My Apple Challenge

[Split Rock]

I think his point is very simple, and it is sound, that there can be no evidence for ex nihilo creation.

Why do you agree that there can be no evidence for ex nihilo creation? Could God have not created the Rocky Mountains with "God Made This" written into it in Hebrew? Could He not have made the basement material of the continents out of a rock that cannot be made through natural processes? If He made the earth 6,000 years ago, why wouldn't it be datable as 6,000 years old?

If, as I said, ex nihilo is the answer to a question, it's not a question science can answer.

Agreed. However, there are theological contradictions that AVET does not like dealing with, such as the idea of God as a deceiver (or a Troll).

 

[Freodin]

How?

Well, that is the problem. As long as you don´t have an clue beyond a claim of what such a process would involve, you wouldn´t know what to look for.

But we could at least try.

Say we had indeed an object that we were certain was created ex nihilo. Then we could apply all kind of tests... and only then could we (provisionally) state that this process leaves no evidence that we can find at the moment. It might well be possible that it left evidence that we can not test for yet.

Well, I have to ask you: what evidence would there be for ex nihilo creation?

That´s the wrong question. For example, there are several mathematical problems that don´t have a solution. This is proven. There are ways to show that there is no solution. There are other mathematical problems that don´t have a solution yet, that possible and very likely don´t have a solution... but it is also possible that mathematicians simply have not yet thought of a way.

Scientific methodology is designed to detect causality. It cannot detect acausal events.

That would imply that creatio ex nihilo is acausal. How would you know that?

 

[Febble]

Why do you agree that there can be no evidence for ex nihilo creation? Could God have not created the Rocky Mountains with "God Made This" written into it in Hebrew? Could He not have made the basement material of the continents out of a rock that cannot be made through natural processes? If He made the earth 6,000 years ago, why wouldn't it be datable as 6,000 years old?

Well, we could find "God Made This" in Hebrew in the mountains, but all we could conclude is that some Hebrew speaking alien called God made it in some way. It wouldn't show that the Hebrew speaking alien was a god, nor that it made the mountains ex nihilo.

And science can't show that a substance "cannot be made through natural processes". All it can do is say "we do know by what processes these rocks were made" - and far from concluding that the answer must be "ex nihilo creation" they put in for a grant application to find out. And if the earth was only 6,000 years old, and there was evidence for that (which there isn't, of course) well, we'd just conclude that the earth was 6,000 years old, just as we conclude that the universe is 15 billion or so years old. In neither case can we conclude that they were created ex nihilo, merely that we do not (yet) know how they were created.

That's my point - we cannot prove the supernatural, because, by definition, the supernatural cannot be detected by scientific methods. If we could detect supernatural events or beings by scientific methods then, by definition, they wouldn't be supernatural. If we found a fossil angel, we'd simply conclude that angels are not supernatural.

Agreed. However, there are theological contradictions that AVET does not like dealing with, such as the idea of God as a deceiver (or a Troll).

Ah well. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. Bridges are good places to find trolls after all

 

[Freodin]

Well, we could find "God Made This" in Hebrew in the mountains, but all we could conclude is that some Hebrew speaking alien called God made it in some way. It wouldn't show that the Hebrew speaking alien was a god, nor that it made the mountains ex nihilo.

And science can't show that a substance "cannot be made through natural processes". All it can do is say "we do know by what processes these rocks were made" - and far from concluding that the answer must be "ex nihilo creation" they put in for a grant application to find out. And if the earth was only 6,000 years old, and there was evidence for that (which there isn't, of course) well, we'd just conclude that the earth was 6,000 years old, just as we conclude that the universe is 15 billion or so years old. In neither case can we conclude that they were created ex nihilo, merely that we do not (yet) know how they were created.

That's my point - we cannot prove the supernatural, because, by definition, the supernatural cannot be detected by scientific methods. If we could detect supernatural events or beings by scientific methods then, by definition, they wouldn't be supernatural. If we found a fossil angel, we'd simply conclude that angels are not supernatural.

Ah well. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. Bridges are good places to find trolls after all

Well, there is the view that, if something interacts with the natural, it has to be natural itself.

 

[Febble]

Well, that is the problem. As long as you don´t have an clue beyond a claim of what such a process would involve, you wouldn´t know what to look for.

But we could at least try.

Say we had indeed an object that we were certain was created ex nihilo. Then we could apply all kind of tests... and only then could we (provisionally) state that this process leaves no evidence that we can find at the moment. It might well be possible that it left evidence that we can not test for yet.

Exactly We cannot ever conclude that something was created ex nihilo. We can only conclude that we do not know what caused it. That's AV's point.

That's why the God of the Gaps argument doesn't work. If we find a Gap in science we cannot conclude "God did it" - we can only conclude that we don't know (yet) what did it.

That´s the wrong question. For example, there are several mathematical problems that don´t have a solution. This is proven. There are ways to show that there is no solution. There are other mathematical problems that don´t have a solution yet, that possible and very likely don´t have a solution... but it is also possible that mathematicians simply have not yet thought of a way.

Yes, but we are talking about science, not mathematics. We can prove things in mathematics (and fail to) but we can't prove them in science. All we can do is show that our model is a good fit to our data, and a better fit than some alternative model. Ex nihilo is not a model at all, so we cannot fit it to any data, and we cannot compare it its fit to that of an alternative model, unless we regard it as the null. And if we retain the null, all we can conclude is that we "don't know". It's a negative result.

