My Apple Challenge

[AV1611VET]

According to creationists...

Could we leave religion out of this, please?

 

[AV1611VET]

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

I disagree.

I would be putting the baseball in your hand, not holding it behind my back.

Do you have an answer for the OP?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not a science question.

Yes, it is a scientific question.

I am asking what you would present to your friend as convincing evidence.

 

[Freodin]

I disagree.

I would be putting the baseball in your hand, not holding it behind my back.

Do you have an answer for the OP?

Key words: "without you seeing". As yet, you have strongly rejected requests to have people see you create that apple ex nihilo.

You continue to do what you have done from the beginning: ask us to test something without giving us anything to test.

 

[AV1611VET]

Its a story Jesus told. You need to evaluate the sanity of Jesus as your first task.

It was not a story Jesus told, as in "an experience that happened to him and that he related to other people".

Again, could we please leave religion out of this?

 

[Freodin]

Again, could we please leave religion out of this?

Not if you are consistent with your own definitions. Beat me for not keeping links to all your posts, but I remember that you claimed that ex-nihilo-creation was something that only God could do.

 

[AV1611VET]

Key word: "without you seeing". As yet, you have strongly rejected requests to have people see you create that apple ex nihilo.

There are only three persons in my hypothetical; each one with a specific task to perform.

The obligations of each one are clearly defined in the OP, and there's enough information given that an answer can be formulated.

I really don't want to argue the efficacy of the hypothetical.

You continue to do what you have done from the beginning: ask us to test something without giving us anything to test.

I have not asked you to test anything.

 

[Freodin]

There are only three persons in my hypothetical; each one with a specific task to perform.

The obligations of each one are clearly defined in the OP, and there's enough information given that an answer can be formulated.

I really don't want to argue the efficacy of the hypothetical.



I have not asked you to test anything.

Ah, ok, I see. I (hypothetically) do have the apple and I did have seen you create it ex-nihilo. So I do know that this is indeed an ex-nihilo-created apple... all I have to do is to convince my friend.

Well, in that case I would indeed resort to the lepticon readings.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, in that case I would indeed resort to the lepticon readings.

Does VirOptimus disagree here?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV1611VET if your god gave you your life you are not helping the creationist cause here and you are taking the micky out of your god by wasting it here.

Could we leave God out of this please?

(Never thought I'd hear myself say that!)

 

[Freodin]

Does VirOptimus disagree here?

I don´t know the presuppositions that VirOptimus has to make this statement... but based on your previous statements I know yours.

Let´s see. You said that you didn´t ask us to test anything. But we are talking about a "scientific" question. Without any testing.

So no testing. What else do we have in our repertoir of "convincing arguments"?

"Believe me, or I will beat you to pulp!"

Sounds convincing, doesn´t it? But much to nasty.

"Believe me, and I will give you a million dollars!"

Convinced yet? How about two millions? 72?

How about "Hey, I´m such a nice guy. Remember I told you how to solve that nasty skin problem of yours? So you can trust me!"

But I think you would agree that non of these "convincing arguments" are scientific. (At least I hope you would agree.)

So we have to go back to the testing. Is there something that is different with an apple created ex-nihilo and an apple grown on a tree? If there is, what is it? How can we find it?

And here is where your presuppositions come in. You say that there is no difference. Belk says it is the lepticon value of the object. Who is right? To find out that (to TEST it!), we would need an object to test.

There is no such object. You can create hypothetical apples by the dozen... but not one real apple.

So either you want to have it "scientific"... and then you would have to give us something to test, instead of making up "hypothetical" results... or you want to resort to religion (which is basically the pulp, the million dollars and the nice guy way).

 

[VirOptimus]

Does Belk disagree here?

I cant speak for Belk so I dont know what he belives or think.

But again, this is not science. Science is a method of understanding reality, not semantic games or "what if" scenarios.

 

[AV1611VET]

But again, this is not science.

Whatever it is, do you have an answer to it?

 

[VirOptimus]

Whatever it is, do you have an answer to it?

No, the question is meaningless, on par with how to do a square circle.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, the question is meaningless...

Then give it a meaningless answer.

Do something please, besides yak it to death.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then give it a meaningless answer.

Do something please, besides yak it to death.

Why should I? If I find the question without meaning then my "yak" is the reaction it merits. From what I can see I am not alone in my conclusion and maybe you should ask yourself why this is so and if there may be a chance that there is a truth in what I and other write when you make these kinds of threads.

 

[Parogar]

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

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

Right after you created the apple, I would immediately use chloroform to knock you unconscious, where I would hang you upside down and beat you for a few hours until you promised to cooperate.

Then I would call my friend(s) over to the dark, dungeonous garrage I have hidden you in (probably in a bad neighborhood) And force you to replicate the creation. If you used some of your magic at this point, to escape, or shoot fireballs at me or something, I would no longer need to prove to him about the apple. If you could do other magical things, belief would no longer be required.

 

[Freodin]

Then give it a meaningless answer.

Do something please, besides yak it to death.

Well, yaking something to death... and beyond... would be your job.

But simply for the sake of having a reasonable conversation, and showing that you are indeed capable of bringing some positive arguments instead of playing the uninterested observer who spurs the combatants by asking irrelevant questions... let´s have your side.

Are you indeed looking for a (potential) answer? Or are you just fishing for a "I give up, you have won!" from your opposite? Are you just trolling for flames?

Or is there more to your bluster?


So consider your OP. How would you convince your friend? How would your means be "scientific"? How could or could not your way be applied to different "challenges"?

For example: I take before your eys an apple from my apple tree and give it to you. How would you convince your friend, who did not see this, of this fact?
Could this method be applied to your "ex-nihilo" challenge? Why or why not?

 

[AV1611VET]

From what I can see I am not alone in my conclusion and maybe you should ask yourself why this is so...

Either that, or I couldn't care less what your assessment of the OP is.

I'd just like an answer.

You don't have to like the question, and I don't have to like the answer, eh?

Now, I'm finished with yakking with you about this, VO.

If you don't have an answer, fine; but please don't clutter my thread with noise.

Thank you --

 

[AV1611VET]

Right after you created the apple, I would immediately use chloroform to knock you unconscious, where I would hang you upside down and beat you for a few hours until you promised to cooperate.

Then I would call my friend(s) over to the dark, dungeonous garrage I have hidden you in (probably in a bad neighborhood) And force you to replicate the creation. If you used some of your magic at this point, to escape, or shoot fireballs at me or something, I would no longer need to prove to him about the apple. If you could do other magical things, belief would no longer be required.

This sounds much like a story I read -- but I'd like to leave the Bible out of this thread, so I'm not going to comment any further.