A Universe From Nothing

[ecco]

i do not question that God made things to happen, he is very cleaver that way and has for ever to do it . how long ago it all started is possibly beyond
our comprehension . science says all things are made of the star's .the bigger the star the heaver the elements . and yet so many of these elements are found on earth . did all the elements come from one star ?? not likely . perhaps even thousands of star's ,of different size, would have to existed and then exploded into space to make all the planets that are out there in space .
i have seen science speak in billions and billions of years but that just does not cut it . its more like a google plex to the power of google plex of years in time gone past .

Your incredulity is noted.

 

[ecco]

Well if our ancient ancestors "did not have equipment advanced enough" to detect anything, why can you then refer to the very creation which took part long before any inventions of technical instruments?

You apparently cannot see the difference between creating advanced telescopes and making up stories. The ancients made up stories but didn't have the advanced technology to determine if their stories had any basis if fact.

You have the benefit of advanced technology, so you have no excuses.

 

[ecco]

The universe has always existed and always will.

Your religious opinion is noted.

It is also noted that your religious opinion is in disagreement with the finding s of science.

It is also noted that your religious opinion does not seem to come from the writings of your religion. Perhaps you can show where those writings state that the universe has always existed.

 

[`mud]

Ahh...singularity...the simple start of it all...plus `God`.
From where did the singularity come ?
Did `God` bring it ?

 

[leroy]

Theists often make the claim that atheists believe in a universe that came into existence out of nothing. I find this very strange, because I (though I don't speak for all atheists) don't believe this. I don't know where the universe came from, if it had a cause, and if so, what its cause was. But I don't believe it came from "nothing." Theists, on the other hand, very clearly DO believe the universe was made from nothing. Theists (at least, Christian, Muslim, and Jewish theists) assert with absolute certainty that a magical being created the entire universe out of thin air with a spoken incantation. This magical immortal superman literally poofed the universe into existence out of absolutely nothing. Now, as I said before, I don't know where the universe came from, and whatever the cause of the universe is, if we ever find it out, I think it may very well seem like a miracle. I recognize that our existence is a huge mystery and is very special and improbable. But I highly doubt that the explanation for it is a magical superman who created it all out of thin air. That sounds like a very childish solution invented by primitive people who wanted an explanation for something that none of us may ever understand.

Well there are only 3 alternatives,

1 the universe/multiverse (All space-time and everything inside it) had a cause,

2 it came from nothing

3 it has always existed.

Which one would you pick as an atheist? Based on the evidence that we have to date which of these 3 alternatives would you say is more plausible?

 

[halbhh]

An all-powerful superman (ok, call it "God" if you must) creating a universe out of thin air? Sounds magical to me.

That's exactly what I'm trying to point out to you.

Consider: to reject a cosmos that originates without prior physical cause is to then believe in an always existing super cosmos, or multiverse prior physics, etc. -- an always existing.

That something always existed physically instead of not so.

To believe in a something existing is already a belief.

No matter how you try to characterize that viewpoint, .... no matter what words you lay on top... or what attitude you claim to have.

It's a belief; a.k.a. -- a 'faith' -- of its own. heh heh

heh heh heh

This is why I suggest you not use derogatory characterization adjectives like "magical", as it makes you look like the pot calling the kettle black, etc.

 

[halbhh]

@gnostic
@Heyo
@danieldemol
@ChristineM
@'mud

Curious if any of you all noticed or felt a slight sense of pot-calling-the-kettle-black in the OP post?

 

[ChristineM]

@gnostic
@Heyo
@danieldemol
@ChristineM
@'mud

Curious if any of you all noticed or felt a slight sense of pot-calling-the-kettle-black in the OP post?

Not really, i have been told on several occasions by theists that being an atheist i must believe the universe came from nothing. My reply is usually along the lines of "it is possible but that is not what i believe, i tend more to the hypothesis of Dr Mersini-Houghton. Like all the other hypothesis it makes logical sense and it has the advantage of accounting for the three previously unexplained odd phenomena that can be observed in our universe. So that's me, and you, have you actually read the bible"

The same person who told me what i believe (interesting how many religionists know my mind) usually says something along the lines of "duh???"

