Response to the "Apple Challenge"

You create an apple ex nihilo in your hand. How am I to prove to my friend that such an occurrance actually transpired?

There are actually many ways:

1. There would be a violation in both local and global mass conservation.

2. There would be a violation in both local and global energy conservation (assuming that the apple is created at a temperature above absolute zero).

3. The apple would leave no trace evidence; for instance, as mentioned in another version of the challenge, an apple produced by means of sleight of hand would obviously have existed beforehand.

These three points represent predictions made by the person who believed the apple truly was created ex nihilo. These need to be tested in order to either verify or falsify the idea.

Now, let's move away from the apple, because that's not really what this is about. I responded to the challenge and now let me relate the points I came up with back to the real issue: Creation in general.

Now, ordinarily a true physicist would look at the fact that Creation violates both 1 and 2 and dismiss it immediately because the Laws of Conservation are some of the most fundamental concepts of physics. Big Bang theory, although you may claim otherwise, actually does not violate these laws due to the Uncertainty Principle which allows virtual particles to borrow energy for a small amount of time as long as the product of the energy borrowed and the time elapsed does not exceed Dirac's constant. Since gravitational energy acts like a negative quantity in the universe, it has been estimated that the total energy content of the universe is either extremely small or zero, thereby fulfilling the requirement of low energy. But I digress...

Point 3 was meant to be the focus of this thread. There should be no evidence of that which has been created before the appointed time of creation. This tell-tale trace evidence is found in that geological studies put the age of the Earth billions of years before the preferred date of Creation. Not only that, but we have a very good grasp on how stars and planetary systems form, and with our present knowledge it would appear as if it were all very consistent with naturalistic processes.

Let me explain that last bit a little better. The first time your crazy uncle pulls a nickel out of your ear, it may seem as though he created it ex nihilo. However, if you then watch your friend do the trick to another person and see how it works, the next time your uncle does it, you should be a little less mystified.

In this way, our scientists understand the "planet-orbiting-star" trick very well, which points to it NOT being created ex nihilo.

__________________

The Devil can cite scripture for his purpose.

Good post. You might want to move it to the evolution / creation forum, as I don't think AVET posts here. I don't think you'll convince him though, unfortunately.

__________________
Boku o mitte, boku o mitte
Boku no naka de, kaibutsu ga okii narimashita
- Namae nai no Kaibutsu, Kaus Poppe

Little Miss 1665 her soul remains unclaimed.
Guess she must have really sinned now
- The Offspring, Jennifer Lost the War.

I don't get to quiz an evolutionist on the Omphalos issue every day! Way cool.

Kyrisch, suppose I told you that an omnipotent alien had created the entire physical universe 5 seconds ago, and furthermore had created everything to look exactly the way it looks now. How would you prove me wrong? Give me a specific example.

__________________

You couldn't, Shernren, and Bertrand Russell has already speculated down those lines.

I'm reading some Russell right now. Most of it is prior to 1930. It's amazing how many of the arguments are the same now as they were then.