Talk:Creatio ex nihilo

message: I'm not sure but the followiung looks like a polemic against Hnduism?
2- believers then have to attribute all the evil ingrained in material life to God, making Him partial and arbitrary, which does not logically accord with His nature 
==
I think the following section is arguing the wrong way around? Its more likely that the myths described a 'creatio ex nihilo' that the philosophers retreated from.
Chaos in it's original meaning is 'void' or 'abyss' both meaning nothing. Parminides arguing after Hesiod introduced the idea Ex Nihilo, nihil fit, nmothing comes from nothing.It was the Orphics that gave it's meaning of pre-existing substance and Ovid that gave it the later meaning 'confusion'. 
"Before the last few centuries of the pre-Christian era, ancient Near Eastern mythologies envisioned the creation of the world as resulting from the actions of a god or gods upon already-existing primeval matter - the waters of chaos.[citation needed] The Greek philosophers came to question this (on a priori grounds), discussing the idea that a primeval Being (not conceived as a god or as God in the Christian sense) must have created the world out of nothing"
I don't know of any Greek Philosopher that argued for creatio ex nihilo?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.40.49 (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hindu veiws

message: An opinion held by some Orthodox Jewish scholars is that the Book of Genesis contains a mystical interaction between God and all of creation.  A faSmall Textmiliar name of God for Christians, "alpha and omega", comes from the idea of God being the cause of all creation.  The Hebrew equivalent of the letter "alpha" is "aleph", both letters being the equivalent to the letter 'A'.  Therefore, since God alone represents the letter 'A', the next letter in the alphabet, 'B', or "bet" obviously is situated after the letter 'A'.  Because then, the Torah begins with the letter 'B', in the word "bereshit" - or, in the beginning - some have posited the idea that we can conclude that God existed before the Torah, but that the Torah was the next thing to exist in the universe, and that this relationship between God and the Torah supports the theory of ex nihilo, due to the fact that the letter 'A' is situated before the letter 'B' in the alphabet.
*I don't know where this nonsense came from, so for reasons of unverifiability, I've moved it to the talk page.  Anyone who can cite and make sense of the above passage can reinsert it at their will.  —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪ 01:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed from article pending verification

message: "Social architecture
There is a process by which one creates a social structures by providing a space. So for example you can rent a space in a commercial district in a town and simply leave it open for others to provide the inspiration for creating something in it. The vacuum of the space attracts something to manifest in it. This process is also given the name Edwarding after Matthew Edwards who created Circlecenter (circlecenter.com) based on this principle.
There is a yang form of social architecture where you prescribe and design more of what you want to see. There is a yin form of social architecture where you allow more of the structure to be built by the participants. Open space technology and world cafe are more yin forms. Edwarding is a relatively yin form of social architecture."
This may make sense to whoever wrote it, but to me it just seems like a rant from an acid fiend that is thinking on a different wavelength to the average Wikipedia reader. If it is ok can we see some context please? And proof of why this is not just some cult's pseudo-philosophy would be nice. Howboutpete 22:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed from article pending rewrite, citation, proof of notability etc. etc. 

message: I removed this passage from the article.
--------------
- For an examination of how the doctrine arose originally in Gnosticism and then was adopted by early Church leaders to shore up doctrines of divine determinism, see Gerhard May, Creatio Ex Nihilo: The Doctrine of ‘Creation out of Nothing’ in Early Thought. trans. A. S. (Worrall. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994). 
---------------------
This passage seems to miss the point of the book (which is very effectively refuted) The books point was that ex nihilio was a second century invention. As the review states.
-------
"But it seems that we have here sufficient references to creation out of nothing to call into question the assertion that this doctrine was nothing but a late second-century phenomenon." And again.. 
--------
"We noted earlier that Professor May does not think that the text of the Bible demands belief in creation ex nihilo (p. 24). Unfor-tunately, he does little to defend this claim. While he makes passing reference to certain biblical passages that seem to hint at the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, he does not seriously interact with them. He focuses on patristic study (as his subtitle indicates) rather than on biblical exegesis. This turns out to be a weakness for May because, if properly done, sound biblical exegesis refutes the notion that creation out of nothing is a mere theological invention. For instance, Rom 4:17 (where God is said to call into being things that are not) and Heb 11:3 (where the visible world is not created from anything observable) are passages which May simply writes off as fitting in with other statements of hellenistic Judaism - statements that seem to affirm absolute creation out of nothing but are actually only asserting belief in world-formation."
---------
And most importantlyIt appears the books message is that Gnosticism did not teach or believe or create the ex nihilio concept, but prompted Christians to take the position to counter what was gnostic. 
Indeed, May gives the false impression that creatio ex nihilo was nothing more than the invention of well-meaning Christian theologians who were trying to defend what they believed to be the biblical notions of God's absolute sovereignty, freedom, and omnipotence in the face of heretical gnostic doctrines.
----------
This is a farcry from Christianity adopting from Gnosticism a gnostic doctrine.
LoveMonkey 13:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange passage

