My New Moon Challenge

VehementiDominus · Jun 9, 2011

AV1611VET said:
That's all I need from you, an honest answer -- thank you.

You're welcome.

Still, you haven't provided us enough information to draw any conclusions.

If we brought back some of the rock of this new moon, and had it radiometrically dated - what would we see?

What is the composition of this new moon's rock?

Did it just appear out of nowhere or form together slowly?

How big is it?

Would any of us be alive afterwards to even examine it, because of the gravitational forces acting on it affecting the Earth's tides and atmosphere?

That's just the tip of the iceberg, tere are so many questions, you haven't given us nearly enough information.

It's all very well to ask "God made a new moon, what evidence would you show to say that he did?", but not only is that impossible - moons don't just appear out of nowhere, it's never happened before and we have no reason to suspect it ever will, but not being able to say where it came from doesn't mean Godidit.

If we had, maybe, a range of mountains or craters on this new moon that spelled out "Hi folks, God here, just thought you'd like another moon.", then any suspicions that it was God would at least have some credibility.

What if we found evidence to the contrary? What if aliens came down and showed us how to build moon-making machines? What if an old man wearing robes and a pointy hat with stars and moons over it showed us how he conjured it up with magic?

AV1611VET · Jun 9, 2011

VehementiDominus said:
You're welcome.

Thank you.

VehementiDominus said:
Still, you haven't provided us enough information to draw any conclusions.

Make up your own evidence -- the challenge is easier than you think.

VehementiDominus said:
If we brought back some of the rock of this new moon, and had it radiometrically dated - what would we see?

Anything you want to see: from Silly Putty to the June Taylor Dancers.

VehementiDominus said:
What is the composition of this new moon's rock?

Anything you want it to be: from Hydrogen to Unobtainium.

VehementiDominus said:
Did it just appear out of nowhere or form together slowly?

Ex nihilo.

VehementiDominus said:
How big is it?

As big as you want it to be: from 1Å - 1AU.

VehementiDominus said:
Would any of us be alive afterwards to even examine it, because of the gravitational forces acting on it affecting the Earth's tides and atmosphere?

If you want them to be.

VehementiDominus said:
That's just the tip of the iceberg...

That too, if you want.

VehementiDominus said:
... tere are so many questions ...

What's keeping you from asking them?

VehementiDominus said:
... you haven't given us nearly enough information.

Then supply it, yourself; as long as it fits, I don't care.

VehementiDominus said:
It's all very well to ask "God made a new moon, what evidence would you show to say that he did?", but not only is that impossible - moons don't just appear out of nowhere, it's never happened before and we have no reason to suspect it ever will, but not being able to say where it came from doesn't mean Godidit.

Suit yourself -- I'll take that as a "none" then.

VehementiDominus said:
If we had, maybe, a range of mountains or craters on this new moon that spelled out "Hi folks, God here, just thought you'd like another moon.", then any suspicions that it was God would at least have some credibility.

Like I said in Post #10, it can even have a MADE IN JAPAN sticker on it.

VehementiDominus said:
What if we found evidence to the contrary?

That's not for this thread.

VehementiDominus said:
What if aliens came down and showed us how to build moon-making machines?

That's not for this thread.

VehementiDominus said:
What if an old man wearing robes and a pointy hat with stars and moons over it showed us how he conjured it up with magic?

That's not for this thread.

Davian · Jun 9, 2011

AV1611VET said:
There is and there isn't.

As far as you are concerned, there isn't any -- (albeit, I'm open to surprises).

From an omniscient perspective, the amount of total energy in the universe would increase in accordance with the appearance of the new moon.<snip>

I thought the total sum of energy in the universe was zero. And adding a moon would would increase it by... zero. Go figure.

VehementiDominus · Jun 9, 2011

AV1611VET said:
Thank you.

Make up your own evidence -- the challenge is easier than you think.

Yeah, it is now we can make up our own evidence.

Ok, God shows up along with this moon and shows us how he did it, and shows us him creating it.

There's your evidence that God did it.

What was the point in this?

AV1611VET · Jun 9, 2011

Davian said:
I thought the total sum of energy in the universe was zero.

The total net sum of the universe is zero.

Davian · Jun 9, 2011

AV1611VET said:
The total net sum of the universe is zero.

Sure. Does adding this moon still, as you said, "increase the amount of total energy in the universe"?

AV1611VET · Jun 10, 2011

Davian said:
Sure. Does adding this moon still, as you said, "increase the amount of total energy in the universe"?

Yes -- that is the nature of creatio ex nihilo.

Freodin · Jun 10, 2011

AV1611VET said:
Yes -- that is the nature of creatio ex nihilo.

But if the net energy of the universe is zero, and it CEN adds to that energy, that would mean that after your new moon creation, the net energy of the universe would be greater than zero... or, on the other hand, before the completetion of creation in the Gen 1 week, the net enery would have been below zero.

That would result in an instable universe.

So we would have the evidence: if the universe had just become instable, the new moon would have been created Ex Nihilo.

