God - a liar?

But does HE actually say it is as old as YOU say it is?I also find this argument ridiculous. Geology = uniformatarianism makes YOU convince yourself of an older universe/earth not God. If you can show me how God invented the theory and not those Scottish blokes, then I'll agree with you.So the deception is happening to the thinker - not God. Even if we do what are we looking at?
We are looking at the here and now, and what teaches us that the present is the key to the past? - Uniformatarianism. Let's pretend that the past was different to the present, then what would you make of the data?Remember The YEC's position is that when the earth was made it "was good", he/she also believes in a degrading earth which was never the same since sin, are you considering this viewpoint instead of looking through your glasses? Because if you do you will realise that there is no deception by God, according to this explanation.

No, again - God hasn't said that the universe is a specific age, that includes young aswell as old, how can he be lying if he has not stated an age?
Don't forget, I am only saying how a YEC would cover this, that doesn't mean God is a YEC paul, therefore - humans, either convincing themselves of an older place - or convincing themselves of a younger place, are deceptive to themselves. A premature evaluation of such things when we cannot know for sure the actual age is what causes the problems - not God, for he hasn't even mentioned a figure. But appearance of age is only instigated by uniformatarianism thinking. Even if there is an appearance of age - the figures are only relevant to humans.Does it not say " A day to the LORD is as a thousand years "
It is not God who is concerned with what conclusions we come to concerning his universe, nor what WE say is an "appearance of age".I officially state that this is a strawman of God's position. [This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-03-2004]

Well, good point. A literal figuring out of the genealogies, icluding the literal six days. Therefore, all I am saying is that it is, if anyones fault the human's. I just don't want God to take the blame for people's interpretations, whether they conclude an older earth or a younger one.The difference between a million years and a thousand years is only relevant to those who age, and to those who are under time. your a clever chap Crash, I'll let you figure that one out.

God has not forced you to interpret it as apparent age. Apparent age is only relevant to a person who does age and is under time. You can't come to a conclusion and say " God your a liar " because you have come to that conclusion. For all you know apparent age may well be the only possibility of the universe, it may well be that apparent age is a side-effect of creation, unintended to trick anyone, let alone arrogant know it all humans, who insist upon some kind of deception. Sorry, but I just don't think our way of thinking is relevant nor God's concern, when concerning how he makes his universe.So, apparent age is literally your own way of thinking, and that's if it is even true to some extent. Furthermore, the present is the key to the past only is relevant to uniformatarianism thinking. Are you considering that things might have been different in the past? Are you considering catastrophism, and the possible side-effects?Apparent age is all in the mind if the earth is young, it means your way of thinking = uniformatariansism, - is wrong NOT that God is wrong. It is you doing the trickery, making it seem like God is to blame for your own way of thinking.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-04-2004]

Lol, infact that's stuff I come to expect from you.If you are saying the universe is old - no deception by God
If you are saying the universe is young - no deception by GodIt is the human's way of thinking that implies trickery. If you are YEC, and say there is apparent age it doesn't mean God has tricked anyone, it just means, It is the YEC saying that not God.Therefore, logically - whether old is true or young, God has still not stated an age. You are saying it is the YEC implying the appearance of age, I agree it is, and you also believe there is age, again - human deductions, God has said nothing. You can blame the YEC but you can't blame God.However, appearance of age - would also be what you would have convinced yourself of, if the earth was actually young. Therefore, YEC or you, - again, human error. You have both convinced yourself of this "age" thing all alone, without God saying anything.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-04-2004]

Let's just say the universe is young. Is it the YEC's fault for saying there's an appearance of age, or is it the old-earthers fault for believing the universe is old?I do not think that if appearance of age is true it is a deception by God. Was his intention with making Adam a man not a child to deceive future investigators? Or are thse "age" problems only an issue because we make them one? No one forces the issue in the bible "the heavens were of old" How old? 1000 years? 100,000000 years? More? It does not say, nor does it say investigate the matter. Appearance of age, is simply that - the way things have happened has caused this, there is no deception towards us. Maybe catastrophisms like the flood make your dating methods wrong, and so it is with events that comes the appearance, IF the universe is young. If I make a football and in a day it is all muddy and old looking with cause of events, does it mean I am tricking you into thinking my football is old?I guess all this "deception" business, either way - comes from the human, and his/her investigations.BTW, I am not saying the universe is young, I personally am indifferent. I am just establishing that God is not a liar.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-04-2004]