message: The second paragraph begins with: "A number of philosophers in ancient times attained a highly developed concept of God as the supreme ruler of the world, but they failed to develop the concept of God as the absolute cause of all finite existence."
It seems to me that considering concepts of God or gods in terms of higher or lesser development could be conceived as value-laden.  Both "development" and "attainment" tend to imply a level of achievement.  Neither the concept of ex nihilo nor the history of the term calls for phrasing in terms of achievement, development, etc.  Indeed, such phrasing seems to violate the objectivity of Wikipedia.  I would suggest removing this from the article.  Alternatively, I would suggest that if there is a historical record of value judgement being placed on this concept, then it be recognized, and recognized as such (opinion).
Chuckhumming 21:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what you are talking about, It might be that you do not understand what the sentence  means?  did you notice the comma that separates the two different parts.  The first part talks about their ideas about God, while the second part goes on to say that in those complex and well reasoned ideas for God they had not developed the concept of ex nihilo creation.
Maybe it would be more clear if it said "developed a sophisticated and complex concept of God"  since they were highly rational models with ideas that are very often still used to this day when talking about God, while religious models are based on revelation with an admixture of rational arguments about the nature of God.  It might help to read the reference given. Hardyplants 09:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "more" sophisticated than what? and what concept? 
 
The connection to "rationality" is that the ideas were based on logical arguments. Philosophical arguments for God are generally different than religious arguments about God. The point is that ancient philosophers had gone over all types of arguments about the nature of God and gods and His/their relation to the physical world but they did not develop ex nihilo creation.  Hardyplants 06:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding use of the phrase "attained a highly developed" 

message: I take issue with this paragraph:A number of philosophers in ancient times attained a highly developed concept of God as the supreme ruler of the world, but did not develop a concept of God as the absolute cause of all finite existence. Before the biblical idea of creation, myths envisioned the world as being preexisting matter acted upon by a god or gods that reworked this material into the present world. Only in the Bible and the religious thought that developed out of its world-view do we see the formulation of ex nihilo creation. The source, the Catholic Encyclopedia, supports this by stating:Though some of the pagan philosophers attained to a relatively high conception of God as the supreme ruler of the world, they seem never to have drawn the next logical [logical?] inference of His being the absolute cause of all finite existence. ... puerile story of the cosmogony corrupted by polytheistic myths. [vs. the mature story?] .... Paganism and the Oriental heresies had waned. However, "ex nihilo" isn't restricted to the volitional activity of a God. Some have argued (e.g., Eric Voegelin) that Hesiod's Chaos in Theogony was nothingness from which everything emerged by means of the cosmic force "eros". Pherecydes of Syros countered Heriod by asserting that the gods always existed. Nor is there unanimous agreement that the Genesis account has to be interpreted as "ex nihilo". Plato's rational creative force of the demiurge should be explored also. I believe that a) the pre-Socratic and Socratic arguments need to be included, b) the lede should be modified to be more expansive and c) less emphasis on one theological argument (Catholic) should be used in the lede. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 18:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See http://books.google.com/books?id=JeXteXhnJWkC&pg=PA492&lpg=PA492&dq=theogony+and+christianity&source=web&ots=TmjKpdhqmI&sig=iRnUdz1rAlLfSkzu3H1ttjlvL3E#PPA493,M1
As a possible starting place. In some of the Greek concepts the Gods have a beginning, others have prefect order that gives rise to chaos that produce the world and the things in it.  It might be useful to present the distinctions between the Christian and Pagan concepts in relation to cosmology. Hardyplants (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-biblical theories of ex nihilio 

