The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Immanuel Can]

The starting premise, creation from nothing, is false.

I'm interested in seeing how you prove that to yourself. Maybe your reasons will be good for me, too.

Go ahead.

It simply is not stated. Provide one passage from the Bible declaring creation from nothing.

Well, the closest is,“By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” Heb. 11:3. If we take, "things not visible" to mean "nothing," I suppose "ex nihilo" is a possible reading. But the term "ex nihilo" actually comes from the Latin, and Latin was not one of the original Bible languages. So you're quoting the Catholic Vulgate, apparently...but the Catholic Vulgate is not inspired writing, and nobody but Catholics thinks it is.

Again I ask that you provide one passage from the Bible explicitly declaring creation from nothing.

Well, you're splitting hairs there, to be sure. The Bible doesn't say "ex nihilo," but again, why do you think this matters? I can't see that it does.

[Immanuel Can]

The Incarnation is important because that event combined God the Father (the transcendent essence ) and God the Son(the immanent works and process of God)

Yes, but again, I don't see what that adds to what we were actually discussing. Or are you now just taking the subject off in a completely different direction?

I was replying to this from you:-

Consider the same in regard to God. To say that you can't know everything there is to say about Him, or His "essence," to use your terms, does not even remotely imply you cannot know God, or have experience of God, or learn things about God, or make correct and true statements about aspects of God

I'm still not seeing the connection you seem to want me to make. It's certainly not obvious, so you'll have to make it explicit.

[daniel j lavender]

I'm interested in seeing how you prove that to yourself. Maybe your reasons will be good for me, too.

Go ahead.

It simply is not stated. Provide one passage from the Bible declaring creation from nothing.

However the inverse is explicitly expressed “with God nothing shall be impossible” Luke 1:37.

At the most basic level God would be, God being eternal, and God certainly is not nothing. Are you contending God is nothing?

The Bible does not explicitly declare creation from nothing. The Bible does explicitly declare nothing is impossible.

Genesis 1:1 states “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”. This declares the beginning of the heaven and the earth, the beginning of the universe, not necessarily the beginning of existence or creation from nothing. Again, at the very least God is present. God is not nothing.

Furthermore God, the Creator, is likened to a potter working with clay, specifically in verses such as Jeremiah 18:1-6, for example. This suggests God creates from phenomena existing, not from nothing.

The most relevant verses other than those are Isaiah 45:18, Hebrews 11:3 and John 1:3.

Isaiah 45:18 states “For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else”. Scripture emphasizes forming and shaping, suggesting things already existent, not creation from nothing.

Hebrews 11:3 states “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear”. Again, no explicit reference is made to nothing or nonexistence. Scripture simply states that things seen were made of things unseen. All things, not nothing.

Perhaps the strongest argument concerns John 1:3 which states “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made”. However this passage concerns made or created things, with “all things” referring to the created universe we inhabit.

Again I ask that you provide one passage from the Bible explicitly declaring creation from nothing. The Bible simply does not declare it.

The doctrine of creation from nothing developed later in Jewish and Christian thought.

The Bible itself does not explicitly teach creation ex nihilo or creation from nothing.

Well, the closest is,“By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” Heb. 11:3. If we take, "things not visible" to mean "nothing," I suppose "ex nihilo" is a possible reading.

“Things not visible” is not nothing, and to suggest otherwise is quite a reach.

“Things not visible” means “things not visible” or invisible things. Those are still things, not nothing.

But the term "ex nihilo" actually comes from the Latin, and Latin was not one of the original Bible languages. So you're quoting the Catholic Vulgate, apparently...but the Catholic Vulgate is not inspired writing, and nobody but Catholics thinks it is.

It is the concept, not simply the language. God alone is not nothing, God obviously being present during the process of creation.

As expressed, the Bible does not teach creation from nothing. That developed later in Jewish and Christian thought.

Again I ask that you provide one passage from the Bible explicitly declaring creation from nothing.

Well, you're splitting hairs there, to be sure. The Bible doesn't say "ex nihilo," but again, why do you think this matters? I can't see that it does.

It is the basis of the argument of the thread and the book being presented. These are fundamental theological and philosophical concepts.

[Immanuel Can]

“Things not visible” is not nothing, and to suggest otherwise is quite a reach.

Maybe. But it's a "reach" that only the Catholic Vulgate bothers to make. The Hebrews wording is open to it, but not conclusive.

But the term "ex nihilo" actually comes from the Latin, and Latin was not one of the original Bible languages. So you're quoting the Catholic Vulgate, apparently...but the Catholic Vulgate is not inspired writing, and nobody but Catholics thinks it is.

It is the concept, not simply the language.

Well, only the Vulgate has the concept.

Was there a point? I'm not seeing it yet.

[daniel j lavender]

“Things not visible” is not nothing, and to suggest otherwise is quite a reach.

Maybe. But it's a "reach" that only the Catholic Vulgate bothers to make. The Hebrews wording is open to it, but not conclusive.

