A Universe From Nothing

[osgart]

Either there is an infinitely existing perpetual state of existence, or everything came from nothing. Everything in the universe is stacked against the existence of intelligent life. And the miracle order of our solar system is winning so many cosmic lotteries in a row to exist that all explanations fall short as to why we are here at all.

The universe is far from a God like perfection. So my bet is on an unconditioned reality pre existing our own universe. The unconditioned reality may have a spiritual element bound to it, but it definetly does not control the events of existence in any major way.

 

[ecco]

Clear said "Many ancients and early Christians understood 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

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

They also believed:

• The earth is the center of the universe.
• Sheep's markings are related to the kind of fence they are near.
• Slavery is justified by God.

Why do you think what they believed is important?

 

[ecco]

because God is from everlasting ( No beginning ) .

So, your everlasting God did nothing for 99.99999999999999+% of His existence and then, 6000 years ago (or 13.7 billion or whatever), made the heavens and the earth. If we consider He had all that time to think about and plan it, the end result is pretty sh**ty. Mosquitos! Really?

 

[ecco]

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.

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.

With all due respect, I don't think @LightofTruth is a scholar and I don't believe his comments about two creations are scholarly works.

Nevertheless, I'd like to see you post some scholarly comments showing belief in a famous "two time creation of the Earth". Actually I Googled '"two time creation of the Earth" problem' and got zero results.

So, exactly what "two time creation of the Earth" problem are you referring to about which scholars globally have misconceptions?

 

[cataway]

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.

? your having trouble with the word void ?

 

[gnostic]

? your having trouble with the word void ?

No. I have no problem with the word itself “void”.

I think Genesis 1:2 is illogical, and wrong.

The Earth cannot be void, and still have water and wind.

Void mean empty space or vacuum.

If there are objects, like “Earth”, “water” or “wind”, then it isn’t empty.

The authors of Genesis clearly don’t know what void mean. They don’t understand what nature is and how it all work, and they don’t have any idea what the Earth’s history is.

The authors are unknown, but it very that they are not scientists, and have no understanding of Natural Science, not in astronomy, not geology, not meteorology, not biology, etc.

And one thing is certain, you cannot turn dust into a living adult human being. It is a myth.

And if you were to say God is all-powerful and all-knowing, therefore he can do anything. “God did it” isn’t science. My answer to you, would be that this is nothing more than a superstition - it’s blind faith in superstitious belief.

 

[gnostic]

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

No, Native. That’s what Genesis is saying; it isn’t what I am saying.

I was merely referring to what Genesis stated, which in any case, it is wrong, logically and scientifically, not only in verse 2, in verse 1.

In fact, I disagreed with just about everything Genesis narrated from chapters 1 & 2.

The biblical terms of "water" refers to the modern term of "clouds of gas and dust" as in a plasmatic stage.

And here, you are wrong.

Gas is gas. Plasma is plasma.

There are four possible physical states of matters: solid, liquid, gas and plasma.

And these are two different physical states, and you are confusing one with the other.

And nowhere in Genesis 1, does it ever mention “cloud” or “gas”.

There is a Hebrew word for cloud - anán.

So if the authors wanted to say cloud or clouds, then why didn’t they use this word?

 

[syo]

The authors of Genesis clearly don’t know what void mean. They don’t understand what nature is and how it all work, and they don’t have any idea what the Earth’s history is.

In my opinion, the authors of Genesis were great.

 

[cataway]

No. I have no problem with the word itself “void”.

I think Genesis 1:2 is illogical, and wrong.

The Earth cannot be void, and still have water and wind.

Void mean empty space or vacuum.

If there are objects, like “Earth”, “water” or “wind”, then it isn’t empty.

The authors of Genesis clearly don’t know what void mean. They don’t understand what nature is and how it all work, and they don’t have any idea what the Earth’s history is.

The authors are unknown, but it very that they are not scientists, and have no understanding of Natural Science, not in astronomy, not geology, not meteorology, not biology, etc.

And one thing is certain, you cannot turn dust into a living adult human being. It is a myth.

And if you were to say God is all-powerful and all-knowing, therefore he can do anything. “God did it” isn’t science. My answer to you, would be that this is nothing more than a superstition - it’s blind faith in superstitious belief.

please dont get stuck on a word . void can also mean completely empty. as in no life

 

[gnostic]

In my opinion, the authors of Genesis were great.

Don’t get me wrong, syo. Genesis is still my favourite book in the Bible.

It is a great, but it is a great myth.

 

[syo]

Don’t get me wrong, syo. Genesis is still my favourite book in the Bible.

It is a great, but it is a great myth.

I misjudged what you wrote, I am sorry.

 

[gnostic]

please dont get stuck on a word . void can also mean completely empty. as in no life

It is only the second verse. It only just started.

But the first 2 verses is only talking about the Earth.

And no matter how I read it, Genesis creation is still a myth with no understanding of Earth or its nature.

