My Apple Challenge

[AV1611VET]

You cannot just decree that certain evaluations of your pathetic challenge are inherently the "wrong perspective". If you are unable to take criticism for your rubbish then you should not put it up in the public domain.

May Joe quote you on this to Bob, in the following conversation?

Joe: I read where the moon came into existence ex nihilo.
Bob: Evidence please?
​

 

[AV1611VET]

I would show him the lepticon readings. Since he knows that lepticons are only present when something is created ex nihilo he would be convinced.

Um ... let's take another look at our OP, k?

I create an apple ex nihilo into the palm of your hand.

What evidence would you use to convince your friend I did this?

 

[DrkSdBls]

Sorry. I know you didn't do it. So I'm going to hit myself on the head with a big cartoon hammer because I'm in toon-town being asked alice in wonderland questions.

Oh, now there's the kicker! This question isn't meant for us but rather AV should be asking the Mad Hatter! Anyone have his Number? Then maybe we can finally find someone who AV can debate with on an Equal footing.

P.S. I Love Alice in Wonderland. Been in my Sig for ages.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, now there's the kicker! This question isn't meant for us but rather AV should be asking the Mad Hatter! Anyone have his Number? Then maybe we can finally find someone who AV can debate with on an Equal footing.

It's a science question; and I should be asking the Mad Hatter?

Interesting.

 

[DrkSdBls]

It's a science question; and I should be asking the Mad Hatter?

Interesting.

You can claim it to be Mathamatical. Wouldn't make it so.

 

[MoonLancer]

Um ... let's take another look at our OP, k?

The result is the same if i tried to convince a friend you did it, or god or a leprechaun or Santa clause. I would still need evidence. If i had no evidence how could i be sure you were not a figment of my imagination.

 

[DrkSdBls]

Um ... let's take another look at our OP, k?

Yes, Lets.

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

I create an apple ex nihilo into the palm of your hand.

What evidence would you use to convince your friend I did this?​

​

First, you'll have to convince ME that you created it Ex Nihilo. Whether you did or not, without doing that first, I have nothing to begin with. You give us nothing to work with and we have no way to give you a Scientific answer to your Challenge.

 

[Belk]

Um ... let's take another look at our OP, k?

Yeah, so what? If you created something ex nihilo there would be lepticons all over your hands. This would be circumstantial evidence enough to convince my friend.

 

[Skavau]

May Joe quote you on this to Bob, in the following conversation?

Joe: I read where the moon came into existence ex nihilo.
Bob: Evidence please?
​

How would quoting me on that be relevant?

 

[AV1611VET]

MoonLancer, I could be wrong, but I don't think you fully-understand the OP.

The result is the same if i tried to convince a friend you did it, or god or a leprechaun or Santa clause.

The result is up to your friend -- not you.

You can't speak for your friend, can you?

And you mentioned, "if I tried to convince" -- okay --- tell me what you would tell your friend, as you tried to convince him/her.

That's all I asking.

I would still need evidence.

Fair enough -- so would I, if I was in your shoes.

What, specifically do you need?

If i had no evidence how could i be sure you were not a figment of my imagination.

How do I know you don't have any evidence; have you admitted as such?

 

[AV1611VET]

First, you'll have to convince ME that you created it Ex Nihilo.

That's assumed in the premise.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you created something ex nihilo there would be lepticons all over your hands.

"If"? "Something"?

Do you have a proper grasp of the OP, Belk; because your word choices are, to me, exposing an attitude that says you're taking this none too seriously.

I could be wrong though.

This would be circumstantial evidence enough to convince my friend.

Fair enough -- that's all I'm asking.

 

[AV1611VET]

How would quoting me on that be relevant?

Nevermind -- I'll w/d my question to you.

 

[Belk]

"If"? "Something"?

Do you have a proper grasp of the OP, Belk; because your word choices are, to me, exposing an attitude that says you're taking this none too seriously.

I could be wrong though.

I believe I understand correctly. You are asking what evidence I would provide to a third party to try to overcome their doubts that you had created, in your hand, an apple ex nihilo. Is that correct?

Fair enough -- that's all I'm asking.

[Monty Python]
Right, of you go then.
[/Monty Python]

 

[VirOptimus]

So is arguing for evidence for something that came into existence ex nihilo.

I know that you want to point out the difference between science and the supernatural but the problem is that you seem to not understand the difference yourself. The question in the OP has nothing to do with science and therefore not worth debating.

 

[Levopoly]

An oversimplified Straw Man arguement.

I put my hands behind my back without you seeing. I say that I have a baseball in one of my hands.

You ask me to prove it.

If I use religious logic, I can say "I don't have to prove anything, Thats that"
If I were to use actual logic, I can say "Well here you go" and show the baseball.

You are doing the exact same thing here.

 

[SkyWriting]

It's a science question; and I should be asking the Mad Hatter?Interesting.

It's not a science question. That requires a base premise.
Even God doesn't create out of nothing anymore. That ended after creation week. Creation or miracles are limited to re-purposing the existing reality. I dunno why exactly, but pure creation is no longer active.

So your premise has no reality to start with. So "real" answers aren't possible. But If you want to "prove" a current miracle to another person, that kind of question could have answers. Like "No Luck" for example.

 

[SkyWriting]

According to creationists it's impossible for the universe to be created from nothing, so to overcome this fact they needed to create something that could create something from nothing, so they found a god who was not made from nothing but was always there lurking in the background, (how they found him god only knows)

The story goes that he revealed himself to some bronze age people who wrote down what he said to them,
sadly this god has not been seen or heard from since so we only have their word that this god ever existed at all,
but it would seem that for some their word is more than enough.

According to the laws of nature, it IS impossible.
So the source MUST be supernatural as science has ruled out natural causes. But we didn't make this up. Its a story Jesus told. You need to evaluate the sanity of Jesus as your first task.

 

[Freodin]

According to the laws of nature, it IS impossible.
So the source MUST be supernatural as science has ruled out natural causes. But we didn't make this up. Its a story Jesus told. You need to evaluate the sanity of Jesus as your first task.

Err, no.

No Lewisian dilemas necessary. No Lords Liars or Lunatics.

Basic experience (that is, something not taken on faith, but seen, heard, felt): people can make false conclusions based on their personal knowledge (or presuppositions).

It was not a story Jesus told, as in "an experience that happened to him and that he related to other people". It was a story that Jews told, had told for several centuries and that was a part of their culture. Jesus was a Jew... he told the stories that Jews tell.

Does that mean that all the Jews were insane?

Answer the question for yourself: the Romans, the Greek, the Germans, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Chinese... they all told different, equally "supernatural" stories.

Were they all insane?

 

[AV1611VET]

I know that you want to point out the difference between science and the supernatural but the problem is that you seem to not understand the difference yourself. The question in the OP has nothing to do with science and therefore not worth debating.

Does Belk disagree here?