My Light Bulb Challenge

[AV1611VET]

I create a burned-out light bulb ex nihilo right in front of you, and even videotape it for you.

The bulb has the following characteristics:

1. it has a burned-out tungsten filament
2. it has MADE IN GUAM (where we're at) on the sleeve
3. it has a time-stamp on the sleeve

I then sit down and take any questions concerning what I have done.

The only thing you know about me is that I cannot lie.

Challenge: Show why this is deceptive (not paradoxical); and feel free to ask me anything you want.

You may consider the light bulb omphalos, last thursday, gap, old age, young age, embedded age, day-age, or even new age; just not deceptive.

The purpose of this challenge is to defend an act of creatio ex nihilo as paradoxical, not deceptive.

 

[hillard]

You can try all you like but will not talk or con your way into heaven.

 

[Nostromo]

OK, my first question is:

Are you claiming to be a manufacturer of new lightbulbs?

 

[Freodin]

I create a burned-out light bulb ex nihilo right in front of you, and even videotape it for you.

The bulb has the following characteristics:

1. it has a burned-out tungsten filament
2. it has MADE IN GUAM (where we're at) on the sleeve
3. it has a time-stamp on the sleeve

I then sit down and take any questions concerning what I have done.

The only thing you know about me is that I cannot lie.

Challenge: Show why this is deceptive (not paradoxical); and feel free to ask me anything you want.

You may consider the light bulb omphalos, last thursday, gap, old age, young age, embedded age, day-age, or even new age; just not deceptive.

The purpose of this challenge is to defend an act of creatio ex nihilo as paradoxical, not deceptive.

As long as you can´t get the deception from your descriptions, your acts will always be decpetive.

A personal challenge for you: check your OP and tell me where the deceptive description is.

 

[dlamberth]

I create a burned-out light bulb ex nihilo right in front of you, and even videotape it for you.

The bulb has the following characteristics:

1. it has a burned-out tungsten filament
2. it has MADE IN GUAM (where we're at) on the sleeve
3. it has a time-stamp on the sleeve

I then sit down and take any questions concerning what I have done.

The only thing you know about me is that I cannot lie.

Challenge: Show why this is deceptive (not paradoxical); and feel free to ask me anything you want.

You may consider the light bulb omphalos, last thursday, gap, old age, young age, embedded age, day-age, or even new age; just not deceptive.

The purpose of this challenge is to defend an act of creatio ex nihilo as paradoxical, not deceptive.

Because you HAVE NOT created a lightbulb, the OP is deceptive from the get go.

.
.

 

[Orogeny]

But I'm not in Guam I'm in 'MERICA, best dang country on Erf! HEH YeAh!

 

[Targ]

You live in Guam, AVET?

 

[AV1611VET]

You live in Guam, AVET?

Used to -- it was our home for a few years.

 

[Split Rock]

I create a burned-out light bulb ex nihilo right in front of you, and even videotape it for you.

The bulb has the following characteristics:

1. it has a burned-out tungsten filament
2. it has MADE IN GUAM (where we're at) on the sleeve
3. it has a time-stamp on the sleeve

I then sit down and take any questions concerning what I have done.

The only thing you know about me is that I cannot lie.

Challenge: Show why this is deceptive (not paradoxical); and feel free to ask me anything you want.

You may consider the light bulb omphalos, last thursday, gap, old age, young age, embedded age, day-age, or even new age; just not deceptive.

The purpose of this challenge is to defend an act of creatio ex nihilo as paradoxical, not deceptive.

Why is it deceptive?
1. The tungsten filament did not burn out.
2. The light bulb was not manufactured in Guam.

If you cannot see that this is deceptive, then no wonder the God you claim to worship is so deceptive.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I create a burned-out light bulb ex nihilo right in front of you, and even videotape it for you.

The bulb has the following characteristics:

1. it has a burned-out tungsten filament
2. it has MADE IN GUAM (where we're at) on the sleeve
3. it has a time-stamp on the sleeve

I then sit down and take any questions concerning what I have done.

The only thing you know about me is that I cannot lie.

Challenge: Show why this is deceptive (not paradoxical); and feel free to ask me anything you want.

You may consider the light bulb omphalos, last thursday, gap, old age, young age, embedded age, day-age, or even new age; just not deceptive.

The purpose of this challenge is to defend an act of creatio ex nihilo as paradoxical, not deceptive.

When you actually, in reality, create anything from nothing, then we'll talk. Until then, consider your challenges silly.

 

[jayem]

The purpose of this challenge is to defend an act of creatio ex nihilo as paradoxical, not deceptive.

I'm not sure I understand your hypothetical, but:

It would not be deceptive if you explicity informed your audience, that though the lightbulb may have appeared functional, it was actually burned out.

And conversely, it would be deceptive if you never explicity informed anyone that the lightbulb was not what it appeared to be.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure I understand your hypothetical, but:

It would not be deceptive if you explicity informed your audience, that though the lightbulb may have appeared functional, it was actually burned out.

And conversely, it would be deceptive if you never explicity informed anyone that the lightbulb was not what it appeared to be.

Please read the op again, Jayem:

I then sit down and take any questions concerning what I have done.

If I don't 'explicitly inform my audience', it's because no one in my audience asked.

 

[Freodin]

Simply put: you stated that you created the lightbulb with a "burned out" tungsten filament. But if the lightbulb never burned, the filament cannot be "burned out"... it would only look if it was burned out.

-> deceptive

 

[Nostromo]

He's never going to address the legitimate points that show he's wrong. What possessed me to come back here?

 

[AV1611VET]

... it would only look if it was burned out.

If you think it only looks burned out, screw it in a socket and flip the switch and test your theory.

 

[Freodin]

If you think it only looks burned out, screw it in a socket and flip the switch and test your theory.

What is my theory?

 

[Freodin]

What is my theory?

You know, this is what I really really hate about internet debates. (especially with that special sort of posters, and really really especially with that special example of that sort of posters)

Someone comes up with a question, a challenge, a claim. And you answer it. And you hope that some sort of conversation will result from that.

And then the original someone drops out, because instead of talking to people who are here, asked you a question, are trying to explain something to you... ARE WAITING FOR YOU... it is so much more interesting to post inane and meaningless responses to threads eight years dead or spend your time spamming the board with numbers.

 

[Nostromo]

Do you think that AV will ever come back and say "Hey, I see your point, I might need to reconsider this idea"?

If not, what difference does it make? Even when he's here and responding he can't have a reasonable discussion.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

As people have implied "burned out" could mean that there was a time when it was working. But if this is true, and it was allegedly created "burned out" ex nihilo, then there is a semantic issue needing to be resolved, as "burned out" is not then an appropriate description.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you think that AV will ever come back and say "Hey, I see your point, I might need to reconsider this idea"?

If not, what difference does it make? Even when he's here and responding he can't have a reasonable discussion.

What would be nice, is if someone would come back and say, "It would be 'deceptive', not 'paradoxical', because..."

Instead of just ignoring it.

Then later, you'll see them in some other thread saying, "Genesis 1 is deceptive".

They won't do it here, because I'm asking them why it is deceptive and not paradoxical; but they'll be glad to do it elsewhere.

And you guys expect me to play along?