My Apple Challenge

[AV1611VET]

the truth hurts huh? Sometimes it can be the most painful of all.

Painful to whom?

You're the one who is hesitant to post it.

Does CF have higher standards than Buddha?

 

[Tinker Grey]

You know quite well what rational people might want to say could be sanctionable at CF. Indeed, your post could be seen as goading!

 

[AV1611VET]

You know quite well what rational people might want to say could be sanctionable at CF. Indeed, your post could be seen as goading!

I'm just curious why a Buddhist would be saying something like this:

If this forum wasn't so sensitive i would tell you exactly who we are dealing with.

Aren't Buddhists supposed to be following a Noble Eightfold Path that teaches:

I'm sure she's just being modest?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Then take it to PM.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'm just curious why a Buddhist would be saying something like this:Aren't Buddhists supposed to be following a Noble Eightfold Path that teaches:

<snip>

Aren't Christians supposed to love truth, as opposed to obfuscating it with semantics?

 

[DrkSdBls]

That's assumed in the premise.

Assumed by Whom? Certainly not by me so I have no reason to Try to convince anyone something that I do not believe myself. Assumed by yourself purhaps which means that only you believe that you created the Apple and thus we come full circle to the point that YOU believed you created the apple and must convince me that you did.

Your "Challange" Failed before you even posted it. Get a New Hat cause this one's Old and Tired.

 

[AV1611VET]

Assumed by Whom? Certainly not by me so I have no reason to Try to convince anyone something that I do not believe myself. Assumed by yourself purhaps which means that only you believe that you created the Apple and thus we come full circle to the point that YOU believed you created the apple and must convince me that you did.

Your "Challange" Failed before you even posted it. Get a New Hat cause this one's Old and Tired.

No, I'm not going to assume my challenge failed because you are refusing to play along.

If you're unwilling to assume the premise of the OP, then all you're doing is demonstrating the lack of understanding that can occur by not co-operating; then expecting me to take the blame for it.

 

[MoonLancer]

No, I'm not going to assume my challenge failed because you are refusing to play along.

If you're unwilling to assume the premise of the OP, then all you're doing is demonstrating the lack of understanding that can occur by not co-operating; then expecting me to take the blame for it.

co-operating doesn't mean someone has to agree with your preconceived answer ether, which is whats really going one here. Its a joke that you think the apple plays no part in your question. You clearly haven't thought very hard about your own challenge.

 

[Split Rock]

No, I'm not going to assume my challenge failed because you are refusing to play along.

If you're unwilling to assume the premise of the OP, then all you're doing is demonstrating the lack of understanding that can occur by not co-operating; then expecting me to take the blame for it.

Why should we assume the premise of the O.P.? You assume that creation ex nihilo leaves no evidence, then ask us if there is evidence. Why? So you can claim later that when God created the earth, he left no evidence. NO, AVET... we will not "play along."

 

[AV1611VET]

You assume that creation ex nihilo leaves no evidence, then ask us if there is evidence.

Well, then, either agree with me or show me to be in error.

I don't care which, but if my challenge has you speechless ... please demonstrate.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Well, then, either agree with me or show me to be in error.

I don't care which, but if my challenge has you speechless ... please demonstrate.

Fine. Assuming I actually saw the apple being created ex nihilo, I would not be able to use any evidence for anyone else, on account of the lack of evidence. The only way I could prove it would be to show there is no other way of the apple coming into existence, which is impossible. Therefore I would not be able to prove it to anyone else.

There's the answer to your challenge - it can't be done.

Of course, this is a hypothetical situation that cannot be applied to the real world as the real world has laws of physics, but even in this magical world you still wouldn't be able to prove it. I'm just saying this in case you were going to try and apply this thinking to God or Creation or something, but nobody would try to do something that stupid.

 

[Freodin]

Fine. Assuming I actually saw the apple being created ex nihilo, I would not be able to use any evidence for anyone else, on account of the lack of evidence. The only way I could prove it would be to show there is no other way of the apple coming into existence, which is impossible. Therefore I would not be able to prove it to anyone else.

There's the answer to your challenge - it can't be done.

