My Apple Challenge

[Freodin]

I think there is some confusion here (unless I am misunderstanding AV, which is possible, being new to this forum). I think his point, and I think it is a good one (although I almost certainly disagree with his position) is that if it were true that he created an apple ex nihilo in my hand, there would be no evidence to get rid of. And in the absence of evidence we cannot conclude that there was never any. When scientists run out of evidence they do not conclude: OK, we have to stop here - it must be ex nihilo from here on back, they conclude: OK now we have run out of data. We can't explain this bit. Better apply for a new grant.

It's just the way (it seems to me) that science is set up. We cannot prove a null. We can only build models with more explanatory power than the null. Ex nihilo has no explanatory power at all. Science could have nothing to say about it. Last Thursdayism really is unfalsifiable, and thus non-scientific (Popper was right, IMO, to say that an unfalsifiable theory isn't scientific, it's just that science doesn't in fact proceed by falsification).

Well, it's a counterfactual - a thought experiment. I think his point is sound.

The problem of this thought experiment is that the conclusion he wants to have is (unspoken) included in the premise... and you seem to follow him in that.

We do not know whether ex nihilo creation would or would not leave evidence. You assume that is doesn´t... AV insists that it doesn´t. But that is only fiction.

Again, there is reasonable (and already presented) answer to such a though experiment: "Ok, you ask what evidence is left by a process that leaves no evidence. Only answer: none."

But if that condition "creatio ex nihilo leaves no evidence" is only part of his fiction, it is in no way preferable to any other statement of fiction. I can counter that with "CEN objects causes spoons in their vicinity to bend".

What do you see as the consequences of his position? That it is unfalsifiable? He does accept that doesn't he? Or do you mean something else?

No, I don't think that is true. There are lots of reasonable answers to questions - answers that consist of a model with explanatory power. But ex nihilo has no explanatory power at all. So if it is, in fact, the answer to a question, it's not a question we will, in fact, be able to answer

The necessary consequence of his position is that his claims don´t have any explanatory value. You cannot use it to defend our attack another claim.
If you accept an untestable position as basis for your philosophy, you´d have to relativate any statements you make. It would negate his "God said it - that settles it" motto.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think there is some confusion here (unless I am misunderstanding AV, which is possible, being new to this forum).

Very nice!

I read this whole post (something I don't normally do), and you pegged me right-on!

Good job!

 

[AV1611VET]

The OP is flawed.

I don't have any friends.

Your Friend's List says otherwise.

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem of this thought experiment is that the conclusion he wants to have is (unspoken) included in the premise...

Show me.

I create an apple ex nihilo into the palm of your hand.

What evidence would you use to convince your friend I did this?

 

[Febble]

The problem of this thought experiment is that the conclusion he wants to have is (unspoken) included in the premise... and you seem to follow him in that.

I tend to be a bit of a literalist when it comes to the internet. All we have are words

We do not know whether ex nihilo creation would or would not leave evidence. You assume that is doesn´t... AV insists that it doesn´t. But that is only fiction.

Again, there is reasonable (and already presented) answer to such a though experiment: "Ok, you ask what evidence is left by a process that leaves no evidence. Only answer: none."

But if that condition "creatio ex nihilo leaves no evidence" is only part of his fiction, it is in no way preferable to any other statement of fiction. I can counter that with "CEN objects causes spoons in their vicinity to bend".


The necessary consequence of his position is that his claims don´t have any explanatory value. You cannot use it to defend our attack another claim.

I think you put it very well when you that there can be no evidence of a process that leaves no evidence. Therefore any theory that postulates such a process can have no explanatory value - there is, by definition, no data to explain.

As for using it to defend or attack another claim - which claim do you see being attacked or defended?

If you accept an untestable position as basis for your philosophy, you´d have to relativate any statements you make. It would negate his "God said it - that settles it" motto.

Well, it wouldn't negate it. It would just make it a matter of faith, not of evidence.

 

[Split Rock]

Hi Febble!

I think there is some confusion here (unless I am misunderstanding AV, which is possible, being new to this forum). I think his point, and I think it is a good one (although I almost certainly disagree with his position) is that if it were true that he created an apple ex nihilo in my hand, there would be no evidence to get rid of. And in the absence of evidence we cannot conclude that there was never any. When scientists run out of evidence they do not conclude: OK, we have to stop here - it must be ex nihilo from here on back, they conclude: OK now we have run out of data. We can't explain this bit. Better apply for a new grant.

AVET's point isn't just that if the earth was created "ex nihilo" there may not be any evidence. His point is that there cannot be any evidence nor should we apply the physical evidence we find today toward understanding Earth's origin. It is his catch all argument for any evidence we present to him that conflicts with his religious dogma or his pet theories (like "Embedded Age").

 

[Freodin]

I tend to be a bit of a literalist when it comes to the internet. All we have are words


But well, I think you put it very well when you that there can be no evidence of a process that leaves no evidence. Therefore any theory that postulates such a process can have no explanatory value - there is, by definition, no data to explain.