message: Though this information may be relevant, this section seems to be lacking an elaboration on how exactly the view that matter and energy correspond to ex nihilo.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.172.157 (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific Views 

message: Under: "History of the idea of ex nihilo" The sentence "...often personified in the form of a fight between a culture-hero deity and a chaos monster in the form of a dragon (the chaoskampf motif). * This is also the scenario envisaged by the authors of the Hebrew Genesis creation narrative.*"
This implies that the Hebrew Genesis narrative assumes the 'chaos monster' view of creation, which it patently does not do.
131.111.192.100 (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. "We have no evidence in the history of the universe after the big bang..." The big bang is a theory in direct opposition to creation, being stated as fact. --"Chase" (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested removal or rewrite. 

message: Why is this under the category latin legal term?  It is latin, but I can't see any use in legal....  please remove the category, or add reference to use in court. 59.148.232.130 (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  latin legal term 

message: Hi,
It seems to me this section present only christian theology. The only one "jewish" is Philo, and its views do not reflect modern Jewish theology.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.69.227.91 (talk) 07:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Judaeo-Christian theologians ' section not jewish 

message: "Nihil, Nihil, n." is an indeclinable noun. It doesn't change to "nihilo" when changed into the ablative. Just sayin'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.77.81 (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ex Nihil, not Ex Nihilo 

message: The statement appears under "Logical Approaches": "But (this account continues) it is scientifically impossible for matter to always have existed." How was that conclusion made? I can visualize a universe with no beginning and no end, where matter always existed in some shape or form... Zaximus (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It is scientifically impossible for matter to always have existed." 

message: Since there was a paragraph that discussed the LDS view of Ex Nihilo, I added the JW view to the paragraph a few weeks ago as it seemed informative to the reader. Someone edited the main text, however, and included this around the JW view:
"Does the following belong here? Although accurate clearly the following is mostly supportive of creation and not against as this section is entitled, additionally it is a doctrinal statement."
I moved this suggestion to the talk page where it belongs.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.220.120 (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition within modern Christian theology 

message: The sections on Computer Science and the military seem out of place in this article. All the usages appear unrelated to each other. I then suggest the article be renamed to Ex Nihilo (Theology) or Ex Nihilo (Philosophy). I doubt reliable sources group this collection of sections together so nor should we. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Split or move content 

message: Probably the worst constructed "correct" sentence i've ever seen: "Moreover, matter is contingent: it is not logically impossible for it not to exist, and nothing else depends on it."  Someone please turn this into something comprehensible for sane humans.  :P  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.132.241 (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomprehensible quadruple negative sentence 

message: Why is there no mention of Thomas Aquinas in this article? Thanks—Geremia (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In relation to the origin of the creation, Aquinas distinguished two types of God's work: a creation ab aeterno (before all centuries, namely, before the creation of the time and of Genesis 1) and a creation in initio temporis (in the same instant in which the time has started). He rejected the first type and affirmed the necessity of the second, both from the point of view of the Christian faith in the Book of Genesis, as well as for the point of view of the human natural reason:
The related text of Summa Th., q. 76, a. 2 is available on this website. Thr creation before all centuries is admitted in the unique case of the angels, including both the holy angels of God and the ones who betrayed Him and chose to follow the angel whose name is Satan. Angels don't originate the paradoxes that are known for any creature which came to being after the beginning of the time and after the creation of Genesis 1. Angels don't die, aren't capable to generate or to create other angels or human souls or the matter. Therefore, their being alive doesn't entail the existence of infinite number of angels (nor of infinite generations of angels). Being created before all the times, angels don't imply an infinite number of days to be travelled from the present instant backwords to an hypothetic origin of the time, an origin that in a creation ab aeterno is denied.
If the creation of matter implies and chronologically follows the creation of time, angels could be created before all the times due to the fact that they don't have matter, and, more particularly, are invisible and bodiless. When they appear (e.g. in the following biblical passages: , , ), they do so with an apparent (not real) human body, which doesn't have any matter. This is the point of view of the Aquinas' doctrine. 
In the WP article, it could be said that Aquinas affirmed the creation ex nihilo and in initio temporis both as a Christian theologian (from the point of view of the Christian faith) and as a philosopher (from the point of view of the natural human reason). He denied the thinkability of any creation before all centuries and beliveed it to be an impossible paradox, except for what concerns the creation of all the angels, who are bodiless, immaterial and invisible.Theologian81sp (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of [[Thomas Aquinas]]? 

