Thomas Paine Answers AV1611VET's Apple Challenge

RichardT · Jun 26, 2008

Thomas Paine said:
Suppose I were to say, that when I sat down to write this book, a hand presented itself in the air, took up the pen, and wrote every word that is herein written; would anybody believe me? Certainly they would not. Would they believe me a whit the more if the thing had been a fact? Certainly they would not. Since, then, a real miracle, were it to happen, would be subject to the same fate as the falsehood, the inconsistency becomes the greater of supposing the Almighty would make use of means that would not answer the purpose for which they were intended, even if they were real.

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/reason14.htm

AV, do you think Paine's answer is justified?

AV1611VET · Jun 27, 2008

RichardT said:
AV, do you think Paine's answer is justified?

No --- here's my Apple Challenge, once again ---

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

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

And here is Paine's supposed answer ---

Suppose I were to say, that when I sat down to write this book, a hand presented itself in the air, took up the pen, and wrote every word that is herein written; would anybody believe me?

You'll note that the answer is not an answer --- it's a question. And, in fact, the "answer" does not fit my question.

If you actually go through my Apple Challenge thread, you'll see that most answers didn't even fit the question.

Let's look at a couple.

The first to respond was an Atheist ---

Phred said:
You'd have to do it first so that I could examine what you did. I can't answer your question until you actually do it.

He tells me I would first have to do it --- even though the first line of my challenge clearly says I did it.

The second to respond was also an Atheist ---

IIDayo said:
Without him seeing it for himself or having a video recording of it happening (in which the video would have to be analyzed for any evidence of tampering) there is no evidence. The only evidence would be me claiming you did so.

And although the first part of his post is faulty - (which I'll show next) - he was spot-on with the conclusion.

The third to respond was also an Atheist---

MrGoodBytes said:
I'd take him to Guam, where you will repeat the process in front of him.

Failing that, video tapes of the creation process, together with written affidavits from a variety of professional magicians and physicists that they saw the apple materialising would suffice (I guess).

He requires a repeat, witnesses, and a videotape --- completely overlooking the fact that he has to show evidence for the first apple that's in his hand - not the second apple that was videotaped. His friend could simply reply, "Okay, this guy can create an apple ex nihilo; but it doesn't mean he created that apple in your hand ex nihilo."

In the end, I finally had to tell these guys that my Apple Challenge is on their side. It proves their point; that there is no evidence for the Creation Event.

And yet still some want to argue about it.

Atheists in a nutshell --- in my opinion.

MoonLancer · Jun 27, 2008

You cant go wrong with Paine, he is after all the King of America

Dragar · Jun 27, 2008

You'll note that the answer is not an answer --- it's a question.

Did you actually read beyond the first sentence? I am beginning to think you have serious difficulties parsing information, AV.

And yet still some want to argue about it.

Of course they do. You are believing things happen without evidence. That's called crazy.

MrGoodBytes · Jun 27, 2008

AV1611VET said:
The third to respond was also an Atheist---He requires a repeat, witnesses, and a videotape --- completely overlooking the fact that he has to show evidence for the first apple that's in his hand - not the second apple that was videotaped. His friend could simply reply, "Okay, this guy can create an apple ex nihilo; but it doesn't mean he created that apple in your hand ex nihilo."

Irrelevant. As soon as your ability to create apples has been established beyond reasonable doubt, my friend has good reason to believe me when I say you created the original apple.

And in any case, your analogy doesn't accurately reflect the actual problem. We aren't requesting evidence for the act of creation itself, we are requesting evidence that this act happened in the way you describe it. To stay within your parameters, you are claiming you created a yellow, fresh apple with a leaf on the stem, when I'm holding a red, dried one without a leaf.

AV1611VET · Jun 27, 2008

MrGoodBytes said:
Irrelevant.

Relevant.

MrGoodBytes said:
As soon as your ability to create apples has been established beyond reasonable doubt, my friend has good reason to believe me when I say you created the original apple.

But the challenge doesn't ask me to demonstrate this ability. The burden is on you. And is asking what specific evidence you would convey to your friend to alleviate this burden. I could easily traipse around creating things ex nihilo, but that would render this challenge --- well --- irrelevant.

MrGoodBytes said:
And in any case, your analogy doesn't accurately reflect the actual problem.

What problem? We haven't established that there is a problem, have we?

MrGoodBytes said:
We aren't requesting evidence for the act of creation itself, we are requesting evidence that this act happened in the way you describe it.

"We"?

