My Light Bulb Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Produce the light bulb ex nihilo, than there will be a lot to talk about.

.

Oh, I don't know -- seems you guys are doing a good job of yakking w/o the OP.

 

[Sophophile]

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?

Dear AV1611VET

Just bumping my outstanding question to this page, in case you missed it.

Cheers
S.

 

[Nostromo]

In the hypothetical world where AV can create household goods ex nihilo he is willing to answer the questions of onlookers. Unfortunately that isn't the case in this world.

 

[AV1611VET]

Dear AV1611VET

Just bumping my outstanding question to this page, in case you missed it.

Cheers
S.

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.

Although I'm not sure why you would care to even look for that stuff.

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.

 

[Tomatoman]

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.

By placing the written word above the real world you are placing a coded message written using imprecise symbols, which are notorious for being vague and open to debate, as well as depending upon the writing ability, mental state and limitations of the author, ahead of the real world.

Don't you think that is a little silly?

 

[AV1611VET]

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

Show me the deception, please.

And it's not a riddle -- it's a challenge.

 

[Rick_Warrn]

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:

1. it has a burned-out tungsten filament
2. it has MADE IN GUAM (where we're at) on the sleeve
3. it has a time-stamp on the sleeve

I then sit down and take any questions concerning what I have done.

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.

It is deceptive to think that what you know is greater than what God has done. What God has done is known as SCIENCE! what you know is limited to an old book that, in the VERY FIRST book says "we don't know how the earth (light bulb) was made".

Everyone knows this.

 

[AV1611VET]

now there is you're deception by arguing semantics you have pointed out you're deceptive nature the consequences will never be the same

Is this even a sentence?

 

[AV1611VET]

What God has done is known as SCIENCE!

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.

 

[Sophophile]

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.

Thanks AV1611VET

Now I see you are responding in this thread again, I have another question for the hypothetical light-bulb creator.

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?

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.

Thanks
S.

 

[AV1611VET]

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?

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.

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.

If someone is deceived, then it's his fault; as I not only videotaped what I did, but I am taking questions as well.

 

[Rick_Warrn]

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.

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.

The Word was first,
the Word present to God,
God present to the Word.
The Word was God,
in readiness for God from day one. Everything was created through him;
nothing—not one thing!—
came into being without him.
What came into existence was Life,
and the Life was Light to live by.
The Life-Light blazed out of the darkness;
the darkness couldn't put it out.


There once was a man, his name John, sent by God to point out the way to the Life-Light. He came to show everyone where to look, who to believe in. John was not himself the Light; he was there to show the way to the Light.

The Hebrew liars would have us believe that God spoke Hebrew, When in fact God speaks Aramaic so that His Son can understand Him.

Everyone knows this.

 

[Freodin]

Everyone knows this.

Sadly, Poe´s Law prevents us from knowing if a post is a parody... but I have that nagging suspicion...

 

[Sophophile]

As I stated in the OP, the purpose is to show creatio ex nihilo as paradoxical -- not contradictory.

Did you mean to say "deceptive" instead of "contradictory"?

You wouldn't answer my question about whether something can be both paradoxical and deceptive. We'll come back to that later perhaps.

And I disagree that the light bulb is showing physical evidence that it once was a working bulb.

AV1611VET, this is your hypothetical and you stated the light-bulb is burned out.

Light-bulbs are not characteristically manufactured in a burned out state. 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.

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.


So, do you agree that the created light-bulb shows physical evidence of the filament heating up and evaporating?


If not, then you'll have to explain what you mean by "burned out", because I understood it to mean that the filament shows signs of heating up and evaporating.

If someone is deceived, then it's his fault; as I not only videotaped what I did, but I am taking questions as well.

We'll have to see about that.

Cheers
S.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Hebrew liars would have us believe that God spoke Hebrew, When in fact God speaks Aramaic so that His Son can understand Him.

I'm talking about the written Word, not the spoken Word.

Thus God, in these end-times, speaks King James -- a language all its own that not even Shakespeare spoke.

 

[AV1611VET]

Light-bulbs are not characteristically manufactured in a burned out state.

Nor are they characteristically manufactured ex nihilo.

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.

Okay -- what does this have to do with the OP?

The light bulb wasn't 'manufactured', it was created ex nihilo.

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.

This light bulb was never use.

No electricity ever flowed into it, and no photons ever flowed out of it.

So, do you agree that the created light-bulb shows physical evidence of the filament heating up and evaporating?

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.

Perhaps I should have put 'burned out' in quotes in my OP.

You guys can get hung-up on the simplest things.

 

[Nostromo]

Perhaps I should have put 'burned out' in quotes in my OP.

You guys can get hung-up on the simplest things.

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.

It's good that you appreciate the 'burned out' issue. When one thing is claimed and something different observed we are being given a false impression about the situation, which is deceptive.

Is that an admission that your OP could be considered deceptive?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is that an admission that your OP could be considered deceptive?

Oh, heavens no!

Like I said, if you guys wanted to, you could claim a loaf of raisin bread created ex nihilo would be deceptive, since raisins grow.

QV please: 1

 

[Tomatoman]

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 science attempts to describe the universe throughout its history your first sentence doesn't make sense. If there is a god and he created the universe, science would attempt to explain how. There is always a how.

And as you don't know anything about the order in which the universe came about your conclusion is irrelevant.

 

[AV1611VET]

If there is a god and he created the universe, science would attempt to explain how. There is always a how.

Yes -- and here's your 'how':

Ex nihilo

Specifically, God spoke it into existence.

And as you don't know anything about the order in which the universe came about your conclusion is irrelevant.

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.