message: There is a distinction between creation from nothing and creation by nothing or no one.
There cannot be creation ex nihilo or from nothing literally, with nothing understood as the material of which created things are made by God, for nothing is nothing and cannot be anything of which anything else is made as the material of composition; it is impossible even just in concept.
And there cannot be creation by nothing or no one, because creation is the making of something which cannot make itself, for if it can make itself then there is no need for it to make itself since it already exists, what it can do is to change itself.
That is called creation a nihilo or nemine, literally meaning creation by nothing or no one, nothing or no one is understood as the agent doing the creation, which is also impossible even just in concept.
God always exists, that is the teaching of the Catholic Church, and He is the creator of everything that exists that is not Himself.
So? 
Catholic theologians are left to themselves on how to explain God creating something from nothing, for from nothing nothing can be created.
The answer is "it is a mystery" of the Christian faith, that God created everything from nothing; there are many mysteries in the Christian faith in particular in the Roman Catholic school of the Christian faith, for example of another mystery, the changing of bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christian by the priest during Mass, which then body and blood of Jesus Christian in the appearance of bread and wine are eaten by Catholics in Holy Communion.
For myself I put it this way which I think is all right with the Catholic Church although I am no longer Catholic:
Creation ex nihilo means God created everything from nothing understanding nothing as any pre-existing thing not created by God: in other words, God did not create everything from any pre-existing thing that is not God Himself.
But there is as far as I can think in the Roman Catholic way (although I am no longer Roman Catholic) there is nothing against the Christian faith in particular of the Roman Catholic school, that God used His thought to create everything that is not Himself, so that God's thought is the in a way what we might call material of which everything is created by Him that is not Himself.
That saves the ultimate supremacy of God in that if God wants to, He can stop thinking and everything created by Him will pass into nothingness, i.e. God in effect annihilates everything He has created.
You see that word, annihilate, it comes from the Latin base of nihil, meaning nothing, that is where the phrase ex nihilo comes from.
112.198.79.96 (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What I learned from Catholic education about ex nihilo and a nihilo or nemine 

message: This should be removed, in my opinion. It claims to present the point of view of 'Abrahamic Philosophy', which I guess is supposed to mean all types of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but in reality it reflects the views only of a subgroup of Christian old-earth creationists. The 'fall of ha-Satan' part is a particularly offensive bit--the point here seems to be to try to Judaize the non-Jewish concept of a fallen Satan by applying the Hebrew title which is used in Job for the Accuser.CharlesMartel (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Gap Theory Diagram

message: Under the section History of the idea of creatio ex nihilo, a sentence begins: "Church Fathers opposed a literal reading of Genesis..." But this is begging the question by presupposing that a literal reading of Genesis opposes creation ex nihilo. In point of fact, many modern commentators (e.g., C. John Collins, Genesis 1-4, p. 50-53) arrive at the opposite conclusion--namely, that a literal reading supports creation from nothing. I propose having this sentence removed. Kyledi (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "A literal reading of Genesis"

