God - a liar?

Hey, nice post there Sylas, fair enough. I admitt I have maybe stuck to the analogies and tried to decipher some of Paul's stuff. I don't mean to be harsh but some of the statements are kinda one-sided, and the analogy concerns me as it is basically to support the deception factor. I am interested in the area you think I am struggling in? Is it the evidence or the analogies? Or do you simply mean not understnding his argument. I agree, because I fail to see the human relevance. In the bible there is a long list of things to do, and most of the time God makes us know what we should concentrate on. Now I am not saying science is a wrongful endeavour, but to be honest he never says something like; "Go forth and seek how I made the universe". Infact he seems to make it plain that it is simply his business. To suggest that he made it a certain way to trick a few ants on a dung hill on a pale blue dot seems ridiculous to me. Buzsaw made a good post, number #5.Thanks for the other comments, one thing that I must point out is that I am infact indifferent to the actual age of the universe, and would not suggest any date, young or old.

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

Lets start with the last item. Buzsaw's point in message 5 IS ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR IN MY ARGUMENT. So why exactly should I read it again ?Now you say that you have highlighted areas where I tried to trick you. Now I kno for a fact that everything I wrote was entirely honest and that there was NO attempt to trick. So EVERY instance of highlighitn is a false accusation on your part.So did I say that YEC's accept that the evidence for age IS so great that the "apparent age" argument is a massive deception. No. Did I say that the evidence IS so strogn that "apparent age" must actually BE a massive deception and that therefore the "apparent age" argument IMPLIES that it is a massive deception. Yes I did. And that is the "trick" - honestly stating my posiiton.In the next point the "trick" is again - telling the truth about my own position. Post 2 GIVES the reasons for concluding that apparent age implies deception - and argues AGAINST the underlying assumption of your "football" analogy (i.e. that the evidence of age is weak and superficial).Comeo on Mike why are you complaining that I tell the truth instead of what you WANT me to say. Why call that a "trick" ?

Sylas, I came to the conclusion I did because:1) Mike has repeatedly refused to address the arguments I wrote back in post 2. He is refusing to even try to get to grips with the actual evidence. That is pretty bad in itself. He can't say that he has forgot about it - he's had plenty of reminders. There is no reasonable alternative now to concluding that it is a deliberate evasion of arguments he can't answer.2) Instead he prefers to generate ad hoc and false excuses - including maligning others who accept the evidence of age. Even if their reason for doing so is a trust in God.
He could try arguing that the evidence for age isn't *that* good, he could accept that the Earth and the Universe really are old, he could even try arguing that there is a reasonable alternative explanation - but he won't even attempt any of these.
By not actively disputing these points he is implicitly accepting that the evidence *is* or is at least likely to be that strong (simple gainsaying without an attempt to look at the evidence doesn't count in my book), that there is no reasonable alternative to deception given the weight of evidence and that it is at least possible that the Universe could be young and created to look exactly as if it were very, very old.In doing so he takes that attitude that God is - or at least might be - a liar, but that he should falsely accuse others to try to avoid blaming God.That's a pretty bad attitude from where I'm standing.

Mike, way back in post 2 I pointed out that:1) The evidence for age is very great, consisting of many consistent lines of evidence. Appearance of age alleges that all this evidence is deceptive.2) Given God's capabilities and knowledge the only reasonable explanation for why the deception was so perfect was that God meant it to be that way.That is why apparent age implies deception on God's part.Here's one YEC argument trying to explain radiometric dating in terms of an "apparent age". It is from AiG's "TJ" - which is supposedly peer reviewed so it ought to be high-quality by YEC standards. Billion-Fold Acceleration of Radioactivity Shown in Laboratory | Answers in Genesis See the section "A Creation Week Scenario".It alleges that God created all the matter that would make up the Earth as an ionised plasma - no reason why is given - with changes to the strong nuclear force which increase other decay rates.Now what ISN'T mentioned is that these would NOT speed up all radioactive decays proportionately (e.g. one might go 100 times faster, another might go 1000 times faster). Nor is it mentioned that the radiometric "clock" starts ticking when the rock solidifies.So what does God have to do for this scenario to work ? God has to age the different isotopes differently, THEN magic them into rocks so that the different isotopes give consistent (false) dates. And then God has to create MORE rocks with DIFFERENT false dates. And He has to arrange them so that all these false dates are consistent. None of that is mentioned but it is all implied - because that is the only way the scenario can produce the results we see.So why exactly would God do all that ? Rather than, say, miraculously creating Earth ex nihilo without a preceding plasma state and with all the rocks making up the planet showing a (true) age of zero ?Remember this is an actual YEC attempt at explaining radiometric dating and it has God jumping through hoops for no apparent reason other than to fool anyone who trusts radiometric dating. And that is just ONE of the lines of evidence for an old Earth.