 

[Native]

You apparently cannot see the difference between creating advanced telescopes and making up stories. The ancients made up stories but didn't have the advanced technology to determine if their stories had any basis if fact.

Still, it is you who are playing the modern technological "cleaver ecco" and and at the same time referring as an expert in the ancient myths to which you don´t believe.

 

[Clear]

Clear said "Many ancients and early Christians understood a creation out of pre-existing matter, and not ex-nihilo."

Many ancients and early Christians BELIEVED a creation out of pre-existing matter, and not ex-nihilo.

Clear said : The ancients understood that "At a new creation there is a reshuffling of elements

The ancients believed that "At a new creation there is a reshuffling of elements "

I am fine with the suggestion you made. If you want to use "interpreted" or "viewed" or "thought" or "theorized", etc, instead, that is fine as well.

The point is that they did not believe that matter was made from "nothing".

Clear

 

[Heyo]

@gnostic
@Heyo
@danieldemol
@ChristineM
@'mud

Curious if any of you all noticed or felt a slight sense of pot-calling-the-kettle-black in the OP post?

It has always been that way and it has often been a straw man. Few atheists (and few scientists) believe in a creatio ex nihilo. On the other hand not all theists believe in it either. (And the bible is quite ambiguous on the topic.)

For me our whole existence is a paradox. When you don't stop thinking at a convenient point, both eternal existence and creatio ex nihilo lead to the paradox. That's why no side can win this argument and why straw manning and misunderstanding is rampant.

 

[gnostic]

Where, in the Bible, does it say that God created the heavens and earth from something that existed?

Well, there was already space (without form and void) and a 'deep' with a boundary (which darkness was on the face of).

No, not “space”, the Earth.

Genesis 1:2 is saying the Earth is formless and void, but at the same time, it was also “deep” or “abyss” (depending on the translations) with “water”, which is possibly ocean. It say god blew wind on the surface of that water.

If there are water and wind, then the Earth is void.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

So, when it is said that God created the heavens and earth, it means that he created them from something that existed.

I agree that God existed before creation according to Psalms 90:2 because God is from everlasting ( No beginning ) .
So, God created the heavens and earth from 'something' which is His Great Power, His Great Strength according to Scripture - Isaiah 40:26
Thus, God provided the abundantly needed dynamic energy to create both the invisible and visible realm of creation.

 

[ecco]

Ahh...singularity...the simple start of it all...plus `God`.
From where did the singularity come ?
Did `God` bring it ?

Where did 'God' come from?
Did "God" bring it?

 

[ecco]

Well there are only 3 alternatives,

1 the universe/multiverse (All space-time and everything inside it) had a cause,

2 it came from nothing

3 it has always existed.

Which one would you pick as an atheist? Based on the evidence that we have to date which of these 3 alternatives would you say is more plausible?

It's nice of you to give only three alternatives. However, there is a fourth, honest answer: We don't currently know.

Two thousand years ago people like you gave one alternative to the question of what causes volcanoes to erupt:

1. God (the gods) are angry.

Some people's thought processes haven't progressed very much in 2000 years, have they?

 

[ecco]

Still, it is you who are playing the modern technological "cleaver ecco" and and at the same time referring as an expert in the ancient myths to which you don´t believe.

There are many things I don't understand about "modern technology". That is why I rely on the findings of people who have extensive knowledge in these areas.

I also have learned that the proponents of pseudo-science are, at best, deluded. My first exposure to that element was an acquaintance imploring me to look into the findings of Heyerdahl and the Nazca lines.

I don't hold myself out to be an expert in the ancient myths. However, I do understand the meaning of the word "myth". That is something you should also understand. I'll be glad to help you out...

myth
/miTH/

noun​

1. 1. 1.
      a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
      
      Similar:
      folk tale
      
      story
      
      folk story
      legend
      
      tale
      
      fable
      
      saga
      
      allegory
      
      parable
      
      tradition
      
      lore
      
      folklore
      
      mythos
      
      mythus
2. 2.
   a widely held but false belief or idea.
   "he wants to dispel the myth that sea kayaking is too risky or too strenuous"

Your "ancients" had no great insights into the truths of nature any more than today's pseudo-scientist crowd. They knew what they knew and made up stories (myths) about the rest.