message: Aristotle and greek philosophers talk about "The word" (logos) as the animator of the universe. "Primum Movens" is the fundamental and absolute animator of the universe. Aristotle talks about divine consciousness, and these arguments are also the basis of "Natural Law" (lex naturalis). It is clear that he holds what is now considered the esoteric view, of divine consciousness as first cause, and sustainer of everything.
Also refuting a "prime mover" based on claiming that it does not need a beginning is failure to understand the argument.
Infinite regression does not exist, as infinity must be nothing (transcendent, timeless, physicalless). It has no beginning, and no series of events. So thus you need this dualism, of creator and created, for a whole logical argument. And creation is physical. And the physical logically thus requires the non-physical first cause, prime mover. Animator, lifeforce, etc. 
The concept ex-nihilo, is also a bit flawed, since God IS nothing. Creator of every thing. God orders new things into existence, but one should probably avoid the term "ex-nihilo", "out of nothing", because they are not derived of nothing. They are created entirely new.
Peace Be With You.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.28.14 (talk) 10:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid refutation of Primum Movens 

message: There is request for comment about capitalization of the word universe at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of universe - request for comment. Please participate.  SchreiberBike talk 00:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of capitalization of ''universe'' 

message: An RfC has been commenced at MOSCAPS Request for comment - Capitalise universe.
Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notification of request for comment 

message: I will not argue that it is entirely inappropriate for Claude Nowell’s Summum to be cited in the ‘Logical’ sub-section of the article. But the given short summary of its tenets is so similar to the Ayn Sof (Aur) concepts of Jewish Kabbalah that I wonder if this earlier belief-system might not take precedence or, better still, have its own paragraph, perhaps in a new ‘Jewish’ sub-section within ‘Supporting Arguments’. If that one small element of Kabbalah is worth a thorough article to itself, then why not at least a cross-reference in this ex nihilo article.
Indeed, I wonder why there isn’t already a Jewish sub-section. After all, there have been some heavyweight intellectuals of Orthodox Judaism, who have expressed relevant views on the subject of ex nihilo creation. One example is Maimonides (a.d. 1135 to 1204), who held Aristotle in high regard, but felt that the philosopher had not proved his point that at most God had imposed form on matter. Therefore, since the matter was still open, Maimonides preferred to accept the plain text of the Torah and to say that the universe did have a beginning in time. (The last two sentences are taken almost verbatim from a transcript of a lecture given by Lord Jonathan Sacks when, c.2005, he was Chief Rabbi in the UK).
It seems iniquitous that the Torah perspective, enshrined in the very first verse of Genesis, and on which many later parts of the Bible are mere commentary, is relegated to just three footnotes to the ‘Christian’ sub-section.--DStanB (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supporting Arguments 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ex nihilo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150928224539/http://cornerstonepublications.org/Philo/ to http://cornerstonepublications.org/Philo
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060626083953/http://www.summum.us/philosophy/ebook/ebook.htm to http://www.summum.us/philosophy/ebook/ebook.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211142040/http://www.artsci.lsu.edu/voegelin/EVS/Panel42001.htm to http://www.artsci.lsu.edu/voegelin/EVS/Panel42001.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I removed from the article a statement (backed up with sources) that the presence of ex nihilo in the OT is debated, because in fact there is consensus that it is absent. We have an unambiguous statement to this effect from Gary Anderson in Creation ex nihilo: Origins, Development, Contemporary Challenges: "The consensus among scholars (with which I agree) is that the first three verses depict God forming the world out of preexistent matter." There can be no reason for having such an extended discussion of a so-called "scholarly debate" that does not exist.Achar Sva (talk) 09:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The scholarly consensus on the absence of ex nihilo from the Old Testament 

message: I just invented the term quantum nothingness to focus this section. I don't know whether or not my invention is original (apparently not; see e.g., ) or whether my usage of the term here agrees or disagrees with any prior usage. I won't attempt to latinize the term so as to distinguish it from Ex nihilo nihil fit and Creatio ex nihilo. I intend this term to refer here to nothingness as postulated in the Lawrence Krauss book A Universe from Nothing, which, as far as I've been able to wrap my mind around it, is distinguished from other types of nothingness by the absence of not only matter and energy but also of space and time in which matter and energy might exist (see here). I would have added a section with a ham-handed attempt at content, but I think that section belongs up there with the previously mentioned latinzed section names, and I don't know what to call it. I'm hoping to be informed by comments here by other editors. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation out of quantum nothingness 

