Creation from nothing - problematic

[Traveler]

Greetings fellow board members:

Many years ago I became involved in a debate with an atheist concerning the existence of G-d. I learned a great deal from that debate. One of the arguments my atheist friend used; I found especially interesting. It concerns what we have learned in science, the concept of creation from nothing and the account of creation in scripture.

Before I begin let me preface my remarks with a reminder of the conflicts that have existed between science and religion. Most noted was the conflict that arose over Galileo’s work concerning tides based on a sun center rather than an earth center solar system. Anyway that is how we see it now but at the time it was an argument concerning the center of the universe and the importance of G-d’s creating the earth and man’s dominion on earth. The point here is that certain religious doctrines that are assumed by the Christian religious community come in direct conflict with the reality of science. Either we must abandon the religious doctrine, scientific achievements or both to resolve the conflicts. It is the unwillingness of many within the Christian Religious community to address these conflicts in a reasonable manner that has been most of the reason many in our time have declared themselves atheist.

Since the restoration of Christ’s church and his prophets, science has come into conflict concerning the beliefs concerning creation from nothing. Einstein established several very important scientific realities. Two are most important in the creation discussion. They are: 1. That there is a direct relationship of light, energy and matter and 2. That the dimensions of our 3 dimensional space is both curved and expanding. If you believe Einstein established these two principles of reality (among other things) then whether or not you realize it – You are in conflict with the doctrine of creation from nothing.

Here is the problem – If G-d created all things from nothing light could not have been the first creation. In essence, according to Einstein light cannot exist without a place to exist or dimensional space. In other words the first step in a creation from nothing would be dimensional space into which “things”, including light, photon particles or waves, could exist. It is interesting to me that science has proven that dimensional space is expanding or in other words – being created. But the scripture account does not reference this simple truth nor is there any possible accounting in the doctrine of creation from nothing.

In contrast is the doctrine of creation that was restored through a modern prophet of the restoration that preceded Einstein’s contributions. Here we learn that in the beginning that space and unorganized matter already existed. We learn that there was matter unorganized that existed in dimensional space and that the creation began by organizing that matter within the already existing dimensional space. The first step of this creation was to “organize” light from that unorganized matter. No conflict with truths proven in science.

This simple restored truth allows for the advancement of science and mankind to learn a simple truth that G-d is really testified of in all things today as in times past. But only correct concepts of G-d and his methods are testified of in all things. Without correct concepts of G-d and his methods there is conflict in the finding or testaments of things as we become more knowledgeable of truths of science. Thus the truth sets us free – free from incorrect concepts and interpretations.

The Traveler

[deseretgov]

Hmm. That's interesting about light. For me the seven days of creation are more like phases rather than consecutive time periods. And they are undefined time periods, they maight not even be the same length as each other.

I find it interesting how science and religion come closer together as they both improve.

[Guest Believer_1829]

Why would God not be able to create dimensional space in which to create the rest?

[Traveler]

Why would God not be able to create dimensional space in which to create the rest?

No doubt that G-d can create dimensional because dimensional space is being created even as we speak. But you have missed the point. Dimensional space must be created (in existence) before light can exist or be created and light and matter must be created together.

G-d would know this and would also know that man would someday understand this as well. This means that the creation account is ether flawed or the traditional understanding of it is flawed - in the same manner that some thought the earth to be the center of the universe in the days of Galileo based on their misunderstanding of scripture - so today science has proven that light cannot be the first creation if there was nothing existing prior to that.

So one is left with a problem: If true belief in G-d requires a belief in creation from nothing then, as Jesus said, we cannot serve two masters. We must reject ether the science of Einstein or the religion that requires creation from nothing.

I am making it clear from my posting that I accept the science of Einstein and the restored account of creation and that the two can and do complement each other.

The Traveler

[Guest Believer_1829]

Me ------>

I'll leave all you smart guys to hash out the finer points of creation.

[KrazyKay]

I've been silently watching/reading this thread, but thought I would throw in my 2 cents.

I've read and studied the creation story in the scriptures and what the modern prophets have said. No where did I read that this Earth was God's first creation or only creation. In fact, there are a few places and if needed I can pull up the references where God mentions having many many other worlds.