Of course, this is a hypothetical situation that cannot be applied to the real world as the real world has laws of physics, but even in this magical world you still wouldn't be able to prove it. I'm just saying this in case you were going to try and apply this thinking to God or Creation or something, but nobody would try to do something that stupid.

I´m sorry, but I have to disagree.

Creation ex nihilo is not in any way an observable mechanism. Hypothetically stating that is does this and doesn´t do that does not change that. Hypothetical assumptions cannot replace observations as a means of reasoning.

So it is simply not possible to accept AV´s basic claim that ex-nihilo creation would not leave any evidence. Or rather it would be necessary to accept every claim about ex-nihilo creation with the same validity.

It is just as possible that ENC would leave "lepticon readings"... or any other evidence. If AV wants to claim that there is no evidence, he´d have to eat his own words: keep looking.

The only way to - scientifically, as he wants to have it - solve this problem is to present something created ex nihilo and have it subjected to analysis.

This is the contradiction of his challenges: he wants to present us with this object, but only if we DON´T analyse it, but accept his preconceived answers.

Eat the cake and keep it... the same old story.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I´m sorry, but I have to disagree.

Creation ex nihilo is not in any way an observable mechanism. Hypothetically stating that is does this and doesn´t do that does not change that. Hypothetical assumptions cannot replace observations as a means of reasoning.

<snip>

Ah, but hypothetical situations can used as a means of reasoning, provided you keep your reasoning within the hypothetical situation. Hence why I said that my answer cannot be extrapolated to apply to anything other than this single hypothetical situation. The hypothetical assumption can be considered to be an observation of this hypothetical world, but that is all.

I think I know what you're saying, and I agree, hence my last paragraph.

 

[Freodin]

Ah, but hypothetical situations can used as a means of reasoning, provided you keep your reasoning within the hypothetical situation. Hence why I said that my answer cannot be extrapolated to apply to anything other than this single hypothetical situation. The hypothetical assumption can be considered to be an observation of this hypothetical world, but that is all.

I think I know what you're saying, and I agree, hence my last paragraph.

Knowing AV´s habit of quotemining, I just try to prevent him from gaining any bits of text that he can "quote" to support his position.

You are correct: if you agree to the premise, and also accept the hidden premise that ENC does not leave any evidence, your conclusion is the only option.

 

[MoonLancer]

Well, then, either agree with me or show me to be in error.

I don't care which, but if my challenge has you speechless ... please demonstrate.

I hear fairies leave no evidence too.. gasp! Thus they must exist because there are so many stories about them... right?

It seems that what you want is to show that no evidence for god creating the world shows that god created the wold. Am I right?

 

[Split Rock]

Well, then, either agree with me or show me to be in error.

I don't care which, but if my challenge has you speechless ... please demonstrate.

I just showed how you were in error. What do you prove by claiming you made an apple appear in your hand, leaving no evidence, and then ask us if there is any evidence you did so? You even claim what the apple looks like is irrelevant! What conclusions can anyone made from this "challenge" of yours? Is it applicable to all events of creation ex nihilo? Of course not!... It is entirely made up!

How about this challenge, AVET.... I make up a new religion, where I am the Unvisible Pink Unicorn's One True Prophet. I say I read golden tablets where it says she made the universe, ex nihilo, with a wave of her ivory horn. What would you do to convince your friend she did this?

 

[AV1611VET]

I just showed how you were in error.

No, you haven't shown me to be in error.

It is the nature of creatio ex nihilo not to generate any evidence; contrary to what you're saying.

And in matter of fact, if you look under the heading: Theological usage here, you'll see that evidence is not -- repeat not -- listed as evidence of creatio ex nihilo.

 

[MoonLancer]

trying to make any positive claim from an unfalsifiable position is also an error.

 

[AV1611VET]

trying to make any positive claim from an unfalsifiable position is also an error.

As it should be.

Trying to plug miracles into your myopic electronic prophets will just make them go 404.

 

[Nathan Poe]

As it should be.

Trying to plug miracles into your myopic electronic prophets will just make them go 404.

Demanding them from your God has the same effect.