As for using it to defend or attack another claim - which claim do you see being attacked or defended?

For example the claim "The earth existed prior to 6000 (or 6004, if AV wants to be anal) years ago." Or the claim "The earth was created with embedded age".

Well, it wouldn't negate it. It would just make it a matter of faith, not of evidence.

Not negate in a mathematical sense, but relativate. It would be reduced to "I believe God said it - I believe that this belief settles it". Doesn´t quite roll of the tongue, does it?

 

[mpok1519]

Silly silly silly.

You didn't create anything. Ex nihlio or whatever is a concept that doesn't exist outside the delusional minds that concieved it.

 

[Freodin]

Show me.

Ah, ok. I would bring it close to a spoon. If the spoon bends, the is created ex nihilo.

BTW, this is not meant in any way mockingly or ridiculing. It is a thought experiment, and I´d like you to answer it in this way.

 

[Febble]

Hi Febble!

AVET's point isn't just that if the earth was created "ex nihilo" there may not be any evidence. His point is that there cannot be any evidence nor should we apply the physical evidence we find today toward understanding Earth's origin. It is his catch all argument for any evidence we present to him that conflicts with his religious dogma or his pet theories (like "Embedded Age").

Well, I'm new to the board, and I just responded to the OP.

I certainly think there is lots of evidence that the earth is billions of years old, and the universe billions of years older. But I do agree with AV that IF the earth was created ex nihilo, as it looks today (or is inferred to look 6000 years ago) then we wouldn't be able to demonstrate that it wasn't.

However, we can certainly demonstrate that the billions of years model fits the data. That's all we can ever do in science.

If God is just trolling, well, I guess we'll find out.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, ok. I would bring it close to a spoon.

-- Do what?

If the spoon bends, the is created ex nihilo.

-- Is this even a sentence?

BTW, this is not meant in any way mockingly or ridiculing. It is a thought experiment, and I´d like you to answer it in this way.

-- Say what?

This whole post doesn't make sense.

 

[Freodin]

If God is just trolling, well, I guess we'll find out.

Ah, no. If God is just trolling, he trolls in such a way that we would not find out.

The wonders of unfalsifiability!

 

[Freodin]

-- Do what?

I would bring the apple (what else are we talking about here) close to a spoon.

-- Is this even a sentence?

An incomplete sentence. I missed the word "apple" (must be because it had not yet been created.)

-- Say what?

This whole post doesn't make sense.

Created ex nihilo objects bend spoons in their vicinities. That is MY premise in this thought experiment. You can deny that or prove me wrong. If you deny it, I will make up a different evidence. If you deny any evidence that I present, I have shown that you act under the premise that no evidence exists.

I hope that now makes sense... but I expect you will ignore it anyway.

 

[sandwiches]

I tend to be a bit of a literalist when it comes to the internet. All we have are words

I think you put it very well when you that there can be no evidence of a process that leaves no evidence. Therefore any theory that postulates such a process can have no explanatory value - there is, by definition, no data to explain.

As for using it to defend or attack another claim - which claim do you see being attacked or defended?

Well, it wouldn't negate it. It would just make it a matter of faith, not of evidence.

There's several problems with the OP, Febble. It assumes several things off the bat and omits important information. For instance, according to one AV's responses, we're supposed to assume that we accept that AV created this apple ex nihilo. Why? Based on what? What did he do to convince us? Did we watch him? Did he record it on video for us? Did he explain his process to us? He'll then try to convince you those questions are unimportant and make his question more confusing that it has to be. The reality is that he knows that the answers to these question are extremely important and key to this argument.

As Freodin said, the amount of evidence for creating an apple ex nihilo is the same amount of evidence that I picked this apple from a tree. AV's point is not whether people or your friends believe you. It's the fact that he believes that there would be no evidence. The fact is that since we don't know of any method of creating anything from nothing, we do not know what evidence would be left behind. Now, if we are to assume that no evidence was left behind, then in Freodin's challenge we can assume the same thing and it would then, still stand.

So, Freodin is right in that the assumption is built in, as is evident in AV's responses throughout this thread. if we're to take AV's 'challenge' as:
What evidence would you present to your friend that I created an apple ex nihilo, if there was no evidence left behind?

Then we might as well take Freodin's challenge as:
What evidence would you present to your friend that I picked an apple from a tree, if there was no evidence left behind?

However, as Freodin said, if we're to take the OP as is, the only answer should be: I don't know. Create an apple ex nihilo and then we'll see what evidence is left behind.

If the point is about people believing your claim, then that's a nonissue. There will always be people who will believe even the most extreme and ridiculous claims. This would prove absolutely nothing.

 

[Febble]

There's several problems with the OP, Febble. It assumes several things off the bat and omits important information.

It certainly assumes one very important thing - that AV really did create the apple ex nihilo. That seems fair enough to me. I don't think any other information is missing.

