Resolved: God created “the heaven and the earth” with existing matter and energy and not ex nihilo.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with the same amount of points on both sides...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Resolved: God created “the heaven and the earth” with existing matter and energy and not ex nihilo.
The demonstration is stated not just in generality in Genesis, but in the context of the very words, and damn few of them. Specifically, verses 1 through 13, inclusive of chapter 1, which gets us through “day” 3.
While we’re discussing creation, let’s interject that too many are still hung-up on the notion that either God created, or it was all random evolution. Glad the latter camp of you are so kind to yourselves to accept your randomness, when it is just as easy to accept that not only did God create, but the creation included evolution, and that by such means, creation continues to this day. Or do you really think that some among the creationists [I am one] believe that God rested and retired after “seven days?” Nonsense. I contend that creation and evolution, rather than being different coins, or even two sides of one coin, are really a tandem pairing on one side of one coin. God may play golf once in a while, but there’s still work to do, and “days” to do it.
Speaking of days, since creation started “day one,” and the Earth was not created until “day three,” what makes you think a “day” was limited to a 24-hour period as Earth has now? In fact, that term, “period” may have more significant meaning in terms of our current translation of “day” as rendered by Moses in ancient Hebrew some 3,400 years ago.
From www.Ancient-Hebrew.org, we read, “The Hebrew word יום (yom, Strong's #3117) means a ‘day,’ but not specifically a twenty-four hour period, but instead more generically like in ‘a day that something occurs.’ An example would be ‘a day of the month’ (Genesis 8:4), ‘in that day Yahweh made a covenant’ (Genesis 15:18) and ‘until the day’ (Genesis 19:37). This word can also refer to the light part of the day in contrast to night (see Genesis 1:5 and Exodus 13:21), but the related word יומם (yomam, Strong's #3119) specifically means ‘daytime’ as in Job 5:14. This word can be used for a time, age or season, but that is only when this word is in the plural form, which is ימים (yamim), and in my opinion should simply be translated as ‘days’ and not time, age or season, as this can lead to incorrect interpretations of the text. The word היום (hayom) is the word יום (yom) with the prefix ה (ha) added and it literally means ‘the day,’ but we would translate it as ‘today.’”
Therefore, our biblical “day,” or “days” may be more correctly understood as days of time, including many, many days. A million years? A billion? Does it matter if we accept the definition of God? Who is the ultimate Timekeeper, after all, but He for whom time may not even exist but as an allowed construct of imperfect man?
God: the Being perfect in use of power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped [as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism] as creator and ruler of the universe
Create: Bring something into existence; cause something to happen as a result of one’s actions
Heaven: A place regarded in various religions as the abode of God [or the gods] and the angels, and of the good after death, often traditionally depicted as being above the sky
Earth: The planet on which we live, the present abode of humankind
Matter: Physical substance occupying space
Energy: The property of matter and radiation which is manifest as a capacity to perform work such as causing motion or the interaction of molecules
Ex nihilo: [Latin], out of nothing
Rounds 1, 2: Argument, rebuttal, defense
Round 3: No new argument Rebuttal, defense, conclusion
All argument, defense, rebuttal, and sourcing will be listed within the context of the debate argument rounds only, except sourcing may also be listed within comments within the debate file to conserve maximum space for argumentation, but only during the argumentation phase. No other external reference may be made within the context of the debate argument rounds.
Biblical references will be accepted as evidentiary source, along with any other recognized “holy writ.” Any peer-reviewed secular science reference will also be accepted as evidence.
No waived rounds. No more than one round may be forfeited, or forfeiture of entire debate will result. Concession in any round is a debate loss.
All argument rounds will contain arguments, rebuttals, and defenses, plus 4th round conclusion. No declaration of victory will be made but in the 4th round.
Arguments, rebuttals, defenses, or conclusions may not address voters directly for voting suggestions beyond statement of validity for arguments, et al, made in all rounds.
Joe Biden may not be used as a source. Why would anyone want to do that?
1 Holy Bible, Genesis 1: 1
“I.a.2 I suggest that Moses’ “heaven and earth” may have consisted only of our galaxy, which, within the greater context of the entire universe, is just part, and that, while the greater universe may or may not have a beginning, the galaxy certainly does; therefore, the mosaic declaration, “In the beginning…” Whether or not the suggestion is true is of no consequence to this debate, and I will not use space to describe any further argument.”
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth [that God created] was without form and void,
Another assumption couched in if/then logic. See the response below in I.g.1. Is God the author or inspirator? I think that’s clear in a religious context, but that is outside the debate.
I.a.2 I suggest that Moses’ “heaven and earth” may have consisted only of our galaxy, which, within the greater context of the entire universe, is just part, and that, while the greater universe may or may not have a beginning, the galaxy certainly does; therefore, the mosaic declaration, “In the beginning…” Whether or not the suggestion is true is of no consequence to this debate, and I will not use space to describe any further argument.
