Great Questions to ask creationists...

[australopithecus]

It's not a best guess based on limit data. It's an accurate description of physical reality.

The constituent building blocks of hydrogen atoms readily form out of high energy density states. This has been experimentally observed for decades. Limited my arse. That you know shit all about physics changes nothing. Your continued straw man is noted, perhaps when you're ready to admit you're talking shit we can all move on.

Where did energy come from?

Nowhere. Energy has always existed in some form. See the laws of thermodynamics for more details. In fact, why not attempt to learn basic physics before trying to discuss the subject?

 

[Metalgod]

Where did energy come from?

Nowhere. Energy has always existed in some form. See the laws of thermodynamics for more details. In fact, why not attempt to learn basic physics before trying to discuss the subject?

Where did energy exist before it existed in our universe?

 

[australopithecus]

Between the goalposts you keep trying to shift.

 

[Nemesiah]

Where did energy come from?

Nowhere. Energy has always existed in some form. See the laws of thermodynamics for more details. In fact, why not attempt to learn basic physics before trying to discuss the subject?

Where did energy exist before it existed in our universe?

Time came into existence at the same moment space did; there simply was not a before or a where "before the big bang" so the energy (AFAWK) comes from the big bang (from quantum fluctuations (change in the amount of energy in a point of space) which seem to be natural in this universe).

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Granted there are new hypothesis of a pre-Big BAng excistence but (AFAIK) they have not been ratified by the scientific community.

 

[Rumraket]

It's not a best guess based on limit data. It's an accurate description of physical reality.

The constituent building blocks of hydrogen atoms readily form out of high energy density states. This has been experimentally observed for decades. Limited my arse. That you know shit all about physics changes nothing. Your continued straw man is noted, perhaps when you're ready to admit you're talking shit we can all move on.

Where did energy come from?

Well, you believe a supernatural mind (with human emotions like love, existing in the absense of a physical brain outside of space and time) can simply wish it into existence out of absolutely nothing.
If the statement "out of nothing, nothing comes" is in fact true(we don't actually knows this, we don't have access to "nothing" to test the claim), then your god cannot have been the creator of the universe, since this would entail from-nothing creation, a logical impossibility.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/causation.html

CAUSATION AND THE LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY OF A DIVINE CAUSE* (1996)​

Quentin Smith

Western Michigan University​

1. Introduction

Some interesting light is thrown on the nature of causation, the origin of the universe, and arguments for atheism if we address the question: Is it logically possible that the universe has an originating divine cause?

I think that virtually all contemporary theists, agnostics and atheists believe this is logically possible. Indeed, the main philosophical tradition from Plato to the present has assumed that the sentence, "God is the originating cause of the universe", does not express a logical contradiction, even though many philosophers have argued that this sentence either is synthetic and meaningless (e.g., the logical positivists) or states a synthetic and a priori falsehood (e.g., Kant and Moore), or states a synthetic and a posteriori falsehood (e.g., contemporary defenders of the probabilistic argument from evil).

I believe the prevalence of this assumption is due to the fact that philosophers have not undertaken the requisite sort of metaphysical investigation into the nature of causation. This investigation is the purpose of this paper; specifically, I shall argue that the thesis that the universe has an originating divine cause is logically inconsistent with all extant definitions of causality and with a logical requirement upon these and all possible valid definitions or theories of causality. I will conclude that the cosmological and teleological arguments for a cause of the universe may have some force but that these arguments, traditionally understood as arguments for the existence of God, are in fact arguments for the nonexistence of God.

We, on the other hand, simply admit that we don't know - and that science is working on it.

 

[Vivre]

from out of nowhere ...

► Who or what created God - resp. what dimensional attributes does he ride on?

► Who or what provided the engery that God got exhausted from?

► Why is God dependend on external power supply?

► What metabolism does God have?

► How come God to be of a certain age if time hadn't been created prior to his appearance?

► Given God has/had a gender, who/where are his/hers antecedents?

... to be continued

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

There are a number of confusions related to the phrase creatio ex nihilo, in order to understand which, one needs to examine from where the concept arose.

The early Church needed to give its claims some decent backbone, for which they turned to Greek philosophy, including Plato's cosmology.

Plato held that a Demiurge had created the universe from Raw Matter, having consulted the Forms.

There were a number of problems with this for the Church, however, which needed to be "fixed".

Firstly, this implied that all three - Demiurge, Raw Matter and the Forms - were coexistent.

Secondly, if the Demiurge had to consult the Forms before creating anything, it meant that he was subordinate to the Forms.

Clearly, in order to correct this for the Church's benefit, the Forms needed to be subsumed into the Demiurge - thus he became the paragon of perfection. Secondly, the Raw Matter was also subsumed into the, now perfect, Demiurge - thus creating the Creator, or God, of the early Christian Church.

When the Church speaks of creatio ex nihilo, they don't mean "created out of nothing" - they actually mean "created out of His Own Substance".

This is a very important point of which to be aware.

In subsuming Raw Matter into the Demiurge, in their minds it was "converted" into Pure Spirit.

So, in actual fact, this is a naturalistic First Cause disguised/presented as a super-naturalistic one.

Science, in contrast, took Plato's cosmology and simply ignored the Demiurge and the Forms leaving Raw Matter (in the form of the "Cosmic Egg") effectively as the First Cause.

Metalgod, the "Big Bang" was the start of our bubble-universe - not the start of "everything": science considers that there was a pre-existing, eternal state.

Thus, energy has always existed in some form or other, in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, as australopithecus has explained.

Kindest regards,

James