Kylie's Apple Challenge

[Tolworth John]

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

This is a false dilemma.
One does not suddenly come across an apple with a certificate saying it has just been created.

We read in genesis that God created plants and seed earing trees etc etc, so bi locally pla to and trees were created before seeds and fruit.

 

[Kylie]

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

What I want is irrelevant here. I fear you are making this far more complicated than it needs to be.

 

[Kylie]

This is a false dilemma.
One does not suddenly come across an apple with a certificate saying it has just been created.

We read in genesis that God created plants and seed earing trees etc etc, so bi locally pla to and trees were created before seeds and fruit.

You say that plants appearing from nothing with a document that says they appeared from nothing doesn't happen, and then you mention a time when, according to your beliefs, plants appeared from nothing and there's a document that says they appeared from nothing.

Right...

And what does "bi locally pla" mean?

 

[Kylie]

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?

That's a mighty big IF there, AV...

 

[Kylie]

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

The nature of the test is not relevant.

Curious, how it only seems to be believers who try to muddy the waters. Almost like they are trying to establish a way out...

 

[AV1611VET]

That's a mighty big IF there, AV...

So's the consequence.

 

[driewerf]

We read in genesis that God created plants and seed earing trees etc etc, so bi locally pla to and trees were created before seeds and fruit.

To believe that would force me to give up all known biochemistry, geology, astronomy, physics, genetics, seismology, archaeology, demographics, hydrology, glaciology, dendrochronology, nuclear physics, and so on.
The proponents of this believe never provide any evidence but argue only from authority and prefer to give up the scientific method entirely. Instead of a deep understanding of what they argue about they display ignorance. As if because they don't know or understand something the subject is automatically nullified.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

To believe that would force me to tgive up all known biochemistry, geology, astronomy, physics, genetics, seismology, archaeology, demographics, hydrology, glaciology, dendrochronology, nuclear physics, and so on.
The proponents of this believe never provide any evidence but argue only from authority and prefer to give up the scientific method entirely. Instead of a deep understading of what they argue about they display ignorance. As if because they don't know or understand something the subjectis automatically nulliied.

The reason they don't likely boils down to problems in their social psychology: some Christians have a certain "in-group" they prefer to defer to because they feel as if they were lied to [or worse yet, betrayed by] the "out-group."

Interestingly enough, I've seen this same pattern develop in other ideological sectors of society as well ...

 

[SelfSim]

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 real questions, for me, are: what did the document writer know, how did they know it, and by what means did they reach their conclusion?
I'd say the case as it stands, is inconclusive until we find out more about the author and their methods.

'Reasonableness', for me, depends on the reasoning, (which appears to be unavailable at the moment).

 

[AV1611VET]

The proponents of this believe never provide any evidence but argue only from authority and prefer to give up the scientific method entirely.

Then don't give up the scientific method.

Employ it.

But be advised, the OP made it clear that the scientific method will lead to "the apple was not created ex nihilo, but grew on a tree in the regular way that apples grow."

Now, if the apple was created ex nihilo -- or even ex materia -- then your scientific method lead you astray in this case.*

* In fact, the OP even uses those words IN THIS CASE, when she asks:

'What is the most reasonable conclusion in this case?'

 

[AV1611VET]

I'd say the case as it stands, is inconclusive until we find out more about the author and their methods.

How is knowing more about the author and his method going to help?

Suppose you go to him and, right before your eyes, he creates a hundred apples ex materia.

How will that convince you he created the apple that is mentioned in the OP that way?

(I think what's throwing a monkey wrench in this whole discussion is the fact that the apple is omphalos.)

 

[durangodawood]

The nature of the test is not relevant.

Curious, how it only seems to be believers who try to muddy the waters. Almost like they are trying to establish a way out...

But I'm not a believer. I think all apples grew on trees.

The existence of the test is extremely relevant. If we know that ex nihilo created objects exhibit testable features, and what those features are, then that pretty much indicates we have known ex-nihilo created objects to develop the test with.

