Kylie's Apple Challenge

[DialecticSkeptic]

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.

You raise an excellent point. There is no one in this world that I trust more than my wife, but there is only one or two subjects on which she can speak authoritatively—and the origin of that apple isn't one of them. So, you're quite right, the authority which that trusted person has regarding this matter is equally relevant to that trust.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

What does 'bi locally pla to and' mean?

I suspect it was a brutal typo that was probably supposed to say, "We read in Genesis that God created plants and seed-bearing trees, etc., so [biblically plants] and trees were created before seeds and fruit."

 

[HARK!]

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

Can anything be created from nothing; as even a creator is something?


Cloned Food Products? We Just Call Them Apples - Fruit Growers News

 

[SelfSim]

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?

Any kind .. or none at all(?) .. I mean, given that 'ex nihilo' is not constrained sufficiently in the first place(?)

PS: Sort of like: 'What can be proclaimed without constraint, can be dismissed without constraint' ..

 

[J_B_]

The nature of the test is not relevant.

On the contrary, you made it crucially relevant.

Indeed. There's a Catch-22 here. We would need to identify something that HAS been created ex-nihilo (or at least how it would be done) so it can be studied to determine what properties distinguish it from that which has NOT been created ex-nihilo. If we can't explain the difference in scientific terms, how are we going to test for it? Yet once we've scientifically described ex-nihilo and/or found said ex-nihilo object ... well ... there it is.

What I suspect @Kylie wants to establish is that ex-nihilo is not possible. Let's call that the strong case. I maintain the strong case can't be successfully argued. However, one of two weak cases probably could be successfully argued: 1) ex-nihilo is possible, but this specific apple wasn't formed that way, or 2) it is unknown by us whether the apple was created ex-nihilo.

For case 2, Kylie's example introduces a witness who is claiming an ex-nihilo apple. While we don't know, the witness does. The believer accepts the witness as credible. The skeptic does not. What, then, matters to the believer? If it is only his faith in the witness, it doesn't matter whether the skeptic agrees or not. However, if the believer wants the skeptic to accept the witness, we've most likely entered a game of infinite turtles that only the witness himself can resolve.

FWIW, rather than apples, I would say the quantum foam is a much better prospect for a study of ex-nihilo possibilities.

 

[dlamberth]

Looking around the Cosmos, there are absolutely no examples of anything created ex nihilo. The logical conclusion drawn is that there is no such thing as ex nihilo. Thus, the apple grew on a tree.

 

[SimonPeter111]

In the final analysis, it is still a question about "whether there are gods in the world". If this person is absolutely correct, I will choose to believe him, because none of the information you have obtained can prove that it is absolutely grown from the apple tree, but this person is absolutely correct
I don't understand, but I guess you want to use this question to analogy the origin of life

 

[Kylie]

So's the consequence.

A consequence that you can't even show is real.

 

[Kylie]

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).

You do realise it's an analogy for the Bible, right?

 

[Kylie]

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.

There are some who would claim that the apple was created ex nihilo with the intention that it look like it was grown on a tree.

 

[Kylie]

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?



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.

Why is the nature of the test relevant?

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

But they do it the most.

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.

So you want me to describe in technical detail how to perform a test to show that something isn't a thing that can't possibly exist?

 

[Kylie]

Indeed. There's a Catch-22 here. We would need to identify something that HAS been created ex-nihilo (or at least how it would be done) so it can be studied to determine what properties distinguish it from that which has NOT been created ex-nihilo. If we can't explain the difference in scientific terms, how are we going to test for it? Yet once we've scientifically described ex-nihilo and/or found said ex-nihilo object ... well ... there it is.

What I suspect @Kylie wants to establish is that ex-nihilo is not possible. Let's call that the strong case. I maintain the strong case can't be successfully argued. However, one of two weak cases probably could be successfully argued: 1) ex-nihilo is possible, but this specific apple wasn't formed that way, or 2) it is unknown by us whether the apple was created ex-nihilo.

For case 2, Kylie's example introduces a witness who is claiming an ex-nihilo apple. While we don't know, the witness does. The believer accepts the witness as credible. The skeptic does not. What, then, matters to the believer? If it is only his faith in the witness, it doesn't matter whether the skeptic agrees or not. However, if the believer wants the skeptic to accept the witness, we've most likely entered a game of infinite turtles that only the witness himself can resolve.

FWIW, rather than apples, I would say the quantum foam is a much better prospect for a study of ex-nihilo possibilities.

Not quite.

What I am trying to establish is that if something is claimed to have been created from nothing, but all testing is consistent with what we would expect if it was created from something, then it is unreasonable to assume the claim that it was created from nothing is correct.

 

[Kylie]

In the final analysis, it is still a question about "whether there are gods in the world". If this person is absolutely correct, I will choose to believe him, because none of the information you have obtained can prove that it is absolutely grown from the apple tree, but this person is absolutely correct

What if you have never met this person, but others have told you that they are always correct?

I don't understand, but I guess you want to use this question to analogy the origin of life

Not life specifically, but the universe in general. Specifically, if it is reasonable to conclude that God created the universe from nothing just because the Bible says he did.

 

[SelfSim]

You do realise it's an analogy for the Bible, right?

Ok .. thanks. (I suspected anyway). 'Twas still worthwhile clarifying from the general to the specific.
The question is simple and the answer is blindingly and mundanely obvious .. tree it is!

 

[SelfSim]

So you want me to describe in technical detail how to perform a test to show that something isn't a thing that can't possibly exist?

Nah .. just dismiss it!

 

[SimonPeter111]

What if you have never met this person, but others have told you that they are always correct?



Not life specifically, but the universe in general. Specifically, if it is reasonable to conclude that God created the universe from nothing just because the Bible says he did.

The universe is not created out of nothing. If there is no reason for the appearance of the universe, it is unacceptable. According to the Bible, God is out of bounds, so there is no need for cause, but the universe is not out of bounds. Many people are willing to believe that there is no God in the world, and find other eternal and out of bounds things (such as materialistic materials)

 

[SimonPeter111]

What if you have never met this person, but others have told you that they are always correct?



Not life specifically, but the universe in general. Specifically, if it is reasonable to conclude that God created the universe from nothing just because the Bible says he did.

I am using a translation. These words may be wrong，sorry

 

[AV1611VET]

Looking around the Cosmos, there are absolutely no examples of anything created ex nihilo.

What would it look like?

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok .. thanks. (I suspected anyway). 'Twas still worthwhile clarifying from the general to the specific.
The question is simple and the answer is blindingly and mundanely obvious .. tree it is!

She is presenting an apple created omphalos, then saying it's representative of the Bible.

And you're falling for it?

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

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

To give an answer to the actual question being asked ... I don't know whats most reasonable. Knowing more would be great.

I'll say my tests are perfect and I am really good at taking the results and discovering the truth with them. Say I don't misread or misinterpret very often (That's not actually true, I'm always misreading or misunderstand things, even stuff that in hindsight should be really obvious). And say my friend who I trust morally, would never lie, but always makes errors and tells me their incorrect assessments (after their own "test" I assume??) - tells me - apple is made out of nothing, It's most reasonable to go with your own tests.

In reality - I dig to find out what the score is. Especially when someone I trust is saying something pretty bonkers. But I guess, apple or not, anything at all in the universe coming from nothing is pretty weird. Someone has to somehow make sense of it.
In your scenario - I'd think I've misunderstood something somewhere.
Find the truth and build a picture of whats really going on.