And what exactly is the payment for? What does the payment represent?
What if he isn't buying anything, and he just hands over the note without explaining about it?You are mis-representing my position because I do not think there is a deception.Let's make another more relevant analogy......Let's say he is handing over a blank banknote (not forged), if you then take the bank note and use it as a 20 pound note, will he be responsible for it being a 20 pound note? If you take it and use it as a 5 pound note, will he be responsible for it being a 5 pound note? He doesn't make us decide whether it is 5 or 20, as he is not deceiving us as he is not saying or defining the blank note as any number. He hands us a genuine note, as there is no deception. The universe and how it is made is not relevant to a deception.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-04-2004]

Maybe the forged banknote is not a payment, maybe he just puts the note on the counter, sets it down there and doesn't mention it.The deception is in your mind Paul, it doesn't happen.If a forged banknote is not used to be a payment then there is no deception. Is the note used for a payment? The payment or exchange doesn't take place, as the universe and it's age is not representative of a banknote because it was not made for a payment(deception).A forged banknote may seem bad if there is a payment(deception), but I am arguing that there is no payment(deception), read the analogy of the football.The football = the earth
the muddying = catastrophism
the football owner = God
the person who thinks the football is old = humanThis analogy doesn't include the assumption of a deception, and all the substitutions fit well. You cannot prove and you have no evidence to suggest appearance of age = deception.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-04-2004]

You insist I am being dis-honest, I simply don't get that. Your analogy confuses me unless you can show me how there is a deception. The problem is, you think there is a deception with your analogy you include one, and with my analogy of the football I show there isn't a deception. can I show you how I am thinking so that you can atleast see that I am not being dis-honest and neither is God?I(God) create a new football(earth), and when it is played with it gets dirty,(catastrophism,flood), you(human) then come and suggest that the football looks very dirty and scuffed, and it is atleast five years old. I say nothing of the matter, I don't say it is not five years old, and I do not say it is a day old as I don't think it is necessary to tell you it's age for whatever reason.Now, with that analogy, if I don't tell you the balls actual age and you go away thinking it is old, have I deceived you?You see let's now substitute your eyes for dating methods, there is no way that your eyes are going to tell you that the ball looks fresh and new, therefore, your eyes(dating method) will unintentionally deceive you, or atleast register the ball as dirty and old. Can you see now, how an appearance of age can infact quite innocentally involve no deception?I am not trying to deceive you Paul, and some of the things you say could be made a bit clearer, can you atleast show what the substituions mean in your analogy and/or atleast realize that I am not saying you are a trickster and I am not lying, I am genuinely trying to figure this out. The blank note represents the earth, the 5 pound represents YEC and the 20 pound represent old-age, the blank note may well appear to be a 20 pound note, but it doesn't actually say what it is because it is blank. I submit that it may well appear to be 20. Does that help? Even if it appears to be 20,(old-age) what does a forged or a genuine note matter? This is a new analogy where we can see clearly the substitutions. In logic, if you substitute simple objects and state what they mean it makes sense.I have no way of de-ciphering your analogy if you can't tell me what the substitutions are. I will guess that your forged note represents the young earth, with an appearnce of age, but if the note is the earth and appearance of age is forgery you are infact making appearance of age to mean a lie, but only the forgery is relevant if we have the deception (payment). So basically I could imply anything, a blue note a red note, it doesn't have to be a forged note because of appearance of age. If AOA can be explained as not a deception. God hasn't faked anything if he has made the universe with AOA, it is simply the only way you can comprehend the reality of the universe with dating methods and history being made void by possible catastrophes.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-04-2004]

I think you have a complex which makes you think everyone who disagrees with you is lying to you. I have told you that I think my analogy is acceptable and I also admitted that I remove the factor of deception in trying to show that AOA can happen without a so called forgery. If I can't even convince you that I am telling the truth then what more can I do.The fact is, I myself am not a YEC, and infact my whole argument is that whether you are YEC or an old-ager you infact come to conclusions of age without God making lies, that I truly believe. I agree, because we have both made analogies to fit our arguments. One thing that you mentioned earlier is that there is evidence for an old earth, I am not denying there is evidence, I am not even a YEC remember, all I'm trying to do is offer an opinion that God is not to blame for human conclusions. There are no victims here. just a supossed AOA, which could infact be similar to Adam being fully grown yet just being created. If you want me to try to answer anything specifically then state it again and I will try. I am not avoiding your points and being dis-honest, so if you could apreciate that I don't necessarily want to try and refute your every thought I would be grateful. my first post was hardly attacking. I am not the only guilty party, you didn't even consider the football analogy even when I shown the logical substitutions.

Absolutely. You have fully understood, Paul however thinks that his analogy is the bees knees and ours are unnaceptable, if he could just realise that his analogy is only relevant when assuming deception, we would be able to put this to bed. Nevertheless, he insist I haven't understoood YET he cannot answer what the payment stands for and he cannot show us the logical substitutions.The fact is, if you remove the payment the analogy is obsolete. The payment = deception. All I am doing is saying that there was no payment (deception). God simply set the banknote on the counter without explanation and without suggesting payment.Infact Funkman, I had no problem understanding your analogy.

Paul, right now I would concede how good the evidence is easily but for your way of debating. You seem to think, even though we both agreed our analogies don't prove anything that your analogy is solid and ours aren't. I have attempted to ask you about the substitutions but you would rather call me a liar, and say we are both dishonest. Frankly I'm confused. I will however, debate your main points if you want me to but again can you state them. What exactly have you put forward apart from "God's a liar, my analogy is great and you two are liars"? ? ?I always have followed the rules. Back up your assertions and we can debate, we'll start with you putting forth your main inquiry.....now, ready, steady, go...............

But you forget what I then did. I then said 20 pounds shall represent an old earth and 5 pound a young earth, and i then said if the blank note appeared or looked like a 20 pound note, would that help the analogy? And you didn't answer me. Sure I will, let's discuss the actual evidence.If I am not following the rules, can you show me how I am not? Otherwise ask the admin to read through the topic, and for what, all they'll find is a debate.

Paul,You do believe that the universe is old, and I am indifferent. That means we are both not YEC, therefore how am I calling God a liar - I am not, and you say neither are you. SO, the YEC's don't claim God is a liar - YOU MUST be claiming he is a liar or there wouldn't be an argument, you are suggesting that AOA makes the YEC position make out God a liar, but funnily enough, when I was a YEC I never thought AOA made him a liar so what exactly are you doing? It is a strawman of the YEC position, as I have shown how deception is not necessarily the case.So it is YOU implying him as a liar if the YEC position is true. As a believer would not do this. So, in every way it is your side calling God a liar essentially, you are therefore GAMEPLAYING in the most extreme way. When I was a YEC, I did not think God was a liar if there was an appearance of age. If you are suggesting the YEC position makes God a liar it is infact not the case, we already have a creationist (funkman) who does not claim God is a liar - infact the opposite.So now you are forced to say it, do you think God is a liar or not?THINKThe YEC has not called him a liar, I haven't and neither have you, so tell me who has?I guess this can only mean - GOD IS NOT A LIAR![This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-05-2004]

No, it is possible that he did/did not deceive. It is only YOU who think it would make him a liar, it is essentially YOU making him out a deceiver, as the creationists have disagreed that a deception is the case. And we do NOT agree with you.YEC - Doesn't think God is a liar
I don't think it would make him a liar
You DO think it would make him a liarWell, good for you, you can believe he is a liar *if* AOA is true, but no one else does. We have now succesfully concluded that it is the old-ager that infact thinks it would make God a liar, or maybe only YOU. That is fair enough, I believe people are entitled to believe what they want.