message: "ex nihilo" is not a belief, it's simply a phrase (meaning "out of nothing"). Creatio ex nihilo is a belief. Ex nilhilo nihil fit is another. The lead and definition need to get this right.Achar Sva (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Revised the Lead to reflect this. Editor2020 (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Ex nihilo'' and ''creatio ex nihilo'' 

message: I'm sure that whoever originally created this article (out of nothing, naturally) meant that it should treat creatio ex nihilo as its subject, but the choice of ex nihilo as the article title has meant that the lead and first few paras have to deal with distinguishing between creatio ex nihilo and the ex nihilo nihil fit idea. It would be much easier if the title were simply creatio ex nihilio, which in fact it once was. I've canvassed all authors who have edited this in the last month, (i.e., October 2020) asking for views - please indicate below....Achar Sva (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect article from ''ex nihilo'' to ''creatio ex nihilo''

message: There have been two rounds of ping-pong edits recently over the question of whether or not creation theories involving the big bang can fairly fall within this article topic. Earlier, I suggested introducing the Lawrence Krauss theory from his book A Universe from Nothing, which I characterized  here as creation out of quantum nothingness, but that did not come to anything. Please discuss such things here rather than in ping-pong edit summaries. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The possible relationships between the subject of this page and the big bang are discussed in very good detail in the source for the short section I put at the bottom of the page. Since the short introductory sentence to the issues and the source were removed from the page with the incorrect edit summary that these issues have "nothing to do" with the subject of the page, I re-added them in a separate, specific sub-section for these issues, at the bottom of it. Unfortunately, time wise this is all I could dedicate to the issue at the moment. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 21:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "big bang", "quantum nothingness", etc. 

message: The short description is woefully lacking. It is more than a Latin phrase. The lede should summarize the article and it does a fairly good job, but the short description should summarize the lede, and it fails. Where is the middle ground while maintaining the principles of :Wikipedia:Short description? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion below notwithstanding, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creatio_ex_nihilo&curid=1813173&diff=1041445151&oldid=1041363498 is a good compromise. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  More than a Latin phrase 

message: This was prompted by the section above and edits leading to its appearance. It's a wider topic, however, so I'm putting it in a separate section.
In this edit, made after the edits leading to that other section drew my attention, I WP:BOLDly rearranged this article in an attempt to separate the parts of it with a religious focus from the parts without such a focus. I did that quickly and without much thought. Taking a second look now, I see that the attempt failed; the section holding the parts I took to be without religious focus speaks of an "uncaused, personal creator of the universe" -- clearly having a religious focus there. 
Out of curiosity, I looked at instances of big bang mentions in the article. There are currently only two -- both in the section containing items I took to having a religious focus in my rearrangement:
* "Others assert that it ["it" referring to the Christian Bible] gains validity from having been held by so many for so long; and others find support in modern cosmological theories surrounding the Big Bang." This is supported by a cite of pages 3-4 of this source. I don't find support there -- especially not for what I take to be a WP:OR POV assertion re "find[ing] support". The pages there are not numbered and I don't know what pages the cite identifies as 3-4, but I searched the previewable text for mentions of "big bang" and didn't see anything which seemed to fit.
* The other mention is in the Contrast to Modern Science subsection, which I rearranged with the bits I thought had a theological focus because I took that to be what this was contrasting from.
I'm a sometime editor of this article, having tried several times without lasting success to get some thoughts from the Lawrence Krauss book A Universe from Nothing into it. I recall one past argument against that was that it was included in "big bang", which the article already covered. Whatever coverage there was back then seems to have withered away in the current version.
I'm rambling. I'll just conclude by opining that this article needs a[nother?] hard look. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I am replying here shortly to you and to the section above. Regarding the section above I suggested a compromise short description that I hope will be accepted by both of you. Regarding "big bang," one of the mentions of it had been removed from the lede, and I re-added it at the bottom of the page, since I do believe the two topics are related. And I agree with you that this article does need "a[nother] hard look." Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 16:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If creatio ex nihilo is "the belief that matter is not eternal but had to be created by some divine creative act," then the big bang shouldn't be mentioned at all - it doesn't suggest that a divine act was involved, and indeed, being science, cannot. Achar Sva (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thart's a big "if", though, and it takes as a given the presumption that nonreligious viewpoints are excluded from the topic. That is what the lead sentence currently says, relying on the viewpoint expressed here by one cited supporting source (I noted with interest some bits of the Preface of that work). This appears to me to flout WP:DUE. I'm focused on other things at the moment, but I'll have a go at digging up alternative sources expressing other viewpoints when I have time. 08:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

