- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,213
- 52,661
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Oh, I don't know -- seems you guys are doing a good job of yakking w/o the OP.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Oh, I don't know -- seems you guys are doing a good job of yakking w/o the OP.Produce the light bulb ex nihilo, than there will be a lot to talk about.
.
Another question: Would microscopic examination of the light-bulb show evidence of evaporation of the tungsten filament, and deposits of evaporated tungsten on the inside of the light-bulb?
Okay, since you insist -- let's go with 'yes', microscopic examination of the light-bulb shows evaporation of the tungsten filament, and deposits of evaporated tungsten on the inside of the light-bulb.Dear AV1611VET
Just bumping my outstanding question to this page, in case you missed it.
Cheers
S.
It's a burned-out light bulb, and if you refuse to believe the written documentation (the OP), I guess you'll just have to let the bulb itself convince you.
And I have a feeling that, by not taking my written word, and demanding to see for yourself -- I have a feeling you're going to make the same mistake you guys make in the real world.
But we'll see.
Show me the deception, please.this is inherently deceptive because this is a riddle and all riddles are designed to deceive this level of deception leads to consequences that will never be the same
I create a burned-out light bulb ex nihilo right in front of you, and even videotape it for you.
The bulb has the following characteristics:
I then sit down and take any questions concerning what I have done.
- it has a burned-out tungsten filament
- it has MADE IN GUAM (where we're at) on the sleeve
- it has a time-stamp on the sleeve
The only thing you know about me is that I cannot lie.
Challenge: Show why this is deceptive (not paradoxical); and feel free to ask me anything you want.
You may consider the light bulb omphalos, last thursday, gap, old age, young age, embedded age, day-age, or even new age; just not deceptive.
The purpose of this challenge is to defend an act of creatio ex nihilo as paradoxical, not deceptive.
Is this even a sentence?now there is you're deception by arguing semantics you have pointed out you're deceptive nature the consequences will never be the same
No, it's not SCIENCE.What God has done is known as SCIENCE!
Okay, since you insist -- let's go with 'yes', microscopic examination of the light-bulb shows evaporation of the tungsten filament, and deposits of evaporated tungsten on the inside of the light-bulb.
As I stated in the OP, the purpose is to show creatio ex nihilo as paradoxical -- not contradictory.Q. Why did you create the light-bulb comprising physical evidence that it was once a working light-bulb, when in fact it has never worked and was created in an already burned-out state?
If someone is deceived, then it's his fault; as I not only videotaped what I did, but I am taking questions as well.This goes to the state of mind of the light-bulb creator. I think that to be deceptive requires intent to deceive or carelessness as to whether one's actions might deceive somebody. It also requires, as a separate matter, that somebody actually be deceived as a consequence of one's actions.
Your understanding of the order in which the bible was written is flawed. If you used SCIENCE you would know that in the original language that God spoke to create the universe (which bears a striking resemblance to modern Hebrew) days were taken down in reverse polish notation.No, it's not SCIENCE.
God was not confined to SCIENCE when He created this universe.
In fact, look at the order of the creation events themselves.
That is anything but SCIENCE.
As I stated in the OP, the purpose is to show creatio ex nihilo as paradoxical -- not contradictory.
And I disagree that the light bulb is showing physical evidence that it once was a working bulb.
If someone is deceived, then it's his fault; as I not only videotaped what I did, but I am taking questions as well.
I'm talking about the written Word, not the spoken Word.The Hebrew liars would have us believe that God spoke Hebrew, When in fact God speaks Aramaic so that His Son can understand Him.
Nor are they characteristically manufactured ex nihilo.Light-bulbs are not characteristically manufactured in a burned out state.
Okay -- what does this have to do with the OP?When they are manufactured, the tungsten filament is intact (no microscopic signs of evaporation) and there is no evaporated tungsten on the inside of the light-bulb.
This light bulb was never use.When the light-bulb is actually used the filament heats up and starts to evaporate. This will be microscopically detectable even if the light-bulb burns out immediately on first use.
I will agree that the light bulb could be interpreted as such; but that interpretation, of course, would be overrode by the circumstances, viz. how it came into existence, i.e. ex nihilo.So, do you agree that the created light-bulb shows physical evidence of the filament heating up and evaporating?
When you're going to claim to do something that is so overwhelmingly beyond our experience of reality, or claim to be the omniscient creator of the universe, details are important.Perhaps I should have put 'burned out' in quotes in my OP.
You guys can get hung-up on the simplest things.
Oh, heavens no!Is that an admission that your OP could be considered deceptive?
No, it's not SCIENCE.
God was not confined to SCIENCE when He created this universe.
In fact, look at the order of the creation events themselves.
That is anything but SCIENCE.
Yes -- and here's your 'how':If there is a god and he created the universe, science would attempt to explain how. There is always a how.
Right -- more like I'm right up on the front lines explaining the exact order, and how it pwns [unBiblical] science back to where it came from.And as you don't know anything about the order in which the universe came about your conclusion is irrelevant.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?