God did not "create" anything.

[Awoon]

Had to add this link to the thread. It seems a book (a thesis) has now been written on it.

God is not the Creator, claims academic - Telegraph

God is not the Creator, claims academic

The notion of God as the Creator is wrong, claims a top academic, who believes the Bible has been wrongly translated for thousands of years.

Professor Ellen van Wolde, a respected Old Testament scholar and author, claims the first sentence of Genesis "in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth" is not a true translation of the Hebrew.
She claims she has carried out fresh textual analysis that suggests the writers of the great book never intended to suggest that God created the world -- and in fact the Earth was already there when he created humans and animals.

Prof Van Wolde, 54, who will present a thesis on the subject at Radboud University in The Netherlands where she studies, said she had re-analysed the original Hebrew text and placed it in the context of the Bible as a whole, and in the context of other creation stories from ancient Mesopotamia.
She said she eventually concluded the Hebrew verb "bara", which is used in the first sentence of the book of Genesis, does not mean "to create" but to "spatially separate".
The first sentence should now read "in the beginning God separated the Heaven and the Earth"
According to Judeo-Christian tradition, God created the Earth out of nothing.
Prof Van Wolde, who once worked with the Italian academic and novelist Umberto Eco, said her new analysis showed that the beginning of the Bible was not the beginning of time, but the beginning of a narration.
She said: "It meant to say that God did create humans and animals, but not the Earth itself."
She writes in her thesis that the new translation fits in with ancient texts.
According to them there used to be an enormous body of water in which monsters were living, covered in darkness, she said.
She said technically "bara" does mean "create" but added: "Something was wrong with the verb.
"God was the subject (God created), followed by two or more objects. Why did God not create just one thing or animal, but always more?"
She concluded that God did not create, he separated: the Earth from the Heaven, the land from the sea, the sea monsters from the birds and the swarming at the ground.
"There was already water," she said.
"There were sea monsters. God did create some things, but not the Heaven and Earth. The usual idea of creating-out-of-nothing, creatio ex nihilo, is a big misunderstanding."
God came later and made the earth livable, separating the water from the land and brought light into the darkness.
She said she hoped that her conclusions would spark "a robust debate", since her finds are not only new, but would also touch the hearts of many religious people.
She said: "Maybe I am even hurting myself. I consider myself to be religious and the Creator used to be very special, as a notion of trust. I want to keep that trust."
A spokesman for the Radboud University said: "The new interpretation is a complete shake up of the story of the Creation as we know it."
Prof Van Wolde added: "The traditional view of God the Creator is untenable now."

Very interesting:yes:

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

I´ll add to it that Big Bang would be an energy REDISTRIBUTION.

But things do pop in and out of existence according to quantum physics.

I am not a creacionist, and I beleive time had no starting line neither will have a finishing line (or will have infinite of those, however you wan´t to say it), but there is a lot that we keep on discovering.

Nothing comes from nothing.

 

[WyattDerp]

Now you know who killed the dinos.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Nothing comes from nothing.

Quantum physics laughs in your face.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Quantum physics laughs in your face.

Do you have something to support your claim that nothing can produce a thing.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Do you have something to support your claim that nothing can produce a thing.

Quantum fluctuation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you have something to support your claim something cannot come from nothing?

 

[Ouroboros]

Nothing comes from nothing.

Have you studied Casimir Effect and virtual particles at all?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Have you studied Casimir Effect and virtual particles at all?

Would you care to explain...

 

[Ouroboros]

Would you care to explain...

Have you looked into it? Your answer suggests you haven't.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

That is why I am asking you to go in and say the main points so I can know if it answers any of my questions and exactly which questions it answers instead of going through and reading into a lot of stuff that does not answer any of my questions whatsoever.

 

[Ouroboros]

That is why I am asking you to go in and say the main points so I can know if it answers any of my questions and exactly which questions it answers instead of going through and reading into a lot of stuff that does not answer any of my questions whatsoever.

