What would be the evidence for ex nihilo creation?

[OdwinOddball]

There can be no evidence for such an event. Which is exactly why we ask for evidence, when people who propose such an event try to label it as science. Without evidence, you have nothing to derive theories from. You have no science. The evidence for ex nihlo creation is exactly the same as the evidence for creation by to being sneezed into existence by the Great Green Arklesesiure.

To make such a claim, is entirely based on faith. Therefore it is in no way science, and has no place in scientific discussions, including science classrooms. It is philosophy, which is another subject entirely.

You can claim ex nihlo creation all you want. But it is not able to be demonstrated as factual. As such, it does not interfere, nor does it contradict actual scientific theories such as the Big Bang, etc. Ex nihlo creation is by definition an external event. You are describing the creation of the universe from the perspective of your god. From inside the universe, this event could have been seen as just about anything. This is what leads to the theistic evolution view of creation. A god did it, and we observe its actions in our universe as the various scientific theories discussed on these boards.

 

[Chalnoth]

Yes. If a history was missing from the earth and the universe, this would show creation ex nihilo. Which is immediately it's falsification. We can show that our earth and universe have an extremely long history, so if creation ex nihilo had taken place, the only place to put it as far as I can see would at the start of the big bang, some 13 billion years ago.

Well, technically you'd have to put it a little bit further back, to the beginning of inflation. But that's only some obscenely tiny fraction of a second previous, so....

 

[Pesto]

You might be able to say we do have evidence of ex nihilo creation (i.e. the Big Bang), but it isn't the type of ex nihilo creation that you want to see (i.e. Special Creation).

 

[AV1611VET]

Then what the heck is the point of this thread??

It supports two major claims:

1. God created the earth ex nihilo: [bible]Job 26:7[/bible]
2. The evidence is impossible to find: [bible]Ecclesiastes 3:11[/bible]

 

[Chalnoth]

The evidence is impossible to find: [bible]Ecclesiastes 3:11[/bible]

Ah, so you support the deceiver god idea. Well, no point arguing, then.

 

[AV1611VET]

The only plausible explanation that could save ex nihilo creation would be a deceiver god, one who embeds history in creation.

A third possibility is that the observation of history is like the observation of the weather. The farther back you go, the less accurate it gets - (that is, as far as dating history goes).

I do not believe God embedded history into His Creation at all --- I do believe He embedded age into it, though.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes. If a history was missing from the earth and the universe, this would show creation ex nihilo.

Missing history does not show ex nihilo --- zero history does.

How can something that never existed be missing?

 

[AV1611VET]

To make such a claim, is entirely based on faith.

Now we're getting somewhere:

[bible]Hebrews 11:3[/bible]

Paul would agree with you.

 

[RealityCheck]

Paul didn't write Hebrews.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, so you support the deceiver god idea.

Not at all --- it would only be deception if He did it so you would come to the wrong conclusion on purpose.

Anyone who has hidden their medicine so their children can't get it would know how this is.

 

[AV1611VET]

Paul didn't write Hebrews.

That could very well be true --- since even Baptists dispute it.

I personally believe he wrote it anonymously, but that's outside the topic of this thread.

 

[Chalnoth]

Not at all --- it would only be deception if He did it so you would come to the wrong conclusion on purpose.

But if he is all-knowing, how can he have done it by accident? And what's more, the history past 6000 years ago is vastly too regular to just be an accident. One would expect tremendous inconsistencies with the way the world works today. But instead what happens is that as we learn more about how physics works today, our models of the past work better, not worse. Thus it is absolutely unreasonable to expect the past to just be an accident.

 

[Oonna]

It supports two major claims:

1. God created the earth ex nihilo: [bible]Job 26:7[/bible]
2. The evidence is impossible to find: [bible]Ecclesiastes 3:11[/bible]

But if evidence was found to prove different, you would dismiss it without even looking at it. So again, whats the point?

 

[Loudmouth]

I think what AV is asking for is evidence that contradicts the apparent history that we see in nature. I have got just the thing.

Find naturally occuring ore containg large amounts of Cesium 135 but very little of it's daughter product.

 

[Lord_Marx]

Proof (or strong evidence) of a ex nihilo creator.

 

[Tomk80]

Missing history does not show ex nihilo --- zero history does.

How can something that never existed be missing?

That is what I am saying. If we would observe no history, ex nihilo creation would be amongst the possible explanations for that.

We do observe a history, hence we can rule out ex nihilo creation, at least as far back as the inflation event.

 

[Hydra009]

Because when I hear people say stuff like:

• show me evidence for [whatever]

I tend to think that person already knows we walk by faith, not by sight.

Well, since it isn't believed due to evidence, but by faith, then the obvious approach would be to quit calling it creation "science", presenting it as science and confirmed by evidence, and just call it faith - God said it, I believe it, that settles it. That would solve a lot of confusion.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is what I am saying. If we would observe no history, ex nihilo creation would be amongst the possible explanations for that.

We do observe a history, hence we can rule out ex nihilo creation, at least as far back as the inflation event.

This is why God advises us not to go by pure science.

[bible]2 Corinthians 5:7[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, since it isn't believed due to evidence, but by faith, then the obvious approach would be to quit calling it creation "science", presenting it as science and confirmed by evidence, and just call it faith - God said it, I believe it, that settles it. That would solve a lot of confusion.

Better yet, call it Biblical Earth Creation.

And for the record, our motto goes:

• God says it, that settles it
• not: God says it, I believe it, that settles it.

 

[Chalnoth]

Better yet, call it Biblical Earth Creation.

And for the record, our motto goes:

• God says it, that settles it
• not: God says it, I believe it, that settles it.

Except that it only settles it for you, so you might as well leave the, "I believe it," in there.