• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

creation ex nihilo

TimCallahan

Philosopher
T
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
6,293
During the recent "Great Debate" about wether or not science has rendered religion obsolete, Ian Hutchinson, arguing for the theist side, fished out an old chestnut, one often used by creationists, to whit that the Genesis 1 creation myth differed from all others in that, in every other creation myth the gods and everything else arose out of a pre-existing abyss or chaos, often a universal sea. Only the God of the Bible, said Hutchinson, created the universe rather than being part of it. The evidence for this is rather slim. It consists of Gen. 1:1:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Since Gen. 1:1 doesn't specify that God made everything out of pre-existing primordial stuff, this has given rise to the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, "out of nothing."

While it's true that in most of the mythologies of the world the gods rise out of a pre-existing material, I can see three objections to Hutchinson's claim of the unique quality of Genesis 1:

1) First, saying that God created the heavens and the earth doesn't mean he created them ex nihilo.

2) We would expect a creation myth derived from earlier ones, such as Enuma elish, to be a bit more sophisticated than the earlier myth on which it was based. Thus, if the biblical creation was ex nihilo, it wouldn't be that remarkable.

3) Finally, I seem to remember some utterances from the Pyramid Texts or some other ancient Egyptian documents expressly stating that the creation by a certain god, sometimes Atum, sometimes Khepri, was expressly ex nihilo.

However, while I remember reading these texts, I can't find them at present. Does anyone know the specific texts to which I refer?
 
How was "everything" created according to science? Does science think there was some sort of primordial soup or is it something like, "a non-spacial, infinite massed zero point singularity that didn't exist but it blew up anyway?

I always hear the science side of the matter criticizing the theist side, but never fully explaining their side of how everything came to be. Ultimately, science doesn't know any more or less than the theists. In fact, science sounds a little like theism when it comes to the ultimate question: how, when, where, why, by whom or what, etc.
 
You're probably way beyond this already, but list of ancient Egyptian texts.


ETA: Here's a site that talks about Atum self-creating. However, it wasn't ex nihilo, but rather out of a variation on the pre-existing waters.

The ancient Egyptians did not perceive the coming into being of the world as a creation ex nihilo (out of nothing). Instead, at the very beginning there was a chaotic primordial watery body called Nun. Nun, even though it was 'pre-existence' and never really part of the real world, contained all the elements -- albeit inactive -- necessary for the creation.
Click to expand...

Of course, they're discussing certain texts, so I don't know if others exist with variance.
 
Last edited:
The ancient Egyptians did not perceive the coming into being of the world as a creation ex nihilo (out of nothing). Instead, at the very beginning there was a chaotic primordial watery body called Nun. Nun, even though it was 'pre-existence' and never really part of the real world, contained all the elements -- albeit inactive -- necessary for the creation.
Click to expand...

Would that be the "waters" that the God in Genesis separated in order to make the heavens and the Earth? The waters that he moved across the face of?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
Click to expand...

It looks to me like Genesis is saying that God made The Heavens and The Earth out of stuff that was already there, not nothing.

Which puts him back in the same league as all those other gods, doesn't it?
 
jakesteele said:
How was "everything" created according to science? Does science think there was some sort of primordial soup or is it something like, "a non-spacial, infinite massed zero point singularity that didn't exist but it blew up anyway?
Click to expand...
Good questions. I'm thinking that science would say, "we don't know yet."


I always hear the science side of the matter criticizing the theist side, but never fully explaining their side of how everything came to be.
Click to expand...
Yes, science posits many ideas of how the universe came to be. It may not ever be fully explained however. I don't understand why many people think this is a bad thing.


Ultimately, science doesn't know any more or less than the theists. In fact, science sounds a little like theism when it comes to the ultimate question: how, when, where, why, by whom or what, etc.
Click to expand...
Yes, science absolutely knows more about the creation of the universe than the theists. That doesn't mean that science can definitively describe it or state the facts of how the universe began. The major difference, of course, when either side makes up stuff, is that the science side will change the theories and ideas when evidence/better evidence comes along rather than proclaiming that what was initially dreamed up thousands of years ago was right all along.
 
