What would be the evidence for ex nihilo creation?

[Loudmouth]

I guess the saying is true that they that don't know the past are bound to repeat it?

Why should we learn anything from the past if it never actually happened?

 

[RealityCheck]

AV1611 -


So..... other gods have existed?

 

[JohnR7]

what is obvious is that it is not badger as in american or european badgers for they did not exist in Palestine, but rather something like a weasel. Whatever the case to insist a priori that the KJV is right, is certainly wrong.

I do not make that claim. A member of my family who was burned at the stake took part in the translation of the Bible into English.
I believe that the KJV is the best translation for different reasons. But I do not believe that it is without error.
There are people who do believe that the translation is without error though. But I do not say that.

 

[nvxplorer]

You are mistaken, you would have to throw out all of science as being meaningless if you applied that standard.

Uh...no. Falsifiability is a standard required by science.

We are trying to warn you, that is all. There is danger in the attitude you have. If it were not going to cause anyone any harm then we would not care.

Most of what I do on here is just playing around. But this rejection of God is a very dangerous attitude to have.
It means He will not be there for you in your time of need and that is NOT a place where I would want to be.

If you do not want to accept the warning that God give you, then be prepared to accept the consequences of that.

God hasn't given me any warnings. Only you have, based on your belief in ancient scripture. I don't share such beliefs, so your warning is meaningless as well.

 

[OdwinOddball]

Many "gods" in history have tried that, and many "gods" paid the price.

Here are three well-known examples:

• [bible]Exodus 12:12[/bible]
• [bible]1 Kings 18:22-24[/bible]
• [bible]Daniel 4:34-37[/bible]

I guess the saying is true that they that don't know the past are bound to repeat it?

See, this is why ya'll come off so silly most of the time. Someone makes a point about a problem with your reaosning, and then instead of rebutting the point, you go and make the same error in response.

You cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible.

What is so hard for you to grasp in that? Did you even read my post?

 

[JohnR7]

How do you know that Einstein even existed?

As far as science is concerned it does not matter if he existed or not. Science can only deal with the thoughts, ideas and the concepts. It is a question of history if Einstein was real or not. History is often just not as accurate as Science is.

 

[AV1611VET]

But that example doesn't even matter. I'm not worried about different translations disagreeing. I'm talking about places in the Bible that are in clear disagreement with reality, such as the account of the global flood. The account of the global flood makes about as much sense when compared against geological evidence as if the Bible had said that trees were purple.

Then you'll have to discuss that with someone of like mindset.

But to answer your question, if the Bible said trees were purple, then (barring the context), trees were purple.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV,

You're wrong.

Sincerely,
God

(See how easy that is?)

In view of nothing after 96AD, I must stamp this:

RETURN TO SENDER

 

[RealityCheck]

Well that means that everything you say, AV, is wrong, unless you're using the Internet in 95 AD to communicate with all of us here in your future.

But that must be wrong too, it's posted after 96 AD.

Yet that statement too must be wrong.

And that one is wrong too

So is that, and this one is wrong too.

Wait, that must be wrong.

.......

 

[nvxplorer]

In view of nothing after 96AD, I must stamp this:

RETURN TO SENDER

Check your inbox.

God

 

[AV1611VET]

what is obvious is that it is not badger as in american or european badgers for they did not exist in Palestine, but rather something like a weasel. Whatever the case to insist a priori that the KJV is right, is certainly wrong. The Hebrew and Greek take precedence. the NIV with it's dugong is a actually a good reading with adequate precedence.

Like I said --- guess which one I believe?

All that fancy quoting and googling you did, and you still don't know what it was. And we're supposed to teach this stuff to our children? It's no wonder kids nowadays want nothing to do with church.

 

[OdwinOddball]

What is sad is that you reject the scientific evidence I give you.
You will only accept evidence that backs up what you want to believe.
You reject evidence for the truth, then you mock God on top of that.
Be careful that you do not receive the same back from God.

Proverbs 1:26
I also will laugh at your calamity;
I will mock when your terror comes,

John I will accept any evidence as valid if it can be shown as such.