The text suggests creation from things or creation from existence, not creation from nothing or creation from nonexistence.

Review the passages presented from Genesis, Jeremiah, Luke, Isaiah, John and Hebrews as you mention here. They all concern things, not nothing.

Specifically review the passages of Jeremiah 18 likening God to a potter molding clay. There are several other similar passages throughout the Bible. The idea is expanded in Romans 9:21. This explicitly presents God as creating and developing from something, not creating or developing from nothing. That’s about as clear as it gets.

As expressed God alone is not nothing, if anything God is the exact opposite. God is the most significant.

But the term "ex nihilo" actually comes from the Latin, and Latin was not one of the original Bible languages. So you're quoting the Catholic Vulgate, apparently...but the Catholic Vulgate is not inspired writing, and nobody but Catholics thinks it is.

It is the concept, not simply the language.

Was there a point? I'm not seeing it yet.

Creation from nothing is the basis of the argument of the thread and the book being presented: viewtopic.php?p=792579#p792579

Further these are core concepts of theology. For centuries the idea has been conveyed that the Bible proclaims creation from nothing. However, as illustrated, it really has no Biblical basis.

Creation from nothing is interpretation, a relatively recent development in Jewish and Christian thought. One motivating factor was likely the urge to distance theology from science.

[Immanuel Can]

As expressed God alone is not nothing, if anything God is the exact opposite. God is the most significant.

I really have no idea what point you're trying to make.

The Catholic Bible, in Latin, says "ex nihilo." Hebrews says, "things not seen." What does it matter? I can't see your point here.

[seeds]

The Bible itself does not explicitly teach creation ex nihilo or creation from nothing.

Well, the closest is,“By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” Heb. 11:3. If we take, "things not visible" to mean "nothing," I suppose "ex nihilo" is a possible reading.

“Things not visible” is not nothing, and to suggest otherwise is quite a reach.

“Things not visible” means “things not visible” or invisible things. Those are still things, not nothing.

Right you are, daniel.

Indeed, according to quantum theory, the entire visible universe (what physicists call "local" reality) is created from an invisible substrate of super-positioned (entangled) patterns (or fields) of coded ("software-like") information residing in what physicists call "non-local" reality.

A parallel to that can be seen in how Kant views what he calls the "noumenal" realm being the invisible (underlying) counterpart to the visible "phenomenal" realm.

Another parallel can be seen in how when we dream, or when we create the image of an apple before our mind's eye, we cannot see the actual (noumenal-like / thing-in-itself) nature of the substance from which our dreams (or the apple) are created,...

...no, all we can see and experience is its phenomenal (visible) counterpart.

So, in that sense,...

(and I'm just loosely playing with words and concepts here)

...God created our ("local") reality from some kind of workable and infinitely malleable version of Kantian "noumena" which is somehow capable of being formed into absolutely any visible...

(and touchable, and hearable, and smellable, and tastable)

...phenomenon "imaginable," yet exists in a "non-local" context of reality (as does God, btw) and is thus invisible from the perspective of that which has been created.

Easy-peasy!

The problem is that we are still stuck with the utterly intractable mystery of how God and the noumenal-like essence that God uses to create reality, came into existence?

To which I have often proclaimed to be a mystery so profound and unresolvable that I wonder if even God knows the answer?

And no, I am simply not buying the proposition that the Creator of this one particular universe that gave birth to our minds, has been in existence as far back as eternity itself. So don't even go there.
_______

[daniel j lavender]

The Catholic Bible, in Latin, says "ex nihilo." Hebrews says, "things not seen."

Are you referring to Maccabees? Maccabees is not universally accepted, it is not part of the Protestant canon. Maccabees has the only passage containing “ex nihilo”.

Additionally it is arguably outweighed by more significant passages in scripture, specifically passages found in Genesis, Luke and Jeremiah, books which are universally accepted unlike Maccabees.

Conceptually speaking creation from nothing does not make sense. At the most basic level a creator must exist to create. The creator itself would indicate something, not nothing.

The Bible makes it clear, in numerous canonical passages, not only one, that God creates and develops from things or from existence, not from nothing. This is articulated in Jeremiah 18:1-6 and further expanded in Romans 9:21, for example.

I’ll exit with this statement from Bob Kurland of the Catholic Stand:

“In fact, the concept of Creatio ex Nihilo is not plainly spelled out in the Old and New Testaments”

https://catholicstand.com/creatio-ex-ni ... we-believe

[Immanuel Can]

The Catholic Bible, in Latin, says "ex nihilo." Hebrews says, "things not seen."

Are you referring to Maccabees?

No. Genesis. But Roman 4:17 and Col. 1:16 would need explanation. There's certainly plenty of indication that whatever exists -- and that seems to mean absolutely everything, including any secondary substance from which other things were created, was made by God. So if nothing is excluded from that description, you have "ex nihilo." It's deductive, but certainly warranted.

I'm not aware of any particular doctrine or even any interesting question that attaches to the "ex nihilo" wording the Catholics prefer. So again, what impresses you about all this?