Brainache said:
Would that be the "waters" that the God in Genesis separated in order to make the heavens and the Earth? The waters that he moved across the face of?



It looks to me like Genesis is saying that God made The Heavens and The Earth out of stuff that was already there, not nothing.

Which puts him back in the same league as all those other gods, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Yes, you are right about the waters. The first verse of Genesis does not recount a an event that is distinct from what is recounted throughout the remainder of the story. It refers to the same events. The waters are there all along.

The only real way to make Genesis into an ex nihilo creation story would be to read it somewhat metaphorical and attempt to cast the deep as some kind of ancient (Hebrew) concept of nothingness. Not entirely hopeless, but ... hmmmm.
 
jakesteele said:
How was "everything" created according to science? Does science think there was some sort of primordial soup or is it something like, "a non-spacial, infinite massed zero point singularity that didn't exist but it blew up anyway?

I always hear the science side of the matter criticizing the theist side, but never fully explaining their side of how everything came to be. Ultimately, science doesn't know any more or less than the theists. In fact, science sounds a little like theism when it comes to the ultimate question: how, when, where, why, by whom or what, etc.
Click to expand...

"Science" (how is a process supposed to know anything? I assume you mean the scientific community) doesn't know for certain, and neither does religion. The difference is that religion claims that it does know.

That existence ever had a "beginning" is an unfounded assumption, anyway.
 
jakesteele said:
How was "everything" created according to science? Does science think there was some sort of primordial soup or is it something like, "a non-spacial, infinite massed zero point singularity that didn't exist but it blew up anyway?

I always hear the science side of the matter criticizing the theist side, but never fully explaining their side of how everything came to be. Ultimately, science doesn't know any more or less than the theists. In fact, science sounds a little like theism when it comes to the ultimate question: how, when, where, why, by whom or what, etc.
Click to expand...

Go to Youtube, and find Lawrence Krauss's "A Universe from Nothing." EOF
 
TimCallahan said:
During the recent "Great Debate" about wether or not science has rendered religion obsolete, Ian Hutchinson, arguing for the theist side, fished out an old chestnut, one often used by creationists, to whit that the Genesis 1 creation myth differed from all others in that, in every other creation myth the gods and everything else arose out of a pre-existing abyss or chaos, often a universal sea. Only the God of the Bible, said Hutchinson, created the universe rather than being part of it. The evidence for this is rather slim. It consists of Gen. 1:1:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Since Gen. 1:1 doesn't specify that God made everything out of pre-existing primordial stuff, this has given rise to the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, "out of nothing."

While it's true that in most of the mythologies of the world the gods rise out of a pre-existing material, I can see three objections to Hutchinson's claim of the unique quality of Genesis 1:

1) First, saying that God created the heavens and the earth doesn't mean he created them ex nihilo.


...snip...
Click to expand...

As far as I recall God only creates "light" out of nothing, everything else comes from the shapeless chaos.
 
jakesteele said:
How was "everything" created according to science? Does science think there was some sort of primordial soup or is it something like, "a non-spacial, infinite massed zero point singularity that didn't exist but it blew up anyway?

I always hear the science side of the matter criticizing the theist side, but never fully explaining their side of how everything came to be. Ultimately, science doesn't know any more or less than the theists. In fact, science sounds a little like theism when it comes to the ultimate question: how, when, where, why, by whom or what, etc.
Click to expand...

We don't know what the context of the BBE was, the models break down, they are very accurate for t>10-36 sec.

And no science does not, science says 'we don't know, here is some speculation'.
 
In the beginning, God opened up a Baby's First Molecule Kit and began putting together the universe. He soon lamented the lack of instruction booklet. When completing the universe he remarked unto himself "this looketh not like the box art". He then had a beer and decided it was good enough.
 
Gawdzilla said:
Go to Youtube, and find Lawrence Krauss's "A Universe from Nothing." EOF
Click to expand...

I'm sympathetic with Krauss's goal there but disappointed with his argument. He actually concludes with 'A Universe from Zero' not nothing. (Analogous to what every first-year computer science student learns about zero versus null.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom