God - a liar?

Calibrate your irony meters here...Mike is one of the most affable and easy going posters on the group. If we look at the thread to try and pick up bad attitude, it is not from Mike.Mike has got a particular perspective on this deception thing. I disagree with it; in fact on the arguments I align much more with PaulK. And I agree that Mike has not actually managed to engage the real meat of the argument. But I think the over the top reaction is not reasonable.Saying that the perception of history is due to uniformatarian thinking is wrong; Mike's comments about uniformatarian thinking just do not apply for the observation of apparent history. PaulK is getting frustrated that the history argument is not being engaged; but I think this is not due to dishonesty; just a failure to really know and appreciate the force of available observations. Mike is really struggling with this stuff, and I can admire that; given the force of the religious traditions involved here. But empathy and admiration does not translate to recognition of his perspective as sensible and consistent.For one example, we find fossils of footprints in the middle of Grand Canyon strata. That might mean that the rock was created with the footprints in place -- which I would say is plainly a deceptive creation -- or it means that the there was a lot of events going on before the footprints, and later after the footprints, to account for the rocks above abd below. There is nothing particularly uniformatarian about this.There is an old argument; the Omphalos argument, proposed by Phillip Gosse in 1857. Gosse considered that the indicators of history... such as a navel... are essential aspects of the nature of creation and not necessary indicators of history. Hence to be human, Adam needed a navel; even if he had never been born. To be a tree, a tree created in the Garden of Eden needs tree rings; even if has only been created a few days ago. A volcanic rock should have distributions of radiometric isotopes which fit isochrons; so they get created that way, even if they never saw a volcano. PaulK would call this a lie by the creator, I guess. Gosse says that what God actually says about creation is in the bible; the creation is how it is for God's own reasons and does not stand as a statement to be a lie or a truth.Gosse's argument was never well received either inside or outside the church. It is not the same as Mike's argument; but in the end the claim that no there is no lie has the same basis. I understand Mike to be saying that whatever reasons the creation has the form it does, it is not a statement to be true or false. The additional human step of drawing inferences has a critical role.The essential point, which is resisted by YEC, is basically that the available evidence admits no rational explanation except history and age. The Earth is certainly old; there is no basis at all to doubt it, unless we are willing to doubt everything. Belief in a young earth is always founded on ignorance of evidence, or irrational avoidance of evidence; even for the nicest and most affable creationists. It is not based on alternative explanations; the alternative explanations are bunk.Cheers -- Sylas

No; I meant it as a positive comment in general terms that you are reading and thinking and engaging on the material over an extended period of time. It was not a reference to one thread. The word "struggling" is sometimes used of a bad student who is failing. It can also mean anyone who is making a serious effort to comprehend material and engage with it and the possible implications. I intended the latter implication.The fact that your position has changed over time is clear indication of active engagement with the issues. I was thinking of the post in "A thousand posts of babble". It is, in my opinion, similarly ridiculous to take Gosse's view, and say that he made it a certain way for ineffable reasons we may not question. The universe, taken at face value, is unabiguously very old. I do mean unambiguously; there is no rational alternative.There are irrational alternatives, of course... like saying God just made it in the form we see for reasons we should not question; and we should trust his divine word that it is really young, and then either shoehorn all data to match that revelation or just ignore the data. (I don't see you saying that; but it is pretty explicit in writings of many scientific creationists.)The universe is old. If it was made in its current form by some entity a few thousand years ago; then it was made in a form that will certainly mislead rational observers. The philosophical niceity in a distinction between "God tells lies through the creation" and "God made creation for reasons unknown in a form which will give false impressions" is valid in an uninteresting kind of way; but not likely to be palatable to theologians, I suspect. And rightly so.Cheers -- Sylas