Kylie's Apple Challenge

[Kylie]

You find an apple. Alongside it is a document (written by a person you trust completely, but whom you are unable to contact at the moment) that says that the apple was created ex nihilo. You subject the apple to testing, and all tests indicate that the apple was not created ex nihilo, but grew on a tree in the regular way that apples grow.

What is the most reasonable conclusion in this case?

1. The apple was indeed created ex nihilo, despite what the testing indicates
2. The apple grew on a tree, despite what the document indicates

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I want to engage your analogy but I am having trouble with it.

I would get it if the apple APPEARED to have grown on a tree in the regular way that apples grow and I INFERRED that it wasn't created ex nihilo, but what kind of TEST would indicate that it was not created ex nihilo?

 

[SimonPeter111]

I understand. This is a post under the plate of evolution and life. I understand what you want to say, but there must be something out of nothing. Do you think the universe itself cannot be understood? If you think so, you are actually similar to those of us who believe in God（Believe something that has not been proved)

 

[Kylie]

I want to engage your analogy but I am having trouble with it.

I would get it if the apple APPEARED to have grown on a tree in the regular way that apples grow and I INFERRED that it wasn't created ex nihilo, but what kind of TEST would indicate that it was not created ex nihilo?

The apple bears all the marks of having grown on a tree - exposure to the elements, etc.

 

[Kylie]

Where does matter come from? There is a man you completely trust (Marx) who says that matter cannot be created and is eternal. You try to understand from logic, and find that it is impossible, and matter is not transcendental (we all know), but God is transcendental
My English is very poor. It's hard for me to understand what you mean by "apple", so I temporarily understand that you are referring to God

No, I mean a literal apple. As in the fruit that you can eat.

 

[SimonPeter111]

[引用="凯莉， 帖子： 76972452， 成员： 343110"]不，我的意思是一个字面上的苹果。就像你可以吃的水果一样。[/引用]It depends on who the person is. If he is an absolutely correct biologist, I will choose to believe that everything can be explained now

 

[Kylie]

[引用="凯莉， 帖子： 76972452， 成员： 343110"]不，我的意思是一个字面上的苹果。就像你可以吃的水果一样。[/引用]It depends on who the person is. If he is an absolutely correct biologist, I will choose to believe that everything can be explained now

The only thing relevant is that the person who left the document saying the apple was created from nothing is someone that you trust completely.

 

[SimonPeter111]

The only thing relevant is that the person who left the document saying the apple was created from nothing is someone that you trust completely.

Of course, I think apples grow on trees. Even if this person is the one I trust most, you haven't mentioned his authority on this matter in the article. Before reading your reply, I always thought that you wanted to break the Christian faith through the birth of life. So I said the above

 

[Larniavc]

You find an apple. Alongside it is a document (written by a person you trust completely, but whom you are unable to contact at the moment) that says that the apple was created ex nihilo. You subject the apple to testing, and all tests indicate that the apple was not created ex nihilo, but grew on a tree in the regular way that apples grow.

What is the most reasonable conclusion in this case?

1. The apple was indeed created ex nihilo, despite what the testing indicates
2. The apple grew on a tree, despite what the document indicates

But who created the tree?

Check mate!

 

[driewerf]

You find an apple. Alongside it is a document (written by a person you trust completely, but whom you are unable to contact at the moment) that says that the apple was created ex nihilo. You subject the apple to testing, and all tests indicate that the apple was not created ex nihilo, but grew on a tree in the regular way that apples grow.

What is the most reasonable conclusion in this case?

1. The apple was indeed created ex nihilo, despite what the testing indicates
2. The apple grew on a tree, despite what the document indicates

If believing the document means that I have to give up all known biochemistry, geology, astronomy, physics, genetics, seismology, archaeology, demographics, hydrology, glaciology, dendrochronology, nuclear physics, and so on.
If it also force me to abandon the entire scientific method and to argue only from authority...
then I'd rather believe that the document is a counterfeit made by some imposter pretending that the document was written by the person I trust.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You find an apple. Alongside it is a document (written by a person you trust completely, but whom you are unable to contact at the moment) that says that the apple was created ex nihilo. You subject the apple to testing, and all tests indicate that the apple was not created ex nihilo, but grew on a tree in the regular way that apples grow.

