My Apple Challenge

[Freodin]

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.

What? Evidence is not listed as evidence? Call the police! The Vatican! The Secret Armies of Nepalese Yetis!

Look at this article here - the wiki article about printing... and show me where evidence is listed as evidence for printing. You won´t find it.

Conclusion: printing leaves no evidence! Correct? No, just something the article does not deal with.

 

[MoonLancer]

As it should be.

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

I know of no miracle or know impossibility involving the existent forces of the universe. if you want a 404 you should get on your knees and pray.

 

[tanzanos]

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.

On the deaf man's door you can knock all you want!

 

[BananaSlug]

The fallacy of this argument is that the supposed creator of the entire universe wants to be worshiped. In wanting his followers to worship him, he should have left evidence of his creation. Evidence would include:
1. The oldest rock formations would only be 6,000 years old.
2. There would be no fossils in any layer older than 4,000 years.
3. All of the visible stars would only be 6,000 light-years away or less.

The other fallacy of the argument is that AV assumes an apple created ex nihilo by him=the whole universe created by an omnipotent god who wants to be worshiped. Of course there is also the fact that the Bible directly contradicts what AV says, but then again, he doesn't want the Bible to be a part of this discussion.

 

[Split Rock]

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.

You don't know anything about what evidence creation ex nihilo leaves, since you (and anyone else alive) have never seen creation ex nihilo. On what basis do you conclude that creation ex nihilo must leave no evidence? Wikipedia?

How about answering that question I asked earlier.... If the earth was engineered by God, why doesn't it look engineered? Why is it that everything we see in the earth is explainable by natural processes? Processes you claim either did not exist when the earth came into existance, or were suspended?

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't know anything about what evidence creation ex nihilo leaves, since you (and anyone else alive) have never seen creation ex nihilo.

If you can come with something, I'll be glad to talk about it; otherwise, I'm not going down the road of evidence-left-behind.

On what basis do you conclude that creation ex nihilo must leave no evidence? Wikipedia?

Well, for one thing, you guys.

I'm sure if evidence were left behind, you guys wouldn't be constantly asking for it, or denying creatio ex nihilo.

So my Boolean Standards kick in and tell me to agree with these "scientists" that no evidence exists.

How about answering that question I asked earlier.... If the earth was engineered by God, why doesn't it look engineered?

What should it look like?

Why is it that everything we see in the earth is explainable by natural processes?

Because you're trained to see it that way, and you even have computers now that make sure that any attempt to view it any other way will issue an immediate error.

(Isn't this amazing that I can't keep you guys from bringing up the Bible? Very interesting indeed.)

 

[MoonLancer]

have you have thought that maybe its not that ENC wouldn't leave behind evidence, but that it never happened in the first place?

 

[AV1611VET]

have you have thought that maybe its not that ENC wouldn't leave behind evidence, but that it never happened in the first place?

Yes.

 

[Aianna]

In order to provide evidence of the creation of an apple from nothing, I'd have to compare the apple's DNA with that of every apple tree on the planet and show it doesn't match any of them.

 

[AV1611VET]

In order to provide evidence of the creation of an apple from nothing, I'd have to compare the apple's DNA with that of every apple tree on the planet and show it doesn't match any of them.

Then you would have to convince your friend you didn't miss any trees.

All that work for nothing.

OTOH, I don't really know your friend, so maybe that would work.

 

[corvus_corax]

Semantics and nitpicking, with no consensus.

Don't get me wrong here. I don't believe in the deity that AV1611Vet does.
Not at all.

However, given his personal interpretative paradigm, he is correct.


To wit- an omnipotent deity COULD create the universe ex-nihilo (if you disagree, then so be it), and leave absolutely no evidence for such creation




So, besides the philosophical issues, what is the problem?

The issue of objective empirical evidence is regarding creation ex nihilo is DONE
i.e. there is none. Even AV admits that



So, AV1611Vet addicts, what is your ISSUE with this so-called "challenge"?

Because, OBVIOUSLY, it has NOTHING to do with objective empirical evidence AT ALL.

 

[Skavau]

So, AV1611Vet addicts, what is your ISSUE with this so-called "challenge"?

Because, OBVIOUSLY, it has NOTHING to do with objective empirical evidence AT ALL.

AV seems to think that the fact that there is no evidence, or could be no empirical evidence for creatio ex nihilo means nothing. He seems to act as if we accept that there is no way to prove someone created an apple ex nihilo, that it redeems and legitimizes his own beliefs on the universe coming about ex nihilo and that as we 'accept' that there can be no evidence for an apple coming about ex nihilo, then we must accept that for the universe.

It is a really pathetic semantic mess and he's been trying to steer the discussion to the conclusion above the entire time (hence why he's just after direct answers and whines whenever someone critiques his question). What his challenge just shows is that he is satisfied with believing in something with absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever so long as we 'admit' that he believes in something that has no empirical evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

He seems to act as if we accept that there is no way to prove someone created an apple ex nihilo, that it redeems and legitimizes his own beliefs on the universe coming about ex nihilo and that as we 'accept' that there can be no evidence for an apple coming about ex nihilo, then we must accept that for the universe.