Also, in Genesis where it mentions on the first day.... second day.... etc., we don't know how long each day actually was or how long each day took. 1,000 of our days could be 1 day to our Heavenly Father, or God's time can be so different that we can not understand it with our current level of understanding of time.

[prisonchaplain]

There are two major problems with any approach to the world's existence other than creation out of nothing.

1. Quite frankly, most people who think there is a God assume he made everything. The idea that God and the stuff are both eternal means that God's just part of the stuff. He becomes a superior being rather than what most of us conceive as God.

2. Perhaps more importantly, only a worldview that includes creation out of nothing can appreciate the following bit of humor:

A scientist decides to pray to God one day. "God, if you're even out there, you can go now. Thanks for whatever you did, but we can create life now. We don't need you anymore...we've mapped DNA, and so you are obsolete."

Suddenly the scientist finds himself in a void and he hears a voice. "So, you've created life? Incredible. Show me."

The scientist begins to look around the void, seeing nothing. Finally, in the farthest corner he sees a pile of dirt and starts heading towards it.

"Where are you going?" God asks.

"Over to that dirt, so I can use it to create life."

God offers a slight chuckle and says, "Get your own dirt."

[Dr T]

I agree with what PC implied in his post. God is not subject to physical laws as He is transcendent over it and not part of it.

[Traveler]

There are two major problems with any approach to the world's existence other than creation out of nothing.

1. Quite frankly, most people who think there is a God assume he made everything. The idea that God and the stuff are both eternal means that God's just part of the stuff. He becomes a superior being rather than what most of us conceive as God.

2. Perhaps more importantly, only a worldview that includes creation out of nothing can appreciate the following bit of humor:

A scientist decides to pray to God one day. "God, if you're even out there, you can go now. Thanks for whatever you did, but we can create life now. We don't need you anymore...we've mapped DNA, and so you are obsolete."

Suddenly the scientist finds himself in a void and he hears a voice. "So, you've created life? Incredible. Show me."

The scientist begins to look around the void, seeing nothing. Finally, in the farthest corner he sees a pile of dirt and starts heading towards it.

"Where are you going?" God asks.

"Over to that dirt, so I can use it to create life."

God offers a slight chuckle and says, "Get your own dirt."

Depends on how you define made. Also you have not addressed the issue of dimensional space or that scripture is not accurate - implying that man has exceeded in knowledge on his own beyond what G-d grants in scripture. Can we accept modern relativity and special relativity and quantum mechanics? Or should we reject such things based on various interpretations of ancient scripture?

Also I want to be very careful that we do not create an unnecessary misunderstanding. I am interested in understanding why you believe all stuff is of necessity ordinary stuff. Why you and Dr T are insistent that "divine stuff" is non-existent and could not possibly be. What is the difference in someone not believing in G-d and someone not believing in “divine stuff”?

Also for Dr T. Do you really believe that G-d is not subject in some way to what he himself has declared so? In my mind this would make G-d dishonest and a hypocrite. I disagree – I believe G-d is subject to and respects the physical laws that he declared and that through his son Jesus Christ is the example of how we also should be subject to and respect the physical laws he has declared. I do not believe that G-d is undiciplined and is ruled by whim or self desire.

If what you have offered so far – if I was to be honest with myself (true to what I know) and what you offer was my only option – I would be an atheist.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

I've been silently watching/reading this thread, but thought I would throw in my 2 cents.

I've read and studied the creation story in the scriptures and what the modern prophets have said. No where did I read that this Earth was God's first creation or only creation. In fact, there are a few places and if needed I can pull up the references where God mentions having many many other worlds.

Also, in Genesis where it mentions on the first day.... second day.... etc., we don't know how long each day actually was or how long each day took. 1,000 of our days could be 1 day to our Heavenly Father, or God's time can be so different that we can not understand it with our current level of understanding of time.

KrazyKay - Thanks for your post. The next time you have opportunity to attend the temple - listen carefully to what you are taught concerning the creation of this earth. This information will help you understand why the creation spoken of in Genesis was not a creation from nothing - Also I hope that you will understand how this information helps us LDS understand and contribute to modern science.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

2. Perhaps more importantly, only a worldview that includes creation out of nothing can appreciate the following bit of humor:

A scientist decides to pray to God one day. "God, if you're even out there, you can go now. Thanks for whatever you did, but we can create life now. We don't need you anymore...we've mapped DNA, and so you are obsolete."