The casimir effect can be observed when two plates are very close together, but not touching, and a vacuum between. They are affected by so called virtual particles, coming and going, in and out of existence.

Another very good test some readers may want to look up, which we do not have space to describe here, is the Casimir effect, where forces between metal plates in empty space are modified by the presence of virtual particles.

Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?: Scientific American

CAN something come of nothing? Philosophers debated that question for millennia before physics came up with the answer—and that answer is yes. For quantum theory has shown that a vacuum (ie, nothing) only appears to be empty space. Actually, it is full of virtual particles of matter and their anti-matter equivalents, which, in obedience to Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, flit in and out of existence so fast that they cannot usually be seen.

However, in 1948, a Dutch physicist called Hendrik Casimir realised that in certain circumstances these particles would create an effect detectable in the macroscopic world that people inhabit. He imagined two metal plates so close together that the distance between them was comparable with the wavelengths of the virtual particles. (Another consequence of quantum theory is that all particles are simultaneously waves.) In these circumstances, he realised, the plates would be pushed together. That is because only particles with a wavelength smaller than the gap between the plates could appear in that gap, whereas particles of any wavelength could appear on the other sides of the plates. There would thus be more particles pushing in than pushing out, and the plates would clash together like a pair of tiny cymbals.

The Casimir effect: Much ado about nothing | The Economist

The Casimir effect was first confirmed in 1997 by S. Lamoreaux.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

The casimir effect can be observed when two plates are very close together, but not touching, and a vacuum between. They are affected by so called virtual particles, coming and going, in and out of existence.


Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?: Scientific American


The Casimir effect: Much ado about nothing | The Economist

The Casimir effect was first confirmed in 1997 by S. Lamoreaux.

Nice summery, now I suppose your argument hinges on the question of is anti-matter considered a thing or not? If it is something then something is not coming from nothing.

 

[Ouroboros]

Nice summery, now I suppose your argument hinges on the question of is anti-matter considered a thing or not? If it is something then something is not coming from nothing.

It's true that "scientific nothing" isn't the same as "philosophical nothing" or "theological nothing," but on the other hand, "theological/philosophical nothing" was invented (the Ex Nihilo is a religious idea, not a scientific), and science doesn't say that "something came out of theological nothing" but rather "something came out of scientific nothing", which is different.

Something always come from something else, in my opinion. That's my view. But I can't say if that "something else" is the same as "someone else". I don't see the necessity of something being the same as God, rather, everything is God since everything is always something that changes to something else.

So in the end, it all depends on your definitions and what you really mean with nothing, something, other thing, someone, that thing, this thing, etc.

 

[Me Myself]

Has any language ever used a single word to mean "create from nothing"?

If I tell you I created something you will assume I had ingredients. Why think it would have beeany other way gor God unless the term used specifically mmeant "from nothing" ?

 

[Ouroboros]

Has any language ever used a single word to mean "create from nothing"?

The idea of "the world created from nothing" comes from "creatio ex nihilo," and has its roots in philosophical and theological thinkers, not science. Science doesn't really say "from nothing" in the same sense as the "ex nihilo". The scientific "nothing" is just different from the theological.

So did something come from nothing (in the scientific sense)? Yes.

Did something come from nothing (in the theological sense)? No, and no. Since even "God" would have to be something else than the philosophical "nothing". God is not nothing.

 

[Me Myself]

The idea of "the world created from nothing" comes from "creatio ex nihilo," and has its roots in philosophical and theological thinkers, not science. Science doesn't really say "from nothing" in the same sense as the "ex nihilo". The scientific "nothing" is just different from the theological.

So did something come from nothing (in the scientific sense)? Yes.

Did something come from nothing (in the theological sense)? No, and no. Since even "God" would have to be something else than the philosophical "nothing". God is not nothing.

Has "created ex nihilo" ever been in a bible?

 

[Ouroboros]

Has "created ex nihilo" ever been in a bible?

I don't think so, but I could be wrong. It probably came from Greek philosophers, but don't quote me on it.