And that indicates ex nihilo creation happened in at least one instance - which would somewhat amplify my credence in my friends claim about the apple. My own tests might have been performed wrong. It happens. But at least we know this hypothetical takes place in a world where ex-nihilo creation is a fact.

So basically its my confidence in my honest friends insistence and his competence in these matters versus my confidence in the test's accuracy as well as my ability to perform it properly. Tough call.

If the tests are technical/scientific, I can think of a couple friends whos competence id trust over my own. If the tests are intuitive/artistic, I might go with my own abilities.

 

[Astrophile]

We read in genesis that God created plants and seed-bearing trees etc etc, so bi locally pla to and trees were created before seeds and fruit.

What does 'bi locally pla to and' mean?

 

[Lost4words]

I would eat the apple! No room for any arguments then!

 

[SelfSim]

I would eat the apple! No room for any arguments then!

.. and plant the seeds!

 

[SelfSim]

How is knowing more about the author and his method going to help?

Suppose you go to him and, right before your eyes, he creates a hundred apples ex materia.

How will that convince you he created the apple that is mentioned in the OP that way?

In what way?
The terms 'ex nihilo' and 'ex materia' don't mean anything in the absence of some method ... I mean, even magic has a method!
My questions are about the context of the protagonist and their method .. in order to assess the reasonableness of their evidently documented claim.

 

[AV1611VET]

In what way?
The terms 'ex nihilo' and 'ex materia' don't mean anything in the absence of some method ... I mean, even magic has a method!

Wow -- you're trying too hard not to understand.

Okay, I'll humor you.

He gives you his method, and it's so easy even you can do it.

And now that you know that, how are you going to know he created the apple in the OP via that method, especially since your science says otherwise?

Remember: The apple is omphalos. Meaning it will pass scientific scrutiny as to having the appearance that it GREW into existence over a period of time, not CONJURED into existence in an instance.

 

[SelfSim]

Wow -- you're trying too hard not to understand.

Okay, I'll humor you.

He gives you his method, and it's so easy even you can do it.

And now that you know that, how are you going to know he created the apple in the OP via that method, especially since your science says otherwise?

Remember: The apple is omphalos. Meaning it will pass scientific scrutiny as to having the appearance that it GREW into existence over a period of time, not CONJURED into existence in an instance.

The question asks what is the most reasonable conclusion.

It doesn't ask: 'how are you going to know he created the apple' .. (it may not have even be him who created it).

Oh, and we don't need to add the rest of your nonsensical musings there ('omph' .. whatever).

 

[AV1611VET]

The question asks what is the most reasonable conclusion.

It doesn't ask: 'how are you going to know he created the apple' .. (it may not have even be him who created it).

Oh, and we don't need to add the rest of your nonsensical musings there ('omph' .. whatever).

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

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

That did not answer my question (which I am not alone in asking). Your analogy required that I had subjected the apple to testing that indicated it wasn't created ex nihilo. What kind of test would indicate that?

You replied that it bears "marks" of having grown on a tree, marks from "exposure to the elements," for example. So then, what, I simply looked at the apple? And inferred from the observation that it grew on a tree? I want to make sure I have understood your analogy before critically engaging it: An inference drawn from looking at the apple is what "testing" it meant? Have I got that right?

The nature of the test is not relevant.

On the contrary, you made it crucially relevant. You said this testing indicated the apple was NOT created ex nihilo, testing that was sufficient to contradict the statement of this completely trusted person.

Curious, how it only seems to be believers who try to muddy the waters—almost like they are trying to establish a way out.

First, it's not just believers who are scrutinizing your analogy.

Second, although I can't speak for other believers, rest assured that I'm not trying to establish a way out. I can't even tell whether your analogy is challenging. It might be. I want to critically engage your analogy but I have to make sure that I have properly understood it first. Hence, the clarifying questions.