Suddenly the scientist finds himself in a void and he hears a voice. "So, you've created life? Incredible. Show me."

The scientist begins to look around the void, seeing nothing. Finally, in the farthest corner he sees a pile of dirt and starts heading towards it.

"Where are you going?" God asks.

"Over to that dirt, so I can use it to create life."

God offers a slight chuckle and says, "Get your own dirt."

I have had additional thoughts concerning these comments. I wonder PC if you would be interested in doing a word search on Bible scriptures on "breath of life". Perhaps you could offer your opinion as to what it is that gives life or the breath of life?

The Traveler

[Dr T]

Hi Traveler,

A few important things about the nature of God are the firsts thing that I see as the root difficulty in the understanding of this topic. I see God as infinite as opposed to finite (like the Earth). There was a starting point for the earth and not one for God. See, I see God as the only object that did not need a cause for its existence. God is not limited or finite. God is utterly limitless. The concept of God being transcendent and immanent is also an important thing to consider in this topic. Now, I know this is somewhat tangential but it comes from the understanding of this. God cannot be a part of the universe. If He was, He would be limited by other parts of it. God, being the Creator of all things, giving them their total being. He cannot be one of them, or the totality of them-for each one of them, and so the totality of them, must be given being, must receive being from God. So God must be other than His creation. This is what is meant by the transcendence of God. He must be fullly present in all things. They cannot be set over against Him for then He would be limited by them. Finally, God is omniscient and omnipotent. To say this means that there can be no real barriers to God's knowing or acting. Apart from Himself, God has created everything there is to be known and sustains it in being. It is impossible (for me) to think of anything that can thwart God's will (unless God himself allows the thwarting as in the human free choice to sin. Ok, that's enought of that and there are many other things about God but in this small post, I hope you see what I'm saying about it. God is not limited to His creation since he is transcendent.

[Justice]

The first 10 verses of Genesis are VERY clear on how and what God made. God even defines the 2 primary terms for us within the text. I really don't know why people can't see it.

I'll list 3 important points and/or definitions to know when studying the creation.

First, I'll give a little background. There is no single verse anywhere in the scriptures more important than Genesis 1:1 in understanding the Bible.

Genesis 1:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

There are 5 key words, that if not understood, can change your view of the rest of the Bible.

beginning

God

created

heaven

earth

beginning

Many see "beginning" as the ultimate beginning of all things. There is one major flaw with this thinking, and it is logic-based not faith-based. If God is eternal, or had always existed, then He has existed for an eternity. What major paradigm shift, or change in thought, made Him decide to just now, after an eternity, to create man? If God existed for an eternity without man, does that mean He was empty or non-loving before then? If God "decided" to create man for a "better" way of existence then He changed when He created man.

Pure logic must conclude that man has always existed if God has always existed. God has always been in the creation business, or else He changed when He decided to make man. So, "beginning" as stated in the Bible can only mean the beginning of this heaven and earth, as the text suggests. It suggests He created finite, identifiable things, which He names "heaven and earth." Heaven and earth is not "all things," as I will show, and the text never suggests it.

God

I will leave this one alone in this discussion, other than to say the New Testament identifies the pre-mortal Jesus Christ as the creator.

created

The Hebrew word (bara) means to form or fashion, to shape or mold. Many "professors" project the modern interpretation, that it means to bring into existence from nothing, back in time to the text when it was written. They propose it must have meant that because that's what it means. When in fact, they simply misunderstand God, so they misunderstand the creation.

This discussion can get quite deep fast, but it's not the point of this discussion.

heaven and earth

Again, people think "heaven and earth" means "universe" because they claim Hebrew did not have a word for "universe," and, of course, it fits with their understanding. But, God defines these terms within the text itself.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven.

10 And God called the dry land Earth

There is only mention of the space that exists between celestial bodies (firmament) and the dry land. What is missing from the creation account? When and where did God create water?

If you read the text closely, and open your mind, you will see that God did not create the water. It was there when He "moved" to this location.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Water in some shape and form was present when the Spirit of God moved upon them.