[daniel j lavender]

No. Genesis. But Roman 4:17 and Col. 1:16 would need explanation. There's certainly plenty of indication that whatever exists -- and that seems to mean absolutely everything, including any secondary substance from which other things were created, was made by God. So if nothing is excluded from that description, you have "ex nihilo." It's deductive, but certainly warranted.

I'm not aware of any particular doctrine or even any interesting question that attaches to the "ex nihilo" wording the Catholics prefer. So again, what impresses you about all this?

Genesis does not contain “ex nihilo”.


Colossians 1:16 states:

“For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him”.

This refers to created things (“all things created”), the heaven and the earth, the universe, creation. It does not necessarily refer to all of existence, including God. In other words, not from nothing.

God is creator, beyond creation. However God is not nothing. Nor is other phenomena, including uncreated or disordered things, necessarily excluded. (This also addresses Senad’s earlier claim that God could not create, order or form eternal energy. God certainly could manipulate or structure such phenomena, which would be a form of creation.)

Colossians 1:16 does not suggest something from nothing or creation from nothing. It simply suggests creator creating creation.


Romans 4:17 states:

“As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations, before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were”.

This is not an explicit reference to nothing but to creation and transformation. As conveyed with the potter and clay passages from Jeremiah 18:1-6 and Romans 9:21 God shapes and forms. God transforms (“which be not as though they were”). Nothing is not referenced; a subject is simply transformed.


Romans 4:17, New Catholic Bible states:

“As it is written, ‘I have made you the father of many nations,’ in the sight of God in whom he believed, the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being what does not exist”.

In this particular Catholic version “not exist” is used rather loosely.

Transformation is still being conveyed but with slightly different language. In this sense “calls into being what does not exist” does not indicate actual nothingness. God is present and is not nothing. Further the statement “who gives life to the dead” provides additional context.

In a particular case life does not apply (“who gives life to the dead”). God gives life to the dead which is transformation. God gives life to the dead; God gives something that previously did not apply to something else. God transforms. The terminology differs but the core message is the same. Development of things, transformation of things. Not creation from nothing.

Philosophically speaking both existence and nonexistence are conceptual mechanisms further illustrating the idea. As the New Catholic Bible passage conveys, dead transforms into life as that which does not exist transforms into that which does. They are all things, whether objects or concepts. They are all instances of things transforming or changing into other things, even if only conceptually or figuratively. They are not instances of nothing transforming into something.

As Luke 1:37 clearly states “with God nothing shall be impossible”, and God is eternal.

[Immanuel Can]

Colossians 1:16 states:

“For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him”.

This refers to created things (“all things created”), the heaven and the earth, the universe, creation. It does not necessarily refer to all of existence, including God.

Well, of course not: God is not a created Being. And nobody thinks that's what "God" means. But it means that every created thing was created by God. Again, I'm not seeing your point.

[Age]

So, by the very thing of thinking', 'this', itself, proves there is some thing other than 'pure awareness'.

Which is the same mistake Descartes made. It does not follow from there is a thought, that there is a thinker.

I never said there was a 'thinker', I never even thought there was one, and I certainly never followed with what you just did, here.

However, it can be known, for sure, that 'thoughts', themselves, exist. Which are, obviously, some thing other than awareness.

[Age]

Again, there's no problem here if God is transcendent. If He were something subject to physical laws, there would be; but then, if he were less than and subject to His own physical laws, He would not be transcendent, and we would not even be talking about what is meant by "God."

The starting premise, creation from nothing, is false. That renders the remainder of his argument invalid. There is no need to address anything else.

The Bible does not declare creation from nothing, and in fact explicitly declares “with God nothing shall be impossible”, Luke 1:37.

As Senad says himself, what he is expressing is myth.

Yes, the Bible, the story of one man, a woman and a talking snake, and apples that confer knowledge upon being eaten. Great stuff. Right up there with stories about Santa Claus.

Did you perceive that story to factual?

Have you heard a fable before, or heard of a fable before? That is: a short fictitious story. especially one intended to teach a lesson and in which animals speak and act like human beings.

Could it be possible, to you, that there are fables in the bible, and which are not accounts of what actually happened?

[Age]

The starting premise, creation from nothing, is false.

I'm interested in seeing how you prove that to yourself. Maybe your reasons will be good for me, too.

Go ahead.

This interest of yours, here, is quite funny considering you have already proved to "yourself", and believe, the exact same thing already, anyway.

[Age]

Metaphors are not for pleasing God or anyone else. Metaphor is how human language and ideas evolve.

I thought God was displeased when they ate the apples of "knowledge"? No?

The tree was not necessarily an "apple" tree. It doesn't say the nature of the fruit, only that it imparted "the knowledge of good and evil," not that it imparted vague or general "knowledge." There's no Biblical prohibition on knowing things, or on knowing good things: but there is a prohibition on evil.

And, what even is 'evil', to you, exactly "immanuel can"?

Could just not being open and honest with "yourselves" be 'evil'?