For instance, according to one AV's responses, we're supposed to assume that we accept that AV created this apple ex nihilo. Why? Based on what? What did he do to convince us? Did we watch him? Did he record it on video for us? Did he explain his process to us? He'll then try to convince you those questions are unimportant and make his question more confusing that it has to be. The reality is that he knows that the answers to these question are extremely important and key to this argument.

Well, you are certainly reading far more into the OP than I did. I just took it at face value as a thought experiment.

As Freodin said, the amount of evidence for creating an apple ex nihilo is the same amount of evidence that I picked this apple from a tree. AV's point is not whether people or your friends believe you. It's the fact that he believes that there would be no evidence. The fact is that since we don't know of any method of creating anything from nothing, we do not know what evidence would be left behind. Now, if we are to assume that no evidence was left behind, then in Freodin's challenge we can assume the same thing and it would then, still stand.

So, Freodin is right in that the assumption is built in, as is evident in AV's responses throughout this thread. if we're to take AV's 'challenge' as:
What evidence would you present to your friend that I created an apple ex nihilo, if there was no evidence left behind?

Then we might as well take Freodin's challenge as:
What evidence would you present to your friend that I picked an apple from a tree, if there was no evidence left behind?

However, as Freodin said, if we're to take the OP as is, the only answer should be: I don't know. Create an apple ex nihilo and then we'll see what evidence is left behind.

If the point is about people believing your claim, then that's a nonissue. There will always be people who will believe even the most extreme and ridiculous claims. This would prove absolutely nothing.

Sorry, I'm missing your point. Or you are missing AV's.

Or possibly both

I think his point is very simple, and it is sound, that there can be no evidence for ex nihilo creation. If, as I said, ex nihilo is the answer to a question, it's not a question science can answer.

 

[sandwiches]

It certainly assumes one very important thing - that AV really did create the apple ex nihilo. That seems fair enough to me. I don't think any other information is missing.

Well, you are certainly reading far more into the OP than I did. I just took it at face value as a thought experiment.

Sorry, I'm missing your point. Or you are missing AV's.

Or possibly both

I think his point is very simple, and it is sound, that there can be no evidence for ex nihilo creation. If, as I said, ex nihilo is the answer to a question, it's not a question science can answer.

That's the assumption, but we don't know and isn't included in the OP. Then, answer Freodin's challenge: What evidence is there that I picked this apple from a tree?

The unspoken assumption in Freodin's challenge, as in AV's, is that there is no evidence. This is not a question about whether people believe me or not. This is a question about the evidence.

 

[Freodin]

Sorry, I'm missing your point. Or you are missing AV's.

Or possibly both

I think his point is very simple, and it is sound, that there can be no evidence for ex nihilo creation. If, as I said, ex nihilo is the answer to a question, it's not a question science can answer.

That is the very point that we are debating. It is very much possible that there IS not evidence for ex nihilo creation. To find that out we would have to test it

To state that there CAN BE NO evidence would require a logical argument based on verified premisses. AV has never presented such.

So what do you base such a statement on?

 

[Febble]

That's the assumption, but we don't know and isn't included in the OP. Then, answer Freodin's challenge: What evidence is there that I picked this apple from a tree?

Well, I did answer that one, fairly fully.

I can link now, so I'll find the link...hold on....

http://www.christianforums.com/t7462055-40/#post55732586

The unspoken assumption in Freodin's challenge, as in AV's, is that there is no evidence. This is not a question about whether people believe me or not. This is a question about the evidence.

Right. And in both cases, in the absence of evidence, it may be impossible to differentiate between two hypotheses.

However, the point about AV's scenario is that there CAN be no evidence for ex nihilo - we can disprove it (find the hidden compartment/mirror, spot the distractor), or rather provide evidence for an alternative hypothesis if the alternative is correct, but if the ex nihilo hypothesis is correct, there is nothing we can do, because we cannot distinguish between no evidence because we haven't found any, and no evidence because there isn't any.

It's one of the frustrating things about the scientific method - null results are difficult to interpret, and the best we can do if the answer is zilch is to show that if there is an effect of some unknown factor, we don't have the statistical power or data to detect it.

 

[Febble]

That is the very point that we are debating. It is very much possible that there IS not evidence for ex nihilo creation. To find that out we would have to test it

How?

To state that there CAN BE NO evidence would require a logical argument based on verified premisses. AV has never presented such.

So what do you base such a statement on?

Well, I have to ask you: what evidence would there be for ex nihilo creation?

Scientific methodology is designed to detect causality. It cannot detect acausal events.

 

[Febble]

Obviously I don't know you guys (unless you have other names on other forums ) but as I understand it, AV is a biblical literalist, right? And the rest of you are scientists of some sort?

If so, I guess I'm in a position I don't usually find myself occupying, but I do note that at least one other scientist in the thread seems to agree with me, and with AV

How droll.