God - a liar?

There is no evidence for the existance of God.
There is no evidence for the existance of life on other planets.
How many other galaxys has your ROCKET personally explored?

none with a god on them....sorry, he doesn't exist.

Did I stutter? or spell the word wrong? Or perhaps you have an opinion on one?. Care to prove either? If not then shut your pie hole because your atheistic claptrap is neither profound or insulting but rather trite.

merely your opinion. And of course we all know about those..

I don't believe I care for that tone...do I?

Proof, please? It's one thing to make this statement as blindly as you apparently are. Quite another to back it up. Give me some kind of proof so we can have a reasonalbe 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.

It's not my fault if you choose to turn a blind eye to it. It's your responsibility....people like you created this screwed up mess...."I'll just blow some people up and then they will see what I believe"...The facts remain...there is no proof of a God, nay ANYBODIES GOD, that you all kill each other over. Allah, Itchba, Yawaah, Jesus, Lucifer, Samantha (from bewitched), Zeus, Neptune or Mercury, Hitler or Caesar...it's all folley that you fight to the death over....you've all created a play so very grand...it's not acting anymore and the curtain won't close.

Mike, you don't seem to understnad that this is all about the YEC "appearance of age" argument. The idea that all of the evidence of age is just an appearance.SO as I have already stated my position is that there is so much evidence of age, so many details and so much consistency - including evidence of events that happened BEFORE the YEC's creation date - that the only way to get such an appearnce of age is an intentional deception.So it is a subgroup of YECs that take a position that IMPLIES that God is a liar - even if they do not realise it.

So Mike what you are saying is that someone who DOESN'T beleive that the universe is a massive deception created by God is calling God a liar while someone who implicitly beleives that it IS is not calling God a liar.That's just twisted, Mike.Now once again in POST 2 I made my arguments as to why "appearance of age" implies that God is a liar. And once again you are IGNORING that and trying to pretned that I am somehow blameworthy for coming to a conclusion that YOU DON'T LIKE!I'm getting really sick of your attitude Mike. It reeks of dishonesty and hatred. Once again you REFUSE to discuss the points I raised back at the very beginning of the thread in order to try to fix blame where it doesn't belong. Why won't you DISCUSS this Mike ? Why all the evasions, excuses and the attempts to find someone else to blame ?

I have highlighted where you yourself try to trick us: Did a YEC say they believe it is a massive deception?- NO, also, you are the one calling God a liar if the universe is young - no one else, Nice try though.Not surprisingly, that quote is NOT what I am saying. A YEC doesn't believe it is a massive deception, therefore he is not calling God a liar. You are the only one who has stated that a YEC position must assume God to be a liar, that's a strawman.You are the only one here who has insisted on some kind of deception. Where creos see appearance of age, you see deception. Therefore, you are the only one suggesting lies, and calling God a possible liar. Your above statement is as cleverly suited to your position as your analogy was. Yet despite what YOU say I am saying, you cannot deny that:I have not said God is lying
No YEC has/is saying God is lying
No other creationist is saying God is lyingThe only person to invoke a deception is you. Go back and see who has suggested deception. Only you believe that appearance of age is deception. Also, you may believe the universe is old, but God has not made you think it is. I have highlighted where you invoke deception.And I have shown with the analogy of the football, how it is possible to come to a conclusion that there is not necessarily a lie taking place. Infact all YEC's would agree that uniformatarianism thinking is more to blame than God. Not at all, the more you fight the storm the more I grow fond of you. But why fight the unstoppable Columbo?You also need to read message #5 by Buzsaw, in which he describes how an appearance of age might be a necessary evil in some circumstances.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-05-2004]

May I try?YECs believe that the Earth and life on it are only 6k years old. Science has strong evidence that it is MUCH MUCH older than that, evidence from the Earth itself.YECs have stated that science's interpretation of great age is false, that it only appears old to us but is really only 6k years old.Paul is saying that by claiming that the old age is simply an appearance of age the YECers are making god seem like a liar to those that accept the greater age.Of course the YECs don't believe it is a deception, but their claim sure looks like one to others.Of course we don't believe it is a deception, (many don't believe your god exists so how could it deceive us) but the YEC claims make it look like one.If one were to believe in your god, accept the scientifically accepted age of the Earth, AND listen to YECs it would seem that they are asking us to believe that god was deceiving us.I'll stop now before I get any more redundant.edited to add<< Buz has participated in an apparent age thread before. what he never seemed to understand is that everyone was agreeing that SOME apparant age would probably be necessary...just not the amount of apparant age.[This message has been edited by Asgara, 04-05-2004]

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

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

Hi Asgara, Yes, God may seem like a liar to those who accept a great age. However, the YEC him/herself, is infact not saying it is a deception. Also, there are ways in which we can show that it is not necessarily a deception to humans. Personally, I think that would place a lot of emphasis on the mere human in relation to how God created his universe.If this is only a problem for those who do believe in the greater age then that is fair enough, but for now, I do not see how it must be a deception if appearance of age is true. If God has actually said that the greater age is the case, then that would make a strong case for deception if it was infact younger, but he doesn't.