MrGoodBytes said:
To stay within your parameters, you are claiming you created a yellow, fresh apple with a leaf on the stem, when I'm holding a red, dried one without a leaf.

Nope --- please don't change the wording of the OP to try and make some non-existent points. The OP is correct as it stands. It makes a simple statement, and follows it with a simple question.

Do you have an answer, or don't you?

MrGoodBytes · Jun 27, 2008

AV1611VET said:
Relevant.But the challenge doesn't ask me to demonstrate this ability. The burden is on you. And is asking what specific evidence you would convey to your friend to alleviate this burden.

The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim, even more so when the claim is something so extraordinary. If you insist on reverting this, feel free but don't expect to have your challenge to have any impact, because then it's only sophistry and semantics.

I could easily traipse around creating things ex nihilo, but that would render this challenge --- well --- irrelevant.

Heaven forbid!

What problem? We haven't established that there is a problem, have we?

You haven't, no.

"We"?

We, the atheists. We, the TE's. We, the non-Independent-Fundamental-Baptist-Embedded-Age-YEC's.

Nope --- please don't change the wording of the OP to try and make some non-existent points. The OP is correct as it stands. It makes a simple statement, and follows it with a simple question.

Do you have an answer, or don't you?

Not when playing by your rules, no. Of course, your rules are perfectly inapplicable to the real world, which, after all, should be the purpose of an analogy.

AV1611VET · Jun 27, 2008

MrGoodBytes said:
The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim...

Can you spot the person making the claim in this challenge ---

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

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

Moreso, can you spot who should be the main speaker (if not the only speaker) in this challenge?

Gracchus · Jun 27, 2008

AV1611VET said:
RichardT said:

AV, do you think Paine's answer is justified?

Click to expand...

No --- here's my Apple Challenge, once again ---

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

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

And here is Paine's supposed answer ---

Suppose I were to say, that when I sat down to write this book, a hand presented itself in the air, took up the pen, and wrote every word that is herein written; would anybody believe me?

You'll note that the answer is not an answer --- it's a question. And, in fact, the "answer" does not fit my question.

But it is, in fact, a question exactly analogous to yours. And since the question is clearly rhetorical, the answer is obvious to most minds, although I will concede it may not be obvious to yours.

AV1611VET said:
If you actually go through my Apple Challenge thread, you'll see that most answers didn't even fit the question.

Let's look at a couple.

The first to respond was an Atheist ---

Phred said:

You'd have to do it first so that I could examine what you did. I can't answer your question until you actually do it.

Click to expand...

He tells me I would first have to do it --- even though the first line of my challenge clearly says I did it.

But in fact, you didnt do it. In logic it can be proved that if one of your premises is false, your deduction can be anything at all. It is in itself a powerful method for proving a premise false, called reductio ad absurdum. In short, you have reduced yourself to being absurd.

AV1611VET said:
The second to respond was also an Atheist ---

IIDayo said:

Without him seeing it for himself or having a video recording of it happening (in which the video would have to be analyzed for any evidence of tampering) there is no evidence. The only evidence would be me claiming you did so.[/i]

Click to expand...

And although the first part of his post is faulty - (which I'll show next) - he was spot-on with the conclusion.

The third to respond was also an Atheist---

MrGoodBytes said:

I'd take him to Guam, where you will repeat the process in front of him.

Failing that, video tapes of the creation process, together with written affidavits from a variety of professional magicians and physicists that they saw the apple materialising would suffice (I guess).

Click to expand...

He requires a repeat, witnesses, and a videotape --- completely overlooking the fact that he has to show evidence for the first apple that's in his hand - not the second apple that was videotaped. His friend could simply reply, "Okay, this guy can create an apple ex nihilo; but it doesn't mean he created that apple in your hand ex nihilo."

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you could consistently, or even occasionally, create ex nihilo, it would lend some credence to his claim that the original apple was created, by you, ex nihilo. Only an idiot would not recognize that. (No insult intended.)

AV1611VET said:
In the end, I finally had to tell these guys that my Apple Challenge is on their side. It proves their point; that there is no evidence for the Creation Event.

And yet still some want to argue about it.

I may quote you.

AV1611VET said:
Atheists in a nutshell --- in my opinion.

Actually, it is your opinion in a nutshell, where it belongs, and where it would have remained had the nut not been demonstrably cracked!

AV1611VET · Jun 27, 2008

Gracchus said:
But it is, in fact, a question exactly analogous to yours.

And that's the problem. That's like me asking:

What are 4 + 3?

