Announcement

Collapse

LDS - Mormonism Guidelines

Theists only.

Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin


Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Ex Nihilo - criticized

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ex Nihilo - criticized

    The entire video series is Here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...lH9MxxLwwWnAea

    It starts by explaining exactly why Ex Nihilo creation cannot be compatible with free will https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxOiYvKDack

    (which, by the way, explains how Calvinists make the logical conclusion from Ex Nihilo creation assumptions.)

    The portion below was copied from the other thread in order to keep things on topic over there.
    - - - - -- - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - -

    Concerning the New Testament video created by 7up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XFST2-vfIY

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post

    Let's look at your video, shall we?

    1) You start with a genetic fallacy, which you waste several slides on in relation to pas trying to disprove the meaning of "all". Bill Clinton would be proud of you.
    Thayers Greek-English Lexicon lists the following meanings and usages of the word:
    2. Without a substantive
    a. Masculine and feminine every one, any one, in the singular without addition
    (6) Panta, in an absolute sense, all things that exist, all created things (as used in Eph 3:9 and 1 Peter 4:7)
    All "created things" were created by God. However, there are uncreated things. I simply demonstrated, that if you attempt to use "all" in the absolute sense in which you are attempting, then you will get all kinds of illogical conclusions and contradictions. I provided Biblical examples.


    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    2) You harken back to your creation video where you mistakenly equate 'bara "create" in the Qal form to 'bara "cutting out" in the Piel form.
    I explain how the "root word etymology" refers to "cutting out / separating". If you ever bothered to watch more than one minute of the videos, you would see that I am much more thorough than you would like. I specifically describe the different forms of 'bara' in the video, I give an example how the first form is used and then I give Biblical examples of the second form and how your view contradicts how the very same form of the verb is used elsewhere in the text. So, quite frankly Bill, you don't know what you are talking about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzIbLUPKgfY

    Let me give you another example which is not even in that video.

    "In the day that God created (bara') man, in the likeness of God made he him;" (Gen 5:1)

    Tell me Bill. IN THE DAY that God created man, did God create man out of nothing? Is that how bara' is used?

    This verse proves you wrong when it explains HOW God created. He FORMS it from something:

    7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.


    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    3) You mistakenly assume that there are things outside of heaven and earth (or the known universe as you call it) that are not God Himself. You also mistakenly assume that Paul means space only when he mentions "heaven" with no warrant for this assumption outside your own unproven thesis. That is circular reasoning. In fact, that is the second heaven according to the Jews. The third heaven is not in our known universe, but is in the spiritual realm outside of our universe. God created that too.
    The assumptions and circular reasoning is yours Bill. You assume that creation implies "out of nothing", despite every single example in the Bible demonstrating creation from something.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    4) You then take Hebrews 11:3, which literally translates: by faith we understand the ages to have been prepared by a saying of God, in regard to the things seen not having come out of things appearing Young's Literal Translation and try to make it fit your ex materia preconceptions. Paul simply meant that the universe, and time itself, was prepared by God through Christ, and that it was not made of the things they could see right then. That would mean that matter itself was not eternal, again something the Hebrews were also mistakenly believing.
    You are adding meaning to the text which simply is not there. Paul says that God created the universe out of "invisible" things. In other words, that which CAN be seen was created out of something that cannot be seen. That destroys the assumption that God created the Universe out of nothing at the moment of the Big Bang. You say that "light" was created Ex Nihilo at the moment of the Big Bang, however, the text says that there was something there before that.

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    5) You then mistakenly equate those things that were seen by the Hebrews as the writer of Hebrews saying that "things unseen" were eternal, and what made up the things seen. By that, I mean you make a leap in stating that by the writer's refuting eternal matter, he means there was some pre-existing eternal substance that was used to make what was seen. The text does not say that, nor does the grammar support it. .
    2 Corinthians 4:18 "For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal."

    "Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end." - Joseph Smith

    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
    It only says that the things they could see were not made from the things they could see. It does not say at all what they were actually made of, nor HOW they were made.
    The text clearly does say that it was created out of something or from something. And if you claim that the text does not say HOW they were made, then why would you assume that God created it "out of nothing".

    -7up
    Last edited by seven7up; 05-03-2014, 08:15 PM.

  • #2
    Well, I copied our posts to another thread. I'd honestly rather take the time to do one video per thread honestly. Let's just stop with this thread and the other one and start with video #1, deal?
    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    Stephen R. Donaldson

    Comment

    widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
    Working...
    X