 

[gnostic]

I agree that God existed before creation according to Psalms 90:2 because God is from everlasting ( No beginning ) .
So, God created the heavens and earth from 'something' which is His Great Power, His Great Strength according to Scripture - Isaiah 40:26
Thus, God provided the abundantly needed dynamic energy to create both the invisible and visible realm of creation.

Based on faith in belief of ancient scriptures, where the authors, scribes and editors really don’t understand how nature work and have no way of VERIFYING anything in Genesis 1 & 2 being true.

In science, VERIFICATION requires EVIDENCE, not faith. Faith is nothing more than conviction of personal belief that it is true, which is no better than having personal opinions.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with having personal opinions or personal beliefs or personal religions. People can believe whatever they are like, but what they believe to be true, don’t necessarily mean their opinions/belief to be scientific or factual.

No opinions, nor beliefs, can be considered factual or scientific unless they can be verified by evidence.

As I have mentioned before in other threads, evidence are observations that can be obtained either by discovery or by experiments. Evidence must have the following requirements:

• can be observed or detected
• can be measured
• can be quantified
• can be compared, analyzed, tested (refuted or verified).

These requirements of the evidence can be recorded as data, which you could analyze and determine the probability of any explanatory model (eg hypothesis or theory).

The more evidence you have, the more certainty you would have to determine if the explanations/maths/predictions is probable or improbable.

The problems with belief in god, in spirits, in miracles ,in afterlife, etc, there are no ways to observe, measure, test or verify such beliefs.

Can you observe or test God from the Bible or from any other scriptures. That’s why religions on faiths in beliefs, because no evidence are required.

 

[rational experiences]

so.....all the 'stuff' was all the 'time' spinning about
with no beginning

and no cause

and the flow of it all indicates a starting "point"

but it never 'started'
CAUSE it always existed
without a cause

and we are here just 'cause'......

A starting point is what a human being male scientist places as a concept....of what is no longer existing to claim so I can copy its function, whilst gaining a release of the mass and energy to achieve that point.

Relative to knowing that gas alight burns out of its own body presence in empty space, leaves a heated space, but is finished.

His concept beginning and end was relative to conscious self mind advice in natural light FIRST.

 

[LightofTruth]

I agree that God existed before creation according to Psalms 90:2 because God is from everlasting ( No beginning ) .
So, God created the heavens and earth from 'something' which is His Great Power, His Great Strength according to Scripture - Isaiah 40:26
Thus, God provided the abundantly needed dynamic energy to create both the invisible and visible realm of creation.

The evidence suggests that the earth was inhabited by creatures prior to the creation account of Genesis. The Genesis account of creation is telling us how God again made the earth habitable for life.

 

[Native]

↑ "ecco"
Where, in the Bible, does it say that God created the heavens and earth from something that existed?

↑ Polymath257
Well, there was already space (without form and void) and a 'deep' with a boundary (which darkness was on the face of).

No, not “space”, the Earth.

Genesis 1:2 is saying the Earth is formless and void, but at the same time, it was also “deep” or “abyss” (depending on the translations) with “water”, which is possibly ocean. It say god blew wind on the surface of that water.

If there are water and wind, then the Earth is void.

How can you logically refer to the Earth being "formless and void"?

The biblical terms of "water" refers to the modern term of "clouds of gas and dust" as in a plasmatic stage. From this fluent stage, all firm matters are formed and the initial biblical mention of earth = firm matter in the creation story just means that: The first firm soiled matter" and NOT the planet Earth.

This scholarly and global misconception is the cause of the fameous "two time creation of the Earth" problem. This happend when scholars and laymen ignores the ancient stories of creation and its astronomical and cosmological contents.