That would imply that creatio ex nihilo is acausal. How would you know that?

Because that's what the expression means.

 

[Febble]

Well, there is the view that, if something interacts with the natural, it has to be natural itself.

Yup.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow, Febble, you're good!

When you think you're ready, I'll show you Embedded Age Creation, and we'll see how good you really are!

 

[Febble]

Thanks

OK, bring it on But it's nearly bed time, so I may not get to it until next weekend.

 

[Split Rock]

Wow, Febble, you're good!

When you think you're ready, I'll show you Embedded Age Creation, and we'll see how good you really are!

Thanks

OK, bring it on But it's nearly bed time, so I may not get to it until next weekend.

Sorry AVET, But I'm thinking she'll rip Embedded Age Creation to shreds, just like we did. That's when you start having trouble, not with ex nihilo creation.

 

[Febble]

I'm a she

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry AVET, But I'm thinking he'll rip Embedded Age Creation to shreds, just like we did.

She.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks

OK, bring it on But it's nearly bed time, so I may not get to it until next weekend.

You're a brave lady!

Here ya go: 1.

Thank you!

 

[Split Rock]

Well, we could find "God Made This" in Hebrew in the mountains, but all we could conclude is that some Hebrew speaking alien called God made it in some way. It wouldn't show that the Hebrew speaking alien was a god, nor that it made the mountains ex nihilo.

1. It wouldn't be a natural cause, whether it was God or an alien race.
2. It would be evidence in support of creation by God, even if it didn't prove anything (as you know, proof is for mathematics and alcohol).

And science can't show that a substance "cannot be made through natural processes". All it can do is say "we do know by what processes these rocks were made" - and far from concluding that the answer must be "ex nihilo creation" they put in for a grant application to find out.

And we would never be able to determine how that rock was made through natural processes. We have no example of this, though.. do we?

And if the earth was only 6,000 years old, and there was evidence for that (which there isn't, of course) well, we'd just conclude that the earth was 6,000 years old, just as we conclude that the universe is 15 billion or so years old. In neither case can we conclude that they were created ex nihilo, merely that we do not (yet) know how they were created.

The problem is that AVET and YECs both claim the earth was created 6,000 years ago. However, our dating methods all point to a much older earth. Why? Because it was created ex nihilo??

That's my point - we cannot prove the supernatural, because, by definition, the supernatural cannot be detected by scientific methods. If we could detect supernatural events or beings by scientific methods then, by definition, they wouldn't be supernatural. If we found a fossil angel, we'd simply conclude that angels are not supernatural.

Agreed.

Ah well. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. Bridges are good places to find trolls after all

AVET seems eager to show you Embedded Age Creationism... you'll just love it!

 

[Split Rock]

I'm a she

Sorry about that... the penguin looked male to me.... LOL!

 

[Febble]

OK, I'll leave this thread now, and take a look at the first instalment of Embedded Age.

But I also have to sort out my son's 6th form subject choices, and make some packed lunches, so it might be a while before I get back to you all.

Seeya later

 

[Febble]

Sorry about that... the penguin looked male to me.... LOL!

It looks like I feel, if you read the chinstrap as a smile

And I like penguins.

 

[AV1611VET]

AVET seems eager to show you Embedded Age Creationism... you'll just love it!

See seems to like a challenge; and quite frankly, I want to see if she can handle it.

She reminds me of two scientists I read about -- (I can't remember who they were) -- Kepler and Galileo, I think.

One could do the observation, but not the math behind it; and the other could do the math, but didn't have the tools to do the observation.

I lack the science to explain this to you guys' satisfaction.

 

[AV1611VET]

OK, I'll leave this thread now, and take a look at the first instalment of Embedded Age.

But I also have to sort out my son's 6th form subject choices, and make some packed lunches, so it might be a while before I get back to you all.

Seeya later

Take your time -- and thank you again!

 

[Febble]

Wow

Kepler is one of my heros. And Galileo, but I am a Kepler fan. It's my favorite century, anyway (apart from this one).

 

[sandwiches]

Well, I did answer that one, fairly fully.

I can link now, so I'll find the link...hold on....

http://www.christianforums.com/t7462055-40/#post55732586

I'm afraid that wasn't it. Your post speaks of your friend being convinced but that isn't the point of the OP. The point is what evidence would you use and NOT whether your friend would believe you.

That linked post also talks about proving things in science. Again, irrelevant.

Right. And in both cases, in the absence of evidence, it may be impossible to differentiate between two hypotheses.

However, the point about AV's scenario is that there CAN be no evidence for ex nihilo - we can disprove it (find the hidden compartment/mirror, spot the distractor), or rather provide evidence for an alternative hypothesis if the alternative is correct, but if the ex nihilo hypothesis is correct, there is nothing we can do, because we cannot distinguish between no evidence because we haven't found any, and no evidence because there isn't any.

It's one of the frustrating things about the scientific method - null results are difficult to interpret, and the best we can do if the answer is zilch is to show that if there is an effect of some unknown factor, we don't have the statistical power or data to detect it.

Again, unless someone did create an apple ex nihilo OR he stated that no evidence was left, then why are you assuming that no evidence would be left behind.

Oh an by the way, science can definitely be used for uncaused events. Check out virtual particles. Causality is not a necessity for observation. All that is needed is that there is something NOW to observe, is all.