AV1611VET · Jun 10, 2011

Freodin said:
But if the net energy of the universe is zero, and it CEN adds to that energy, that would mean that after your new moon creation, the net energy of the universe would be greater than zero... or, on the other hand, before the completetion of creation in the Gen 1 week, the net enery would have been below zero.

That would result in an instable universe.

So we would have the evidence: if the universe had just become instable, the new moon would have been created Ex Nihilo.

Like I said, the total amount of energy in the universe would increase in accordance with the new moon.

Insane_Duck · Jun 10, 2011

AV1611VET said:
Like I said, the total amount of energy in the universe would increase in accordance with the new moon.

Wouldn't it be counterbalanced by the gravity of the moon?

Belk · Jun 10, 2011

So what evidence would i use to point to Ex Nihilo creation by God? Is that what this thread is about? Well, I would then point to the fact that a new moon suddenly appeared without all the massive earthquakes, tidal waves, and volcanic eruptions wiping out all life on earth that suddenly adding a new gravitational stress would cause. Not to mention finding out exactly what this would do to the tides.

Insane_Duck · Jun 10, 2011

Belk said:
So what evidence would i use to point to Ex Nihilo creation by God? Is that what this thread is about? Well, I would then point to the fact that a new moon suddenly appeared without all the massive earthquakes, tidal waves, and volcanic eruptions wiping out all life on earth that suddenly adding a new gravitational stress would cause. Not to mention finding out exactly what this would do to the tides.

The point is for AVET to try and prove that creation ex nihil would be undetectable to modern science. i.e. 6,000 year old earth.

Where his situation fails, is that he doesn't tell us much about the moon. There are pretty much two options:

1. Moon was made perfect with no evidence or clue where it came from. Which isn't what we see in the earth, the current moon, and the universe at large.
2. Moon was spawned with evidence of it's past just like our current moon, therefore implying that God deliberately tricked us, which approaches special pleading.

It's the same as the ex nihil apple a while back, it's an exercise in futility.

AV1611VET · Jun 10, 2011

Belk said:
So what evidence would i use to point to Ex Nihilo creation by God? Is that what this thread is about? Well, I would then point to the fact that a new moon suddenly appeared without all the massive earthquakes, tidal waves, and volcanic eruptions wiping out all life on earth that suddenly adding a new gravitational stress would cause. Not to mention finding out exactly what this would do to the tides.

And how would this differ from creatio ex materia?

Insane_Duck · Jun 10, 2011

AV1611VET said:
And how would this differ from creatio ex materia?

If you took an existing moon and teleported it, not much at all. But that's hardly the issue. Look at my above post. Which one of the failed scenarios characterizes your new moon?

Golden Yak · Jun 10, 2011

If you traveled back in time 100 years, would the new moon be there?

AV1611VET · Jun 10, 2011

Insane_Duck said:
If you took an existing moon and teleported it, not much at all.

That's not creatio ex materia.

I'm asking how you would be able to differentiate between a new moon being created out of nothing, and a new moon being created out of the energy existent in the universe.

AV1611VET · Jun 10, 2011

Golden Yak said:
If you traveled back in time 100 years, would the new moon be there?

No

Insane_Duck · Jun 10, 2011

AV1611VET said:
That's not creatio ex materia.

I'm asking how you would be able to differentiate between a new moon being created out of nothing, and a new moon being created out of the energy existent in the universe.

Again, would your moon be flawed or flawless? Does it have craters and the rest?

The answer is no, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference, but now you will try to take the next step and compare this to YECism, that would be flawed logic, do you know why?

AV1611VET · Jun 10, 2011

Insane_Duck said:
Again, would your moon be flawed or flawless?

Take your pick -- either will do.

Insane_Duck said:
Does it have craters and the rest?

If you want it to.

Insane_Duck said:
The answer is no, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference...

And if the answer is 'yes' -- can you?

Insane_Duck said:
... but now you will try to take the next step and compare this to YECism ...

I'm not a YEC.

Insane_Duck said:
... that would be flawed logic, do you know why?

No

Insane_Duck · Jun 10, 2011

AV1611VET said:
I'm not a YEC.

Really? What are you?

And no, we wouldn't' be able to tell the difference. But we here on earth would be wise to choose a naturalistic explanation if the moon shows wear and tear. Otherwise it might be better to posit something more supernatural or just simply beyond our understanding at the time. (aliens, some other higher technology)

If you start with the presumption that there is a God, then occam's razor determines (unless some other process gets discovered in the future) the simplest explanation is that the God we know to exist caused the moon.

If you start with the current knowledge that humanity has, i.e. there is no evidence to posit a God, then God is no longer the simplest explanation.

Making a logically sound conclusion with your current level of knowledge will occasionally lead you to choose wrong, but that doesn't make the choice anything less viable at the time. If you assume there is a God, or know there was one in retrospect looking back at past events, then it is easy to say that the other choice made more sense, but that wouldn't change what the best option was at the time.

My New Moon Challenge

Active Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

fallible

Active Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

fallible

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Devout believer in a theologically different God

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Because ducks are just awesome like that.

Senior Member

Because ducks are just awesome like that.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Because ducks are just awesome like that.

Not Worshipped, Far from Idle

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Because ducks are just awesome like that.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Because ducks are just awesome like that.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency