My Apple Challenge III

[AV1611VET]

Hi, Drekkan --- nice to meet you ---

Out of all the answers, out of all the points made about the silliness of the question, what he'd have to do to prove it was created, all of the challenges... this is your response?

I didn't quite understand this --- sorry.

I'm asking you what evidence you would accept.

I'm assuming different people would be satisfied with different types of evidence, and I'm curious as to who would accept what as evidence.

 

[ragarth]

Oh, and welcome back from your afk adventure.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Your friend brings you an apple that was created ex nihilo into the palm of his hand.

What scientific evidence would satisfy this fact?

Seeing as how ex nihilo creation is impossible, I'd say there's no answer.

 

[ragarth]

Seeing as how ex nihilo creation is impossible, I'd say there's no answer.

To be fair, technically nothing is impossible, just really really really really really unlikely. For all we know, this friend's spontaneous creation of apple power could be the result of an alien technology that assembles the apple's molecules from free bosons in the environment, or uses a massive storehouse of energy to generate the matter from energy. It could even rely on unknown super l33t mega technology using science far beyond our current capacity. It could even be the byproduct of us living inside the matrix, and the ex nihilo creation is just a product of generating a few bits of data. The point is, if it can happen and be observed, then there is the potential for scientific inquiry into it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

To be fair, technically nothing is impossible, just really really really really really unlikely. For all we know, this friend's spontaneous creation of apple power could be the result of an alien technology that assembles the apple's molecules from free bosons in the environment, or uses a massive storehouse of energy to generate the matter from energy. It could even rely on unknown super l33t mega technology using science far beyond our current capacity. It could even be the byproduct of us living inside the matrix, and the ex nihilo creation is just a product of generating a few bits of data. The point is, if it can happen and be observed, then there is the potential for scientific inquiry into it.

None of it is the same as "ex nihilo."

 

[ragarth]

None of it is the same as "ex nihilo."

True, except in the case of 'previously unknown science' and the matrix. To our observation, the matrix one is relatively (virtually?) ex nihilo, and that while the laws of thermodynamics have so much backing behind them as to almost be facts, they are still theory, and therefore carry the potential to be disproven by future observation, even if at this point their disprovability is almost nill.

Further, the OP stated that the friend brought you an apple that was created ex nihilo, how do we know this? Is it information spontaneously broadcast into our heads by god waves? Does he tell us this? Or is it just assumed?

 

[gaara4158]

does not compute. what is its chemical makeup? what does its DNA look like? can its seeds be sown?

In short, if everything checks out absolutely normal, then there's no evidence. Despite the truth of your claim, I'd be a fool to believe you, if I weren't dead already because I believed there was an invisible bridge over the grand canyon.

 

[AV1611VET]

I cannot stop but ask: what are you trying to achive with these threads?

Admission that science is sterile when it comes to miracles in general, and the creation event specifically.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Admission that science is sterile when it comes to miracles in general, and the creation event specifically.

Science is "sterile" when it comes to anything made up and lacking evidence. At least I think you're beginning to understand.

 

[Anaximander]

Your friend brings you an apple that was created ex nihilo into the palm of his hand.

What scientific evidence would satisfy this fact?

Hi AV1611VET,

I hope I do not repeat someone, but...

Keep in mind what the purpose of science is. It is merely a tool to understand nature, not supernature - or anything ex nihilo. It must have this stringent rule in order to build upon "reliable knowledge". Proof is in the pudding. Notice the tremendous advances in science and technology in the last 100 years. It works.

In order for science to discover reliable knowledge, it must follow the principle of causality, or cause and effect. If there is no effect to a cause, then the tool is rendered useless.

best,

 

[Ayersy]

There is none, and, conveniently, there doesn't need to be any because this does not happen.

But to humor you, if my friend did bring me an apple, that he CLAIMED to be created ex nihilo, I would probably go ahead and slice it up, slather it with peanut butter, and chow down.

Unless it was a granny smith, in which case you can replace the peanut butter with cinnamon sugar.

Peanut butter and apple?! That sounds horrible!

 

[AV1611VET]

In order for science to discover reliable knowledge, it must follow the principle of causality, or cause and effect. If there is no effect to a cause, then the tool is rendered useless.

"Reliable knowledge" being the key here, right?

In other words, unless knowledge passes scientific scrutiny, it is considered 'unreliable'?

Thus God is ruled out by default -- right?

Proverbs 25:2 ¶ It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

A good example is God stretching the universe.

Until it was confirmed by the Hubblescope, those passages in the Bible about the universe expanding should be deemed 'unreliable' -- right?

Is that what higher academia teaches?

 

[Anaximander]

"Reliable knowledge" being the key here, right?

In other words, unless knowledge passes scientific scrutiny, it is considered 'unreliable'?

Thus God is ruled out by default -- right?
quote]

Hi AV1611VET,

Thank you for taking the bait. Reliable knowledge is an honest to goodness requirement in science. Remember, science has no business in proving or disproving the existence of God, or any other supernatural phenomena. It is ONLY a tool to discover the realities of nature. When scientists use this term is deals with building upon earlier knowledge in order to discover even deeper questions about nature.

best,

 

[AV1611VET]

When scientists use this term is deals with building upon earlier knowledge in order to discover even deeper questions about nature.

Well ... we don't have time to wait for you guys to catch up and start agreeing with us.

In fact, I stoop to agreeing with you guys most of the time, and I take flak for it.

In any event, until you do catch up, please don't tell us the Flood was local, or there's no such thing as creatio ex nihilo, or we're 'brainwashed', Homos & glorified apes that should be hanging witches or worse, dinosaurs didn't coexist with man, prophecies were retrofitted, the Ark would have disintegrated, four-legged grasshoppers never existed and whatever additional nonsense echoes down the halls of "higher" academia -- then expect us to believe it.

 

[Anaximander]

Well ... we don't have time to wait for you guys to catch up and start agreeing with us.

In fact, I stoop to agreeing with you guys most of the time, and I take flak for it.

In any event, until you do catch up, please don't tell us the Flood was local, or there's no such thing as creatio ex nihilo, or we're 'brainwashed', Homos & glorified apes that should be hanging witches or worse, dinosaurs didn't coexist with man, prophecies were retrofitted, the Ark would have disintegrated, four-legged grasshoppers never existed and whatever additional nonsense echoes down the halls of "higher" academia -- then expect us to believe it.

Now, where did you get that I do not believe in creatio ex nihilo? Because you do not understand that there is a difference between methodological naturalism and ontological naturalism, you automatically assume this. I am a Christian, but when God stated, "The Heavens declare the glory of God", he meant nature also reveals his handiwork and not just His Word. You must keep in mind, there is a difference between an interpretation of His Word and His Word. Your particular interpretation of Genesis actually violates the discoveries of nature (His Work). When you accept that His Word and His Work match, you will not have to embrace any stretch of logic, such as four-legged grasshoppers.

best,

 

[AV1611VET]

Now, where did you get that I do not believe in creatio ex nihilo?

I said you guys -- plural.

You all know who you are.

I am a Christian, but when God stated, "The Heavens declare the glory of God", he meant nature also reveals his handiwork and not just His Word.

Is this why people use this very Psalm [19] to say the Bible teaches geocentrism?

 

[Anaximander]

I said you guys -- plural.

You all know who you are.

Is this why people use this very Psalm [19] to say the Bible teaches geocentrism?

Speaking of geocentrism, both the flat earthers and the geocentrists use dozens of verses (ex, "four corners of the earth", "Moon and the Sun stood still") in support of their arguments. Check out their websites. It's quite convincing if one rejects any kind of evidence outside of the Bible.

best,

 

[AV1611VET]

Speaking of geocentrism, both the flat earthers and the geocentrists use dozens of verses (ex, "four corners of the earth", "Moon and the Sun stood still") in support of their arguments. Check out their websites. It's quite convincing if one rejects any kind of evidence outside of the Bible.

best,

Obviously they need Boolean standards, don't they?

2

 

[Split Rock]

In any event, until you do catch up, please don't tell us the Flood was local,

The writers certainly didn't imagine a "global" flood. That said, whether there was a flood or not is irrelevant to the purposes of the story. But you don' really care about the purpose of the flood story... do you?

or there's no such thing as creatio ex nihilo,

You certainly don't provide any reason to believe in it.

or we're 'brainwashed',

I myself never claimed this.

Homos & glorified apes that should be hanging witches or worse,

Don't blame me because your Holy Book says to kill witches... and you have to make up "dispensations," to cover up the fact that you are more moral than the O.T. god was.

dinosaurs didn't coexist with man,

The physical evidence says they did not (for the King of Semantics, that would be non-avian dinosaurs).

prophecies were retrofitted,

Well, many clearly were.

the Ark would have disintegrated,

Doesn't wood rot after thousands of years?

four-legged grasshoppers never existed

Red herring. I am convinced that the first set of legs were considered "arms" by the writers.

and whatever additional nonsense echoes down the halls of "higher" academia -- then expect us to believe it.

Yeah, all that "nonsense" from The Halls of "Higher" Academania and those Ivory Towers. You know... the ones that gave you all the conveniences you take for granted while condemning "Higher" Academia.

 

[AV1611VET]

I cannot stop but ask: what are you trying to achive with these threads?

To show that there is no known scientific evidence that supports creatio ex nihilo.