My Light Bulb Challenge

[Nostromo]

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

Instead of just ignoring it.

It's all very well you saying that, but several people have already pointed out where you're being deceptive. See posts 5, 9 and 13. Notice my unanswered question in post 3.

 

[Sophophile]

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.

Hi AV1611VET

Its been a long time. Hope things are very well with you.

Tell me, what does the time-stamp say?

Cheers
S

 

[Psudopod]

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".

But nobody is saying Genesis 1 is deceptive. What they are saying is that if God created the world as Genesis describes - ie in 6 days, 6000 odd years ago in the order listed and with a global flood, then it is deceptive to have put in the false history that makes it look like the earth is 4.6billion years old and having had no flood.

With your lightbulb, you haven't said your video differs in anyway from the lightbulb. If your video showed you creating a florecent strip bulb that said made in the UK, and then you produced the burnt out tungsten made in Guam bulb, that would be deceptive because either this is a different lightbulb or you have changed it.

Of course, as others have pointed out creating a burnt out bulb implies an event has happened when it hasn't. It's paradoxical, because there's no reason to suggest that if you can create lightbulbs you can't create burnt out ones, but I would say it is deceptive unless there is a reason for you to create it this way.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi AV1611VET

Its been a long time. Hope things are very well with you.

Hey, Sophophile!

Good to hear from you again -- stranger!

Tell me, what does the time-stamp say?

It has the current date on it.

 

[Sophophile]

Of course, as others have pointed out creating a burnt out bulb implies an event has happened when it hasn't. It's paradoxical, because there's no reason to suggest that if you can create lightbulbs you can't create burnt out ones, but I would say it is deceptive unless there is a reason for you to create it this way.

Hi Psudopod

You're on to something there.

"Deceptive" describes a purpose or reason for something.

"Paradox" describes a state of affairs: a logically inconsistent one (either apparently or actually).

So I think, purely as a logical matter, something could be both deceptive and paradoxical, or either, or neither.

Therefore, I think AV1611VET's challenge is a false dichotomy.

Cheers
S.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

With your lightbulb, you haven't said your video differs in anyway from the lightbulb.

Should I have to?

I create a burned-out light bulb ex nihilo and videotape it for you.

It's that simple.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi Psudopod

You're on to something there.

"Deceptive" describes a purpose or reason for something.

"Paradox" describes a state of affairs: a logically inconsistent one (either apparently or actually).

So I think, purely as a logical matter, something could be both deceptive and paradoxical, or either, or neither.

Therefore, I think AV1611VET's challenge is a false dichotomy.

Cheers
S.

So I did it purposely to deceive you, yet I:

1. videotape it
2. stand around and take questions

Some deception, eh?

 

[Sophophile]

Hey, Sophophile!

Good to hear from you again -- stranger!

It has the current date on it.

Thank you. Its good to be here. I certainly have been busy of late.

Please see my response to Psudopod. Do you agree something could be both deceptive and paradoxical? We all know what deceptive means. Perhaps you could be more explicit about what you mean by a paradox, and why a paradox can't be deceptive.

Cheers
S.

PS: Off to bed now, twill be 10 hours before I respond. Good night!

 

[Sophophile]

So I did it purposely to deceive you, yet I:

1. videotape it
2. stand around and take questions

Some deception, eh?

Hmm, 1 more minute before bed then. I think you misunderstood me.

I haven't given an opinion yet about whether anything is deceptive or not, or paradoxical or not. I'm still in the question-asking stage.

My question is: Do you agree or disagree that something could be deceptive and paradoxical at the same time?

Cheers
S.

 

[AV1611VET]

My question is: Do you agree or disagree that something could be deceptive and paradoxical at the same time?

Good night, sir! Sleep well!

When you wake up, you might want to consider starting your own thread with this question.

 

[Psudopod]

Should I have to?

I create a burned-out light bulb ex nihilo and videotape it for you.

It's that simple.

That was my point though. I can’t say it’s deceptive, because from what you have written I have no reason to believe the lightbulb in my hand is different to the one on the video tape. The only possible deception is the burnt out bit, because you are implying something happened that didn’t. As I said before, I don’t think you can say that is paradoxical because there is no reason why you can’t create a burnt-out lightbulb; it doesn’t contradict anything.

I was assuming that your challenge related ultimately to the embedded age idea and was pointing out that this isn’t an analogous situation to the earth and Genesis. It would only be analogous if the video was different to the end product. That would be deceptive (again, not paradoxical).

 

[Delphiki]

Regarding the OP and what it's hinting at:

Yes, if the evidence showed that God created an old-appearing earth in 6 days, then I would believe it.

There is none.

I believe what the evidence shows.

 

[Nostromo]

Got me on ignore AV? (odd question)

 

[Sophophile]

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

Do you agree or disagree that something could be deceptive and paradoxical at the same time?

When you wake up, you might want to consider starting your own thread with this question.

Hi AV1611VET

So you don't think my question is relevant. That's fine. But if you're not going to discuss it, please don't claim later that because the creatio ex nihilo is paradoxical therefore its not deceptive, because that doesn't logically follow. If you think it does, you should define paradox as you're using it here.

Another question: Would microscopic examination of the light-bulb show evidence of evaporation of the tungsten filament, and deposits of evaporated tungsten on the inside of the light-bulb?

Cheers
S.

 

[dlamberth]

So I did it purposely to deceive you, yet I:

1. videotape it
2. stand around and take questions

Some deception, eh?

You have a video tape of said Light Bulb being created ex nihilo?

Or, is this more deception.

.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you guys just want to yak, or do you want to answer the OP?

Please get your own thread, if you have nothing to contribute, or have side issues.

Thank you.

 

[Targ]

Do you guys just want to yak, or do you want to answer the OP?

Please get your own thread, if you have nothing to contribute, or have side issues.

Thank you.

Why should they? In other people's threads you are notorious for doing the very thing you complain about here.

 

[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 were you going to create that light bulb in front of me, again? Because I still don't see it.

 

[Split Rock]

Do you guys just want to yak, or do you want to answer the OP?

Please get your own thread, if you have nothing to contribute, or have side issues.

Thank you.

I agree with AVET on this one... please stop posting here and let this thread die. Then AVET can necro it back to life 3 years from now. Hopefully, we will all be gone by then.

 

[dlamberth]

Do you guys just want to yak, or do you want to answer the OP?

Please get your own thread, if you have nothing to contribute, or have side issues.

Thank you.

Produce the light bulb ex nihilo, than there will be a lot to talk about.

.