And you responding:

What are 5 + 2?

Gracchus said:
But in fact, you didn’t do it.

I can't [really] do it --- it requires omnipotence. Thus it is a hypothetical.

Gracchus said:
In logic it can be proved that if one of your premises is false, your deduction can be anything at all.

No, it can't. If you answered "truck," the answer wouldn't fit the question. There is, in fact, a scientific answer to this challenge; but I'm not looking for that. I'm looking for what you would say to your friend.

Gracchus said:
It is in itself a powerful method for proving a premise false, called “reductio ad absurdum”. In short, you have reduced yourself to being absurd.

By simply saying I created an apple ex nihilo into the palm of your hand? Would it have been better if I would have said, "A machine creates an apple into the palm of your hand creatio ex materia? What evidence would you use to convince your friend it did this?" Let's not argue how valid the hypothetical is; let's just answer it to the best of our ability, okay?

Gracchus said:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

By all means --- state what your extraordinary evidence is --- I'm all ears.

Gracchus said:
If you could consistently, or even occasionally, create ex nihilo, it would lend some credence to his claim that the original apple was created, by you, ex nihilo.

I've already covered that. A slick lawyer could show how that's not an acceptable answer.

Psudopod · Jun 27, 2008

AV, when someone asks for evidence of creationism, they're not necessarily talking to you. Other creationists claim there is evidence, so this request is usually for them.

Secondly, even if there is no evidence for ex-nihilo creation, there is evidence for events that happen to an object as it exists in time. Ie, if the world was created ex nhilo 6000 years ago, it should only have 6000 years of history. Likewise, your apple, once it has been created, shouldn't show evidence of things that haven't happened to it.

Thirdly, it is entirely possible (though not, in my opinion probably) that the world is 6000 years old but has been made to look like it is 4.6 billion years old. In that case, we cannot know the true age of the earth an we cannot say evolution is wrong and there isn't enough time.

Unless you have evidence to back up your claims, then there is no reason to accept them. Science has given us valid predictions, and useable results. Assuming that a literal interpretation of the bible is true doesn't do that. Unless you can show that you have a measureably better way of doing science, you can't claim that we'er doing it wrong by excluding God from calculations.

MrGoodBytes · Jun 27, 2008

AV1611VET said:
Can you spot the person making the claim in this challenge ---

I am (assuming that you really can create apples). Therefore the burden of proof rests on my shoulders. Since I cannot provide any evidence operating under your rules, the challenge fails.

Of course, your rules are not applicable to the actual situation in real life, so I'm afraid you have won a semantics game only.

Moreso, can you spot who should be the main speaker (if not the only speaker) in this challenge?

Assuming we play by your rules, I should be the main speaker. Assuming we stay firmly rooted in reality, you should.

Gracchus · Jun 27, 2008

Gracchus said:
But it is, in fact, a question exactly analogous to yours.

AV1611VET said:
And that's the problem. That's like me asking:

* What are 4 + 3?

And you responding:

What are 5 + 2?

No, because Paine’s question was rhetorical, and so was yours. The answer is obvious. There would be no reason to make such a claim because it would not be believed.

Gracchus said:
But in fact, you didn’t do it.

AV1611VET said:
I can't [really] do it --- it requires omnipotence. Thus it is a hypothetical.

And what I am saying is that if the “hypothetical” is actually “impossible” then there is now way to answer the question but to point out the impossibility of an answer. So your “challenge” is meaningless because it is not logical.

Gracchus said:
In logic it can be proved that if one of your premises is false, your deduction can be anything at all.

AV1611VET said:
No, it can't. If you answered "truck," the answer wouldn't fit the question. There is, in fact, a scientific answer to this challenge; but I'm not looking for that. I'm looking for what you would say to your friend.

No answer “fits” a meaningless question, because a meaningless question, one which posits a falsehood or impossibility can have no answer. It is like asking whether the Father is of the same substance as the Son or of a similar substance. It is like asking the actual color of the hair ribbon Goldilocks was wearing when she sat down to the bears' breakfast. The Father is spiritual and has no substance. Bears do not cook and eat porridge.

Gracchus said:
It is in itself a powerful method for proving a premise false, called “reductio ad absurdum”. In short, you have reduced yourself to being absurd.

AV1611VET said:
By simply saying I created an apple ex nihilo into the palm of your hand? Would it have been better if I would have said, "A machine creates an apple into the palm of your hand creatio ex materia?

What evidence would you use to convince your friend it did this?" Let's not argue how valid the hypothetical is; let's just answer it to the best of our ability, okay?

