My Evidence Challenge

[Tiberius]

There's nothing like someone being wrong, and having an excuse for being wrong, is there?

There's nothing like assuming something which you can never test, and then being close-minded about it.

That's why a Manual of Truth would be needed, wouldn't it?

If it was so important that we know the truth, why would anyone intentionally remove the evidence?

 

[AV1611VET]

But by by your own admission, one can never verify that. So there's no difference.

So you're wrong and no one can verify it.

You're still wrong.

If no one grades my math test, have I made any mistakes?

 

[AV1611VET]

If it was so important that we know the truth, why would anyone intentionally remove the evidence?

What was removed? remember your own OP?

What practical difference is there between an event that leaves no evidence at all and an event that never occurred?

Nothing generated = nothing removed.

 

[freezerman2000]

Shy of eyewitnesses, I don't think you can.

If an event occurred, and that event did not generate any evidence, then I would say that event is beyond science's scrutiny.

In short, a miracle has occurred.

Now -- let's say someone refuses to believe this event ever happened.

After all, science can't confirm it, there's no evidence, all the eyewitnesses have died, and therefore he feels it is safe to assume it didn't happen.

He would be wrong.

Sorry it took so long to reply to this, but the answer should have been, "He COULD be wrong"...An event could be an embellishment of a story told around a campfire..each telling becoming more grandiose until it is of epic proportions and it is taken for granted as being true.
Do a fun experiment with a group of your friends, the more the better...
Write a simple two sentence statement of nonsense that others will not know before hand. Get those friends in a circle, and whisper that statement in the person's ear that is next to you and tell him/her to "pass it on". When the message comes back to you, it is highly probable that the message will be different. Each telling will either add to or delete words from the original until the message is nothing like what you wrote down.
Gossip tends to be so far from the truth after a few tellings...was the event that happened in that gossip remotely near the truth after twenty tellings?

 

[Nostromo]

So you're wrong and no one can verify it.

You're still wrong.

If no one grades my math test, have I made any mistakes?

The problem I see with this approach is that you're taking everything in isolation.

If you take the test and nobody grades it, and nothing will come of it, you may or may not have made mistakes, nobody knows and probably nobody cares.

You're hoping that in the end the Chief Invigilator will look at your test and everything will, by chance, be OK. Hopefully he won't tell you that you used the wrong textbook to prepare, or that your methods are sloppy, because there are no resits.

 

[chilehed]

How would you label the sudden disappearance of Enoch?

Genesis 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

Event or non-event?

The effect which was measurable was that Enoch disappeared. There was evidence, therefore it was an event.

 

[Tiberius]

So you're wrong and no one can verify it.

Or maybe you;re wrong. You can't rule that out if you don't have verification.

You're still wrong.

Says who? You can't verify it.

If no one grades my math test, have I made any mistakes?

If you have done a math test, then the test itself is evidence for that.

What was removed? remember your own OP?

Nothing generated = nothing removed.

I'm sorry, I could have sworn you;ve said that God cleaned it up and that's why there no evidence. not in this thread, but in others.

But anyway, let's stay with what you;ve said here. If it was so important for God to make sure we knew what he had done, why did he choose a method that would leave no evidence?

 

[AV1611VET]

But anyway, let's stay with what you;ve said here. If it was so important for God to make sure we knew what he had done, why did he choose a method that would leave no evidence?

Again, I have to refer you to my Apple Challenge.

If there was physical evidence of the earth being created ex nihilo, then by definition, it wasn't ex nihilo.

At best, it would have been ex materia -- but even that doesn't require evidence.

 

[Aryn9189]

That doesn't answer the question. Why didn't God leave evidence of a young Earth, if it was so important for us to believe it? In fact, not only is there no evidence of a young Earth, but all the evidence we have points towards an old Earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

That doesn't answer the question. Why didn't God leave evidence of a young Earth, if it was so important for us to believe it? In fact, not only is there no evidence of a young Earth, but all the evidence we have points towards an old Earth.

Who said the earth is young? it is 4.57 billion years old.

Are you following the conversation here?

 

[Aryn9189]

Yes, I am. You never said that you believe the Earth is old, and given your positions on everything else, I made an assumption. I apologize if I was in error. And, given that you mentioned the Earth's creation, I figured that was the subject you were discussing. Now will you please answer the question? If it were that important that we believe X, then why would God not make it so that there were evidence left of X?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, I am. You never said that you believe the Earth is old, and given your positions on everything else, I made an assumption. I apologize if I was in error. And, given that you mentioned the Earth's creation, I figured that was the subject you were discussing. Now will you please answer the question? If it were that important that we believe X, then why would God not make it so that there were evidence left of X?

If X didn't generate any evidence, why would God go out of His way to falsify some?

Should He have left a sign behind when He took Enoch?

[sign]Enoch translated here.[/sign]

Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

 

[Aryn9189]

If he wanted us to believe it actually happened, rather than thinking that it is just metaphorical or mythological, then he should have given us something other than a bad translation of a 3000 year old collection of scraps. As he did not, while the event may have actually happened, it is to us as though it didn't. Which, to answer the OP, means there's no practical difference between no evidence of an event vs. the event never actually occuring.

 

[razeontherock]

Except - we're all here.

 

[Aryn9189]

What?

Are you referring to Earth's origin? I addressed that already. And I'm the one accused of not reading the thread?

That doesn't answer the question. Why didn't God leave evidence of a young Earth, if it was so important for us to believe it? In fact, not only is there no evidence of a young Earth, but all the evidence we have points towards an old Earth.

I'll go over it again, though, because I want to clarify my point. If God wanted us to believe in creation, then why is there no evidence? There is no evidence as to what caused the big bang, but there also no evidence that the Biblical account of creation is accurate. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

 

[razeontherock]

"to answer the OP, means there's no practical difference between no evidence of an event vs. the event never actually occuring."

You wrote that, a couple posts up, and it's consistent with the OP. I point out there is quite a stark difference; namely, we're all here.

 

[Aryn9189]

To what event are you referring?

 

[razeontherock]

Well the larger context of this thread that you may not be aware of, is AV elucidating his claim of "embedded age." So the event that is the premise here, is earth coming about ex nihilo, originally being quite old.

Fast forward to the context you provided, the event certainly occurred, because we're all here. No evidence of it occurring a specific way doesn't rationally conclude the event never happened; you're just stuck with no evidence for the claim.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What practical difference is there between an event that leaves no evidence at all and an event that never occurred?

What if you and your perceptions were the only real thing except for your Creator?

 

[Aryn9189]

Ah. I wasn't familiar with that idea. So the ex-nihilo thing, that means the Earth was created to look old, and is both 6000 years old and 4.whatever billion years old at the same time? Seems like a cop-out to me.

Anyway, obviously I am completely missing the point of this thread. Tschüss.