Now, I don't think the earth was formed or fashioned yet. This is plain because He explains how it was without form and void. I think the water was without form because, well, it hadn't been formed yet. I believe the "earth" was void of dry land.

In verses 3 through 5 He created light.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

What did God say the firmament was? It was heaven. He is not putting "dry land" in yet, as many suppose, but He is dividing water.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

This is how the creation account begins, and this ends the first 2 time periods or days.

Now, what did God bring into existence from nothing?

If God brought everything into existence from nothing, why did it take Him 6 time periods or days to do it?

Why was the water already there?

It is clear that God used existing elements to create the earth, and it is clear it was not the first time He had created anything, since He existed for an eternity, yet He is unchanging.

3 important points when pondering the creation:

1. If God has always existed, why did He just now decide to create anything? Isn't He unchanging?

2. Why does God list "firmament and dry land" as the 2 things He created? How did the water get here?

3. If God willed all things into existence from nothing, why did it take Him 6 time periods or days to do it?

[prisonchaplain]

Depends on how you define made. Also you have not addressed the issue of dimensional space or that scripture is not accurate - implying that man has exceeded in knowledge on his own beyond what G-d grants in scripture. Can we accept modern relativity and special relativity and quantum mechanics? Or should we reject such things based on various interpretations of ancient scripture?

Let me begin with a confession--I used the title of this string as a platform for my joke. I ignored the scientific and philosophical points--sacrificing them on the altar of my own twisted theological humor. BUT, I feel justified doing that, because most of the people I tell that joke to laugh...right away!

But, if you've been raised with the not unheard of, but not common, worldview that says God formed the world from eternally existent matter, then my joke falls flat. I remember telling the joke to an LDS person and get a look that clearly said, "I don't get it."

In answer to the question must science submit to our understanding of Scripture, I'd only suggest that science is the study of God's creation. I'm thankful to live in a day when scientists are not fettered by theology, but neither do I want understandings of God to be limited by current scientific understanding. The two fields can look to one another for insight, but both should be free to draw outside the lines.

Also I want to be very careful that we do not create an unnecessary misunderstanding. I am interested in understanding why you believe all stuff is of necessity ordinary stuff. Why you and Dr T are insistent that "divine stuff" is non-existent and could not possibly be. What is the difference in someone not believing in G-d and someone not believing in “divine stuff”?

The is Creator and there is creation. Divine stuff muddies that dilineation. It almost justifies the scientist's prayer. After all, if all is eternal, if I am eternal, and I reach a certain point of advancement, I might indeed believe I no longer need God. From that perspective, what the Serpent told Adam and Eve, and their manner of response almost makes sense. "We now know good and evil. We're like you. We don't need you anymore."

If what you have offered so far – if I was to be honest with myself (true to what I know) and what you offer was my only option – I would be an atheist.

The Traveler

I find it a bit ironic that we reach opposite conclusion. I say that if I am made of eternal stuff, have an eternal prexistence, then at some point I would be not atheist, but post-theist. You see the need for eternal divine "stuff" in order to believe in God. Curious.

[Vort]

See, I see God as the only object that did not need a cause for its existence.

Is this simply an article of your faith, or is there some philosophical or logical reason why you believe this to be the case?

God cannot be a part of the universe. If He was, He would be limited by other parts of it.

I believe this is non sequitur. Can you demonstrate this to be so?

God, being the Creator of all things, giving them their total being.

Is there a reason (other than that is what you believe) why God's "creation" of all things must mean ex nihilo ("giving them their total being")?

I would argue that this is easily disproven. You believe God is omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing), based on the following quotation:

God is omniscient and omnipotent. To say this means that there can be no real barriers to God's knowing or acting.

If God "created" me in the sense that he "gave me my total being", then in the moment before he accomplished my creation, he knew (because he is omniscient) that I would be an evil creature destined for eternal damnation. He also knew in that moment (because he is omnipotent) how to create me such that I would not be an evil creature destined for eternal damnation. Thus, in any meaningful sense, God, my Creator ex nihilo, is fully responsible for the fact that I am an evil creature destined for eternal damnation.

But this is absurd. God cannot be personally responsible for my being evil and damnable. That violates the idea that God is perfectly good.