text: That is just one definition, and I am not sure it should be the "defining" one. But in any case, I don't believe that the "big bang" does posit that matter is eternal. They are related in any case, because both try to provide and answer as to how the universe was created. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 16:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Also, to further beat a horse which I hope is not dead, the Kraus book is specifically about creation from a very profound nothingness -- see the two discussion sections above which mention quantum nothingness in their section headings  Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I was simply referring to the creation of the world/universe according to the Bible, in Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (in the JPS and some other Jewish versions). warshy (¥¥) 17:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding of the Krauss book and about theories re the big bang is that they do not presumee esistence of matter prior to that event. You said that you do not believe that some particular religious narratives do not posit that matter is eternal. I don't see disagreement there. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious vs. non-religious viewpoints

message: Currently, under the section "Creatio ex nihilo: the creation of matter," the following claim is made:
*In modern times some Christian theologians argue that although the Bible does not explicitly mention creation ex nihili, various passages suggest or imply it
It is worth noting that the source given for this claim does not actually match the reference, but may have possibly been found from another website, e.g. this one, that uses that same source. However, this also seems to be from a Protestant perspective, or just is misguided. The very next section refers to 2 Maccabees under the Jewish Philosophy section in which Creatio ex Nihilo is explicit. This passage is certainly in the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, and the Vulgate for 2 Maccabees 7:28 even reads "Peto, nate, ut aspicias ad caelum et terram, et ad omnia quae in eis sunt, et intelligas quia ex nihilo fecit illa Deus, et hominum genus." It seems like these two sections ought to be reworked given the immediate contradiction that follows the section I have quoted from. I'm not sure how it ought to be changed, but certainly the claim about the Christian Bible not speaking about the topic of the page ought to be removed or rewritten to bring it into accord with the next section in which it quotes from a book many Christians do hold as Scripture. Jack17212 (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creatio ex nihilo and the Bible  

message: We have a red link Urschöpfung. Is it a definable concept? If not, then the redirect should be done or red links to be unlinked--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, it's a German neologism for primal creation. There's a German WP article here and some other sources listed here. Google Translate can render snippets into English. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urschöpfung? 

message: Define 'matter' in the lead. Is its redirection to the page  – justified? Those who formulated 'philosophical' premises on 'ex nihilo' (eg Parmenides,as seen in the page) did not understand 'mass and volume', and would have  been unable to agree or disagree with the claim that 'mass and volume came ex nihilo'. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 07:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the offending wikilink in the lead and thus also the dubious tag. The lead is a summary of the main, and if there is a broader issue about the use of the term matter the issue extends (no pun intended) throughout the whole article where the term matter is used and referenced to reliable sources. As the objection above is just to the discussion in the wikilinked page that applies a definition that may not match the philosophical definition used here, removing the wikilink appears to be the best option. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

text: In Greek thought prime matter was not unformed or undetermined matter but was pure potentiality and thus synonymous with oblivion [non being]. Apiaries (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Define "Matter". clarification needed. dubious [[wp:surprise]] redirect 

message: "The Big Bang theory, by contrast to theology, is a scientific theory; it offers no explanation of cosmic existence but only a description of the first few moments of that existence."
What is contrasting at all? It's just another myth. 79.106.203.36 (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Bang