Kylie's Apple Challenge

[Confused-by-christianity]

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.

Say I trust the person not only morally but I trust their competence.
And say even better, I know the tests are really good and make results really obvious.
And say I'm really competent.

The incoherence is really good.
When the two items are giving me a picture that flies in the face of everything I think I know about reality. I'm really happy because I realise I'm about to get deeper truth. My own (certainly imperfect) picture of the truth is about to break and I'm going to have to rebuild something else that makes sense. In other words, I'm about to grow spiritually and also get a deeper understanding of truth (the truth??).

When things come along that make me think "What the actual dickens is going on??!!??!?!" - it's a really exciting time.
My animal fear nerves kick in a little bit - you wonder about the unknown, but you realise it's just instinct kicking in, just a programme running - it can be overridden by my desire for truth and my conviction that God is the source of all good things and truth is good - so finding the truth cannot be wrong.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

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.

I sometimes rewrite stuff to other ways of understanding it ...
I'm a spaceship engineer. There's a spaceship. Alongside the ship is a document (written by a person I trust completely, but whom I'm unable to contact at the moment) that says that the spaceship is defective. I subject the spaceship to testing, and all tests indicate that the spaceship is not defective, but is actually serviceable.

What is the most reasonable conclusion in this case?

1. The spaceship is unserviceable, despite what the testing indicates
2. The spaceship is defective, despite what the document indicates

Most reasonable thing to do is probably to ground the spaceship until you speak to your friend.
My friend and my test kit needs a second look. (Assuming I understand how my kit works and understand my friend and what they're saying)

Understanding my kit is really important.
If I don't know how it works, how it gives indications - I could make a serious error.
Understand my kit really well, get it calibrated and know how to use it correctly - understand what it can tell me and what it can't, understand it's limitations.

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.

Personally - I wouldn't have to give anything up.
My understanding of the following kit:
biochemistry - Don't eat yellow snow
geology - sometimes you pick up a rock and it's poo
astronomy - I like looking at stars (ok - I understand a little more than that - but not much. I'm not winning any awards)
physics - Not winning any awards
genetics - "
seismology - " Measure earthquakes and nukes
archaeology - ...
demographics - ...
hydrology - ...
glaciology - ...
dendrochronology - ...
nuclear physics - ... Swirl plasma around a donut as fast as you can - get it as hot as you can - you might release energy for the whole world??!!!?!?!

My friend might say - well, it's me or the kit and might try to force me to choose. My friend would just be isolating themselves from me though. (Some religious folk do this to people - let them. Offer a friendly hand out of isolation if they want it)

 

[AV1611VET]

I sometimes rewrite stuff to other ways of understanding it ...
I'm a spaceship engineer. There's a spaceship. Alongside the ship is a document (written by a person I trust completely, but whom I'm unable to contact at the moment) that says that the spaceship is defective. I subject the spaceship to testing, and all tests indicate that the spaceship is not defective, but is actually serviceable.

NASA could have learned a lesson from you!

 

[Larniavc]

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.

That could very well be the point.

 

[Larniavc]

If there is no reason for the appearance of the universe, it is unacceptable.

Which is surely an argument from personal preference? There are lots of things that I find unacceptable that are still true.

 

[Larniavc]

According to the Bible, God is out of bounds, so there is no need for cause,

But this is just special pleading.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

And what does "bi locally pla" mean?

It means (s)he's typing on their phone.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

What does 'bi locally pla to and' mean?

writing on their phone - autocorrect (i assume)

 

[J_B_]

... all testing is consistent with what we would expect if it was created from something ...

Those tests being ...?

 

[dlamberth]

What would it look like?

Something popping into existence from nothing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Something popping into existence from nothing.

So you would have to be there to witness it?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But this is just special pleading.

It is special pleading. But then again, who on a right and reasonable day thinks of the Biblical God as only a singular, detached philosophical term: ... "god" ?

No one I know of does. So, we're left with definitions "about God" over which we can forever haggle. It seems to me that despite the contestations by skeptics and atheists, at some point the haggling becomes...semantically stupid and a waste of time.

 

[dlamberth]

So you would have to be there to witness it?

Someone, somewhere, somehow needs to come up with at least something that can be seen.

 

[AV1611VET]

Someone, somewhere, somehow needs to come up with at least something that can be seen.

And wouldn't it be nice if that someone documented it for all future generations?

 

[Kylie]

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

And you're falling for it?

Document A says that physical thing B was created ex nihilo. All testing indicates that physical thing B formed through natural means and was not created ex nihilo. Is it more reasonable to conclude that physical thing B was created ex nihilo as document A claims, or is it more reasonable to conclude that physical thing B formed through natural means?

If the logic is sound, then it is sound for ALL cases, regardless of whether it's the case where Document A is the Bible and physical thing B is the universe, or if it's the case where Document A is the letter from the trusted person and physical thing B is the apple.

How does that work for you?

 

[Kylie]

Those tests being ...?

Those tests being irrelevant to the question being asked. What the tests are is not important, that the tests exist in this hypothetical is what's important.

 

[Kylie]

And wouldn't it be nice if that someone documented it for all future generations?

A document claiming a thing happened does not prove that it happened.

 

[Kylie]

It means (s)he's typing on their phone.

That may well be the case, but it still tells me nothing about what the intended meaning was.

 

[HARK!]

Document A says that physical thing B was created ex nihilo. All testing indicates that physical thing B formed through natural means and was not created ex nihilo. Is it more reasonable to conclude that physical thing B was created ex nihilo as document A claims, or is it more reasonable to conclude that physical thing B formed through natural means?

If the logic is sound, then it is sound for ALL cases, regardless of whether it's the case where Document A is the Bible and physical thing B is the universe, or if it's the case where Document A is the letter from the trusted person and physical thing B is the apple.

How does that work for you?

Where did the universe come from?


Science Proves Creation

UPDATE:

Since that thread was created, new evidence has come forth which would suggest that the Big Bang didn't happen.

SCIENCE!

 

[J_B_]

Those tests being irrelevant to the question being asked. What the tests are is not important, that the tests exist in this hypothetical is what's important.

I was afraid you might said that. I have to admit that answer makes me cringe. If you're allowing speculation as a legitimate form of argument, I can equally state that ex nihilo creation exists in the hypothetical. Everything is game now.

So the speculative apple of your scenario is a priori not created ex nihilo. Big deal. My speculative apple is created ex nihilo, and my speculative tests validate it as such.