Show me to be in error then, Skavau.

This is your thread -- pwn me.

 

[MoonLancer]

Show me to be in error then, Skavau.

This is your thread -- pwn me.

Your error is you cannot in any way describe the apple in question. You have no idea of its properties or appearance. The very thing i must convince a friend you created you i refuse to describe or detail. By non mentioning the properties of the apple you prevent any inquiry that could be used to convince the friend.

You are in error. you should really be prepared to receive questions and answers outside your myopic views of the world.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your error is you cannot in any way describe the apple in question.

That has nothing to do with the point of the challenge.

The cosmology of the apple is so moot, in fact, that I indeed described it as having a worm, a bruise, a GROWN IN JAPAN sticker, and squirts lemon juice.

You have no idea of its properties or appearance.

Again, if you need to know if it is a Golden Delicious or a Jonathan Apple, you're missing the point.

The very thing i must convince a friend you created you i refuse to describe or detail.

What???

That sentence makes almost as much sense backward as forward.

By non mentioning the properties of the apple you prevent any inquiry that could be used to convince the friend.

Again, if you're worried about not being able to...

You are in error. you should really be prepared to receive questions and answers outside your myopic views of the world.

I have more respect for those who answer the challenge first, then ask questions, than those who think this thread is some kind of invitation to yak all day about [literally] nothing.

 

[MoonLancer]

That has nothing to do with the point of the challenge.

this is not true. Unless your being myopic. Its very relevant if i intent to convince someone else.

The cosmology of the apple is so moot, in fact, that I indeed described it as having a worm, a bruise, a GROWN IN JAPAN sticker, and squirts lemon juice.

in that case you have clearly embedded deceit in the apple.

Again, if you need to know if it is a Golden Delicious or a Jonathan Apple, you're missing the point.

if you think that's what i am asking then it is you who misses the point.

What???

That sentence makes almost as much sense backward as forward.

People have thought of problems with your challenge your unwilling to address. It is because your really dont care what the answer is that people give unless its your awnswer. Given that you have not witnessed ENC and nether has anyone else you are unable to say it would leave any evidence or not. Its an argument from ignorance. a fallacy.

I have more respect for those who answer the challenge first, then ask questions, than those who think this thread is some kind of invitation to yak all day about [literally] nothing.

your right it is nothing. You cannot create an apple from enc any more then a any other existential creature could create the universe. Since your not able to demonstrate any of this and nether is god, it really isn't even a blip on the reality radar. You cant even show the difference between ENC and someone who thinks they saw ENC but really is schizophrenic. that's sad.

comeback when you can actually demonstrate ENC then we can talk about who would say what to a friend.

 

[tanzanos]

AV! In order to create mass you need energy; And this action always leaves the tell tale sign in the form or radiation which will eventually degrade to microwaves. Thus if we cannot detect the remnants of that radiation burst then nothing was created. God cannot exist in nothingness. His mere presence constitutes a form of energy. Thus since this energy exists then the laws of physics apply and not even God can change them. Now I challenge you to define God (hint: He made man unto his image and likeness). Consider this very carefully because image and likeness denote physical as well as other traits.

Please stick to the scriptures and do not just give me your opinion. I do not want your opinion I want what the Bible says and means! (in plain English please).

 

[Skavau]

Show me to be in error then, Skavau.

This is your thread -- pwn me.

Show you in error for what? You made faulty 'embedded' (hehe..) assumptions in your original post. This was all constructed to make it look like creatio ex nihilo was a reasonable or perfectly plausible perspective to have.

 

[ReverendDG]

Semantics and nitpicking, with no consensus.

good description of all his threads

Don't get me wrong here. I don't believe in the deity that AV1611Vet does.
Not at all.

However, given his personal interpretative paradigm, he is correct.

he is, but i don't find his claim anymore persuasive than any other religious claim, none of them set themselves apart from each other, for that you need evidence.

To wit- an omnipotent deity COULD create the universe ex-nihilo (if you disagree, then so be it), and leave absolutely no evidence for such creation

true, then it comes down to special pleading and that doesn't make a sound argument

So, besides the philosophical issues, what is the problem?

for me, his inane need to insert pointless side issues and religious dogma into a debate that at least attempts to do something.

The issue of objective empirical evidence is regarding creation ex nihilo is DONE
i.e. there is none. Even AV admits that

yep and yet he doesn't find that an issue, that honestly scares me.
i guess just more worldview conflicts.

So, AV1611Vet addicts, what is your ISSUE with this so-called "challenge"?

Because, OBVIOUSLY, it has NOTHING to do with objective empirical evidence AT ALL.

i think we have a bit of a sadomasochistic issue, we like to beat our heads against the wall of AV's impervious ignorance.

then again i attempt not to debate him on anything without evidence, its speculation and a waste of time.
rather call on the things that have substance, much more productive, well sometimes.

 

[AV1611VET]

i think we have a bit of a sadomasochistic issue, we like to beat our heads against the wall of AV's impervious ignorance.

then again i attempt not to debate him on anything without evidence, its speculation and a waste of time.
rather call on the things that have substance, much more productive, well sometimes.

It's a prepositional issue?

I must be more fun to talk about, than to talk to?