The story when you looked deeper than at face value, demonstrated that the authors don’t know what they are talking about.

 

[cataway]

there were lot's of things they did not no way back at that time . not that i'm going to hold it a ginst them

 

[Clear]

They also believed:

• The earth is the center of the universe.
• Sheep's markings are related to the kind of fence they are near.
• Slavery is justified by God.

Why do you think what they believed is important?

The early belief that material things are made of matter forms part of the motivation for continual curiosity as to the nature of that matter and the search for knowledge concerning matter and how it might be used. The belief that material things are made of matter underlies physical sciences and progress in working with matter.

Are you trying to make a coherent argument that the ancient belief that material things are made of some form of matter (e.g. energy or something else) is incorrect?

You have not made a coherent or important point yet. What is your criticism regarding the ancient belief that material things are made of a form of matter and NOT made of nothing?

Clear

 

[URAVIP2ME]

So, your everlasting God did nothing for 99.99999999999999+% of His existence and then, 6000 years ago (or 13.7 billion or whatever), made the heavens and the earth. If we consider He had all that time to think about and plan it, the end result is pretty sh**ty. Mosquitos! Really?

Seems to me the angelic realm of creation is being ignored.
God first made the heavens and in those spirit heavens were the angels.
So, long before the material world came into existence there was the angelic realm of existence.
The material end will be as in the beginning a beautiful paradisical Earth as the Garden of Eden was a sample.
From paradise (Eden) lost in Genesis, to paradise (Eden) found in Revelation.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

So, exactly what "two time creation of the Earth" problem are you referring to about which scholars globally have misconceptions?

I would like to take the liberty to reply about the two accounts of creation because they are just from two different viewpoints:
1st account describes the creation of heaven and earth and all in them. - Genesis 1:1to Genesis 2:4.
1st account is constructed chronologically divided into six consecutive creative ' days '.
2nd account concentrates on the creation of the human race and its downfall. - Genesis 2:5 to Genesis 4:26.
2nd account is written in order of topical importance.
Genesis chapter 2 adds some details, which do Not conflict, and just takes up at a point of the 3rd creative day.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

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.

Surely long inhabited prior to the human race coming on the scene.
Remember: the length of of each creative ' day ' is unknown. (All of the creative days are even summed up by the singular world 'day' at Genesis 2:4 )
We don't even know if each 'creative day' was of the same or of differing lengths of time.
Genesis chapters two to four concentrates on the creation of man and man's fall.

 

[LightofTruth]

With all due respect, I don't think @LightofTruth is a scholar and I don't believe his comments about two creations are scholarly works.

Nevertheless, I'd like to see you post some scholarly comments showing belief in a famous "two time creation of the Earth". Actually I Googled '"two time creation of the Earth" problem' and got zero results.

So, exactly what "two time creation of the Earth" problem are you referring to about which scholars globally have misconceptions?

Considering the age of the earth and the universe, there may have been more than two creations.

The first verse of the Bible is a general statement telling us what God did in 6 days. It is not telling us that God created the heaven and earth out of nothing. That is made clear when each day of creation explains what God did on each day. And by verse 1 of chap. 2. "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them."
So, before each day of creation is explained what God did on each day, the earth existed and was submerged in water.

 

[Native]

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.

Native said: ↑
How can you logically refer to the Earth being "formless and void"?

No, Native. That’s what Genesis is saying; it isn’t what I am saying.

I was just asking into the logics of this,

When Genesis 1:2 is saying the Earth is formless and void" - but at the same time, it was also “deep” or “abyss” - this sentense cannot possible speak of the Earth itself, but of a primordial stage before the creation of Earth.

Native said: ↑
The biblical terms of "water" refers to the modern term of "clouds of gas and dust" as in a plasmatic stage.

And here, you are wrong. Gas is gas. Plasma is plasma.

You are - once again - falling into your own pitfall of lacking mythical skills to compare and to describe cosmological explanations. Even if the creation story specifically mention the concept of "water", you still cannot connect this term to anything fluent/gaseous.

You have to imagine how our ancestors described the cosmic scenario with symbols from the Earth and to forget all modern explanations before you´ve understood the mythical language of symbols in the first hand.

 

[ecco]

The early belief that material things are made of matter forms part of the motivation for continual curiosity as to the nature of that matter and the search for knowledge concerning matter and how it might be used. The belief that material things are made of matter underlies physical sciences and progress in working with matter.

Are you trying to make a coherent argument that the ancient belief that material things are made of some form of matter (e.g. energy or something else) is incorrect?

You have not made a coherent or important point yet. What is your criticism regarding the ancient belief that material things are made of a form of matter and NOT made of nothing?

Clear

I am CLEARLY making the argument that what the ancients believed is immaterial. Some stuff some of them believed turned out to be somewhat correct. Much of what most of them believed turned out to be wrong. As I said - immaterial.

If some believed that rocks were made of something rather than nothing - OK Big Whoop.