The fact that apple trees create apples “ex materia”, indicates that there is a possibility that machine could do the same thing. It certainly doesn’t prove that a machine did so. Unless of course an examination of the machine could demonstrate it was capable of synthesizing apples from raw material that was definitely not an apple. That would be supporting evidence. Better evidence would be having the machine do it again.

Gracchus said:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

AV1611VET said:
By all means --- state what your extraordinary evidence is --- I'm all ears.

You’re missing the point. Stating that an apple was created ex nihilo, or that God wrote a book, is an extraordinary claim. It is far more likely that someone was fooled than that it actually happened. Hence the need for strong supporting evidence, such as the ability to reproduce the phenomenon.

I make no extraordinary claims. My "religion" is based on observation and reason. In some matters I withhold judgment. Some matters are, even in principle, undecidable.

Gracchus said:
If you could consistently, or even occasionally, create ex nihilo, it would lend some credence to his claim that the original apple was created, by you, ex nihilo. If you could demonstrate that anything could be created ex nihilo it would help. Even showing how it might be possible to create ex nihilo would help sustain such a claim.

AV1611VET said:
I've already covered that. A slick lawyer could show how that's not an acceptable answer.

And only a very thick juror would be deceived. Oh, wait! Religious people are allowed on juries aren't they? O.J. Simpson got off and Eugene Debs went to prison. :sigh:

AV1611VET · Jun 3, 2009

Psudopod said:
Thirdly, it is entirely possible (though not, in my opinion probably) that the world is 6000 years old but has been made to look like it is 4.6 billion years old.

That's called Omphalism.

Split Rock · Jun 3, 2009

AV1611VET said:
No --- here's my Apple Challenge, once again ---And here is Paine's supposed answer ---You'll note that the answer is not an answer --- it's a question. And, in fact, the "answer" does not fit my question.

If you actually go through my Apple Challenge thread, you'll see that most answers didn't even fit the question.

In the end, I finally had to tell these guys that my Apple Challenge is on their side. It proves their point; that there is no evidence for the Creation Event.

And yet still some want to argue about it.

Atheists in a nutshell --- in my opinion.

There is probably no way I could make my friend believe you created an apple Ex Nihilo in your hand.

So What?

How does this apply to any side of any discussion here?

How does this change the fact that your 4.5 billion year old earth created 6,000 years ago has a history much longer than 6,000 years?

How does this change the fact that Adam and Eve and 6,000 years of their offsprings simply could not have produced the variation in genetic material that we see today in humans?

AV1611VET · Jun 3, 2009

Split Rock said:
There is probably no way I could make my friend believe you created an apple Ex Nihilo in your hand.

How would you know that though, unless you tried. And the question is, "What evidence would you use when you tried."

Split Rock said:
So What?

The point is, you have no evidence --- and you know it. Yet time-after-time, you guys want us to supply you with evidence of Creationism --- knowing full-well that you can't even think anything up in a hypothetical.

For shame --- for shame.

MoonLancer · Jun 3, 2009

Warning!!!! watch out for zombies.

AV1611VET · Jun 3, 2009

MoonLancer said:
Warning!!!! watch out for zombies.

What is a "zombie" to one person is an OP to another.

Remember --- some people have never seen these points made --- and are now seeing them for the first time.

Keep in mind: we were newbies at one time too.

pgp_protector · Jun 3, 2009

MoonLancer said:
Warning!!!! watch out for zombies.

Split Rock · Jun 3, 2009

AV1611VET said:
How would you know that though, unless you tried. And the question is, "What evidence would you use when you tried."The point is, you have no evidence --- and you know it. Yet time-after-time, you guys want us to supply you with evidence of Creationism --- knowing full-well that you can't even think anything up in a hypothetical.

For shame --- for shame.

I agree... there is no evidence. I thought I already wrote that.

You did not answer my questions, however:

How does this apply to any side of any discussion here?

How does this change the fact that your 4.5 billion year old earth created 6,000 years ago has a history much longer than 6,000 years?

How does this change the fact that Adam and Eve and 6,000 years of their offsprings simply could not have produced the variation in genetic material that we see today in humans?
__________________

Thomas Paine Answers AV1611VET's Apple Challenge

Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

Like the root of -1

Seeker for life, probably

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Seeker for life, probably

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Veteran

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Godspeed, Spacebat

Seeker for life, probably

Senior Veteran

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Conflation of Blathers

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Noted strange person

Conflation of Blathers

Similar threads