If you accept an omnipotent and perfectly good God the Father, there are only two possible resolutions to this: (1) God is not omniscient (and there are actually some people, including Mormons, that believe this); or, (2) God did not create me ex nihilo. If you reject the former resolution, then the latter is the only possible conclusion.

[prisonchaplain]

I have had additional thoughts concerning these comments. I wonder PC if you would be interested in doing a word search on Bible scriptures on "breath of life". Perhaps you could offer your opinion as to what it is that gives life or the breath of life?

The Traveler

The breath of life is how the Bible that describes his pouring of his image into us. Minus that, I am a corpse.

[Justice]

But, if you've been raised with the not unheard of, but not common, worldview that says God formed the world from eternally existent matter, then my joke falls flat. I remember telling the joke to an LDS person and get a look that clearly said, "I don't get it."

"world view?"

I take that to mean non-scriptural.

I can't disagree more.

You know better than anyone, PC, that popular opinion doesn't decide truth.

I suggest you read the text in the light I presented and seriously ponder the questions I posed. My view of the creation breaks the bounds of religion, or popular opinion, and seeks to interpret the text. So, I would like for you do present why you interpret the text as you do, which will be most difficult because of the meaning of bara when it was written. Also, I'd like for you to answer the 3 major concerns I offered to anyone who holds your view. I would also like you to show me in the text exactly where God brings all things into existence from nothing.

[prisonchaplain]

"world view?"

I take that to mean non-scriptural.

I can't disagree more.

You know better than anyone, PC, that popular opinion doesn't decide truth.

No, majority does not indicate truth. On the other hand, when a matter so foundational as creation, that the vast majority of cultures, religions, and just common intuition understand, even without formal instruction, that if God created, he did it completely. He did not refashion--he brought into existence, then those who suggest otherwise have a difficult, counter-intuitive case to make.

BTW, worldview does not imply that a belief is Scriptural or not. My use of the word was meant to show that our understanding of creation does indeed impact our entire view of the world.

So, I would like for you do present why you interpret the text as you do, which will be most difficult because of the meaning of bara when it was written. Also, I'd like for you to answer the 3 major concerns I offered to anyone who holds your view. I would also like you to show me in the text exactly where God brings all things into existence from nothing.

When you ask why I believe God created the world out of nothing it's almost like you're asking me how I know the sky is blue. Blue is blue. Creation is creation. So, before I go back and reread your questions, let me offer this link, which suggests that creation out of nothing has been the mainstay of Christian and Jewish thought since well before Christ.

Historic Age Debate: Creation Ex Nihilo, Part 1 (of 4) | Reasons to Believe

[Dr T]

No Vort,

It's clear, if all but God is limited and a creation then it follows that the rest of it is limited and to claim that God is the same then He is limited too. That is not what I hold sir. If you can explain how that is true the please show me. Finally, those are not the only two options there. I see this world as the best possible worlds for God's purposes. For the evil to exist and sin and death and all that stuff, then there must be a reason for it. I would not say "God messed up" or "Could have done it better" as I read you implying. Finally, to assume that God had to make man for some reason does not fit in the way I see Him either. He has always been perfect and had the Son and H.S. and did not NEED anything from man I'd say. He was not lacking anything so it was not that He had to create us.

[Vort]

It's clear, if all but God is limited and a creation then it follows that the rest of it is limited and to claim that God is the same then He is limited too.

That's not at all clear. How does it follow? What do you mean?

If you can explain how that is true the please show me.

I don't understand even what you're asking. In general, though, I would say that since you are the one claiming something, it is for you to explain, not me.

You didn't answer any of my questions. I'd like to see your answers.

I would not say "God messed up" or "Could have done it better" as I read you implying.

I implied no such thing.

Finally, to assume that God had to make man for some reason does not fit in the way I see Him either.

But I said exactly the opposite, Dr T: Assuming an ex nihilo creation, God could have created me differently.

The fact is that he chose to create me as he did, knowing full well what he was doing and what the outcome would be. Therefore, God is responsible for my state in eternity because of how he created me.

There are exactly three ways that this may not be true:

(1) God is not omnipotent -- that is, he could not have created me any differently.

(2) God is not omniscient -- that is, he did not know my final end at the moment he created me.

