I think he is pretty clear that the only thing I agree with him about is that if something really is created ex nihilo, that fact is not something that science is equipped to established. I still agree with that
However, my reasons for doing so lead my to diametrically opposite conclusions about the universe.
Well, I'm assuming that AVET (or God) simply poofed (to use Behe's term) the apple into existence. But I will modify my word "causal" to "contingent". Science can't, ultimately, establish causality (if we get really philosophical about the word) but it can establish contingency. It can say:
if this
happens, that
will [tend to] happen. The "tend to" is in there because science is always probabilistic, even in a deterministic universe, and has to be in what seems to our non-deterministic one.
Then the OP didn't create the apple. If the apple in the OP existing is not contingent to the OP having created it, then what did the OP do exactly?
If the OP did create the apple, its existence is contingent to the OPs action. So, we can have a cause and effect.
AV created the apple.
Therefore, the apple exists.
Now, if we're going to get into "Well, but that doesn't explain HOW he created it," that's another matter but regardless of the process, we can be sure there was a process. Whether AV willed it into being, nodded, snapped his finger, thought about it, IF HE CREATED THE APPLE, then he did something. Now, we might not be able to understand what he did, but he does. So, the process is explainable.
So, again, the method of creation (magic, diving power, etc) and material used ('ether,' nothing, etc) does not limit the use of the scientific method. Remember that science is about explaining the universe as best we can. There aren't observable phenomena 'outside' of science.
As a tangent: This actually goes back to one of my old other threads titled: The science of God, in which I explain that no matter what God does or how he does it, the scientific method could applied to him as, even if WE can't understand how he does things, he'd know. Therefore, there would be an explanation and scientific one at that for all his actions.
And if an uninterrogatable volitional agent simply, on a whim, poofs an apple (or a universe) into existence, there is no contingency that science can establish. We can't say: look let's get a sample of gods, let 'em loose for a gigabillion gigayears, and see whether the number of universes poofed is greater than that expected under the null (Hawking can supply the null). Nor can we say, OK, if this apple/universe was poofed, then we should observe x, or y, because poofers, by definition, are totally unknown. If they were knowable, they wouldn't be poofers, they'd be some ready-to-be-investigated aspect of the physical universe. That's why I said somewhere earlier in the thread, that if God was detectable by science, s/he wouldn't be a god. Which is sound theology in at least some quarters, BTW. Of God was detectable in his/her own universe, then there would have to be some parts of the universe in which s/he was more or less present. So you could detect a demigod maybe, but not an omnipotent monotheos. No?
I disagree with this. According to most theists, their deity has a direct impact in their lives and possibly the lives of others. This impact manifests itself in different ways:
Winning the lottery or losing a bet.
Having your cancer go into remission or dying from a disease.
Barely avoiding a car accident or surviving a car accident.
All these things and many more are often attributed to a deity by different people. So, according to these folk, their deity has a MEASURABLE and OBSERVABLE effect on the universe. And as we know anything that can be measured and observed can be scientifically investigated.
Quite
Well, my physics could certainly be wrong, but it's my understanding that we can
predict virtual particles, probabilistically anyway - otherwise we wouldn't know what they were. Is that wrong? (I'm a neuroscientist not a physicist).
Well, semantics are always a pitfall. But sure, if the OP meant, "ex nihilo by some mechanism that allows us to predict its emergence with a high degree of probability", I'd agree (and disagree with the OP). But I'm assuming that he didn't mean that. And if he didn't, I think I'm right
I will reiterate what I said in my last post responding to another user that if the challenge had been worded as follows:
"You accept as true without direct or indirect observation that I created an apple without previous matter or energy to form it, leaving no evidence, and without the need of any process.
What evidence would you present your friend that I did this?"
Then, I would agree that there would be no evidence. HOWEVER, as the OP is worded, it leaves a lot of room for different outcomes, speculation, and guessing.
But to repeat myself, yet again, if the challenge does mean what I wrote above, then it's a useless exercise in that the conclusion is already assumed in the challenge itself.
