sandwiches
Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Wrong. You assume nothing and simply go by what can be verified.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'll tell you what, I'll assume there is no evidence until you give me some -- how's that?
(Isn't that the agnostic way?)
Which friend? I do have more than oneHow about we confine this thread to just three people: you, me and your friend?
Oh, I do think you got his point... but his point is, as I see it, wrong.Ah, well I must have misunderstood the question then. Apologies. Although in that case I still don't understand it
Also I think I do get the point of the OP, because the OP himself says I did...
The problem lies in the hidden assumptions, that simply are there, as much as AV denies it. The apple is created ex nihilo. Now what? What does that mean? What does that imply?Well, because I'm assuming (as given in the OP, that someone did create an apple ex nihilo. I'm assuming, in other words, that that's the point of the OP.
And you don´t think that might be because ex-nihilo is not factual, but fictional?But perhaps I should modify that - science works by making predictions - either about replications of an observed event, or of data that should be found, if a theory is a good explanatory theory. We can predict the appearance of sub atomic particles, statistically. We have a theory that not only explains our data but predicts new data.
"Ex nihilo" is completely unpredictive, either of existing data, or of new data.
Then the OP didn't create the apple. If the apple in the OP existing is not contingent to the OP having created it, then what did the OP do exactly?
If the OP did create the apple, its existence is contingent to the OPs action. So, we can have a cause and effect.
AV created the apple.
Therefore, the apple exists.
Now, if we're going to get into "Well, but that doesn't explain HOW he created it," that's another matter but regardless of the process, we can be sure there was a process. Whether AV willed it into being, nodded, snapped his finger, thought about it, IF HE CREATED THE APPLE, then he did something. Now, we might not be able to understand what he did, but he does. So, the process is explainable.
So, again, the method of creation (magic, diving power, etc) and material used ('ether,' nothing, etc) does not limit the use of the scientific method. Remember that science is about explaining the universe as best we can. There aren't observable phenomena 'outside' of science.
As a tangent: This actually goes back to one of my old other threads titled: The science of God, in which I explain that no matter what God does or how he does it, the scientific method could applied to him as, even if WE can't understand how he does things, he'd know. Therefore, there would be an explanation and scientific one at that for all his actions.
I disagree with this. According to most theists, their deity has a direct impact in their lives and possibly the lives of others. This impact manifests itself in different ways:
Winning the lottery or losing a bet.
Having your cancer go into remission or dying from a disease.
Barely avoiding a car accident or surviving a car accident.
All these things and many more are often attributed to a deity by different people. So, according to these folk, their deity has a MEASURABLE and OBSERVABLE effect on the universe. And as we know anything that can be measured and observed can be scientifically investigated.
I will reiterate what I said in my last post responding to another user that if the challenge had been worded as follows:
"You accept as true without direct or indirect observation that I created an apple without previous matter or energy to form it, leaving no evidence, and without the need of any process.
What evidence would you present your friend that I did this?"
Then, I would agree that there would be no evidence. HOWEVER, as the OP is worded, it leaves a lot of room for different outcomes, speculation, and guessing.
But to repeat myself, yet again, if the challenge does mean what I wrote above, then it's a useless exercise in that the conclusion is already assumed in the challenge itself.
Ah. And indirect god. Interesting.
At any rate, it may that that's the reason we disagree on some things. Regardless of this, if the assumption of the OP is that there is no evidence, which I can accept, then it's a useless exercise, as the conclusion is assumed to begin with.
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you and Herbert McCabe. By saying God is so omnipotent that his influence has to be absolute, then we've placed a limit on this deity and turned him nonomnipotent. Contrary to what Herbert McCabe believes, an omnipotent being has to be capable of doing EVERYTHING or he should not be called so. Everything includes being able to interfere without making absolute changes.Well, there isn't a lot of point in debating what kind of God people believe in. People believe in all kinds of gods, or, if you prefer, people have lots of different ideas about what God is, including Christians, and even including Christians within a single denomination. Joining this board has reminded me just how wide the differences are!
However, what I quoted is not particularly non-mainstream. The writer was an eminent catholic Thomist scholar, and one of the translators of the Summa. I'm not saying he's right, just that he isn't atypical of theists (Aquinas, after all, is a Doctor of the Church, i.e. considered by the catholic church to be an authority on doctrine).
And he (and I) were not saying that God doesn't interfere in the world, but that God's power in the world is so total, that it is not detectable. We detect things by detecting variance. A God whose influence varied would not be omnipotent.
