My Apple Challenge IV

[AV1611VET]

You walk into a room with a table and a box sitting on top of the table. The box is 1 cubic foot in size and shape, and has no bottom.

I lift the box straight up to show you there is nothing on the table, then I put the box back down.

When I lift the box up a second time, there sits an apple on the table.

Question: Assuming this was an actual act of ex nihilo creation, what would be different than if I would have used sleight-of-hand to produce the apple?

I'm looking for a specific scientific answer.

Note: This answer is extremely easy; don't try to make it harder than it actually is.

The reason for this challenge, is that I'm tired of people saying God used "magic" to create this world. I want to show a clear-cut, easy, scientific difference between creatio ex magic and creatio ex nihilo.

 

[Cabal]

Agh, not again

Answer: A non-zero change in energy of the system? Sleight of hand would involve a pre-existant apple.

*prepares for inevitable barrage of "My _______ Challenges"*

 

[AV1611VET]

Agh, not again

Answer: A non-zero change in energy of the system? Sleight of hand would involve a pre-existant apple.

*prepares for inevitable barrage of "My _______ Challenges"*

Wow --- the first post nailed it --- good job!

 

[WonderingThings]

Assuming this was an actual act of ex nihilo creation...
I'm looking for a specific scientific answer.

I'm not sure how we could give a scientific answer to mysticism.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure how we could give a scientific answer to mysticism.

You can't --- that I know of.

 

[Cabal]

Wow --- the first post nailed it --- good job!

Well it was fairly similar to your first one?

IIRC didn't that involve a before and after energy measurement of the entire universe to verify the apple's creation?

Maybe I'm getting confused. But a smaller system like this one works a lot better, I think. Maybe this could be The Streamlined Apple Challenge (TM)?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well it was fairly similar to your first one?

I must say, Cabal, you impress me.

 

[LeSabot]

Agh, not again

Answer: A non-zero change in energy of the system? Sleight of hand would involve a pre-existant apple.

*prepares for inevitable barrage of "My _______ Challenges"*

This denies the possibility of a particularly unusual manifestation of a quantum event which takes the form of an apple. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is also only applicable to statistical averages, so given a rather monumental event the apple being generated could also not increase the entropy of the Universe and simply come about as a manifestation of some form of free energy (zero-point energy or such).

I guess it mostly comes down to the ability for something to actually occur and be tested. I can propose theory all day long, but what matters in the end is the ability for those theories to be validated by experiment.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is also only applicable to statistical averages, so given a rather monumental event the apple being generated could also not increase the entropy of the Universe and simply come about as a manifestation of some form of free energy (zero-point energy or such).

However, that is not, by definition, creatio ex nihilo.

 

[LeSabot]

However, that is not, by definition, creatio ex nihilo.

I guess that depends on your definition of "nothing". Feel free to produce a rigorous definition of that.

 

[AV1611VET]

I guess that depends on your definition of "nothing". Feel free to produce a rigorous definition of that.

Devoid of space, time, and matter; and having no dimensions, existence, being, or locality.

 

[LeSabot]

Devoid of space, time, and matter; and having no dimensions, existence, being, or locality.

I would contend that that in no way defies my statement concerning a amazingly unusual quantum event creating the manifestation of said apple from available energy sources. Also, energy is only mathematically defined, so there is no way of ruling out particular events which are a result of numerical manipulations.

 

[AV1611VET]

I would contend that that in no way defies my statement concerning a amazingly unusual quantum event creating the manifestation of said apple from available energy sources. Also, energy is only mathematically defined, so there is no way of ruling out particular events which are a result of numerical manipulations.

Oopsie!

No fair using available energy, numbers, or mathematics.

God has demonstrated superiority and transcendence over all three of those.

 

[Tenka]

The reason for this challenge, is that I'm tired of people saying God used "magic" to create this world. I want to show a clear-cut, easy, scientific difference between creatio ex magic and creatio ex nihilo.

But a valid definition of magic is "[SIZE=-1]any art that invokes supernatural powers" Which seems to fit the bill, when we say God used magic we aren't refering to a dexterous trick as in your example.
Magic stays, I see no reason to dignify your magic dependent answers because you use fancy italic latin.
[/SIZE]

 

[AV1611VET]

But a valid definition of magic is "[SIZE=-1]any art that invokes supernatural powers" Which seems to fit the bill, when we say God used magic we aren't refering to a dexterous trick as in your example.
Magic stays, I see no reason to dignify your magic dependent answers because you use fancy italic latin.
[/SIZE]

My "fancy italic latin" is very specific --- very specific.

Unlike your not-so-fancy term "magic," which is much too general a term to be using to describe what took place when this universe was created.

Especially since one of the biggest differences in Creation and Big Bang is that, in Creation, the amount of mass/energy started out at zero, and then was increased to its current level over a period of six days; whereas in the Big Bang paradigm, the amount of mass/energy was constant.

In addition, "magic" leaves room for the also-erroneous creatio ex materia.

 

[Tenka]

It's magic, therefore it doesn't matter if God created stuff where there was no stuff or if he transmuted a pile of his cosmic toenail clippings. The specificity you're advocating is a pretentious ruse.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Devoid of space, time, and matter; and having no dimensions, existence, being, or locality.

So there is no creation from nothing since even the existence of God prevents nothingness.

 

[DeathMagus]

Not one of these again... Can we just sticky one of the first 3 and put a moratorium on these apple threads?

 

[Assyrian]

in Creation, the amount of mass/energy started out at zero, and then was increased to its current level over a period of six days.

Reference?

 

[ReverendDG]

My "fancy italic latin" is very specific --- very specific.

Unlike your not-so-fancy term "magic," which is much too general a term to be using to describe what took place when this universe was created.

Especially since one of the biggest differences in Creation and Big Bang is that, in Creation, the amount of mass/energy started out at zero, and then was increased to its current level over a period of six days; whereas in the Big Bang paradigm, the amount of mass/energy was constant.

In addition, "magic" leaves room for the also-erroneous creatio ex materia.

sorry, but magic is a perfect term for the ad hoc rationalizing creationists do.
since pretty much its a catch-all term for all the creationism nonsense that explains nothing.
i suppose its a lot like saying "goddidit"

of course the biggest difference between creation and the big bang, is the fact that the big bang has been shown to have happened, and creation by god/s hasn't