because they don't carry the official Seal of Academia,* doesn't mean they aren't supported.

* And don't ask me to post it: I don't want to get moderated.

Forget academia; they don't even carry the "official seal" of the whole of Christ's church.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because the city-wide flood actually happened.

I see.

So God is being deceptive for something He didn't do?

 

[AV1611VET]

Forget academia; they don't even carry the "official seal" of the whole of Christ's church.

Well ... you know ... beings as there's some 38,000 sects and all ...

 

[TLK Valentine]

I see.

So God is being deceptive for something He didn't do?

According to you, He wrote that He did do it.

So yes, He is being deceptive...

 

[AV1611VET]

According to you, He wrote that He did do it.

So yes, He is being deceptive...

Wow -- suit yourself.

 

[sjastro]

So is it safe to say that we just don't know?

We don't know.
Without being able to unify gravity with quantum mechanics at small scales in the very early universe makes it difficult to even come up with a plausible hypothesis.
If vacuum energy played a role in the Big Bang then space-time must have been around for the Big Bang to occur.
Space-time itself or nothingness is a "something" as the following video illustrates hence the idea of the creation of the universe ex nihilo is bogus.

 

[Bradskii]

"Evolving," or "growing"?

Would you know the difference?

 

[Norbert L]

"Evolving," or "growing"?

I don't know yet. The idea only came to me a couple of days ago. My intuition and hunch would be this starts with the capacity of the intellect, how much can knowledge really increase. Where it ends is yet to be seen.

The absence of the cat demonstrates either dishonesty on the part of the person making the claim or a lack of care on their part that they didn't notice somebody removing the cat. So, to finish your analogy, is God dishonest or is he careless and not omniscient, and therefore dishonest in making claims that he is omniscient?

I would say my stance on Ex Nihilo is trying to avoid sides, I did vote other. We're free enough in speech to inject and suggest that such a thing is dishonest. A conclusion which is more akin to not seeing the forest because of the trees due to all the additional details you needed to put in place.

Consider my answer to AV. This is about the capacity of the human mind to reason out and find answers to some of the great puzzles that plague mankind for a cure.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Oh, dear.

Someone who didn't vote, railing about what's going on.

You sound like an armchair politician.

...arguing with an armchair theologian.

 

[BPPLEE]

I don't know yet. The idea only came to me a couple of days ago. My intuition and hunch would be this starts with the capacity of the intellect, how much can knowledge really increase. Where it ends is yet to be seen.
I would say my stance on Ex Nihilo is trying to avoid sides, I did vote other. We're free enough in speech to inject and suggest that such a thing is dishonest. A conclusion which is more akin to not seeing the forest because of the trees due to all the additional details you needed to put in place.

Consider my answer to AV. This is about the capacity of the human mind to reason out and find answers to some of the great puzzles that plague mankind for a cure.

Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo - ScienceDirect

 

[AV1611VET]

Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo - ScienceDirect

The abstract in the first part of that link is confusing.

He jumps from "formation" to "creation" and back to "formation."

It can't be both.

Furthermore, while I like the idea that he's trying to show that creatio ex nihilo is feasible -- (he even calls it CEN) -- he's trying to bring science into the picture; concluding his abstract with: 'Further adjustments, elaborations, formalisms and experiments are required to formulate and support the theory.'

Any armchair whitecoat could take that apart with little effort.

I can't say this enough times here:

The creation week did NOT involve science in any way.

So any talk of "theories" is only showing that they don't understand Genesis 1 at all.

(Not that I'd expect them to.)

And here's a good place to reiterate this as well:

Anyone with an academic background here telling me they know and understand the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia might just as well start calling me Genghis Khan.

 

[BPPLEE]

The abstract in the first part of that link is confusing.

He jumps from "formation" to "creation" and back to "formation."

It can't be both.

Furthermore, while I like the idea that he's trying to show that creatio ex nihilo is feasible -- (he even calls it CEN) -- he's trying to bring science into the picture; concluding his abstract with: 'Further adjustments, elaborations, formalisms and experiments are required to formulate and support the theory.'

Any armchair whitecoat could take that apart with little effort.

I can't say this enough times here:

The creation week did NOT involve science in any way.

So any talk of "theories" is only showing that they don't understand Genesis 1 at all.

(Not that I'd expect them to.)

And here's a good place to reiterate this as well:

Anyone with an academic background here telling me they know and understand the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia might just as well start calling me Genghis Khan.

I understand your position that creation was a miracle

 

[AV1611VET]

I understand your position that creation was a miracle

Yup -- the whole shebang.

The level of mass-energy started out at zero; then was raised to its current level over a period of six days.

 

[ottawak]

The abstract in the first part of that link is confusing.

He jumps from "formation" to "creation" and back to "formation."

It can't be both.

Furthermore, while I like the idea that he's trying to show that creatio ex nihilo is feasible -- (he even calls it CEN) -- he's trying to bring science into the picture; concluding his abstract with: 'Further adjustments, elaborations, formalisms and experiments are required to formulate and support the theory.'

Any armchair whitecoat could take that apart with little effort.

I can't say this enough times here:

The creation week did NOT involve science in any way.

So any talk of "theories" is only showing that they don't understand Genesis 1 at all.

(Not that I'd expect them to.)

And here's a good place to reiterate this as well:

Anyone with an academic background here telling me they know and understand the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia might just as well start calling me Genghis Khan.

The thing I don't get is why ex nihilo? The Bible doesn't unequivocally support it, and ex materia was a popular belief in early Christendom and held by some even today. The early Fathers discouraged it because they though it might be a 'slippery slope' leading to Gnostic dualism--an heresy they were battling at the time, but as far as I know it has never been a salvation issue..

 

[AV1611VET]

The thing I don't get is why ex nihilo?

Because God is outside of the universe, which is His creation.

He is transcendent.

And if God created the spiritual realm, then what was before even that?

There comes a point in all this reverse engineering that you have to conclude that there was NOTHING (a.k.a. "nihilo").