...while the greater universe may or may not have a beginning, the galaxy certainly does
Heaven: A place regarded in various religions as the abode of God [or the gods] and the angels, and of the good after death, often traditionally depicted as being above the skyGod: the Being perfect in use of power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped [as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism] as creator and ruler of the universe
However, one must also recognize that just within one complete text, the Holy Bible, there are several conflicts, but it must be recognized that one person did not compose the entire volume, but several. None of them was God, and, therefore, it is not perfect.
...the nature of God is outside the parameters of this debate. Since science cannot demonstrate the nature of God, and this debate is science-based, I declare it is irrelevant.
If it is created using existing matter, then did he “create” it though?
I want to vote on this debate because I know what it's like to put time and effort into crafting a good argument. Unfortunately after skimming I agree with Con that the debate wasn't framed in such a way that both debaters understood the resolution properly. Still I'd like to give a fair analysis so hopefully I can re-read and write a sufficient RFD before the voting period ends.
are the comments not loading? I can copy paste them at the beginning of the analysis.
okay? That doesn't justify the vote. You have to present actual reasons for that, how is reposting the debate in google docs a good reason?
sure. But it's also how I voted on Oromagi vs Fruit inspector.
The RFD in the votes is just a copy and paste of the debate
proper link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C7ZpaXXN3oTwKBFMoCTB-ZA3mVZWrbGqEEjJkS6U-Ak/edit?usp=sharing (should be updated now)
With my work schedule, I don't think I'll be getting around to voting on this one. Still, looks like a very good theology debate.
>Reported Vote: [seldiora] // Mod action: [Removed]
>Reason for Decision: Tied vote. Fauxlaw tries to show that the eternal nature of the universe means God made it out of matter and energy, while Con showed reasonable possibility that it could have been from nothing. It's difficult to say for sure if the impact of Pro outweighs the ideas of Con, especially since con didn't uphold shared burden that well, focusing instead on refuting Pro's arguments.
>Reason for Mod Action: I apologize for the late vote removal. Nonetheless, this vote must be removed on the grounds that the points are not explained sufficiently per the Voting Policy. To whit: "A sufficient vote is one that states why one debater was better than the other in a particular respect and explains why the voter thought that. The last part of that definition is crucial. It is not sufficient to merely state that "Pro had better arguments", because nothing in that statement explains why Pro had better arguments."
You must explain why Con showed "reasonable possibility" that the world was created ex nihilo. Without explaining why Con presented a reasonable possibility, the statement is an ipse dixit. Also, you need to explain why Con doesn't uphold his burden. Again, I apologize for the inconvenience. Feel free to cast the vote again once you meet the requirements.
No, I've been kicking this around for a couple of months, trying to figure out just how to combat the idea of ex nihilo from a scientific, not a religious perspective, and to propose that Genesis does not describe the creation of all the universe. It was serendipity that I looked beyond Newton to Causius and his first law of thermodynamics, which sealed the deal for me that nothing can come from nothing. Then considering how black holes might be demonstrated on a more local basis, galaxy-wise, I discovered an article that compared the physics of black holes and that of Saturn and its rings. It just all popped together. Then there's the subject I peeked at, but purposely did not explore further; the idea of multiple gods; generations of them stretching back to infinity, and not just one who created everything. Like I said, perhaps a forum thing, but I'd love to find sufficient science to make it a debate instead.
Just out of curiosity, was this inspired by my flat earth debate?
A personal note: Dr. Nibley [R1, citation , was my professor of Egyptian hieroglyphics, a 4-semester course, who told this story of dictionary-to-dictionary translation issues at least twice each semester, so it was drilled into my little ear. He also told me once, personally, knowing that I published poetry as a student [still do] and was on a writing scholarship, while he fancied himself as an historian [really an ancient languages professor], he said to me, "A poet is someone who will hold you head while you puke. An historian will examine the remains." I loved that guy. He lectured seamlessly in seven or eight languages. Dead now, sadly.
Somehow, my R1 argument III.d printed twice with the reepeated paragraph having more information. Don't know how that happened, it's not in my originating document from which I did copy/paste. Please disregard te first iteration and use the more complete second iteration.
Uhhh... well, let's just say, because I have a problem with giving stores away, that this is discussed in my r1
1. I think to argue that that God does not exist to have created exceeds the boundary of the resolution because a dichotomy already exists within the resolution that material pre-existed creation, or creation was ex nihilo.
2. A biblical ex nihilo framework... well, that is a discussion for my round 1, already composed
I see two avenues for debate here.
1. The contender challenges whether God exists to create anything at all.
2. The contender challenges using a biblical ex nihilo framework.
All I said was, if the resolution assumes god, then yeah creatio ex materia is compatible with science.
Sorry, I deleted the proposed debate before seeing your comment, but I've reinstated it after correcting an error. Please re-post.