My Light Bulb Challenge

[Skaloop]

Oh, heavens no!

Like I said, if you guys wanted to, you could claim a loaf of raisin bread created ex nihilo would be deceptive, since raisins grow.

Well, technically, grapes grow. When they are used to make raisins, they shrink.

But that's just a nitpick that isn't really relevent. But if you created the raisin bread ex nihilo and said "Here's a loaf of bread with raisins in it" that would not be deceptive. If, however, you said "Here's a loaf of bread with raisins in it that are made using hand-picked grapes from Chile" that would be deceptive because they were not hand-picked in Chile.

To get back to the lightbulb, if the filament is burned out, then it had to have burned at some point. That's what the term "burned out" means. You admit that it didn't ever burn, so it can only appear to be burned out, but it cannot actually be burned out if it never burned.

 

[Sophophile]

So, do you agree that the created light-bulb shows physical evidence of the filament heating up and evaporating?

I will agree that the light bulb could be interpreted as such; but that interpretation, of course, would be overrode by the circumstances, viz. how it came into existence, i.e. ex nihilo.

Thanks AV1611VET, I'm glad we got that cleared up.

So, back my question which is still standing:

Q. Why did you create the light-bulb comprising physical evidence that it was once used, when in fact it has never been used and was created in an already burned-out state?

Regards
S.

 

[quatona]

Yes -- and here's your 'how':

Ex nihilo

Specifically, God spoke it into existence.

Actually, from an explanation how something happened I expect an increasingly detailed description of the process - as opposed to an increase in obscurantism. "Speaking a physical object into existence" is not an explanation - it´s an exceptional claim, since it doesn´t refer to anything our expererience can refer to.

So you claim you spoke your lightbulb into existende. And I´ll claim that all lightbulbs that aren´t there aren´t there anymore because I have spoken them out of existence.
Is this a deceptive claim or a paradoxical claim? Does my claim matter? Or is it possibly just hypothetical nonsense?

 

[quatona]

Yes -- and here's your 'how':

Ex nihilo

Ok, since your lightbulb hypothetical has no religious or metaphysical context I´ll go with

Ex nihilo

when used outside of religious or metaphysical contexts, also refers to something coming from nothing. For example, in a conversation, one might raise a topic "ex nihilo" if it bears no relation to the previous topic of discussion.

(emphasis mine)

Specifically, God spoke it into existence.

Just in case you aren´t about to actually discuss you claiming to have created a lightbulb ex nihilo, but actually are trying to make a theological or metaphysical point, here´s from your source:

In theology, the common phrase creatio ex nihilo ("creation out of nothing"), contrasts with creatio ex materia (creation out of some pre-existent, eternal matter) and with creatio ex deo (creation out of the being of God).

(bolding mine)

 

[Tomatoman]

Yes -- and here's your 'how':

Ex nihilo

Specifically, God spoke it into existence.

Right -- more like I'm right up on the front lines explaining the exact order, and how it pwns [unBiblical] science back to where it came from.

You are on the front lines explaining the exact order of how the universe was created? You? Front lines? Still struggling with your ego much, AV? And no, you are not on the front lines of anything. You are rather dim christian fundamentalist who thinks mindlessly posting numbers on an internet forum is a constructive use of his overly abundant free time. Your beliefs are little more than a source of distress at the state of the education system in parts of america, and are only of interest to psychologists, for whom the bible stories, like all mythology, can be quite illuminating.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are on the front lines explaining the exact order of how the universe was created?

Yes

You?

Yes

Front lines?

Yes

Still struggling with your ego much, AV?

No

And no, you are not on the front lines of anything.

It would be an invisible front line to you guys.

You are rather dim christian fundamentalist who thinks mindlessly posting numbers on an internet forum is a constructive use of his overly abundant free time.

I interrupt myself from posting those numbers to respond to you guys, if your point is worth responding.

Thus my large post count is a testament to ... well ... you figure it out.

Your beliefs are little more than a source of distress at the state of the education system in parts of america, and are only of interest to psychologists, for whom the bible stories, like all mythology, can be quite illuminating.

I'm glad I didn't have to pay for that assessment, or I would want my money back.

 

[Cabal]

I interrupt myself from posting those numbers to respond to you guys, if your point is worth responding.

Thus my large post count is a testament to ... well ... you figure it out.

Ah, this is the latest justification for your numerical e-member, eh?

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, this is the latest justification for your numerical e-member, eh?

Let's see, I have people who can't explain a burned-out light bulb suddenly preferring to discuss the virtues of counting.

What's wrong with this picture?

 

[hillard]

What's wrong with this picture?

At a guess, because you're in it? not that I would want you anywhere else other than here.

Whilst I realise that the vast majority of creationists and the people likely to become creationists are not overly endowed with the grey matter I firmly believe you do more damage AGAINST creationism than you do FOR it so for my money this is the best place you could possible be to put forward your creationist views.

Although if they will listen to Kent Hovined and the like they will think you're chocolate.

 

[Tomatoman]

I interrupt myself from posting those numbers to respond to you guys, if your point is worth responding.

Thus my large post count is a testament to ... well ... you figure it out.

At a guess I'd say a staggering lack of imagination and the possession of a brain so unused to thinking that it baulks at the prospect of doing anything more strenuous than posting numbers. You do realise that anyone who isn't practically braindead would find posting numbers all day tedious beyond words. Why don't you just get a job on a production line? You'd be a doing a repetitive action all day, wouldn't have to use your brain, would be doing something useful and getting paid for it at the same time.

I'm glad I didn't have to pay for that assessment, or I would want my money back.

The truth is free.

 

[AV1611VET]

At a guess I'd say a staggering lack of imagination and the possession of a brain so unused to thinking that it baulks at the prospect of doing anything more strenuous than posting numbers.

That 'staggering lack of imagination' spends a lot of time correcting you guys' staggering lack of basic theology, doesn't it?

You do realise that anyone who isn't practically braindead would find posting numbers all day tedious beyond words.

Yes -- that's why they're called numbers --

Why don't you just get a job on a production line?

Why? do you guys post there?

You'd be a doing a repetitive action all day, wouldn't have to use your brain, would be doing something useful and getting paid for it at the same time.

This isn't about money.

The truth is free.

So true --

 

[Tomatoman]

That 'staggering lack of imagination' spends a lot of time correcting you guys' staggering lack of basic theology, doesn't it?

No, it spends a lot of time making pointless semantic quibbles. Your theology, as has been pointed out by numerous better educated christians than you, is mostly drivelling nonsense.

I don't think you've ever corrected anyone about anything that is actually important in a thread. Ever.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it spends a lot of time making pointless semantic quibbles.

Perhaps you forgot -- I said 'basic theology'.

Your theology, as has been pointed out by numerous better educated christians than you, is mostly drivelling nonsense.

Perhaps you forgot I said 'basic theology' -- which has been around a lot longer than I have.

I don't think you've ever corrected anyone about anything that is actually important in a thread. Ever.

That would be an indication of not understanding.

 

[Tomatoman]

Perhaps you forgot -- I said 'basic theology'.

Perhaps you forgot I said 'basic theology' -- which has been around a lot longer than I have.

That would be an indication of not understanding.

No, that would be an indication of you not listening to a word that has ever been said to you. Your basic theology is a nonsense because you're a bible literalist. And that is supposed to be your specialised subject. You don't even understand your own specialised subject for god's sake. What hope have you got with anything else? And as for when you start on about christian history, well, it's like listening to Jackanory*.

Honestly, all we've ever tried to do is help you. But almost everything said to you whistles half a mile over your head.

(*British children's television story programme)

 

[AV1611VET]

Honestly, all we've ever tried to do is help you.

No offense, but you trying to help me out of 'my' basic doctrine is like a blind man trying to draw Mt Rushmore.

Especially if you're using scientism to do it.

 

[Tomatoman]

No offense, but you trying to help me out of 'my' basic doctrine is like a blind man trying to draw Mt Rushmore.

Especially if you're using scientism to do it.

Groan. Not 'scientism', but reality. That place you have no time for. Your basic doctrine, AV, is a laughing stock everywhere except for a few hick churches in the bible belt. The bottom line is that being a bible literalist and believing in adam and eve and the rest of the fairy tales requires a deliberate act of will. It demands you remain ignorant of anything that might challenge your beliefs (witness your attitude to whole libraries of books), it demands ignoring the real world if it contradicts the bible (witness your boolean standards - if ever there was a self signed statement of stupidity it is your boolean standards) and it demands maintaining an arrogant belief that your transparently absurd, idiotic, ignorant, moronic beliefs are in some way evidence of your superior mental gifts.

Yes, I agree that helping you out of the tragic mental prison of your own beliefs is hopeless, but I wish you could see the real reason why it is hopeless.

 

[Chris81]

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.

You create a light bulb with a burned out filament ex nihilo, wow how lame is that.

Additionally in the larger context of how God created the universe, the Bible says that what God created was good. What is good about a burnt out light bulb? I don't think your light bulb challenge is a good analogy regarding the understanding of God as the creator.

Until you can create a functioning light bulb ex nihilo, I am just going to make my why to Home Depot to buy me some real light bulbs.

 

[sandwiches]

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.

If the documentation and accounts of how and when the light bulb was made matched the observed, apparent method of creation and age of the object, then there is no deception. Otherwise, there'd be deception, intentional or not.

 

[Nostromo]

That 'staggering lack of imagination' spends a lot of time correcting you guys' staggering lack of basic theology, doesn't it?

That's not such a great claim since theology is the study of things we can't possibly validate.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not such a great claim since theology is the study of things we can't possibly validate.

Science is myopic.