You have never done so. What you do is take the tid bits of science you can find that you think you understand, post a fragment of it here, and then re-interpret the Bible to fit it.

There is no science in your method, and thus no scientific evidence. The existence of super volcanoes is not evidence for the validty of gap theory, it is evidence for the existence of super volcanos. In order for it to be consdiered evidence for gap theory, you would have to demonstrate that the events of gap theory actually happened, andthat a super volcano is the only possible explanation for some gap theory event, and thus connect it all together. You fail to acomplish either goal.

As we have gone over many many times, using your own reasoning, you should be able to direct me to the location of Spiderman in New York, because if super volcanoes mean Gap Theory is true, then the existence of New York means Spiderman is real.

How many times do you have to be shown why something doesn't work before you get it?


As to you being here to warn us, I find that laughable as well. You could easily do that by simply quoting scripture and spreading the supposed words of your god. Instead you come here, make spurious claims about evolution and other scientific disciplines with no supportng information, twist the words and work of actual scientists to fit your own pre-conceived notions, make countless, pointless threads that rapidly delve off topic as you seek to deflect anyone from questioning you too deeply, and otherwise divert all of our attention from the few people who visit these boards actually seeking knowledge.

Sorry, I don't believe you when you say you are worried about our immortal souls. I think it far more likely that you realise that your theory has no substance, that you are incapable of actually defending it, are terrified of the reality of said siutation,and will do anything you can to prevent those that actually do understand the reality from spreading such knowledge.

Or you could just be here to goof off and frustrate others. Only you can really ever know.

 

[nvxplorer]

But to answer your question, if the Bible said trees were purple, then (barring the context), trees were purple.

This indicates that you are incapable of distinguishing reality from (your interpretation of) the Bible.

Such a mindset would be idolotry (with regard to the Bible), and/or severe egocentrism (with regard to belief in your own interpretation).

 

[AV1611VET]

If the world were created last Thursday then the Bible is untrustworthy. Since you can not disprove this . . .

If the world were created last Thursday, that means God embedded a history into His creation. A history that clearly did not occur --- and that would make God no better than the devil.

See why I don't believe in Last Thursdayism, now?

Your "no evidence for ex nihilo creation" makes any experience or record untrustworthy, including the Bible.

Only if the One doing the ex nihilo creation was untrustworthy, Himself.

 

[OdwinOddball]

If the world were created last Thursday, that means God embedded a history into His creation. A history that clearly did not occur --- and that would make God no better than the devil.

See why I don't believe in Last Thursdayism, now?

Except you actually do, you just call it something.

 

[Nathan Poe]

If the world were created last Thursday, that means God embedded a history into His creation. A history that clearly did not occur --- and that would make God no better than the devil.

See why I don't believe in Last Thursdayism, now?

Apparantly for the exact same reason you believe Young Earth Creationism. What exactly is the difference betweem 6,000 years and Last Thursday, theologically speaking?

Only if the One doing the ex nihilo creation was untrustworthy, Himself.

Doing ex nihilo creation with the appearance/illusion of age is inherently untrustworthy.

 

[Loudmouth]

If the world were created last Thursday, that means God embedded a history into His creation. A history that clearly did not occur --- and that would make God no better than the devil.

See why I don't believe in Last Thursdayism, now?

24 hours and 6-10,000 years both need embedded histories. See the problem now?

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you know that Einstein even existed? What evidence would an ex nihilo creation event last Thursday, complete with a false history including Einstein, leave so we could trust any written record?

None --- but why would God include in this "false history" a conversation whereby He identifies Satan as 'a liar'?

Also, why would He make this statement:

These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV1611 -


So..... other gods have existed?

Yes and no --- they're all false gods --- idols:

• [bible]Exodus 32:31[/bible]
• [bible]Deuteronomy 29:26[/bible]
• [bible]John 10:34-36[/bible]
• [bible]Galatians 4:8[/bible]

 

[RealityCheck]

Maybe God is really evil, and you just don't know it?

I mean, what proof is there that the God of the Bible actually has your best intentions in mind? A liar will always claim to be telling the truth, to make the lie believable.