(3) God did not create me from nothing -- that is, I was already preexistent and self-existent.

You and I both reject possibilities (1) and (2). That leaves only one other possibility -- which clearly demonstrates that ex nihilo creationism is false.

If you disagree, please explain why.

Edited August 5, 2009 by Vort

[Dr T]

That's not at all clear. How does it follow? What do you mean?

I mean just as I said to Traveler Vort. God is perfect and the only being that is not dependent on anything else. His creation is exactly the opposite of that as the universe and everything else, not God, is finite and not perfect.

I don't understand even what you're asking. In general, though, I would say that since you are the one claiming something, it is for you to explain, not me.

You didn't answer any of my questions. I'd like to see your answers.

I did explain what I'm talking about in my posts Vort. I understand that you believe something different, see god upon god in eternal progression, if you believe in the LDS doctrine. If you do not then I don't understand where your confusion is really.

I implied no such thing.

But I said exactly the opposite, Dr T: Assuming an ex nihilo creation, God could have created me differently. And that's what I meant by your assuption that God could have done better. Is that not what you meant?

The fact is that he chose to create me as he did, knowing full well what he was doing and what the outcome would be. Therefore, God is responsible for my state in eternity because of how he created me. Saying that He allowed for free will, allowing the ability to act against Him, so that we can really love Him is the best way possible. And that is exactly what I'm talking about in my last post.

There are exactly three ways that this may not be true:

(1) God is not omnipotent -- that is, he could not have created me any differently. No, I'd say that YES, He is all powerful. He created you EXACTLY the way He sees fit and did it in the best way possible. If you claim it is the opposite, please walk me through your claim.

(2) God is not omniscient -- that is, he did not know my final end at the moment he created me. Yes, He is all knowing and because of His plan the way He made it, I see it as the best world possible and accomplishing His will.

(3) God did not create me from nothing -- that is, I was already preexistent and self-existent. You see yourself as self-existent? Does that mean that your parents did not need to have you? Where where you before? Who made your "spirit body"? If you say "God and his partner" then how is that self-existent? That is dependent not independent.

You and I both reject possibilities (1) and (2). That leaves only one other possibility -- which clearly demonstrates that ex nihilo creationism is false.

If you disagree, please explain why.

More thank I said already? Thanks.

[Moksha]

This has seemed a bit confusing to me. As I understand it, we avow that creation did not spring from nothingness. On the other hand, in past conversations where the flood story was discussed and I mentioned that not enough water existed to flood the continents and that no drain plug could be pulled to drain off this unexplained water, I was told that God could zap it into existence and out of existence quite easily. So which is it?

[Generally_Me]

See, my thought on the flood is, why flood the whole earth if there are only people on one continent? Those who wrote the Bible lived through a huge flood, the face of the earth (where they landed) looked very different because they were in a different area, why would they think only a relatively small area was flooded? The whole earth was what they could see and travel.

[Justice]

Moksha, if you read the account of the flood closely you will see the the water came from rain and from water that existed under the surface of the earth.

Genesis 7:

11 ¶ In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

God can materialize things from "nothing," like the bread and fishes, or Himself in a closed locked room. But, it presupoposes there is element or matter He can use to organize with.

In any case, it is now known that there is a tremendous amount of water not too far down in the earth. If the crust were to be "broken up" and the water came out, it most certainly could flood the whole earth.

The scriptures are clear on the completeness of the flood.

19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

Very similar wording to the creation, dry land and earth being synonomous.

[Justice]

When you ask why I believe God created the world out of nothing it's almost like you're asking me how I know the sky is blue. Blue is blue. Creation is creation. So, before I go back and reread your questions, let me offer this link, which suggests that creation out of nothing has been the mainstay of Christian and Jewish thought since well before Christ.

I just want you to show me where it says that in the Bible.

And answer, Why did it take God 6 periods of time to bring all things into existence? Can He only bring something He creates into existence in stages?

Why use the words "move" and "divide" in the creation account? Those are words that require existing element to act upon.

We can start there. As I said, I am attempting to look at this logically also, and not just believe something because that's what everyone always believed. The people of Christ's day who were "God's people" had developed many false notions about God. It's possible it's happened again.