That's because I have no dispute with evidence for an old earth in this topic, I have stated numerous times that I am not a YEC or an old-earther.Nevertheless, message #40 states; "Sure I will, let's discuss the actual evidence."
This was the call for you to start talking about evidence, and you didn't take the chance. Columbo concludes gameplaying. Those who trust in God do not call him a liar, those who trust in God do not argue that this is a deception. The only implyer of deception is you. No one here who believes in god has said it would be a deception ONLY you. If you accept evidence of age that is up to you, God has not said do this. Trust in God is to believe in him and have faith, so - are you a believer? You must be because the only person I have accused of seeing deception IS YOU, and now Sylas and Asgara seem to agree. So let's logic it out:Unbelievers have said - it would be a deception.
Those who trust and believe in god - do NOT say it would be a deception
YECs have NOT said it would be a deception.If you trust in God then you would know that you would not have to see this as a deception because unbelievers say so. Unbelievers are the antithesis to trust in God, Nice try though.You see Paul, the only reason I continue is to show your implied falsehoods. You have cleverly placed words and sentences of one-sided illogic in your posts, like trust and those who believe it to be a deception. If you just stop doing this and concentrate on your so loved evidence, and stop accusing my God of deception, I would happily end this farse.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-06-2004]

Let's look at your statement again. I have discovered that you place word/s as a hinge for your one-sided opinionated circular illogic. now let's substitute this hinge for something else to swing on. Let's replace the words highlighted with has an appearance of age, as it is ONLY YOU and unbelievers who see it as a possible massive deception. Sorry Paul, even if you didn't intend it, your unwitting statements are designed to fit your argument, now whether you like it or not, anybody can read this and see the point I am making.It was YOU who implied deception, therefore, you cannot say YEC's believe ina a massive deception. That is how your statement is wrong, and it is easy to see.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-06-2004]

What do you mean I "didn't take the chance" ?I STARTED by talking about the evidence - in post 2. If you are refusing to go back and lread it there - and instead insisting that I repeat myself then you are the one playing games.And I have explained often enough that it is the *implications* of apparent age that lead to the conclusion God is a liar - and even some YEC's agree with that and reject "apparent age" for that very reason.What I say is true - it isn't a "falsehood" because YOU don't like it.

Mike, before accusing me of "circular illogic" you really ought to take care to get your own arguments correct.I assume that the substitition to the quote is supposed to reflect your position - with corrections because your substitution doesn't actually make grammatical sense we arrive at the claim:"someone who DOESN'T believe that the universe has a false appearance of age created by God is calling God a liar"Well that's obvious nonsense. How could it possibly be true ?

Nice try but NO that is not my position. my position is that YOU think God is a possible liar, and all those who say AOA would be a deception. The statement is YOUR words quoted with a substitution. It is not my position, it is your position. It is what YOU said I was saying. It was never what I was saying. Shall I arrange it some more?"someone who DOESN'T believe that the universe has an appearance of age, believes that age is genuine, or that there is evidence of a young universe, not an old one"The blue statement is my position. I wish you would stop implying things.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-06-2004]

Well, Mike I'm sorry that I didn't realise that your error was even worse than I thought. The statement you quoted was not my position - it was my perception of your position as can clearly be seen by the first few words "So Mike what you are saying....". You quoted those words, Mike - a shame you didn't read them.So I can't even call your post a "nice try".

Here are 2 OEC sites which say that apparent age implies that God is a liar.http://lordibelieve.org/page18.html
http://swordandspirit.com/_STUDY/texts/OEC.doc
(or if you don't want to read a Word file try
http://swordandspirit.com/_STUDY/texts/appearance.html )This site may or may not be OEC but it certainly is Christian
http://www.stalbans.org.nz/.../RobYule/Creation/fait_sci.htmEven this YEC site finds "appearance of age" questionable.
WordPress › Error I guess you think that all these people are determined to say that God is a liar, too ?

It's not that the Genesis story is a complete lie...just total fiction.I like a good fiction read now and again.I can use all the same old staged arguments to challenge it's validity...but why bother...it's been done...so, lets try something new. The Geneises story leaves out too many significant details about things that were discovered by science in the relative recent past...things that should have been "CLEARLY" known as being of vital importance for a creator to prove his work as "Gospel"....I mean lets face it...Genesis is a story by a braggart, so why leave any doubt at all about it....some things that Genesis doesn't address that is of significant value to it's very own survival to be held as a true story (and these caould have been easliy handled by an all knowing being)...
1) The speed of light.
2) DNA/Genetics.
3) The time/Space Continuum.
4) Gravity.
5) Size/age of the universe.
6) Sweet-n-low.
7) Petrolium.
8) Electricity.
9) 99.9% of the lements on the periodic table of elements.
10) I can go on forever...There are just some critical elments that constitute the mechanics and form of the universe that should be addressed in the genesis story that are woefully missing...so it's one of two things...the story isn't all true, or the author somply didn't know what he was talking about.

So, by your logic, my English textbooks from college are all completely wrong and were written by a bunch of people who have no idea what they were talking about? Of course, not. What an absurd idea! My English books speak nothing of science because they are not science books. Similarly, the Bible is not a science book, so it should not be discounted just because it doesn't speak to every facet of science there is. I don't even know of any science books that cover the wide variety of topics you apparently want to see in the Bible to validate it.

Evidence please. Idiotic statement. I would say the latter pertains to the author of this quote.