Anyhoo. I'm not making a case for God here, or even for McCabe's God, just saying that there is a case that a God who was truly an omnipotent creator of the universe would not be detectable by science, because science is part of that universe.
I do agree that a God who made the universe as described in Genesis, if we take Genesis literally, would be detectable. My theological answer is that such a God would not be a god, merely, as you say in the post you linked to (which I liked) "just another being who simply happens to have created this universe, our programmer to the Sims game we inhabit, as it were".
My scientific answer is that the hypothesis that God made the universe as described in Genesis has been multiply falsified. Or, at any rate, if some being did so, s/he is not only not a god, but a misleading trickster.
I don't think that rules out theism though, nor even Christianity. The vast majority of Christians accept the scientific account of the origins of the universe. I think they get a better God (or a better view of God) as a result.
I'm interested in AVET's take, though, because he and I share the view that a truly omnipotent creator God would not be detectable by science, and yet he appears to hold to the idea that the Genesis story is literally true. His Embedded Age thing is sort of interesting. A brave attempt to bring what I'd call sound theology into creationism.
I don't think it works though
Oddly, no - a very direct GodSo direct, that what you see is what you get. McCabe isn't saying that God works indirectly via the universe - he's saying that working of the universe is the action of God. Which follows directly from the idea of an omnipotent creator when you think about it.
And we'll have to agree to differ on the OP. Or rather, agree that it is useless, which I think is the OP's point in a way - that there is simply no use trying to detect the undetectable.
Where he and I disagree with you is in whether an undetectable God is a viable theology.
Where you and I disagree with the OP is probably in quite a lot of things
I'll tell you what, I'll assume there is no evidence until you give me some -- how's that?
(Isn't that the agnostic way?)
I create an apple ex nihilo into the palm of your hand.
What evidence would you use to convince your friend I did this?
Then I'll go ahead and take your claims of lack of evidence with a grain of salt, until you can show me anything being created from nothing.I'll tell you what, I'll assume there is no evidence until you give me some -- how's that?
No.(Isn't that the agnostic way?)
A medieval knight looking up 200 feet at a 747 thinks otherwise.Easy
Magic =====> doesn't exist
Blips just appear on a radar screen. Magic!!!!!(have the same thoughts about Jesus and creationism
If you do a tric me (and all my friends) know that there's a way in making it look like you just made something apear
Not a thought in my mind would ever think that you actually did this
A medieval knight looking up 200 feet at a 747 thinks otherwise.
Blips just appear on a radar screen. Magic!!!!!
A medieval knight looking up 200 feet at a 747 thinks otherwise.
And...you don't understand.
I create an apple ex nihilo into the palm of your hand.
What evidence would you use to convince your friend I did this?
Okay -- I stopped right here -- this isn't about you.Okay. For me to believe that we'll go to a hermetically sealed room.
I present to you an apple that was created ex nihilo.
How can you refuse to accept that --- without being wrong?
Okay -- I stopped right here -- this isn't about you.
You already believe it -- the focus is on what you would use as evidence for your friend.
I think this is the one you're trying to address -- my Apple Challenge II:
Sorry -- I meant this one -- my Apple Challenge III:I'd use my lab results.
Your friend brings you an apple that was created ex nihilo into the palm of his hand.
What scientific evidence would satisfy this fact?
Okay. For me to believe that we'll go to a hermetically sealed room. Preferably with a lot of sensors looking for a wide range of EM emissions and air disturbance/pressure changes. Sensitive stuff. Plus of course I'd have the floor rigged up as a scale. Then, asked you to perform your deed. If you could create an apple ex nihilo then the weight should change by that of an apple. The air pressure should change somewhat and it's possible we could get some data about what on earth happened by the other relevant sensors.
If you did that, and repeated the act in other labs I'd be somewhat convinced.
Furthermore though I would take samples from the apple in question and sequence it's DNA, looking for the signs that long life and evolution leaves behind. If said apple only had apple dna, say that'd be seen as corroborating evidence.
However, your analogy is flawed AV. Creating one apple does create a little impact as I showed. Creating a whole universe ex nihilo leaves a whole other set of effects. Perhaps what we're observing when we look at the universe and it's early expansion from a something we've labelled 'the big bang'. Regardless, the universe provides ample evidence contradicting you. It's not like your apple analogy which could conceivably be tested with the aforementioned setup. It's something which in and of itself would have shaped the universe we're in. It would not lie to us about it's origin being so widely different from what you insist. Or would it? Is God a liar AV?
Exactly -- creatio ex nihilo ≠ creatio ex materia.Even that wouldn't prove Ex nihilo, as all they had to do was transport the matter to put together an apple from another location.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?