My Apple Challenge II

[AV1611VET]

This challenge is just for you, Tiberius, so you can see clearly where I'm coming from:

.

1 + 1 = 2
How can you refuse to accept that --- without being wrong?

 

[GrayCat]

This may be the most worthless thread I've ever read

I'd have to agree.


Yet somehow i'm still reading it...

 

[quatona]

I present to you an apple that was created ex nihilo.

How can you refuse to accept that --- without being wrong?

Just do it and I will see what I can do for you.

 

[quatona]

Indeed. It's just a rehash of the old apple challange.

I am wondering, though, what about it is supposed to be a challenge.

 

[JGL53]

Would it make any difference if it were a banana instead of an apple? I understand that creationists are hot for bananas:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfv-Qn1M58I

 

[AintNoMonkey]

Would it make any difference if it were a banana instead of an apple? I understand that creationists are hot for bananas:

Never mind that commercially available bananas are genetically altered mutants that are significantly different than wild-growing (read: GOD MADE) bananas.

 

[quatona]

Would it make any difference if it were a banana instead of an apple? I understand that creationists are hot for bananas:

Those two clowns are priceless.
Btw. they should do a similar video about oral sex.

 

[quatona]

I present to you an apple that was created ex nihilo.

How can you refuse to accept that --- without being wrong?

Now let´s do a similar but slightly different scenario. I have proof that the apple was not created ex nihilo.
How can you refuse to accept my proof --- without being wrong?

 

[AintNoMonkey]

Now let´s do a similar but slightly different scenario. I have proof that the apple was not created ex nihilo.
How can you refuse to accept my proof --- without being wrong?

Site Jesus and/or magic as source of apple, and attain ultra-correctness.

 

[Tammisto]

.
1 + 1 = 2
How can you refuse to accept that --- without being wrong?

You havent stated what base system you are using, for all i know you could be using binary in which case I could refuse to accept that 1 + 1 = 2 because 1 + 1 = 10

 

[AintNoMonkey]

You havent stated what base system you are using, for all i know you could be using binary in which case I could refuse to accept that 1 + 1 = 2 because 1 + 1 = 10

There are 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary, and those who don't.

 

[FTPolice]

I am wondering, though, what about it is supposed to be a challenge.

I've been curious about this too. What's the point of this thought experiment?

 

[Skavau]

I present to you an apple that was created ex nihilo.

How can you refuse to accept that --- without being wrong?

Without being wrong? Your presentation of anything created ex nihilo is fundamentally irrational and goes against natural law, which is far more consistent, logical and actually understood than your self-asserted breach of it. It also goes against the fact that we know how apples come to be. We know of no single apple that has appeared from nothing and therefore I side with the evidence that apples come from entirely natural means.

I can refuse to accept your explanation purely on my own personal experience with the laws of nature - my own knowledge on the laws of nature and the fact you have not the slightest shred of evidence that you successfully breached these laws of nature and created an apple from nothing.

CORE - RECT! Netflix has over --- oh, wait --- sorry --- wrong commercial!

Good job, Cabal --- check ur reps ---

Oh? So your challenge assumes that you did create an apple ex nihilo. Fair enough then. If you created an apple ex nihilo, and I did not believe you then I would be wrong.

So what? You have not created an apple ex nihilo anymore than I have shown that God cannot exist.

Sorry the question's too hard for you, Lewis. When you decide to come down off your high-horse and be honest, feel free to answer it anytime.

Lewis offered an incredible honest answer. You are the one looking for dishonest agreements with your proposition. You are the one labeling all responses challenging the basis of your standpoint as meaningless. You are the dismissive one.

Yes, it does. In this hypothetical, I created it ex nihilo. And I made it clear that I did so. So what say we pay a little respect to the OP as it was written?

An incredible ironic statement from the original poster who has a track record of ignoring people's comments on his challenge and asking for disingenuous answers.

I do understand your first post. It is a simply nonsensical scenario. To a skeptic, whether you did create an apple ex nihilo or not is irrelevant. The level of evidence offered for your creation of this apple in the first place remains the same irrespective of whether you created it - and that exactly none. A rational individual would reject or disbelieve in your claim with good reason.

They would be right on the basis you not established that you even created this apple ex nihilo. They are even more correct on the basis that you actively refuse to show how you created this apple ex nihilo.

No one "has to decide."

Utter rubbish. You only look at your hypothetical scenario from the perspective that you created the apple ex nihilo. The person that you would be telling this to, would understandably have to make a decision between your word and their understanding of reality.

1 + 1 = 2.

How can you refuse to accept that --- without being wrong?

Okay.

I don't happen to be Tiberius, but I will answer. The obvious answer is that you would be wrong to reject 1+1 = 2. And presumably, you seek to convey that in your scenario - you would be wrong if you rejected that you created an apple ex nihilo.

So, you propose a hypothetical scenario where you do something extraordinary and in complete opposition to the laws of nature - but you did do it. Therefore, any disbelief in what you did is ultimately in error.

What, exactly - is your original scenario actually trying to show? Can we have some honesty and an explanation for your motives?

 

[quatona]

All I have learned so far from this thread is that AV is at least capable of creating a hypothetical ex nihilo.

 

[Cabal]

Easy --- I would know better --- you wouldn't.

So in terms of this apple analogy, why do you say that? How are you so sure you would make the right decision?

(Assuming someone else created the apple ex nihilo, not you, obviously. That'd be cheating )

 

[VirOptimus]

I present to you an apple that was created ex nihilo.

How can you refuse to accept that --- without being wrong?

The answer is of course that you cannot, at least not if logic is to be upheld.

However, as the question presumes the answer this is, as many posters already have said, meaningless. The question mixes physics and metaphysics and is therefore bad philosophy. You cannot "prove" metaphysical concepts (creation ex nihilo) with logic or physics as they per definition is beyond our physical realm. It all comes down to faith which should never be mixed with science.

 

[AV1611VET]

The answer is of course that you cannot, at least not if logic is to be upheld.

However, as the question presumes the answer this is, as many posters already have said, meaningless. The question mixes physics and metaphysics and is therefore bad philosophy. You cannot "prove" metaphysical concepts (creation ex nihilo) with logic or physics as they per definition is beyond our physical realm. It all comes down to faith which should never be mixed with science.

And as I am fond of saying, and I think this is an excellent point:

Until scientists can build a machine that can do this ---

[bible]2 Kings 6:17[/bible]

--- they aren't qualified to speak against what you call the "metaphysical" --- and I call the "divine."

 

[VirOptimus]

And as I am fond of saying, and I think this is an excellent point:

Until scientists can build a machine that can do this ---

[bible]2 Kings 6:17[/bible]

--- they aren't qualified to speak against what you call the "metaphysical" --- and I call the "divine."

I feel I must disagree here.

Science doesnt speak against "the divine" as science doesnt deal with metaphysics at all.

 

[Tomk80]

And as I am fond of saying, and I think this is an excellent point:

Until scientists can build a machine that can do this ---

[bible]2 Kings 6:17[/bible]

--- they aren't qualified to speak against what you call the "metaphysical" --- and I call the "divine."

It's called IMAX. That or magic mushrooms.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science doesnt speak against "the divine" as science doesnt deal with metaphysics at all.

I said "scientists" --- raw science can take a hike.