What is the most reasonable conclusion in this case?

1. The apple was indeed created ex nihilo, despite what the testing indicates
2. The apple grew on a tree, despite what the document indicates

The most reasonable conclusion, in such an applish case, is to concede that the note was created ex nihilo and conveniently dropped ... for our inconvenience.

 

[J_B_]

I want to engage your analogy but I am having trouble with it.

I would get it if the apple APPEARED to have grown on a tree in the regular way that apples grow and I INFERRED that it wasn't created ex nihilo, but what kind of TEST would indicate that it was not created ex nihilo?

Agreed. The example is too contrived and lacks some of the exigency of the Biblical claim.

 

[PloverWing]

You find an apple. Alongside it is a document (written by a person you trust completely, but whom you are unable to contact at the moment) that says that the apple was created ex nihilo.

If I really do trust the person completely, then I think I would reserve judgment until I could talk to the person. Was their document intended as a joke, or apple art, or something like that, or did they genuinely mean that it's an ex nihilo apple? If the latter, why do they think that? It's conceivable that there's some new scientific discovery that I don't know about, that can make apples pop into existence. Or it's conceivable that my dear friend has made a mistake, or that I misunderstood the document. After that conversation, I'd be in a better position to judge.

If this is meant as an analogy with evolution, then I expect that my friend's clarification would be "Oh, you misunderstood. I meant that I grew it for you in my orchard. But isn't my orchard amazing, that it can grow such apples?" Alternatively, if this is meant as an analogy with the origin of the universe, I'd say we don't actually have a lot of knowledge yet about where universes come from. Maybe they come from other universes, maybe not. There's a lot we don't know.

 

[Paulos23]

“IF YOU WISH TO MAKE AN APPLE PIE FROM SCRATCH, YOU MUST FIRST INVENT THE UNIVERSE”
-Carl Sagan

 

[Tinker Grey]

“IF YOU WISH TO MAKE AN APPLE PIE FROM SCRATCH, YOU MUST FIRST INVENT THE UNIVERSE”
-Carl Sagen

*Sagan

 

[Paulos23]

*Sagan

Thanks, fixed

 

[AV1611VET]

What is the most reasonable conclusion in this case?

1. The apple was indeed created ex nihilo, despite what the testing indicates
2. The apple grew on a tree, despite what the document indicates

That the apple grew on a tree, despite what the document indicates, is the more reasonable conclusion in this case.

And please edit your question and say "grew," not "grow."

/Grammar Nazi

Now I have a question for you:

If the apple was indeed created ex nihilo, my answer, albeit backed by scientific testing, is wrong, isn't it?

This is what I get for subjecting an apple to scientific testing, isn't it?

On the other hand, if I had 100% faith in that person whom you said I 'trust completely,' I would vote the other way -- and be correct, wouldn't I?

 

[AV1611VET]

The apple bears all the marks of having grown on a tree - exposure to the elements, etc.

So the apple is omphalos?

 

[AV1611VET]

If believing the document means that I have to give up all known biochemistry, geology, astronomy, physics, genetics, seismology, archaeology, demographics, hydrology, glaciology, dendrochronology, nuclear physics, and so on.
If it also force me to abandon the entire scientific method and to argue only from authority...
then I'd rather believe that the document is a counterfeit made by some imposter pretending that the document was written by the person I trust.

And if that apple was indeed created ex nihilo, you'd be wrong, wouldn't you?

 

[durangodawood]

...all tests indicate that the apple was not created ex nihilo, but grew on a tree...

What test would indicate the apple was not created ex nihilo?